September 11, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Dear Chicago Tribune Editorial Board:
The editorial regarding Charlie Kirk’s legacy paints too rosy a picture of a man whose main goal in life was relentless antagonism of undergraduates and their professors. His horrific murder was inexcusable. The issue with the editorial is that it frames his contribution to the cultural conversation as “debate.” This is a charitable interpretation of his campus visits.
There is no form of debate where keeping a running watchlist of allegedly left-wing professors would be an appropriate strategy. To claim that a discredited, racist conspiracy “is not a theory, it’s a reality” demonstrates an intellectual incuriosity that has nothing to do with finding a reasonable answer through discussion. Likewise, believing that the United States is “a Christian state” is a woefully uninformed position.
These are just a few of Kirk’s beliefs. They are intentionally inflammatory. They do not stand up to scrutiny. Notably, the Tribune’s editorial does not directly quote nor hyperlink to any of the many public appearances where Kirk used these words. The use of paraphrase throughout the editorial elides the harm of Kirk’s words, as well as their consequences for minoritized populations.
Truly, that harm is the true legacy of Kirk. He thought a better argument was the result of snappy one-liners and a firm grasp of what he considered to be facts. Those strategies may win a debate and convince listeners that the speaker is correct for having won. The truth, let alone the most reasonable answer, remains elusive in such a setting. Kirk excelled not at debate or argumentation, but in disputational talk. His words were loud; his ideas, quiet.
My best,
Tall Rob (Yes, I used my real name and address in the actual letter; I know the rules!)
YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY THESE REVIEWS:
Response to Chicago Tribune's CPS Teacher Absenteeism Editorial
No comments:
Post a Comment