Charlie Kirk and Turning Pont USA …
- Rose to prominence as conservative activist and Trump / MAGA advocate and never wavered in supporting Trump’s agenda.
- Expressed and espoused racist stereotypes, tropes, and dog-whistles in support of MAGA ideology.
- Preferred a method of public debate with college students.
- Inspired young conservatives to be more vocal in liberal environments but also created a target environment with the Professor Watch List.
- Added a Christian faith component to his movement and messaging, but did not turn down his racist rhetoric.
- His legacy energizes the Christian nationalist movement.
The murder of Charlie Kirk was an evil and tragic event and
no morally upright person can celebrate this kind of violence in any respect. In
the aftermath, there is a lot of debate about his legacy. The manner in which
we celebrate, repeat, question or criticize his words sends a message about how
we view our country, our national story, and for Christians, how we understand
the values of our faith. Kirk was a young man, catapulted to fame at an
extremely early age. His beliefs and message were evolving, as with all of us,
and now he is not here to defend himself against our criticism. My beliefs at
age 31 are not my beliefs at 40 or 60. The opportunity to change and grow is
perhaps one of the most cherished opportunities of being a human. That was
taken from Charlie Kirk, and for that we should mourn. However, it is required
that we take an open and honest look at his legacy.
There is plenty of
thoughtful critical analysis of Kirk’s message if you choose to read and
listen, from political commentators, from preachers, from black Christians,
white Christians, from people affected by his words … We have to get out of our
echo chambers to hear different voices.
If you don’t understand the racist nature of Kirk’s message,
then you don’t understand U.S. history
from an awareness of black and minority perspectives. If you are perplexed by
this problem, it would be helpful to take an honest and non-ideological look at
the original meaning of being “woke,” or of the original shared project of
working for equality and diversity as ideals of our national story. Also study,
for example, the popularization of the “dog whistle” political strategy of race
messaging popularized by Nixon, Wallace, and Reagan and how it continues to be
employed in political rhetoric.
The most notorious examples of Kirk’s words on race,
immigrants, Muslims, gay and transgender people are well documented (see for
example, The Guardian, September 11, 2025, “Charlie Kirk in his own words), but
of course this messaging is not generally featured on the Turning Point website
or YouTube. A few examples… “If I see a black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy,
I hope he’s qualified” …. (on black women leaders) Reid, Obama, Jackson Lee,
and Brown … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken
seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat
seriously” … the “third-worlders” ruining our cities, “Black people were better
in the 1940s under Jim Crowe,” … “There is no systemic racism … Black Americans
are the richest black people on earth… Stop acting like you’re a victim, and
start making better choices.” … Kirk said that it was a big mistake to pass the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. About Harvard students …“The idea that they were
there (seeing any random black student at Harvard), number one, took a spot
from an otherwise qualified individual that might be white.” He referred to LGBTQ
individuals as “sick” and “perverted,” to teaching about the biological and
psychological reality gay and transgender identity as “garbage,” and opposed
the civil legal equality of gay marriage. Those most harmed by such comments
are aware of many more harmful examples.
It should be pointed out that with the passing of time and the increase in religious content of Kirk’s messaging, Kirk did not qualify, explain, or walk back these harmful comments on race and gender. As the leader of a $100 million organization with millions of social media followers, he expressed these views without apology and therefore empowered his followers to retain and express the same beliefs, attitudes and words.
Some of the DEFENSES OF KIRK’S controversial statements include:
1. “He’s only speaking the truth.” Racist ideology is always
offered as a type of truth, and for sure, the adherent believes their own
rhetoric. Kirk’s justifying logic is that the existence of initiatives that
have been designed to address racism and a history of race-based legal inequity
(e.g. affirmative action) essentially require that “The intelligence and
qualifications of black men and women should be questioned by default.” This simple concept becomes implanted in the
mind of the hearer, and efforts to explain the truth of the assertion only
serve to rationalize the basic sentiment. As to only speaking “the truth,” this
truth that Kirk espoused was not Christ-centered Christianity, nor principles
of American democracy or of the Declaration of Independence. This “truth” is a
fruit of an ideology of anglo-American “western” Christian superiority. On the
issues of ethnicity and gender, that was the core of Charlie’s message. Just to
drill down on one of these anecdotes, take affirmative action... The argument
would be that it is simply “the truth” that because of affirmative action, I am
justified in questioning the qualifications, intelligence and merit of any
given minority person that I see in a prominent position or professional role.
