Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Ruggles, PhD Candidate in Politics, Brandeis University

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on Sept. 10, 2025, at the start of a college campus tour that centered on Kirk discussing politics – and education – with students.

A large part of Kirk’s political activism centered on what education should look like. Amy Lieberman, The Conversation’s education editor, spoke with Daniel Ruggles, a scholar of conservative youth activism, to better understand the beliefs about education that influenced Kirk and the connection he tried to make with young people.

What is most important to understand about Charlie Kirk’s views on education?

Charlie Kirk’s education philosophy was founded upon the idea of not being on the left. One of the problems with that approach is that it’s harder to explain your ideas and values in a positive way instead of just being “anti” left.

Conservatives, well before Kirk’s time, have been trying to reclaim education from liberals whom they view as valuing equity and belonging instead of timeless values of order and traditional values in society. This philosophy overall focuses on reclaiming education from liberals.

There is a lot of alignment with Kirk’s education philosophy and the Make America Great Again movement, but his approach predates Donald Trump’s rise. It is focused on returning to what conservatives call Western and “traditional” values. This means rolling back the clock to an idealized time when men and women had set gender roles in society and life was more harmonious and wholesome. At its best, this education philosophy can be valuable – teaching what society views as virtuous behavior, ethics and tradition – but it can also prioritize tradition and privilege over justice and equity.

This philosophy also has to do with not feeling a need to apologize for one’s identity. A big divide between liberals and conservatives is how they explain disadvantage. Conservatives like Kirk believe they should not have to apologize for their identities, and other people’s identities should not be a reason for special treatment.

This philosophy is not so much about making education more effective as much as it is about not being “woke.” De-woking the classroom is usually the overall goal. This involves ridding the classroom of what is known as grievance politics – meaning someone believes they have been marginalized because of their identity, race, gender or sexuality.

How far back can you trace this educational philosophy?

The 1960s had an explosion of progressive activism amid the New Left and antiwar movements as young adults realized that they could now demand certain rights. At the same time, there were a lot of young conservatives on campuses who felt fine with the way things were or who were concerned about some of the more radical ideas promoted by the New Left.

Universities became more inclusive in the 1960s, too. Generally, there were not any gender studies programs at American universities until the 1960s and 1970s, nor were there any race and ethnicity programs. Some conservatives pushed back on the emergence of these programs, saying that if there is an African American studies department, they want to see a conservative studies department, too.

After the 1960s, conservative education fights died down. Conservatives still wanted their voices heard on campus, but their merit-only based education philosophy seemed less relevant when left-wing campus protests had declined significantly.

How did Charlie Kirk capitalize on the conservative feelings regarding education?

Kirk founded his political nonprofit, Turning Point USA, in 2012. Kirk didn’t originally support Trump, but he became friends with Donald Trump Jr., and eventually became close with the president. Like Trump, Kirk saw academia as the source of a plethora of problems in American society. His goal was to make college campuses more friendly to conservative students by making conservative ideas like free market economics and traditional gender roles more popular.

There was a lot of foundation laying over time for Kirk’s conservative education philosophy. Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel, as well as the subsequent war in Gaza and Palestinian rights protests in the U.S., offered a moment for conservatives like Kirk to brand progressives at schools as this huge threat.

What was Kirk’s tour focused on accomplishing?

Kirk and others in the conservative youth movement want their followers to have a close relationship with them. This helps conservatives influence government and society, using college campuses to recruit young adults as conservative voters and activists, making the university appear less progressive in the process. Let’s say progressive college kids have Bernie Sanders or Che Guevara posters hanging in their dorm rooms. Conservatives like Kirk have built an all-encompassing, alternative world for young conservatives to become involved in, where they have proximity to political and thought leaders, including Kirk. Turning Point has used flashy slogans, signs and bumper stickers to help make conservatism cool on campus.

Kirk’s tour had just begun, but he had planned to make stops at universities in Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Montana and other states. It was important that Kirk himself was in the room with young people, and that they could ask him questions and talk with him. He was considered approachable in a way that most politicians would not be.

