On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist and the founder of campus nonprofit organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot at an outdoor speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Ohio. Kirk’s death continues to have lasting effects on the culture of both MFS and the broader community. Following Kirk’s passing, there has been an explosion of viral videos on social media referring to the “Great Kirkification” movement.
Videos humorize Kirk by engaging in trends called "Kirkification," in which Kirk’s face is edited onto memes and faces of celebrities using Spalexma’s presumably AI-generated song “We are Charlie Kirk.” Over 300,000 videos use the audio on TikTok, with some videos mocking Kirk’s wife, Erika Kirk, or political opinions.
The continuous outpour of “Kirkified” content has kept the meme alive, holding the attention of the younger generation. Young people across the political spectrum continue to engage in discussion surrounding Kirk’s death, some calling Kirk a “martyr” while others question gun regulation policy.
At the start of a new calendar year, Kirk’s passing has a looming presence in the world of academia. On January 6, a lawsuit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers against Texas’s state education department, which unconstitutionally searched for and attacked teachers who made comments about Kirk. A similar situation occurred in Tennessee, where a teacher was temporarily fired over remarks he made following the killing of Kirk. These cases raise questions of First Amendment violations, which Kirk himself was a fierce defender of.
While both Democratic and Republican politicians have condemned the act of political violence, the shooting has also drawn mixed expressions of sympathy and outrage across the political spectrum. The event led to mass debate surrounding the motives of the shooter, with “leftist ideology” evidenced by bullet casings and messages. However, there are still many gaps in the shooter’s motives.
Kirk has amassed over 13 million followers on Instagram, and his various internet accounts have gained millions of followers since his murder. According to NPR, “Kirk used his megaphone to amplify far-right voices and conspiracy theories. He made false claims about COVID, described the passage of the Civil Rights Act as a mistake, and promoted disproven allegations of election fraud.”
His popularity among the younger generation came from online debate clips such as “Did Hater Try to Flash Charlie Kirk to get him Banned on Youtube,” amassing 10 million views; “Charlie Kirk and Vivek Ramaswamy Take on Woke Mob at the University of Pittsburgh,” with 8.5 million views; and shorter videos that are posted to his channel like “Candace Owens Strikes AGAIN,” which has a total of 32 million views on YouTube Shorts.
In the MFS student body, conversations about Kirk proliferated following his death, in part due to the virality of his youth-driven content and widespread video circulation of his death. On September 15, the Diversity Committee held a Flex Monday Meeting during lunch in light of recent political violence events, including Kirk’s assassination. The meeting was intended to make space for the US student community to share their thoughts and feelings. According to Diversity Clerk Anjali Shah ’26, many students shared out of the silence and spoke from the “I” perspective about their feelings and thoughts about violence and polarization.
Students also witnessed and reposted a myriad of posts regarding gun violence on Instagram. In addition to reposts honoring Kirk, many posts simply addressed the broader issue of gun violence in the United States, rather than focusing on Kirk’s death specifically.
According to an anonymous survey conducted by WordsWorth on December 2, 2025, 57% of the US student body was unsure what actions the MFS administration had taken in response to Kirk’s death. There was no public communication from the administration about their actions; however, the campus American flags were lowered in response to Trump’s federal mandate, which ordered all public buildings to fly their American flags at half-staff until September 14 to honor Kirk’s death. The flag was also lowered on September 11 to remember the tragedies of 9/11.
This in-depth multimedia piece covers the continuing effect Charlie Kirk’s death has on MFS students, from MFS’s decision to lower the school’s flags to viral online 'Kirkification' memes and polarizing political rhetoric.
Following the school's policy to abide by federal guidelines of lowering flags, two flags at MFS were flown at half-staff to honor Charlie Kirk's death in response to President Trump's proclamation of striking American flag, prompting student discussion about amplifying symbols. The flags were lowered from September 11 to September 14, 2025. One flag is located by the Lower School entrance near Stokes Hall and the other is in the Dining Hall Commons courtyard near the Peace Pole.
According to Head of School Julia de la Torre, MFS has consistently adhered to federal mandates historically, despite being a private Quaker school. This school year, the flags were lowered in honor of 9/11, as they are every year, but remained lowered for three more days in accordance with President Trump's proclamation to fly all American flags at half-staff at all public buildings and grounds.
