Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal“I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
For years, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has been the stomping ground for the left to push its Green New Deal Agenda. In fact, it was just over two years ago when the commission quietly released its plan to impose California-style energy mandates in our state. Their goal was to ban fossil fuels and require most electricity companies to provide “clean” energy by 2050. Thankfully, the commission voted down these energy mandates in January 2022. But that hasn’t stopped the left from trying to find other ways to exploit the ACC.
One of their latest efforts has centered on Tucson, and as part of its Green New Deal agenda, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) asked the ACC for rate hikes to subsidize electric vehicles. But TEP didn’t get everything it wanted…
Much has been said, debated, pontificated, blustered, and raged about the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Major news media, political talking points, and even official speeches delivered by the President of the United States are filled with confusing and contradictory rhetoric posing as factual information. Quiz yourself and your friends with this “Two Truths and a Lie.” Can you spot what is true and what is not?
A. The Second Amendment refers specifically to the right to keep and bear guns. B. The Second Amendment is the only place in the U.S. Bill of Rights that includes the clause “shall not be infringed.” C. The Second Amendment refers to the “right of the people.”
A. LIE!The Second Amendment refers to “arms” which can be guns—rifles or handguns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, spears, axes, cannons, explosives, etc. As explained by The Tenth Amendment Center, “Today the word ‘arms’ refers collectively to offensive or defensive weapons. The word’s meaning has changed little since it was first used seven hundred years ago. Its definition has never restricted civilian use of military weapons, including when the Second Amendment was approved.”
B.TRUTH! The original text of the Second Amendment is a mere 27 words in length and ends with the clause “shall not be infringed.” This phrase is not found in any other amendment or in any other part of our Founding Documents. This speaks volumes to the vital importance of this amendment.
C.TRUTH! The text of the Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While proponents of anti-Gun ideology hyper-focus on the first four words (“A well regulated Militia”) and ignore the following words that define and clarify (“the right of the people”), the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled on this issue multiple times. InHeller v. District of Columbia in 2008, inMcDonald v. Chicago in 2010, and most recently inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, “[T]he Court points out, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”
In summaries from these historic SCOTUS cases, the Justices have stated that “The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding, adult citizens (‘the People’) to keep and bear arms, particularly weapons in common use. Therefore, any law restricting that right needs to be consistent with the Nation’s ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” And, “The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to both possess and carry weapons for self-defense, particularly weapons that are in common use among the populace.”
Bottom Line:
The brilliance and foresight of our Founders have stood for centuries as a firewall preventing people in positions of power from whittling away at the freedoms of the average citizen. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Founders have been proven prophetic. Through regulations, legal maneuvers, politically-based compromises, propaganda, or tricky wordplay, infringements have been ever-eroding our right to own and use tools of self-defense. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are inspired documents, and so far the Supreme Court has upheld the power and significance of these documents, but it is the responsibility of each generation to reassert the principles that our Founders fought, bled, starved, and died to secure for our nation. Read the documents for yourself. Do not rely on others to interpret them for you. They are part of your precious and unique inheritance of Freedom and heritage of American values.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
Critics of Donald Trump once counted tax evasion among his many faults. But it turned out that he wasn’t breaking any tax laws. He was simply utilizing the complex web of exemptions, deductions, and other rules available to reduce his tax bill to near zero.
It would be hard to imagine a worse tax system than our federal government’s. It is based on taxing economic productivity, which in a free-market system, benefits us all. Politicians use taxation not only to generate revenue but to pursue a grab bag of policies ranging from welfare programs to “climate change,” home ownership, and subsidization of state and local taxes.
The tax code is hopelessly complex and expensive to operate. Individuals and businesses spend around $37 billion and over 3 billion hours annually in tax compliance, up to 10 times as much as taxpayers in other wealthy countries.
Phil Gramm was right 25 years ago to suggest that the best option would be to scrap our entire tax system and replace it with a single national sales tax. He didn’t succeed, of course, but the concept is so sound it still remains active in academia, think tanks, and government white papers.
Representative Buddy Carter introduced the Fair Tax Act of 2023 in Congress this year and was promised a floor vote. This bill would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, estate and gift taxes, as well as the Internal Revenue Service itself.
Instead, there would be an effective 30 percent consumption tax, but households would get a tax rebate check each month adjusted for family size and income. The rebate would have the effect of exempting all purchases up to the poverty line from taxation. The tax rate and rebates could be adjusted to make the tax revenue neutral and roughly as progressive as our current structure.
Still, Democrats and their media buddies immediately attacked the proposal as “tax cuts for the rich, period” and a “Republican dream to build a wealth aristocracy.” Even the Wall Street Journal criticized it on political grounds, worrying that even though it “made sense,” it might hand Democrats a juicy campaign issue.
But its critics, perhaps intentionally, misunderstand the bill. Americans would not on the net pay more taxes. Nor would low-income earners be punished. The tax burden wouldn’t grow but only be redistributed.