Conservatives have used this strategy for a long time. My own research shows how college students would write to conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley in the 1960s and 1970s and these figures would write back. This kind of proximity between leaders and young supporters isn’t seen on the left. The goal is to cultivate a conservative movement community. Many of those conservative college students later worked for the government. Kirk’s tour was about continuing that kind of direct relationship between conservative leaders and young people.

Conservatives have a pipeline – meaning, let’s say you’re in high school and you discover conservative ideas by watching Charlie Kirk on YouTube. In college, you can go to Turning Point events and meet conservative leaders. After you graduate, you can even get a job with a conservative group through websites like ConservativeJobs.com. The point of the pipeline is to always give young conservatives a next step to becoming more involved in politics. While not everyone follows this pipeline, it helps the conservative movement cultivate new generations of talent. I think Kirk had a lot he was trying to accomplish, including building up a reservoir of young talent through Turning Point.

How is Turning Point distinct from the Republican Party and MAGA?

Turning Point isn’t the same as the Republican Party, but it’s helping to push the party further to the right. Turning Point has alienated other members of the conservative movement in certain ways. In 2018, the conservative youth group Young America’s Foundation accused Turning Point of taking over the conservative youth movement and crowding out other groups. Turning Point’s total revenue has grown considerably in the last few years, topping US$85 million in 2024 – that matters because money and attention help Turning Point push out other conservative voices.

Kirk and Trump agreed on a lot of policy issues. Kirk used Turning Point to define conservatism on his terms and to defend Trump. Education is the bulk of Turning Point’s work, a continuation of what has historically also been been the most important cultural issue on the right since the 1960s.

Daniel Ruggles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Charlie Kirk talked with young people at universities for a reason – he wanted American education to return to traditional values – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-talked-with-young-people-at-universities-for-a-reason-he-wanted-american-education-to-return-to-traditional-values-265190

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder

When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.

You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.

Why this matters

Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.

Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.

Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.

And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.

Practical steps you can take

Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:

1. Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.

1. Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.

2. Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.

3. Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.

Reclaim your agency

Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.

The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.

You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.

More resources

I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.

Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I am launching through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, by searching for Annie Margaret at the University of Colorado Boulder on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.

Annie Margaret works for/consults to Post Internet Project. She receives funding from University of Colorado Boulder PACES grant.

– ref. How to avoid seeing disturbing content on social media and protect your peace of mind – https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-seeing-disturbing-content-on-social-media-and-protect-your-peace-of-mind-265178

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

The day after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, commentators repeated a familiar refrain: “This isn’t who we are as Americans.”

Others similarly weighed in. Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” declared that Americans solve political disagreements peacefully: “This is not the way we do it.”

Yet other awful episodes come immediately to mind: President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on Nov. 22, 1963. More recently, on June 14, 2025, Melissa Hortman, speaker emerita of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was shot and killed at her home, along with her husband and their golden retriever.

As a historian of the early republic, I believe that seeing this violence in America as distinct “episodes” is wrong.

Instead, they reflect a recurrent pattern.

American politics has long personalized its violence. Time and again, history’s advance has been imagined to depend on silencing or destroying a single figure – the rival who becomes the ultimate, despicable foe.

Hence, to claim that such shootings betray “who we are” is to forget that the U.S. was founded upon – and has long been sustained by – this very form of political violence.

Revolutionary violence as political theater

The years of the American Revolution were incubated in violence. One abominable practice used on political adversaries was tarring and feathering. It was a punishment imported from Europe and popularized by the Sons of Liberty in the late 1760s, Colonial activists who resisted British rule.

In seaport towns such as Boston and New York, mobs stripped political enemies, usually suspected loyalists – supporters of British rule – or officials representing the king, smeared them with hot tar, rolled them in feathers, and paraded them through the streets.

The effects on bodies were devastating. As the tar was peeled away, flesh came off in strips. People would survive the punishment, but they would carry the scars for the rest of their life.

By the late 1770s, the Revolution in what is known as the Middle Colonies had become a brutal civil war. In New York and New Jersey, patriot militias, loyalist partisans and British regulars raided across county lines, targeting farms and neighbors. When patriot forces captured loyalist irregulars – often called “Tories” or “refugees” – they frequently treated them not as prisoners of war but as traitors, executing them swiftly, usually by hanging.