Daniel Zemaitis, the Chester Reagan Chair for Quaker/Religious Studies, expressed how difficult it can be to leave it up to the school to make decisions surrounding the flags.
“As an institution, it is not necessarily in our best interest to be the arbiters of when to take down the flags and when not to … It doesn’t make sense for us to pick and choose [like that], and that’s why using the federal guidelines, at least in the past, was the convenient thing and the right thing to do,” said Zemaitis.
Two threshing sessions were held for interested faculty and staff members before and after the school day on Tuesday, September 16, following the lowering of the flags. Quaker threshing sessions provide a space for complex or emotionally charged issues to be discussed. They differ from a Meeting for Worship for Business because there is no expectation for a decision to be made.
“To give people a chance to discuss and express their points of view, we felt it was best to have those threshing sessions,” said Zemaitis.
De la Torre, who helped coordinate the sessions, clarified to the faculty in attendance that the lowering of the flags was not a reflection of the political stance of the school.
“[The flags weren’t] necessarily [lowered] because we were honoring Charlie Kirk. It was because we were following the guidance as we have, and people had a lot of feelings about that, which I understand and share,” said de la Torre after the sessions.
She explained that threshing sessions were conducted instead of other forms of discussion to “lean on [the school’s] Quaker identity,” calling the meetings that Zemaitis clerked as “an airing of feelings and thoughts” that welcomed diverse voices.
“It seemed like an appropriate [decision], to kind of make sure we're hearing all the concerns and the range of feelings that people had, so that as we move forward, we can base it on an invitation to hear voices, not just of who came to us to talk about their concerns,” said de la Torre.
The last threshing session for MFS faculty and staff took place around three years ago, when they discussed changing their honorifics from the traditional “Mr.” and “Ms.” to a range of different options. According to de la Torre, threshing meetings are traditionally held to discuss “challenging topics.”
“I think most of the time, people don't even really know why a flag is lowered unless they look it up online. This one felt different. It felt more politically charged. I don't know, maybe following the federal guidelines is not the way forward,” said de la Torre.
Currently, a group of interested faculty and staff from the threshing sessions is involved in discussions moderated by Zemaitis to potentially move away from following federal guidelines. As of January 23, the group has met, but no decision has been reached yet.
Part of the controversy surrounding the flags was that many Quaker schools don’t have a flag on their campus. The Friends Select School, for example, does not fly the national flag on any part of the campus, nor do they pledge allegiance to the flag.
Rex Barnett ’27 expressed his Quaker views on how the school handled the situation.
“I don't believe we should have a flag on school campuses for this specific reason, because Quakers [avoid] symbols, and symbols can be misused and abused in situations like these,” said Barnett.
“I am honestly, really, really disappointed in the school for lowering the flag and keeping it down for someone with whom I have personal disagreements, obviously,” Barnett continued, “[and Kirk] also did not positively benefit society.”
He explained that the “symbolization of putting a flag down [only] for Kirk” messaged that other “victims of violence around the world” did not “deserve the flag down for them.”
“That's against our Quaker values to symbolize that one person is greater than another in any way, shape, or form." — Rex Barnett '27
According to Zemaitis, the flag next to the Dining Hall Commons was donated in the 1970s in memory of an MFS alum, Sally Stinson ’67, who died from a car accident three years after graduating. The late student’s family and friends created a fund to erect the flag on a flagpole with a plaque in her memory.
The other flag, near Stokes Hall’s Lower School entrance, has no documentation as to when it was erected on campus, according to de la Torre.
Former MFS Middle and Upper School history teacher and vexillologist Steven Baumann, spoke on the ever-changing national identity that flags represent. He said that “different perspectives on flags as symbols [can be pinpointed] at any time in history,” making flags an area of interest for him.
Historically, the lowering of the flag has been done out of tradition rather than law. It comes from the “[early] days of sailing ships, [when] if someone prominent had died, they would lower the flag with the idea of this invisible flag of death above the person,” according to Baumann.
This maritime tradition prompted Congress to issue a flag code; however, this code is still a suggestion and is not legally binding.
