In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, students at Utah Valley University expressed their determination to uphold the values he championed, particularly free speech. Cousins Anthony and McKinley Shinkle took a stand against the intimidation stemming from the violence that occurred during a planned event honoring Kirk. They articulated their belief that attempts to silence voices through violence would ultimately fail, stating that free speech is an enduring right that will not be easily suppressed. McKinley emphasized their resolve, declaring an unwillingness to be intimidated and asserting that such violence only galvanizes their commitment to free expression.
The Shinkles shared their personal connection to Kirk’s ideals, noting how his emphasis on family values and civil discourse resonated with them. According to Anthony, Kirk represented a figure whose advocacy for open discussion was tragically met with violence. He poignantly remarked that if someone was willing to kill Kirk, then anyone advocating for similar ideals could be at risk. By displaying signs proclaiming him an “American Hero” and asserting that “We Are Not Afraid,” the Shinkles aimed to transform a horrific event into a unifying call for free speech.
Participants at the event reflected on the sharp contrast between their anticipation for a peaceful debate and the subsequent chaos that erupted when a gunshot was fired. Laura Lo, an international student, expressed her initial excitement at being part of an American tradition of free expression, only to experience terror when gunfire punctured that anticipation. Her description of the sound as akin to a firecracker reveals a naive disbelief that such violence could occur in a forum dedicated to civil discourse. Other students described confusion and panic, as the gravity of the situation became clear only when people began to duck for cover.
In the aftermath of the shooting, students expressed concern over campus security, highlighting the absence of adequate measures to ensure their safety during such events. Tiana Tao voiced her distress, pointing out that there was no systematic checking of bags or monitoring of attendees, allowing anyone to enter unhindered. The experience left her feeling less safe on campus and more aware of the potential threats that lurked within what was previously a secure space for political exchange. Her sentiments were echoed by others who felt a newfound wariness about expressing political opinions publicly.
For international students, who had previously viewed U.S. political discourse as a model of open and free debate, the incident cast a shadow of uncertainty over their experience. Laura Lo noted that her engagement in political discussions would now be accompanied by a hesitance born from fear, reflecting a drastic shift in her perception of safety and freedom of expression. This newfound apprehension was unexpected for many who had come to value the open dialogue that characterizes American political culture.
Despite the trauma inflicted by the shooting, some students like Tao conveyed a sense of gratitude for the fact that the situation wasn’t worse. Her relief that a second gunshot did not follow the first underscores a collective hope that the community can recover from this traumatic event while finding strength in the values Kirk represented. The resilience shown by the students reflects their desire not only to honor Kirk’s legacy but also to reaffirm their commitment to advocating for free speech and engaging in civil discourse, even in the face of adversity.
