Turning Point USA

Written by Alexis Wilkins

Faith-based? Or is it something more like faith – based on an institution, a paycheck, or a promotion of an ideology?

Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, has long been known as a Christ-centered university, a beacon of safety and good morals, a place for parents to send their kids and feel good about it, and they make sure you know it. Gleaming buildings, peppy kids giving tours for potential future students to make their decisions in the fall, allowing parents to breathe a sigh of relief that they’re not sending their child to what they think will be more indoctrinating options and that they’ll have the backbone of faith events and resources to keep the curriculum and social experience at least neutral – except they won’t.

Recently, a Christian group called the “Promise Keepers” was barred from hosting their event at the school, come September, regarding a blog post they made in light of June being Pride Month. They stated their point of view on the matter: “Biological identity has been severed as separate from ‘gender identity,’ while children across the United States are actively indoctrinated into intense inner turmoil about who they really are.”

Two days before tickets went on sale, Belmont retracted their venue as an option for their fall tour. Promise Keepers issued a press release stating that, “Belmont representatives cited a conflict in values” and that the school was not returning phone calls to discuss the matter. They explained that, as a men’s Christian organization, they were giving men the advice and leadership values they needed at this time, trying to converse about societal norms, pop culture, and the impact they could have on society.

Whether you agree or not with the group, it is clear they were not being unkind with their remarks, and the conversation centered more around the current topic of gender ideology, trans issues, and protecting youth than it did with Pride Month in general.

Belmont, in an email sent to the entire school, denounced the group stating that they were contradictory to Belmont’s guiding principles, were displaying unkindness with their viewpoint, and, most notably, they were “fanning the flame of cultural wars, and are harmful to members of their community.” The school’s governing guidelines, decisions, and the people who decide both of those things are more unclear than they used to be.

An institution that imparts leadership, lessons, and morals to young adults who are the future of the generation (with a hefty price tag, no less) should be guided by streamlined values that are apparent, disclosed, and unhypocritical. The duplicity at Belmont University did not begin this year, but it is clear that the school is now ready to take its evident goal to keep its moral statements exclusively in the new student marketing department and instead promote woke ideology and punishing conservatism (or even neutrality) on day one of class.

In the years between the pandemic and now, the university has taken this opportunity to increase the institutional control and messaging, expanding further what they had already begun to teach. When I was a freshman at Belmont in 2016, I sat down with my class of students in an auditorium. My parents were brought into a separate auditorium, and we were both shown our respective PowerPoint presentations about how kids will go off to school and while parents have raised them to some point, the parents need to be comfortable and supportive if their children come home with completely different belief systems.

Similarly, the kids are told to shelve the values they were raised with and set out to find what they believe for themselves. This ideology sounds harmless until you realize the one-sidedness of what educational institutions are pushing, conversely, what these institutions are now barring from their programs.

The point here, even outside of the issues of the school’s religious veil, is the hypocrisy of the partiality and the term “fanning the flame.” The phrase “fanning the flames of cultural wars” implies that Belmont would like to take the position of neutrality, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

This is coming from a school that allows a student’s senior art thesis to be paintings of Jesus in compromising and pornographic interpretations (while still not to be shown on campus) was allowed to create from his point of view and communicate in his thesis that religion was a negative aspect of life for him, and his art is a way of healing from it stating that “I’ve tried to emphasize what God could be instead of what God is. I see Jesus as a figure that can be interpreted as an advocate for queer love.”

The professors associated are listed on the student’s Instagram to have encouraged this project, going as far as being a part of the conversation at the art gallery that displayed the pieces and putting their far-left political stances on their pages. One of these professors, David Dark, is a religious professor.

A DEI statement on an unassuming physics class syllabus is as follows:

“As a Christian institution, we aim to provide a welcoming environment for all people. We acknowledge our debt to the Western tradition of evidence-based science yet note that the practice of science in that tradition was often only available to wealthy males of European descent. In this course we emphasize that anyone can contribute to science, because the natural world transcends human divisions.”

Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

It is inherent in 2023, in an American university, that analytical mechanics are available to all who wish to learn, and the mention of any skin color in a DEI statement is inherently racist. This begs the question of who is setting the guidelines under which these syllabi statements are accepted as curriculum?

