Arizona State University (ASU) faculty behind a campaign against the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center asked to be added to a watchlist of professors who discriminate against conservative students, emails reveal. Those faculty members later cried foul for their inclusion on the watchlist.
In emails shared with Arizona Sun Times, a Barrett Honors College faculty member requested his addition to the professor watchlist, a product of the Phoenix-based conservative advocacy organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA). That faculty member, professor Mike Stanford, emailed former T.W. Lewis Center executive director Ann Atkinson to request that she forward his request to TPUSA.
“I thought, ‘Why should my colleagues get all the glory? What am I, chopped liver?’ I even filed a ‘tip’ about myself on the website. Yet to no date, no joy,” stated Stanford. “I respectfully request that you direct your minions to add me to the Watchlist. It seems only fair.”
ASU closed the Lewis Center following the principal funder’s decision to withdraw his backing over the “left-wing hostility and activism” of a majority of Barrett Honors College faculty. The faculty launched a campaign with a letter to oppose the invitation of the three conservative speakers at the event: Charlie Kirk, founder and president of TPUSA; Dennis Prager, radio talk show host and founder of conservative educational group PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, author and PragerU presenter.
Since then, several of those involved in the controversial event have come forward alleging retaliation for their involvement. The Arizona legislature ordered an investigation into the ordeal, specifically to review whether free speech violations had occurred.
The leaders of the Barrett faculty's condemnation campaign were not communicating effectively. While several Barrett faculty members endeavored to add faculty to @TPUSA's Professor Watchlist, others claimed inclusion in it led to ongoing attacks. https://t.co/32Molgk4Uwpic.twitter.com/VNLIDSbwOh
Stanford received further endorsement for inclusion on the anti-conservative watchlist from another signatory, professor Michael Ostling. Ostling’s role in the campaign against the Lewis Center event resulted in his inclusion on the professor watchlist. Ostling called the watchlist an “honor” for him and his colleagues.
“It is thus only fair that he should be honored, along with his colleagues, as a Professor in need of Watching,” wrote Ostling.
Yet, Ostling and fellow Barrett signatories Jenny Brian and Alex Young alleged months later in an Arizona Republic opinion piece that their inclusion on the watchlist resulted in threats of violence. The three professors also argued that those who reject inclusivity were a threat to debate and, therefore, should be barred from public discourse.
Another leader of the faculty's condemnation campaign publicly claimed that inclusion on the Professor Watchlist led to harassment and violent threats. Again, this contradicts the faculty's private requests to be added to the list. pic.twitter.com/iXVzGrFx5Z
Democratic Sen. Christine Marsh (LD04) further claimed that it was faculty members’ fear over the Professor Watchlist that caused them to decline to testify at last month’s state legislature’s joint committee hearing on allegations of free speech violations at ASU.
ASU has 42 faculty members listed on the Professor Watchlist. Among those 42 are the 39 of 47 Barrett faculty members who signed onto the letter opposing the Lewis Center event: Abby Loebenberg, Abby Wheatley, Adam Rigoni, Alex Young, April Miller, Benjamin Fong, Christiane Fontinha de Alcantara, Dagmar Van Engen, David Agruss, Don Fette, Elizabeth Meloy, Gabriella Soto, Georgette Briggs, Irina Levin, Jacquie Scott, Jennifer Brian, John Lynch, Joseph Foy, Joseph O’Neil, Laura Jakubczak, Laurie Stoff, Lisa Barca, Mathew Sandoval, Matthew Voorhees, Michael Ostling, Mina Suk, Nilanjana Bhattacharjya, Peter Schmidt, Phillip Cortes, Rachel Fedlock, Rebecca Soares, Robert Mack, Sarah Graff, and Taylor Hines.
The University of Arizona has nine faculty members included on TPUSA’s watchlist, and Northern Arizona University has two.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
High schoolers will learn from firsthand experiences of the evils of communism in a documentary series featuring two Arizona lawmakers who survived it.
The series, produced by the University of Arizona (UArizona) Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, features House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01) sharing their personal accounts of communism and their emigration to America. Toma escaped from Romania, and Nguyen escaped from Vietnam.