“A school, especially an independent school like MFS, is not at all bound by [the flag code]. It’s not a law. And so, the lowering [of the flag] to half mast would totally be just out of their own volition,” said Baumann.
There have not been any changes made to MFS’s policies regarding federal guidelines yet, but de la Torre said that an announcement would likely be made to the student body if anything is finalized.
READ THE FULL Q&A INTERVIEW WITH Steven baumann here
A Turning Point Talking Point: How Charlie Kirk’s Death Has Led to Conversations About Political Rhetoric
By Matthew Diaz '28 and Livia Kam '26
Charlie Kirk speaking with attendees at the 2021 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Image (left) from Wikimedia Commons by Gage Skidmore.
In the aftermath of the assassination of Republican political activist and influencer Charlie Kirk, the intensification of strong political rhetoric has been a prominent area of discussion. Many people blame polarized rhetoric as a leading cause of Kirk's death. As defined by Loughborough University, political rhetoric “concerns the strategies used to construct persuasive arguments in formal public debates and in everyday political disputes.”
The Development of Political Rhetoric
Political rhetoric has played a role in political life since ancient times. Aristotle’s Rhetoric showcases the three types of persuasive speech: the deliberative form, where the speaker advises the audience to act a certain way; the forensic form, which convinces the audience of an individual’s guilt or innocence; and the epideictic rhetoric, which is often performative in nature to evoke a reaction. Aristotle’s definitions of rhetoric have been influential, developing religious imagery and concepts of democracy.
Historically, rhetoric has been used as a form of mobilization in speeches and debates. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech uses epideictic rhetoric to energize the emotions of the nation to bring about positive change. These forms of rhetoric were used to bring large groups of people together under a shared identity.
Aristotle also regarded dialogue as an essential tool for cultivating logos, or logic. However, political rhetoric has increasingly evolved towards partisanship through simplifying complex arguments by using exaggerated and extreme terms to discredit the opposing side. For example, during the 1964 election cycle, Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential campaign portrayed his opponent, Barry Goldwater, as someone who often “supported extremism, McCarthyism, war, and poverty." In reality, Goldwater’s policies were much more nuanced, such as greater distribution of power to the states, limited government involvement in welfare programs, and an aggressive military stance. Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Daisy” campaign ad, which depicts a horrific scene of nuclear annihilation, is considered one of the most important factors in Johnson’s landslide victory as a turning point in political and advertising history. This type of rhetoric, often used in political campaigns and public debate, may drive listeners further into their respective groups and increase the issue’s intensity, heightening polarization. This is evidenced by a 2019 Pew Research Center poll indicating that 85% of the American public felt that political debate had become more negative and less substantive.
People are concerned that extreme political rhetoric has the potential to lead to violence, particularly given today’s digital landscape, where information is easily accessible. 73% believed that elected officials should avoid using heated language for fear that it could incite violence, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.
During the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, President Donald Trump employed a controversial, inflammatory rhetoric on online platforms, including X and his social media platform, Truth Social. Many people believe that Trump’s rhetoric was tied to violence. ABC News’ 2020 study found a link between Trump’s rhetoric and instances of violence, with fifty-four violent criminal cases. This was heightened in 2021 during the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack, where many commentators pointed to Trump’s rhetoric in a speech and tweets before the incident as a means of inciting violence. According to the University of Minnesota Law School, Trump’s rhetoric contained inflammatory language and references to peaceful protests, meaning that it was not an explicit call to lawless imminent action (the legal test for incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio), but his overt actions (such as pushing to remove metal detectors at the rally), combined with his speech, could support liability.
Charlie Kirk's Political Rhetoric
Kirk’s career was built on controversial political rhetoric, challenging liberal students with provocative statements with his “Prove Me Wrong” table, seemingly “relish[ing] jeers” of a less friendly audience. In fact, his organization, Turning Point, encourages political rhetoric by advocating conservatism on college campuses through student chapters and events. Throughout Kirk’s career, Kirk frequently repeated Trump's claims that former Vice President Kamala Harris was directly responsible for all immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally. He called George Floyd, a Black man whose death by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national debate over racial injustice, a "scumbag." Kirk leveraged his organization, successful podcast, and celebrity status to mobilize the youth to support President Trump and conservatism.
