The younger generation is more tolerant than ever of political violence. I'm not shocked because I witnessed how students react to political differences on college campuses. It's not about Left and Right—it's about losing the fundamental idea that disagreement is good in democracy.
Following Charlie Kirk's death, so many politicians and older Americans seemed completely shocked at the younger generation's record-high tolerance of political violence. After spending four years in elite academia, I'm not shocked at all. I wish I were.
I graduated from Penn this past May with my Bachelor's in English and Minors in Political Science and Hispanic Studies. Throughout my time at Penn, I was deeply involved with College Republicans, but not by design. Long story short, I came into Penn as a strong liberal, grounded in the Democratic values I grew up with.
However, when I arrived on campus, I noticed that stepping out of line meant political isolation. I grew up in a community that believed in critical thinking and questioning, in a family that believed political nuance and not following the party line exactly were indicators of well-formed viewpoints.
What I noticed at Penn, at one of the oldest, most prestigious universities in the country, was that intellectual diversity was not valued by the community. Conformity was key. This led me to College Republicans, where I ultimately found that my views across the political spectrum found a home.
In the Freedom for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, key findings would undoubtedly shock older generations. But for anyone expressing nuanced and diverse viewpoints on a college campus, we're used to this reality.
During my four years at Penn, I heard grave antisemitic comments from pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus and offensive comments from the other side dismissing the Palestinian struggle. During one demonstration, one of the loudest chants was, "There is only one solution. Student-led revolution." I listened in lectures as professors tiptoed around material anxiously, worried about getting canceled by students. I heard students in my political science classes curate opinions they thought would be socially acceptable.
But all of these offenses seem minor—irrelevant even. The idea of hostility toward different viewpoints on a college campus isn't a new phenomenon. The newest turn in the bleak trajectory of higher education occurred following Charlie Kirk's horrible death.
On Sidechat, an anonymous app that functions similarly to Reddit, where anyone with a Penn University email can post, I was appalled. Appalled, but not surprised. As a response to "RIP Charlie Kirk," someone responded, "Rest in piss indeed," with nearly a hundred upvotes. Some of the highly upvoted posts included:
"oh no! a bad human being died."
"the man who said 'gun deaths are necessary to protect the 2nd amendment' got shot. i guess he finally decided to stand on business and support his claims."
"if you're promoting the removal of human rights for minorities and anti gun control rhetoric then i'm not gonna pray for you when you get shot."
What's worse? The student response to Penn College Republicans holding a vigil for Kirk's death. You would guess—as Americans who believe in freedom of speech and embrace dialogue across the political spectrum—that Penn students would have turned out in waves to remember the life of a man who devoted himself to hosting conversations with those who think differently. Instead, the group was a small number of right-leaning students.
When the predominant university newspaper covered the event, the comments demonstrated no empathy. "At least the rest of the student body can now easily identify the racists," one comment with hundreds of likes read.
Another one stated, "The impact he had was fundamentally negative in every respect, so I can see why the college Republicans embraced him."
This is what unfiltered social media dialogue looks like at one of the most elite universities in the country, if not the world. These are the attitudes that some of the "best and brightest" students in the world hold toward views that differ from their own.
What's happening at Penn is happening across college campuses in America.
FIRE's report also revealed that—for the first time ever—a majority of students opposed their school allowing controversial speakers to speak. Moreover, the percentage of students saying it is acceptable to shout down a speaker, block entry to a speaker's event, or use violence to stop a campus speech is at record highs.
What FIRE also found? While students are becoming increasingly more tolerant of political violence, they're becoming less tolerant of controversial viewpoints on the whole.
So, what does this mean? It's not about left-leaning or right-leaning, Republicans or Democrats. It's about young people losing the fundamental American idea that differences in opinion should be embraced.
My story at Penn is one that students experience every day across America. Disagreement is under attack. If we don't tackle the root of the problem in higher education, political violence will no longer shock us—it will define us.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member