Debunking Charlie Kirk (and Turning Point) on College Indoctrination
Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA has a publication called “Indoctrination Prevention: 10 ways college professors indoctrinate America’s youth and how to prevent it.”
It was published on the Turning Point site in 2015 but is no longer there. This is the link where you can still see its title, but the link to the PDF does not work.
Kirk refers to the publication in a 2015 interview (about the 8 minute mark).
The College Fix and Jezebel have written about it. There is a full version of it here.
As The Fix notes, it was co-authored by Lauren Cooley, a conservative organizer and now editor at Red Alert. She was the managing editor and field director for Turning Point USA from July 2014 to May 2015.
As mentioned above, it has ten “ways” which match the ten sections of the book:
1. Deconstruction of your upbringing
2. American Exceptionalism
3.Glorification of Government
4. Capitalism
5. Greed v. Success
6. Tolerance
7. Social Justice
8. White Privilege
9. War on women
10. Sustainability
I am not going to work my way through each section. For one, there is plenty to fact-check in the first two. But also this really is not about indoctrination for Turning Point. These “ways” are an effective vehicle for Turning Point to argue for its central tenets. It creates the “problem” — however vague or empty — and “solves” it by its claims. So one might suggest then that the solutions — or responses — are as empty as the problems they claim to solve.
And so my work in this post is not so much arguing that indoctrination does not exist, it is arguing that Turning Point makes it a problem and how its claims as solutions are factually inaccurate. In other words, I don’t accept the premise of indoctrination and won’t bother trying to prove its opposite.
Turning Point is merely using the scare word of indoctrination to create another way for its affirmations to get to its audience. Effective but not ethical.
Overall, the booklet is lacking in evidence, has few if any provable examples of these “ways” happening. It seems to be based on the presumed experiences of its author and implied experiences of others. And it suffers from fact problems — claims it makes that are easily disprovable.
As the introduction notes, the book’s premise is that students can’t identify when indoctrination is taking place. This implies not only are the “liberal professors” so good at their indoctrination — the booklet does pay the professors this compliment — but the conservative students are so… what’s the word… under-educated. But once you recognize these moves, then you can be protected. And to paraphrase Charlie Kirk, the book is about teaching students what to think, not how to think. There is nothing in the first two sections about how to argue, merely what to say. Turning Point does have a publication on “how to argue with your professor” and I may get to that someday.
This lack of awareness of indoctrination also implies that high school teachers are not as good or not as willing to indoctrinate. Yet Turning Point has made its name in part by filming high school teachers who, it claims, do this. It also has several high school groups.
Also it is not clear merely based on the table of contents what ism or ideology the professor is indoctrinating the student into. Granted, several of the sections align with nominal issues “progressives” care about. But there are plenty of liberals who love capitalism, who think government is too big or not the answer. And many also believe in American exceptionalism. In other words, the doctrines may add up to a straw man.
“Deconstruction of your Upbringing”
The first section on “Deconstruction of your Upbringing” is entirely without rhetorical merit. It has not one example or piece of evidence.
Comparing the brainwashing by “progressive” professors to Army boot camp is an odd move for a group that consistently cheers and advocates for the military. If indeed the Army breaks down the enlisted person in order to make your world view different, isn’t the result good there, if you support the military? Of course Turning Point is bashing the method while ignoring the result. It doesn’t even bother to argue the Army’s result may be good.
Because of its reference to beliefs that are not “outdated” or “unenlightened,” this section sounds like pamphlets of yore from Christian fundamentalists who argued against “secular” higher education (and still do). Even the phrase “lens in which you view the world” echoes the fundamentalist (and evangelical) use of “worldview.” But Turning Point needs a copy editor here as one does not view the world “in” a lens but with or through one.
That said, Turning Point is implying of course its capitalistic, “free-market” views should not only be associated implicitly with Christianity but also its views are attacked for the same reason. It is basically replacing the theological with the economic and patriotic. This is on purpose as the crowd it draws from is already susceptible to that combination of America and religion.
And so it is no surprise that the pamphlet then next says: “The same may be said about your religion.” It doesn’t name that religion. But Islam and Judaism are not usually linked to American-style capitalism. And the overwhelmingly majority of Americans claim to “believe in God,” and more than 75% of the nation claim Christianity of some stripe.
One can only guess in which course or which professor has made these supposed comments. I will say that speaking outside of one’s academic arena of expertise is a big “red line” for professors. And so if these are comments made in a religion class, you have to wonder why a Turning Point student would sign up, knowing this.
It is clear why from an interview with the author by The Fix: “It’s more about the show you are putting on for the other students. They are going to see a different point of view and realize it’s not just black and white.”
It is confusing that the student’s ‘speaking out’ here seems to promote for Turning Point a “different point of view” that is not “black and white.” It again is an odd phrase. In this scenario the professor is offering only one “side” — the black. The student then chimes in with another — the “white.” But this offering does not negate the choice of “black and white” here. In fact, such a chiming only furthers the binary — belief or disbelief — made here.
It is also ironic that the student is portrayed as giving the class a “different point of view.” It’s not like anyone in this hypothetical class doesn’t know the “other side” here.
But it is not about merely supplying knowledge. As the line from the author shows, it is about the performance for an audience. But it is not a performance of persuasion. Even if somehow the student upstages the professor and silences he/she with the shame of not giving the “other side,” I do not think (as an expert in rhetoric) anyone is convinced to believe in Christianity or capitalism based on the student merely giving the “other side.”
