CSU, FoCo communities react with mixed emotions to Charlie Kirk’s death

The death of Charlie Kirk, executive director and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was announced nearly a week before he was set to speak at Colorado State University, sparking mixed reactions across campus and the broader Fort Collins community.

Kirk was originally invited to speak at CSU by the campus chapter of Turning Point USA Thursday, Sept. 18, according to an Instagram post from the chapter. In the wake of Kirk’s death, the chapter opted to host a vigil open to the Fort Collins community in Canvas Stadium from 5:30-6:30 p.m., drawing around 7,400 attendees from the Fort Collins community.

CSU Political Review, a nonpartisan public discourse club dedicated to fostering respectful and informed conversations, hosted the Unfuck America Tour on the Lory Student Center Plaza. That evening, the group also held a separate event in the ballroom titled For Free Speech. Against Political Violence at 6:30 p.m. in the LSC Ballrooms.

CSU President Amy Parsons addressed the community in a Sept. 15 email, emphasizing CSU’s commitment to free speech.

“Over the past several years, we have worked intentionally to bring a wide range of speakers and perspectives to CSU — voices from across the political, social and cultural spectrum. These efforts are not always easy, but they are essential,” Parsons’ statement reads. “They build our collective capacity for thoughtful debate, listening as well as speaking, and finding common ground even in disagreement.”

Parsons added that CSU was working closely with law enforcement and safety partners for future events. The day of the vigil, police presence on campus increased, and attendees were required to follow the stadium’s clear-bag policy and pass through metal detectors.
“I was going to probably attend next Thursday. I was curious to see what he had to say. … That’s crazy that that happened. It’s just like, wow. That could have happened here.” -Adam Eicher, CSU student 
On Sept. 11, the day following Kirk’s death, two Colorado residents who identified themselves as Alex and David arrived on campus with two signs reading, “Charlie Kirk died a hero. Prove me wrong.”

The demonstration quickly drew attention. At one point, a student grabbed the sign and crumpled it, prompting police to intervene. The demonstration broke apart briefly, but Alex and David returned with another copy of the original sign and a second one that read, “The left is a cult. Prove me wrong,” drawing a new group of students to gather around them.

“The way the debate ended today was someone getting physical, stealing his sign and running away, and that ended the talking, which is symbolism for what happened yesterday (to Charlie Kirk),” said a student who wished to remain anonymous.

Another student who wished to remain anonymous focused on the broader implications of Kirk’s death.

“People that are saying that Charlie Kirk deserved to die — the fact that there is no repercussion for that, I get it’s freedom of speech, but there should be some level of common decency,” they said. “He died in a very unjust way for simply speaking his mind, which is really scary.”

Alex said the purpose of the sign was to promote student debate and discussion, noting the phrase, “Prove me wrong,” referenced Kirk’s own style of engagement and was meant to encourage free speech.

“I felt that whoever assassinated him probably had the intent of silencing people who did, as Charlie Kirk did, speak out, especially to political opposition,” Alex said. “He would go to college campuses, which typically are liberal, and advocate conservative positions. … When you have somebody assassinated over their speech, they’re trying to have a chilling effect. The best thing you can do is the exact opposite: Speak up more.”

David said their goal was to spark conversation and encourage dialogue on campus.

“I figure it makes more sense to actually have dialogues than to have people hating each other in silence,” David said. “A lot of times, people are more reasonable than you think, but you have to actually talk to them to see it. This kind of thing might not eliminate hatred, but it can at least lower the temperature.”

Students passing by offered a range of reactions, some engaging in conversation with Alex and David, while others simply observed from a distance.

“I feel like a lot of people who are on the right, … even people who I consider centrists, are afraid to talk and have debates, so I worry for the free speech of our campus.” said Oswald Mosley, an observer. “And I think another really big part of this whole rhetoric was we had signs everywhere saying, ‘Do not debate; don’t have a good faith debate.’ I think that’s one of the founding ideologies in liberalism, that these so-called free speech arbiters and people of woke ideology stand on, but little do they know that they stand on beliefs they don’t even know they believe in. They believe in nothing. They stand for nothing.”

Student reactions split not only over free speech but also over whether Kirk himself embodied genuine debate.

“The idea of a debate implies something that is both sides with acting in good faith,” said John, a student who wished to only include his first name. “I don’t think people like Charlie Kirk are acting in good faith and neither is this guy.”

According to John, Kirk was responsible for spreading hate.

“Charlie Kirk was a despicable human being. He was a right-wing grifter,” John said. “He basically made a whole living out of just saying the most hateful kind of rhetoric that one can get because that’s what gets clicks.”

Another student, who wished to remain anonymous, argued that Kirk represented one of the few figures willing to engage directly with students.

“Charlie Kirk was one of the — maybe the only person — who’s going around campuses and doing open discussion, and that is like a cornerstone of our civilization,” the student said. “Who else is going out and doing that? … It makes you feel like discussion isn’t worth the time because the people who talk get killed.”

Some students felt Kirk’s death felt like a lost chance to hear his perspective firsthand. 

“I was going to probably attend next Thursday,” CSU student Adam Eicher said. “I was curious to see what he had to say. … That’s crazy that that happened. It’s just like, wow. That could have happened here.”

While students grappled with the personal impact of Kirk’s absence, CSU leadership emphasized the broader values of dialogue and resilience.

“Moments like this test us,” Parsons’ email reads. “But they also remind us of who we are: a university dedicated to access, discovery, service and the belief that education and dialogue are the lifeblood of democracy. As inheritors of the land-grant tradition, we carry forward a history of resilience, innovation and hope. I trust this community to rise to the challenge with courage, integrity and care for one another — and in doing so, to strengthen both CSU and our nation’s democracy.”