While researching various local political and academic happenings a few months ago, I stumbled upon what I think can best be described as the Bizzaro Weekly Rose.
In American politics, discourse is saturated with appeals to freedom. While this concept is often ill-defined, these appeals are nevertheless very effective, as ‘freedom’ is a sacrosanct American value.
The concept, however, doesn’t refer to just one thing. For instance, when describing an individual as ‘free’, are they free to do something, free from something, or both? Lacking one or the other creates a situation in which the individual is not truly free to do as they please. On one hand, it means little to be free from thirst or the elements if you are barred from finding meaning through self-expression or from expressing dissent. On the other hand, “what ‘personal liberty’ is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person?” Indeed, “true freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another,” where people have both the right and the means to actualize their freedom. Any work worth engaging in is in service of building this truly free society.
For many westerners, however, their idea of ‘freedom’ is not so expansive. For Americans in particular, their ‘criteria’ for whether or not someone a place is ‘free’ are rooted in the ideology of the ruling class. For them, freedom is the extent to which citizens can say whatever they want – not what that speech produces or is rooted in. It is whether or not citizens can cast a vote – not to what extent they can actually democratically influence their nation’s policies and priorities. It is whether or not the country has a ‘free market’. This oversimplified analysis, derived using bourgeois metrics, is typical of America’s Freedom Burger Institutes, yet these standards permeate throughout hegemonic American society.
Last year, I came across a local example of this phenomenon in action.
Putting the Free in “Free State Journal”
The Free State Journal (FSJ) was founded in late June of 2025 as “a new, student-run publication,” which they claim “will provide new stories, new insights, and new perspective on life” at KU. Their logo, which ironically features the radical anti-racist and militant abolitionist John Brown, includes their motto: “Free Speech for Free Minds.” While this commitment to ‘free speech’ appears to be the core of the FSJ’s mission, what exactly their version of ‘free speech’ entails is unclear.
The FSJ’s launch post proudly declares that they “will also engage with student organizations of all types to debate local, national, and international issues.” As a rule of thumb, if someone tells you to “debate them,” run – don’t walk – away. The FSJ also laments how they “have witnessed firsthand how university media mirrors the biases of mainstream outlets and ignores perspectives that challenge prevailing narratives.” If you frame this point generously, this is a good take which we at the Rose would agree with. However, my guess is that they aren’t talking about things like the censorship of activists or capitalist ideology here. This line contains a key assumption of the FSJ about existing narratives: that “perspectives that challenge prevailing narratives” come not from the left, but from the right.
With Fox News, Newsmax, One America News, Elon’s Twitter, Stormfront, and plenty of other such outlets available, why dedicate time and energy into creating an ostensibly grassroots conservative publication? Put more simply, who is behind this project? There are two answers to this question.
One, the mind behind this project is Sarah Green.
A former executive of Turning Point USA KU and former Kansas National Committeeperson for the College Republicans of America, Green graduated from KU last spring and is now pursuing a J.D. at the KU School of Law. During her time as an undergrad, Green engaged in a few notable stunts.
First, she engaged in virulent transphobia when she spoke out against her sorority, Sigma Kappa, granting honorary membership to Stevie Tran, a trans woman. Green argued that her sorority was “taking away this crucial women’s space,” indicating there are “unlimited reasons” to oppose Tran’s recognition. She also argued that, “ultimately, it hinders ‘free speech and open discussion,’” again mystifying what “free speech” actually means in service of providing cover for hateful comments. I will not repeat here some of the more heinous things said in that article.
Second, she testified against DEI-related policies at Kansas state colleges and universities, complaining that “it is overwhelming being faced with this ideology in every corner on campus with little room for debate or dissent.” The examples she mentioned of this supposed overwhelming ideological imposition included an outreach survey from KU Athletics, optional trainings, and her University considering the subject positions of its hires. HB 2460, The legislation she was speaking against, eventually became law without the Governor’s signature.
Third, she brought Riley Gaines to campus last spring with TPUSA KU. Gaines is most famous for tying for fifth place with fellow woman Lia Thomas. The event was met with significant demonstration by the community in protest of Gaines’ transphobia following her grift to the right.
Green is now the editor-in-chief of the FSJ. Based on her contributions to the publication thus far, she still stands by her bigotry.
Two, the money behind this project is Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).
It doesn’t take hard-hitting journalism to find out where this thing came from. The second line of the FSJ’s launch post says that they “are proud to join the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Collegiate Network.” The ISI’s College Network advertises that they include publications like the Dartmouth Review, which bashes the labor movement and is maybe defunct, the Chicago Thinker, which makes all the conservative points you think it does and uses AI slop art, Lone Conservative, which is definitely defunct, and the Clairemont Independent, which is comparatively uninteresting.