Stated differently, the logic is that the historical fact of affirmative action
justifies an assumption of white superiority.
THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was to bring remedy
to 250 years of legalized slavery and another 100 years of legalized white
supremacy and legal discrimination, that is, to remedy the fact that virtually
the entire ACCUMULATED WEALTH, POWER, PROPERTY AND POSITION existing in this
country evolved under legal deference to white ethnicity until only one
generation ago. Affirmative action and DEI initiatives have a historical,
social, and moral purpose, and besides that, are supported by principles and
values espoused by Christ. We shouldn’t be resisting and denigrating these
ideals and initiatives, but rather, supporting them.
2. “You took him out of context.” This defense might work a
few times, but not as a blanket explanation when he continues to repeat and
promote these ideas rather than walk back, qualify, or apologize. From the
social media perspective, how many of Kirk’s 6 million X/Twitter followers are
studying Kirk in context? “X” and other social media formats are context
filters by their very nature. We are all well aware that social media consumers
(and youth in particular) take small bites of content (only a few seconds), and
in light of that reality, Kirk has empowered and emboldened many people with
very harmful sentiments on the race issue. But to take one example, the
"context" for questioning the qualifications of minority
professionals involves the asserting the false logic that DEI IS EQUIVALENT TO
RACE QUOTAS, and this is not the case. DEI is an attempt to address over 350
years of LEGALIZED white supremacy (i.e. race discrimination codified in the
laws and procedures at a federal, state, local and social level) that created
extreme inequity of opportunity and resources. These policies and initiatives have
evolved within the law and represent efforts to expand the available
opportunities for more people that have been previously excluded. This does not
entail changing the professional standards. Airline pilots, for example, have
stringent training, testing and professional standards to verify their
qualification for the task, and these qualifications are not diminished by
efforts to increase access for underrepresented groups.
So, no, I don't look at a black pilot and question their
qualifications because of the existence of DEI initiatives. I don't look at a
black student at Harvard and conclude, "she took the spot of a white
person." I have met and known and witnessed enough super-intelligent
people across all ethnicities to abandon these racist notions. These sentiments
are not the fruit of DEI. They are the fruit of implicit and systemic racism. There
is much more to say about respecting the civil rights and civic freedoms of
individuals in the area of LGBTQ rights and gender identity, and this does not
entail affirming and supporting any and every crazy idea under the sun related
to these issues. Rather, it involves love, respect, recognizing civil and legal
rights that apply to individuals in the society at large, and not attempting to
codify and enforce upon all people religious doctrines that apply to one's chosen
faith community.
3. Charlie Kirk was respectful to everyone in public and he
had black and gay friends and supporters. “I have black friends” is the one of
the oldest and most tired responses to racism. It does nothing to remedy the
harm of the message, and is actually a distraction from the point in question.
Given the extreme size, power, and influence of the TPUSA movement, it stands
to reason that there exist black and LGBTQ individuals of the conservative
persuasion would be willing to overlook or justify the attacks on their own
identity, and as such, their participation in the movement would be embraced and
promoted as disproving the critics.
4. Kirk preached the Christian gospel message. Increasingly,
in recent years, the Christian faith component became more prominent in Kirk’s
message. This helped to fuel the explosive growth of the TP movement as he
gained access to thousands of pastors and churches and millions of church
people. Kirk energized Christian supporters to gain confidence in rejecting perspectives
with which they disagree by holding firm that they are “speaking the truth in
love.” But covering racism with the
gospel, or expressing harmful and dehumanizing ideas on one hand while
expressing Christian truth on the other hand, does not nullify the harm of
racist speech, and the legacy of his harmful and derogatory rhetoric directed toward
minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ individuals cannot be overlooked. I do not
see instances of Kirk himself walking back these comments or taking time to
correct the record with more loving, humane, and Christ-like sentiments. As
such, the fact of espousing a gospel message does not cover over or redeem the
racist elements of his message which have been extremely influential in
empowering similar negative behavior in others. Also, to point out that Kirk
befriended, supported, and respected some members of these groups and that he
promoted respect and debate as a strategy of public activism does not negate
the reality of the harmful and dehumanizing aspects of his message. Please
listen to those who were the target of these comments and attempt to hear from
their perspective.