In September 1779, six loyalists were caught near Hackensack, New Jersey. They were hanged without trial by patriot militia. Similarly, in October 1779, two suspected Tory spies captured in the Hudson Highlands were shot on the spot, their execution justified as punishment for treason.

To patriots, these killings were deterrence; to loyalists, they were murder. Either way, they were unmistakably political, eliminating enemies whose “crime” was allegiance to the wrong side.

Pistols at dawn: Dueling as politics

Even after independence, the workings of American politics remained grounded in a logic of violence toward adversaries.

For national leaders, the pistol duel was not just about honor. It normalized a political culture where gunfire itself was treated as part of the debate.

The most famous duel, of course, was Aaron Burr’s killing of Alexander Hamilton in 1804. But scores of lesser-known confrontations dotted the decade before it.

In 1798, Henry Brockholst Livingston – later a U.S. Supreme Court justice – killed James Jones in a duel. Far from discredited, he was deemed to have acted honorably. In the early republic, even homicide could be absorbed into politics when cloaked in ritual. Ironically, Livingston had survived an assassination attempt in 1785.

In 1802, another shameful spectacle unfolded: New York Democratic-Republicans DeWitt Clinton and John Swartwout faced off in Weehawken, New Jersey. They fired at least five rounds before their seconds intervened, leaving both men wounded. In this case, the clash had nothing to do with political principle; Clinton and Swartwout were Republicans. It was a patronage squabble that still erupted into gunfire, showing how normalized armed violence was in settling disputes.

Gun culture and its expansion

It is tempting to dismiss political violence as a leftover from some “primitive” or “frontier” stage of American history, when politicians and their supporters supposedly lacked restraint or higher moral standards. But that is not the case.

From before the Revolution onward, physical punishment or even killing were ways to enforce belonging, to mark the boundary between insiders and outsiders, and to decide who had the right to govern.

Violence has never been a distortion in American politics. It has been one of its recurring features, not an aberration but a persistent force, destructive and yet oddly creative, producing new boundaries and new regimes.

The dynamic only deepened as gun ownership expanded. In the 19th century, industrial arms production and aggressive federal contracts put more weapons into circulation. The rituals of punishing those with the wrong allegiance now found expression in the mass-produced revolver and later in the automatic rifle.

These more modern firearms became not only practical tools of war, crime or self-defense but symbolic objects in their own right. They embodied authority, carried cultural meaning and gave their holders the sense that legitimacy itself could be claimed at the barrel of a gun.

That’s why the phrase “This isn’t who we are” rings false. Political violence has always been part of America’s story, not a passing anomaly, and not an episode.

To deny it is to leave Americans defenseless against it. Only by facing this history head-on can Americans begin to imagine a politics not defined by the gun.

Maurizio Valsania does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Yes, this is who we are: America’s 250-year history of political violence – https://theconversation.com/yes-this-is-who-we-are-americas-250-year-history-of-political-violence-265171

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amy J. Williams, Assistant Professor of Geology, University of Florida

As the Perseverance rover traversed an ancient river valley in Mars’ Jezero Crater back in July 2024, it drilled into the surface and extracted a sample from of a unique, striped rock called Chevaya Falls. The rover’s instruments then analyzed the sample, which is called Sapphire Canyon, and surveyed the surrounding rock.

When scientists started looking into the data, they found two types of iron-rich minerals arranged on the rock in a distinctive, spotted pattern. Both these minerals are associated with life on Earth. One is found around decomposing organic matter on Earth, while the other is produced by certain microbes.

A team of researchers determined in a study published Sept. 10, 2025, that the sample contains a potential biosignature – which could suggest the red planet once hosted microbial life.

These minerals may have formed on the rock when ancient microbes used chemical reactions to produce energy. But chemical reactions not related to life can also produce these minerals under certain conditions.

To learn more, The Conversation U.S. asked Amy J. Williams, an astrobiologist at the University of Florida, about biosignature hunting on Mars and what’s so special about this Sapphire Canyon sample.

What are biosignatures?

