A former Arizona State University (ASU) hockey player went viral for a video that depicts him pushing a woman’s wheelchair down the stairs at a bar in Pennsylvania. He is now under investigation by his current university for the act.
The player, Carson Briere, now plays for Mercyhurst University’s team in Erie, Pennsylvania. ASU’s hockey team dismissed Briere after the 2019-20 season, his first, due to violations of undisclosed team rules. Briere admitted in an interview with College Hockey News that his dismissal was due to “too much partying.” ASU has consistently ranked as one of the top party schools in the nation over the years.
“I was just going out; I wasn’t taking hockey seriously. It wasn’t anything bad, it was just not being committed to hockey, I was more committed to having fun at school,” said Briere. “Too much partying, that’s probably the best way to put it.”
I usually don’t post anything serious on my twitter but something happened Saturday night and just can’t stomach the thought of this kid getting away with it. In the video below is a @MercyhurstU student and is currently on the @HurstMensHockey team. Carson Briere. pic.twitter.com/kWWlEYEc7V
The individual who posted the video claimed to know the owner of the wheelchair. The user disclosed that the wheelchair owner was a woman who had to leave her chair at the top of the stairs and be carried down the stairs to reach the restrooms.
The chair was left on top of the stairs because she physically had to be carried down to use the restrooms. Which are only located downstairs
According to the original poster, the wheelchair owner reportedly plans to take legal action.
Briere’s father is Daniel Briere, a former NHL hockey player and interim general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers. The elder Briere began his career in Phoenix with the Coyotes, where Briere was born. Briere committed to ASU in 2019.
The original poster behind the viral post helped organize a GoFundMe to raise funds for a new wheelchair. As of this report, the crowdfunding effort had raised over double its $1,500 goal.
Since a lot of you guys are asking how to help in anyway here is a gofundme towards raising money for a new wheelchair! https://t.co/d2uEmmdat5
Later the same day after the video was posted, Mercyhurst University issued a statement promising an investigation.
“Late this afternoon, Mercyhurst University became aware of a disturbing video in which one of our student-athletes is seen pushing an unoccupied wheelchair down a flight of stairs at a local establishment,” stated the university. “Our Office of Student Conduct and Department of Police and Safety are investigating.”
Jonathan Haidt is a professor at NYU, an acknowledged leader in the field of social psychology, and a champion of free speech. He recently faced a requirement that all scholars wishing to present research to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology were to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advanced the equity, inclusion, and antiracism goals of SPSP.”
He resigned instead. This was no small sacrifice, but Haidt takes his principles seriously. Moreover, as he pointed out on his way out the door, “Most academic work has nothing to do with diversity.”
Scholars working, for example, on ultra-bright, nano-structured photo emission electron studies would be required to present their “anti-racist” bona fides. Academics in all disciplines, as well as administrators, would be forced to “betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity.”
This is not just another quibble among pointy-headed academics. Refusing jobs to dissenters is meant to quash the last remnant of open debate in American higher education.
Our universities, particularly the elite, were once celebrated as sanctuaries for unpopular ideas, where free discourse was sacrosanct and none need face fear of censure over doctrinal disputes.
But when the Left achieved numerical domination in the majority of universities over recent decades, their mindset evolved into rooting out the few dissenters in their midst, or, better yet, blocking them from getting a job in the first place.
The reason so-called anti-racists feel justified in forcing their views into unrelated disciplines, such as the hard sciences, is that they view the entire world through the lens of race. Ibram S. Kendi, the leading proponent of anti-racism, writes “there is no such thing as a non-racist or race-neutral policy.”
Their opinions on everything from raising taxes (good) to merit-based promotion in schools (bad) are race-based. It follows that if you disagree with their views, then you’re a racist.
The philosophy of anti-racism is profoundly anti-education and anti-merit. Colleges and universities are less and less committed to the search for truth or the transmission of knowledge. Instead, they are in thrall to the endless dictates of the ironically titled “social justice” bureaucracy.
DEI offices, larger than many academic departments (and better paid), are now sprouting in the halls of academia. 25% of all universities now mandate DEI statements from job applicants, and 40% more are considering jumping on the bandwagon.
DEI statements are loyalty oaths to race-based ideologies, similar to those required by authoritarian regimes throughout history. They often demand evidence of the applicant’s past support of such notions as Critical Race Theory, which holds that an individual’s tendency to racial bias can be reliably determined from their skin color.
To our state’s shame, Arizona’s universities have enthusiastically thrown themselves into the front lines of this movement. According to a Goldwater Institute report, Arizona State University last fall required DEI loyalty oaths for 81% of all job applicants. NAU was at 73% while the University of Arizona demanded 28% bend the knee to be considered for a job.
Such required ideological allegiance makes a mockery of the value of any research these aspiring scholars may do. The results are predetermined. In 2020, two major research organizations and 16 scientific societies issued a joint statement that researchers “must stand against the notion that systemic racism does not exist.” No research was cited.
