Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction is pushing back after the state’s Democrat Attorney General issued a legal opinion on a Structured English Immersion law.
On Tuesday, Superintendent Tom Horne issued a press release to call a recent formal opinion from Attorney General Kris Mayes “ideologically driven.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following the voter protected initiative that English Language Learners be taught in English. It is surprising that the Attorney General evades the key issue, placing ideology over the law. pic.twitter.com/5pXrWLUh2L
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 18, 2023
The Attorney General’s opinion answered the question of “which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education.” Mayes sent her findings to Democrat Representatives Jennifer Pawlik, Laura Terech, Nancy Gutierrez, and Judy Schwiebert.
The @arizonaago has issued a new Attorney General Opinion.
Re: Which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education: https://t.co/AveNs8HG20
— Arizona Attorney General's Office (@arizonaago) July 17, 2023
Mayes wrote, “Arizona law is clear that the Board has the sole authority to eliminate or modify an approved SEI model. The Board also has the sole authority to determine whether a school district or charter school has failed to comply with Arizona law governing English language learners. Only those school districts and charter schools found by the Board to be noncompliant are barred from receiving monies from the English language learner fund.”
The Attorney General declined to answer the Representatives’ question of “whether the Dual Language Immersion SEI Model approved by the Board is consistent with Arizona law.”
Horne disagreed with the opinion, stating, “The Attorney General, for ideological reasons, wanted to rule in favor of the Democrat legislators who favor dual language. So, she refused to comment on whether a dual language program without waivers violates the voter protected initiative (Proposition 203). She simply said that the State Board of Education has the power to adapt models under legislation. Neither the legislature nor the board has the power to overrule a voter approved initiative. Legislative Council found that dual language without a waiver does violate the initiative.”
The scuttle between Horne, Mayes, and Democrat legislators began on June 19, when the Superintendent announced that “public schools that are not teaching English Language Learners in English as required by state law risk losing funds for this legal violation.” Horne said at the time, “Proposition 203, the voter protected initiative passed in 2000, specified that classes for English Language Learners must be taught in English: ‘all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms.’”
Horne also included a memorandum from the Arizona Legislative Council to make his case, which read, “If the 50-50 dual language immersion model allows students to be taught subject matter in a language other than English as part of structured English immersion, the model likely violates Proposition 203.”
Later, he countered opposition to his action, saying, “In 2000, more than 925,000 Arizonans – 63 percent of voters – approved Proposition 203, making English immersion the law…. Before I took office the first time in 2003, when they had bilingual education, Lisa Graham Keegan reported to the legislature an English proficiency rate of 4%. The English proficiency rates for structured English immersion, by contrast for the last four years when I was last Superintendent (2007-2010), were an average of 31% each for those years.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following Arizona state law. Dual language education has led to a dismal 4%-6% proficiency rate in English. That is cheating students. When Superintendent Horne left office in 2009, that number was 31%. #EducationForAllpic.twitter.com/14BGddafUd
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 13, 2023
He then shared English proficiency rates for four Arizona schools, that the Superintendent asserted have had dual language for several years. According to the Superintendent’s release, those four schools had English Proficiency Rates of under 10%.
Earlier this month, Superintendent Horne posted a statistic on English Immersion success, writing: “English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they’re 50% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following state law and the data. English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they're 50% more likely to earn a bachelors degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market. https://t.co/CFnFioojCt
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 7, 2023
In his response to Attorney General Mayes’ opinion, Horne charted the path forward for his battle with the state’s top prosecutor. Horne said, “This will obviously be resolved in the courts. Until that happens, the State Board will not withhold funds. However, there are other remedies in the initiative for violation of its requirements. Any parent can sue a school or district that adopts dual language without waivers, and if the parent is successful, the school board, and the superintendent, and maybe the principal must leave office and cannot apply for their offices for five years. That will be a considerable incentive for school districts not to adopt dual language without waivers.”
The battle over the Structured English Immersion law is the second significant conflict between the Attorney General and Superintendent this year. In May, Attorney General Mayes said on television that “there are no controls” on the ESA program, “no accountability,” that “they” (presumably parents) are “spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money,” that this “needs to be looked at,” and that it’s (her) “responsibility to do that” as Arizona’s “top law enforcement officer.”
