Arizona State University’s (ASU) College Republicans United (CRU) pledged to donate half of their funds raised to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defamation lawsuit against the media, if one occurs, shortly after Rittenhouse’s acquittal on Friday. Rittenhouse has been taking non-degree online classes with ASU since October. Following his acquittal, a spokesman for Rittenhouse reported that he plans to pursue a nursing degree at ASU.
“Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media,” tweeted ASU CRU. “We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal.”
Half of all funds collected for the rest of the year will be donated to the Kyle Rittenhouse lawsuit against the media. – We hope this action will teach a lesson to those who profit from lies and that Kyle has a comfortable life from this ordeal. https://t.co/vD7obvBNzi
This won’t be the first time ASU CRU has funded Rittenhouse’s legal efforts. Immediately following Rittenhouse’s arrest last August, ASU CRU pledged half of their funds raised that year to his legal defense. Rittenhouse faced five charges related to murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. Based on the jury’s decision, Rittenhouse exercised self-defense and abided by Wisconsin’s gun laws.
Five days into their fundraising efforts, ASU CRU donated $5,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. ASU CRU thanked the “screaming liberals” for helping their effort go viral, tagging ASU’s newspaper, State Press, as well as The Arizona Republic and The Hill.
In response to Twitter outrage over ASU CRU’s fundraiser, ASU tweeted that it didn’t endorse or support the effort and that the university would be meeting with the club to speak about it. Over a year later, ASU CRU provided an update – contrary to ASU’s promise, they reportedly never spoke with the club.
Earlier this month, the club updated that they donated a total of $14,000 to Rittenhouse’s defense. The other $14,000 reportedly went toward establishing CRUs in Iowa and California, as well as another Arizona university: University of Arizona (UArizona). ASU CRU spokespersons also told the Arizona Daily Independent that they were able to send student representatives to conferences and conventions, as well as provide legal protection for students who won’t comply with their university’s COVID-19 mandates.
“Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riot,” wrote ASU CRU.
Half of all funds collected this semester for Republicans United will be donated to 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse legal defense fund. He does not deserve to have his entire life destroyed because of the actions of violent anarchists during a lawless riothttps://t.co/vD7obvkcaIpic.twitter.com/2ZQN2OORmj
Fox News host Tucker Carlson teased a trailer for his documentary on Rittenhouse shortly after his acquittal. The trailer featured original clips of Rittenhouse describing his experience in the year after the incident, ending with an exclusive statement from Rittenhouse as he was driven away from the courthouse following his acquittal.
“The jury reached the correct verdict: self defense is not illegal. I believe they came to the correct verdict, and I’m glad everything went well. It’s been a rough journey but we made it through it – we made it through the hard part,” said Rittenhouse.
In addition to the upcoming documentary, Rittenhouse will appear on one of Carlson’s other shows, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on Monday.
It doesn’t appear that the establishment college Republicans group, ASU College Republicans, donated to Rittenhouse’s legal defense. They also didn’t post a celebration of Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
ASU CRU split from ASU College Republicans in 2018. The former reportedly took issue with the latter’s approach to governance and perspective on the Republican Party, claiming that the latter was more “establishment conservative” which they likened to the “John McCain branch of the Republican Party” – or, as some would call it, the “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) branch. ASU College Republicans refuted that characterization.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The three young activist students at Arizona State University (ASU) who verbally accosted and harassed two peers for being white, cisgender males in “their” multicultural space may face disciplinary action for violating ASU’s Code of Conduct.
Mastaani Qureshi, Sarra Tekola, and Miriam “Mimi” Araya were identified as the women verbally accosting their peers. AZ Free News discovered that, at the time of the incident, the space hadn’t been officially established as a multicultural center – something that the three women attested to in a subsequent interview and statement about the incident.
