by Corinne Murdock | Jul 19, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
On Tuesday, a joint committee of the Arizona legislature launched an investigation into allegations of censorship at Arizona State University (ASU). Lawmakers issued a 60-day deadline to conduct the investigation.
The directive arose from the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities hearing concerning the T.W. Lewis Center, shuttered this year after the revocation of $400,000 in annual funding from its namesake, Tom Lewis, who cited “left-wing hostility and activism” as his reason for defunding the program.
Lewis’ contention arose from the efforts of 37 Barrett Honors College faculty members, who launched a coordinated campaign to prevent an event featuring prominent conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. Prager testified at Tuesday’s hearing; he also published an opinion piece on the event ahead of the hearing.
State Sens. Anthony Kern, co-chair (R-LD27), Frank Carroll (R-LD28), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Christine Marsh (D-LD04), and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13) served on the committee, as did State Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Lorena Austin (D-LD09), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). Kern and Nguyen served as co-chairs.
“This is to get to the bottom of a state-funded university that is not meeting its obligation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” said Kern.
The center relied on an annual budget of around $1 million; ASU representatives explained that the center would live on through the classes taught, though the actual center itself and the executive director at its helm, Ann Atkinson, would be gone.
ASU Vice President of Legal Affairs Kim Demarchi explained that Lewis’ funding provided for career development and education. Demarchi testified that ASU considered what programs it could continue without Lewis’ funding, and declared that they could only sustain the faculty without Lewis’ funding. Demarchi also shared that the Barrett Honors faculty weren’t punished in any way for the letter or allegations of intimidation.
“It is possible it [their letter] has a chilling effect,” said Demarchi.
However, Demarchi clarified that a professor would have to explicitly threaten a student’s grade in order to be in violation of university policy.
Atkinson went public with the closure of the Lewis Center last month. (See the response from ASU). She told AZ Free News that the university turned down alternative funding sources that would make up for the loss of Lewis’ funding necessary to keep the Lewis Center running.
Nguyen opened up the hearing by recounting his survival of Vietnam’s communist regime as a child, and comparing that regime’s hostility to free speech to the actions of Barrett Honors College faculty.
“My understanding is that there is an effort to prevent conservative voices from being heard,” said Nguyen. “I crossed 12,000 miles to look for freedom, to seek freedom.”
Nguyen expressed disappointment that none of the 37 faculty members that signed onto the letter showed up to testify in the hearing. He said if he accused someone, he would show up to testify.
Democratic members of the committee contended that the event occurred and therefore censorship hadn’t taken place. Kern said the occurrence of the event doesn’t resolve whether freedom of speech was truly permitted, citing the closure of the Lewis Center.
ASU Executive Vice Provost Pat Kenney emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as critical to a free nation. Nguyen asked whether Kenney read the Barrett letter, and agreed to it. Kenney said the letter was freedom of expression. He claimed the letter didn’t seek cancellation of the event.
“When faculty speak out on their own like that, they’re covered on the same topic we’re here about, which is free speech,” said Kenney.
ASU representatives claimed near the beginning of the hearing that Lewis and ASU President Michael Crow had discussed the withdrawal of funding. However, toward the end of the hearing Kern announced that he’d received information from a Lewis representative that the pair hadn’t discussed the funding, and accused ASU representatives of lying.
Ortiz called the anonymous complaints from students hypotheticals because no formal complaints were lodged. She also claimed that the hearing was merely an attempt to delegitimize public and higher education. Marsh claimed that lawmakers shouldn’t consider the claims of student fears of retaliation because the students should’ve gone to ASU directly.
Nguyen asked whether ASU would defend guest speakers, such as himself, if ASU faculty were to lodge claims of white nationalism. Kenney said that, in a personal capacity, ASU faculty were free to make their claims, but not if they spoke out on ASU’s behalf.
