Dartmouth professor says politically partisan violence is a ‘phantom threat’

ANALYSIS: His own results show Democrats more likely to support vandalism, assault, arson, and use of deadly weapon

Dartmouth professor Sean Westwood and his Polarization Research Lab “monitor public support for political violence and democratic norm violations,” and the results lead him to believe the former is a “phantom threat.”

Westwood, who in his own words is “the most pessimistic person you’ll ever meet,” recently told The Dartmouth that “only between one and three percent of people support partisan murder,” and that he’s “far more concerned about anti-Black violence, antisemitic violence, [and] anti-LGBTQ violence” as they occur “much more often.”

(Note that Westwood gave his “phantom threat” response and opinion about anti-black et. al. attacks in response to a query about “partisan violence,” whereas his opening response used “partisan murder.” See Fix Associate Editor Matt Lamb’s recent piece for more on such definitions.)

The Polarization Research Lab has asked 1,000 Americans each week since 2022 questions “designed to shed light on polarization, respect for democracy, and support for political violence.”

The latest figures show that, across the board, more Democrats than Republicans support lawbreaking and violence, from relatively modest instances like protesting without a permit (32 vs. 26.6 percent), to vandalism (8.4 vs. 4.8 percent), assault (3.5 vs. 2.4 percent), and “use of a deadly weapon” (2.2 vs. 1.5 percent).

When it comes to actual murder, just under two percent of Democrats and 1.3 percent of Republicans were supportive.

Perhaps the most striking disparity in the PRL results comes from the “Pride in Citizenship” question: While 84.5 percent of Republicans said they’re “proud to be an American,” just 16.3 percent of Democrats agreed. (The figure for the latter during Biden’s ’21-’25 term was quite higher — up to 50 percent — but still significantly lower than that of Republicans.)

Despite these figures, Westwood recently took to task President Trump and others for their reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder.

The professor called Trump’s reference to the “radical Left” an “imagined enemy” and said the “tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s assassination” was followed by a “tragedy of blame and escalation.”

“Despite what Donald Trump says,” Westwood said, “there is no trans terror cell … there is no violent conspiracy of Democrats. This was an isolated incident; unfortunately the president has effectively convinced much of this country and his own party that there is a radical Left that is conspiring against Republicans, and it is worth sacrificing our civil liberties in order to stop that phantom threat.”

Westwood later noted the recent U.S. House resolution honoring Kirk will “serve to rehabilitate Kirk’s reputation; however, even despite the fact that he had many controversial and abhorrent positions, there is nothing to justify his assassination, and Democrats, by objecting to the resolution, I think are only feeding into conspiracy theories and furthering the partisan divide.”

Overall, Westwood believes Democratic politicians’ response to Kirk’s murder was “relatively good”; however, the “fringes of the party” were “taking gleeful shots” at the assassination, he said.

Westwood noted he thinks someone like Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh will serve as a replacement for Kirk as they utilize much the same “extremist language.” In addition, he believes GOP officials like Trump and J.D. Vance will “demand retribution,” “attack trans Americans” and will use Kirk’s murder for “organized pushback against his enemies.”

Trump is “going to take a flamethrower to a public already on edge,” he added.

Westwood reiterated much of these sentiments to his school’s student paper, saying “The spotlight is on figures saying the worst possible things about a man who was murdered” and that “the response has been a second tragedy.”

He claimed “a lot of academics and pundits claim the vast majority of Americans support political violence” and said he “want[s] to see how much of that is disinformation that people have internalized.”

Westwood added people need to realize social media platforms like X and BlueSky “don’t reflect reality” (which is true, but the same could be said about mainstream media outlets), but claimed his school and place of employment, Dartmouth, “is a microcosm of the U.S.”

But is it? According to FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, liberals at Dartmouth outnumber conservatives by over three-to-one. In addition, 20 percent of the Ivy’s students believe “using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.”

That 20 percent actually is on the low end of survey results obtained by FIRE, all of which appear to be in conflict with the figures used by Westwood’s lab.

For example, at the University of Delaware (the student population of which is more politically even), 34 percent said “using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases,” but at the politically-similar-to-Dartmouth University of Minnesota, that figure jumps to 41 percent.

The percentages of students who believe similarly at other campuses:

• Harvard: 32 percent (over 6-to-1 liberal student body)
• Columbia: 26 percent (4-to-1 liberal)
• Syracuse: 38 percent (4.5-to-1 liberal)
• Cornell: 36 percent (5.5-to-1 liberal)
• Yale: 27 percent (6-to-1 liberal)
• Auburn: 22 percent (1.9-to-1 liberal)
• Univ. of Arkansas: 34 percent (1.7-to-1 liberal)
• Texas A&M: 22 percent (1.5-to-1 liberal)
• Univ. of Alabama: 34 percent (1.75-to-1 liberal)

The last four were included for comparison’s sake as they are considered among the “most conservative colleges in America,” according to Niche.com.

Overall, given FIRE’s research and Niche.com’s list of “most liberal” colleges, it appears students who attend progressive institutions are more willing to engage in violence to thwart a speaker. Inside Higher Ed agreed in a September 9 article, but noted “gap is lessening.”

Indeed, in its survey, FIRE also found more conservative students than liberal (11 percent to 9) believe it is “always acceptable” to block a campus speaker.

MORE: UMich professor on Charlie Kirk’s murder: ‘Violence isn’t the answer, it is a solution’

MORE: Professors spread misinformation, claim Kirk alleged killer not necessarily leftist