When Athens sentenced Socrates to death in 399 BCE, it wasn’t for the typical reasons at the time. He was sentenced to death not for violence or corruption, but for “leading the youth astray” with his questions, according to McGill University. Millenia later, Charlie Kirk, though far from a philosopher, met a similar fate after building his platform on mobilizing young conservatives.
Of course, Socrates and Kirk lived in very different worlds. Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian state after public trial; Kirk was assassinated by a lone individual. Their legacies are also quite different. While Socrates laid the foundation of Western philosophy, Kirk was a controversial and polarizing political activist. We are not comparing these men in any regard other than the pattern they both fell victim to: societies turning to violence in response to ideas they find threatening.
Like Socrates, Kirk disrupted the current establishment. On college campuses where conservatives have long felt outnumbered, he challenged mainstream narratives and helped energize a movement that played a decisive role in President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory. Both men, in their own ways, were punished not for crimes, but for the words they spoke.
Authorities have charged Tyler Robinson with Kirk’s murder based on evidence which suggests that political animosity was Robinson’s primary motive. Verde acknowledges that there is a legal process underway, and that we do not currently have enough information to decisively dictate that Robinson was politically motivated.
Verde does not endorse Kirk’s ideas. In fact, many of us strongly disagreed with his stances. However, disagreement is not the point. In a democracy, the right to voice one’s beliefs, regardless of whether they are popular or unpopular, must be protected. If Kirk, a man who embodied the voicing of unpopular opinions, was murdered, then what’s next? Silencing students who speak out? Censoring journalists who write uncomfortable truths? Targeting activists who challenge authority? If we accept assassination as an answer to diagreement, we accept the erosion of democracy itself.
Today’s society often sustains a climate that compels individuals to self-censor their ideas in favor of preserving their social status—a troubling development occuring in schools across the nation. The simple act of voicing an opinon during class discussion has become increasingly difficult for some, as students fear judgement from their peers. According to the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, only 9% of college students expressed their true opinions during class discussions.
Additionally, within an hour of Kirk’s death, the video of his assassination had already circulated throughout Palo Alto High School via social media. The reactions around school mirror our current divide: some were horrified, while others celebrated. If students already treat politics like a video game where opponents’ deaths are considered victories, what does this say about the future of our democracy?
In a democracy, if you can’t win at the ballot box or in a debate, the answer is never to silence the opposition through violence. This is why civil discourse is more important now than ever. We as citizens must recall how to look beyond our echo chambers, debate openly and maintain a key distinction: we are humans first. People may hold differing opinions and ideas, but that does not make them inherently evil. It is harmful action, not beliefs, that must be judged.
History shows us what happens when societies fail to make this distinction. Socrates’ death proved that even the birthplace of democracy could betray its own principles. Now, more than 2,000 years later, our generation must finally defend what Athens failed to protect: the right to disagree peacefully.