Atkinson contested with the characterization that the Barrett faculty spoke out in their personal capacity. She pointed out that Barrett faculty signed the letter in their capacity as ASU faculty, emailed her using their ASU emails, and sent communications to students about opposing the event using ASU technology.
Ortiz announced receipt of a letter from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on the outcome of the requested investigation into the incident, the results of which Kern and the rest of the committee appeared to not have been made aware, determining that no free speech violations took place at ASU.
Marsh speculated that the professors didn’t show up because they faced death threats, citing media attention and conservative speaker Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist. Kern said that would be a “lame excuse.” He also pointed out that the professors launched a national campaign and initialized bringing themselves into a bigger spotlight.
“You’re making excuses where we don’t know that’s the case,” said Kern.
Atkinson said that she could provide “dozens, if not hundreds” of students that could testify to experiencing faculty intimidation. She also claimed that Williams told her to avoid booking speakers that were political.
“We allow the speaker but you have to take the consequences,” said Atkinson, reportedly quoting Williams.
Atkinson testified that TV screen ads were removed and flyers were torn down following the Barrett Honors faculty letter. She also said she shared the information for the person responsible on June 13, yet it appears ASU took no action. ASU said they weren’t aware of any advertising for the event pulled.
Additionally, Atkinson testified that Williams pressured her to postpone the event “indefinitely.” She noted that Williams interpreted ASU’s policy of not promoting political campaigns as not allowing political speech at all.
“We were in an environment telling us that this was ‘hate speech,’” said Atkinson.
Atkinson said she was directed by leadership ahead of the event to issue a preliminary warning that the event contained potentially dangerous speech.
Gonzales told Atkinson that hate speech doesn’t qualify as constitutionally protected speech. However, the rules attorney corrected her that the Supreme Court ruled hate speech as protected.
ASU professor Owen Anderson also testified. He said that he’s previously had to get the free speech rights organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIR) involved twice due to faculty attempts to suppress free speech. Anderson also said that faculty have attempted to restrict speech by adding anti-racism and DEI to policy on class content and annual reviews of professors.
“Insults abound, but rational dialogue is rare. What we need are administrators that call these faculty to higher conduct,” said Anderson.
In closing, Kern said he doesn’t trust ASU, the University of Arizona, or ABOR. He argued that ABOR hadn’t issued a real investigation and called their report “typical government fluff [and] garbage.” Kern also called for the firing of Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 16, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona will be at the forefront of the presidential campaign come the 2024 general election, but there’s one contest that might take on more importance.
On Monday, Save Democracy Inc., an Arizona-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, gave a preview of an election-oriented voter initiative that could be coming the state’s way in November 2024. They tweeted, “Coming Soon: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries.”
The post shared that this initiative would prohibit “the use of taxpayer funds to pay for private political party primaries; that all candidates (would) appear on the same ballot and compete under the same rules; and that all registered voters (would) use the same ballot to vote.”
Save Democracy Arizona’s website asks and answers the question, “Why do we need reform?” by alleging that “the current system is not working,” that “we need an even playing field,” and that “Arizona has a tradition of open elections.” On their home page, they write, “At a time when many Americans are concerned about the health of our election system, our coalition was formed to educate voters about how Arizona’s voting system currently operates. Join us as we explore alternative primary structures that could make our system work better for ALL Arizonans.”
The group’s efforts have already caught the eye of longtime Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts, who wrote a piece about the likely potential for action on this front. She tweeted, “Coming soon to a neighborhood near you: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries. Makes total sense here, in the state where independents now outnumber Republicans and Democrats.”
In her column, Roberts elaborated on what voters might see over the coming year, opining, “(This group) has scrapped plans for an initiative to bring ranked-choice voting to Arizona. Instead, it is preparing an initiative asking voters to outlaw taxpayer-financed partisan primary elections. The Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs would be directed to develop a new system that puts all candidates on one primary-election ballot. With one set of rules to get there.”
