Staff Reports
In the recent episode of campus drama, the student government at St. John’s University in New York has done it again. Yet again, they have turned away the application of Turning Point USA, a conservative student organization known for championing free enterprise and limited government. One might think that in a world obsessed with inclusion and diversity, a range of opinions would be welcomed. But it seems, at St. John’s, diversity of thought gets flagged at the door.
Turning Point USA has faced repeated pushbacks from several Catholic universities, of which St. John’s latest decision adds to a growing list. It certainly makes one wonder if there’s an unofficial quota on conservative groups. The school provided a vague, generic rejection letter. Not much clarity, just a cold, “Sorry, at this time we regret to inform you.” That’s the level of detail you might expect from a fortune cookie, not an institution dedicated to higher learning.
Interestingly enough, Andrew Kovit, the spokesperson for Turning Point USA, pointed out the hypocrisy in this situation. While the university is accepting of a plethora of other student groups, including those representing LGBTQ+ interests and various political causes, a pro-capitalist, conservative group seems to be where they draw the line. Imagine the irony—a Catholic institution unwilling to embrace a student group rooting for traditional values and patriotism. They even provide gender-affirming housing and host special events for communities they support. Yet somehow, Turning Point USA’s appeal doesn’t quite resonate.
The issue raised by Turning Point USA isn’t exclusive to St. John’s University or its campus. According to Kovit, this pattern repeats itself in many Catholic and Christian universities situated mostly in blue states. It’s almost as if these institutions are worried about offending the local political climate. Whether it’s the disdain for traditional values or simply an aversion to facing backlash from their high-powered peers, these universities consistently choose allegiance to prevailing societal norms over their own stated values.
Perhaps the most glaring part of this whole saga is how little the university leadership intervenes. University presidents could potentially override such unpopular decisions, but they choose not to. Kovit suggests that the way forward might be for alumni and donors to turn up the heat. After all, money talks, especially in academia. So, avid supporters of these institutions might want to consider if their donations are funding an echo chamber or promoting robust discussion. In any case, it seems this campus tale is far from over, and Turning Point USA might want to take a leaf out of one of their legal textbooks. Even if suing isn’t necessarily the Christian way, a nudge in the right direction could help in keeping the dialogue alive.
