After the assassination of Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, college students report being more reluctant to speak up, especially on hot-button issues. That shock has rippled across campuses and social feeds, making clear that fear has become part of the conversation students are having about politics and safety.
A Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey produced alarming figures: 45 percent of students said they are less comfortable expressing their political views in class, 43 percent said the same about political discourse “in common campus spaces,” and 48 percent said they are less comfortable engaging in political dialogue on social media. “Half of students surveyed say that they are less comfortable attending or hosting controversial public events on their campuses,’ and “roughly one in five students say they are now less comfortable attending class,”
FIRE’s results also reveal worrying opinions about political violence and language. While 53 percent of students say “political violence is a problem among all political groups,” nearly half agree that “words can be violence.” These attitudes are not theoretical; they affect how people behave in classrooms, lecture halls, and online forums.
When students were asked about the acceptability of using violence to shut down a campus speech, the responses were stark: 71 percent said “never acceptable,” 16 percent said it is “rarely acceptable,” and 12 percent said using violence is “sometimes” or “always” acceptable. Those 12 percent represent a nontrivial slice of young people who see force as a tool for political ends.
Drilling deeper, among respondents who think some violence is warranted, 20 percent endorsed “physical assault on the speaker,” while 22 percent supported the “use of chemical irritants” like bear spray.” About 26 percent supported “throwing projectiles” to halt a speech. That lines up with other polling showing a rise in tolerance for extreme measures among younger cohorts; a 2024 Citizen Data survey noted that only 44 percent of Gen Z and 67 percent of millennials believed violence against elected officials is “never acceptable.”
These numbers point to a cultural shift where frustration turns into permission for harm. From a Republican perspective, this is a clear threat to free expression and civil society: when a segment of the population starts to normalize physical retaliation, public debate and institutions that rely on peaceful disagreement begin to erode. The assassination of a prominent conservative activist is a brutal reminder of how quickly rhetoric can bleed into action.
The practical fallout is simple: people stop speaking. Self-censorship spreads when honest opinions risk threats or worse. Worse still, cycles of retaliation can escalate, dragging more people into violence and silencing the very marketplace of ideas that democracy depends on.
