US Higher Education's Move to the Right

In recent years, the political landscape of U.S. higher education has undergone a noticeable shift, with universities, faculty, and academic discourse increasingly moving toward more conservative positions. This transformation, which some see as a response to growing societal polarization, has raised important questions about the future of academic freedom, diversity of thought, and the role of universities in shaping the ideological future of the nation. At its core, however, the rise of right-wing ideology within higher education is beginning to present a larger existential threat to the future of the United States itself—its democratic values, global influence, and even the sustainability of its political system.

The Rise of Conservative Voices on Campus

Historically, U.S. higher education has been perceived as a bastion of liberal thought. The overwhelming majority of faculty members, especially in the humanities and social sciences, lean left politically, and university campuses have often been hotbeds of progressive activism. However, recent trends suggest that conservative voices are gaining traction in academic spaces, and their influence is becoming more apparent.

One of the key indicators of this shift is the increasing number of conservative professors and scholars. While conservative scholars have long been underrepresented in academia, a growing number of universities are seeing new initiatives to diversify intellectual perspectives. Some schools have even created specific programs to attract conservative or libertarian thinkers, with the goal of ensuring a broader ideological representation in faculty and curriculum.

Further fueling this rise in conservative thought on campus is the growing prominence of organizations like Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, TPUSA has become one of the leading organizations promoting conservative views among students. The organization’s influence has been a significant force in reshaping the political climate on U.S. campuses, advocating for free markets, limited government, and traditional values, while also fiercely opposing what it sees as left-wing indoctrination in higher education.

Turning Point USA has launched a variety of initiatives to spread conservative ideas, from organizing campus chapters to hosting events and debates aimed at fostering a more balanced discourse on issues like free speech, political correctness, and social justice. TPUSA’s “#DefundTheUniversities” campaign, for example, highlights the organization’s belief that public universities have become ideological echo chambers that perpetuate liberal views while stifling conservative opinions. Through their grassroots activism, TPUSA has successfully mobilized thousands of students across the nation to challenge what they perceive as a political monoculture on campus.

The Political and National Security Implications

The increasing dominance of conservative ideology on campuses isn't just a shift in academic discourse—it also has broader implications for the future of the United States as a democracy and a global superpower. As universities play a critical role in shaping the next generation of leaders, scientists, policymakers, and innovators, a marked shift toward the right could reshape American political identity in ways that undermine core democratic values, international standing, and future prosperity.

As political polarization deepens in the U.S., the growing influence of right-wing thought on college campuses is contributing to a narrowing of intellectual diversity. This ideological homogenization threatens to stifle critical thinking and open dialogue, both of which are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. In the face of global challenges—ranging from climate change and economic inequality to international conflicts—the U.S. needs universities to foster broad-minded, evidence-based perspectives, not ideological echo chambers that prioritize partisan loyalty over reasoned debate.

Moreover, as some conservative voices increasingly advocate for a rollback of certain civil rights, a stricter immigration policy, and policies that privilege nationalism over globalism, the move to the right within academia risks undermining the very ideals that have helped maintain the U.S.’s status as a democratic superpower. With more conservative policies influencing everything from the teaching of history to the shaping of economic and environmental policy, the United States risks retreating from its role as a leader in global affairs.

The Role of Natalism: A Cultural and Ideological Shift

At the same time, some conservative ideologues are placing increasing emphasis on the idea of natalism, a policy of encouraging higher birth rates in order to ensure the future of the nation’s population and economic vitality. This has gained traction in right-wing political circles, partly as a reaction to what they perceive as declining birth rates and societal shifts toward individualism over traditional family values.

Natalist arguments often center on the need to preserve a strong national identity and to ensure that future generations of Americans are capable of maintaining the country’s global dominance. Some conservatives argue that America’s declining birth rates, alongside growing concerns over immigration and cultural shifts, pose a threat to its long-term strength as both a democracy and a superpower.

