Posted on 09/16/2025 8:14:19 AM PDT by simpson96
On Sept. 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck at Utah Valley University during the first stop of his “American Comeback” tour. I was in my audition seminar class when I absentmindedly checked my phone and audibly gasped as my eyes glanced over the Washington Post notification.
I followed the story into my next class, refreshing my laptop for updates and texting my friends. I was vaguely familiar with Kirk for his controversial right-wing extremist takes, and his murder came as a shock to me and many others, most likely because we tend to view public figures as untouchable.
This was a story I followed for days. I analyzed my classmates’ reactions to it, the media’s coverage of it, social media and politicians’ takes, etc. I wondered why his death and the handling of such (being flown on Air Force 2 and posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom) was of the highest honors despite him being a podcaster and having held no public office.
As news outlets chronicled his legacy and Kirk’s friends and family emotionally reflected on his life, I was curious to see what truly made this man so great. Some surface-level research and video compilations of his most controversial quotes quickly left me frustrated but not surprised, most specifically his comments about race.
This piece could’ve been “What Charlie Kirk got wrong about Black people,” instead of Black women. The only reason it is not is because I am loosely bound to a word count, so I will instead focus on the demographic that most directly affects me.
For about as long as America has been alive and colonized, Black women have been devalued, degraded and unfairly depreciated. It is a common saying in Black households that Black women must be “twice as good” to be awarded half as much as their white counterparts.
There are two direct quotes that I would like to pick apart. Both were said by Kirk on “The Charlie Kirk Show.”
The first is, “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” The second is as follows, “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
First, let’s take a quick crash course in affirmative action. Affirmative action is when organizations make an active effort by devoting resources to better the employment and educational opportunities of marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities and women. Historically, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action. It is not executed in the form of quotas (banned by the Supreme Court in the late 1970s), it does not discriminate against white men and it certainly does not hire unqualified individuals (which is against federal law).
Additionally, Joy Reid went to Harvard for her undergraduate degree. Michelle Obama went to Princeton and Harvard Law School. Sheila Jackson Lee went to NYU, transferred to Yale, and later attended UVA Law School. Ketanji Brown Jackson attended Harvard University for her undergraduate degree and Harvard Law School. Charlie Kirk attended Harper College for one semester before dropping out. Why was he challenging the intellectual competency of these Black women when they have run educational laps around him?
Kirk saying that these highly educated women do not possess the “brain processing power” to be taken seriously is problematic primarily because it is reminiscent of 19th-century pseudoscientific rhetoric that white people would use to justify the abuse of Black people and their low social status. They alleged that Black people had thicker skin and could thus tolerate more pain, less lung capacity and smaller skulls — attributed to the pseudoscience of phrenology, which asserts that cranium size and shape is indicative of mental ability.
Finally, Kirk’s assertion that these women are “stealing a white person’s slot” is troublesome because it implies that only white people are entitled to prestigious roles like “first lady” or “talk show host” or “Supreme Court justice”. This is white supremacist ideology that should be condemned on all fronts. The idea that white people are the only ones deserving of positions of power is incredibly racist and false, given that they are not the only competent ethnic group and those “slots” in question are fair game for anybody.
Kirk’s harmful rhetoric toward Black women is something that I felt compelled to address given that his words are not only insulting to me, but to my Black female friends, family, classmates and colleagues as well. His racist remarks are inevitably a part of his legacy, and should be consequently painted into the picture of his character.
“Additionally, Joy Reid went to Harvard for her undergraduate degree. Michelle Obama went to Princeton and Harvard Law School. Sheila Jackson Lee went to NYU, transferred to Yale, and later attended UVA Law School. Ketanji Brown Jackson attended Harvard University for her undergraduate degree and Harvard Law School. Charlie Kirk attended Harper College for one semester before dropping out. Why was he challenging the intellectual competency of these Black women when they have run educational laps around him?”
Maybe because their words and actions belied any claim to intellectual competency thereby proving that affirmative action did not protect the best and brightest Black women from real life discrimination in education but ignored their lack of merit in some Leftist numbers game.
What an incredibly wretched choice of examples to demonstrate the intellectual prowess of black women. To hold these pathetic creatures up as paragons of black female cognitive excellence is insulting to black women generally. They're MORONS.
Hey, Zora! What. Is. A. Woman? Your hero Ketanji doesn't know. Do you?
