An open letter to University of Wyoming President Ed Seidel

Dear President Ed Seidel,

I write in response to your university-wide Sept. 10 email on the killing of Charlie Kirk. I do not envy your position stewarding the University of Wyoming through our troubling times. Political violence in our nation is now a frequent occurrence. In recent months, a gunman killed a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota’s Legislature and her husband, two Israeli Embassy employees were gunned down, an arsonist set fire to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home while he and his family slept inside and in Boulder, Colorado, a man set fire to people marching in support of Israel.

I have no doubt that your intentions in writing this email were good. You end your email imploring the university to “come together to support and protect our community in the face of such a terrible event.” I worry, though, about the unintentional message of your email that leaves members of our UW community feeling marginalized, unseen.

In “On Rhetoric,” Aristotle identifies a branch of persuasive speech he describes as epideictic rhetoric. This is a social rhetoric that concerns itself with cultural values. We find it in communicative acts that bring communities together under communal bonds. Wedding toasts, obituaries, memorial events such as a 9/11 commemoration, a message from the president after a tragedy, for example, are instances in which we use epideictic rhetoric. Typically, epideictic communication promotes the shared values of a community. Moreover, it reinforces community boundaries. Epideictic rhetoric implicitly makes arguments about who belongs and who does not.

Your email, sent just hours after Mr. Kirk’s assassination, is a form of epideictic rhetoric. It reiterates shared communal values in its condemnation of political violence. It reaffirms commitments to open discourse. I worry, though, about the way your email constructs the UW community and who, based on this email, feels a sense of belonging and safety on campus. The email focuses on the university’s connections to Mr. Kirk. Specifically, you point out that Mr. Kirk recently “spoke on campus to a large crowd” and that he was “invited by UW’s student chapter of Turning Point USA.” You go on to write that “we join many sharing our deepest sympathies to his friends, family, and supporters.” None of that is necessarily objectionable. It’s what’s left out that raises my concerns. Mr. Kirk was a divisive political figure who said and wrote things that many people consider homophobic, racist, antisemitic and misogynistic. Many people across the country felt threatened by Mr. Kirk. Many people at UW did as well.

Mr. Kirk occupied a position of tremendous political power that reaches across campuses, that is influential in local and state politics, and that stretches to the White House. When Mr. Kirk spoke, there were consequences. Columnists on the political right and left note that Mr. Kirk was a charismatic visionary. He imagined not just the future of American conservativism, which included and empowered young conservatives, but sought to implement that future through the strong political machinery of TPUSA. What frightens many is the question of who is empowered and included in that future. Or, put more appropriately, who is not included in that future. There are a lot of UW community members who do not see themselves in Mr. Kirk’s vision.

As president of UW, you hold a special responsibility. Your words sent through official channels linked to the office you hold carry consequences. The email explicitly addresses members of our community who have real and felt connections to Mr. Kirk. It invites them into the imagined community of the email. You do not directly address members of our community who find his discourse objectionable or who have fears about the future he worked to create. As such, they are made peripheral in the outlines of the community formed by the epideictic function of your email.

Extreme partisanship and political violence are real problems for our nation. Pundits from across the political spectrum fret over our political divisions and worry if and how it can be repaired. American campuses have long trained students for civic life and democratic engagement. I believe your email is a missed opportunity for bridging divides, for encouraging engagement. We deter further violence and division by starting with our words. I do not make a plea here calling on others for better debate or to honor respectful discourse. These appeals are not enough. We — the administration and faculty — occupy positions of institutional leadership. We must use our advantaged positions to leverage institutional infrastructures and resources that create forums and spaces for engagement in the everyday spaces of campus life, that structurally promote exchange among people, that assemble community. We, as leaders, must create multi-vocal spaces on campus that invite students (and faculty and staff) into discourse about community values and that allows students agency in shaping their community based on our shared values.

In graduate school I was taught that if you don’t like an article someone wrote you should write the article you wish they had written. Here is my attempt:

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one of many recent acts of political violence in our nation. The increase in political violence is troubling and leaves many of us afraid, distraught and even angry. On our campus, Mr. Kirk had many supporters and many critics. Regardless of our feelings, his death from an act of political violence affects us all. Our local and national communities are harmed by violence. We, each of us, are harmed by this kind of violence. We should use this moment as an opportunity to reflect on our commitments to building an inclusive campus that honors our differences, and which promotes peaceful and curious engagement across those differences.