Outsized deductions and other tax shelters would vanish, meaning the ultra-wealthy and the big spenders would pay taxes more appropriate to their incomes. Savers would obviously benefit. Investments could grow tax-free.
Some critics argue that tax evasion would be a problem. But that’s true of any tax scheme, including the one we have now. The IRS estimates that Americans underpay their taxes by $500 billion annually, in addition to the billions of fraudulent claims in programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Fair Tax wouldn’t have to be perfect to be more efficient and less cumbersome than our current system of self-reporting buttressed with audits. Avoiding the stressful hassles with the IRS would be a welcome relief to many Americans.
A more substantial concern is that future legislatures may try to augment the consumption tax by adding back income and other taxes so that we end up with the worst of both worlds. A constitutional amendment prohibiting an income tax would be preferable. Otherwise, careful consideration must be given to rigid self-activating safeguards to protect taxpayers.
The Fair Tax has never passed because of political opposition from groups that have too much to lose by giving up the status quo. Yet if government wants to subsidize things like housing, electric vehicles, or healthcare, it would be more transparent and accountable to appropriate the money rather than disguising it as a tax deduction or credit. Likewise, if Americans want to financially support charitable causes, and they do, they should do it with their own money, not a partial government subsidy that comes with strings attached.
Tax reforms are always opposed by those who benefit from the current structure. But the Fair Tax would be a far more equitable and transparent way to fund government. It deserves a look.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
While the White House touts the success of “Bidenomics,” American families are drowning in debt, especially on credit cards. The latest data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show Americans ended the first half of this year with over a trillion dollars of credit card debt for the first time ever. At the same time, credit card interest rates are at record highs, pushing many Americans to the financial brink.
How we got here is a lesson in basic economics, something the Biden administration has willfully ignored.
Contrary to the White House talking points, President Joe Biden did not inherit a “reeling” economy and inflation was not “already there.” When he entered the Oval Office, the economy was growing at a $1.5 trillion annualized rate and inflation was 1.4 percent, comfortably below the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate. But Bidenomics changed all that.
In just a year and a half, Mr. Biden managed to deliver two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth (a recession). Moreover, inflation reached 40-year highs, with prices rising in a single month about as fast as they rose in the entire year before Biden took office.
This is the bitter fruit of the Bidenomics tree. The seed was trillions of dollars in excessive government spending; it was watered with trillions of borrowed dollars and fertilized by the Fed’s printing trillions of dollars. The results are fast-growing prices, a sluggish economy, and family budgets getting squeezed.
Since Mr. Biden took office, prices have risen about 16 percent, but average hourly wages have risen less than 13 percent, and average weekly hours have been cut back. That has left the average American with an effective pay cut of about 5 percent, and families have been using credit cards to make up for that lost purchasing power.
In just two and a half years, outstanding credit card balances have exploded 34 percent, but it gets worse—much worse. The Fed has been steadily raising interest rates to combat the very inflation which it helped cause. That has pushed up borrowing costs, especially on credit cards; their average interest rate is now at an all-time high.
The combination of large balances and high interest rates is a financial death spiral for many American families. When the financing charges on your credit card bill are equal to or greater than what you can afford to pay each month, it becomes impossible to pay down your balance. You are effectively trapped in debt. On top of the higher cost of living, you’re now paying higher financing charges too.
And it’s not just credit card debt that has exploded during Bidenomics. Consumer spending during the last two years has been partly fueled by higher balances for auto loans and mortgages, the latter of which has grown almost $2 trillion in just two and a half years.
Mr. Biden’s false promises of a student loan bailout along with a moratorium on student loan payments have also encouraged young people to take on additional debt for schooling and not pay those loans back. In fact, instead of using the savings from the moratorium to responsibly pay down their debt, most borrowers have been further increasing consumer spending.
American families going deeper into debt is a hallmark of Bidenomics, so much so that even members of Mr. Biden’s administration are beginning to say the quiet part out loud. Vice President Kamala Harris recently claimed that most Americans would go “bankrupt” if they had a $400 emergency expense.
While there is no evidence to support Ms. Harris’ claim, her statement is an indictment of the administration’s economic agenda. For most Americans, a much more likely scenario than bankruptcy is that they would have to put that emergency expense on a credit card—which many families have already had to do.
The squeeze on Americans’ family budgets will continue until we clean up the federal budget. If Washington doesn’t cut trillions of dollars in spending, the bills will keep piling up, both at the Treasury, and in your mailbox.
E.J. Antoni is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a public finance economist at The Heritage Foundation, and a senior fellow at Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
Clean and accurate voter rolls are a cornerstone to safe and secure elections. And they are required by both state and federal law. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) specifically obligates states to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters due to death or change of residence. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed this up in its 2018 decision in the case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
But Arizona’s current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and its former Secretary of State (now Governor) Katie Hobbs have failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance. And right now, 14 Arizona counties are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA…