Nguyen praised UArizona for granting war survivors like him a platform to enlighten future generations.
The University of Arizona Center for the Philosophy of Freedom has given war survivors like me a voice to share our stories with the many future generations. Thank you! https://t.co/Dlotf2M9At
The videos were created in response to the state legislature passage of a bill sponsored by Nguyen last year requiring high schools to incorporate a comparative discussion of political ideologies: the principles of communism and totalitarianism compared and contrasted with America’s founding principles.
Nguyen recounted how, a week before the Fall of Saigon, his father boarded him and his brother on an airplane with hundreds of other people. Nguyen was 12 years old at the time; his father advised the brothers that they wouldn’t see their family again. He and his brother were transported to Subic Bay, then Guam, then to Travis Airforce Base, Fort Pembleton, and finally Fort Chaffee.
However, Nguyen and his brother were able to reunite with his family in San Joaquin, California. Nguyen explained that he only ever experienced kindness among American military members, contrary to the narratives he heard that the U.S. forces had invaded his country. To this day, Nguyen says he visits with Vietnam veterans nationwide to thank them.
The representative shared that his quality of life in America was better than in Vietnam: he was able to get a strong college education and well-paying employment as a young man.
Nguyen explained that hallmarks of communism include government control of food source, specifically severely limiting the supply; control of education, specifically focusing on propagandizing children; and confiscation of weapons.
Toma’s video includes his mother and father, Ana and Cornel Toma. They recounted how the Romanian secret police labeled their family as an enemy to the government.
Ana recalled how government indoctrination in schools taught her and her peers false history, such as that the rest of the world loved and admired Romania as a great nation, when in fact she would later learn that few Americans knew of Romania’s existence. Ana also recalled waiting in lines for hours to obtain food, sometimes reaching the front without receiving the few rations available.
Cornel recalled how the government took away people’s cattle and land, only allowing them one cow and a half-acre of land. Those who dared speak out would “disappear overnight.” The government also didn’t allow people to have vocational freedom: similar to the military, the government assigned citizens their vocations and where they would live.
The Toma family was forced to flee Romania after the Secret Police began visiting them. They only managed to escape after a family friend convinced a member of the secret police to assist in smuggling them out of the country under the guise of a vacation: at that point, the Toma family wasn’t allowed to leave the country otherwise. Ana and Cornel were forced to escape first, then send for their children.
Ana and Cornel navigated the legal immigration process for admittance to the U.S., traveling across Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Rome over the course of about a year. Ana said that, upon first landing in America, she witnessed a novel display of patriotism and love for America that touched her deeply.
“I was so impressed that somebody love the country so much. I was impressed by the attitude they had on the flight. I thought, ‘This is the first taste of freedom,’” said Ana.
The Toma family settled in a two-bedroom apartment for their family of seven. Speaker Toma shared his delight in the abundance of America through the simple joy of eating oranges: something not possible in Romania. Ana and Cornel shared that they found work rather quickly.
In addition to Toma and Nguyen, the series will include Mesa Community College economics professor Sylwia Cavalcant, who fled Poland’s communism.
Freedom Center Director Mary Rigdon said that the series would serve to advise students of the realities of communism.
“The mini-documentaries powerfully demonstrate our commitment to inform current and future generations, consistent with the Center’s mission to be an intellectually diverse, inclusive, and nonpartisan resource for leaders and students seeking to address society’s significant challenges. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight the power of freedom in a democratic society,” said Rigdon.
The Arizona legislature approved the Maricopa County transportation tax on Monday along bipartisan lines, 43-14 in the House and 19-7 in the Senate.
The bill, SB1102, would allow voters to decide whether to maintain the current transportation excise tax: Proposition 400, set to expire at the end of 2025. It doesn’t maintain the original reformation desired by Republican lawmakers: a choice to separate roads and commuter rail when it comes to funding. Prop 400 binds the two together as a package deal.
The legislature convened to consider SB1102 after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the version of the bill splitting the Prop 400 question (SB1246) last month.