From this perspective, universities may come under increasing pressure to align their policies with a more natalist agenda—encouraging families to have more children and ensuring that the nation’s cultural values are passed on to future generations. In practice, this could lead to an emphasis on traditional family structures and ideologies that prioritize reproduction, national loyalty, and the consolidation of conservative cultural values.

Such a move could further stoke division in the U.S., as liberals, progressives, and more moderate thinkers push back against efforts to center population growth as a national priority. It also raises concerns about women’s rights and reproductive freedoms, areas where the U.S. has seen significant political battles over the past several years. By pushing a natalist agenda, the right may inadvertently push American society toward greater social and cultural conservatism, while alienating the diverse, inclusive values that have long been the hallmark of American democracy.

Anti-Intellectualism and the Decline of History, Humanities, and Social Sciences

One of the most concerning aspects of this ideological shift within American higher education is the rise of anti-intellectualism—a growing sentiment that dismisses intellectual pursuits, scholarly inquiry, and academic rigor, particularly in fields like the humanities, social sciences, and history. At a time when the U.S. needs to foster critical thinking, nuanced debate, and cross-disciplinary solutions to pressing global problems, anti-intellectualism threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education and democratic citizenship.

Anti-intellectualism in U.S. education often manifests as an outright rejection of academia in favor of populist rhetoric that prioritizes "common sense" over expert knowledge. This attitude is part of a broader cultural movement that discredits scientific consensus, historical analysis, and nuanced social inquiry, particularly in areas related to race, gender, and social justice. In an environment where truth is increasingly seen as subjective and knowledge is often dismissed as ideological, universities face the difficult challenge of defending the very principles that make academic inquiry valuable.

The decline of the humanities and social sciences has been a major casualty of this trend. These disciplines, which include history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and literature, are often viewed as elitist or politically left-leaning, and thus subject to attack by conservative critics who prefer a more utilitarian and economically driven education system. Programs in history and the humanities have been increasingly underfunded and undervalued, particularly in state schools, as the demand for vocational programs and STEM degrees (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) has surged. This shift away from critical analysis of human culture, society, and history may have long-term consequences for society’s ability to confront complex global challenges, as these fields are essential to understanding the historical context of political, social, and economic crises.

Furthermore, subjects like critical race theory and gender studies have become lightning rods for conservative attacks on higher education. Critics argue that these fields promote divisive ideologies and undermine national unity, while supporters argue that they offer critical insights into the structures of inequality and power in modern society. The backlash against these disciplines reflects a broader cultural rejection of intellectualism—one that sees scholarship as inherently biased and politically charged, rather than objective and necessary for understanding the world.

This erosion of the humanities and social sciences, alongside a growing disdain for intellectualism, threatens the intellectual foundation of American democracy. Universities, which have traditionally been spaces for critical thought, interdisciplinary exploration, and the fostering of informed citizenship, risk becoming ideological battlegrounds where the pursuit of knowledge is subordinated to political agendas. In the long term, this could result in a generation less capable of engaging in thoughtful, reasoned debate about the nation's most pressing issues, ultimately weakening democratic institutions and the capacity for the U.S. to lead on the global stage.

The Paranoia and Uncritical Support for Police, Mass Incarceration, and Lack of Due Process

Another disturbing trend within the move to the right in higher education is the rising paranoia that underpins much of the conservative political discourse on campus. A growing fear of left-wing influence, social change, and external threats to traditional values has led to a distrust of institutions such as the media, academia, and the government. This paranoia has become a driving force behind conservative student groups, with their rhetoric often centered on an exaggerated fear of cultural and ideological warfare.

This sense of paranoia also extends to issues of law enforcement and criminal justice. Conservatives have increasingly positioned themselves as staunch defenders of the police, often failing to acknowledge the systemic issues of police violence and mass incarceration that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. In many cases, this has led to an uncritical view of the police and the criminal justice system, overlooking the need for reform and the widespread calls for accountability.

The rise of this uncritical approach, paired with growing distrust in institutions of justice, has serious consequences for higher education’s ability to foster meaningful dialogue about these pressing issues. Universities that fail to engage in critical discussions about mass incarceration, police brutality, and the lack of due process risk sending students into the world without the knowledge or tools necessary to address the flaws within the U.S. justice system.

