by Staff Reporter | Mar 19, 2026 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The honor colleges at all three of the state’s universities are mandating courses educating students on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
The Goldwater Institute detailed two of the three colleges in a newly released investigatory report, “Desert Brain Drain.”
The three honors colleges in Arizona are Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University (ASU), which has about 7,500 students enrolled; the Honors College at Northern Arizona University (NAU), which has about 1,500 students enrolled; and the W.A. Franke Honors College at University of Arizona (U of A), which has about 4,500 students enrolled.
The Goldwater Institute found through public records that one of ASU Barrett Honors College’s required courses, The Human Event, hid a majority (85 percent) of its syllabi from the online catalog. ASU waited nearly a year to respond to Goldwater’s records requests on the hidden spring 2025 syllabi, and in its response, it redacted the names of the professors associated with the courses with the hidden syllabi.
Those records did reveal that 70 percent of the hidden syllabi from the spring 2025 catalog contained DEI content focusing on the alleged systemic oppression of certain identities related to race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Among the topics advanced by these hidden syllabi were the critical race theory concept of anti-racism, land acknowledgements, explorations of sexuality, decolonization, secularization, globalization, and transgenderism — with some content being graphic.
The W.A. Franke Honors College at U of A requires students to choose among the courses offered within its Honors Seminar, many which focus on DEI subjects similar to those presented by ASU Barrett Honors College required courses. Several courses focused on deconstruction of personal identity within the context of social justice, breaking down the idea of the self through the recognition of personal identities — race, gender, religion, class, and “social violence” — and recontextualizing the fractured and rebuilt self on political activism.
Although NAU Honors College was not included within the Goldwater Institute’s report, their primary required course (HON 190: Honors Colloquium) contained similar explorations of identity-based systemic oppression.
The spring 2026 semester came with two class options for the mandatory course, taught by professors Perry Davidson and Dina Yordy.
Davidson’s class requires students to read three novels challenging religion and embracing secularism: the classic work, “The Great Gatsby,” “Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit,” in which a lesbian leaves the Pentecostal community she grew up in, and “So Far From God,” in which characters serve to display criticisms of Catholicism and patriarchal structures while exploring decolonization and political activism.
Yordy’s class requires students to read three works as well: “The Piano Lesson,” a play about a Black family’s history with slavery and systemic racism, “We Have Always Lived in the Castle,” a novel about the persecution of a family by the intolerant religious townspeople, and “Home,” a novel advocating for the social justice understanding of homes through discussions of homelessness and immigration.
Timothy Minella, Goldwater Institute’s Director of Higher Education, argued in a press release that DEI shouldn’t be a requirement for Honors degrees at public universities.
“This isn’t just an Arizona problem,” he said. “Taxpayers and lawmakers across the country should pay attention to what’s happening in their universities and not sit idly by while activist professors indoctrinate our next generation of leaders on the public dime.”
Although the Arizona legislature has not been successful in its attempts to ban DEI in higher education, President Donald Trump did issue a series of executive orders last spring to cut off federal funding for entities advancing DEI. Those orders have been challenged and even struck down in court.
In an effort to circumvent these judicial challenges, the General Services Administration recently announced a proposed rule change blocking federal funding for schools implementing DEI.
Goldwater’s full report can be found here.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 2, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
A review of Arizona State University (ASU) professors’ voter registration data found that there were 15 times more Democratic professors than Republican ones.
According to an analysis of voters by The College Fix, nearly 300 professors out of over 500 total were registered as Democrats — or, 52 percent of the professors.
Comparatively, just under 20 professors were registered as Republicans, just over a dozen were registered with a third party, about 140 were unaffiliated, and just under 100 were unidentified.
The outlet identified voter registrations using Maricopa County records. Their study excluded lecturers, adjunct, and emeriti faculty.
One significant finding noted by The College Fix: a vast majority of psychology professors were Democrats: 48 to one Republican.
The English department displayed a similar disparity: 64 Democrats to six Republicans. More professors were unaffiliated in that department (about 20) or unknown (just over 10).
Sociology also had a similar disparity: 38 professors registered as Democrats compared with just two Republicans. Nine were unaffiliated, 11 were unknown.
History professors were 22 in number registered as Democrats, with just two Republicans.
Politics and global studies professors were 25 in number unaffiliated, 21 registered as Democrats, and two registered as Republicans.
In a similar prior study by The College Fix, the University of Arizona was also found to have a predominance of Democratic professors.
The predominance of Democratic registrations among professors would explain last year’s faculty controversy over a watchlist of professors accused of discrimination against conservative students.
The university had shut down the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development within the Barrett Honors College after its principal funder withdrew funding due to the “left-wing hostility and activism” of Barrett Honors College faculty.