Instead, it is a staged “fight” against what Turning Point is calling indoctrination and what most other people would say is a professor professing.
Such a performance is not intended by the admission of the pamphlet’s writer to be an academic exercise — a curiosity stated. No, it’s about standing up to the indoctrination, not necessarily convincing anyone of any particular claim concerning the subject matter. But only to put one side in the righteous column and one side not.
So the performance is aimed at the other students. Then what? Will there be a surge of other students speaking up, demanding what exactly? I suspect, if Turning Point’s videos are any indication, the goal of such a mob would to be to get the professor fired for indoctrination.
But notice the definition of indoctrination used. It is not a method or even an attitude, the repetition of an offensive phrase or claim or even shouting down of the student’s views. It is saying something, a certain something.
Turning Point is challenging its readers to name indoctrination as professions it doesn’t agree with.
Turning Point is not — to be clear — speaking out against just any or all indoctrinations. It would support, I assume, the socialization and “disciplining” of the mind that happens in some majors. It merely is bashing speech it doesn’t like.
This should make clear that Turning Point’s maxim of “free speech” is not only a ruse but hypocrisy. It is clearly different than speech statements from groups like the American Association of University Professors.
But by turning indoctrination back against the “left” Turning Point is answering decades of criticism that has suggested this kind of work is exactly what America and the Christian church has done for centuries. It has effectively turned “Bible bashing” into “lecture bashing.”
And as should be clear, Turning Point makes no case for the line between indoctrination and moral and ethical persuasion. In other words, it doesn’t make any case why its own practices are also not indoctrination. It merely assumes it in the professor for their speech content.
American Exceptionalism
First, I have to point out that the pamphlet uses the phrase “very unique,” and then I must say this:
But back to the analysis.
The basic argument in this section is that America is no more evil than other nations, but also “very unique.” In other words, we are just as bad, but also much better.
Jezebel has noted a central problem with this claim (with Turning Point’s words first, then Jezebel in bold):
While yes, America has had its faults through the years, such as poor treatment of natives, slavery, and unequal rights for women, the mistreatments of these groups were occurring all over the world and was considered as normal treatment during that time period.
That’s phenomenal. I can’t decide whether a copy editor is high or low on the list of needs for Turning Point USA when I can’t even decide whether I even want them to stop being like, “But all the other kids had slaves too!” They’re just out here saying it! Okay.
There are other problems in this section.
First, Turning Point writes America is exceptional because US “uniquely produces high life quality” based off “basic metrics used to measure” quality of life. It offers none of these metrics or stats.
So let me.
This list does not have America in top 10. Next, this list has America as #8 in “best countries” overall and #17 in quality of life. This list of cities does not have an American one in top 10. And this site gives great context to any ranking.
Next, Turning Point writes: “Our constantly increasing standard of living, access to economic capital and opportunity, and the relative freedom of individuals of our country stands alone.”
All but one of these phrases as claims are so vague as to be unprovable, not to mention without evidence. And our freedom, access to capital, and standard of living does not “stand alone.” We are near some countries in freedom, for example.
As for “access to economic capital,” let me quote Peter Callero, professor of sociology at Western Oregon University, from his 2017 book The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:
“One has to be relatively rich before gaining access to economic capital… Even though the United States is considered one of the wealthiest nations in the world, most Americans have very little economic capital.”
And for access to capital, if we take “richest person alive” lists, there are quite a few non-Americans on the list. As for access to capital by small businesses in America, about 43 % of “owners report that they needed funds at one point in the last four years and were unable to find any willing sources,” according to one study. Yet most small businesses are started by capital owners already have or get from friends and family. So a divide exists in regard to access to capital.
As for standard of living that is “constantly increasing,” US is not top in world. Or even in the top echelon. As for the standard of living increasing, even the libertarians argue the US standard is not increasing anymore. And here is another study that suggests a decline. I’ll ignore the debate as to why but Turning Point is missing the facts here.
Next, Turning Point lists American “greatest hits” — my phrase — that include “greatest representative government,” “uncanny technological advances,” “most compassionate and giving nation,” and “beacon of freedom,” and “bastion of opportunity.”
These phrases are so vacuous or vague as to be unprovable, least of all as a comparison to others. The first is an aspirational phrase — an ideal to live up to. Turning Point uses these honorific words often but they don’t do much to make the argument it claims to make. In other words, even if these phrases could be defined, they don’t prove “very unique” status. Other countries invent technologies, for example.
But there is one phrase that can be measured — giving — and again Turning Point gets it wrong. American in giving is second to…. Myanmar.
Lastly there are some phrases Turning Point suggests professors may use to argue America is not exceptional. Such as students should be “ashamed to be an American” and “people across the globe hate America.”
The first of course is an opinion. But are professors saying it? I searched Google for the phrase and “professor.” I found three related links that were not conservative sites implying professors said this. Two were anonymous students saying their professors said this on ratemyprofessor.com.
The third is an academic psychological study that reported undergraduates at the University of Arizona and the University of Southern California “recalled instances when other Americans exhibited prejudice toward people of Middle Eastern descent after September 11th” and those students “indicated that identification with being American predicted more shame and a stronger desire to distance oneself from the group when the event was very negative.”
In other words, the more they identified with being American, the more intense shame these students felt when other Americans exhibited racism against people from the Middle East. These students then identified less as an American because of the shame.
