Charlie Kirk’s shooting shows we must relearn to disagree

Charlie Kirk was shot this week while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. He later succumbed to his injuries.

Regardless of one’s political stance, Kirk was a husband, father, and leader who gave his life to engaging in public dialogue. His death is a tragedy not only for his family and friends, but for a nation that desperately needs voices willing to step into the arena. We can honor his memory by choosing to learn how to disagree again.

We have a significant cultural crisis that must be addressed: When disagreement becomes impossible, violence becomes inevitable. Charlie Kirk was silenced, not with reasoned rebuttal, but by a bullet.

Political leaders from both parties instantly condemned the attack, calling for unity and virtue amid chaos. However, this rings hollow when the same platforms that profit from division were now pleading for peace.

We have grown used to a cycle: outrage, condemnation, and then… back to business as usual. Still, the nation is left with a very real question: How do we rebuild a culture where harsh disagreements can be aired safely and respectfully?

Condemnation is no longer enough. What’s required is intention: to speak truth calmly, listen with humility, and refuse to settle for emotional reflex.

Avoidance is easier than engagement. Many of us grew up in homes where disagreement meant yelling, stonewalling, or icy silence. Others work in companies where dissent is punished. Others live online, where arguments are reduced to slogans and personal attacks.

Yet disagreement, when done well, can be a pathway to truth, growth, and stronger relationships. Calm steadies the storm. Clarity cuts through the fog. Conviction confronts mediocrity without contempt.

Neuroscience reveals that when one person escalates, everyone else’s nervous system follows suit. The opposite is also true: when one person remains calm, the environment calms. It only takes one person to lead — one person who can pause before speaking, and reflectively answer rather than react. This kind of calm presence requires one to be anchored before the conflict.

Clarity means stripping away noise: What are we actually disagreeing about? What do we want on the other side of this conversation? As Google’s study on team effectiveness found, “psychological safety” is the #1 factor of high-performing groups. Clarity builds safety because it eliminates hidden agendas.

You can hold strong beliefs without hating or demeaning the person with whom you disagree. The old alpha style bulldozes opposition; the new alpha style combines steel in the spine with respect in the tone. “I disagree” doesn’t have to mean “I despise.”

Start with curiosity. Instead of launching into your rebuttal, ask, “Help me understand why this matters to you.” Curiosity disarms defensiveness.

Pause before reacting. Even a two-second pause shifts your brain from the amygdala (fight or flight) to the prefrontal cortex, where reason is seated.

Name the Tension. Don’t pretend it’s not awkward. Just say, “I know we see this differently, and that’s okay.” It normalizes disagreement.

Aim for understanding, because it’s more important than just Winning. If the goal is to dominate, you have lost already. The goal is to understand enough to either find common ground or respectfully part ways.

Finally, end with respect. Even if you still disagree, affirm the other person’s value. “I respect how much you care about this” goes further than “We’ll never agree.”

We are living in an age of exhaustion. Burnout rates are at record highs, and trust in leaders has fallen dramatically in recent years. Families, workplaces, and even churches are fracturing because people lack the skills to engage in healthy conflict.

Imagine if we trained ourselves and our children to see disagreement as an opportunity for understanding, connection, and better thinking. Imagine CEOs who invite dissent in meetings for the sake of growth, rather than punishing it as a revolt. Imagine parents can set boundaries, but children can challenge assumptions. Imagine churches where differences sharpen theology without splitting congregations.

The shooting of Charlie Kirk is a national tragedy. However, if it awakens us to the urgency of rebuilding civil disagreement, it doesn’t have to be in vain. Disagreement will always be part of life. The choice is whether it becomes destructive, divisive, or transformative. Transformation begins with us practicing the discipline of difficult conversations.

Dr. Scott Lehr is an executive coach, speaker, and pastor who serves as a trusted strategist to elite leaders pursuing momentum, growth, and unshakable impact.