A biosignature is any characteristic, element, molecule, substance or feature that serves as evidence for past or present life. It must be something that cannot be produced without life. Some examples include fossils, organic molecules derived from a biological process, or mineral patterns that form only through microbial activity.

A potential biosignature, which is how the Sapphire Canyon finding is described, is a substance or structure that might have a biological origin but requires more data or further study before scientists can make a conclusion about the absence or presence of life.

How do scientists determine whether something could be a biosignature on Mars?

Biosignatures come in many different flavors – chemical, physical or structural. Some are rather obvious, like a dinosaur fossil on Earth, but most are far more nuanced.

The search for ancient life on Earth partially informs the search for biosignatures on Mars. Researchers rely on subtle clues preserved in the rock record to address questions such as how long ago microbial life arose on Earth. We search for that evidence in environments such as craters and lake beds with high preservation potential, meaning those that are likely to preserve the biosignatures.

Scientists can apply these techniques to the search for life on Mars. That is why Perseverance was sent to Jezero Crater. In the ancient past, the crater hosted a river-fed lake, which on Earth would represent a habitable environment: one where life would want to live if it ever arose.

This crater was an ideal location to search for ancient life preserved in the rock record on Mars. Astrobiologists then search for chemical, textural and mineral patterns that resemble processes influenced by life back on Earth.

What makes this sample unique and interesting?

The Sapphire Canyon sample is unique because Perseverance’s PIXL and SHERLOC instruments revealed distinctive textures that were dubbed “leopard spots.” These spots are concentric reaction fronts – places where chemical and physical reactions occur – enriched in the minerals vivianite, which contains iron phosphate, and greigite, which is made of iron sulfide.

On Earth, vivianite often forms in environments with lots of decaying organic matter, while certain microbes that use sulfate for energy can produce greigite. Compounds in both these minerals are part of a chemical process called redox gradients, which refers to a series of gradual changes over physical space where chemicals can oxidize (lose electrons) or reduce (gain electrons).

One example is leaving your metal bike out in the rain. Over time, the reduced iron (Fe2+) will lose an electron and oxidize to rust (Fe3+). This process can happen nonbiologically, as exposure to water and oxygen drive the chemical changes that take your new bike to a rusty bike – I suggest not leaving it in the rain.

But some oxidation and reduction processes are so slow on their own that the only way they can occur is with living organisms that push the reactions forward. This process is how many microbes, such as bacteria, get the energy to live. Because these two minerals in the Sapphire Canyon sample both occur in redox gradients, scientists predict that microbial life, if it was ever present, could have played a role in the reactions that created these mineral signatures.

Now, scientists are looking into the explanations that wouldn’t require life to form these features on the sample.

Did scientists expect to find a sample like this?

This was a finding that we had hoped for. However, it was somewhat unexpected in this particular location. This sample came from some of the youngest sedimentary rocks the mission has investigated to date. An earlier prediction had assumed signs of ancient life would come from older Martian rock formations.

Finding these features in younger rocks widens the window of time that Mars was potentially habitable and suggests that Mars could have been habitable later in the planet’s history than scientists previously thought, and older rocks might also hold signs of life that are simply harder to detect.

What are the next steps to tell whether the sample indicates signs of past life, or whether the signature is from a nonbiological process?

The mineral associations are a potential fingerprint for those redox reactions that can occur when microbes drive the reaction forward – but abiotic processes, such as sustained high temperatures, acidic conditions and binding by organic compounds, could also explain them.

However, the Cheyava Falls rock shows no signs that it’s been exposed to the high heat or acidity usually required for greigite and vivianite to form nonbiologically. Still, the only definitive way to answer this question is to return the sample to Earth, where scientists can use advanced laboratory techniques to distinguish biological from nonbiological origins.

Amy J. Williams receives funding from NASA and is a scientist on the NASA Mars 2020 Perseverance rover mission.

– ref. Scientists detected a potential biosignature on Mars – an astrobiologist explains what these traces of life are, and how researchers figure out their source – https://theconversation.com/scientists-detected-a-potential-biosignature-on-mars-an-astrobiologist-explains-what-these-traces-of-life-are-and-how-researchers-figure-out-their-source-265157