At that time, AZ Free News featured Horne’s reaction to Mayes’ comments: “Under my predecessor, who was unfriendly to universal Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), the laws were not strictly enforced, and therefore funds were used for non-educational purposes, including restaurants and clothing stores. Because I am the defender of the ESA program, I want the laws to be strictly adhered to. I want to ensure that not one penny is used for a non-educational expense. Arizona is the first in the nation, and a model for the rest of the country. I am determined that all laws be strictly enforced, and all funds be used only for valid educational purposes. I’m disappointed that Attorney General Mayes has chosen, at every single opportunity, politics over the law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The special advisor to the president for Arizona State University (ASU) said that universities can achieve their diversity goals despite the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling against affirmative action last month.
The special advisor, Jeffrey Selingo, said in an interview with KJZZ last week that the SCOTUS ruling meant that universities would have to get creative with achieving diversity in admissions.
“Now the question is how to achieve that [diversity], and during the admissions process previous to this decision, they could use race as a factor — so there was a little thumb on the scale, per say,” said Selingo. “But now they won’t be able to do that. So now they’re going to have to look at other parts of the process that they still have control over where, maybe, race doesn’t come into being, but where they could control the ultimate outcome.”
Selingo then clarified that this process would likely involve manipulating the applicant pool to yield better diversity picks. He gave one example as universities partnering with high schools in minority communities.
“If you focus on and target schools in certain areas and certain communities, you’re more likely to have students of color applying,” said Selingo.
Selingo added that the COVID-19 pandemic practice of waiving of standardized testing — namely the SAT and ACT — during the admissions process enhanced diversity quotas. He predicted that universities wouldn’t require these tests in the future for that reason. ASU, along with UArizona and NAU, were among those universities that ceased requiring the ACT and SAT for admission.
“Many of [the universities] saw much more diverse applicant pools as a result. So it’s very unlikely that schools will go back to requiring the tests as a result,” said Selingo.
The avoidance of test scores as a factor would also mean that aggrieved individuals would have a harder time proving discrimination.
“Without test scores now, it’s going to be more difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They’ve used test scores in the past cases because they could say, ‘You denied somebody with a 1550 [SAT score] and accepted someone with a 1200,” said Selingo. “I’m not saying colleges won’t comply with the law, but there’s a lot of ambiguity, let’s say, in the admissions process, and I don’t think this is going to make it any clearer.”
As special advisor for innovation, Selingo works directly with President Michael Crow on new product design and initiatives in online education, lifelong learning, and partnerships with private companies and universities.
Selingo’s confidence that universities can achieve diversity in admissions despite the SCOTUS ruling contradicted his prediction in his 2020 bestseller “Who Gets In & Why: A Year Inside College Admissions,” in which he expressed the belief that a SCOTUS decision striking down affirmative action would hinder holistic admissions and require greater transparency.
“Giving students the opportunity to learn from peers is a major benefit of a college education, one that will be even more important to students once they graduate and enter a diverse workforce. That’s why Fortune 500 CEOs largely back race-conscious admissions policies as an economic necessity,” wrote Selingo. “Any future court decision that strikes down affirmative action could also put limits on holistic admissions. That likely would force schools, for the first time in more than a century, to move to a more transparent set of academic measures in admitting students.”
At the time, Selingo did note that universities precluded from using race in admissions, citing the University of Washington specifically, rely on holistic “personal score” factors to ensure diversity, like socioeconomic status, hardships, income, and whether or not the applicant is the first in their family to attend college.
Selingo cited the research presented in “The Chosen” by Jerome Kabel, which revealed how colleges first developed holistic admissions as a means of countering academic merit and thereby limiting the admission of Jewish students.
Although Selingo is based out of Washington, D.C, he’s also a professor of practice and leads ASU’s Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a partnership with Georgetown University. Selingo is also a contributor to The Atlantic and co-host to the podcast “FutureU.”
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, the Arizona Board of Regents said in a statement from its chair, Lyndel Manson, that they didn’t believe Arizona universities’ admissions would be impacted.