The 14 House legislators who opposed the bill were State Reps. Neal Carter (R-LD15), Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), Justin Heap (R-LD10), Laurin Hendrix (R-LD14), Rachel Jones (R-LD17), Alexander Kolodin (R-LD03), David Marshall (R-LD07), Cory McGarr (R-LD17), Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Barbara Parker (R-LD10), Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15), Michael Peña (R-LD23), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). The seven Senate legislators who opposed the bill were State Sens. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD02), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), Anthony Kern (R-LD27), J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13), Wendy Rogers (R-LD07), and Justine Wadsack (R-LD17).
The bill’s passage marked a divide among Republican lawmakers as leadership declared it a win. Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD12) said in a press release that the bill would ensure infrastructure development to counter the rising rates of vehicle congestion and travel times on the road while preventing ineffective environmentalist policies.
Sen. Frank Carroll (R-LD28) noted that the bill restricted any level of Arizonan government from restricting the use or sale of a vehicle based on its energy source, and required mass transit to recoup at least 10 percent of costs from farebox revenues beginning in 2027, and then 20 percent by 2031.
Opponents disagreed that the bill constituted a win. Kolodin argued during the floor vote that the bill denied voters true choice. Kolodin estimated that Prop 400’s continuation would halve road funding in order to pay for other commuter projects used by one percent of the population. He noted that SB1102 further bled roads funding by allowing those funds to be used for other projects, like bicyclist paths and sidewalks.
“This bill denies voters of Maricopa County a real choice. It holds road funding hostage in order that the voters, who would otherwise not vote in favor of spending 40 percent of the money of this new tax on transit projects that less than one percent of them use, that they choose to vote for them anyway to get the roads,” said Kolodin. “A tax extension is a tax increase.”
Rogers said the bill constituted a tax far too expensive and weak for her taste.
I voted against this because it’s still a $20 billion dollar tax. And this bill is still full of holes. pic.twitter.com/IZFCiqEM78
Democrats championed the bill as a necessity for achieving equity.
Today, the House passed a #Prop400 extension onto Maricopa County voters. If passed, this critical investment will fund transportation projects bettering our roads, public transit, and highways.
80 percent of Maricopa County jobs are located within 2 miles of light rail or a freeway. Rep. @QuantaForAZ shares how light rail benefited her when she was in grad school and working. pic.twitter.com/wlQlgwHpAv
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) July 31, 2023
State Rep. Marcelino Quiñonez (D-LD11) said that Prop 400 was the “responsibility” of the legislature to pass.
“This is a continuation of something our predecessors have been able to do since the late 1980s. It is our responsibility to continue on good work.” — Rep. @Marcelino4AZ casts his yes vote to send an extension of the Prop. 400 transportation & transit plan to Maricopa voters. pic.twitter.com/3x6MCQpQ5u
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) July 31, 2023
Heap called the bill “disappointing.”
A disappointing day, we had plenty of time to craft a better Prop 400 bill. Thank you to the many great Representives who fought with us and the many citizens to reached out with support and encouragement. Conservatives are happy warriors so it's on to the next fight. pic.twitter.com/GFQ3PzGo1U
— Az State Rep. Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) July 31, 2023
Heap and Jones predicted that the bill’s passage marked a major win for the Democratic Party and the Hobbs administration, one that would carry into the 2024 election.
A majority of Rs did, in fact, give them the club. Bludgeoning incoming. https://t.co/zvFlPqfyW8
— AZ Representative Rachel Jones (@RJ4arizona) July 31, 2023
State Rep. Matthew Gress (R-LD04), who voted in favor of the bill, said it would ensure the restoration of State Route 51 and other critical pavement rehabilitation. Gress said that the 3.5 percent cap on the existing light rail system, a contingency for Hobbs’ approval, constituted a win since it was far less than other proposed rates.
My statement on Prop 400. I voted yes to refer this measure to Maricopa County voters. pic.twitter.com/JmoS8b0bXv
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) voiced opposition to the plan on Sunday, warning that the bill wouldn’t prevent road diets, Vision Zero projects, and progressive air quality control measures. AFEC offered a side-by-side comparison of SB1102 and the predecessor vetoed by Hobbs last month, SB1246.
