A Call for Kindness

Elijah Morris ’28

Contributing Writer

Over the past several weeks, many sentiments have been shared regarding the tragic death of Charlie Kirk. Fingers have been pointed and scathing political remarks have been made, blaming Kirk’s death on any one of a number of groups, conveniently placed in direct opposition to the speaker’s own beliefs. Does this get us anywhere? Does this accomplish anything but a twisted and vindictive sense of “justice served” in our own hearts? I believe any legitimate soul-searching would quickly prompt a different course of action. 

The world is not the way it ought to be; people with all beliefs can unite on this, perhaps more than anything else. Evil is present in the world. It is present to an alarming extent, and as we become increasingly aware of this, we very naturally fall into despair. Despair for ourselves, for our loved ones, for our futures and for the society at large is the defining trait of our era. The 2020s are full of wearied, weathered people with no hope, no direction and increasingly less will to live. The data bears this out. According to the CDC, suicide rates are up roughly 30% over the past twenty years. The current time is vacuous and meaningless for many people, and the subsequent results are devastating. 

With this as the backdrop for the events of Sept. 10, it is much easier to understand the unrest (perhaps, more accurately, outrage) for our current political situation. In this tumultuous time, people naturally cling to some sort of ideology as an anchor in the sea of despondency. Any attack to this ideology is necessarily, to them, an attack on their very being—an attack on their soul and their reason for existence. Thus, every event quickly becomes the locus for an outbreak of polarization and brutality. The string of tweets and posts immediately following any major event reads like a barrage of weapons discharged. 

There is another option, however. On Saturday, there was an interview on Anderson Cooper’s show with Van Jones, the prominent political analyst, author and former Obama advisor. (I would highly recommend anyone interested in the matter to watch this interview on CNN, rather than taking my word for it.) In it, Jones discusses the message he received from Charlie Kirk on Sept. 9, the day before he was killed. Kirk’s message asks for an open discussion with Jones on his show: “I would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well. We can disagree about the issues agreeably.” Jones, clearly affected emotionally, pleads for the peace and respect that Kirk upheld to take root in our divisive political scene. He explains that he and Kirk disagreed on nearly everything, and yet still says, “What [Kirk] was doing, and I didn’t even know it, was good. He was not for censorship, he was not for civil war, he was not for violence. He was for dialogue. Open debate and dialogue. Even with me.” Jones stresses over and over again that open and respectful discourse is the only productive way to engage with viewpoints other than one’s own. He is far from supporting Kirk, but he supports the humility to debate respectfully and to genuinely admire that which is admirable in an opponent. Furthermore, he implores all those who are “justifying murders and calling for civil wars” to “calm this down.” Tensions are high at the moment, but to Jones, this is no justification for losing one’s compassion towards humanity. 

We would do well at this moment in time to heed Van Jones’ advice. As a divided and increasingly hostile public sphere takes shape, the admonition Jones gives to respect and human sympathy comes at just the right moment. Productive discussions can still be had. Political divides can still be bridged by those who are compassionate enough to do so. Whatever our political leanings happen to be, we must acknowledge the value of winsomeness and compassion in our disagreements. Then, and only then, will we truly reap the benefit of our community: our shared humanity.