Ours is a society built, in part, on the notion that free speech is both practically beneficial for our culture and intrinsically good.

A true commitment to free speech is, however, a rather unusual value.

It isn’t merely the case that repressive, totalitarian regimes don’t value speech as we do. As we’ve seen recently, even a “Western democracy” like the United Kingdom is often seduced by other values that it prioritizes over free speech, leading it to impose systematic punishment for mere ideas—or even jokes.

At least during my lifetime, we Americans have been special (perhaps unique) in the preeminence we assign to free speech. But all it takes to undermine this core value is the proliferation of the simple, misguided idea that disagreement justifies violence; that it is acceptable to use force to silence, injure, or even kill someone for expressing an idea that is contrary to the ideology that you hold dear.

This poisonous philosophy can metastasize quickly into related ideas like “my enemies are Nazis” and “we all know that it’s ok to punch Nazis!” and “I’M going to punch a Nazi!!!”

It’s a short walk from there to “killing those who threaten my ideology—the one true ideology, naturally—is actually a public service, and it is my duty to do it. For the common good, of course.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its annual college free speech report yesterday. One of the top-line findings: “A record 1 in 3 students now holds some level of acceptance – even if only “rarely” — for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech.”

One in three.

Not one in three violent criminals. Not one in three profoundly mentally ill people. Not one in three radical extremists.

One in three college students.

One in three college students will NOT say that violence is never acceptable to stop a campus speech.

A speech.

Respectfully, people who talk about “toning down rhetoric” miss the point. I understand that argument, and I don’t advocate for inflammatory rhetoric, either, but the real lesson students—and everyone—should be learning is to be resilient in the face of ideas we don’t like.

Resilience, not violence.

The “cure” for speech we don’t like has always been more speech.

Unfortunately, a very different lesson has been taught to and adopted by an increasingly large portion of our populace, particularly the college-educated. Namely, the destructive idea that “speech I don’t like is violence.” And, relatedly, “actual violence to counter speech I don’t like is justified.” See, e.g., the latest FIRE report.

Even today, in the wake of the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, the response to that act is instructive. When you hear prominent voices equivocating, or focusing on what they deem to be Kirk’s so-called “hate speech,” ask yourself if these individuals actually believe in the principle of free speech, or if their beliefs align more with those of the one in three college students FIRE identified.

And therein lies the much larger problem. The people who tacitly—or explicitly—believe that violence is a reasonable reaction to certain speech have reached critical mass. This trend must reverse. And fast.

Unfortunately, such trends seldom do recede quickly, taking almost as many years to unravel as they did to build.

Today’s assassination of Charlie Kirk—on a university campus, amid an event premised on peaceful, cross-ideological dialogue—not only disturbs and shocks us; it confirms our most pessimistic fears about the direction of our country.

A society that even tacitly allows someone to be killed for their words or beliefs alone has crossed a moral Rubicon. We must insist, with every fiber of our civic conscience, that speech is never violence, violence is never speech, and ideas alone never justify violence.

If there is reason for hope in this dark hour, it is that Charlie Kirk’s death may serve as a defining pivot: not to yet more violence, but to a renewal of the bedrock principle that disagreement deserves engagement, not eradication.

If we choose to turn away from that principle, we risk irreparable damage to a country built on the courage to speak and the resilience to listen.