More than 90% of American undergraduates believe “words can be violence” in the aftermath of the horrific assassination of free speech activist Charlie Kirk in early September.
The new data was compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which asked more than 2,000 college students about their perceptions of free speech in the United States.
Staggeringly, researchers found 91% of respondents agreed to various extents that words are a form of violence, with only 9% believing words could not be violence. Two-hundred-and-four of the students surveyed were from Utah Valley University in Orem, where Kirk was fatally gunned down while peacefully and cordially taking questions from attendees.
A smaller but still alarming percentage of students (79%) said they agreed to varying degrees with the claim “silence is violence.”
The foundation called the survey results “especially startling coming in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination — an extreme and tragic example of the sharp difference between words and violence.”
“When people start thinking that words can be violence, violence becomes an acceptable response to words,” said Sean Stevens, chief research advisor for FIRE. “Even after the murder of Charlie Kirk at a speaking event, college students think that someone’s words can be a threat. This is antithetical to a free and open society, where words are the best alternative to political violence.”
The study also revealed American college students — especially conservative ones — feel increasingly unsafe sharing their opinions.
A plurality of respondents said they have become less comfortable expressing views on controversial topics in class (45%), common areas (43%), and with other students via social media (48%).
Nearly half of the students asked said they feel less comfortable attending or hosting events on campus and 35% said they are now less comfortable attending public events in general, with 21% admitting they no longer feel safe attending classes.
The report stated, “Concern is significantly more pronounced among students at UVU, and among politically conservative students nationwide. But students who do not identify with Kirk’s politics also report pulling back from public expression, suggesting that the effects of this political violence cross ideological lines.”
FIRE’s research also revealed how stark the divide is between conservatives and leftists.
“Moderate and conservative students became significantly less likely to say that shouting down a speaker, blocking entry to an event, or using violence to stop a campus speech are acceptable actions,” the report noted. “In contrast, liberal students’ support for these tactics held steady, or even increased slightly.”
The survey found 28% of students agree using violence to stop a speech on campus is “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” acceptable, while 71% said violence is never acceptable.
Of those who said violence is permissible, 26% said it “throwing projectiles” is acceptable, 22% said the same of using “chemical irritants” like bear spray, and 20% said “physical assault” on a speaker can be acceptable. Close to half of respondents (46%) said none of those things are acceptable.
All of this comes after Kirk’s assassination and two assassination attempts against President Donald Trump. And yet, 73% of students agreed with the claim that “political violence is a problem among conservatives,” with 42% saying the statement described their thoughts “completely” or “mostly.”
A smaller majority (63%) agreed “political violence is a problem among progressives.”
As the number of voices facing big-tech censorship continues to grow, please sign up for Faithwire’s daily newsletter and download the CBN News app to stay up-to-date with the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.
