In late October of 2017, Turning Point USA launched a chapter at James Madison University. According to Andrew McIlwean, TPUSA’s Virginia field director, the purpose “…is just to bring different ideas to college campuses.”
(For more information about JMU’s Chapter of TPUSA, visit their social media accounts on Instagram or Facebook.)
To understand what McIlwean meant by “different ideas,” let’s examine: What does Turning Point USA stand for?
Founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk and Bill Montgomery, Turning Point USA is a national nonprofit organization that focuses on right-wing issues. Primarily, TPUSA promotes conservative politics, especially among high-school and college students.
“Turning Point USA’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize Americans to champion the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.”
Our Mission to Save America’s Culture | Turning Point USA
Therefore, Turning Point USA’s core principles include:
- Support for the U.S. Constitution
- Individual Liberty, Free Speech, Right to Bear Arms, etc.
- Traditional Family Values
- Faith-based, Two-Parent Household with Clear Gender Roles (Male Leadership)
- Adverse to Change
- Oppose Straying from Christian-Based Lifestyle
- Patriotism & American Exceptionalism
- Explicit Pride in the U.S.’s History, Culture, etc.
- Respect for Life
- Pro-Life Position on Abortion
Recently, on October 14th, JMU’s Chapter of Turning Point USA invited Lydia Taylor Davis on campus – the national spokesperson for Students Life of America. The date coincided with Charlie Kirk’s birthday, and undoubtedly related to the upcoming presidential midterm elections.
In Virginia, the ballet concerns three significant amendments:
- Reproductive Rights: Ensures access to reproductive healthcare (contraceptives, IVF, abortion, miscarriage care, and protection of providers).
- Marriage Equality: Removes the outdated ban on same-sex marriage, ensuring that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race.
- Voting Rights: Restores the right to vote for convicted felons after they’ve completed their sentence.
During Davis’ time on JMU’s campus, she held a tabling event at Warner Commons from 10:45 am to 3 pm, challenging students to an open-mic debate concerning abortion. She, amongst fellow supporters, stood proudly in front of a bright pink and purple backdrop with the bolded statement “Abortion is Anti-Woman.”
Although the scene caused me to temporarily pause, I continued to hustle along with the general student body to catch the next bus back home. My stance, as a feminist and woman, remains unwavering: My Body, My Choice! I fully support abortion, and will continue to do so for years to come.
That being stated, I saw no purpose in debating abortion with someone firmly pro-life. In the same way my belief felt unshakeable, I knew Davis likely felt the same way, but for the opposing side.
What’s the point of bickering and arguing (not mutually conversating) when neither person’s willing to change their opinion or even listen? Seems time-consuming and energy-wasting to me…
As well, anti-abortionists oftentimes utilize the open-mic debate strategically. To encourage the audience to take the bait metaphorically, they’ll call out, “Come change my mind,” but that’s never actually going to happen. It’s simply a manipulation tactic that, unfortunately, persuades individuals to debate, falsely believing their words will cause an impact, change, or even be heard.
Knowing this information, I chose to stride past the antagonistic display, secure in my personal beliefs and values.
HOWEVER…
As I reached halfway past the booth, Davis’ voice rang out, “So no one wants to debate? Everyone here is pro-life then!”
Immediately, those words caused a physical reaction that I couldn’t withhold as I scoffed aloud in disbelief. Turning my head to glance at Davis one last time, I could only shake my head in disagreement and keep walking. She didn’t deserve the satisfaction of a response, so I pushed forward, ignoring her boisterous statement.
From my peripheral vision, I watched a fellow classmate react differently, though. While yelling, “Fuck off!” in Davis’ direction, she also raised her middle finger in the air. She rushed to catch up with me, asking, “Can you believe this?”
I replied quickly, “No, not at all,” and laughed out loud as she explained flipping Davis the bird. In that moment, we shared a mutual understanding regarding the absurdity of Davis’ comment.
While everyone’s entitled to an opinion, I couldn’t believe someone would behave so immaturely, coming on a college campus to provoke students under the false pretense of “educating” and “spreading awareness.”
Davis’ presence violated JMU’s safe environment for learning by belittling those whose opinions opposed pro-life. The scene failed to represent a learning opportunity; instead, Davis’ display caused unnecessary tension and tempers to rise, eventually causing campus security to stay on site.
Not to mention, Davis’ disruptive behavior overshadowed other equally significant tabling events occurring at the same time, like JMU’s Department of Civic Engagement. Directly next to Davis, the booth offered factual information about the upcoming election, including aiding students in voter registration, checking the status of voter registration, identifying locations where to vote, and answering any possible questions.
Personally, I fail to see the benefit of JMU inviting those like Davis onto campus when the scene causes deliberate disruption. Perhaps, if Davis allowed mutual and meaningful participation to occur, then I would understand, but she failed to foster an open and safe space for civic dialogue and engagement.
Thus, what was the point? If students are unable to engage in productive conversation, what value does her presence actually bring to campus?
Tell me your thoughts in the comments below.
Also, for more information about Davis’ time at JMU, visit the college’s newspaper article in The Breeze.