Washington, 12 Sept 

The same scene played out at campuses across the country. Charlie Kirk would grab a microphone, take a seat under a canopy — often in busy campus hubs — and invite debate from anyone who came along. His prompt: “Prove me wrong.”

Kirk's open and engaging approach veered from the well-worn tracks of provocateurs who rile audiences in campus lecture halls. It made him a phenomenon, attracting hundreds who crowded around his tent as challengers sparred with one of the nation's most influential conservatives.

It also made him vulnerable.

The risks of his exposure became too clear Wednesday, when Kirk was fatally shot at one of his informal events in the grassy courtyard of a Utah university. The single shot rang out as he was seated and responding to a question.

Kirk's assassination leaves the nation to reckon with violence that has become increasingly political and public. At the same time, it's forcing universities to question whether more security is needed to protect people speaking their minds to campus audiences.

“It's going to rattle college campuses,” said Nico Perrino, executive vice president for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “Colleges are going to be concerned about these sort of events moving forward, particularly if they are outside.”

Most likely it will spur colleges to move large outdoor events into campus buildings, said Perrino, who is a frequent campus speaker himself. That's already the norm for most controversial visitors, who are typically hosted in auditoriums or classrooms that are easier to protect, he said.

Colleges have struggled to find the right balance on free speech

Some also fear it could lead to a stifling of campus speech, which has faced repeated tests in recent years. Universities had yet to find an answer for students who routinely shouted down controversial speakers when a wave of pro-Palestinian protests disrupted campuses last year. Many college leaders defended those protesters' First Amendment rights, only to face backlash from the Trump administration and other Republicans, who said schools were tolerating antisemitism.

Amid that backdrop, many saw Kirk's campus debates as a refreshing change of pace, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian and campus speech scholar at the University of Pennsylvania.

Armed with charisma and wit, he made conservativism seem fun and edgy to many young people. Kirk promoted open dialogue, even if his goal was often to score political points rather than engage in meaningful debate, Zimmerman said.

“This wasn't some stentorian old guy from Young Americans for Freedom just getting on a dais,” he said. “Kirk interacted, for sure. That was his model. And that's different from, I give a speech and I leave.”

Even free speech scholars who are deeply critical of Kirk's legacy give him recognition for debating his beliefs in public.

Robert Cohen, a professor of history and social studies at New York University, condemned any political violence and called Kirk's death a tragedy.

Yet he faulted Kirk for boosting the work of President Donald Trump's administration, which Cohen said has suppressed pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses and left campus free speech “in the worst shape it has been in since the McCarthy era.”

Still, he said, “I do think it is to Kirk's credit that in his own campus appearances he was open to debate.”

An assassination raises uncertainty for the future of open debate

Some observers see this moment as an inflection point in the campus speech debate. Universities may become more reluctant to host controversial speakers amid safety concerns, or they may double down on their role as intellectual laboratories where students can grapple with views different from their own.

Jonathan Friedman, a managing director at PEN America, a free speech advocacy group, urged university leaders and politicians to unite on the importance of campus speech. Kirk's debates and similar events have brought “people into conversation with one another on a mass scale,” he said. Still, he fears Kirk's death will be used as a political bludgeon.

“So much in this political moment is about weaponising and taking advantage and trying to score a win against the opposing side,” Friedman said. “But I don't think that's been terribly productive for the health of American society.”

Leaders of some universities have said the remedy is more discourse, not less.

At the University of Wyoming, where Kirk was hosted for an event earlier this year, President Ed Seidel said he felt “disgust, outrage and sadness” over the killing.

"In the midst of this tragedy, it is important that we reaffirm the right of all to express their views freely, especially on college campuses, as Mr. Kirk did recently at UW,” Seidel wrote in a campus statement.

Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said he had little in common with Kirk but shared a belief that it's vital “to speak to those whose views were different from one's own.”

“Those who choose violence destroy the possibility of learning and meaning,” Roth said in a campus message. “Mr. Kirk's murder on a college campus is an assault on all of us in education.”