On Oct. 22, Bridge UCCS hosted “Polarization Post-Kirk” in collaboration with the College Republicans, College Democrats and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) to discuss the advancing political polarization in the United States following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“What is happening today? How are we responding to Kirk’s assassination? How is this affecting the politicization of our government, of the people, and what are these conversations looking like?” Vice President of Bridge operations Katrina Jenkins said.
The event was moderated by the Board of Bridge UCCS with four discussion norms as set by BridgeUSA National Team guidelines: listen to listen not to respond, do not interrupt or have side conversations, address the statement — not the person — and participants represent themselves — not organizations.
All discussions were fact checked by a board titled The Human Digest, a nonprofit publishing forum for undergraduate and graduate students.
The event began with a survey that assessed participants’ listening skills and ability to debate and hear differing opinions.
After a brief history on Kirk, the moderators transitioned into a red vs. blue event. Participants were presented with a statement and then split into three groups depending on their reaction to the statement: agree, disagree and neutral.
After the groups discussed for four minutes, each side sent a representative to debate in front of the room for three minutes. There were six statements in total.
The first two statements addressed political identity and expression. The first addressed the recent trend of political identity and personal identity becoming synonymous, leading younger generations to base major life decisions on political affiliation according to the National Public Radio (NPR). Most of the room agreed with this statement, explaining similar anecdotes.
The second statement addressed how students feel unable to express their viewpoints out of fear of how others may respond. Again, most of the room agreed with this statement, although the neutral group argued that the ability to fully express opinions depends on the crowd.
Statement three addressed political violence, citing that ⅓ of US Presidents have either been victims of assassination or attempted assassination. It asked, “Is it accurate to say that [political violence] is and always has been a staple of American identity?” The room was mostly split between agreeing or disagreeing.
The group that agreed argued that the USA originated from revolution and cited other acts of political violence — such as the civil war and the 2024 assassination of the CEO of Healthcare United Brian Thompson. The group that disagreed debated that the USA is more defined by unity and used Mexico as an anecdote for political violence.
“True political violence exists in Mexico. This last election, [Mexico] had a bunch of politicians, from the opponents, completely disappear,” the disagree representative said.
The fourth and fifth statement directly addressed Kirk’s death. The fourth was a normative claim that asserted Kirk should be remembered as a martyr. The room was divided between agree and disagree.
The group that agreed argued that he should be martyrized because he freely voiced his opinions and that this right should be preserved. The disagree side argued that it’s not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Kirk was killed for his beliefs. The neutral side asked what set Kirk’s assassination apart from similar ones.
“Using [the assassination] as a martyr for being able to freely speak out for what you believe, no matter what side you’re on, is extremely important to make sure that people are understanding that it is okay to speak your beliefs no matter what,” the agree representative said.
“But I think my issue also is like the should part, because I think we have a lot of other political leaders who should be considered martyrs, but weren’t,” the neutral representative said, later naming Martin Luther King Jr. as someone who should have been martyrized.
The fifth statement asserted that Kirk’s death overshadowing the Colorado Evergreen High School shooting was indicative of the ongoing issue of selective mourning in the USA. The agreed group argued that political violence and mourning occurs on both sides, while the disagree group argued that the mourning of school shootings depends on the community’s proximity to the school.
“[Kirk’s] death kind of objectively overshadowed the Evergreen High School assassination, and it sounds weird saying it, but it should have happened too,” the disagreed representative argued.
The last statement said the solution to polarization in the USA must be “spearheaded” by individuals rather than political parties. Much of the room was neutral, arguing that both were necessary, but the agreed group argued that political parties often encompass certain values that cannot accurately represent human complexity. The disagreeing side argued that individuals must act via political parties.
The event ended with a survey similar to the pre-survey to assess any change initiated by the discussion.
The Polarization Post Kirk event. Photo by Josiah Dolan.