The lack of due process for many accused individuals, particularly in the context of racial and socio-economic inequalities, remains a fundamental issue that is frequently overlooked in right-wing political discourse. Instead of confronting the structural issues in policing and the judicial system, some conservative groups have opted for a rhetoric that places an overwhelming emphasis on law and order, often at the expense of basic civil liberties.

By failing to address the flaws in the system, conservative movements within higher education inadvertently perpetuate a cycle of injustice and inequality, undermining the democratic principles of fairness and accountability.

The Threat to American Democracy and Global Power

In this context, the move to the right within higher education could signal a deeper crisis for the future of American democracy and its place on the global stage. A shift toward conservative ideologies at universities, coupled with efforts to limit academic freedom and increase ideological control over education, could erode the very foundations of democratic governance. The core principles of democracy—such as free speech, the rule of law, and respect for individual rights—rely on open inquiry, the free exchange of ideas, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning.

If U.S. higher education increasingly becomes a tool for political socialization rather than a space for independent thought, the future of U.S. democracy could be at risk. A populace raised on narrow ideological frameworks—whether left or right—will lack the critical thinking skills necessary for civic engagement, informed voting, and democratic participation. This, in turn, could erode the strength of U.S. institutions and the nation’s ability to adapt to global challenges.

In the context of the U.S.'s status as a global superpower, this ideological shift could also undermine its ability to lead in international diplomacy, science, technology, and economic innovation. The U.S. has traditionally led the world in fostering innovation, research, and academic collaboration. However, as conservative ideologies increasingly dominate American academia, it risks isolating itself from the rest of the world, particularly in areas like climate science, social justice, and global trade. A nation that turns inward and prioritizes conservative ideologies at the expense of international cooperation risks diminishing its own democratic values and its power as a global leader.

The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism

In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.

The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education

Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.

On-Campus Surveillance

Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.

In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity

In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.

University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.

Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement

While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.

Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control

One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.

For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.

The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist

Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”

While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.

The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.

The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.

Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia

Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.

Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.

The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."

Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism

The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.

In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.

The Implications for Democracy

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.

Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.

Conclusion

The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.

If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.

“Wypipo” and Higher Education: Unpacking Race, Privilege, and Power in U.S. Colleges

What Does “Wypipo” Mean?

“Wypipo” mimics the pronunciation of “white people” but carries critical connotations. It is often used to call out behaviors associated with whiteness, including racial entitlement, cultural tone-deafness, and systemic blindness to inequities. The term serves as both a cultural critique and an assertion of resistance against normalized white dominance.

Higher Education and “Wypipo”: The Landscape

U.S. colleges and universities remain sites where whiteness shapes admissions, curriculum, governance, and culture. Predominantly white institutions (PWIs) continue to reinforce racial disparities despite diversity initiatives (Espenshade & Radford, 2009; Alon, 2015). Curricula center Eurocentric perspectives, while faculty and administrative leadership remain disproportionately white (Turner, González, & Wong, 2011).

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, and Liberty University: Conservative “Wypipo” Powerhouses

Among the most prominent embodiments of “Wypipo” influence in higher education are conservative activist Charlie Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012, TPUSA has become a major force in conservative campus organizing, advancing a right-wing political agenda centered on opposition to what it terms “woke” ideology and critical race theory.

Charlie Kirk’s activism includes extensive social media campaigns, campus chapters, and large-scale conferences that mobilize predominantly white student bases. His rhetoric often frames racial justice efforts as threats to free speech and traditional values, casting “wokeness” as a form of indoctrination (Cowan, 2020). Kirk’s influence extends into shaping public policy and funding flows, leveraging connections with major donors and political figures.

Liberty University, founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Sr., is a key institutional partner in this conservative higher education ecosystem. Liberty positions itself as an alternative to mainstream universities, promoting Christian conservative values with significant political and financial resources. Its student body and leadership largely reflect a white evangelical demographic that aligns with Kirk’s messaging. Together, TPUSA and Liberty University represent a coordinated cultural and political push that sustains whiteness as a dominant force in higher education debates (Harriot, 2021).

