2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk Debates Female Engineering Student on Affirmative Action, Gender Differences, and Merit-Based Systems at University of Wisconsin-Madison
Charlie Kirk engages in a spirited debate with a female computer engineering student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison about affirmative action, gender differences, and merit-based systems. The student argues that affirmative action benefits society by bringing diverse perspectives to fields like engineering and medicine, citing examples like endometriosis research and car safety designs that have historically excluded women. Kirk pushes back, advocating for pure meritocracy and challenging her assumptions about gender, brain wiring, and whether diversity quotas actually improve outcomes. The conversation touches on everything from Secret Service fitness standards to women's happiness levels, OBGYN demographics, and the fundamental question of whether biological differences between men and women affect career preferences and capabilities.
At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Charlie Kirk faced a challenging question from a female computer engineering student about to graduate. She opened by acknowledging affirmative action's role in helping not just minorities, but women in general across various fields including engineering and medicine. Her argument centered on the idea that diverse perspectives lead to better outcomes in critical areas that affect everyone's lives.
The student provided concrete examples to support her position. She pointed to endometriosis, a condition affecting many women that has been historically understudied due to the lack of women in medical research. She also cited automotive safety, explaining that seatbelts are designed and tested primarily using male mannequins, which puts women at higher risk of dying in car crashes. These examples, she argued, demonstrate the real-world consequences of having homogeneous groups making decisions that affect everyone.
Kirk's Meritocracy Counter-Argument
Kirk's response was direct and unapologetic: implement a pure meritocracy. He challenged the student by pointing to the three white men standing around him and asking if she would be comfortable telling them she deserved a position more than they did based on factors other than merit. This framing attempted to personalize the affirmative action debate and highlight what he sees as its fundamental unfairness.
Kirk then introduced data about test score disparities, citing the Harvard affirmative action case which showed nearly 40% lower test scores for people of color versus their white and Asian counterparts. When the student questioned why these disparities exist, Kirk attributed them to socioeconomic backgrounds that don't prioritize education rather than any inherent differences in capability between races.
The critical distinction Kirk made was between addressing root causes of inequality versus what he characterized as penalizing competent individuals. He argued that while fixing socioeconomic disparities might be worthwhile, lowering standards at elite institutions makes those institutions less excellent and ultimately harms the country's ability to function effectively.
The Secret Service Example
To illustrate his concerns about merit-based standards, Kirk brought up the U.S. Secret Service's goal of having 30% of all agents be women. He pointed out that women have lower fitness criteria for these positions, including fewer required pull-ups and push-ups, and slower mile times. This example, he argued, shows the real-world dangers of prioritizing diversity over competence when it comes to critical roles like protecting the president.
The student pushed back on this example, noting that women will never be as physically strong as men on average, making it an unfair comparison. This objection opened the door for Kirk to expand his argument beyond just physical capabilities to cognitive and psychological differences between men and women.
Gender Differences and Brain Wiring
Kirk argued that just as men will never match women's physical strength, men also won't match women in certain cognitive and emotional domains. He claimed that men will never be as good at counseling, psychology sessions, nursing, or elementary school education as women because of different brain wiring between the sexes.
According to Kirk, women are better gifted at what he called "micro topics" like individual connections, empathetic conversations, and healing people from trauma. Men, he argued, excel at "macro topics" like building skyscrapers, geopolitics, and systems-level thinking. He offered a social observation to support this: when five women eat lunch together, they typically discuss relationships and conversations they've had, while men discuss politics, sports, or the stock market.
The student strongly disagreed, arguing that these differences are the result of societal norms rather than biological wiring. She pushed back on the idea that there's anything in female brain wiring that channels women toward specific preferences or away from things like political conversations or contact sports. Kirk countered that while societal factors play a role, there are fundamental biological differences that manifest in preferences and behaviors.
The Makeup and Appearance Discussion
To illustrate his point about innate gender differences, Kirk asked the student about her personal habits. He questioned why she wears makeup, noting that he doesn't feel the need to do so. The student initially attributed this to being held to higher standards of appearance, but Kirk suggested there's something deeper in female wiring that drives the desire to be presentable.
Kirk argued that the impulse to wear makeup and spend more time on appearance stems from a biological drive to find a mate, not just social pressure. The student noted she wasn't wearing much makeup at that moment, which Kirk acknowledged, but he maintained that the general pattern holds true and reflects innate differences rather than purely social construction.
OBGYN Demographics and Consistency
Kirk tested the student's consistency on gender parity by asking about OBGYNs, noting that 85% of practitioners in that field are female. He asked whether there should be parity in that field as well, which would mean actively discriminating against women studying OBGYN to make room for men. The student said she believes representation should mirror the general population, which Kirk interpreted as her being consistent in supporting forced parity even when it would disadvantage women.
Historical Context and Women's Rights
The student brought up historical context, noting that women couldn't vote until less than 100 years ago, couldn't have bank accounts, and couldn't build generational wealth. She argued that because men created most laws and systems when women were excluded, those systems naturally favored men, creating structural inequalities that persist today.
Kirk's response focused on the examples she'd provided earlier, particularly endometriosis research. He suggested that research follows money rather than gender bias, implying that if there was profit in endometriosis research, it would have been pursued regardless of researcher demographics. The student countered by asking who controls the money in society, to which Kirk replied that women actually control more wealth than men in America today.
Women's Happiness and Liberation
Kirk shifted the conversation to ask whether the student believed women's liberation over the past 20-30 years has made women happier. When she said yes, he challenged her with the claim that women are now the most depressed demographic in the history of the species, citing antidepressant use and misery metrics.
The student questioned this data and suggested that if true, it might be because women now have access to psychologists and mental health resources they didn't have before, making depression more visible rather than more prevalent. Kirk maintained that despite more liberation, college degrees, birth control, and career opportunities, women are objectively more miserable, which he attributed to not doing what they really want: getting married and having children.
The student pulled up data showing that women worldwide report higher life satisfaction than men, though they also report more daily stress. Kirk then asked her to look up women's antidepressant use, claiming it's at an all-time high. The student argued there are multiple layers to this data, including women's greater likelihood to seek help from psychologists compared to men.
Excellence vs. Diversity
When asked how to bring diverse opinions into fields without affirmative action, Kirk's answer was blunt: he doesn't care that much about diversity of perspectives. His priority is excellence and superior intellect over what he characterized as "sensitive racial politics." He argued that when America was run primarily by white men based on merit, it was the greatest country ever, more successful, and better functioning.
Kirk contrasted that era with today, arguing that the country is objectively worse run now, citing the failure to protect a president from getting shot as evidence. The student continued to press on examples like car safety and engineering decisions that put women at greater risk due to lack of diverse perspectives, but Kirk maintained that pure merit should be the only consideration.
The Hat Incident
The exchange ended with Kirk noting that the student was wearing one of his hats, which he only gives to Trump voters. When he asked if she was voting for Trump, she said no and that she couldn't vote. Kirk accused her of lying to get the hat, which he said showed her character. She defended herself by saying she only said she would wear it, not that she would vote for Trump, but agreed to keep the hat anyway.
