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 Elizabeth Troutman | Feb 4, 2024 | Education, News
By Elizabeth Troutman |
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne approved PragerU teaching materials for Arizona classrooms.
“In some classrooms, the extreme left side has been presented,” Horne, a Republican in his second tour as school superintendent, said Wednesday at a Capitol news conference. “These present an alternative.”
Teachers in all public and charter schools can use PragerU’s lessons and educational videos in their classrooms, Horne said.
Founded by Dennis Prager, PragerU is a conservative media organization offering free, pro-American content. The nonprofit makes videos on topics including economics, character development, politics, American history, and Judeo-Christian values.
Arizona joins several other states in adopting PragerU’s content into its public school curriculum. In July, Florida became the first state to allow schools to use PragerU videos as a teaching tool. Oklahoma, Montana, and New Hampshire followed soon after.
Critics fear the use of PragerU videos in classrooms will push a far-right political agenda.
“This is a program that is not actually a university, despite its name. It’s not an accredited program. It’s not an actual education organization and it’s deeply funded propaganda,” Beth Lewis of Save our Schools Arizona said.
But PragerU says that its mission is to offer a “free alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology in culture, media, and education.”
“Parents who are showing up and are hearing there is a left-wing domination of the educational market, they have an option for something else for their kids, that’s it,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said.
Each school district will be able to choose if they want to use the material or not, Horne said.
Horne has fought left-wing ideology in the classroom throughout his time as superintendent. Horne canceled presentations on social-emotional learning at a conference sponsored by his department after two weeks in office last year.
He also removed LGBT resources from the state Department of Education website.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her 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 | Jul 30, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona State University (ASU) leaders accused of retaliation by a former employee for hosting two “faith-based” events have kept quiet on the allegations raised against them.
The former events operator of the ASU Gammage theater alleged retaliation in a letter last week to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for allowing “faith-based” events to take place.
The complainant, Lin Blake, alleged in a timeline spanning six pages that she had only received positive performance reviews for the nearly three years leading up to the controversial events. It wasn’t until January, the month leading up to the controversial events, that Blake faced challenges to her work performance. Blake allegedly experienced unprecedented scrutiny throughout the planning, preparation, production, and post-event processes concerning the event, though she noted the event was approved last fall.
“This marked the beginning of the micromanagement of my duties and the overall hostile work environment that would become my future,” stated Blake.
AZ Free News reached out to each of the individuals allegedly behind the intimidation campaign and punitive measures against Blake regarding the controversial events. None of them responded by press time.
One of the controversial events, hosted by the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center at Barrett Honors College, featured conservative speakers Charlie Kirk, president and founder of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, a personal finance book bestseller and PragerU presenter.
The other controversial event, hosted by Bethel Chandler Church, focused on raising awareness for sex trafficking.
Ahead of the events, Blake alleged that ASU Gammage leadership convened a meeting to express concern that she was allowing a “church program” and “white supremacists” to have a platform at their theater. She also alleged enduring public condemnation and boycotting from her colleagues.
“While I was left with the obligation to run two large and high-profile events, my colleagues that did not show up to work received praise for standing by their personal beliefs,” said Blake. “ASU Gammage staff and leadership should not discriminate against any views, yet they did in plain sight.”
In addition to the accusations of supporting white supremacy, AZ Free News reported previously that Gammage Executive Director Colleen Jennings-Roggensack was alleged to have told staff that they were aligned in beliefs, that they all had voted for President Joe Biden and Gov. Katie Hobbs — even if they hadn’t.
At a faculty and leadership meeting following the upbraiding from Jennings-Roggensack, Blake said she was singled out to explain Gammage’s core values.
Blake further alleged that two ASU Dean of Students representatives breached security to enter a restricted backstage area and intimidate former Lewis Center director Ann Atkinson.
“[I]f speech was truly free at ASU, producing events with unpopular viewpoints would not have cost my job. There is no freedom of speech when it comes with the punishment of job loss for those who administer it,” wrote Blake.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