Professors Jimmy Davis and Gideon Park are cited as great examples in a 2021 article, on Belmont’s website, about what should be promoted in a Belmont DEI statement. The guidelines set forth are school-set ideals, but it is unclear who decides explicitly what is accepted in a classroom DEI statement. It is, however, apparent that these are individuals the college looks to promote peace and fairness in their establishment. However, Jimmy Davis and Gideon Park’s classroom testimony seem to paint another story from the point of view of their own students.

Of Professor Davis, one student says, “I had Davis for two semesters of Honors project classes. We were the only section of this course without a project halfway through the year because he told us we couldn’t plan anything despite the course’s description. He often raised his voice at us and even swore at us one time. Very disrespectful and unprofessional.” Another saying: “Rude and loves hearing himself talk . . . way too much work in not enough time, he ironically is not a great communicator for a communications course.”

Similarly, Professor Park’s student reviews read the same: “Took 12 years of catholic education and this was the lowest grade I have ever received in my life. Unfairly difficult grader and the content isn’t even relevant. Social justice nonsense has infiltrated even understanding [of] the Bible. Do not take this professor or class if you care to actually learn anything about a relationship with God.”

If these people are responsible for setting the standard of fairness, Belmont doesn’t care about equal representation; they care about a narrative. It’s not even conservatism that’s punishable anymore; it’s even plain neutral patriotism that’s offensive to the school and some of its students.

Stevie Giorno, former Student Body President of Belmont, leading into the 2020 pandemic, found himself in the middle of a character assassination after posting a picture in front of the White House for the 4th of July. This picture was not inherently offensive, but over three hundred comments stated otherwise. Students flocked to share their opinion on the post, with most being negative responses mixed in with some threats to both Giorno’s personal safety and his position in the school’s government.

This closely followed another school-related issue, the topic of George Floyd and the student government’s response to it. While the student government issued a public statement that racism or discrimination has no place in the school or otherwise, in light of the events around the 4th of July, Stevie’s fraternity called for meetings regarding his potential expulsion. Stevie and his family felt the weight of the safety issues through threats from students and inaction from the school. They received little assistance from Belmont, even on the prospect of coming to class and finishing his college experience safely. They were allowing students to state that it was “on sight” if they saw Stevie but not allowing him to take precautions on campus.

Another student in the home stretch of his degree, finally reaching the point of taking his publishing final. For his final, he was required to proofread an assigned book – the problem for this student was that the assigned piece of editing for the final was a portion of an erotica novel promoting debauchery, substance use (it should be noted that Belmont is a dry campus,) and idolizing immorality.

This book was presented to the class as “a treat” for them and was written by this professor’s friend, and contained graphic and explicit sexual acts performed by college freshmen. The students were asked to improve upon the work in response to the author, to “praise” portions of the book, and explain how they would change things – in detail.

Due to the student’s ethics and the fact that he was using a church-issued computer to do their schoolwork, this student respectfully asked for a different option for their final. While he was granted an alternative, the professor ignored the thoughtfully made moral complaint and assigned this student two passages to read – one of which was also sexually inappropriate.

It should be noted that this behavior violates Belmont’s own code of ethics and would have been flagged had the file been opened on school property computers in the library. At this point, I would like to again, bring up the fact that a committee must approve a DEI statement, but this professor’s curriculum somehow got approved without issue and put the student in an uncomfortable position of choosing between their morals and their grade. This professor has been notorious for claiming variations of the sentiment – this is Belmont; I can do whatever I want.

The same professor included “mindful stretching” in their class and described it as a meditative practice. When the student was not spiritually or physically comfortable with this kind of class activity, the professor said they would fail him outright should he not comply. This professor was being manipulative as well, given that the pressuring conversation happened in front of the rest of the class. Being worried about his grade, the student met with the Dean of Belmont’s Curb College, hoping that he might find some reassurance or solutions, but instead was met with blatant belittling and left the meeting without a solution. The professor was promoted soon after this semester.

Prager University’s Will Witt came to campus to give a talk a few years ago, and the morning of the event, he was abruptly told that he was no longer welcome to hold it at Belmont. The event was instead held in a local café, and the university gave no reason for the cancellation. After hosting the largest chapter in school history, Turning Point USA was denied a chapter on campus and has been continuously barring students from restarting the chapter since late 2018.

There’s my own testimony of being a student at Belmont in the Business and Political Science departments, receiving an “F” in Comparative Politics, a class in which I did all the work. – My crime was that it was clear this professor wasn’t indoctrinating me. I partook in every helpful conversation related to the topic, I read every non-optional and optional book, and I did the work. I was not participating in a conversation about how great AOC was or how the school’s president was a dictator. I did not lean into political conversations that was off-topic during the lecture.