Many people believe Kirk’s assassination had ties to political rhetoric, according to an NBC News poll. More than 6 in 10 registered voters said they think “extreme political rhetoric” was an important contributor to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this year. There was cross-partisanship agreement that rhetoric played an important role in the attack, as opposed to the incident being caused by the actions of a single person.
The political rhetoric of Kirk’s murderer is also important to note. The bullet casings have engraved messages of political rhetoric, such as encasing lyrics of the song “Bella Ciao”, popularized as an anti-fascist anthem in Italy after World War II, and the message “Hey fascist! Catch! ↑ → ↓↓↓,” a reference to a video game that's been interpreted as a satire of fascism.
The murderer of Kirk is registered as unaffiliated with a political party and is listed as “inactive,” meaning he did not vote in the last two general elections. However, according to prosecutors’ charging documents of his mother, he had become more politically active and had started to lean left.
The narrative of the murderer is spun by social commentators and politicians to claim the murderer’s motives as evidence to support their own narratives about extremism, even though objective details are limited and ambiguous. In fact, both sides of the political spectrum believe that the other side is responsible for the increase in political violence, heightening the political divide driven by political rhetoric. President Trump and his administration have largely blamed the left for the assassination, while liberal activists blame Kirk’s inflammatory rhetoric.
“Yes, they [Democrats] did cause this [the death of Charlie Kirk]. [The] type of rhetoric [of] calling people fascists [is] basically saying that we’re Nazis taking away people’s rights. Charlie Kirk was literally murdered,” said Republican Representative Ana Paulina Luna, R-F.L from a CNN interview.
These words from Rep. Luna are an example of how Republicans, in many cases, view the assassination of Kirk. As many Democrats have equated Trump to fascism, Republicans largely blame Democrats for setting a precedent for political violence by fueling the motive of Kirk's killer as a necessary evil to ‘fight fascism.’
Left-leaning activist Mehdi Hasan from Democracy Now! referenced extreme rhetoric in an interview. “There are obviously posts online celebrating his death. I found them distasteful [and] inappropriate. It’s not something I would do. And yet, I think to myself, had I been the one shot in the neck and passing away, I wonder what Kirk would have said about me. This is the reality of where we live."
This quote encapsulates much of the left-wing reaction to the death of Kirk. While they agree that the murder of Kirk was politically motivated, many believe the rhetoric portrayed by conservatives, including Kirk, has been responsible for turning up the political temperature to such a degree.
Both quotes have something in common: they blame the other side. Following Kirk's death, political rhetoric has continued. Some speak of Kirk as a “martyr” and of violations of free speech, while others encourage gun regulation. Turning Point, now run by Kirk’s wife, Erika Kirk, continues its mission of rallying young conservatives. Social media videos humorize Kirk’s death as viral videos talk about the “Great Kirkification” movement, where critics from both political sides are using AI to create photos and videos of celebrities and politicians with Kirk’s face. Matthew Conner ’26 commented on the recent memes, claiming that he’s “seen a ton of them on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube Shorts.” Conner described the memes as “disturbing,” explaining that they “made [the assassination] feel like it was just a joke.” Conner elaborated, sharing that “[Kirk] is still a human being, and no matter how you feel about him, those [types] of jokes cross a line.”
Caption: "Kirkification" TikTok trend where users use AI to swap faces of celebrities and politicians with Kirk’s face. Video by @rizzmasterac on TikTok.
MFS Rhetoric Experts' Takes
“Social media platforms are built for polarization," said MS Dean of Students and media scholar, Nicole Weber, who is completing a PhD in Communications at Rutgers University. Weber blamed much of the rise in political violence on the social media climate.
Weber continued, “Polarizing content does well online because people are reacting to things that are happening, and when people have more polarizing opinions, someone like Charlie Kirk is going to be a figure that reaches a lot of people, and a lot of strong emotional reactions are going to be associated with his content.”
History department chair and US history teacher Mary Anne Henderson shared their thoughts on how extremism contributes to polarization.
