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.
High schoolers will learn from firsthand experiences of the evils of communism in a documentary series featuring two Arizona lawmakers who survived it.
The series, produced by the University of Arizona (UArizona) Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, features House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01) sharing their personal accounts of communism and their emigration to America. Toma escaped from Romania, and Nguyen escaped from Vietnam.
Nguyen praised UArizona for granting war survivors like him a platform to enlighten future generations.
The University of Arizona Center for the Philosophy of Freedom has given war survivors like me a voice to share our stories with the many future generations. Thank you! https://t.co/Dlotf2M9At
The videos were created in response to the state legislature passage of a bill sponsored by Nguyen last year requiring high schools to incorporate a comparative discussion of political ideologies: the principles of communism and totalitarianism compared and contrasted with America’s founding principles.
Nguyen recounted how, a week before the Fall of Saigon, his father boarded him and his brother on an airplane with hundreds of other people. Nguyen was 12 years old at the time; his father advised the brothers that they wouldn’t see their family again. He and his brother were transported to Subic Bay, then Guam, then to Travis Airforce Base, Fort Pembleton, and finally Fort Chaffee.
However, Nguyen and his brother were able to reunite with his family in San Joaquin, California. Nguyen explained that he only ever experienced kindness among American military members, contrary to the narratives he heard that the U.S. forces had invaded his country. To this day, Nguyen says he visits with Vietnam veterans nationwide to thank them.
The representative shared that his quality of life in America was better than in Vietnam: he was able to get a strong college education and well-paying employment as a young man.
Nguyen explained that hallmarks of communism include government control of food source, specifically severely limiting the supply; control of education, specifically focusing on propagandizing children; and confiscation of weapons.
Toma’s video includes his mother and father, Ana and Cornel Toma. They recounted how the Romanian secret police labeled their family as an enemy to the government.
Ana recalled how government indoctrination in schools taught her and her peers false history, such as that the rest of the world loved and admired Romania as a great nation, when in fact she would later learn that few Americans knew of Romania’s existence. Ana also recalled waiting in lines for hours to obtain food, sometimes reaching the front without receiving the few rations available.
Cornel recalled how the government took away people’s cattle and land, only allowing them one cow and a half-acre of land. Those who dared speak out would “disappear overnight.” The government also didn’t allow people to have vocational freedom: similar to the military, the government assigned citizens their vocations and where they would live.
The Toma family was forced to flee Romania after the Secret Police began visiting them. They only managed to escape after a family friend convinced a member of the secret police to assist in smuggling them out of the country under the guise of a vacation: at that point, the Toma family wasn’t allowed to leave the country otherwise. Ana and Cornel were forced to escape first, then send for their children.
Ana and Cornel navigated the legal immigration process for admittance to the U.S., traveling across Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Rome over the course of about a year. Ana said that, upon first landing in America, she witnessed a novel display of patriotism and love for America that touched her deeply.
“I was so impressed that somebody love the country so much. I was impressed by the attitude they had on the flight. I thought, ‘This is the first taste of freedom,’” said Ana.
The Toma family settled in a two-bedroom apartment for their family of seven. Speaker Toma shared his delight in the abundance of America through the simple joy of eating oranges: something not possible in Romania. Ana and Cornel shared that they found work rather quickly.
In addition to Toma and Nguyen, the series will include Mesa Community College economics professor Sylwia Cavalcant, who fled Poland’s communism.
Freedom Center Director Mary Rigdon said that the series would serve to advise students of the realities of communism.
“The mini-documentaries powerfully demonstrate our commitment to inform current and future generations, consistent with the Center’s mission to be an intellectually diverse, inclusive, and nonpartisan resource for leaders and students seeking to address society’s significant challenges. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight the power of freedom in a democratic society,” said Rigdon.
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.
.@DennisPrager says Arizona State University Barrett Honors College faculty are intellectual & moral lightweights: "They fear any conservative coming for 90 minutes, because in 90 minutes I can undo the 4 years of the indoctrination that these leftists give their students." pic.twitter.com/tmXn56rFih
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 toldAZ 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.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ State Representative @azaustinsmith Calls on Board of Regents to Investigate & Report on Free Speech Concerns at Arizona State University
“Free speech is paramount to the future of our Republic. Higher education taxpayer-funded universities must be held… pic.twitter.com/GllgAZhLiq
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) June 21, 2023
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.
Arizona Senate Democrats had tweeted that "hate speech" doesn't qualify as free speech. Sen. Mesnard reminds Democrats present of the Supreme Court 8-1 ruling for Westboro Baptist Church that the First Amendment protects "hate speech." pic.twitter.com/tJT3laTbv7
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.
The city of Phoenix plans to send hundreds of unclaimed guns to Ukraine, around 500 to 600 guns, over the next two years.
The Phoenix City Council approved the measure during last week’s formal meeting. The city will give the guns to a private company headquartered in Pennsylvania, D.T. Gruelle, who will then transport them to the National Police of Ukraine. The city will expend nothing for the transfer.
The approximately $200,000 in firearms given to Ukraine will only be 9mm, 45mm, 39mm, and 12 gauge. The firearms transfer agreement is binding for two years: June 28 of this year to June 28, 2025.
However, the gun donation may be unlawful.
Arizona House Judiciary Committee leaders immediately contacted Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego over the arrangement. In a letter, the committee members warned that the gun donation violates state law.
Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01) and Selina Bliss (R-LD01), chair and vice-chair of the committee, urged Gallego to repeal the ordinance.
The lawmakers noted that state law prohibits political subdivisions from enacting any ordinance concerning the possession, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, or use of firearms.
