The recent discussions around Turning Point USA at Beloit College have exemplified the deeper nationwide issues we face in American public life: accepting communities with differing political beliefs or affiliations can coexist and engage in constructive dialogue. All members of our executive board have received public backlash for organizing, while some students expressed a feeling of discomfort with our presence for their safety. These reactions reflect the struggle our nation faces between protecting free expression and maintaining social cohesion.
Open dialogue is a foundational element of effective public policy. In a discouraging culture of political polarization, individuals begin to fear sharing their own opinions, weakening civic engagement and causing policymaking to become less informed. The consequences of this division in our environment exists not only on Beloit’s campus, but nationally as well. The recent government shutdown on Oct. 1 disrupted employment, halted essential services, and left American families without the resources they depend on. This was felt across the nation and, unfortunately, here on our campus as well. These are the unfortunate outcomes of the “my way or the highway” mentality that has overshadowed our hope of working toward a consensus.
Our goals as the leaders of the TPUSA chapter on campus are to restore the culture of open, respectful, dialogue. We would like to bring diversity to campus by presenting various viewpoints and engaging the campus in conversations about conservative thought. Healthy discourse relies on understanding, not agreement. We need to build a campus where students feel comfortable expressing their views and are willing to learn from those who disagree with them. All spectrums of ideas must be respected during dialogue, and ensuring this is our job as board members. If we do not have a safe environment without fear of social repercussions, no real consensus or understanding can ever be reached.
This is not about promoting one ideology over another; it’s about strengthening civic literacy and encouraging students to engage with those around them. As students ourselves, we are also future voters, policymakers, and leaders, and this is how we can be different from our current predecessors.
There is also an importance to distinguish dialogue from indoctrination. A strong argument, no matter the viewpoint, requires exposure to all ranges of perspectives. When individuals expand their knowledge intake and evaluate competing ideas, they become more equipped to engage in meaningful dialogue. This is crucial to our democratic process. Responding to a disagreement with retaliation only reinforces the ongoing polarization that has contributed to many of our country’s failed policy attempts.
As TPUSA at Beloit, our principles lie on public policy issues such as the appropriate amount a government should intervene in free markets, fiscal responsibility, and self-determination to have the primary control of the direction of one’s economic life. These principles guide our conversations. They do not define who is and is not welcome. In fact, we encourage all students that are in disagreement with these views to join our discussions. We structure our principles this way to avoid digressing toward discussions about social identity or personal beliefs, which tend to be emotionally overwhelming and sometimes unproductive. Our club’s starting point is to focus on conservative perspectives such as our principles listed earlier. Thus, we invite students of all viewpoints to join our activities so that we can deliberate the policy foundations that shape our society, knowing that productive policy ideas might emerge when challenged, debated and refined through dialogue. Such conversations will build understanding across ideological divides and encourage thoughtful participation and expanding knowledge in the democratic process.
Despite our initial backlash, we continue to move forward with the formation of our chapter. We have received help from faculty and staff in the Beloit community, including Rob Lafleur, Diep Phan, and Nate Osterberger. Professors Rob Lafleur and Diep Phan have agreed to serve as advisors, while Nate Osterberger has expressed interest in advising. We value the insight each of these individuals have provided throughout our discussions.
Professor Phan spent some time discussing our club with us Friday. We threw around many ideas that can be different from past clubs that promote open dialogue. We enjoyed her stories of past experiences living in Vietnam and coming to America and how they have helped structure her understanding of open dialogue. Professor Phan provided the following quote as a vote of confidence in our movement, “I’ve seen many people use the excuse of promoting open inquiry and diversity of thoughts, but their true intention is to impose their ideology on others. But this is not the case with this group of conservative students. My interaction with them tells me that they genuinely want to promote open dialogue and civil discourse, and their desire for mutual understanding is real, and hence I agreed to be their club’s faculty advisor.” We appreciate her inputs and look forward to future work together.
As we finalize our structure, we hope to establish a diverse advisory panel to ensure a wide range of perspectives. Bringing multiple voices to the table will help continue building the constructive, policy focused dialogue we are aiming to create on campus.
The culture of our campus, and future of our nation, will be shaped by how we choose to address our differences. While we can not change past conflicts, we can build a more open and informed community moving forward. A society where dialogue replaces division and students are empowered to engage fully in the public sphere.
-Brinley Richards, TPUSA Treasurer
Featured image: Wikimedia Commons
Leave a Reply