The Roberts’ piece grabbed the attention of Representative Austin Smith, who has been fighting against Ranked Choice Voting since the day he entered the Arizona Legislature – and may be one of the significant reasons why there may not be a direct attempt to bring Ranked Choice Voting to Arizona via a November 2024 ballot initiative.
Smith tweeted, “Two competing initiatives!? Fun! I look forward to helping Arizonans pass HCR 2033 protecting Arizona’s primary election system and keeping the entrenched consultant class out of picking our representatives. Looks like the Arizona Freedom Caucus is effective yet again like Laurie Roberts said.”
The freshman legislator sponsored HCR 2033, which sent a question to voters on an amendment to the state constitution to “determine that a Legislature-enacted direct primary law supersedes any contrary or inconsistent provision of any charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy of any city and modifies nominee requirements for a direct primary election.”
The vote in the Senate was split down party lines – 16-13, with one Democrat (Senator Miranda) not voting. Earlier in the session, the Arizona House passed the resolution – also along party lines – 31-28, with one Democrat (Representative Shah) not voting. The legislature then transmitted the resolution to the Arizona Secretary of State.
After the Senate passed the resolution, Smith wrote, “This constitutional referral to protect our party primaries and girding us against radical experimental election systems that disenfranchise voters such as ‘ranked choice voting.’”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 3, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona elected officials found no shortage of material to react to from the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest term.
On Friday, the nation’s highest court released its opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the president’s student loan cancellation program. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, and he was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The majority opinion stated that “the ‘economic and political significance’ of the Secretary’s action is staggering by any measure. Practically every student borrower benefits, regardless of circumstances. A budget model issued by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that the program will cost taxpayers ‘between $469 billion and $569 billion,’ depending on the total number of borrowers ultimately covered.”
State legislators were quick to respond to the momentous decision from the Supreme Court. Freshman Republican Representative Austin Smith tweeted, “Canceling student loan debt is and always will be an irresponsible and brainless ‘policy’ proposal. It deserved this fiery death at SCOTUS. Do not take out astronomically large loans for a career with a salary you will never be able to pay off.”
Smith also parried an attack from the House Democrats Caucus, which took to Twitter to pin the decision on Republicans. This tactic didn’t sit too well with Smith, who said, “The Constitution did this. Cope and seethe.”
On the other side of the aisle, Senate Democratic Assistant Leader Juan Mendez released a statement shortly after news broke about the opinion, writing, “Today’s decision on Student Loan Relief is all the evidence we need to rule this court as corrupt. For generations this court as been playing favorites, taking sides and receiving undisclosed donations, all while Congress has been bailing out corrupt corporations, reckless Wall Street traders and forgiving PPP loans for the wealthy.”
Senator Mendez also called on President Biden to take further action, saying, “The Court’s biased decisions can not go unanswered. The President must do everything within his power to set student loan interest rates to 0%, set minimum monthly payments to $25, and revamp current repayment plans to accept volunteerism as payment.”
Earlier this year, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that she had withdrawn the State from a lawsuit over the president’s actions on student loans, which was initiated by her predecessor, Mark Brnovich. Mayes told KTAR News that “we’re not going to be engaging in political lawsuits at the Attorney General’s Office anymore,” and that “suing the federal government over everything is not the answer and it’s not what the people of Arizona want.” The KTAR recap of the interview noted that the first-year attorney general “said the student debt lawsuit was inappropriate and unlikely to succeed.” Instead, Mayes joined a coalition of attorneys general from around the country to support a “federal proposal to create a more affordable repayment plan for student loan borrowers.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | May 25, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski|
An Arizona Republican lawmaker’s videos from a recent border visit appeared to have been deleted from Twitter.
Last week, freshman Representative Austin Smith traveled to Cochise County and stopped by the border to gain first-hand knowledge about the crisis created by the Biden Administration’s policies. He posted two pictures and two videos from his visit to his Twitter account, writing, “Eye opening experience down here on the border. Joe Biden and Mayorkas are derelict in their duty to our country. Absolutely shameful. God bless the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department. They are doing everything they can to keep Arizona and the United States safe. FINISH THE DANG WALL!”