“The admission standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents for Arizona’s public universities are based solely on academic performance,” said Manson. “The board is proud that each of Arizona’s public universities are Hispanic Serving Institutions and student enrollment continues to grow in diversity. We are reviewing the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but do not anticipate any impact at our universities.”
ASU said that the decision wouldn’t impact the diversity of its student body or its commitment to having its student body reflect the population of the state.
“Because ASU admits all students who meet the university’s admission requirements and does not artificially cap enrollment for students from Arizona, ASU will continue to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the country,” said ASU.
In 2010, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, or Prop 107, which prohibited discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A fight for the future of some federal grant dollars for Arizonans appears to be brewing.
Last week, John Thorpe with the Goldwater Institute sent a letter to Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, expressing the organization’s “concern about Governor Hobbs’ purported cancellation of ESA-related grants that would enable children to attend all-day kindergarten” and urging Yee’s office “to go forward with the program as a legal obligation and for the sake of the parents.”
The Goldwater Institute’s letter references Hobbs’ action in May, which determined that “a $50 million grant made to the Treasurer in the final hours of the Ducey Administration is illegal and invalid.” Hobbs said at the time, “Illegally giving $50 million to private schools while failing to properly invest in public education is just one egregious example of the previous administration’s blatant disregard for public school students.”
After receiving the governor’s notice earlier this year, Treasurer Yee released a statement, writing: “It is clear Governor Hobbs does not care about what is best for Arizona kids or respect the rights of parents to determine the best environment to educate their child. Instead, she is using these children as pawns in a desperate and transparent attempt to win back support from union bosses and her ultra-progressive base. Educational choice is the civil rights issue of our time, and unfortunately, Governor Hobbs thinks she knows better than parents. I fundamentally disagree, and so do Arizona families.”
Governor Hobbs has just denied thousands of Arizona kids access to kindergarten through this politically driven and belligerent decision.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) May 25, 2023
In that statement, Yee also said that her legal team was “currently reviewing the lawfulness of the governor’s move and determining next steps.”
The Goldwater Institute’s June 14th letter to Treasurer Yee states that “on January 1, 2023, the Governor’s Office entered an Interagency Service Agreement with the Treasurer’s Office to provide up to $50,000,000 in federal grant money from the American Rescue Plan (ARPA), via the ESA program, to children in kindergarten starting with the 2023 academic year…In exchange for your office’s commitment to administer and report on the grant program, the Governor made a contractual commitment to provide the funds and to ‘work with’ your office ‘to establish a cadence whereby [the Governor] will transfer funding to [the Treasurer] to then disburse to grant program recipients.’ The Agreement was, and is, a legally binding contract.”
Thorpe’s letter also asserts that “nothing in the Agreement or in state law permits unilateral termination by the Governor,” calling Hobbs’ prior justifications “groundless,” adding that “the Governor has no right to simply cancel an agreement based on unfounded speculation that the agreement violates the law.”
The first-year Arizona governor had touted that by taking this action, her office had “adverted a violation of federal law and the State Constitution.”
The attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation also communicated that “we find it troubling that Governor Hobbs is attempting this rollback of the ESA program after a long history of campaigning against, and promising to end, the Legislature’s recent expansion of the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship program.” He continued, “Having already failed in her bid to defund the ESA program through the budget process earlier this year, it appears Governor Hobbs is attempting to cancel the all-day kindergarten grants, not in order to comply with state or federal law (as described above, the program is entirely lawful), but as part of a transparent effort to harm and undermine the ESA program wherever possible.”
In a supplemental post, Thorpe added, “It’s simple: the governor does not have a right to lawlessly renege on promises made to Arizona families. Goldwater will never stop fighting to empower parents, expand choices in education, and to hold government officials accountable – in Arizona and throughout the country.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A west valley mayor is continuing to keep his commitments to his city.
Last week, Peoria Mayor Jason Beck announced that there would be a police presence at all Peoria Unified School District schools during the 2023-2024 year.
Beck highlighted that there would be four new SLO’s (School Liaison Officers) and rotating SLO’s at every school; that this presence would be expanded to all elementary schools; that there would be 22 Peoria schools with police coverage and an increase in SLO salary.
