On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was assassinated at the outset of a university speaking tour that was widely publicised for its aim: to engage young people in conversations about politics, culture—and education.
Times Union
His work had always placed universities at the centre of his activism. What wasn’t always clear to everyone was why he focused so intensely on campuses, and what “traditional values” he thought had been displaced by modern academia.
This article traces Kirk’s educational philosophy, how universities became a strategic front in his activism, what he meant by “returning to tradition,” the appeal and critiques of his stance, and what his death might mean for the conservative youth movement he helped shape.
The Educational Philosophy Behind Charlie Kirk
Charlie Kirk’s philosophy of education is built on several interlocking beliefs:
Universities are biasing toward liberal/progressive ideologies
Kirk viewed American higher education as skewed—favoring what he and his supporters call progressive or “left-wing” values: equity, identity politics, critical social theory, gender studies, etc. He believed these fields shape curricula, hiring, student norms, and campus culture in ways that marginalize conservative or traditional viewpoints.
Times Union
Traditional values are timeless and under threat
His ideal was a version of education rooted in what are often called “Western” or “classical” values: virtue ethics, discipline, hierarchy, order, respect for tradition, perhaps Christian moral frameworks, clearly defined gender roles, patriotism, and what he would view as objective truth rather than relativism.
Kirk believed these values had been displaced over time—especially since the 1960s—with progressive social movements, expansion of identity politics, and new fields of study.
Times Union
“De‑woke” the classroom
A key concept in Kirk’s toolkit was the idea of “de‑woking” education: removing what he considered “grievance politics”—the idea that certain groups are permanently marginalized because of their identity—from curricula and campus norms. He saw this as part of restoring a traditional meritocratic and universal standard of educational content and behaviour.
Times Union
Rejecting apology culture and identity politics
In his view, students should not need to apologize for their identities (for example, being white, being male, being Christian), and that identity itself should not automatically confer either advantage or disadvantage in an educational setting.
Rather, he promoted a vision of individuals held accountable to the same standard, without special treatment or guilt by identity alone.
Times Union
Why Universities Were Central to His Strategy
If those are Kirk’s beliefs, why did he spend so much time speaking at, organising on, and directing his efforts toward university campuses?
Universities shape the elite
Colleges and universities are not only places where young people learn a profession; they are formative for culture, values, social norms, and future leadership. Professors, administrators, and campus culture influence what students believe is acceptable or virtuous, and many graduates go on to become leaders in government, media, education, tech, etc. For someone like Kirk, influencing this group means influencing the future direction of society.
Times Union
Access to impressionable minds
Young people are often in periods of transition—exposed to new ideas, forming political identities, testing beliefs. Kirk’s speaking tours and the activities of TPUSA were designed to reach students during this formative time. Win this generation, so the logic goes, and you influence future generations by extension.
Times Union
Perception of universities as battlegrounds of ideas
Conservative critiques of academia often depict universities as spaces where liberal/social justice ideology dominates, sometimes shutting down dissent, or marginalizing conservative viewpoints. In this framing, universities are more than educational institutions: they are ideological strongholds. Kirk’s work aimed to challenge that stronghold—offering an alternative ideological space for conservative and traditionalist students, visible and vocal.
Times Union
Building a movement/community
Beyond persuasion, there was a movement-building aspect. Through TPUSA’s campus chapters, events, and Kirk’s presence, students were not just listeners but participants. They could meet others, hear like-minded leaders, get involved in activism, feel part of something. This builds loyalty, identity, and infrastructure (networks, skills, resources) for long‑term influence.
Times Union
Contrast and visibility
Public speaking at universities offers high visibility: media coverage, social media amplification, debates, controversy. Each event can highlight the contrast between what Kirk argued were traditional values and what he saw as liberal excesses, thereby reinforcing his message. The controversies themselves can be useful—all publicity etc.
Times Union
What “Traditional Values” Meant in Kirk’s Vision
“Kirk’s returning to traditional values” is not a single, monolithic program but a set of overlapping ideas, sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit. They include:
Moral universalism / virtue ethics: The idea that there are moral truths or virtues (honesty, discipline, courage, loyalty, etc.) that transcend identity or culture, and that education has a role in transmitting them.
Patriotism and national narrative: Emphasizing shared history, symbols, national identity, possibly founding myths, as anchors of civic life. That means less focus (in Kirk’s view) on the more critical or revisionist histories that expose injustice, structural inequity, colonization, etc., which are often emphasized in progressive curricula.
Clear gender roles or traditional gender norms: The idea that men and women have distinct roles or responsibilities, or that family structure should align with conventional patterns (e.g. marriage, children, motherhood/fatherhood roles). These may vary in expression, but are often pushed back against by more progressive or postmodern conceptions of gender.