According to reporting from State Press, Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya did violate ASU’s Code of Conduct. Specifics of those charges were revealed in an email obtained by Campus Reform – the three female students were charged with violating two policies related to disruption and stalking or harassing:
· 5-308 F-11: Interfering with or disrupting university or university-sponsored activities, including but not limited to classroom related activities, studying, teaching, research, intellectual or creative endeavor, administration, service or the provision of communication, computing or emergency services.
· 5-308 F-20: Stalking or engaging in repeated or significant behavior toward another individual, whether in person, in writing, or through electronic means, after having been asked to stop, or doing so to such a degree that a reasonable person, subject to such contact, would regard the contact as unwanted.
Additionally, one of the students (likely Tekola, because she was the only one of the three students arrested in relation to 2020 protests) was charged with an additional Code of Conduct violation:
· 5-308 F-26: Commission of any offense prohibited by state or federal law or local ordinance.
That email relaying the specific charges came from religious studies associate professor Leah Sarat. She urged her colleagues to sign an internal letter asking ASU to drop the Code of Conduct charges because they affected “one of their own.” Sarat was likely referring to Qureshi, a history and justice studies undergraduate, who also served as the alum liaison for the leadership sorority Omega Phi Alpha and co-president of ASU’s Women’s Coalition.
Both Araya and Tekola were graduate students. Araya, a Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix policy minister, served as vice president of ASU’s Black Graduate Student Association, and was working toward her doctorate in justice studies in the School of Social Transformation. Tekola was the co-minister of activism for Black Lives Matter (BLM) Phoenix Metro and a PhD Candidate in ASU’s School of Sustainability.
In the request letter, Sarat also accused the two male students of promoting systemic racism for their attire and lunch choices. The two male students were, according to Sarat, “racist” for displaying a “Did Not Vote For Biden” t-shirt, Chik-fil-A cups, and a “Police Lives Matter” sticker.
“We consider it shameful and cruel that instead of protecting students who are clearly vulnerable and being targeted, the university is siding with white natoinalist media and downplaying the incident as an isolated disagreement between students,” asserted Sarat. “To be clear, this is a moment when colorblind language and emphasis on equivalence actually fosters systemic inequality by targeting and disciplining BIPOC students.”
Qureshi, Tekola, and Araya are reportedly being represented by The People’s Law Firm.
The ASU Dean of Students may determine sanctions for Code of Conduct violations. If a disciplinary sanction is imposed, the students may appeal for a hearing before a University Hearing Board. Based on the board’s assessment, the Senior Vice President for Educational Outreach and Student Services will then make a final decision on sanctions.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) announced last month that they redesigned their Architectural Studies, Bachelor of Science in Design (BSD) program to expand admissions for the sake of inclusivity, removing a built-in competitive edge that used GPA to reduce the number of second-year students from several hundred to 45. Competitive cuts are common practice for architecture programs: traditionally, the massive reduction affords students more one-on-one instruction and ensures a ratio of 10 to 20 students to one professor. ASU’s new take on their architecture program will have a ratio of 150 students to one professor, with about 10 teaching students to buffer. ASU is currently the only university to expand its architecture program in this way.
Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts (HIDA) architecture professor and Associate Director Catherine Spellman explained in the university’s announcement that it was “heartbreaking” to have to make hard cuts essentially based on GPA.
“We’ve rewritten the undergraduate course in architecture to be completely inclusive,” said Spellman. “It used to be that we had room for 45 students in the second year going forward, but we’ve rewritten the undergraduate BSD in architectural studies to accept everyone who has a 3.0 grade point average.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, Spellman explained that the students that made the cut under the previous program structure usually had around a 3.7 or higher GPA. Spellman made the case that GPA doesn’t directly measure intelligence or ability – instead, it reflects opportunity.
“A lot of what a GPA is, is a measure of a student’s opportunity. It’s one thing if you have a student that’s fully funded and doesn’t have to work to subsidize their education, is not raising a family – well, then that student is in a situation that they can achieve the GPA that they care to achieve,” said Spellman. “The next student may be a nontraditional student [like] a first-generation student that is perhaps working 40 hours a week and working to pay the mortgage for their family home. The university opportunity is still important to that student but the possibility of a [higher] GPA is different.”
