The Caricature of Charlie Kirk: How Misinformation Fuels Racial Hostility – Part 1”

In the wake of pioneer conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, many on social media have responded with disturbing displays of celebration. Among the most troubling reactions have come from black people who frame their approval of his death around accusations of “racism”. Black pastors have taken to the pulpit to further defame Charlie Kirk as an “unapologetic racist”, “white supremacist”, and some have called him straight up “evil” while their cult-like congregation praises Jesus for the pastor's lies. The image of Charlie Kirk that some have accepted is a caricature—amplifying certain traits while ignoring the broader context of his beliefs. In this series I will examine the rhetoric used to justify such celebrations and justifications, analyzing where Kirk’s words and positions genuinely warrant the labels his critics have assigned to him.

The first distortion of Charlie Kirk's comments that blacks cite is his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many have accepted a caricature of Charlie Kirk, regurgitating left-wing claims like ‘he opposed the Civil Rights Act’ or ‘he didn’t want Black Americans to have rights.’ These assertions misrepresent his position and ignore the nuance of his critique. Kirk was confronted at one of his college events by a black student about his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, and Kirk responded with "I think you should have a one-page bill that says that racial discrimination based on race is illegal and will not be tolerated in the United States of America. Most black Americans don't support men in female sports. So the Civil Rights Act was used to help black America originally, totally get that, but now the way it was written is that any claim of identification, so if someone says, "I am a woman, therefore I can compete in your volleyball team," they will come in with a Civil Rights claim. So what we are saying is no, it should be specified to racial, not gender, and all the other stuff, and there were all these other provisions as well." This is Kirk's position on the Civil Rights Act. He argued that the Civil Rights Act was drafted too broadly, and that its expansive interpretation has enabled LGBTQ activists to leverage its provisions in ways that, in his view, undermine the original intent of the law—particularly its role in advancing protections for Black Americans. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, America was in the middle of the civil rights movement. The law was aimed at ending segregation in schools, hotels, buses, restaurants, and workplaces. It banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1964, we all knew that no one was thinking about men who pretended to be women wanting to go into female locker rooms, bathrooms, or dominate women's sports. The primary focus was dismantling Jim Crow and opening opportunities for African Americans. So how did we get here? The key section of the Civil Rights Act is Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex(along with race, religion, color, and national origin). In 1964, "sex" was simply understood as biological male or female, not sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the law's wording was broad and left open to interpretation, allowing courts to reinterpret it over time. For example, in 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, arguing "It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being a homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex." Now, some of you might say "you can't just fire people for being gay or a tranny”, and you might be right, but its ripple effect reached far beyond the workplace. Courts interpret Title IX using the same logic as Title VII, and Bostock immediately reshaped how federal agencies and schools handle transgender rights. This case gets to the heart of Charlie Kirk's position on the Civil Rights Act. In 2021, B.P.J. v. West Virginia, Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender girl(biological boy), challenged a state law, with the help of the ACLU,  that banned him from playing on the girls ' cross-country team. Due to an injunction issued by the lower courts at the outset of the case, Becky was permitted to compete in middle school cross-country and track and field for the past three years. Then, on April 16, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that West Virginia's law barring him from girls' sports teams violated Title IX. The court also concluded that the district court had erred in dismissing her equal protection claim. The Civil Rights Act has been hijacked and corrupted by LGBTQ activists and has taken away rights from some of the people it was meant to protect.  In the Becky Pepper-Jackson case, the court's decision didn't just compromise fairness—it stripped away hard-won protections from young girls, especially black girls who have historically been at the forefront of the fight for equity. Title IX was born out of the civil rights movement to uplift those who had long been excluded from opportunities. Rewriting its purpose to justify exclusion under the banner of inclusion doesn't just distort the law—it betrays the very Black girls it was meant to protect. This is why conservatives criticize the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not because conservatives want to strip black people's rights away and put blacks back in chains like Joe Biden famously claimed while speaking at a black church. Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok! By the Democrats(communists) to hate the white Christian conservative, so anything blacks hear them say, they will not fact-check or do any research to verify its credibility, and that's a dangerous place to be to have hate in your hearts for no reason. The misrepresentation of Kirk's opinions extends beyond the Civil Rights Act. In Part 2, we will address one of the most provocative allegations made against him: the assertion that he stated, "Black women do not possess the cognitive capacity to be deemed qualified." We will investigate the source of this statement, its utilization in discussions surrounding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and whether it accurately represents Kirk's true stance—or if it is merely another exaggerated depiction intended to incite racial animosity and suppress opposition.