Times Union
Meritocracy over equity/identity-based policies: Favoring the idea that people should succeed based on individual merit, effort, virtue, rather than policies designed to ameliorate historical or social disadvantage by identity (race, gender, etc.). Kirk’s educational philosophy critiques what he sees as overemphasis on “belonging,” “equity,” and “diversity” over “order” and “rigor.”
Times Union
Teaching what is “good for character”: The role of education is not just to prepare for jobs or social mobility but to form character (discipline, self-control, respect, personal responsibility). In his view, many universities had moved away from that aim.
Times Union
Reducing or rejecting what is seen as “grievance politics”: Kirk opposed what he considered a culture of complaining or seeing oneself as victim because of identity. Instead, he promoted the idea that one should aim to overcome obstacles without expecting identity-based accommodation or apology.
Times Union
The Historical and Political Context
To understand Kirk’s ideas, it helps to locate them within broader threads in American political and educational history.
Post‑1960s transformations
During the 1960s and 1970s, universities underwent several key changes: more diverse student populations, rise of civil rights movements, introduction of ethnic studies, gender studies, more open critique of power, more activism among students. Progressive and radical ideas gained institutional presence. Kirk and those who think like him view this as the moment when the balance shifted—when liberalism, identity politics, social justice frameworks began to shape curricula, hiring, campus speech policies, etc.
Culture wars & politicization of education
Over decades, education has become a central front in ideological conflicts—what is taught, who is teaching, which voices are heard, what history is foregrounded, etc. Debates over critical race theory, trans rights, gender identity, etc., are often part of this. For Kirk, these represent departures from what he calls timeless or traditional values.
The rise of conservative youth organizations
Groups like Turning Point USA (founded in 2012 by Kirk), among others, emerged to give conservative youth voice, organization, infrastructure, and influence. These groups often focus on campuses, free speech issues, speaker events, contests over curriculum. Kirk’s TPUSA is part of that ecosystem—locating both opportunity (the energy of youth, the visibility of campuses) and perceived threat (what conservatives believe is liberal dominance).
Political polarization and backlash against “wokeness”
In recent years, conservative critique of “wokeness,” “cancel culture,” or “identity politics” has become central, especially among populist, nationalist, and conservative media spheres. Kirk’s educational philosophy aligns closely with this rhetoric. His positioning is to push back—offering an alternative narrative.
Strengths and Mobilising Appeal
Kirk’s strategy has proofs of appeal and effectiveness, though also vulnerabilities. Some of the strengths:
Mobilising conservative youth
Many young conservatives feel that universities are hostile to their values or silence them. Kirk gives them a platform, a sense of belonging, a voice. For some students, that’s powerful. It aligns with what’s often called an identity counter‑community: young people who feel underrepresented or morally opposed to the dominant campus culture find Kirk’s message resonant.
Clear messaging & contrast
The framing is often “traditional values vs what the left is doing,” “order vs chaos,” “merit vs identity politics,” which has clarity and simplicity—useful for mass communication. In polarized social and political times, many people respond to clear contrasts more than nuanced shades.
Institutional presence & networks
Through TPUSA chapters, speaking tours, social media, mentorship pipelines, scholarships, etc., there is infrastructure. Younger members can see not only Kirk the leader, but also other young conservative role models. This helps sustain momentum.
Strategic opportunism
Moments of controversy—debates, clashes over speech, pronouncements about gender or race—become hooks for media attention. Kirk uses them to amplify messages about how the system is failing, or how what he sees as liberal dominance is suppressing voices. These become catalyzers for recruiting, fundraising, activism.
Critiques, Risks, and Tensions
Of course, Kirk’s vision is not uncontroversial. There are several critiques and tensions:
Idealization of the past / ambiguity
The “traditional values” Kirk wants to return to are often idealized or vague. Which past? Which traditions? What about the inequalities, exclusions, injustices that existed under those traditions (e.g., discrimination, sexism, racism)? Critics argue that many “traditional” practices were unjust and that simply returning to them without reform may repeat harm.
Privilege and equity concerns
When stressing merit and downplaying identity or structural disadvantage, there is the risk of ignoring or minimizing real disparities in access, resources, power. Critics argue that not all students start from the same place; for some, identity‑based policies or equity initiatives are necessary for fair opportunity, not special treatment. Kirk’s philosophy tends to see such initiatives as “grievance” rather than justice.
Times Union
Academic freedom & intellectual diversity
While Kirk argues for more conservative voice, some critics warn of the danger of politicizing education in ways that might suppress academic freedom, discourage critical thinking, or promote conformity (even if of a different kind). There’s a tension between wanting education to transmit certain values and allowing students to question, critique, explore conflicting or unpopular ideas.
Oversimplification / polarization
The framing of “traditional vs woke / left” can produce an us vs them mentality, leading to increased polarization. Complex issues—e.g., how to teach history, how to balance narratives—are reduced to binary conflicts. This can make compromise, nuanced debate, or reform harder.