When AZ Free News asked if there were concerns that the divestment of a built-in competitive nature to the program would lead to a reduced quality of students and their output, Spellman said that perspective was framed around privilege and a misunderstanding that quality in education necessitates exclusiveness. Spellman characterized competitiveness as advantageous for students of privileged backgrounds: those who aren’t necessarily representative of their community and society at large.
“The type of university we are is trying to make a place for all types of students and not just students that represent a type of privilege,” said Spellman. “[We are] really trying to be open-minded and inclusive, rather than exclusive and competitive about [the program].”
Spellman referenced ASU’s charter to explain their urgency to support inclusivity, asserting that the university’s role is to educate for success and not exclude.
“There is an attitude about quality in education that means exclusiveness. That, however, is not the university we are at. Our charter says that we are here to educate students to succeed, not to exclude people,” said Spellman. “You could say that a lower GPA means that the students aren’t as competitive but I would argue the more people we educate what architecture is about, the better we’re serving society. Architecture is a very important discipline relative to society. You learn literature, history, math, science, structures, [and] social behavior.”
Architecture professors restructured their teaching approach to accommodate the influx of students. One recent example of this was a mass exercise mimicking on-site conflicts. First-year Architecture 101 students had to work within a group to recreate assigned circular patterns on an outdoor field using butcher paper, while mitigating challenges presented by their “on-site” location, such as wind.
Spellman said that the transition to larger group work also came from a purposeful effort to deemphasize the idea that a one-to-one experience between faculty and students is the only way to conduct studio teaching (a method of hands-on instruction used in architecture programs). She noted that one-to-one experience was still available in ASU’s professional programs.
“It limits the numbers of students that you can have in a studio space if you teach in a one-to-one kind of way,” said Spellman.
AZ Free News also spoke with Marc Neveu, the head of ASU’s architecture program. He noted that their student expansion was just one component of a greater redesign of the program that began before his arrival four years ago.
“The basic premise [behind the redesign] was that ASU has a mission for being known who we include and how they succeed rather than who we exclude,” said Neveu. “Architecture schools are very competitive. Sometimes that competition may be good. More often than not that competition is very bad. It’s not healthy to stay up all night, it’s not healthy to protect your work from other people. It doesn’t actually model the way the professional practice works which is inherently collaborative. Rather than being competitive, we’re being collaborative, [like] working in teams.”
The complete overhaul of the program for inclusivity’s sake stopped short of challenging the grading system. That traditional scale remains, according to Neveu.
“We do have grades, we do have critique and feedback. It’s just that we’re not trying to pit students against one another,” explained Neveu. “My experience in undergrad – not by design – was that I learned more from my peers than from my faculty. [Here at ASU,] we’ve tried to design intentionally peer-to-peer learning, [such as] learning those sorts of soft skills.”
Neveu concluded by noting that the newly-redesigned program remains a work in progress, but expressed optimism in the promise of its unique nature.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) Police Department confirmed with AZ Free News that they are investigating the activists who followed and filmed Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) inside a bathroom. The senator had stepped out of a class that she teaches at ASU to use the bathroom when activists with Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), an nonprofit activist organization, accosted her and followed her into the bathroom. While filming Sinema, they also filmed other students using the bathroom. The activists demanded that Sinema vote “yes” on the reconciliation bill.
“The ASU Police Department is working with Senator Sinema and conducting a full investigation of the incident that occurred Sunday at the University Center on the Downtown Phoenix campus. Due to the active status of the investigation, we are unable to provide more information at this time,” stated ASU.
One of the LUCHA activists, Karina Ruiz de Diaz, is an illegal immigrant as admitted in a report by CNN. She also accosted Sinema on Monday during a flight, repeatedly asking Sinema to ensure that she and others would be given a pathway to citizenship.