39 of the 47 faculty members in the college had launched a campaign for action to be taken following an event featuring three conservative speakers on campus: Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, an author and presenter with PragerU.
ASU removed on-campus marketing of the event following the Barrett Honors College faculty opposition campaign.
Those faculty members also recruited students to oppose the event beforehand.
Following the controversial event featuring the three conservative speakers, ASU let go of two faculty members: Ann Atkinson, who had been the executive of the Lewis Center, and Lin Blake, who had been the operator of the venue where the event was held, the Gammage Theater.
The predominance of Democrats within ASU faculty hasn’t deterred students from registering Republican and turning out for president-elect Donald Trump this year.
About a month before the election, thousands of students and young adults turned out for a voter registration event, “Greeks for Trump,” spearheaded by Turning Point USA. Spectators observed a sea of students donning “MAGA” hats.
The surge in youth support for Republican candidates translated to the state flipping back red this election from the last, and the state legislature expanding its Republican majority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jan 28, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Government officials throughout our country are in deep need of some education on the First Amendment. And the latest ones are currently serving in the Town of Gilbert right here in Arizona.
Last week, AZ Free News released an investigative report on Gilbert’s Office of Digital Government (ODG) and its Orwellian monitoring of employees’ online speech. For over a decade, the ODG, which is made up of approximately a dozen employees, has been working to ensure that Gilbert’s 30 official digital accounts—along with the personal online posts of all Town of Gilbert employees—align with a progressive, liberal agenda. And how much do you think this is costing taxpayers in Gilbert? Over $1.1 million each year in salary alone, with Chief Digital Officer Dana Berchman making over $200,000 annually.
When asked about the allegations in the investigative report, the town responded that it “will not tolerate divisive, offensive or culturally insensitive posts from employees purporting to represent the Town.” That’s interesting. Who decides what’s divisive, offensive, or culturally insensitive? The employees within the ODG? Dana Berchman herself?
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Ann Atkinson | Aug 23, 2023 | Opinion
By Ann Atkinson |
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal “I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
by Corinne Murdock | Aug 2, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona State University (ASU) faculty behind a campaign against the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center asked to be added to a watchlist of professors who discriminate against conservative students, emails reveal. Those faculty members later cried foul for their inclusion on the watchlist.
In emails shared with Arizona Sun Times, a Barrett Honors College faculty member requested his addition to the professor watchlist, a product of the Phoenix-based conservative advocacy organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA). That faculty member, professor Mike Stanford, emailed former T.W. Lewis Center executive director Ann Atkinson to request that she forward his request to TPUSA.
“I thought, ‘Why should my colleagues get all the glory? What am I, chopped liver?’ I even filed a ‘tip’ about myself on the website. Yet to no date, no joy,” stated Stanford. “I respectfully request that you direct your minions to add me to the Watchlist. It seems only fair.”
ASU closed the Lewis Center following the principal funder’s decision to withdraw his backing over the “left-wing hostility and activism” of a majority of Barrett Honors College faculty. The faculty launched a campaign with a letter to oppose the invitation of the three conservative speakers at the event: Charlie Kirk, founder and president of TPUSA; Dennis Prager, radio talk show host and founder of conservative educational group PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, author and PragerU presenter.
Since then, several of those involved in the controversial event have come forward alleging retaliation for their involvement. The Arizona legislature ordered an investigation into the ordeal, specifically to review whether free speech violations had occurred.
Stanford received further endorsement for inclusion on the anti-conservative watchlist from another signatory, professor Michael Ostling. Ostling’s role in the campaign against the Lewis Center event resulted in his inclusion on the professor watchlist. Ostling called the watchlist an “honor” for him and his colleagues.
“It is thus only fair that he should be honored, along with his colleagues, as a Professor in need of Watching,” wrote Ostling.
Yet, Ostling and fellow Barrett signatories Jenny Brian and Alex Young alleged months later in an Arizona Republic opinion piece that their inclusion on the watchlist resulted in threats of violence. The three professors also argued that those who reject inclusivity were a threat to debate and, therefore, should be barred from public discourse.
Democratic Sen. Christine Marsh (LD04) further claimed that it was faculty members’ fear over the Professor Watchlist that caused them to decline to testify at last month’s state legislature’s joint committee hearing on allegations of free speech violations at ASU.
ASU has 42 faculty members listed on the Professor Watchlist. Among those 42 are the 39 of 47 Barrett faculty members who signed onto the letter opposing the Lewis Center event: 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.
The University of Arizona has nine faculty members included on TPUSA’s watchlist, and Northern Arizona University has two.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