The mayor said, “It’s the fact that we are trying to take care of our kids. Our first priority as a city is to take care of the residents. Safety and well being is our first priority.”
Peoria’s increased investment in school safety followed a communication from the first-year mayor in the city’s May 2023 newsletter, where he updated residents on his plan for keeping children safe. Beck wrote, “As Mayor, I believe the first priority of our city is to ensure that the kids, teachers and staff of the Peoria Unified School District not only feel safe, but are safe while in and around schools and associated facilities. Likewise, parents and loved ones should be able to have peace of mind that this is always the case. With this in mind, there should be nothing more important in our city’s budget than providing for the protection of our kids, teachers and staff while allowing them to have a great educational experience and positive work environment.”
Mayor Beck concluded his letter, stating, “No one should pit the skills, dedication, and good intentions of these wonderful public servants against one another. The choice is not between social workers, counselors, and law enforcement. We need an all-of-the above approach to show our children and community that we value safety and education for the happiness and prosperity of our community.”
The action to provide additional school safety personnel for Peoria schools comes on the heels of an earlier announcement from Mayor Beck on funding for the city’s police pension funding. In a Facebook post, Beck noted that the Peoria City Council had moved $6 million to the police pension funding, which was now 80% funded – compared to 48% funded in 2020.
Earlier this year, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and the Arizona Department of Education released the findings of a poll, which found that “81% of Arizona Public School parents support having a police officer” and “78% of Arizona Public School parents think that safety at schools is VERY IMPORTANT.”
Protecting Arizona's children shouldn't be a partisan issue, and parents agree. School resource officers are specially trained and provide more than just protection for our students. We encourage all schools to apply for the school safety grant here: https://t.co/63Uy6DQJZPpic.twitter.com/jFaLIx5wmJ
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) April 13, 2023
Horne held an April press conference with Arizona legislators to address this issue. The group called on school boards “to support having an officer at every school and to apply for funding through an available school safety grant.”
If a deranged gunman entered your child's campus, would you prefer a school resource officer to be present, or a school counselor?
While both are important, in this day and age we're living in, SROs are crucial to the safety of our students, and new polling released today… pic.twitter.com/v6VmgdpHev
After that press conference, Senator T.J. Shope added, “While we certainly see the value in school counselors as a component to safe and healthy schools, we believe SROs (school resource officers) are a necessity in this day and age where we’re witnessing increasing school shootings across the country. SROs can also help detour gang activity as they foster positive relationships with students.”
Senator @TJShopeforAZ's Snapshot of the Week: Better Access to Care for Pets and Their Owners⬇️ pic.twitter.com/e8vCqqhiUq
On Tuesday, a joint committee of the Arizona legislature launched an investigation into allegations of censorship at Arizona State University (ASU). Lawmakers issued a 60-day deadline to conduct the investigation.
The directive arose from the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities hearing concerning the T.W. Lewis Center, shuttered this year after the revocation of $400,000 in annual funding from its namesake, Tom Lewis, who cited “left-wing hostility and activism” as his reason for defunding the program.
Lewis’ contention arose from the efforts of 37 Barrett Honors College faculty members, who launched a coordinated campaign to prevent an event featuring prominent conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. Prager testified at Tuesday’s hearing; he also published an opinion piece on the event ahead of the hearing.
.@DennisPrager says Arizona State University Barrett Honors College faculty are intellectual & moral lightweights: "They fear any conservative coming for 90 minutes, because in 90 minutes I can undo the 4 years of the indoctrination that these leftists give their students." pic.twitter.com/tmXn56rFih
State Sens. Anthony Kern, co-chair (R-LD27), Frank Carroll (R-LD28), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Christine Marsh (D-LD04), and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13) served on the committee, as did State Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Lorena Austin (D-LD09), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). Kern and Nguyen served as co-chairs.
“This is to get to the bottom of a state-funded university that is not meeting its obligation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” said Kern.
The center relied on an annual budget of around $1 million; ASU representatives explained that the center would live on through the classes taught, though the actual center itself and the executive director at its helm, Ann Atkinson, would be gone.
