Questioning the legacy of Charlie Kirk

Posted Friday, October 31, 2025 8:53 am

Charlie Kirk in his own words

On the Civil Right Act

At a "Prove Me Wrong" event, when asked by a student if he would get rid of the Civil Rights Act if he had the opportunity, Kirk responded by saying:

"No, I think you should have a one-page bill that says that racial discrimination based on race is illegal and will not be tolerated in the United States of America.

"The Civil Right Act was used to help Black America, originally. Totally get that. But now the way it was written is that any claim of identification, so someone says 'I'm a woman. Therefore I can compete on your volleyball team.' They come in with a civil rights claim. And so what we're saying is, no, no, no it should be specified to racial, not gender, all that other stuff."

On the black pilot comment

Mere seconds after making the comment about the black pilot, Kirk immediately followed up with "That's not who I am. That's not what I believe."

In a follow-up conversation he had at a "Prove Me Wrong" event, Kirk explained, "This was in response, first and foremost, to United Airlines saying that half of all their new pilots that they are going to hire are going to be women or people of color. Currently, they are 15%. So, they want to go from 15% to 50%. A conversation then ensued that how every time affirmative action is employed, standards have to be lowered. There is not a single instance where that does not occur."

Kirk went on to say, "A more important question to ask me is Charlie, do you believe that black pilots can be qualified. Of course. Any individual can be qualified. I want a hiring quota and program that only cares about qualification, not skin color."

"Why does United Airlines care so much about the color of the pilots that are flying them. Shouldn't they just want the best pilots?"

On Jan. 6th

"Who died on Jan. 6th? The only person who died was Ashli Babbitt, killed by Nancy Pelosi's body guard. A Trump supporter was murdered. Trump supporters didn't kill anyone. I'm not defending the violence."

To an LGBTQ conservative student

"First of all, welcome to the conservative movement. I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attractions...you are a complete human being. And I'm sure you treat people well. And you're studying something....We have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom."

On the Second Amendment

"Having an armed citizenry comes with a price. And that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. Fifty thousand people die on the road every year. That's a price. You can get rid of driving. You'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving, speed, accessability...is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So, we need to be very clear, that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them by having more fathers, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence."

On Jewish support for cultural Marxism

"You cannot subsidize, support and play footsie with culurual Marxism and have a future for the state of Israel...Stop supporting causes that hate you." He explained that if you train a generation of students applying an oppressor/oppressed binary, they will apply that lens to the Israel-Hamas conflict, and Israel will be endangered by that toxic ideology.

Dear Editor,

A recent article in The Somers Record (Sept. 18th) by its editor, Tom Walogorsky (“Assassination shockwaves reach Somers”) got me thinking along two lines of inquiry: first, the reassignment of SRO Tanisha Blanche due to her online comments concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk, and second, the much referred to "legacy" of Mr. Kirk himself.

Whether or not, and to what extent, Blanche’s media posts were “inflammatory,” as the article suggests, or were simply a deeply-felt expression of distaste (admittedly, not artfully stated) for what Kirk stood for, is for readers of the Record to decide for themselves. My issue is about the reason suggested for Blanche’s reassignment. Superintendent Dr. Adam Bronstein is quoted in the article as saying that Blanche “will no longer work within our schools. School safety is our most sacred and important obligation.” He notes further that he was “in touch directly with the police to ensure the safety and continuity of our SRO program going forward. We appreciate the swift action of the police department to protect our schools.”

My query is this: are we to interpret Blanche’s media posts as somehow portraying her as a threat to school safety? Does a strong dislike of Kirk and what he stood for somehow render her incapable of doing her job? I find that conclusion not only a wild leap of logic but also an unfair slur on Blanche’s character. Even in her quoted statements on Facebook, Blanche asked why not “that same energy for the school shooting that took place yesterday….” That Blanche had a concern for student safety seems clear. Her reassignment seems more like a variation on the Kimmel syndrome. Also clear from an article in the latest Record (Sept. 25th), the Republican candidate for County Executive, Christine Sculti, wasted little time in an overblown weaponizing of the issue, describing it as “a betrayal of trust and a threat to children’s lives” while pointing a finger of blame in as many political directions as possible. A threat to children’s lives? Not only is that difficult to square with the facts as we know them, but it’s hardly a helpful starting point for rational discussion.

Even more troubling, however, is the torrent of praise for Kirk’s "legacy" as reported in the article. Congressman Lawler tells us “to honor Kirk’s legacy through prayer and open conversation.” Supervisor Scorrano urges us “to embrace the values Kirk championed.” Councilmen Faulkner and Cirieco even went so far as to compare “Kirk’s legacy to that of historic figures like Abraham Lincoln and King.” (Lincoln and King, really?)

Millie McCormack, one of the students instrumental in bringing a chapter of Turning Point to Somers High School, is quoted as saying that Kirk “encouraged young people...to actually talk to each other, debate ideas, and listen instead of fight.” All to the good; few, if any of us, would disagree with these goals.

But let’s not forget that "legacy" means more than process—more than talk, debate and listen. It encompasses content as well, and Kirk’s words, his beliefs, were at times less than inspiring. Kirk was a full-fledged MAGA disciple. He was a supporter of the Jan. 6 insurrection; he was a 2020 election denier; he spoke negatively of the LGBTQ+ community; he claimed it was worth the unfortunate cost of “some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights”; he said that “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years”; he supported the "Great Replacement" theory, claiming "America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever”; he claimed passing the Civil Rights Act was a ”huge mistake”; he called George Floyd a “scumbag” while repeating debunked claims that his death was caused by drug overdose rather than homicide as the medical examiner had found; he once claimed, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified’”; and he once stated that some prominent Black women did “not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.” I find none of this admirable, to put it mildly.

So I ask Congressman Lawler, what exactly in Kirk’s "legacy" are we to pray for; and Supervisor Scorrano, what "values" of Kirk’s are we to embrace; and Councilmen Faulkner and Cirieco, what precisely in Kirk’s "legacy" are we to compare to that of Lincoln and King? Yes, the murder of any human being is horrific, as was Kirk’s. We can all agree on that. But was his killing a "martyrdom," as some in the media have suggested? Is Kirk owed some sort of "canonization"? I think not. I don’t know what Bible Kirk was relying on to underpin the content of his legacy—what appears to be a sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant brand of Christian nationalism—but it certainly wasn’t the Bible I’m acquainted with.

-Ken DeLuca, Somers