���㽶��Ƶ

On the day Charlie Kirk was slated to appear at ���㽶��Ƶ for a debate, students turned his assassination into a moment for education, reflection, and community.

The brought together more than 50 students and eight faculty members on Sept. 25 for a wide-ranging discussion on such issues as political violence, speech, and the role of social media in polarization.

The event by the nonpartisan student organization was held the same evening that Kirk, the influential 31-year-old co-founder of the conservative group Turning Point USA, had originally been scheduled to debate Hasan Piker, a left-leaning streamer and political commentator.

After the shock of Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10 while he spoke to students at Utah Valley University, DPU President Mac Mahoney ’26 said, “We felt we had some type of obligation to our campus community, to do something to give students a space to talk about what just happened, and also do the very thing that prevents what just happened.”

, an associate professor of government and co-founder of the Polarization Research Lab, began the evening by asking those in attendance how they would define violence. Can words and attitudes be violent? What is the definition of political violence?

Westwood presented findings of a recent poll by the lab indicating the majority of Americans oppose and fear political violence as much as, or more than, they fear the risk of another pandemic, climate change, terrorism, the national debt, and racism.

Image

Senior lecturers Henry Clark and Melissa Herman were among the faculty who dined and talked with students at the DPU event. Clark was talking with Tyler Sanders ’29. (Photo by Robert Gill)

Despite the fact that less than 1 percent of Americans say they support political violence, Westwood said that there is still a perception that the opposing party foments disorder and bloodshed. Hearing the misinformation that a large percentage of the other side supports violence “amplifies fear,” Westwood said.

That said, he continued, “I have optimism, and I think you should, too,” noting how the country survived the assassinations and turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. “We’ve seen worse. The best thing we can do is doing what we’re doing in this room right now. Discussion is the best way to reduce extreme partisanship.”

Persuasion is certainly not an instant panacea, but it helps pave the way for further engagement, Westwood said.

Other faculty members in attendance, who participated in informal discussions with students at their tables over dinner provided by DPU, included government professors , the interim dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; , the director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy; ; ; ; ; and

“I’ve studied persuasion. It’s tough,” said Barabas, who participated in a discussion with a group of first-year students.

Danny Babashak ’29 said during the discussion at his table that “with the advent of AI, people can become entrenched within their own echo chambers. With social media, people aren’t engaging.”

Cole Siegner ’29 agreed on the deceptive nature of AI. When he first watched the video of Kirk being shot, he said he thought it was AI-generated. When he learned that Kirk had actually been killed, he said, “I didn’t believe it, I was shocked.”

Nyhan said his table hammered out the role of social media, which “turns out to be a big part of how young people experience events, like what’s happened in the last few weeks.”

Nyhan said the fact that Kirk was to speak at ���㽶��Ƶ may have made the gravity of his assassination in front of Utah Valley students all the more real to students.

“The fact that it happened at a university, and he was going to be here, too, that probably connects in a different way. It’s a kind of surreal sense of watching things through a phone that I think can sometimes make these events seem a little bit distant from people’s everyday experience, but those students were not that different than ours, and that is scary,” Nyhan said.

Lucy Thomas ’29 said the group at her table had an “amazing discussion,” and that it was great to talk to peers and professors in “a more intellectual way” about the root causes of political violence, the role of phones, and the public’s growing desensitization to violence seen on social media.

Image

Associate Professor of Government Sean Westwood outlined his research on attitudes toward political violence and polarization. (Photo by Robert Gill)

Becca Davis ’29, who was in the discussion group with Thomas, pointed in particular to the group’s consideration of how the media shapes the way American society perceives violence.

Herman, who is also a senior lecturer in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, participated in a freewheeling discussion with students that tackled speech, political violence, government funding and regulation of the media. Arguments came from all sides of the political spectrum, she said.

“I’m sure discussion will continue,” she said.

And Mahoney, the DPU president, looked at the discussions taking place at various tables and said he thought the evening accomplished its primary goal.

“I’d say at every table, there are people who are diametrically opposed to the other person on a lot of issues, but they’re having a really great conversation right now, and I think that’s kind of what we’re all about here,” he said.