“In the aftermath of his [Kirk’s] death, a lot of the stuff I’ve been exposed to is folks talking about how deep the conservative … [or] what we might’ve called ‘alt-right,’ feels mainstream by online communities." They continued. "However, some in the Right community [believe] that Charlie Kirk is not nearly ‘Right enough,’ so there’s all this internal conflict.”
The "alternative-right," or alt-right, represents the white supremacist, conservative political movement responsible for the Unite the Right rally and other violent gatherings. Despite often supporting Trump and the Republican Party, most prominent right-wing figures (such as Kirk himself) have denounced the extremist platform.
Social media platforms such as X and Discord are platforms where controversial and polarizing arguments are commonplace. Political extremes on both ends of the spectrum frequently utilize it as communal forums where controversial and hate-filled posts proliferate, birthing discussions of political violence and terrorism.
Regarding what specifically led to the assassination of Kirk, Weber said that, “There are a lot of other factors of what goes into making a decision like [assassinating someone], but I certainly think that the combination of political polarization, political discourse, social media platforms, and the ways that they prioritize polarizing content played a large role.”
"I certainly think that the combination of political polarization, political discourse, social media platforms, and the ways that they prioritize polarizing content played a large role." —Nicole Weber, MS Dean of Students and media scholar
When asked what responsibly talking about politics looks like, Weber said, “Responsibly talking about politics is often trying to have reasonable conversations where people are using non-inflammatory language, are being level-headed in the ways that they are emotionally engaging with each other, trying to remain calm and trying to remain open to having a discussion.” Weber went on to say that these properties of communication do not exist on social media platforms and are not designed in such a way.
Henderson said, “To me, respectful discourse — especially here in a Quaker school — always works to understand the humanity in the people in any situation that we’re looking at. And, I don’t think that respectful discourse had to be a discourse of complete agreement, or sort of glossing over someone's contradictions, or things that folks found concerning somebody when they were alive. Instead, respectful discourse is about wanting to listen and understand.”
Once rooted in social awareness, the term “woke” has become a polarizing way to criticize and comment on left-wing politics and ideas. Since 2014, the term woke has expanded beyond its textbook definition; it has been celebrated, criticized by politicians, aspired to be embodied, and memed — sometimes all at once.
According to Merriam-Webster, the term woke means to be “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
Woke originated in the 1930s or even prior, as a part of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), as a way to describe being aware of racial prejudice and discrimination. The expression was often “stay woke.”
The idea, however, expanded beyond its roots and became an online phenomenon. During the mid-2010s, the hashtag “#staywoke,” used by activists in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, which took off in the early 2010s following the murder of Michael Brown, gained popularity throughout various social media platforms, specifically X (formerly known as Twitter), as a way to bring awareness to police brutality.
Notably, the phrase “stay woke” had been adopted by white people in support of progressive causes, such as BLM, after seeing the phrase become popularized on “Black Twitter."
Following this, in 2017, the word woke was added to the Oxford English Dictionary after its usage and popularity grew beyond the United States.
The term has also been used in songs. One of the earliest usages was by folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, also known as Lead Belly. Ledbetter used the phrase “stay woke” when he talked about his 1938 song, “Scottsboro Boys:” "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open." Also, Erykah Badu’s 2008 song “Master Teacher” references the “stay woke” phrase: “I stay woke,” meaning being self-aware and striving for something better.
As woke circulated through mainstream media, its meaning has evolved, too.
By 2019, woke had taken on a negative connotation. The term was widely used sarcastically as a pejorative by the political right and some centrists to "disparage leftist and progressive movements as superficial and insincere performative activism.”
By 2019-2020, “woke culture” had traction across social media, particularly on TikTok, as woke was used as a way to describe left-wing ideologies, emphasizing discussions surrounding racial justice, gender equality, and equal representation.
The murder of George Floyd in 2020 catalyzed the perception of wokeness centered around racial justice.
The evolution of the term also caused it to be applied to other forms of activism beyond the “left.” By mid-2020, the usage of “woke right” emerged from various political commentators, in support of right-wing ideologies through left-wing activist tactics.
“Woke culture turned from awareness and activism to being ‘politically correct in all ways,’ in the media, as far as I’ve seen it. [But,] I think it's become more of a negative term that generally may discourage people from speaking out about injustices in fear that they may get hate for it." — Rebecca Marks '27
“Woke culture has changed online a lot recently. Woke used to be activism and spreading awareness and educating people, but honestly, I think, recently, woke has been associated with cancel culture and stupid trends, so it's [become] more performative,” said Morgan Krasner ’27.
