The footage depicting Charlie Kirk’s assassination divided the country, not just south of the border but here in Canada as well. Some mourned his death, others were outraged at the assassination, and some online users were elated, claiming Kirk deserved to be assassinated for his opinions and that his murder was a blessing.
While it is indisputable that in his lifetime Kirk voiced many combative opinions, celebrating his assassination is a vile and classless act which devalues life, kills empathy and has severe consequences.
Ruth Marshall, an associate professor of religious studies and political science at the University of Toronto (U of T) was fired for her posts on X, which not only condoned the shooting but insisted that it was “too good” for someone like Kirk.
Marshall’s, and other users’ posts celebrating Kirk’s death are what’s known as “apologia”. Apologia is a grey area of freedom of expression. It is often characterized as celebrating or defending terrorist events, such as 9/11, October 7th or, in this case, Kirk’s assassination. Apologia is not classified as a crime, as there is a weak link between apologia and inciting violence.
But here’s the thing: institutions like U of T don’t care if it’s legal.
Universities exist to further educate and foster thinking, and the image they portray to the public can either attract or dissuade prospective students. If a faculty member posts, for example, “I love kicking puppies” on X, that post can easily blow up due to outrage.
With a name and, often, a job title posted in users’ bios, it’s easy to link one rogue employee’s Tweets back to an institution, damaging its image. It’s less detrimental to terminate a contract than to let the company or organization take a PR hit for not firing that employee. Educational institutions also should not keep educators who excuse, condone or celebrate murder without remorse.
Yet, people risk their job by celebrating exactly this on social media. One justification is: “Charlie Kirk said really bad things, thus he is a bad person and deserves bad things to happen to him.” That justification sets a dangerous and harmful precedent, which is that people should be killed for disagreeable opinions.
Consider here that the purpose of Kirk’s events were to engage in conversation. With dedication to his beliefs, he debated with opponents for years and his disagreeable opinions never escalated to violence. Sure, he said many things that people disagreed with, hurt people even, but this never resulted in physical violence, not from Kirk.
Kirk fought with ideas. He was killed for what he believed. Celebrating the murder of a person fighting for their ideas is reprehensible, void of conscience and has no place in our society.
By celebrating one’s murder, it shows an unpleasant image that companies and educational institutions don’t want to be associated with. It does not progress conversations that positively impact our society going forward. And that is what we should be aiming for: dialogue that advances ideas.