ASU Vice President of Legal Affairs Kim Demarchi explained that Lewis’ funding provided for career development and education. Demarchi testified that ASU considered what programs it could continue without Lewis’ funding, and declared that they could only sustain the faculty without Lewis’ funding. Demarchi also shared that the Barrett Honors faculty weren’t punished in any way for the letter or allegations of intimidation.
“It is possible it [their letter] has a chilling effect,” said Demarchi.
However, Demarchi clarified that a professor would have to explicitly threaten a student’s grade in order to be in violation of university policy.
Atkinson went public with the closure of the Lewis Center last month. (See the response from ASU). She toldAZ Free News that the university turned down alternative funding sources that would make up for the loss of Lewis’ funding necessary to keep the Lewis Center running.
Nguyen opened up the hearing by recounting his survival of Vietnam’s communist regime as a child, and comparing that regime’s hostility to free speech to the actions of Barrett Honors College faculty.
“My understanding is that there is an effort to prevent conservative voices from being heard,” said Nguyen. “I crossed 12,000 miles to look for freedom, to seek freedom.”
Nguyen expressed disappointment that none of the 37 faculty members that signed onto the letter showed up to testify in the hearing. He said if he accused someone, he would show up to testify.
Democratic members of the committee contended that the event occurred and therefore censorship hadn’t taken place. Kern said the occurrence of the event doesn’t resolve whether freedom of speech was truly permitted, citing the closure of the Lewis Center.
ASU Executive Vice Provost Pat Kenney emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as critical to a free nation. Nguyen asked whether Kenney read the Barrett letter, and agreed to it. Kenney said the letter was freedom of expression. He claimed the letter didn’t seek cancellation of the event.
“When faculty speak out on their own like that, they’re covered on the same topic we’re here about, which is free speech,” said Kenney.
ASU representatives claimed near the beginning of the hearing that Lewis and ASU President Michael Crow had discussed the withdrawal of funding. However, toward the end of the hearing Kern announced that he’d received information from a Lewis representative that the pair hadn’t discussed the funding, and accused ASU representatives of lying.
Ortiz called the anonymous complaints from students hypotheticals because no formal complaints were lodged. She also claimed that the hearing was merely an attempt to delegitimize public and higher education. Marsh claimed that lawmakers shouldn’t consider the claims of student fears of retaliation because the students should’ve gone to ASU directly.
Nguyen asked whether ASU would defend guest speakers, such as himself, if ASU faculty were to lodge claims of white nationalism. Kenney said that, in a personal capacity, ASU faculty were free to make their claims, but not if they spoke out on ASU’s behalf.
Atkinson contested with the characterization that the Barrett faculty spoke out in their personal capacity. She pointed out that Barrett faculty signed the letter in their capacity as ASU faculty, emailed her using their ASU emails, and sent communications to students about opposing the event using ASU technology.
Ortiz announced receipt of a letter from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on the outcome of the requested investigation into the incident, the results of which Kern and the rest of the committee appeared to not have been made aware, determining that no free speech violations took place at ASU.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ State Representative @azaustinsmith Calls on Board of Regents to Investigate & Report on Free Speech Concerns at Arizona State University
“Free speech is paramount to the future of our Republic. Higher education taxpayer-funded universities must be held… pic.twitter.com/GllgAZhLiq
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) June 21, 2023
Marsh speculated that the professors didn’t show up because they faced death threats, citing media attention and conservative speaker Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist. Kern said that would be a “lame excuse.” He also pointed out that the professors launched a national campaign and initialized bringing themselves into a bigger spotlight.
“You’re making excuses where we don’t know that’s the case,” said Kern.
Atkinson said that she could provide “dozens, if not hundreds” of students that could testify to experiencing faculty intimidation. She also claimed that Williams told her to avoid booking speakers that were political.
“We allow the speaker but you have to take the consequences,” said Atkinson, reportedly quoting Williams.
Atkinson testified that TV screen ads were removed and flyers were torn down following the Barrett Honors faculty letter. She also said she shared the information for the person responsible on June 13, yet it appears ASU took no action. ASU said they weren’t aware of any advertising for the event pulled.
Additionally, Atkinson testified that Williams pressured her to postpone the event “indefinitely.” She noted that Williams interpreted ASU’s policy of not promoting political campaigns as not allowing political speech at all.