Charlie was a voracious autodidact. Which makes him better than the rest.and propelled him to debate anyone to keep building his arguments.
This whole piece is so distorted, I wonder if Charlie’s estate can sue for defamation? There was a clearly defamatory piece on him in The Nation that desperately deserves a lawsuit. This article in The Observer could possibly be a contender too. The big German propaganda network ZDF has repeatedly vilely slandered Charlie, so that should definitely be on the defamation suit list (and that after a decade of the most absurd and outrageous overt propaganda against Trump that you’d almost think is a parody done up as “news”). The Canadian CBC might also fit. I suspect there are numerous, numerous other outlets that can be added to the suits, once the estate gets properly established.
Thank you for that.
They’re doing the same thing to Charlie that they’ve done to Trump. They change the words he actually said, to something that fits their agenda. They do not quote these men directly. They take part of it, twist it around, and then call it a quote, which it isn’t. It’s a misrepresentation of what they said, and they pass it along over and over.
Here’s a clickable link of that piece for those who don’t want to copy and paste into their browser.
Never any explanation on why named groups are "marginalized".
Could it be lack of initiative of named groups?
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." (author unknown)
Another self-loathing white theater twat.
I seriously question ND being Catholic. CINO: Catholic In Name Only...
Extremist? Obviously this clown never watched Charlie speak on a campus. I've watched hundreds of his videos and I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone who has seen him and still has one neuron firing can label him a "right-wing extremist". This was spoon-fed to her by some Leftist and she took it in without checking for herself. Yet another dunce...
Obviously she doesn’t grasp that affirmative action actually deprives the deserving of recognition, because it undermines recognition of merit. Instead of being spotted because you stood out and rose above the crowd with hard work and study, the crowd has been artificially brought up to your level and your accomplishments considered no more worthy of recognition than those who didn’t put in any effort, whose diplomas were just handed to them to avoid hurt feelings. Your degree looks just like the next one.
Does anyone have a link to the video of this discussion? I have had libs bring this up before and figured it was a misrepresentation of what he said but have never seen the video.
Full of lies and hate, the entire article is an embarrassment to the university and to the Catholic Faith, promoting many factually false narratives and piling on ad hominins in the process.
The entire thing starts with the false premise of systematic racism and inherent white supremacy, what utter bilge.
She is lying about what Kirk said.
“There are plenty of really intelligent black women who don’t need DEI. They should be promoted - not the PC blacks propped up by DEI.”
And those are the ones hurt most by DEI, because they’ll be invariably assumed to have gotten their job via DEI.
“Black women have been devalued, degraded and unfairly depreciated. It is a common saying in Black households that Black women must be “twice as good” to be awarded half as much as their white counterparts.”
___________________________________________________
If by “twice as good” she means having half of the grades and SAT scores, then she is correct. This is such BS. I went to an institution of higher learning back in the 90s and our dean bragged about how 1/3 of the student body was black. It was obvious that many of these black students were over-matched, so they engaged in group therapy. When they flunked classes, they started blaming it on the “white curriculum” and biased white professors. Many would have been much better off at a lower tier school.
More bull shit from the lefties, f them.
Here, she accidentally reveals the truth of Charlie's argument. These women might have obtained these educational credentials, but they don't have the intellectual abilities of Kirk, a community college dropout.
The only flaw in Charlie's premise is that it was more likely that the black women took the spot that might have gone to Asian students.
It was also sort of amusing to see Rodgers add that quotas are against the law in light of the recent revelations of various college administrators admit that they have subtle ways of hiding their continued use of DEI programs in a disguised way.
Zora kind of reminds me of Jessica Tarlov. Taking untrue things and insisting they are true because she read it on the internet or a left talking point memo of the day.
Zora Rodgers is a foot soldier in the massive blue army that the education sector produces.
Any liberal cause or crusade resonates with them, while non liberal movements repel them.
They’re the backbone of the woman, beta male, gay, minority, foreigner, environmental zealot party known as the democrats.
It is a Catholic institution
It is consecrated to Our Lady
Notre Dame
It has been spiritually neglected. Overrun
Parents think it will instill Catholicism in their kids. That’s why it was taken over. For destruction
CINO is Catholic
They have not declared that they are not Catholic. Parents are wise to steer clear as it has been overrun
People need to wise up that’s all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.