One of LUCHA’s paid activists, Blanca Collazo, told Sinema that she was a product of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. Collazo complained that she wasn’t able to visit her deported grandfather before his death because she doesn’t have her citizenship yet. DACA recipients may not leave the country without the government’s prior permission, or “advance parole.” Collazo held her face mask below her nose and mouth as she spoke at Sinema.
“My name is Blanca. I was brought into the United States when I was three years old. And in 2010 my grandparents both got deported because of SB1070. And I’m here because I definitely believe that we need a pathway to citizenship. My grandfather passed away two weeks ago, and I was not able to go to Mexico and visit him because there is no pathway to citizenship,” said Collazo. “We need to hold you accountable to what you told us – what you promised us that you were going to pass when we knocked on doors for you. It’s not right.”
Collazo intended to attend Grand Canyon University (GCU), where she’d been given a scholarship, but toldCronkite News that she opted to work full-time instead due to the pandemic.
Another activist, Sophia Marjanovic, told Sinema that she endured human trafficking because of the lack of worker protection laws. Shortly after, Marjanovic posted on Facebook that she’d caught Sinema “during her pee break” and encouraged others to accost the senator, sharing the location of her class.
“Always have a Lakota Auntie on board! I descend from people who neutralized Custer; I can neutralize anyone. #F***AroundAndFindOut,” wrote Marjanovic. “I told you I wasn’t going to allow this woman to pee in peace in public and mission accomplished!”
As their videos went viral, Marjanovic posted again to chastise her critics. She said that nobody could condemn her actions because she’s a human trafficking survivor, the critics are on “stolen” land anyway, and that white people shouldn’t be allowed to speak on this incident.
“For now, connect with the fact that you are on stolen Indigenous land and Indigenous women and children go missing and murdered because we don’t have access to stable jobs, stable housing, clean water, clean food, or stable decent healthcare [sic] despite the fact that Indigenous people have upheld our end of the treaty in assimilating and getting educated,” wrote Marjanovic. “Give my Indigenous relatives to the South of the US-Mexican border citizenship now! White Communications Departments of organizations, media and campaigns uphold White supremacy. Step out of the way!”
According to Arizona law, it is illegal to film someone in the bathroom and publish it without their consent.
“A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person’s consent under either of the following circumstances: 1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact. […] It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.”
On Monday, Sinema addressed the incident in a statement. She denounced the approach and intentions of the LUCHA activists.
“After deceptively entering a locked, secure building, these individuals filmed and publicly posted videos of my students without their permission — including footage taken of both my students and I using a restroom. In Arizona, we love the First Amendment. We know it is vital to our democracy that constituents can freely petition, protest, or criticize my policy positions and decisions. The activist group that engaged in yesterday’s behavior is one that both my team and I have met with several times since I was elected to the Senate, and I will continue engaging with Arizonans with diverse viewpoints to help inform my work for Arizona. Yesterday’s behavior was not a legitimate protest. It is unacceptable for activist organizations to instruct their members to jeopardize themselves by engaging in unlawful activities such as gaining entry to closed university buildings, disrupting learning environments, and filming students in a restroom.”
It is unclear how the activists gained entry into the locked building.
Sinema won’t support the $3.5 trillion price tag on the reconciliation bill, or the “Build Back Better Act.” Though LUCHA activists mentioned a “pathway to citizenship,” the nearly 2,500 pages of legislation doesn’t expressly include that provision yet. Democrats have been advocating for the inclusion of permanent legal status for illegal immigrants in the bill. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has twice rejected versions of that proposal.
That doesn’t mean that a pathway to citizenship won’t be included in the final bill. Congressman Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13) told The New York Post last week that they intend to push three more versions of the proposal to secure a pathway to citizenship.
Currently, the reconciliation bill would offer two years of free community college; child care assistance and universal pre-K; Medicare expansion to cover dental, vision, and hearing, as well as allowing the program to negotiate drug prices to reduce them; a near-four year extension of child tax credits; 12 weeks of comprehensive paid family and medical leave; financial incentives for companies that increase renewable energy supplies, and penalties for those who don’t; an entrepreneurial program for formerly-incarcerated individuals; grants to local governments or groups for community violence prevention.
