By Ameer Abedy

Disclaimer: This Op-ed reflects the views and beliefs of its author, and does not represent the Berea Torch itself. Questions and critiques are welcome.

Last week, while leaving the Hutchins Library, I was approached by a student carrying a clipboard and a friendly demeanor. He informed me that on the clipboard was a petition which he asked me to sign. The petition, he said, advocates for the administration of Berea College to  decline an application filed by a chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) to become a Recognized Student Organization (RSO). I was intrigued and discussed the petition with him for a few minutes, but ultimately decided to reserve my signature.

TPUSA needs no introduction. The organization has grown ever more controversial for its fringe, right-wing views and its recognizable, and quite problematic, founder, Charlie Kirk. The student sponsoring the petition took umbrage with the fact that such an organization might receive funding from Berea College (RSOs often receive money from the college to carry out activities and events every semester). His main grievance was that the foundational values of TPUSA are, in many ways, the antithesis to the foundational values of Berea College. He argued that since the values of TPUSA are “bad” (for the sake of simplicity) and those of Berea are “good,” TPUSA should not be allowed to gain RSO status, even though  the students applying for the chapter followed all of the required rules in RSO establishment, as any other RSO has,  and are in completely good standing. Put simply, his objection to TPUSA was philosophical, not procedural.

I make the case that TPUSA’s presence on Berea’s campus is not harmful and that it should be allowed RSO status. I make that case as someone who is vehemently opposed to the values of TPUSA, but nonetheless believes that its presence in Berea is beneficial for the greater Berea community. In his seminal essay published in the New Yorker titled “Live and Learn,” Louis Menand argued that college, in general, serves three main purposes: 1) to sift between high achieving and low achieving individuals (to serve as a stopwatch in a race, as he put it), 2) to socialize students and expose them to perspectives that they would otherwise avoid, and 3) to train students for future professions. My position stems from the second point.

To put it simply, Menand argues that, left to their own devices, people would only learn what interests them and willingly avoid discomfort. College solves this problem by creating proximity between individuals of various perspectives, faiths, backgrounds, and ways of life. This is precisely where TPUSA’s value for Berea comes from. It is no secret that the Berea Colleges students are overwhelmingly progressive, which  is not inherently a negative thing, but it runs the risk of inadvertently creating an echo chamber. Such an echo chamber is detrimental to the personal and professional development of all students in Berea, whether they are within the chamber or are amongst the minority without. TPUSA’s chapter can bring about a healthy injection of non-mainstream ideas to an audience who may never have considered an alternative perspective otherwise. Ironically, it can be said that TPUSA’s presence would create the exact diversity which TPUSA itself advocates against.

To be entirely honest, said injection of non-mainstream ideas will be uncomfortable for most Berea students, but that’s not a bad thing. Such “positive” discomfort can be a catalyst for significant personal development. In fact, this is already what is happening around campus. The prospect of TPUSA starting a chapter on campus has motivated many students to justify and articulate their disapproval of the organization beyond surface level disagreement. It has even motivated some students to sponsor a petition, which garnered hundreds of signatures. Though daunting, Berea’s administration will not always be present in our lives to protect us from all of the intellectual discomforts of the real world. That is precisely why we must be inoculated from intellectual complacency while in college by reckoning with said discomforts in an environment that promotes grown-up debate and discussion. The fact that TPUSA has motivated me enough to sit down and write the editorial you are reading is another prime example of the healthy discussions that can result when mainstreams are challenged.

There still exists the proposition that allowing a TPUSA chapter on campus betrays Berea’s core mission. To that end, I raise two counterpropositions. Firstly, TPUSA’s presence is, in fact, entirely in line with Berea’s mission. It is essential, for a liberal arts education to prosper, that diversity of thought exists and is promoted, despite the content and nature of said thought. Secondly, even assuming that TPUSA’s presence is contrary to Berea’s great commitments, punishing the TPUSA chapter by depriving them of the opportunity to become an RSO betrays a duty which Berea, and all other colleges, hold that is far more fundamental and rudimentary than any of the great commitments: to produce thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent grownups. That cannot be achieved if the administration shields us from disagreement and tucks us into our beds at night. We, as students, must be put in situations in which we are forced to defend and articulate our beliefs in order for us to truly understand them and understand why we hold them.

In an ideal Berea, a student walking through the involvement fair is bombarded with perspectives and beliefs, none of which they agree with. A student may encounter the table of the communist club and ask themselves, “Do I agree or disagree with these people and why?” They may then walk over to the conservative, anarchist, or libertarian table and ask themselves the same thing. Ultimately, that student is much better off personally for having experienced all of these perspectives, which they may never agree with on anything. Extracurriculars and clubs are not simply a nice feature of college education; they are a core component of the entire educational experience. Such clubs have often been the birthplaces of philosophies, revolutions, protests, and political movements. For Berea to have a restrictive policy towards its RSO, simply for their controversial beliefs,  risks sacrificing the betterment of its students in exchange for their temporary comfort. If We value diversity, we must welcome disagreement.