ANALYSIS: Cal Lutheran’s TPUSA chapter was rejected because students think they have a right to comfort

On Dec. 1, students at the University of California Lutheran voted to reject the reestablishment of a Turning Point USA (TPUSA) chapter at the university in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Students and student senate members in attendance at a crowded meeting were invited to make public comments regarding the proposed TPUSA chapter.

”How do I then feel comfortable enough to vote for this type of club if you can’t tell me how me and my friends could feel safe?” Junior Senator Nadege Adibonou said at the meeting, The Echo reports. 

Something that is “comfortable” is something “affording or enjoying contentment and security,” Merriam Webster defines. 

Adibonou, a representative for the student body, signaled an intention to vote on the eligibility of this campus club on the basis of whether it made her feel “comfortable.” 

[RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Video shows students vandalizing TPUSA leader’s patriotic poster at UW-Madison]

Tristan Quezada, the TPUSA chapter’s prospective president, told Campus Reform that “the biggest flaw the senate had was that they couldn’t distinguish between students feeling uncomfortable because their ideologies don’t align, with students feeling unsafe, it is that simple.”

Quezada said the proposed TPUSA chapter’s constitution had been previously approved by student life because it met all the school’s policies.

”The requirements laid out to me by student life were simple: Minimum of 5 members, having a club advisor, a constitution, and signed waivers. The comfort of every student is not a requirement and it shouldn’t be a requirement for a club at this institution, it would be contradictory,” Quezada continued. 

”Students absolutely have a right to feel comfortable on their campus,” a member of the student senate in their junior year told Campus Reform.

This student senate member continued to explain that “when a group like TPUSA applies for recognition, the reaction often reflects broader political assumptions rather than the specific students involved or the club’s stated goals.”

Quezada began the club’s proposal by citing how the prospective chapter would align with the university’s mission statement, “to educate leaders for a global society who are strong in character and judgment, competent in identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice.” 

To be “competent in identity and vocation,” one must know who they are and why they believe and pursue what they do. We can’t arrive at our beliefs without challenging them. Anything worth believing is worth questioning.

The Echo reported that Adibonou grilled the students who would’ve been the officers of the university’s Turning Point chapter about how they would make her feel “validated” and “welcome” due to her status as a “black female.” 

Students don’t have an intrinsic right to feel “validated,” so why should prospective club officers bear the burden of proving this to another student? What do Adibonou’s race and gender have to do with her validity, or the validity of a prospective campus group? 

”We shouldn’t be changing our ideas or our speech just because a student might feel uncomfortable, and their argument that not everyone would feel welcomed is useless, no club in the school makes every student feel welcomed, it’s quite literally impossible,” Quezada told Campus Reform.

Laylanie Valenzuela, senior ASCLU senator, spoke at the meeting to say that he was worried for the “safety of all our students” and was “concerned” that as members of a TPUSA chapter they would “be attacked.” 

”The mental challenge of that, on you, makes me hesitant,” Valenzuela continued. Instead of proposing any safety measures provided to campus clubs, Valenzuela nodded to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk as a reason why the Turning Point chapter should not be approved. 

This is a classic leap from a single incident to a sweeping rule: because one conservative was shot while engaging in public discourse, the argument claims conservatives overall should stop participating. It exploits fear of a worst-case outcome and treats an isolated tragedy as if it were a general, predictable risk—rather than offering evidence that such participation is broadly unsafe.

The prospective chapter leaders were also questioned about their commitment to California Lutheran’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles. 

The school’s commitment to inclusion and belonging was used to exclude a prospective campus club and ensure they don’t belong. 

The inclusion and belonging mission self-describes its desire to “acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, yet remain steadfast in our pursuit of wisdom, justice, and the flourishing of all.” 

The Echo reported at the time that Cal Lutheran’s Turning Point USA chapter, which had been approved in September 2021, later disaffiliated from the university after a tabling event one month later triggered sharp backlash both online and on campus.

Critics focused on the chapter’s posters, which featured pro-gun and anti-socialism slogans many students viewed as insensitive. They argued that promoting gun rights after the community’s trauma from the 2018 Borderline Bar and Grill shooting—where 13 people were killed by a veteran later reported to be suffering from PTSD—was inappropriate for the campus climate.

That reaction, however, leaned on a logical leap: using one horrific local event to suggest that all pro-gun advocacy is inherently unacceptable. It collapses important distinctions between reckless gun glorification and arguments centered on lawful, safe, and responsible ownership or policy debate.

There’s a pattern here: debate and diversity of perspective continues to get shut down at Cal Lutheran in the name of student comfortability. 

[RELATED: How MSU’s mandated DEI course trains future teachers in conformity: ANALYSIS]

Student senators aren’t weighing the club by clear standards of conduct or viewpoint neutrality; they’re asking whether it will make them feel “comfortable” and “validated.” Students speak about politics in the language of feelings management. Emotions are not a test of legitimacy. 

“In a school like ours, the overwhelming majority is, like, the opposite of our ideology,” sophomore Luke Taylor, the prospective TPUSA chapter’s vice-president, said about campus culture during the meeting.

When a campus treats comfort and validation as gatekeeping criteria, it chills debate. Arguments get redefined as threats to personal safety or identity, and disagreement becomes something to disqualify rather than engage.

Students do not have a right to comfort. The purpose of a campus is not to foster unproductive contentment, but productive contention.

Campus Reform reached out to California Lutheran University and the student senate for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.