Funding for this bill would come from raising taxes on corporations, top income earners, and capital gains, as well as strengthening IRS oversight. One proposal to afford further funding would grant the IRS access to total transactions for bank accounts with over $600.
In a press conference addressing the bill on Monday, President Joe Biden was dismissive of what Sinema endured. He insinuated that Sinema would’ve been fine had she had a security detail, prompting the phrase “Based Biden” to trend on Twitter.
“I don’t think they’re appropriate tactics but it happens to everybody,” laughed Biden. “The only people it doesn’t happen to is people who have Secret Service standing around them. So, it’s a part of the process.”
Democrats on the local level weren’t sympathetic to Sinema’s plight, either. State Senator and treasurer candidate Martin Quezada (D-Phoenix) said Sinema was to blame for how her constituents approached her.
“Pro tip for politicians. A good way to not get harassed in restrooms by your constituents is to be available to meet and hear them out on the issues they are passionate about using normal channels,” tweeted Quezada.
Pro tip for politicians. A good way to not get harassed in restrooms by your constituents is to be available to meet and hear them out on the issues they are passionate about using normal channels.
Quezada made clear to AZ Free Newsthat he never approved of how Sinema was treated. He informed us that Sinema hasn’t been keeping the lines of communication open for her constituents.
“[I] do believe that the focus of any story should be more on how Senator Sinema is an elected official. Part of her job is to listen to her constituents, not hide from them. She does not take calls or meetings and her office hangs up on constituents who try to use official channels to communicate with her. When elected officials become completely unaccountable to the people who elected them, you have to understand how they may feel as if they have no other choice but to contact her in unofficial channels,” said Quezada. “Like Senator Sinema, there are certain spaces that I would never want to be approached in. In order to avoid that happening, I fulfill my responsibility of having an open door and communicating with my bosses, the people I serve, through official channels, be they email, phone, in person meetings, Zoom meetings, social media, etc., etc., etc.”
AZ Free News inquired with Sinema’s communications team about these allegations of closing down communications with constituents. They didn’t respond by press time.
Quezada hasn’t been keen on Sinema as of late. The state senator is backing a crowdfunded campaign threatening to fund a primary challenger against Sinema if she doesn’t vote to end the filibuster. The CrowdPAC has already achieved over half of its goal contribution amount.
State Representative and attorney general candidate Diego Rodriguez (D-Phoenix) didn’t condemn the activists’ behavior.
“Clearly, the people of Arizona are not going [to] simply sit back and allow their wants and needs to be ignored by the same ELECTED officials they helped put into office,” wrote Rodriguez.
Clearly, the people of Arizona are not going simply sit back and allow their wants and needs to be ignored by the same ELECTED officials they helped put into office. https://t.co/7fPrIb4mE0
Rodriguez doesn’t take issue with public exposure of things traditionally considered private. The self-described “sex positive” representative has defended his habit of liking and commenting on both risque and pornographic posts via his personal Twitter account.
— Columnated Ruins- Real GOP Accountability Project (@DominofromAZ) October 4, 2021
Certain Republican elected officials and candidates had a different take on the situation.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) stated in an interview with The Conservative Circus that the LUCHA activists were examples of how society functions in a totalitarian regime.
“I think what she’s doing is principled. I think it’s what she believes in, and she’s getting the crud kicked out of her by her own party, and they’re spending millions to try to embarrass her,” said Biggs. “You’ve got these yo-yos on ASU’s campus that are chasing her into the bathroom while she’s in a stall to harass and harangue her while she’s there. I mean, that’s the kind of thing that goes on in totalitarian regimes. I mean, that’s really what it is: they’re trying to ostracize her and browbeat her. But I’ll tell you what, I know few people who are tougher than Kyrsten Sinema. I’m hopeful that she’s going to hold out on her principles.”