The ISI, whose logo looks like the fasces, was founded in the 1950s by apartheid-denying theocratic segregationist William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review. The ISI website says Buckley “recognized the gaping void in higher education,” specifically that “progressive ideas were in vogue” while “conservative ones were ignored or attacked,” complete with the jab “Sound familiar?” Their Collegiate Network website proudly displays some of their notable alumni, which include Palantir CEO Peter Thiel, SCOTUS Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch, and generally-evil-person Ann Coulter. The ISI says its core principles are that “the purpose of education is to hand down and sharpen timeless ideas,” that “discourse is central to a flourishing society,” and that “our nation’s civic life should be grounded in the full heritage of Western civilization from Athens to Jerusalem, Rome to London.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Institute benefits from contributions from various conservative dark-money entities and foundations. This financial commitment may explain its alleged recent shift from more traditional and pluralist conservative thought to more dogmatic ideological teachings.
The FSJ brags that, “unlike other publications, [it] does not take student fees, receive any funds from the University, or get millions of dollars from USAID (dang).” Curiously though, they do not mention whether or not they receive funding or support from any outside groups. It is unclear exactly what the dynamic is between the FSJ and the ISI Collegiate Network, though as an ISI affiliate program, the FSJ can “receive grant funding for [their] publication.” Regardless, it is very likely that, without the ISI, the FSJ would not exist. The same cannot be said of the Rose, which exists for the love of the game. Besides, no billionaire would fund a publication which is militantly against billionaires.
Their content also leaves much to be desired, but that’s to be expected at this point.
Journal in Name Only
Among other things, The FSJ played pickleball to celebrate the birthday of dead racist Charlie Kirk, dishonestly framed that same dead racist’s life to lie about the opinion section of the Kansan, supported overt government censorship by appealing to plausible deniability, cried censorship about the Kansan having standards high enough to refuse to publish a hilariously bad piece of apologia from an actual oil executive, advocated for imperialism by epicly owning – of all groups – the Kansas Young Dems with “Google AI” and Yikyak posts, and angrily complained about discrimination against white men. Their deeply unserious, hateful ramblings are full of factual errors, demagogic framings, and snark their sorry ‘journalism’ hasn’t earned.
The goal of this piece here is not to respond to or fact check every point the FSJ has made, nor is it to ‘debate’ them. Instead, I aim to look at what they have said to critique the nature of their publication, its mission, and its consequences. The clearest way to do this is to look more closely at a handful of their pieces, which embody more than others some of the most prominent and dangerous patterns of this ‘publication’.
First, they welcome thinly-veiled pro-fascist perspectives.
In “Breaking the Frame: How Terminology is Holding Rightists Back,” someone claiming to be a KU student writing under the pseudonym Edward North attempts to reject the backwards-looking framing of conservatism in favor of a new, “Rightist” movement. In redefining this new, “progressive” Right as neither the Marxists and liberals of the Left nor the bureaucratic paleoconservatives and neoconservatives of the establishment Right, North proposes an alternative which is “something else entirely.” Perhaps… a third position?
In merging appeals to a glorious mythical Western past with a drive towards a nationalist future, North argues to conservatives that they shouldn’t merely change how they label themselves, but that they should shift their paradigms beyond what they had previously thought possible. North doesn’t use the word, but in essence, what North is calling for here is fascism. Because the conservative future is muddled and short-sighted, the big and transformative ambitions of the fascists may be appealing, given they are founded on such common values like “strength and glory,” chauvinism and nationalism. The first step towards building Agartha, then, is for the reader to cast aside the badge of conservatism they have worn for so long. Once the frame shifts, the ideas will follow. If this project isn’t fascism, then it’s certainly fooled me. The FSJ either doesn’t understand this piece well enough to recognize what it for what it is, or they understand it perfectly well.
It is ironic, then, that North’s only other piece for the FSJ is one titled “Fascism in 5 minutes.” There, North argues that the best definition of the term is “a form of nationalist ideology which equates the Nation and the State, and thereby reserves the right to regulate all aspects of private and public life, including economics, in accordance to what best serves the national interest.” While in some ways a serviceable definition, it fallaciously places the idea of economics after state control, as though the material reality of a nation's economic circumstances and institutions do not undergird fascism, instead appealing to a more abstract, tribalistic love for “the Nation.” North fundamentally ignores the ways that fascist movements are ultimately funded and designed by those with wealth and power.
More troubling, however, is North’s soft-apologia and downplaying of fascism and the terror it brings to its subjects, particularly the repressive ideology that fascism draws from. They rhetorically ask “what’s the difference between your average American republican and an actual fascist?” before quipping “The answer? It’s what they believe — shocker, I know.” Of course, based on their previous article, North doesn’t think the “average American republican” is on the right track and that they need to do more to engage with the mythical glorious past of their country. This ignorant conservative understanding of fascism ignores the phenomenon Aime Cesaire describes as the “imperial boomerang” which understands fascism as “colonialism turned inwards,” nor that it downplays how essential the dimension of capital is to understanding fascist projects, nor that it muddies the water with the sociocultural aspects of fascism that give cover for projects like North’s definitely-not-fascist frame shift.
