This article originally appeared in The Detroit News Sept. 16, 2025.

The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, I was sitting in my office in Virginia, outside of Washington, D.C., when the second plane plowed into the World Trade Center in New York City. I called a friend and asked, “Are you okay?”

Twenty-four years later, we are married and two of our children are on college campuses. When I heard the news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, I called both children with the same question I had asked their mom: “Are you okay?”

Charlie Kirk’s children have been robbed of calls like that from their dad.

I didn’t know Kirk, though I followed his work. Many of my friends knew and admired him. Kirk spoke his mind with wit and swagger, often on hotly debated topics. We don’t know the motivations of the killer, but it appears Kirk was killed for his public engagement.

This is a troubling moment, when violence is used to make a point or settle political disagreements. America has seen political violence and social unrest before, such as in the 1960s.

But we’re seeing a new trend. A would-be assassin nearly took President Donald Trump’s life in Butler, Pennsylvania. A murderer executed Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, on a New York City sidewalk. An assassin killed Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at their home. Last week, here in Michigan, someone targeted Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist’s home with a bomb threat.

Free speech experts are raising concerns about the assumptions people hold about discourse and violence.

“We’ve seen a steady rise in support for violence in response to speech on campus,” wrote Nico Perrino of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

One in three college students, according to FIRE, say it may be appropriate to use violence to disrupt a campus speech.

No one should be executed for exercising their right to speak. Disagreements in a free society are inevitable but should not be fatal. In fact, disagreements are good. That’s how we discover new perspectives, improve ideas, develop curiosity and build consensus. Persuasion, not force, is the way to build a cause.

Charlie Kirk was in the persuasion business, as are my colleagues at the Mackinac Center. We haven’t faced the violence he just suffered, but fierce opposition is common. A death threat called in to our office in 2011 prompted an FBI investigation and criminal charges. Critics have sent nasty and vitriolic messages our way. Protesters have marched in front of our offices. We’ve been spat upon, slandered and sued.

Those criticisms are an occasion to review our motives and methods to ensure we act with integrity, good cheer and malice toward none.

This is not a moment for me to tell other people what to do. But here’s what I plan to do: I will continue to speak out in defense of the idea of America. I will contend that liberty, hard work and virtue are the best way to build a better life for all. I will presume that other people act with good intentions, even when we disagree. And when we disagree, I will seek opportunities to speak with them.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.