Krasner continued, “The impact of [the changing of woke] is that serious issues get disregarded and used for attention now, like when people turn [injustices] into hashtags or TikTok dances, it can make people take things less seriously.”
With the changing meaning of wokeness, specifically the newer negative connotation associated with it, the denial of the woke movement has also become prevalent in both media and politics.
For example, President Donald J. Trump referred to wokeness in his March 4 address to a joint session of Congress.
“We are getting wokeness out of our schools and out of our military, and it's already out of our society.” Trump continued, “Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad. It's gone. It's gone. And we feel so much better for it [being gone], don't we?”
In addition to this, Florida Governor Rob DeSantis adopted an act called the “Stop WOKE Act” and used this act to implement policies in Florida schools that would restrict the teachings of topics of race, sex, gender, and oppression.
Beyond the denial of woke ideas, the term has also become a staple in online discourse, specifically referring to what “woke culture” has become.
Charlie Kirk defined woke as a “catch-all” term in his speech at the University of Kentucky on March 8, 2023.
“[The term 'woke'] actually comes from a belief that you have now been able to wake up to all the systemic injustice and oppression around you, and you are enlightened enough to be able to see that there’s racism around everywhere and that at that moment, you’re woke,” said Kirk.
He also added "wokey" to the cultural definition of "liberal" or "left," using the term derogatorily.
Kirk used the Toronto Raptors' Women's Day video incident to characterize “wokies” as “poisonous and awful” people. In March of 2023, the basketball team uploaded a video saying that women should be appreciated because they’re the only people who can procreate. After receiving online backlash, the team deleted the video from social media platforms and issued a public apology. Kirk expressed his grievances about living in the “world of the woke,” where he felt that the woke environment was so hostile that conservative views were shunned and considered wrong by the “crazy” public.
This popularized anti-woke sentiment has been incorporated into Turning Point USA's overall mission; conservative high school students involved in Turning Point USA’s activism have been named the “anti-woke warriors” on its home page.
Similar to Krasner’s point about woke having the potential to become more unserious, on social media platforms, specifically TikTok, the discussion of “2020 woke,” according to various posts, has become prevalent recently, with users discussing bringing it back, while others poke fun at it.
However, as online and societal debates about wokeness continue, one question remains: what does woke actually mean in 2026, and how can it be defined?
“If I could redefine it, I don't think wokeness should be used as an insult; it should be used as an indicator that you are accepting of others,” said Aryanna Dalal ’28.
Marks reflected on how the term is currently being portrayed in the media, and what it should be representing in discourse instead: “I want to redirect the media to focus on woke as a term of awareness in injustices rather than ‘political correctness and leftism,’ although being woke aligns with the left more than the right, [I believe] truly anybody can be aware of things happening in the world and take it into consideration when moving about life.”
Dalal also focused on the political divide surrounding “wokeness,” stating, “I think [‘woke’] should be a healthy medium of both political parties. I know that both sides have varying opinions on what wokeness means, so I think there should be a healthy medium of setting straight boundaries on what's offensive and what isn't.”
In the months following Kirk’s death, controversies emerged over First Amendment issues, including the removal of a “South Park” episode from cable and the suspension of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel for making controversial references to Kirk.
"South Park," the show famous for making fun of everybody and apologizing to nobody, pulled its episode “Got a Nut" on Season 27, which mocked right-wing political activist Kirk, from airing on Comedy Central on September 10, hours after Kirk was assassinated. No official statement was released from Comedy Central about why the episode was removed. However, the episode remained streaming on Paramount+. As of now, the episode remains unavailable on cable, but can be accessed on streaming services such as Paramount+.
The episode was released on August 6, following characters Clyde Donovan and Eric Cartman claiming to be “Master Debaters,” satirizing Kirk’s viral college campus debate sessions. Both Donovan and Cartman sit in booths and debate students who line up to ask questions, all in resemblance to Kirk’s content. The episode culminates in Donovan winning the “Charlie Kirk Award for Young Master Debaters.”
