By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Charlie Kirk, after the 2016 election, created a Professor Watchlist to expose professors deemed “radical left.” Professor Matthew Boedy, who has been on the list, is now concerned about Kirk being portrayed as a martyr following his recent death. Boedy, who was planning a presentation about Kirk’s “Seven Mountains” strategy for Christian influence, now contemplates how to address the topic of martyrdom and the potential for increased division. He views the situation as a tragic national moment, referencing Kirk’s assassination on a college campus due to gun violence, echoing his past involvement with the group, Turning Point USA. Boedy fears that framing Kirk as a martyr could exacerbate existing societal divides and incite further conflict.
Read the original article here
A professor on Charlie Kirk’s watchlist reflects on Kirk’s death, and the initial thought that comes to mind is a complex mix of emotions, a maelstrom really. There’s a distinct lack of surprise, to be frank. Given the climate Kirk helped cultivate, the seeds of hostility he sowed, the eventual harvest was, in a way, predictable. It’s a strange feeling to be caught in this aftermath, to witness the fall of someone who, through their platform, had actively targeted academics like myself, those deemed “radical leftists.” It’s a time for reflection.
One can’t help but think about the Professor Watchlist. The insidious nature of it, the way it painted a target on the backs of educators. Suddenly, a professor’s name, their field of study, their opinions, all become fodder for online harassment, for threats, for the kind of vitriol that can seep into every aspect of life. The list wasn’t just a list; it was a weapon, a tool for intimidation. The impact on the academic community was palpable. Colleagues, friends, myself included, felt the chill wind of fear, the knowledge that we were being watched, monitored, and potentially, hunted.
What’s truly troubling is how this rhetoric has become mainstream. Kirk and his ilk weren’t fringe figures; they had access to massive platforms. They amplified these ideas to a large audience, normalizing the demonization of dissent, of critical thought, of anything that didn’t conform to their narrow worldview. And the consequences of that normalization are what we’re seeing play out now. The extreme rhetoric has real-world effects, and it seems clear that some of the people on the watchlist, like myself, have faced intimidation, even terror, because of what has been spread.
It’s easy to say that this is the result of hate speech, but it’s more insidious than that. It’s a calculated effort to destabilize institutions, to erode trust in expertise and knowledge. Kirk’s platform, and others like it, did more than just promote a particular ideology. They fostered a climate of fear and suspicion. They encouraged people to see their neighbors, their colleagues, even their own families, as enemies. That kind of environment is fertile ground for violence, for extremism.
But here we are. The man who spearheaded the Watchlist is gone. His death, as tragic as it may be, is not a moment for celebration. It’s a moment for sobriety. It’s a moment to acknowledge the dangerous path we’ve been walking, the rhetoric that has brought us to this point. It’s not about the individual. It’s about the system, the values, the ideology that fueled the whole thing.
What comes next? The fear is that the vacuum left by Kirk will be filled by someone even more extreme, someone less restrained. That’s the worry of the moment. Someone who takes it a step further. We should name and shame these people, keeping lists of our own, if that’s what’s necessary to fight against it. We need to be vigilant in protecting our institutions, our values, our very way of life. This situation has to bring a sense of introspection about the climate we live in.
One cannot forget the legacy of hate. The things that were said, the ideas that were propagated. The words that have the potential to cause real harm to people who may be different from the speaker. Words matter. They have consequences. And the legacy of people like Kirk will be one of division, of fear, and of the violence that inevitably follows. It’s hard to find anything good about the man and the values that he shared.
The situation presents a unique challenge. The irony, the grim humor of it all, is hard to ignore. A man who, in essence, built a career on targeting his perceived enemies, is now gone, a victim of the very forces he helped unleash. What a strange and terrible lesson for those of us who are left. The need for a better approach has never been more apparent.