The bathroom incident wasn’t the first time that LUCHA activists confronted Sinema over these last few days. They disrupted a private fundraising event in Royal Palms Resort and Spa in Scottsdale on Saturday. As stated earlier in this report, the illegal immigrant Ruiz de Diaz confronted Sinema on a plane.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A year-old petition to change Arizona State University’s (ASU) mascot from the “Sun Devils” to “Sun Angels” was resurrected after a poll revealed significant public opposition to the current mascot.
Renewed interest in the petition began last week following a survey claiming that people found Sparky the Sun Devil to be one of the most disturbing and offensive mascots. Sparky ranked 7th for the most disturbing mascot, and 8th for the most offensive. News reports on the survey cited the petition to trade Sparky’s horns for a halo as an example, breathing life back into the effort.
The petition, started by ASU alumni Joseph Forte, Jr., questions cultural complacency with the idea of celebrating the devil in any capacity. Forte cited ASU’s track and field program and booster organization as precedents for changing the mascot. The track and field stadium is named, “Sun Angel Stadium,” while the fundraising club was known for decades as the “Sun Angel Foundation” before rebranding to the “Sun Devil Club.”
“What once might have been viewed as acceptable – is now just plain demonic. Anyone with an ounce of Christian belief will have a hard time pledging allegiance to…being loyal to…or spending money with the devil. With every T-shirt, souvenir and game ticket [ASU] sell[s], they solidify their consent that idolizing the devil is just fine with them,” wrote Forte. “Your support sends a strong message that there is a big difference between school spirit and glorifying the devil.”
Forte further pledged his case by noting that less than 900 people approved of the mascot name when it was established in 1946 – the fourth in the university’s short history. He noted that the goal of this petition wasn’t to turn ASU into a religious school – just to save it from being “demonic.”
“Keep in mind the Archangels cast the devil out of heaven, so the devil is actually history’s biggest loser. The Archangels on the other hand can only be considered victorious winners,” wrote Forte. “And, for those narrow-minded enough to think that all this devil talk is just a tongue-in-cheek reference to the hot weather in Arizona, the Archangel Gabriel is also known as the Angel of the Sun – completely in line with Arizona’s hot weather in what is known as the “Valley of the Sun” to all who live in the Phoenix area.”
AZ Free News spoke with Forte about the origins of the petition, and where he stands now. He said that he hasn’t really done anything with the petition since last year, because his business takes precedence currently. Forte shared that he’d heard about the renewed interest in his petition through a friend who’d seen a recent report from AZ Central mentioning it, and the subsequent criticisms that came.
“I’ve had a bunch of people trying to tag my personal [social media] profiles and stuff, just saying nonsense,” explained Forte.
In an update posted to the petition on Sunday, Forte elaborated that ASU students and alumni were chief among his harassers.
“Now I have a whole bunch of ASU students and alumni complaining, contacting me, and telling me that I’m a loser, I’m soft, I don’t have anything better to do with my time, etc. Yet they’re triggered and wasting their time about this petition that has been dormant for months. Funny how that works huh?!” wrote Forte.
Another thing Forte noticed was the lack of support from those who wanted to change other mascots and figures, like the Washington Redskins and Aunt Jemima. Forte speculated to AZ Free News that this surface-level inconsistency had a deeper meaning – those normally in favor of changing things they find offensive won’t support the Sun Angel petition because it’s a Christian issue at its core.
“Half of the petition was obviously my strong feeling that I don’t want to praise the devil anymore, but it also had to do with the hypocritical nature of the woke mob because they’re all for tearing down many things – but if it’s something to do with Christianity, they say we can’t do that,” observed Forte.
The petition stalled at around 1,000 supporters last October, shortly after it launched. As of press time, the petition has grown to over 3,000 supporters – nearly all of these additional supporters followed local reports on the mascot survey citing the petition.