Before his death, Kirk had posted a reaction video of himself watching the episode on TikTok and was very enthusiastic. In the video, Kirk had a positive outlook on the episode:
“It is hilarious … [It shows] our viral cultural domination ... This is all a success; this is all a win." —Charlie Kirk
Andrew Kolvet, a producer for The Charlie Kirk Show, affirmed Kirk's enjoyment of the episode, saying that Kirk would "want the episode back up" and insisting that this would not be "OK'd by his late friend and colleagues."
However, some MAGA supporters accused South Park of being to blame for the assassination of Kirk. Theorists posted on X posts such as "South Park certainly fomented the hatred necessary to get Kirk assassinated" and "Blame the media. Blame leftist rhetoric. These people hate you and want to see you dead. If they’ll kill Charlie Kirk and piss on his grave, they’ll do it to any of us."
Season 27 of South Park has been more politically focused than any other. The season has had many political gags, including President Trump having an affair with the devil, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raiding Heaven, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem killing dogs.
Dean Simpson ’26 is a long-time fan of South Park.
“I’ve watched South Park for a while, and [Season 27] seems really different. It's still hilarious, and I think the fact that they’re leaning more into real-world events makes it even funnier,” said Simpson. Simpson elaborated, saying that South Park’s choice to dive into current politics is “smart” and gives it “more relevance.”
“[Pulling the Kirk-centered episode on cable] felt like the right thing to do, given the circumstances. However, I’m glad they left it available on Paramount+, especially since [Kirk] thought the episode was funny." — Dean Simpson '28
The release of the first episode following Kirk's death, about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its attack on Jimmy Kimmel, was delayed. Since airing the episode on September 24, many fans have hypothesized that Comedy Central delayed the episode to "change it" to respond to Kimmel's suspension on ABC.
Another example of censorship following the death of Kirk was with Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for remarks he made on his show on Monday, September 15. On his show, Kimmel said that “the MAGA Gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.” Additionally, Kimmel claimed that right-wing politicians were trying to “score political points from [the assassination].”
Hours before ABC confirmed the suspension, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, condemned Kimmel on conservative podcaster Benny Johnson’s show, threatening ABC and its owner, Disney. On September 15, ABC suspended Kimmel and indefinitely pulled his show from the air. The suspension was short-lived, and Kimmel returned on September 22 and is contracted to continue the show until May of 2027.
While comedy has historically faced censorship issues, the suspension raises questions about whether the government can regulate or pressure broadcast TV content.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the attack on Kimmel as a “shock” to free speech experts who saw it as an attempt to expand the FCC’s power to regulate content. According to the FCC’s website, “The limitations on the FCC's power to restrict or ban speech begin with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which decrees that the federal government ‘shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’" However, the FCC does have restricted authority to police broadcasts for indecency and obscenity.
Nonetheless, Kimmel’s suspension was a response to the network’s threats to its broadcast license based on his political viewpoints. The ACLU regards this as a “clear violation” of the First Amendment.
President Donald Trump expressed support for the FCC’s warning to ABC, calling for Kimmel’s suspension and stating on Truth Social that he has “ZERO talent.” He once noted that all the major networks should have their broadcast licenses revoked because they are “97% against me.”
Arjun Khandhar ’27 disagreed with ABC’s choice to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, saying that it was “unjustified,” and that Kimmel didn’t need to be “removed entirely.”
"Death is a sensitive topic that people don't want to talk about, but people still have freedom of speech." — Arjun Khandhar '27
Kirk’s career was built upon freedom of speech as a political commentator and influencer. He was a “fierce defender” of the First Amendment, arguing that open discourse, especially when it is controversial, is essential to democracy.
-------------------
FOR FURTHER READING:
[OPINION]: Internet Response to Erika Kirk’s Behavior Following Husband’s Death Includes Misogynistic Undertones
by Keva Elie '26
[EDITORIAL]: The Illusion of Activism After Charlie Kirk's Death by WordsWorth Editorial Board
Credits:
By Erika Capella '27, Ethan Cohen '26, Natalie Choi '27, Matthew Diaz '28, Livia Kam '26. Produced by Erika Capella '27 and Livia Kam '26.