AFEC further assessed that SB1102 would enable the Maricopa Association of Governments to enact its 2050 Momentum Plan.
🚨 Urgent: Why We OPPOSE SB1102
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club respectfully opposes SB1102, the #Prop400 bill negotiated between the Governor and House and Senate Leadership. Here's why ⤵️ 🧵 pic.twitter.com/m1sNTzrfhF
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 30, 2023
Prop 400 will appear on the November 2024 ballot for final voter approval. The tax was set to expire at the end of 2025.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is making no promises on a timeline to come clean on the agency providing intelligence and resources to a known Sinaloa Cartel drug trafficker.
After avoiding any commitment to offering any self-imposed deadlines on providing records on the aid, DEA Administrator Anne Milgram told lawmakers that she could only give them “hope” and her word for answers.
“I will give you hope, and I will tell you that I will prioritize it,” said Milgram.
The exchange with Milgram occurred during Thursday’s House Judiciary GOP hearing on oversight of the DEA. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) led the hearing and the line of questioning concerning the trafficker: former Mexican secretary of public security Genaro García Luna, who was convicted of his crimes in January.
Biggs asked for a follow-up on Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) two letters sent February and June to the DEA and FBI requesting records on García Luna. Grassley requested recordings of García Luna with dates of their creation and when the DEA became aware; all reports, notes, and other documents relating to García Luna’s criminal activity; content from García Luna’s cell phone and laptop; a detailed explanation of what, when, and how the FBI and DEA knew about García Luna’s corruption and criminal activity; the vetting the FBI and DEA conducted of García Luna, and the persons responsible; and all trial transcripts and exhibits from United States v. García Luna.
“Ignoring Congressional oversight questions relating to the Sinaloa cartel and foreign corruption demonstrates a lack of commitment to bringing criminals to justice,” wrote Grassley in his June letter.
Biggs also asked for copies of the records. Milgram promised to “check on the status of the letter[s].” Biggs then requested a “self-imposed action-item deadline” for the committee, to which Milgram indicated she had no idea how long it would take for the DEA to coordinate with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on obtaining the records.
Biggs pressed again for a timeline, to which Milgram said she could only give him “hope” for answers.
The U.S. Embassy reportedly knew of García Luna’s corruption before receiving a 2008 report filed by a Mexican police commander. The embassy informed the commander that the U.S. was already investigating García Luna. A week later, the commander was arrested and tortured; he was imprisoned for four years before being released.
In 2010, the DEA learned from a key cartel witness that García Luna accepted money from the cartel.
García Luna remained in office until 2012, and wasn’t arrested until December 2019.
Even with ongoing investigations, the federal government provided patrol cars used to transport cocaine, as well as training and equipment for García Luna’s officers who were trafficking the cocaine.
Milgram’s hesitancy to issue a stricter timeline for the records may be related to the ongoing investigation into the administrator for allegedly not having clean hands herself.
The hearing opened with brief acknowledgement of the allegations against Milgram concerning investigations of millions of dollars in outside, no-bid contracts to hire former associates.
The remainder of the hearing focused on DEA efforts to counter and disrupt drug trafficking.
Nearly 100,000 overdoses occurred last year. Drug overdoses, specifically fentanyl overdoses, are the leading cause of death to those aged 18-45. Chief among the increase in overdoses is fentanyl. This type of overdose accounted for 84 percent of overdose deaths in teens.
Milgram described the current drug epidemic as “nothing we’ve ever seen before” — a crisis of unprecedented proportions — and identified fentanyl as the cause. She reported the DEA has developed two counter-threat teams to defeat the primary fentanyl traffickers: the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels, both based in Mexico.
“One drug, fentanyl, has transformed the criminal landscape,” said Milgram. “We are actively targeting every aspect of the global fentanyl supply chain.”
A mere two milligrams of fentanyl, equivalent to a few grains of salt, can be lethal. Milgram described fentanyl as cheap to make and easy to disguise as other drugs in order to drive addiction.
