Students react to firings after Kirk assassination
Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10 brought more than mourning from conservatives. Dominating the headlines during the next weeks, reactions to the political murder—which in some cases led to firings at both at the educational and corporate levels—have sparked fierce debate over the limits of free speech.
The comments surrounding Kirk’s death came to a head after TV show host Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue was deemed inappropriate, causing ABC executives and its parent company, Disney, to suspend Kimmel’s late-night show.
Kimmel’s comments faced backlash for his deliberate mischaracterization of Kirk’s killer, Tyler Robinson, as a MAGA Republican, when law enforcement sources had unanimously indicated that he held left-wing political opinions. Adding yet another layer of complexity, the Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr supported the move to suspend Kimmel.
After three days of backlash from Kimmel’s supporters, however, ABC announced that the talk show host would return on September 23. Disney said in a statement on September 22, “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.”
Kimmel’s comments and the surrounding controversy have turned the focus away from the loss of Kirk and towards the role of agencies and companies in regulating content. A number of Hollywood elites have begun signing petitions refuting supposed “government coercion” leading to Kimmel’s suspension, per NBC.
Similar to national attitudes, reactions to Kimmel’s controversy have been mixed across campus. Sophomore student-athlete Kellan Klostermann supported ABC’s initial decision, telling the Rover, “A company should have the right to pull Kimmel’s show. Controversial comments coupled with low ratings and a fragile political climate aren’t exactly a recipe for success.”
Echoing these sentiments, Keough sophomore Jack Ring told the Rover, “The fact of the matter is that Kimmel’s canceling and subsequent reinstitution is not a matter of free speech at all. The entire saga is the product of a profit-driven corporation seeking to cover their own rear ends. ‘Free speech’ is not a consideration in polite society. If a mourning public does not feel inclined to entertain the poor taste of Mr. Kimmel, that is their right. Similarly, (in California at least) it is ABC’s right to respond to the public by covering their own bottom line.”
“Any attempts from Kimmel supporters to make this story about anything other than a valid termination and reinstation are, at best, ignorant and, more likely, dishonest,” Ring concluded.
Political science Ph.D. student Gabrielle Grow took a different stance, telling the Rover, “While I don’t think anyone has the right to air whatever offensive content they want on television, in my view, Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s death did not rise to that standard. Most of the comments in question weren’t even about Kirk; they were about President Trump’s reaction to his death.”
“While the White House may have found the comments upsetting,” Grow continued, “First, the Communications Act of 1934 explicitly precludes the FCC from censoring viewpoints, and second, it is beneath the office of the President to levy grievances against comedians. It’s certainly admirable to want respect for the dead, but in this political climate, I’m afraid that’s not the precedent that was just set.”
Another political science Ph.D. student, Hadar Hazony, remarked, “It seems Mr. Kimmel has failed to internalize a basic norm of civil society; namely, we do not offend the members of our polity when they are mourning. Or, to the degree that we do so accidentally, we apologize for it. I certainly understand why some brands may want to distance themselves from such callous behavior.”
Hazony concluded: “Particularly, broadcasting companies, whose place in the public eye directly ties their reputation to their income, may not want to be associated with the perception of callousness to widows and orphans.”
With national attention still fixed on Charlie Kirk’s assassination and with Kimmel back behind the desk, students at Notre Dame continue to grapple with how the campus—and the country—should navigate an era where free speech, corporate interests, and political violence increasingly collide.
Kevin Andrews is a junior in Keough Hall majoring in political science and economics. He can be reached at kandrew6@nd.edu.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Subscribe to the Irish Rover here.
Donate to the Irish Rover here.