Wesleyan Students Can Do Better. So Can TPUSA.

Last Thursday, Feb. 19, an unofficial chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) made its debut on campus. The Wesleyan TPUSA chapter founder, along with staff members from TPUSA and the Leadership Institute, another conservative organization, displayed signs, including one that read “Dump Your Socialist Boyfriend,” and passed out political buttons and pocket constitutions. Soon after, a cohort of about 30 Wesleyan students gathered in disbelief around the table. Within 20 minutes, an unidentified student threw one of the signs, which was then stolen by another student. The TPUSA members left the Usdan University Center, where they were tabling, shortly after. 

In this single incident, lasting approximately an hour, we got a microcosm of where our national discourse stands. One side struggled to listen to a perspective that opposes the prevailing campus orthodoxy. On the other side is a movement built on owning the libs, where provocation is valued over intellectual discourse. 

For years, we have heard about illiberalism when it comes to free speech on college campuses and on the left. 71% of college students now believe it is acceptable on at least some occasions to shout down certain speakers. College students have prevented individuals ranging from former United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, to CNN personality Michael Smerconish, to U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin from speaking on campuses, simply because they disagree with their ideas. Just last month at Sarah Lawrence College, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein was shouted down while ironically giving a speech on the topic of moving “beyond polarization toward shared solutions.” A known critic of Israel, Klein was still called a “Zionist pig” and a “Nazi.”  Moreover, the protestors refused to speak with Klein, despite his attempts. This is the classic heckler’s veto, where someone disagrees with an idea so much that they take it upon themselves to prevent it.

Wesleyan students may disagree with TPUSA, but their right to table on campus is protected by the student handbook. The University affirms that “students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately” and acknowledges that “students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of their own choosing.” The proper response to speech someone disagrees with is an impassioned argument of their own, not tossing a piece of cardboard.

Perhaps the best argument against the heckler’s veto comes from abolitionist Frederick Douglass. In 1860, Douglass was preparing to give a speech in Boston in support of abolition, but a pro-slavery mob took over the stage and shut the speech down. Six days later, Douglass responded to the incident, where he said, “[t]o suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Yet, evaluating the incident requires more than calling out the left’s intolerance of speech they disagree with. William F. Buckley Jr., the conservative intellectual known for his passionate debates with his liberal counterparts, articulated his arguments with rigor and clarity. Whatever one thought of Buckley’s politics, he did not rely on slogans meant to provoke a reaction, but rather tried to change minds through intellectual discourse.

That takes us to TPUSA’s signage. “Dump Your Socialist Boyfriend” was not crafted to bring about serious debate. It was designed to provoke. Putting up this sign in front of an overwhelmingly liberal audience during the lunch peak is not going to spark intellectual discourse. It was likely meant to create a spectacle rather than to change minds. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a video of the incident was posted on social media by a TPUSA representative, lampooning “leftist harassment.”

If TPUSA returns to campus (and in the spirit of free speech, I hope they do!), they should have a table where students are actually encouraged to participate in conversation rather than confrontation. Perhaps they could bring a speaker who concludes with a question-and-answer session at the end. 

Nothing excuses the student’s behavior, though. A heckler’s veto and throwing a sign are completely unacceptable. But provocation won’t win over the minds of students who disagree. If TPUSA wants to change minds, it should learn from the approach of Buckley. And for progressive students at Wesleyan, they should take a lesson from former American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen, who has long said that contempt and cancellation do not change minds, empathy and dialogue do. 

Another example of how we can do better comes from right here in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut’s longtime U.S. Senator and the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, formed one of the Senate’s longtime cross-party friendships with Republican U.S. Senator John McCain. Lieberman, a liberal Orthodox Jew, and McCain, a conservative Vietnam veteran, may not seem like natural friends. The two of them were not always lockstep on many policies, but they showed that those who disagree can still be confidants. Lieberman later referred to the friendship as “one of the great blessings” of his life. 

Some may think that Wesleyan students are too young and immature to be compared to elder statesmen like McCain and Lieberman. But history shows that youth does not preempt civil discussion. If James Madison could help shape the Constitution, despite rigorous debate over what it would look like, in his 30s, then we can certainly have a respectful conversation across a table at Usdan. 

As someone who reported on this incident for the News Section of The Argus, I hope this reflection can show that dialogue, and not dispute, is the way forward.

Blake Fox is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at bfox@wesleyan.edu.