Second, they won’t shut up about DEI.
The FSJ’s anti-DEI crusade has come simultaneously with the practice coming under heavy fire from the Trump administration and Kansas state government. From HB 2105 restricting DEI initiatives in public institutions, like state universities to SB 125 restricting discussion of DEI and “gender ideology” in email signatures of state employees, to Trump’s many executive orders, the very idea that we ought to build a more fair, equitable, welcoming society has been declared partisan, ideological nonsense by our ruling powers.
Parroting these powers that be, Sarah Green lauded “The $45 Million Victory” over DEI in her piece of the same name. More than just a culture war issue, Green also praised the supposed economic benefits of the cuts, citing the supposed $45 million in savings these policies have brought the state. This number – and in fact this whole issue – is a complete nothing burger. Only about $9 million of the total $45 million came from state money, with only something like $3.6 million being allocated to DEI at KU specifically, with the vast of that majority being spent on salaries for faculty and staff already engaged in broadly DEI-related activities. We’ve spent more as a state on Israeli bonds. When you give context to Green’s number, the savings start to look pretty meager.
For Green, though, the numbers aren’t what matter. Cutting every state DEI program could save one singular dollar and she would still hold the position she does. Instead, she sees DEI as a plague in need of curing. The money just gives her a nice way of saying so. Green complains that, “previously, it would be impossible to walk to class, read a syllabus, email a department, get a job on campus or walk down a hallway without being overwhelmed by DEI ideology.” I can only imagine her pain as she has to walk to class and encounter queer people, Black people, and posters for various identity-focused clubs. Clearly, Sarah is the real victim here.
Green then argues that our universities should “spend their time, money, and resources on their core functions rather than pushing ideology of DEI onto their staff and students,” as though KU is facilitating mass hypnosis of the youth into becoming trans or something. Implicitly, Green is arguing that the “core function” of a university is exclusively ‘education’, with other functions being extraneous at best, corrupting at worst. Of course, this “core function” critique doesn’t seem to extend to extracurricular programs like the Kansan, KU buying up land around Lawrence, or KU Athletics doing its own thing. The FSJ’s mission, then, is not merely to make things worse for minorities, but to invert reality and center themselves as those in greatest need of tailored initiatives and direct attention from their institutions. They don’t hate the idea of DEI so much as they hate the people it rightfully benefits.
Third, they disingenuously frame the conversation around free speech.
The FSJ has not been subtle that they are “dedicated to the mission of improving Free Speech on Campus” – more accurately, their particular vision of free speech – given that they put it at the bottom of all of their articles. Green’s articles like “How does KU rank for free speech?” and “Can KU Rebuild a Culture of Conversation?” discuss the recent Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) report on free speech on college campuses, where KU received a grade of F. For more on this report and its faults, see my piece from September.
What the FSJ fails to recognize in this conversation about free speech is power. What constitutes what they call “better speech?” What all encompasses “intellectual curiosity?” Whose ideology are we conforming to? While the FSJ’s points are clearly not meant to be full proposals for policy change, they come packaged with an implicit understanding of control in a supposedly ‘free’ space. Under the guise of free speech, conservatives will espouse the benefits of ‘viewpoint diversity’ and ‘free thinking’, yet when the campus consensus shifts away from conservative positions, as it tends to do, they fearmonger about the decline of the University and propose ostensibly neutral measures to shift the goalposts away from the actual democratic will of the majority. Their points are broad enough that you could agree with them on face, seeing the value in learning about our rights and challenging ideological conformity to bourgeois neoliberal teachings, yet in effect, these kinds of policies equivocate all sides as equally valid and worthy of protection simply by virtue of their existence – regardless of the impact they have.
From here, entities like the ISI, the Koch brother, and TPUSA can put their thumbs on the now artificially-’balanced’ scales with their superior money and resources, suppressing the will of the majority in favor of their own corporate, conservative agendas by using their own right to free speech. It is no coincidence that one of the FSJ’s more recent pieces rage-baits about student power at KU and takes no fewer than eight jabs at organic student protest, mocking it as ineffective and unnecessary. While they are empirically deeply incorrect, more importantly, their heckling reveals their nature as opportunist leeches on the backside of established institutional power.
Whether they are unwilling or unable to work to build a better, more organic base of power is unclear, but regardless, their grift is palpable. This appeal is also highly ideologically consistent with the FSJ’s position on DEI initiatives and the university’s “core function” as a purely scholastic institution. When the university’s infrastructure to address matters like social justice and protest has been commandeered and partially gutted, there’s little to stop the influence of the private groups funding the FSJ from asserting themselves to their cold, dead hearts’ content. If the FSJ really cared that ‘the students are self-censoring,’ they would fight against the Palestine exception and hatemongering zealots on Wescoe beach, rather than against those who use their speech to prevent harm being done unto others.