In April, the DEA identified the Chapitos network of the Sinaloa cartel as the pioneer and primary manufacturer and trafficker of fentanyl into the U.S. Chinese suppliers, manufacturers in Mexico, and U.S. distributors. 28 members and associates were charged; nine were taken into custody.
In May, the DEA publicized their results of Operation Last Mile: the arrest of 3,337 associates of the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels operating within the U.S. Milgram reported that they rely on social media and encrypted messaging apps for their trafficking.
In June, the DEA announced the outcome of Operation Killer Chemicals: three cases charging four Chinese chemical companies and eight Chinese nationals, four of whom are in custody, with supplying precursor chemicals and scientific knowledge of creating fentanyl. Milgram reported that these charges marked the first of their kind.
Milgram also confirmed that DEA agents are stationed along the southwest border, and in Mexican plazas. Biggs asked what DEA’s role in interdiction at ports of entry along the southwest border; Milgram clarified that the DEA focuses on the border to some degree, but noted that their work covers a global scale.
Biggs indicated that cartels have an easier time trafficking drugs across the border between ports of entry, citing his past solo trips to the border where he could drive for miles without encountering any Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents.
“Not most of it comes through ports of entry, you would agree with me that most of it comes through between ports of entry where we don’t have any personnel, we don’t have the one-on-one, we don’t have the capacity to interdict between ports of entry,” said Biggs. “I think too many times people think because we seize a lot at the ports of entry, we forget that there’s a massive, wide open border.”
CBP agents work diligently to seize fentanyl at US ports of entry.
We have no way of knowing how many thousands of pounds of fentanyl are being smuggled into our country between ports of entry.
Arizona State University (ASU) leaders accused of retaliation by a former employee for hosting two “faith-based” events have kept quiet on the allegations raised against them.
The former events operator of the ASU Gammage theater alleged retaliation in a letter last week to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for allowing “faith-based” events to take place.
The complainant, Lin Blake, alleged in a timeline spanning six pages that she had only received positive performance reviews for the nearly three years leading up to the controversial events. It wasn’t until January, the month leading up to the controversial events, that Blake faced challenges to her work performance. Blake allegedly experienced unprecedented scrutiny throughout the planning, preparation, production, and post-event processes concerning the event, though she noted the event was approved last fall.
“This marked the beginning of the micromanagement of my duties and the overall hostile work environment that would become my future,” stated Blake.
AZ Free News reached out to each of the individuals allegedly behind the intimidation campaign and punitive measures against Blake regarding the controversial events. None of them responded by press time.
One of the controversial events, hosted by the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center at Barrett Honors College, featured conservative speakers Charlie Kirk, president and founder of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, a personal finance book bestseller and PragerU presenter.
The other controversial event, hosted by Bethel Chandler Church, focused on raising awareness for sex trafficking.
Ahead of the events, Blake alleged that ASU Gammage leadership convened a meeting to express concern that she was allowing a “church program” and “white supremacists” to have a platform at their theater. She also alleged enduring public condemnation and boycotting from her colleagues.
“While I was left with the obligation to run two large and high-profile events, my colleagues that did not show up to work received praise for standing by their personal beliefs,” said Blake. “ASU Gammage staff and leadership should not discriminate against any views, yet they did in plain sight.”
In addition to the accusations of supporting white supremacy, AZ Free News reported previously that Gammage Executive Director Colleen Jennings-Roggensack was alleged to have told staff that they were aligned in beliefs, that they all had voted for President Joe Biden and Gov. Katie Hobbs — even if they hadn’t.
At a faculty and leadership meeting following the upbraiding from Jennings-Roggensack, Blake said she was singled out to explain Gammage’s core values.
Blake further alleged that two ASU Dean of Students representatives breached security to enter a restricted backstage area and intimidate former Lewis Center director Ann Atkinson.
“[I]f speech was truly free at ASU, producing events with unpopular viewpoints would not have cost my job. There is no freedom of speech when it comes with the punishment of job loss for those who administer it,” wrote Blake.