“We were in an environment telling us that this was ‘hate speech,’” said Atkinson.
Atkinson said she was directed by leadership ahead of the event to issue a preliminary warning that the event contained potentially dangerous speech.
Gonzales told Atkinson that hate speech doesn’t qualify as constitutionally protected speech. However, the rules attorney corrected her that the Supreme Court ruled hate speech as protected.
Arizona Senate Democrats had tweeted that "hate speech" doesn't qualify as free speech. Sen. Mesnard reminds Democrats present of the Supreme Court 8-1 ruling for Westboro Baptist Church that the First Amendment protects "hate speech." pic.twitter.com/tJT3laTbv7
ASU professor Owen Anderson also testified. He said that he’s previously had to get the free speech rights organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIR) involved twice due to faculty attempts to suppress free speech. Anderson also said that faculty have attempted to restrict speech by adding anti-racism and DEI to policy on class content and annual reviews of professors.
“Insults abound, but rational dialogue is rare. What we need are administrators that call these faculty to higher conduct,” said Anderson.
In closing, Kern said he doesn’t trust ASU, the University of Arizona, or ABOR. He argued that ABOR hadn’t issued a real investigation and called their report “typical government fluff [and] garbage.” Kern also called for the firing of Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Three of the Arizona State University (ASU) professors behind a campaign to oppose an event featuring conservative speakers argue that only inclusive persons belong on university campuses.
In an opinion piece published in the Arizona Republic, the three professors argue that those who reject inclusive ideals were the real threat to debate and therefore should be barred from participating in democratic exchange. The trio — Barrett Honors College professors Jenny Brian, Michael Ostling, and Alex Young — noted that they weren’t opposed to all conservative speakers, referencing a 2018 event featuring conservative legal scholar Robert George.
A recent WSJ editorial has once again focused the ire of the far right on Barrett faculty for speaking up about the public programming of our own college. My colleagues @prof_jdb, Michael Ostling and I respond in this op ed: https://t.co/03579XAGSg
Earlier this year, the three professors signed onto a letter petitioning Barrett Honors College leadership to oppose an event featuring conservative personalities Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk, and Robert Kiyosaki. The trio insisted that their original letter wasn’t an attempt to cancel the event, but merely a means of expressing consternation. AZ Free News learned that on-campus marketing of the controversial event was removed following the complaint letter. 37 of 47 Barrett faculty members signed onto the letter.
“By platforming and legitimating their extreme anti-intellectual and anti-democratic views, Barrett will not be furthering the cause of democratic exchange at ASU, but undermining it in ways that could further marginalize the most vulnerable members of our community,” read the letter. “Our collective efforts to promote Barrett as a home for inclusive excellence demand we distance ourselves from the hate that these provocateurs hope to legitimate by attaching themselves to Barrett’s name.”
In terms of reported attempts to recruit students to boycott the event, the three professors denied the charges. The trio added that they held an alternative “teach in” event preceding the T.W. Lewis Center event: “Defending the Public University.”
The three professors also denied responsibility for the dissolution of the T.W. Lewis Center and dismissal of its executive director, Ann Atkinson.
“As Barrett faculty, we see a brighter future for public higher education. We will continue to fight for a university ‘measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes,’” stated the trio. “The ‘antagonistic cooperation’ of democratic exchange in Arizona’s public universities deserves to be defended against those who reject the inclusive ideals that make it possible.”
The letter was met with immediate response from a vocal critic of the Barrett Honors faculty opposed to the T.W. Lewis Center event: ASU humanities professor Owen Anderson. He criticized the three professors’ opinion piece as a poor display of logic and reason.
“[W]hat was their argument? They never gave one (not one that got above informal fallacies),” wrote Anderson. “No professor would give a good grade to a paper like this from a student. How can a professor who thinks this way teach others?”
Three of the Barrett Honors College faculty who signed the letter calling Dennis Prager a white nationalist bigot replied in an opinion piece in the Az Republic. Keep in mind, these are professors who teach honors students. They expect their students to learn how to think and how… pic.twitter.com/Ct3csDrYFy