A Poisonous Olive Branch
More than this joke of a ‘journal’ being exactly what one could expect it to be, what should we take away from all of this?
On September 23rd of last year, two white men showed up to the campus of Tennessee State University, a Historically Black College/University (HBCU), with signs saying “Deport All Illegals Now” and “DEI Should Be Illegal”. Within 30 minutes, these debate-baitering, genocide-denying agitators were run off campus by an organized mass of students, soundly rejecting their attempt to assert themselves and their hate in a Black space.
About a month later, Sunrise KU got an email from TPUSA KU, inviting them to a ‘free speech’ event. The invitation reads as follows:
We are reaching out to invite your organization to co-host a non-partisan, on-campus free speech event that will be open to all students and staff. We are still working out some details, but the event will feature a national free speech scholar (likely from the non partisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) and we will invite professors and students from KU to speak on specific issues relating to free speech. All speakers will take questions and all students who wish to speak will be allowed to be heard. Topics will include hate speech, violence and free speech, heckler’s veto, pronouns, institutional neutrality, and governmental pressure on companies and universities to limit free speech.
We are not asking you for funding or organizational help (though any would be appreciated). We are only asking for your support, attendance, and the voice of your members. Our goal is to come together as a unified student body to show the KU administration and others that we can have an open dialogue, we can disagree, and that we want a culture where free expression is valued, respected, and protected.
We hope you will join us in affirming the importance of free expression on campus. All supporting student organizations will be recognized at the event. Please let us know if you can add your organization to our list.
Sincerely,
Turning Point USA at KU
Sunrise KU will not be attending this event. The Rose will not be attending this event. I will not be attending this event. The FSJ is functionally to TPUSA KU what the Rose is to KU YDSA and K-State YDSA respectively. As such, after everything the FSJ has said, why would these groups ever want to engage with them? If “com[ing] together as a unified student body” means conformity to TPUSA’s ground rules and positioning, then it isn’t really coming together, just as TPUSA’s brand of ‘free speech’ isn’t really free speech.
Even if these organizations disregard everything we all know about TPUSA and assume they’re engaging in good faith, what good would come from being a part of this forum? Discussion and debate on these points at best can reveal similarities between different points of view, but at most realistic, it shifts the playing field and controls the narrative around these subjects; the views on free speech of TPUSA KU and FIRE are not the only ones, but if they are the ones on which the conversation is based, the discussion is over before it begins. Change is not made through debate in the marketplace of ideas or by trying to convince other people of your positions in an abstract, neutral forum. Liberals cannot seem to grasp that. TPUSA, to some extent, does.
Towards the end of the PBS documentary The Day the 60s Died, Pat Buchanan, former advisor to the Nixon White House, speaks about the victories and losses of the Nixon administration. While he felt that his side won most of the ideological battles of the time, one he laments losing is the culture war. As colleges and universities increasingly became the site of radical organizing, it became proportionally difficult to root out cultural dissent in American schools. Roger Freeman, another Nixon advisor, said it more clearly in his warning about how, if college was made more accessible for lower-income students and students of color, the US government would have to deal with an “educated proletariat.” Here, we see one of the most critical reasons the conservative project seeks to defund, demean, and remake institutions of higher education: they can’t control the narratives spread within them.
To foster ‘free speech’ – which here is a smokescreen for undermining the ever-growing academic left-pointing consensus – you need to weaken the university, especially in its centers of dissent. For the FSJ, the problem isn’t that administrators are unaccountable, rather it is merely that there are too many of them. As such, authority squarely in the hands of an even more unaccountable body like the Board of Regents or some corporate network is acceptable. For the FSJ, the problem isn’t that our schools are suppressing radical organizing, rather it is that they are suppressing conservative – or ‘free’ – speech. As such, restricting policy around demonstrations is acceptable.
For these supposed ‘free speech’ warriors, it is not concerning that Trump is cracking down on a blanket group of dissenters and listed enemies – among a great many other pressing concerns more worth addressing than people being mean to fascists. For the FSJ, it is instead most concerning that more people don’t welcome in their terrible ideas with open, uncritical arms. The goal of FSJ is not to challenge institutional power; it is to win the culture war by whatever means they have at their disposal. The FSJ pretends to work to create a new conversation about freedom through their new right-wing publication, but in reality, they have simply rehashed the same old conservative talking points with the same old mediocrity of similar astroturfed projects.
Beware. Do not be fooled by their respectable veneer or superficially agreeable ideas. Learn from Tennessee State. This crowd is not to be treated with.
Comments
Post a Comment