Charlie Kirk said black women were dei hires and didn’t have the brain power to do the job
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The analyses reveal that Charlie Kirk was significantly misquoted in the original statement. Multiple sources confirm that Kirk did not make a blanket statement about Black women as a group being "DEI hires" who lack "brain power" [1] [2]. Instead, Kirk's controversial comments were directed at four specific individuals: Michelle Obama, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, political commentator Joy Reid, and the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee [1] [2].
According to the fact-checking sources, Kirk's actual statement was that these four women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously" and suggested they had to "steal a white person's slot" to achieve their positions through affirmative action programs [1]. The context was specifically about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and affirmative action policies, not a general assessment of Black women's capabilities [1] [2].
However, one source acknowledges that Kirk's comments can still be "perceived as insulting to Black women" and critiques them as "problematic and reminiscent of 19th-century pseudoscientific rhetoric" [3]. This suggests that while the exact wording may have been misrepresented, the substance of Kirk's remarks remains highly controversial and potentially offensive.
The controversy surrounding Kirk's comments has generated significant political backlash, with high-profile conservative figures leading calls for critics of Charlie Kirk to be fired [4], indicating the polarizing nature of this incident and its broader political implications.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original statement lacks crucial context about the broader DEI debate currently occurring across American institutions. The analyses reveal that this controversy is happening amid widespread efforts to dismantle DEI programs in higher education and corporate America [5] [6]. There are active government initiatives, including executive orders aimed at "ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing" [7], which provides important political backdrop for understanding why Kirk's comments gained such traction.
The missing context also includes the specific political positions of the four women Kirk targeted. These individuals represent prominent liberal voices in politics, media, and the judiciary, suggesting Kirk's comments may have been strategically aimed at high-profile Democratic figures rather than being a random attack on Black women generally [1].
Furthermore, the analyses indicate that companies are publicly supporting diversity while their actual hiring practices tell a different story [5], revealing the complex and often contradictory nature of current DEI implementation. This broader institutional context helps explain why Kirk's comments resonated with certain audiences who view DEI programs skeptically.
The original statement also omits the immediate political consequences and defensive responses from conservative circles, including organized campaigns to protect Kirk from criticism [4], which demonstrates the significant political stakes involved in this controversy.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement contains significant factual inaccuracies that constitute misinformation. By claiming Kirk made a blanket statement about "black women" as a group, it misrepresents the scope and specificity of his actual comments [1] [2]. This type of mischaracterization can amplify racial tensions and create false narratives about what public figures actually said.
The statement also exhibits selective framing bias by stripping away the DEI policy context that was central to Kirk's remarks [1] [2]. This omission makes the comments appear as pure racial animus rather than part of a broader political debate about affirmative action and diversity programs.
Additionally, the original statement fails to acknowledge that multiple fact-checking sources have specifically addressed this misquote [2] [1], suggesting either ignorance of available corrections or deliberate perpetuation of inaccurate information. This pattern is particularly problematic given that the misquote has apparently spread widely enough to require multiple fact-checking interventions.
The timing and framing of this statement also raise questions about potential political motivations, as it emerged during a period of intense debate over DEI policies and could serve to discredit conservative voices in that debate through misrepresentation rather than substantive policy disagreement.