From Darkness To Light

2 Nov 2025

Fort Lewis College denies registration of Turning Point USA chapter

Posted by Adam Howell

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

At Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, the student government rejected the registration application of a prospective Registered Student Organization (RSO) whose viewpoints some students find objectionable.

Fort Lewis College

Photo by Bernie Lake used for news purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Specifically, the Associated Students of Fort Lewis College (ASFLC) denied the application of Turning Point USA at their meeting on October 29, 2025.  Students with Turning Point USA applied for registration so that they have permission to use the campus community platform app known as Skyhub.

Following the rejection by ASFLC, a fundraiser for the organization on GoFundme has since raised over $900 dollars.

Turning Point USA is a nonprofit organization with a student program goal of educating young people about the importance of limited government, free markets and freedom.

Alarmingly, Turning Point’s Board President Charlie Kirk was assassinated via gunshot to the neck on Sept. 10, 2025 on the Utah Valley University Campus during a public event.

At the October, 2025 meeting when ASFLC rejected Turning Point USA’s registration, there were about 49 speakers opposed to the registration application, 4 speakers in favor of Turning Point USA, and handful of people who gave a neutral perspective, according to Durango’s Turning Point USA chapter Vice President Zen Moreno.

It’s unclear what the exact reasons were for ASFLC refusing to register Turning Point USA, but here’s some of what ASFLC President Asa Worthington said following the decision:

“In light of the opinions and concerns shared to us today, by both sides of the discussion, with a vote in favor opposed, and not abstentions, we have decided to deny Turning Point USA’s request to become an RSO at this time. The students and the community members who currently make up the body of Turning Point USA will be free to use campus resources through a different avenue than Skyhub, as all public and community groups are free to do, too. The ASFLC may reconsider this decision of Turning Point’s status as an RSO in the future.”

In other words, Worthington said that their decision to discriminate was made based upon political viewpoints that were shared with them.

Fort Lewis College inherits viewpoint discrimination liability

From a legal standpoint, it would appear that Fort Lewis College has inherited the potential liability associated with Title 42 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act for deprivation of rights.

Of relevance, the Associated Students of Fort Lewis College and other student governments at public colleges and universities in Colorado are considered state actors for the purpose of applying constitutional requirements like the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

For instance, the ASFLC student government has a delegated authority, a policy-making role, has control over funding and they are supervised by state employees who act as administrators.

Specifically, the ASFLC controls the allocation of significant amounts of mandatory Student Activity Fees, which are considered public funds. When allocating these funds, they must adhere to the same constitutional principles as the state itself, including viewpoint neutrality.

Accordingly, when a student government discriminates against students who wish to share the facilities and funding, it could be seen by the courts as a civil rights violation.

In this case, the mandatory Student Activity Fees that Fort Lewis College charges students on a per-credit basis go towards funding of Registered Student Organizations (RSOs).

In turn, the student government is tasked with doling out that money to the RSOs who can use the money and registration for events and access to school facilities.

Discrimination against Turning Point USA ignores landmark case law

A guiding principle for how registered student organizations should be funded was established in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000).

A meeting of Turning Point USA at Fort Lewis College.

The Supreme Court made controlling case law in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000), where it held that mandatory student fees distributed to student organizations must be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

In Southworth, students challenged the University of Wisconsin’s mandatory student fee, alleging that it infringed on their First Amendment rights by forcing them to fund the speech and expression of organizations that they found objectionable.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held that the student’s First Amendment rights were protected by the principle of viewpoint neutrality by allowing organizations with differing views to access the funding and public forum:

“The University must provide some protection to its students’ First Amendment interests, however. The proper measure, and the principal standard of protection for objecting students, we conclude, is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support. Viewpoint neutrality was the obligation to which we gave substance in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995)…

“When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others. There is symmetry then in our holding here and in Rosenberger: Viewpoint neutrality is the justification for requiring the student to pay the fee in the first instance and for ensuring the integrity of the program’s operation once the funds have been collected. We conclude that the University of Wisconsin may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle.”

In its concluding paragraphs, the court stated:

“Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here. A remand is necessary and appropriate to resolve this point; and the case in all events must be reexamined in light of the principles we have discussed.”

While the facts of that case differ with those in the Fort Lewis College situation, the principles remain the same.

Federal law prohibits colleges from discriminating at meetings based on political speech

In 1984 the House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress passed a law with many purposes and titles, known as the Equal Access Act. The act was meant to apply to public secondary schools like Fort Lewis College which receives Federal financial assistance.

Moreover, the act was written to prohibit schools like Fort Lewis College from discriminating against students when they receive Federal financial assistance, as FLC does from sources such as the following:

  • Build to Scale program: A grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce supports the Venture Challenge, an entrepreneurial program aimed at economic development.
  • Small-business development: FLC receives federal funding to support its small-business development and entrepreneurship initiatives.
  • Teacher diversity and bilingual education: A significant federal grant is dedicated to increasing the diversity of teacher candidates and enhancing bilingual education programs in the region.
  • Reconciliation Center: The college was awarded a grant to launch a new Reconciliation Center to expand justice-oriented reconciliation and character education on campus.
  • POWER Project: FLC received a five-year grant for a project designed to support under-resourced students through culturally responsive programs and academic support.

Equal Access Act ignored by Associated Students of Fort Lewis College

Specifically, here’s the section of the law that appears to apply to Fort Lewis College by prohibiting them from discriminating against students based upon their political speech who wish to conduct a meeting in limited open forums:

Title VIII: The Equal Access Act – of H.R. 1310 – Prohibits any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum from denying equal access or a fair opportunity to, or from discriminating against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.

Provides that a public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.

Provides that a school shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who wish to conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school uniformly provides that: (1) the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated; (2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents, or employees; (3) government or school employees or agents are present at religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capacity; (4) the meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities at the school; and (5) nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.

Provides that nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States or any State or local government to: (1) influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity; (2) require any person to participate in prayer or other religious activity; (3) expend public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing space for student-initiated meetings; (4) compel any school agent or employee to attend a school meeting if the content of the speech at the meeting is contrary to the beliefs of the agent or employee; (5) sanction meetings that are otherwise unlawful; (6) limit the rights of groups of students which are not of a specified numerical size; or (7) abridge the constitutional rights of any person.

Provides that nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold Federal assistance to any school.

Since Fort Lewis College receives federal grant funding for the aforementioned purposes, the Equal Access Act should apply to the college in prohibiting them from discriminating against students who wish to conduct a meeting (on Skyhub) within that limited open forum on the basis of the political content of the speech at such meetings.

Messages posted from some of the students opposed to free speech

Adam Howell is a writer who believes in free press and the importance of the constitution. He can be reached by clicking on this link to the contact page.

#FortLewisCollege
#AssociatedStudentsOfFortlewisCollege
#TurningPointUSA
#AsaWorthington

Leave a Reply

Message: