Arizona State University (ASU) hosted a panel discussing “election denialism” and President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election on Monday.
The event featured faces from the last two contentious election cycles, including Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates. Gates and several other panelists responded to questions from a group of “self-identifying election-deniers” placed in the center of a room as an audience of college students and faculty watched and occasionally posed questions themselves.
Nearly all of the “election-deniers” raised their hands when asked if they thought Trump had won the 2020 election.
Gates assured the crowd that the 2020 election was the “most scrutinized in the world.” Gates reminded them of some of the results of investigations over the years, such as that the election machines weren’t connected to the internet.
“If you don’t believe what happened in 2020, then you don’t believe your neighbors, your family members — they were the ones who ran the election,” said Gates.
Gates then urged those who challenged the results of the 2020 election to sign up as poll workers or volunteers to better understand the process. He expressed that he was upset by those who didn’t have confidence in the election processes.
“I want you to understand, we care about you,” said Gates. “If you guys don’t think it doesn’t hurt my heart to hear this tonight, it does. We want to convince you guys, we want to give you faith in [elections].”
Gates then said that he isn’t a fan of progressive dark money mega-donor George Soros, and urged the crowd to believe him that he’s been a Republican his entire life.
If you care about the future of our country, please watch this focus group led by the legendary Frank Luntz. I am grateful to have participated in this open and honest discussion with Maricopa County voters in a productive and non-confrontational forum. https://t.co/urQkd0JQNV
Other members of the panel were Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, CBS News Washington correspondent Major Garrett, and Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) Executive Director and Founder David Becker. Longtime political and communications consultant Frank Luntz moderated the event. In addition to ASU’s McCain Institute, support came from CBS, University of Southern California, and Greater Phoenix Leadership.
Although the panel didn’t focus on this most recent election, controversies remain concerning its administration in Arizona. Last month, Maricopa County announced it was investigating the mass failures of its ballot-on-demand (BOD) printers on Election Day. Over 17,000 voters were affected by the incident.
NEW: Former AZ Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor will lead independent investigation into Election Day printer issues. We look forward to her findings. Statement ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/mOhkWideou
Tensions appear to remain between Maricopa County and GOP lawmakers.
The county initially refused to meet former State Sen. Kelly Townsend’s deadline for a subpoena of election records. The county explained it was busy with court proceedings; at the time, they were facing GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s challenge of the election results.
Townsend announced early last month that she did receive the records, though didn’t say when or where they might be publicized. Several weeks later, she said that much of the audit information still needed to be reviewed and scanned.
Yesterday the audit materials were picked up for review. The seals had been broken and the contents reviewed by staff to ensure no sensitive voter info was inside that needed to be redacted. There is a lot of information to be reviewed so it will take time to scan.
Earlier this month in response to a report that State Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD07) asked fellow lawmakers not to use the phrase “conspiracy theory” during Senate Elections Committee meetings, the county quipped that some lawmakers based their bills on conspiracy theories.
It's too bad some election legislation is based on blueberry pancakes. It would be beneficial if we kept pancakes out of lawmaking altogether. https://t.co/xrdygTGp9t
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 State University (ASU) professor Neal Lester said that cultural appropriation is equivalent to racism and white supremacy, specifically claiming it lacked humanity.
Lester — an English professor at ASU for 26 years and founder of ASU’s social justice-focused initiative, Project Humanities — made these remarks during a September episode of “Dr. Phil.”
“We can say the same thing about racism, sexism, homophobia. Just because you can’t solve it and don’t see it at every corner doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware of it and trying to address it,” said Lester. “I put [cultural appropriation] on the same level as white supremacy, because white supremacy is intersectional.”
Lester added that cultural appropriation was not only inhumane, but disrespectful. “Dr. Phil” host, Phil McGraw, pointed out that not everyone who puts on other cultural items was necessarily doing so in a manner intending comedic effect. Lester responded that even those instances would be reductive, performative, and ultimately disrespectful of those from that culture.
“You’re getting some kind of cultural capital by doing it,” said Lester. “It’s not necessarily who’s hurt by it, it’s who is disrespected by it. A whole culture of people whose identities are wrapped in whatever you’re dressing into and can then take off.”
The focus of the “Dr. Phil” episode, “Appropriation Nation: Has it Gone Too Far?”, concerned in part a 2018 controversy after an 18-year-old Utah teenager, Keziah Daum, posted her wearing a qipao dress to prom. A 20-year-old University of Utah student at the time, Jeremy Lam, quote-tweeted the post with the viral comment, “My culture is NOT your goddamn prom dress.”
Lam later told outlets that Daum’s outfit was a sign of racism. His original caption on Daum’s dress inspired months of memes, where social media users would use the phrase in their own captions when reposting others’ outfits.
Though Lam and a select few social media users at the time claimed Daum’s outfit choice was cultural appropriation, Daum revealed in September’s “Dr. Phil” episode that China invited her to its Qipao Festival to be their guest of honor.
“They loved the fact that someone from America was taking in a part of their culture and showing their appreciation for it,” said Daum. “I wasn’t appropriating it. I wore it because it was a beautiful dress and I appreciated it.”
The episode also addressed content created by former Prager University influencer, Will Witt, in which he wore outfits depicting various cultures on college campuses and then in areas dominated by the culture reflective of that outfit. Witt wore outfits representative of Native American, Mexican, and Chinese cultures. Only those on college campuses expressed negative sentiment toward Witt’s outfits, a majority of whom didn’t hail from the areas dominated by the culture while those in the areas reflective of his outfits expressed positive sentiment.
“The only people who are actually offended by cultural appropriation don’t really have anything else of meaning going on in their lives, it seems,” said Witt. “[Cultural appropriation] is a thing created by elitist white people who don’t really ever talk to these people in these cultures.”
Lester likened cultural appropriation to plagiarism. Witt said Lester’s comments proved him to be one of the “anti-white, ivory tower professors” attempting to domineer cultural norms.
Arizona State University (ASU) has placed men’s urinals in women’s restrooms.
The woman who discovered one of these installations, Rachel Hope, was at ASU’s Art Building. The urinal was located inside one of the enclosed stalls next to a regular toilet. Hope is the vice chair of the East Valley Young Republicans.
ASU caves to the far left by putting men’s urinals in the woman’s restroom!! 🤢🤡 pic.twitter.com/semEfmUsWz
ASU allows students to use restrooms according to their gender identity. Those opposed to this policy may be in violation of ASU’s anti-discrimination rules. ASU’s Academic Affairs Manual (ACD) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
These two choices are considered protected characteristics. ASU encourages students to report any violations of this policy through the Office of University Rights and Responsibilities (OURR) and Title IX officials.
Directly underneath the policy stating that ASU allows students to use restrooms according to their gender identity, the university includes a direct link for reporting discrimination.
Those found in violation of ASU’s anti-discrimination policy may include firing for employees, or suspension or expulsion for students. Those not enrolled or working for ASU may be subject to other legal penalties, if pursued by ASU.
Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This interpretation of federal law was determined by the Supreme Court in 2020 through Bostock v. Clayton County.
Gov. Katie Hobbs recently enacted a similar policy through her first executive order, declaring that the state may not discriminate against gender identity when hiring.
ASU completely supports transgenderism. In addition to its policies and guides prioritizing LGBTQ+ ideology in the classroom, ASU helps advance that lifestyle elsewhere.
On International Transgender Day of Visibility, Barrett, along with Prism, PAB @ Poly, RHA @ Poly, and BLAST @ Poly, hosted Pride Prom at the ASU Polytechnic Campus. While the event celebrated the LGBTQIA+ community, all students were invited. Read more: https://t.co/RodJqb0SzI
— Barrett, The Honors College at ASU (@barretthonors) April 7, 2022
As AZ Free News reported previously, ASU began reimbursing employees and their dependents, children, up to $10,000 for gender transition procedures. They’re joined in this health care policy by the University of Arizona (UArizona).
ASU Educational Outreach and Student Services provides a page dedicated to transgender-specific resources. In addition to a guide informing faculty and staff on advancing inclusivity of transgender individuals, the resource page directs students to gender-inclusive housing, gender-neutral housing, health services, name change links, voice therapy, and both local and national resources for advancing transgenderism.
However, activist students have found these accommodations insufficient. Last April, students complained that gender-inclusive housing, launched in Fall 2016, forced them to endure an insensitive application process which deadnamed (identified them by their birth rather than preferred name) and misgendered them.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
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.
