UD’s Vision of Inclusivity Meets the Reality of Turning Point USA
(Photo Courtesy of University of Dayton)
Lacy Armstrong | Opinions Editor
The University of Dayton openly advocates for inclusivity, a sense of belonging, and the inherent dignity of each student. However, within the same campus that promotes these principles, there is a student organization associated with Charlie Kirk, a national figure whose history of discourse demeans women, minorities, and marginalized communities. This contradiction is impossible to ignore.
As a Marianist institution, the University places a strong emphasis on community and inclusivity. Campus leaders highlight the importance of diversity and belonging as fundamental aspects of the student experience, and UD consistently advocates for the idea that every student deserves a supportive environment in which they are valued. These commitments form a fundamental aspect of what it means to belong to the Flyer community.
However, the presence of a student organization affiliated with Turning Point USA creates a challenging contradiction. By now the news is well documented: The group’s founder, Charlie Kirk, was struck down by a gunman’s bullet on the campus of Utah Valley University on September 10.
Surely there is no place on earth for political violence of any kind. Nonetheless, Kirk’s organization has a well documented history of statements that belittle marginalized communities, downplay systemic injustices, and express hostility towards women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and racial minorities. His words, widely circulated through various media channels, speaking tours, and his own personal broadcasts, have sparked a national debate due to their direct conflict with the values of inclusivity, compassion, and respect.
For many students, the tension is vast. How can a university that claims to advocate for acceptance simultaneously host a group associated with rhetoric that openly undermines that principle? This is not a matter of silencing speech, rather, it involves an honest acknowledgment of the gap that exists between the university’s declared mission and the values represented by one of the organizations it allows to operate under its umbrella.
The issue at hand becomes one of integrity. Institutions such as UD are unable to regulate every word spoken by affiliated individuals, however, they can acknowledge when values are in direct conflict. To provide a platform for an organization led by a man whose public record involved mocking women, dismissing racial inequality, and encouraging division is to invite significant discomfort into a campus that promises safety and support for everyone. It risks sending a message that inclusivity is subject to negotiation when weighed against the demands of partisan ideology.
Universities must always navigate the balance between freedom of expression and their own institutional values. Students at UD have the right to organize politically, and those rights should be protected. At the same time, the university has a responsibility to guarantee that the organizations it recognizes do not directly contradict the principles it claims to uphold. Allowing such an inconsistency to persist without recognition or dialogue risks the integrity of the values that the university presents to prospective students, faculty, and the community at large.
The contradiction is clear. UD cannot fully embody its mission of inclusivity while also accommodating organizations tied with leadership that undermines the value and dignity of many individuals within the community. Recognizing this tension is not an act of censorship, rather, it serves as a call for integrity, prompting the university to reflect on whether its actions truly align with the principles it proclaims.