How have other conservative figures responded to Charlie Kirk's comments on Brianna Ghey?
Executive summary
Conservative figures broadly reacted to the viral social-media post by University of Kansas employee Brianna Lichtenauer Wasser — who wrote that slain activist Charlie Kirk was “better in the ground as worm food” — by publicly condemning her remark and calling for consequences; the University said it would not discipline the employee because the post was made on personal time, a decision that fueled Republicans’ criticism [1] [2]. The episode became fodder in GOP politics with candidates and influencers using the post to demand firings and to argue campuses and institutions tolerate anti-conservative sentiment [2] [1].
1. Conservative outrage framed as a defense of decency and safety
Prominent conservative office-seekers and right‑wing influencers cast the KU employee’s post as evidence of a permissive campus culture and moral failure, rapidly calling for disciplinary action and pointing to the comment as emblematic of threats against conservatives; state-level Republican figures like Ty Masterson and Dr. Jeff Colyer pushed the narrative that the University’s response amounted to a betrayal of Kansas values [2] [1].
2. Campaigns weaponized the post in a close governor’s‑race climate
GOP candidates competing for attention seized on screenshots circulated online to press a broader political argument: that liberal institutions shield or excuse hostile attitudes toward conservatives, and therefore deserve scrutiny or punishment. Kansas campaign operatives used the incident to stiffen conservative turnout and to argue for accountability for public‑sector employees who post extreme comments [2].
3. Influencers amplified the story and pressured institutions
Right‑wing social-media accounts and influencers amplified the screenshot and framed KU’s decision not to discipline the employee as proof that universities won’t protect conservatives. Libs of TikTok and similar networks shared the screenshots, helping turn an individual social‑media post into a national controversy and driving conservative demands for firings [1] [2].
4. University response became the flashpoint, not only the comment
The University of Kansas explained it would not discipline the employee because the post was on a personal account made on personal time; that procedural rationale did not satisfy conservative critics, who viewed the lack of punitive action as tacit tolerance for threatening rhetoric and used it to press for firings and institutional change [1].
5. Messaging mixed moral condemnation with political calculus
Conservative reactions combined moral language — calling the post “disgusting” — with tactical political messaging: each attack on the university was matched by efforts to brand opponents as enabling violence against conservatives. That dual approach let politicians both denounce the remark and extract political capital from the controversy, as seen in competing campaign posts and statements [2] [1].
6. The episode fed into a larger narrative about campus speech and safety
Conservative leaders and candidates folded this incident into an ongoing argument that campuses and public employers tolerate hostile or violent rhetoric toward conservatives. The case was cited alongside other social‑media controversies to argue for more rigorous accountability standards for public‑sector employees [2] [1].
7. Limitations and what the sources don’t say
Available sources do not mention any conservative voices defending the KU employee or urging restraint in the initial coverage provided here; they also do not report any disciplinary appeals, legal actions, or internal KU deliberations beyond the university’s stated policy rationale for not disciplining the worker [1] [2]. Follow‑up reporting would be required to assess whether the political pressure produced policy changes or further institutional responses.
8. Why this matters politically
Republicans turned a single incendiary post into a broader argument about political bias in higher education and public employment, leveraging media screenshots to drive campaign messaging. The incident illustrates how social‑media content can rapidly become a lever in local and statewide political contests, as documented in coverage of candidate reactions and the university’s response [2] [1].