A Voice for Us to Hear
The following was written by a county employee and read by an acquaintance at the Oct. 21 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was written in response to Supervisor Steve Griefer’s suggested resolution to designate October 14 – Charlie Kirk’s birthday — each year as the “National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk.”
As you probably know, Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10. The resolution speaks highly of him as an inspiration, as a defender of constitutional principles and American ideals. You can visit https://www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov/745/Board-Meetings to view the resolution as part of the agenda documents and to watch a video of the meeting.
Once it became clear before the Board meeting that many in the community opposed honoring Charlie Kirk, Supervisor Anaiah Kirk submitted a substitute resolution designating October 14 each year as “Free Speech and Public Service Remembrance Day.” This resolution was scheduled for discussion at the November 4 BOS meeting (see agenda for text, #2 on the Consent Calendar, https://www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov/745/Board-Meetings).
As a county employee who does not feel comfortable expressing my views against the Board publicly, I would like to have my voice heard against this resolution as a voter and as a constituent; thus, I have asked for this to be read at the meeting.
While many of us stand firmly and without hesitation against all forms of violence, this resolution, and the language in it, praise a man who so often showed disdain and disrespect for others.
Many Americans never heard much about Charlie Kirk before his death; for this Board to vote in favor of a resolution that honors his life and legacy sends the wrong message. Many members of our community view him not as a unifying figure, but as one whose positions have been polarizing.
While we should all condemn the violence that ended his life, we cannot ignore that Mr. Kirk’s public record is defined by rhetoric that undermined civil rights, dismissed the struggles of marginalized communities, disrespected women of color, and spread division. To elevate such a legacy through official recognition is both harmful and inconsistent with the values of equity, justice, and dignity that this community deserves.
Honoring someone who openly disparaged civil rights protections sends the wrong message to our children and neighbors about the kind of leadership we deem worth emulating. Government time, resources, and moral authority should focus on local needs, social unity, reconciliation, and public services, not partisan or polarizing memorials. If the board insists on a resolution, it should do so in a neutral and non-partisan form that does not tie itself to any individual’s ideology or legacy. If such a resolution is passed, it should include a sunset clause and a review mechanism requiring periodic reconsideration, not a blanket statement for “future years.”
We should all rise in opposition to this resolution. While we should all condemn political violence, we should not conflate that with uncritical praise.
Remember that symbolic resolutions matter; they represent the entire community — not just a political faction — and they should avoid divisive symbolism.
A board resolution is a formal action by a government entity. It carries weight and symbolic value. If the Board approves this resolution that endorses one side of a highly contentious ideological debate, it can erode the trust that all community members –including those from historically disadvantaged groups — have in their government.
Better alternatives exist to build unity. Please vote no on this resolution.