Some will say these are only isolated examples against the
big picture of a good Christian family man who only wanted to promote free
speech and family values to young people. But that is just the point … The
lesson that white Christian conservatives take from this is that as long as you
espouse a core of Christian doctrine and you are nice and respectful and invite
everyone to get in line and speak their mind, it’s ok to hold in your heart and
speak your truth about those who are not like us. The underside of Charlie’s
message cannot be whitewashed by the fact of his Christian identity. Christians
would do well to qualify their support and separate themselves from the
negative part of Charlie’s message, and reaffirm our commitment to Christian
values of love of neighbor, charity, brotherly kindness, gentleness,
self-control.
5. Charlie Kirk was a great promoter of free speech and
debate. It is true that Kirk promoted free speech, promoted debate, and
promoted respect in his public events. Conservative students experienced a sea
change in their confidence and in the increased prominence of conservatism on
campuses. Those familiar with debate tactics and practices recognize, however,
that Kirk was exploiting a very tilted playing field by engaging as a skilled
and experienced public speaker and taking on inexperienced 20 year old students
who were ill-prepared to reply to talking points and rhetorical strategies that
he had sharpened over hundreds of debates. One of his favorite tactics was to
change the question and pose a different question to stump the inexperienced
debate partner. On the issue of race, Kirk would often say, “Tell me one thing
in this country that I as a white man can do that you as a black person cannot
do.” The person would fumble for words and struggle to answer, immediately put
in a back-pedaling position. This distraction technique is a subtle red herring
that effectively changes the question to “Tell me one place where racial
discrimination is legal.” We all know that overt race discrimination is no
longer legal in this country, so there is no satisfactory answer to Charlie’s
question. Systemic and historic inequity has to do with long standing
disparities in ownership of wealth and property, benefiting from a legacy of
discriminatory home lending, holding of positions of business and corporate
leadership and property ownership through family legacy and family wealth, and
breaking into spaces traditionally dominated by white males, such as law firms,
banking and finance, medicine, and entry into elite schools.
Personal anecdote: When I was in high school in the 1980s,
for example, I joined and was elected president of a typical youth leadership
club (sponsored by Rotary International, one of the largest service
organizations in the world) that only had white members. This opportunity was
not offered to any of the black students in my high school. This took place in
a community which was equally divided in population between black and white.
For many years, I had no self awareness of the significance of this situation whatsoever,
and I never considered the differential impact that such an experience had on enhancing
my education and leadership development, my college entry resume, and my
scholarship applications. Eventually, by education, experience, and
relationships with helpful and insightful people, I became more aware, which is
the original definition of “woke” in the context of race awareness.
On the issue of promoting free speech, Kirk and TPUSA created
and promoted the PROFESSOR WATCH LIST which targeted approximately 1,000
college and university instructors and became a powerful tool that created
tremendous harassment, harm and in some cases loss of their job for educators
expressing a wide range of perspectives that conservatives found objectionable.
Documented cases reveal that professors could be targeted with threats and
harassment upon themselves and their family for even a single social media post
or classroom anecdote.
I have arrived at my convictions on faith and politics
through analysis and life experience, and I have written extensively in blog
and book form on these issues. IN MY YOUNG ADULT LIFE, I WAS A CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN VOTER LISTENING TO RUSH LIMBAUGH. I had absorbed the evangelical
position that Christians must be republican. But I came to see that this perspective
is as not based on a deeper understanding of Christianity and Christian history.
The fruit of my life experience and education gradually led me in a different
direction. On the race issue in particular, Kirk was perhaps too young and
seemingly too isolated to really develop a more subtle understanding of the
history of race relations in the US. Many of my fellow Christians seem not to
have a sense of history in this area. When I assert that we are only one
generation away from over 350 years of legalized white supremacy, I am speaking
from the personal perspective of starting the first grade during the THE FIRST
YEAR OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION in south Alabama. That same year, tens of
thousands of white school children immediately left the public school system
and entered white flight schools across the south. The legacy of this race
segregation lingers today. I’m only asking my fellow citizens to have a sense
of historical perspective on this issue. Our work is not done. DEI is not an
ideology to be attacked, but a methodology to be embraced to promote equity of
opportunity, and “inclusion” is a spiritual and moral ideal expressed and
demonstrated by Jesus.
********************