Are the Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD) really promoting free speech on campus, or are their conservative biases simply increasing polarization on campus? DFTD is an alumni group dedicated to free speech at Davidson. On their website, they claim to monitor the state of free expression and ideological balance at Davidson and assist in promoting an ideologically balanced environment. Unfortunately, despite the DFTD’s stated goal to protect freedom of speech, their actions continually demonstrate a conservative bias, inadvertently damaging freedom of speech on campus.

Many individuals involved with the DFTD are connected to the Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind Project 2025 and Donald Trump’s second presidency. Board member Emily Koons Jae is Vice President of Development and Philanthropy at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a group credited on the Project 2025 advisory board. Chairman John E. Craig Jr. also donated thousands of dollars to the ACTA in 2022. Most directly, last year’s DFTD intern now directly works at the Heritage Foundation, and gave credit to DFTD staff and previous Trump volunteer Savannah Damon as her mentor.

Other members of the organization are Republican mega-donors. Per OpenSecrets, board member Richard Hendrix has donated $16,762 to Donald Trump since 2016, and even gave $150 to Ron Desantis in 2022. Board member Ross W. Manire donated $16,600 to Republicans in 2023 alone, with tens of thousands of dollars more to other Republican PACS since 2010. Finally, board member Stephen B. Smith has donated $43,900 to various Republicans since 2020, including over $10,000 to a representative who objected to Biden’s Electoral College certification.

I will give credit where credit is due: board member James G. Martin is very cooperative with the Davidsonian newspaper, heavily involved in community events, and is often touted as more moderate. Martin reflects an admirable commitment to the stated nonpartisan ideals of the organization. Nevertheless, there is still an apparent lack of ideological diversity in the DFTD that I cannot look past.

This presents itself in the speakers the DFTD brings to campus. Last year, one of the speakers they brought in was Jeremy Carl. Carl is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, which is also listed in Project 2025. He is known for his book, The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart, as well as for being called an avowed white nationalist by former Congressman Raúl Grijalva. They also brought in Stephen Moore last year, whose name is directly listed in Project 2025. His history involves claims that black families are replacing men with welfare checks, as well as numerous accounts of sexism that derailed his 2019 nomination to the Federal Reserve Board.

Most notable, however, was their decision to bring Abby Johnson to campus. Johnson is an anti-abortion activist, a position that I disagree with yet can respect. I must ask, however, if she was a responsible choice to bring on to our campus. Beyond comments about how it would be smart for police to racially profile her African American adoptive son, her credibility as a speaker is questionable. In 2019, Texas Monthly released an investigative article pointing out various holes in the story she tells. For one, clinical records strongly undermine her infamous story about seeing a thirteen-week old fetus pulled to pieces on an ultrasound monitor. Furthermore, Johnson’s once close friend and coworker at Planned Parenthood, Laura Kaminczak, said in an interview that Johnson is merely an opportunistic, disgruntled employee. Even ignoring her past, Johnson’s actions while speaking at Davidson went against the very idea of free speech. During her presentation, she mocked chalk art students made in protest of her visit, showing a disregard for symbolic speech. Johnson also called several Davidson students in attendance “dishonorable women.” One student in attendance felt the remark was directed at those who asked critical questions: “A lot of the girls back there were the ones who were going up and asking questions and pointing out holes in her story.”

Nevertheless, I will again give credit where credit is due. Though criticized by some students for being uninformative, I must commend the DFTD’s debate events, as well as when they invite people like Art Laffer to speak. Laffer, a conservative economist, was respectful and brought a unique perspective during his visit.

The way to encourage deliberation is not with individuals likely to start unproductive and polarizing arguments. DFTD’s goal of encouraging free speech is noble, but it is only meaningful when it builds understanding, not walls between us. Unfortunately, the actions of some of their speakers may have only deepened the partisan divide between students.

If the DFTD truly wanted to promote free speech, they as individuals would not be supporting the president who once asked if peaceful protestors could just be shot in the legs. They also would not be pushing for Davidson to stand quiet in the face of this administration’s assault on higher education. Rather, they would be working with the college to stand strong during these tumultuous times. They would be inviting more speakers like Art Laffer, not people who mock free expression and insult students. DFTD must choose between partisanship and principle, for if it does not, its free speech goals will continue to go unrealized.