Turning Point USA has arrived at Vanderbilt. The worst is yet to come.
In a statement to The Hustler, RaeAnna Morales, founder of Vanderbilt’s chapter of TPUSA, discussed TPUSA’s goals on Vanderbilt’s campus as promoting free speech and civil debate, specifically how “feelings of disbelief, grief and anger led [her] to realize that freedom of speech and the right to engage in debate are the foundation of America, and they can never be surrendered to fear or violence.”
In theory, these ideals should appeal to the everyday American. However, mission statements do not exist in a vacuum. Context matters.
No one deserves to die for expressing their political opinions; political violence has no place in America. However, using that death to expand an organization with a documented record of inflammatory rhetoric defies the principles established by the founders of this country.
Let’s first tackle the group’s purported mission of free speech. During the 2023 America Fest, Turning Point’s annual conference, the late Charlie Kirk delivered the following remarks: “I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
Kirk made this statement relating to how American politicians interpret the Civil Rights Act when passing legislation, specifically that it has gone beyond its original intent. Although this idea could be true, not one person can determine a baseline for going beyond original intent. That is also why we have the Supreme Court.
To willingly use this dangerous language, Kirk opens the room for people to share similar views, regressing against the fight for equality in America. The Vanderbilt community deserves to see the type of outlandish behavior stirred from this organization.
To date, at rallies on college campuses across the country, TPUSA has, on numerous occasions, spread hatred against marginalized communities such as immigrants, people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, among many others. As a predominantly white institution, this puts our minority communities in danger. By enabling TPUSA at Vanderbilt, we enhance visibility of negative rhetoric associated with the national organization, potentially isolating aspects of our student life.
Take another local Nashville, Tennessee, university, for example. At Belmont University’s monthly TPUSA meetings, students often hold signs stating, “broken borders breed terrorism,” “this nation is rooted in tradition” and “welcome to the spiritual war,” among others. In hindsight, these statements are harmful once analyzed. Broken borders connect immigration entirely with terrorism, portraying people of color or of immigrant descent as inherently dangerous to America. Further, being rooted in tradition suggests sticking to historical norms, resisting social change such as civil rights and social liberty. Lastly, classifying conservatism as inherently “good” according to Christianity is a dangerous use of language, signaling that everyone who does not agree with TPUSA is immoral and dangerous.
In a petition seeking to remove the chapter from campus with almost 200 signatures, Belmont’s TPUSA is accused of spreading “misinformation and fostering an environment that isn’t conducive to the educational and ethical standards.”
Returning to Vanderbilt’s chapter’s goals, “Turning Point USA’s mission is to educate students about conservative principles, promote American patriotism and provide opportunities for open debate about political, social and economic ideas,” Morales said.
The following quotes are from The Charlie Kirk Show, unless otherwise notated. On his show and during his events, Kirk argued over his radical conservative principles, which in turn are those of TPUSA. To the Vanderbilt community: should the following ideologies have a space on our campus? Are they conductive of conservative principles and American patriotism?
“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”
“If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us: ‘I am only here because of affirmative action.’ We know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
When Kirk was speaking at a TPUSA Faith Event in 2023, “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
“The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.”
“The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”
In addition, TPUSA has an ongoing professor watchlist, meant to instill fear in professors choosing to factually educate students on current events. Not only will TPUSA instill dangerous dialogue throughout our student body, but our professors now face surveillance over academic freedom, hindering many from fully teaching their material.
Language like this can seem simple, but considered together with Kirk’s remarks, it is evident there is a negative connotation. This is what is yet to come, Vanderbilt.
Clearly, there is no place for TPUSA on Vanderbilt’s campus, and its track record is derogatory in many respects. There has been a substantial amount of progress with free speech on campus, specifically through Dialogue Vanderbilt, to encourage students to have open dialogue on polarized issues. Vanderbilt College Republicans typically work together with student organizations, such as with Vanderbilt College Democrats, to debate openly. That is the beauty of cooperative politics. TPUSA would do the opposite. By freedom of speech, the organization means anything to make conservative ideologies louder than anything else. By conservative principles, they often come at the expense of marginalized communities. By American patriotism, it means reverting to traditional roles based on sex, race and sexuality, among many others.
What makes you, the Vanderbilt community, think this behavior will not continue on our campus? Let this be a warning: TPUSA does not have the common interest of the entire Vanderbilt community in mind, but rather only those willing to fight against marginalized communities.
I agree: political discourse on Vanderbilt’s campus should be encouraged and allowed; that is the privilege of attending a top university. However, this idea should be countered when an organization is known for misrepresenting underserved communities. As a result, TPUSA will deepen existing divisions on Vanderbilt’s diverse campus.
Now what?
The Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom offers students resources on how to best counteract newly established TPUSA chapters across college campuses. As one student body, we should have the bandwidth to protect the integrity of our campus community, away from dangerous organizations with hateful purposes. Organizations such as the newly established Young Democratic Socialists of America want to focus on “political education and advocacy on campus, as well as political participation and community service in the greater Nashville area.” Although claiming to be a “big-tent leftist club,” organizations like these genuinely want to fight for the common interests of all, no matter political affiliation.
At the end of the day, counterprogramming aimed at uplifting the entire Vanderbilt community will prosper above dangerous agendas.
I urge you all to use the presented facts and decide how to get involved. Stand behind organizations that truly value our Constitution, the First Amendment and the interests of our entire community.
My final take? Turning Point USA has no place at Vanderbilt.

Free Speech Warrior • May 13, 2026 at 7:08 am CDT
“However, using that death to expand an organization with a documented record of inflammatory rhetoric defies the principles established by the founders of this country.”
Uh… 1st Amendment? Advocating to stifle free speech is the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. Might be worth checking out Dialogue Vanderbilt and understanding why free speech, even from those you believe espouse abhorrent views, is integral to this country.
Nacho • May 11, 2026 at 5:17 pm CDT
“Dangerous political dialogue?”
That the writer would use this phrase evidences just how desperately organizations like Turning Point USA are actually needed at Vanderbilt.
If you disagree with them — and I do, on a great many things — then, by gosh, debate with them. Engage them. Challenge them. Do the hard work of changing minds and winning arguments.
Don’t simply insist that they should be no-platformed, because they make you uncomfortable, or that they, “spread hatred,” because they don’t agree with your views on social issues.
If Vandy is in the business of prohibiting, “outlandish behavior,” I suspect that the author wouldn’t enjoy the consequences at all.
Jose Ruiz-Zepeda • May 13, 2026 at 8:57 am CDT
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Taking the initiative to write this opinion editorial to be published on Vanderbilt’s student newspaper is an initial step in challenging its establishment on campus. By staying quiet, you do not accomplish anything.
It appears your argument is based on the context provided in the deck and the initial paragraphs of the opinion editorial. Once the entire article is read, it is clearly established how TPUSA will only harm the progress Vanderbilt has made in fostering dialogue on campus. With that, I encourage you to read the entire editorial when attempting to form a counterargument.
Nonetheless, organizations such as Vandy Republicans and moderate right-wing organizations often work together with other student orgs to ensure students have the opportunity to debate freely. However, based on TPUSA’s track record and appearances at other universities–all stated throughout my opinion editorial–it is clear that there is a different mission here. As I stated, TPUSA’s goals do not exist in a vacuum, and you must be willing to take the organization’s harmful actions as a whole in terms of what the Vanderbilt student body needs.
In our increasingly polarized world, changing minds and winning arguments are all subjective topics. However, bringing awareness to a potential danger on Vanderbilt’s campus using the organization’s track record, neighboring school events, and the organization’s missions as a whole is enough to consider this argument a win. This article goes beyond disagreement, but rather shows how far right TPUSA is, as well as how that extreme right-wing ideology will hurt our student body.
These are simple facts. I encourage you to analyze them further in a broader context.
BA 98 • May 11, 2026 at 12:39 pm CDT
I find it curious that these pages contend that the best way to exercise the First Amendment is by engaging in censorship. I would encourage more introspection. If anything, Kirk’s experience reveals that the true threat of violence originates from those on the ultra-left, not ‘traditional’ Americans.
Jose Ruiz-Zepeda • May 13, 2026 at 9:03 am CDT
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughts. First, I encourage you to read my reply to the above comment.
If your main takeaway from this article is “the best way to exercise the First Amendment is by engaging in censorship,” then you do not understand the scope of the piece. By reading and analytically digesting the provided content, it should be easy to decipher that Vanderbilt is a place for free speech, but not when an organization known for spreading hateful messages towards marginalized communities is now established on campus.
As I said above, these are simple facts. I encourage you to analyze them further in a broader context before attempting to form a counterargument.
Anonymous • May 2, 2026 at 8:32 am CDT
I disagree
Anon2 • May 11, 2026 at 3:56 pm CDT
Would you please care to elaborate? Anything in particular you disagree with? Any of the individual points? The final conclusion? The sentiment behind the editorial?
Anonymous • May 2, 2026 at 8:31 am CDT
I disagree