On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking to students at Utah Valley University. Charlie dedicated his life to reaching young Americans, especially college students, and encouraging them to engage in civil discourse, challenge ideas, and never be afraid to speak their minds.
Charlie built a movement around the belief that the next generation has a responsibility to stand up for America, freedom, and the values they believe in. He traveled across the country, visiting college campuses and giving students a place to ask questions, debate, and have meaningful conversations.
Civil Discourse
You would think that one year later, we would have more civil discourse and less violence over free speech. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened. If anything, the hatred and attacks surrounding political speech seem to have gotten worse.
There is a difference between civil discourse and hate speech. Civil discourse is debating ideas, policies, and values. For example, should we raise taxes to provide more welfare, or should we cut taxes and reduce government regulations? We may disagree, but we can still have a conversation and respect each other.
Hate speech is different. When people attack others because of their race, religion, or ethnicity, that is not civil discourse. We have seen this with anti-Jewish and pro-Hamas rhetoric.
America protects freedom of speech, even when we strongly disagree with what someone says. But we should still have enough respect for one another to debate ideas without turning to hate or violence.
How is Congress Combatting Hate Speech?
It seems like hate speech has been on the rise in America, especially since October 7th. We saw this almost immediately on college campuses, and unfortunately, many colleges and universities did very little to address it. There is nothing wrong with students protesting or having strong opinions about Israel or any other political issue. That is part of free speech. But there is a line between protesting and promoting hate, intimidation, or violence against Jews.
Congress eventually had to step in. During a House hearing, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn were asked a very simple question from Conference Chair Elise Stefanik: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your student code of conduct?” All three struggled to give a clear yes. That should have been a wake-up call for everyone. It showed how some of our most “so called” prestigious universities were struggling to understand the difference between civil discourse and hate speech.
We saw another example at my alma mater, George Washington University, which is only about 20 blocks from the Capitol. At the time, there was a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus, and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was reluctant to send police to remove it. Congressman Byron Donalds stood up and pushed for action. He understood that protecting free speech does not mean allowing intimidation, threats, or hate to go unchecked.
The question is: Why did it take a Congressional committee with subpoena power to push local leaders to take action? Universities and local governments should not need Congress breathing down their necks to do what is right and protect students.
We also saw this during the most recent Republican Primary Campaign involving Congressman Randy Fine, a Jewish Republican from Florida. His opponent, Dan Bilzerian, made offensive comments about Jews and the Holocaust and personally attacked Congressman Fine. The voters of Florida's 6th Congressional District rejected that rhetoric at the ballot box. Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also condemned Bilzerian's comments.
We need to get back to a place where Americans can disagree without hating each other. Debate ideas. Challenge beliefs. Protest peacefully. But hate against Jews is not civil discourse, and neither is calling for violence or genocide.
The Future of Open Dialogue in America
America’s future depends on our ability to talk to one another, even when we strongly disagree. We need tolerance and respect for people who have different views. Disagreement should lead to debate, not hatred or violence.
America was founded on open dialogue. In 1776, our Founding Fathers debated the future of our new country in Independence Hall. They did not always agree, but they understood that open debate was necessary to build a stronger nation. As we just celebrated America’s 250th anniversary, that lesson remains important.
Our history also shows what happens when disagreements become too deep and dialogue breaks down. The Civil War divided our country and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. After the war, President Lincoln understood the importance of bringing Americans back together and healing the country.
Today, we are once again deeply divided. We can debate taxes, government, Israel, foreign policy, education, and countless other issues. We can disagree strongly without turning against one another.
That is why remembering Charlie Kirk matters. Charlie spent his life going to college campuses, engaging people who disagreed with him, and encouraging debate and open conversation.
One year after Charlie Kirk’s death, we should honor his legacy by creating more open dialogue, not less. Debate ideas. Challenge each other. Listen. Speak freely. Reject hate and political violence.
The writer is a 33-year-old Jewish Finance and Political professional. Currently lives in Bay Harbor, FL. He earned his BBA in finance from George Washington University in 2015 and MBA from American University in 2019 both located in Washington, DC.