Michael Harriot’s Insights on “Wypipo” and Power

Journalist and cultural critic Michael Harriot has explored how whiteness functions not only as racial identity but as a system of social control. In his work, Harriot emphasizes the performative and often self-interested nature of white activism and the ways white power adapts to preserve itself, including in educational settings (Harriot, 2017).

Harriot’s analyses illuminate how figures like Kirk and institutions like Liberty University deploy cultural narratives that obscure systemic racism while mobilizing racial resentment. This dynamic reinforces “Wypipo” dominance under the guise of protecting free expression or traditional values, often at the expense of marginalized students and faculty.

How “Wypipo” Reveals Structural Inequities

The use of “Wypipo” challenges higher education stakeholders to recognize whiteness as an active, often unmarked, structure of privilege. Critical race theory frames whiteness as a form of property and power that shapes institutional policies, resource distribution, and cultural norms (Harris, 1993; Lipsitz, 1998).

This perspective calls on predominantly white faculty, administrators, and students to examine their roles in perpetuating inequities, even unconsciously (DiAngelo, 2018). It also critiques diversity efforts that focus on surface inclusion without addressing deeper power imbalances (Ahmed, 2012).

Controversy and Necessity of the Term

While “Wypipo” can be provocative and controversial, it forces a confrontation with realities often softened or ignored in polite discourse. Scholars argue that such language is essential for disrupting entrenched whiteness and fostering honest conversations about race and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).

Toward Equity Beyond “Wypipo”

True progress requires dismantling systemic racism in admissions, curriculum, governance, and campus climate. This means elevating marginalized voices, redistributing power, and holding institutions accountable (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011; Harper, 2012). Programs rooted in critical race pedagogy and institutional change show promise for fostering inclusive educational spaces (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

---

References

• Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press.

• Alon, S. (2015). Race, gender, and the stratification of college science majors. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 259–280.

• Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press.

• Cowan, T. (2020). The culture war on campus: Turning Point USA and conservative student activism. Journal of Higher Education Politics and Policy, 22(1), 45–62.

• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd ed.). NYU Press.

• DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

• Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.

• Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Engaging faculty of color in the academy: Lessons from multiple perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 152–182.

• Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.

• Harriot, M. (2017). The Case for Reparations—and Why White America’s Resistance Is About Power. The Root.

• Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791.

• hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

• Leonardo, Z. (2004). The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the Discourse of 'White Privilege'. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137–152.

• Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Temple University Press.

• Sander, R. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. Basic Books.

• Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position…you fit the description”: Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551–578.

• Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.

• Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wong, K. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211.

Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Empire Takes Advantage of Failing Federal Agencies As Right-Wing Assault on Division I College Campuses Continues

As CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Turning Point Endowment, Turning Point Action (TPA), and Students for Trump (SFT), 26-year old Charlie Kirk has established an "alt-lite" non-profit empire, funded by the rich and powerful, and supported by President Donald Trump. Kirk's network includes close ties to Donald Trump Jr. and access to the White House for Turning Point events President Trump has attended.

As progressive celebrities cancel speaking engagements on college campuses this fall, TPUSA and Students for Trump have a clearer path to continue their "aggressive" assault on Division I college campuses in battleground states: Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, with the major purpose of getting President Donald Trump reelected. 

Charlie Kirk's organizations have become well-funded Donald Trump youth groups, supporting unrestrained gun rights, fossil fuels, deregulation, and political cover for whatever Donald Trump needs.

Jane Mayer (New Yorker), Lachlan Markay (Daily Beast), Mike Vasquez (Chronicle of Higher Education), Haley Victory Smith (USA Today), Alex Kotch (Sludge), the Southern Poverty Law Center (Hate Watch) and the Anti-Defamation League have done good work in documenting important and unsettling aspects of Kirk's empire: questionable business practices that evade IRS and federal election rules, acting as a corrupting influence in college elections, promoting disinformation for the National Rifle Association and the fossil fuel industry, lying for President Trump, using surreptitious listening devices on campuses, intimidating professors and minority students who oppose President Trump, and opening the door for hate speech on campus. 