Practical implementation
What does it mean in practice to “return to tradition”? Changing curricula, hiring, administration, student policies, etc., involves concrete decisions, legal issues, funding, accreditation. Some of those may conflict with existing laws (e.g. non‑discrimination), norms, or academic standards. Also, students and faculty are diverse; trying to enforce uniformity may face resistance.
The Tour, His Death, and What Comes Next
Kirk’s university tour in 2025 (or “The American Comeback Tour,” among other names) was intended to be an overt continuation of the pattern: speaking directly with students, engaging in dialogue, perhaps even challenging what he saw as liberal dominance in academic discourse.
New York Post
+1
His death adds a tragic and possibly catalytic dimension. Some possible implications:
Martyrdom effect
To many supporters, Kirk’s assassination may galvanize the movement, increase its visibility, intensify emotional investment. The narrative may shift: not just about ideas, but about perceived oppression or threat. As news sources report, TPUSA reportedly received tens of thousands more chapter requests in the immediate aftermath.
New York Post
Questions of safety and freedom of speech
The fact that a political activist was shot on a college campus raises questions about safety, protest culture, speech, and the limits of political expression. These debates may deepen, perhaps pushing more people to align with Kirk’s critique of universities as unsafe spaces for dissent.
Potential shift in tactics
Without Kirk’s direct leadership, TPUSA and similar groups may evolve in strategy. Will they double down on public events and personal presence (as Kirk often did), or move to more digital, decentralized modes? Will they moderate or intensify rhetoric? Will they try to institutionalize more inside academia (e.g., influencing hiring, curricula, accreditation) or focus more on external pressure (legislature, public opinion)?
Broader Reflections: Education, Values, and Society
Kirk’s project forces us to ask deeper questions, not only about what he wanted, but about what role education should play in shaping a society’s values, and how democratic societies negotiate between tradition and change.
What is the purpose of education?
Is it to prepare people for the workforce? To instill civic virtues? To foster critical thinking? To redress historical inequities? To maintain social order? Most likely, education must encompass many of these, but different stakeholders emphasise different aims. Kirk’s emphasis is heavily moral/character and civic/traditional roles, less so on identity or social justice.
How to balance tradition and progress
Societies change. Values evolve. What was considered “traditional” might now be seen as exclusionary, oppressive, or unjust by many. Balancing respect for tradition (and its benefits—cohesion, identity, shared norms) with openness to change (inclusion, recognition of past harms, pluralism) is difficult and often contested.
Who gets to define tradition?
“Traditional values” can mean different things to different communities. What is traditional for one region, culture, or religious group may differ from another. In a diverse society, whose tradition counts? How to ensure that invoking tradition does not become a tool of silencing minority perspectives or enforcing conformity?
Power, curriculum, and institutional structures
Values are transmitted not only through speeches, but through textbooks, which courses are offered, who teaches them, what topics are prioritized. Changing educational culture often means intervening in hiring, funding, accreditation, policy. Many of these are slow, contested, and involve legal or bureaucratic constraints. For example, universities usually have protections for academic freedom, tenure, etc.
The risk of reactionary drift
Whenever there is a powerful reaction against perceived excesses of a previous era, there is risk of overshoot: rejecting not just the excesses, but useful reforms; suppressing needed critique; stifling new voices. For instance, efforts to reduce “grievance politics” might end up downplaying legitimate concerns of marginalized groups.
Conclusion: What Kirk’s Strategy Leaves Behind
Charlie Kirk’s decision to focus on universities was strategic, ideological, and deeply political. It reflected a belief that control over ideas, narratives, values—especially among the young—is foundational to cultural and political power. His educational philosophy aimed not just at policy, but identity: how students view themselves, what they see as moral, what they consider normal or deviant, who they see as worthy of respect or authority.
The legacy he leaves is mixed. On one hand, he built a national movement, made the “traditional values vs woke” dichotomy central in public discourse, energised many young people who felt alienated or unheard, and forced universities to reckon with critiques of liberal bias, free speech, curriculum content. On the other, the tensions in his vision remain real: how to ensure equity, how to respect pluralism, how to avoid oversimplification, how to define which traditions are worth preserving.
If one were to assess the success of his project in the long term, some metrics might include: how universities respond in curriculum and governance; whether conservative students and faculty become more visible and institutionally supported; how public opinion shifts on education; what kinds of laws or policies follow (e.g., state regulation of K‑12 or higher ed curricula, funding conditionality, free speech / speech codes); and how durable the network of conservative youth activism remains without Kirk.
In the end, Charlie Kirk’s engagement with universities was about more than speeches. It was about reclaiming what he saw as an educational culture that had lost its moral compass—and about shaping future generations to see the world through that lens. Whether or not one agrees with his diagnosis or prescriptions, his impact is a case study in how education, values, culture, and politics are deeply intertwined—and how much stake many Americans have in what university education becomes.