Soon after his media went live to the social media site, the two videos seemed to have disappeared. AZ Free News viewed the post and observed that in place of the videos were the captions “This video has been deleted.”
Smith also noticed the deletion of his videos, sending a public message to Elon Musk to inquire why this had occurred.
He then reposted the videos on a separate thread, where they remain accessible to the public to view.
The videos Representative Smith published were generic commentaries about the state of the border according to his on-the-ground experience. In the first video, Smith is stationary by the border wall and talks about the number of ‘gotaways’ crossing into the country and the lack of Border Patrol agents around to detect and apprehend any illegal crossers in that area. He states that “the Biden Administration is truly derelict in its duty to protect the United States of America,” and he spends much of his time comparing and contrasting the differences in border security under the Trump and Biden Administrations. He also pleads with his viewers to make political changes with the presidency and the U.S. Senate in the 2024 election in order to effect real change at the border.
In the second video, Smith compares the size of walls before the Trump administration and from the Trump administration, showing that President Trump’s administration built taller infrastructure along the United States-Mexico border.
The first-year Arizona Representative was in Cochise County for the May 20th County Republican Club Lincoln Day Dinner, where he was the keynote speaker. Smith has quickly built out a profile for himself at the Arizona Legislature, focusing, in large part, on stopping Ranked Choice Voting from entering the state.
After the dinner, he tweeted a picture of him and his fiancée at the event, writing, “Thank you to the great grassroots of @realcochisegop for having @amyesamuel and I tonight! Fantastic group of southern Arizonans!”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Apr 15, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Earlier this week, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs continued her effort to break Arizona governors’ veto record, vetoing five bills sent to her from the state legislature.
The bills that Hobbs vetoed were HB 2552, HB 2675, HB 2754, SB 1236, and SB 1251.
Former Gov. Janet Napolitano set the record with 58 vetoes.
HB 2552, sponsored by Representative Austin Smith, would have prohibited “certain entities from using a voting method or nomination process that includes the ranking of candidates or allows candidates to be eliminated through multiple rounds of tabulation.” It also would have required “the person who receives the highest number of legal votes in an election to be declared elected.” Hobbs explained that “ranked choice voting is an election process that is used successfully elsewhere in the country.”
HB 2675, sponsored by Representative Steve Montenegro, would have declared “that drug cartels are terrorist organizations and required the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything within its authority to address the threat that drug cartels pose.” Governor Hobbs justified her veto of this bill by saying, “Labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations to deploy state resources is not a real solution and is not a state function.”
HB 2754, sponsored by Representative Rachel Jones, would have included “nongovernmental organizations in the definition of an enterprise for purposes of criminal liability and subjected an enterprise to criminal liability for the offense of participating in a human smuggling organization.” In announcing her veto of this proposal, Hobbs said, “This bill has unintended consequences for organizations that support immigrants.”
SB 1236, sponsored by Senator Wendy Rogers, would have declared “the regulation of the imposition of a tax or fee on a person or entity running a node on block chain technology to be a matter of statewide concern and preempted further regulation by a city, town or county.” The Governor stated that “this bill broadly defines ‘blockchain technology’ and prevents local policymaking concerning an emergent and potentially energy-intensive economic activity.”
After Hobbs’ action, Senator Rogers tweeted: “Of course Hobbs blocked my bill…anything that encourages the free markets gets torpedoed.”
SB 1251, sponsored by Senator Janae Shamp, would have prohibited “a city, town or county from enacting any ordinance, resolution or policy that prohibits or restricts a person from using a working animal in lawful commerce or for an animal enterprise.” Hobbs wrote that “SB 1251 is a solution in search of a problem. As the bill sponsor stated, no Arizona city, town, or county restricts rodeos or the use of working animals for agricultural or ranching operations. There are also no pending policy proposals to do so anywhere in Arizona.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
