[OPINION] The word “racist” gets thrown around so easily these days. It’s become this heavy hammer that people swing without much thought. Somewhere along the way, we lost the space for nuance -for conversation that isn’t immediately about sides or outrage. We’ve gotten used to sorting people into neat little boxes: good or bad, moral or immoral, racist or not. But the world doesn’t really work like that. People don’t either.
After spending some time digging into Charlie Kirk’s work and his interviews, my conclusion is that he is not a racist in the truest sense of the word. That doesn’t mean I agree with him or excuse the way he talked - some of it was tone-deaf, insensitive, and unnecessarily provocative. But racism, at its core, is about believing one race is superior to another. And I don't get the sense that Kirk believed that. When his words are carefully analyzed, they show more his eagerness to challenge policy -specifically Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs through shock value than about any entrenched belief in racial superiority.
One of the moments people point to most often is his “Black pilot” comment. I get it - out of context, it’s jarring. But if you watch the whole clip, his full point - however poorly made- was about how DEI initiatives could create new forms of bias. Bias, he made it clear that he did not agree with.
Full Charlie Kirk quote:
“Excuse me if I see a black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘boy, I hope he’s qualified.’ That’s not who I am, that’s not what I believe... [DEI] creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don’t want to think that way. And no one should.”
I believe his choice of example was unquestionably insensitive, and it is reasonable to ask why his first illustration of “unhealthy thinking” was tied to race. He could have critiqued DEI policies without making Black people the focal point. Not only that, he did not fully address the historical context that gave rise to DEI policies, namely that underqualified white individuals were often privileged over equally or more qualified minorities long before such initiatives existed.
SEE MORE OF HIS QUOTES - IN CONTEXT
Still, if we’re being honest, his intent wasn’t to insult Black pilots -it was to attack the idea of quotas. "Kirk was criticizing diversity quotas, not Black pilots as a whole, and certainly not the ability of a Black person to be a great pilot. His point was that DEI hiring can distort the overall pool of employees, and reasonable people must then doubt whether a person of color was hired on merit." [1]
His delivery was sharp and careless at times, and that carelessness hurt people. But intent and impact aren’t always the same thing, and both matter.
Kirk was a provocateur by nature. He wanted to stir the pot, make headlines, and spark conversations. And when your goal is provocation, you almost always lose some of your humanity in the process. His point about policy was overshadowed by the outrage his words caused. And that’s on him.
I didn’t support Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric then, and I don’t now. However, I also think we’ve developed a bad habit of labeling people without taking the time to understand what they meant - or who they truly are. It’s easier to cancel someone than to sit with the discomfort of complexity.
Maybe both things can be true: his words were harmful, and he wasn’t a racist. It’s a distinction that matters, because once we stop making it, we lose the ability to talk to each other at all.
Rest in peace, CK