Topics like urban crime, immigration, and welfare fraud are rarely studied when only the approved narrative is permitted anyway. Ignoring data inconsistent with the agenda gives us startling conclusions as when “scientists” proclaimed that family dinners and church services were COVID “superspreaders,” while massive racial protests and pro-abortion rallies were no problem.
The Left has a way with words. Diversity now means rigid conformity. Equity stands for unearned equal outcomes. Inclusion means exclusion of dissenters.
But Americans are starting to catch on. Outraged parents are protesting overt racism in school curricula. A growing number of universities and corporations are pulling back on DEI mandates. In Arizona, SCR 1024 is a proposed constitutional amendment that will hopefully be on the ballot next election. It would eliminate racist instruction in our public schools.
Take heart.
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.
Racist policies have no business in Arizona. And in 2010, our state’s voters made that clear when they passed Proposition 107. This amendment to Arizona’s Constitution banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts. But as we’ve become all too familiar with here in the U.S. and the state of Arizona, politicians and bureaucrats have figured out ways to skirt the language in our constitution. That’s led to where we are today.
Under the guise of words that sound harmless enough like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT) and similar programs largely flew under the radar and have been used to indoctrinate our students. Floods of parents eventually caught on, making it their mission to stop the invasion of CRT and DEI in our school districts. And while the newly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, has already taken steps to stop such indoctrination in our schools, there’s more work to be done.
Arizona State University (ASU) Barrett Honors College faculty recruited students to oppose an upcoming event featuring conservative speakers. These educators stand opposed to their colleagues that organized the event, the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development.
The opposed speakers are Charlie Kirk, founder and president of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio talk show host and founder of educational group PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, bestselling author of the top-selling personal finance book of all time and PragerU presenter. The trio are scheduled to speak Wednesday on “Health, Wealth, and Happiness.”
The T.W. Lewis Center is hosting a discussion of Health, Wealth, and Happiness with speakers Dennis Prager, Robert Kiyosaki, and Dr. Radha Gopalan at ASU Gammage theater on 2/8 at 7:00 pm! Students can attend this event for free! Tickets here: https://t.co/vyglKQjrtNpic.twitter.com/Q31ywkr86q
— Barrett, The Honors College at ASU (@barretthonors) January 26, 2023
In a letter to Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams last Wednesday, the faculty members called Prager and Kirk “purveyors of hate,” and accused them of attacking women, “people of color,” LGBTQ+ individuals, and democracy-based institutions. The faculty dismissed Kiyosaki as a debunked sales schemer.
“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.”
The faculty also accused the trio of advancing an “anti-intellectual agenda” because they have challenged the necessity of a college education, the hypocrisy over the use of the “n-word,” the problematic nature of Black History Month, the acceptance of transgenderism and gender ideology, and the integrity of the 2020 election.
Although ASU hasn’t indicated that it would cancel the event, AZ Free News was informed that on-campus marketing of the event was removed following the Barrett faculty complaints.
39 of 47 Barrett faculty members signed onto the letter: 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.
Levin, a Barrett faculty affiliate, toldThe State Press, ASU’s student-run newspaper, that she was shocked that ASU would allow this event and claimed that the guest speakers weren’t aligned with Barrett principles.
Ostling claimed that their signatures each represented different reasons for opposing Kirk, Prager, and Kiyosaki on campus, and that they weren’t advocating for the cancellation of the event.
“I believe these speakers represent ideas that go against the principles of the ASU charter that stands for inclusivity and not exclusivity,” said Ostling.
Multiple faculty members from the letter liked tweets that accused Prager and Kirk of being “white nationalists.”
On her since-deleted Twitter account, Miller, an Honors Faculty Fellow, accused ASU of “[selling] its soul to the ‘highest’ bidder.”
“When your college sells its soul to the ‘highest’ bidder, this is the result. What an outrageous embarrassment. Money over ethics, donors before students,” tweeted Miller.
Miller also emailed the condemnation letter to her students. Although Miller alleged in the email that she supported free speech in universities, even controversial speech, she said she opposed controversial speakers that donate to the college. Miller further claimed that Prager, Kirk, and Kiyosaki held beliefs that were beyond the scope permitting ideological debate.
“This is not a simple issue of partisan politics; these two speakers are known for, among other things, spreading: exceedingly hateful rhetoric that is harmful to many marginalized communities; anti-public education platforms; and health/medical disinformation— all of which go against the values and purposes of a post-secondary institution like Barrett and ASU,” wrote Miller.
Other Barrett faculty reportedly imposed similar pressure on their students. However, students have been reluctant to produce these documents; AZ Free News received information that students have expressed fear of retaliation from Barrett faculty and their peers if they express dissenting opinions or support for the event.