I was visibly irritated by the German Punk music that started each class for 15 minutes of paid class time. This professor kept the worst records I have ever seen in any class, put nothing into a system, prepared us for very little by lecture, and told us that “he didn’t feel like grading last night” in almost every class. Through the long process of meetings with the head of the department, the dean, and then finally the school’s previous president, Bob Fisher, my grade was reversed to a passing grade. This professor might’ve gotten away with this behavior if not for keeping creation dates and records. He still teaches today and complained to a fellow student about me, by name, for months afterward.

It is important to state that I was not miserable at Belmont. Yes, I struggled with my beliefs being tested through grades and put down for not succumbing to indoctrination. Still, the school is beautiful, and I was awarded the Williams-Murray Writing Award for my writing, an award for Economic Critical Thinking. I was invited to be on the Ethics Debate Team. I was involved in the campus to the extent that I saw the good in it at the time – but it’s not enough. I had an overall successful experience in college, and I am not a grudge-holding student. I am still wholly unimpressed with the direction they’re taking the school. I am concerned for those who have and will attend after me.

The university is on a path to cloak the woke with religion and good ethic statements, as evidenced by countless testimonies from students, parents, and faculty. These people are, by default, afraid to speak out over what’s going on at the school for fear of retaliation – Belmont knows it and uses it to their advantage. The school has always been accepting and educational about other ideas, religions, and practices, which is precisely what a school should be doing – welcoming all and educating. However, the conflation with politics, the partisan nature of the teachings, and the one-sidedness of silencing the neutral-conservative voice are blatant and reprehensible.

Promise Keepers trying to come on campus and represent their ideas and share with Belmont has nothing to do with bigotry or unkindness, whatever their views on the month of June might be. If they can allow my professor to make a convocation called “Religion on the Left” mandatory, they can allow a Christian men’s group to come to speak their piece and share their point of view.

While I am a Christian, my problem with the actions in the stories mentioned above isn’t exclusively tied to the religious reasons of the Promise Keepers and what they were trying to represent; it’s that the refereeing from the school to keep the conversation only on one side of the aisle (political and moral) makes liars out of a supposed religious entity and that the narrative has become so wildly unbalanced, curating groupthink at the highest level, and making people who are looking to send their kids to school wonder if they even should.

It begs the question of neutrality. When pop culture and society clearly pass a moral threshold of what is acceptable on the basis of a faith-based school, it should be the school’s responsibility to at least provide opinions of all kinds and not curate what the students can and cannot be exposed to. If educational institutions are faith-based, but academic neutrality should take precedence over the religious aspect, shouldn’t the school – at the very least – be obligated to remain morally neutral?

The school cannot have it all. They cannot silence a Christian group but allow pornography to be a graded assignment. They should not let a religion professor endorse lewd paintings of a religious figure but allow public prejudice of a conservative student. Belmont is censoring what can and can’t be accessed as a student and forcing those who disagree into silence under the guise of kindness and inclusivity, harkening back to operating under a religious safety net and putting those morals exclusively in the welcome pamphlets.

Belmont promises the opportunity to hear both sides of issues and space for debate. Colleges are inherently institutions of conversation, but the leadership at the school has absolutely no intention of following through on those in practice. The university allows complete one-sidedness, indoctrination of their students, and total alienation of students who disagree with what they are making out to be the masses.

If Belmont wants to discuss “fanning the flame of a cultural war,” then they should consider their First Year Seminar class called Pros and Cons of Marxism, religion professors supporting the artistic exploitation of a religious figure or only supporting a single side of a debate as the genesis of the issue. Not to mention that they are also teaching children to embrace the way they are “oppressed” and helping them live within their victimhood instead of encouraging them to overcome whatever adversity they might have in their lives and accomplish incredible things no matter their backgrounds. I’ve seen people, against all odds, accomplish incredible things – why isn’t that the lesson we are taught in university?

I suppose Belmont is taking the liberal in “liberal arts college” seriously, and my proposal to them is this: if you’re going to be a center for indoctrinating, silencing, and denigrating our generation’s youth – at least own it like the Ivy’s do. Acting under the umbrella of religious protection and false narratives is for cowards.

Sincerely,
An Unhappy and Un-donating Alumni