By Rohan Jhaveri, Guest Writer 

For better or worse, history is cyclical. When something momentous happens, you can bet on two things: you will see it again and it has happened before.

So why was I still shocked when, in a packed courtyard of Utah Valley University, the prominent conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder, Charlie Kirk, was shot? Is it because I am naive or ignorant of the ways of the world?

From Abraham Lincoln to John F. Kennedy to Martin Luther King Jr., there have been an unfortunately high number of assassinations or attempts on high-profile politicians in this country. Each one has been characterized by an extreme amount of political violence at that time or after.

This is likely due to the well-observed trend in psychology of a marked increase in violence after an event of grave nature is displayed by the media. Essentially, all we needed to enter one of these eras was a spark.

That fuse was lit in the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. They ushered in the times we currently live in. Divided by geography, internet corners and imaginary lines, we have so many reasons to hate each other.

All it takes is one person to get fed up. In a country of more than 320 million people, it was only a matter of time before that happened.

So I ask again, why was I shocked? I think it is because I dared to hope that, against all odds, the cycle would be broken. I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

Kirk’s work was always rooted in conservatism. That part of him would never change. Let no one say he did not have a unique capacity for adaptation. He looked over the iron curtain and toward the other side and asked the important question: why were Democrats more appealing than Republicans with the youth?

He came to a simple conclusion. Republicans simply were not “cool.” Former President Barack Obama changed the Democrats. He infused them with an undeniable energy and made young people want to be part of a movement.

Obama knew to make Democrats relevant again, by harnessing the fountain of youth. Kirk’s innovation was that Republicans could do the same thing. He feared conservatism would die if young people were not engaged where they were: colleges.

This part of Kirk’s life, the part after revelation, is the aspect we are familiar with — the crusader who was animated constantly and went around colleges engaging in conversations.

Whether you agree or disagree with what Kirk said, I hope you can agree with a basic precept: speech is important. Kirk operated almost as a living test of this. Unfortunately, it was a test we failed. Fitting that his death was administered at a university.

A death for one’s ideals can only be summed up by the word martyr. Many people will debate the validity of calling Kirk one.

I have no doubt the textbooks our children are given will make note of this in a way only a textbook can: by calling it an “evolving conversation to be had on sensitive subjects such as this.”

I reject sensitivity on a subject like this. Call it as it is: a death for one’s ideals, a martyrdom.

Kirk did not die representing a single issue. He was not martyred over trans rights or some ideological fight, though this may be what the media says. Kirk was killed because he dared to raise his hand, and for that he was punished.

Kirk was one of this generation’s best advocates for the First Amendment. Next to his gravestone should be a place for the First Amendment. I can imagine it: “Here lies the First Amendment. For lack of caring, the rose, once buoyant in youth, has withered. (1776-2025).”

We are living in a post-Kirk world that has accepted violence as a means of addressing problems. We were unable to pass Kirk’s one-question test: “What are your thoughts?” Apathy will kill our democracy if anything does.

In the post-Kirk world, we have decided to use the death of a martyr of free speech to justify ending free speech. Politicians have not capitalized on what is the most significant violation of every citizen in a long time. They have decided to use it to end free speech.

What a great irony if the personification of free speech’s death was used to clamp down on speech itself. Politicians need to listen to the prophetic messages Kirk levied on speech. Is this really what he would have wanted? No.

Those impacted by the death of Kirk are tasked with the mission: to carry on his legacy. Whether Democrat, Republican, Communist, Libertarian or just a regular Joe, none are outside the scope of it.

Terrorists like Kirk’s killer cannot be allowed to accomplish their goal, which is to silence you. If anything, now is the time to speak up. Break the cycle. Protect the First Amendment.