Young, also an Honors Faculty Fellow, tweeted that only those with a certain level of competence were allowed to engage in discourse — implying that this caveat disqualifies Prager, Kirk, or Kiyosaki. Young then claimed that those who issued public response to the letter had incited threats against their jobs and lives.
In a separate tweet, Young explained that the faculty members behind the condemnation letter were upset they hadn’t been consulted about the speaker selection for the event.
My colleagues and I at Barrett Honors College are embroiled in an escalating controversy involving this event. I'll explain some of it here, but the main point: we are being targeted by violent threats from the far right, & need solidarity from folks at ASU and beyond. 1/ pic.twitter.com/IFojB5WdaW
Additionally, three ASU professors issued a response letter via The Daily Wire to the Barrett Honors condemnation letter. These three professors were Jonathan Barth, associate history professor and associate director of the ASU Center for American Institutions; Donald Critchlow, history professor and director of the ASU Center for American Institutions; and Owen Anderson, philosophy and religious studies professor.
Barth, Critchlow, and Anderson said they didn’t support the suppression of speech advocated by the Barrett faculty members. They noted that ASU President Michael Crow has a long history of supporting intellectual diversity, even amid opposition. The three men said that the Barrett faculty were intentionally intimidating their peers and students, thereby destroying the free and open exchange of ideas.
“Faculty letters like the one condemning Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk reinforce campus conformity and function as a not-so-subtle way to intimidate and silence would-be dissenters among the faculty and student body,” stated the trio.
Check out the work of @DonCritchlow and Professor Barth in the Daily Wire: Professors Stand Up For Free Speech As Liberal Colleagues Seek Boycott Of Dennis Prager And Charlie Kirk https://t.co/Z5gXVSXft2
Arizona’s three public universities have this to say to potential employees: those opposed to modern diversity ideology need not apply.
As of last fall, Arizona State University (ASU) required diversity statements from approximately 81 percent of job applicants; Northern Arizona University (NAU) required diversity statements from 73 percent of job applicants; and the University of Arizona (UArizona) required diversity statements from 28 percent of job applicants. This data comes from a report issued earlier this month by the Goldwater Institute, a right-leaning public policy think tank.
The Goldwater Institute noted that universities both in Arizona and nationwide have even gone so far as to swap the traditional cover letter requirement with a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement. The universities also encouraged applicants to incorporate critical race theory (CRT) terminology in written portions of their applications.
Though diversity efforts were long underway at these universities, the death of George Floyd in 2020 accelerated their progress at the urging of students, activists, and community members.
For UArizona and NAU, these diversity commitment disclosures are part of their Diversity Strategic Plan (DSP); ASU also implements a diversity plan, though they don’t refer to it as a “DSP.” These diversity plans are executed through independent administrative offices. For UArizona, it’s the Office of Diversity & Inclusion (ODI). For NAU, it’s the Center for University Access and Inclusion; they also have a dedicated “Diversity Fellow” or “Diversity Commission” to oversee various units at the university, which they call a larger effort to make NAU a “True Diversity University.” For ASU, it’s the Office of Inclusive Excellence.
UArizona asked applicants to issue a 500-word minimum personal statement describing their personal philosophy and future commitment to inclusivity.
Last September, NAU advanced its DEI efforts by requiring applicants to issue a “diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice” (DEIJ) statement. As part of this statement, applicants had to express comprehension of intersectionality, a commitment incorporating diversity ideology in the classroom and in research, and diversity-related community service and activities.
At NAU, we are committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive community. Beginning on June 19, 2023, NAU will observe #Juneteenth as a paid university holiday. pic.twitter.com/JzK21ILFBx
In one example given concerning ASU, the university asked postdoctoral fellow applicants to write a “diversity statement”: how their past or potential contributions to DEI efforts would advance the university’s diversity plan.
Research from @Forbes has found ASU to be the top employer in the state of Arizona.
70,000 U.S. employees were surveyed on topics such as working conditions, salary, the potential for growth and diversity.https://t.co/91ankShlde
The universities’ push for commitment to diversity ideology extends beyond faculty. As AZ Free News reported earlier this month, the UArizona College of Medicine requires students to complete diversity training, in addition to faculty and staff. UArizona is also attempting to make law school admissions more equitable by pushing for an alternative to the LSAT.
UArizona has consistently ranked high for most DEI staff.
The University of Arizona's new spaceflight training programs aim to develop classes that will enable the future of inclusive space travel. https://t.co/UQbajOrrJ7
Last May, NAU proposed that students take a 12-credit general studies program focused on diversity. Backlash prompted the university to hide the proposal behind a login page.
“The 12 credits of diversity requirements are unprecedented and puts [sic] NAU at the forefront of higher education,” stated NAU.
In 2021, ASU launched a DEI curriculum for K-5 students through its K-12 online school, ASU Prep Digital.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