The lawmakers also noted that state law doesn’t permit cities or other local governments from disposing of their firearms through donations. Rather, statute permits local governments to either trade the unclaimed firearms to a federal firearms licensed business in exchange for items like ammunition or weapons, or sell the unclaimed firearms to an authorized business who will then sell those firearms to the public.
The pair reminded Gallego of Brnovich v. City of Tucson, in which the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Tucson’s ordinance ordering the destruction of unclaimed firearms conflicted with state law.
It appears that Phoenix’s donated guns may not only go to the National Police of Ukraine, but the citizens themselves.
The company contracted to take the unclaimed guns, D.T. Gruelle, has close ties to the Ukrainian government. Their managing director, Marco Gruelle, sits on the board of Ukrainian Arsenal of Liberty (UAL): a group created by Ukrainian Parliament members for the purpose of arming citizens. Parliament member Maryan Zablotskyy sits on UAL’s board.
Also on UAL’s board are Oleksandr Markushyn, mayor of the city of Irpin, and Ivan Slobodyanyk, chair of the Union of Local Communities and Farmers Union of Ukraine as well as a fighter in the Territorial Defense Force.
According to UAL’s donation brief, they utilized donated and unused guns obtained by American states’ police forces. Unclaimed guns are held by the Phoenix Police Department; as the Arizona Daily Independent first reported, the donation plan didn’t mention tracking measures for the guns once donated.
The company first engaged in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict last February. D.T. Gruelle has provided “critical aid transport” to various conflict zones since 2019.
That same year that D.T. Gruelle began providing conflict zone assistance, it established its 501(c)(3) nonprofit, D.T. Care, which currently provides emergency relief to Ukraine. Marco Gruelle also serves as president of D.T. Care. In its last annual report, issued in 2021, D.T. Care distributed over $361,000 in relief to South Africa, Panama, Lebanon, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, respectively.
D.T. Gruelle was founded in 1982 by Durard Timothy Gruelle, an Army veteran of the Vietnam War who continues to preside over the company today.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Governor Hobbs has proposed a budget that is a radical’s dream. It increases funding for a laundry list of pet programs of the radical left, while at the same time cutting programs that are supported by the vast majority of Arizonans. The Hobbs budget expands funding for illegal immigrants and increases taxpayer funding of abortions. At the same time, Hobbs would kill the expansion of our popular parental school choice program and defund the Border Strike Force.
House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci describes the Hobbs budget: “Attacking school choice, peddling state-funded abortions, and incentivizing illegal immigration in Arizona are all non-starters and, frankly, something you’d expect to see proposed by a politician in California, not Arizona.”
In response to Hobbs’ radical budget, Republicans passed a responsible, “baseline budget” which would continue state spending at last year’s budget levels, with adjustments to education and health care programs to account for inflation. When asked if Hobbs would reject the baseline budget Rep. Biasiucci responded, “If she does that, it’s party politics. This is everything we need to make sure that schools don’t shut down, make sure government stays open, make sure all our essential services stay open while we figure out what we need to do with the rest of the money.” Unfortunately, Hobbs vetoed the legislature’s reasonable budget. She is playing a game of chicken, threatening a government shutdown.
If Republicans stay united, the taxpayers will be protected from the free-spending Democrats. Given the one-vote margin in each house, we can’t afford to lose a single Republican vote. To protect us from Hobbs’ costly budget, it is essential that Republicans stick together.
I have heard disturbing reports that some Republicans are quietly signaling they are willing to cut a deal with the Democrats behind the backs of their leadership. That would severely weaken the bargaining position of Republicans as they negotiate for smaller government. More important, it would betray their constituents who voted for them based on their promises to limit the growth of state government.
Why on earth would Republicans be willing to cave to the Hobbs budget? There are a couple of possibilities. They could trade their votes for a pet project. Or they could be self-promoters with a messianic complex seeking acclaim from the liberal press as “rising above the partisan bickering.”
Believe it or not, it could happen here in Arizona. Around the country and in Congress, turncoat Republicans have made side deals to expand government spending. And though it seems odd, these quislings frequently represent “safe” Republican districts. Senator Romney comes to mind, and he is not alone.
In California, back when Jerry Brown was governor, a Republican representing the most Republican district in the state voted for the bloated budget after she had promised to oppose it. When asked why she flipped, she blithely replied that she got a new library for UC Irvine. Another Republican sold out for even less—Willie Brown promised him an office with a wet bar in it. Judas at least got thirty pieces of silver. As sure as night follows day, the press heaped praise on both of them for their “courage” in avoiding a budget impasse. But in truth, they voted against the interests of their constituents.
To avoid such a betrayal from happening here in Arizona, conservatives must press their representatives for a firm commitment that they won’t cut a side deal on the budget. We must lock in those commitments now and shut down any side deals before negotiations start in earnest.
My State Senator is Ken Bennett, and my representatives are Quang Nguyen and Selena Bliss. LD 1 is the most Republican district in the state. Conservatives shouldn’t have to worry about them keeping faith with their promises to the voters, but as President Reagan told us, “Trust but verify.”
Therefore, I am asking all three for a firm commitment that they will only vote for a budget that is supported by the rest of their Republican colleagues. The great conservative Senator Everett Dirksen famously said, “When I fell the heat, I see the light.” And I hope conservatives in all Republican districts will turn up the heat, so Republicans stay united to protect the wallets of the taxpayers.
Otherwise, it will be every legislator for themselves, and they’ll cut the hog fat. And we the taxpayers will be the hog.
Pat Nolan is the Director Emeritus of the Nolan Center for Justice at the American Conservative Union, and lives in Prescott.