Politico has also documented Turning Point's Arizona headquarters, a beehive of activity for Kirk's non-profits. But Politico failed to ask any tough questions about TPUSA's questionable practices on and off campus. They didn't even bother to ask questions about the potentially illegal intermingling of personnel and resources at Turning Point. While Politico noted the organization's access to the White House, they failed to mention Turning Point's use of Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort for exclusive, high-priced events.

Turning Point Action was formed in May 2019 and now acts as the parent company of Students For Trump (SFT). SFT previously acted as a non-affiliated political committee, but it was administatively terminated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in April 2018. Their only treasurer, John Lambert, pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges in August 2019. Less than a month later, SFT sponsored a relaunch in Las Vegas at the Palms Hotel, owned by Trump allies, the Fertittas.

Should Turning Point Action be filing with the FEC as a political action committee? It's anyone's guess, and it really doesn't matter during the Trump era. Current rulings and guidelines, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and lack of a quorum at the FEC make a complaint to the FEC next to useless. The same is true about asking the IRS to look into the intermingling of funds between Turning Point USA, a 501c3 and Turning Point Action, a 501c4 and parent organization of Students For Trump.

An essential part of the story now is how Charlie Kirk has been able to take advantage of weaknesses in federal oversight, making complaints to the FEC and IRS fruitless. Another part is Kirk's close collaboration with the White House, through Donald Trump, Jr. and Turning Point USA events at the White House and Mar-a-Lago. 

With Trump's Executive Order for Free Speech on Campus (which penalizes colleges for preventing "speech" of all sorts, particularly Trumpian speech), Charlie Kirk and his organizations have more openings for hate speech and dirty tricks on campus. Schools that deny this "free speech" could potentially lose their federal funding streams. Perhaps college students should exercise their 1st Amendment rights and employ a Watchlist for Turning Point activists that are breaking federal and state election laws.

Turning Point USA Blurs the Line Between Charity and Pro-Trump Political Group (Alex Kotch, Sludge)

A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity (Jane Mayer, New Yorker)

5 Takeaways From Turning Point’s Plan to ‘Commandeer’ Campus Elections (Michael Vasquez, Chronicle of Higher Education)

Students For Trump Is More Dangerous Than You Think

Pro-Trump Non-Profit Sign of the (Corrupt) Times

Turning Point USA opens door for hate groups and gun violence on campus

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA incite racial conflict, secret surveillance on campus

The Rise of the Battleground Campus (Kyle Spencer, Politico)

Trump’s Free-Speech Executive Order and the Right’s Fixation on Campus Politics (Osita Nwanevu, New Yorker)

I went inside a rightwing safe space to find out the truth about universities (Cas Mudde, The Guardian)

Extremism, Terrorism, and Bigotry: Turning Point USA (Anti-Defamation League)

Turning Point USA accused of boosting their numbers with racists by long-established conservative student group (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Watch)

Trump Youth Group Turning Point USA Continues 13-Year Effort to Incite Violence and Claim Victim Status

For almost a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer has covered Turning Point USA (TPUSA) on American campuses. Led by 31-year-old Charlie Kirk, this well-funded pro-Trump youth group has used a variety of tactics to target professors and incite violence in its attempt to gain right wing control over university campuses, while claiming to be victims of the Left. Our efforts to expose Kirk and his growing Turning Point empire have gained insufficient traction as the Trump administration continues its war on intellectuals and on social justice. And we are saddened to see well-meaning resistance groups take the bait. We implore university professors and university activists to educate students and their communities inside and outside the ivory tower walls about the many strategies of nonviolence resistance. The Right wing has already taken much of Left's playbook, which means new methods of resistance are required. And with President Trump in power again, the Right has even more power. Fighting fascism requires enormous skill, not masks and fists.