The NFL’s Charlie Kirk tribute was divisive
Photo Courtesy of Adobe Stock
Last week, teams across the NFL chose to honor Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist and founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA who was assassinated on Sept. 10 during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University. But for the NFL, it was less about respect and more about a calculation of their image.
The day after his death, the NFL decided to mandate a moment of silence before the Thursday Night Football game between the Green Bay Packers and Washington Commanders. The league then stated that the remaining teams could decide whether or not they wanted to honor Kirk.
All NFL teams except for the Lions, Bengals, Ravens, Colts, Raiders, Steelers and Vikings chose to honor Kirk with a moment of silence. The Texans held a moment of silence, but they did not explicitly name Kirk, and instead decided to pay tribute to “all victims of violence and natural disasters across the country.”
Kirk’s influence on the climate of American politics today cannot be understated: he had a grip on the conservative youth that was unlike anything seen in recent memory. Between his podcast “The Charlie Kirk Show,” nationwide campus events and viral social media moments, Kirk’s controversial opinions and “gotcha” debate moments made him both a prominent leader to supporters and a deeply harmful figure to critics.
Even for those who disagreed with him, even for those who thought his rhetoric was harmful or hateful, his death is a tragedy. Not only was a life taken too young, but there is now a stain on our democracy. The United States was founded on principles of free thought and free expression, and any assault on these ideals cannot be tolerated. As a nation, we cannot turn to killing as a solution to our political problems.
At the same time, though, it must not be forgotten what Kirk stood for.
He called being gay an “error” and relentlessly advocated against the rights of individuals in the LGBTQ+ community.
He suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark legislation that outlawed racial discrimination and segregation, was a mistake. He said he would question the qualifications of his pilot if they were black, and that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.”
He compared New York City Democratic Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks solely because he is Muslim, and has attacked Islam’s freedom of expression in American public life.
Kirk once said: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
Kirk masked himself in a facade of thoughtful debate and free speech, but his strategy was mostly performance — targeting young audiences who often lacked expertise, belittling their knowledge to frame himself as the only serious thinker in the room and playing to the crowd instead of engaging honestly.
None of this, however, justifies violence against him, and there is no excuse for supporting or celebrating his death. Civil discourse is a part of the fabric of our nation, and the moment we applaud a political murder is the moment we lose track of our values. But the question remains whether the NFL and its teams should have honored a man who so often sought to deny the rights of others in the name of his own version of freedom.
The NFL had a far different approach in the case of Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who famously knelt during the national anthem before games in the 2016 season to protest racial inequality and police violence. Kaepernick was vilified, painted as unpatriotic and blackballed from the league. He was forced out of football for daring to speak against injustice. Critics' frequent objection was that sports should be a politics-free zone.
The NFL didn’t want to be associated with Kaepernick's views, so they got rid of him. They had an image that they wanted to maintain, and they did what they thought would be best for marketing and sales.
Years later, when nationwide protests against racial injustice were at their peak in 2020, the NFL took steps to apologize to Kaepernick and align itself with the movement, pledging $250 million over 10 years to combat systemic racism and support community programs. The league also began to allow approved social justice messages on helmets and end zones, and they planned to have “Lift Every Voice and Sing” (often called the “Black National Anthem”) performed before season openers and other big games.
The NFL has a shaky history when it comes to its handling of political and social issues. But one theme has stayed consistent: any gesture that is looked upon as politically safe and media-friendly is welcomed with open-arms, while meaningful concerns and reforms are left unaddressed.
The NFL and its teams chose to honor Kirk because it was safe. It didn’t cost any money and Kirk appealed to a significant portion of their fanbase. Similar to the handling of Kaepernick in 2016 and the social justice protests in 2020, the NFL responded to this polarizing moment with what they believed would be best for their image — not for any moral reasons.
Kirk's death was tragic, but people die from gun violence every day. Students are killed indiscriminately in their classrooms. Two Minnesota lawmakers were targeted in a politically motivated attack in June, with Melissa Hortman killed alongside her husband and the other narrowly surviving. But you don’t see a league-wide moment of remembrance for every mass killing or act of political violence.
It’s good for the NFL to want to condemn violence and honor a life lost. But in the midst of America’s increasing political tension, viewers now wrestle with the question: were they also inadvertently condoning Kirk’s views? If so, it suggests that the NFL tolerates — and therefore legitimizes — the exclusionary, divisive views Kirk promoted.