Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds, the podcast that fearlessly tackles the most divisive issues gripping our nation today. In this riveting episode, we are thrilled to host two guests whose expertise and perspectives promise to ignite thoughtful discussions.

Congressman Andy Harris joins us first, shedding light on critical matters such as legal immigration and the urgent need for enforcing our border laws. He also delves into the world of IRS whistleblowers and Secretary Mayorkas, providing keen insights into these complex topics. With a unique background as a medical practitioner in Congress during the COVID pandemic, Congressman Harris discusses the federal government’s handling of COVID.

Later, the show takes an intense turn as Professor Brooks Simpson engages in a fiery debate with Sam Stone and Michelle Ugenti-Rita, exploring the state of Free Speech at Arizona State and Barrett College. Get ready for a gripping episode filled with candid conversations that will challenge your perspectives and broaden your understanding.

Connect with us:

www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote

Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle

Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds

Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds

The son of immigrants who fled communist Eastern Europe immediately after World War II, Dr. Andy Harris was as a physician at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a medical officer in the Naval Reserve, and a state senator before coming to Congress.

Born in Brooklyn in 1957, he studied medicine at Hopkins, where he continued to practice as an anesthesiologist for nearly three decades. Andy specialized in obstetric anesthesiology.

In 1988, Andy answered a recruitment call to fill a critical need for anesthesiologists in the Naval Reserve during the Reagan administration. He went on to establish and command The Johns Hopkins Medical Naval Reserve Unit. In 1990, his unit was called up to active duty in order to assist with Operation Desert Shield (and later Operation Desert Storm) at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Harris attained the rank of Commander (O-5) before leaving the Reserves after seventeen years.

Unhappy with the status quo in Annapolis, Andy decided to take on the establishment and run for the Maryland State Senate in 1998, where he served for 12 years. Maryland’s First Congressional District first elected Andy to serve in the House of Representatives in 2010. He is the is the current Chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies subcommittee on Appropriations. He also serves on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee as well as the Homeland Security subcommittee on Appropriations.

Andy was married to his late wife, Cookie, for over 33 years, and he is the proud father of five children, stepfather of one, and grandfather to ten. Andy lives with his wife, Nicole, and their dog in Dorchester County. In his free time, he enjoys spending time on the Chesapeake Bay with his family and repairing old cars with his sons.

-

Brooks D. Simpson is an ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University, where he is a member of the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts faculty. A member of the honors faculty at Barrett, The Honors College, during the spring 2017 semester he served as associate dean (interim) at Barrett's Downtown campus. As a historian of the United States, Professor Simpson studies American political and military history as well as the American presidency, specializing in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Note: Brooks Simpson speaks on his own behalf, not as a representative of ASU. His opinions are his own.

-

Transcription

Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. We're going to be jumping right into it with our first guest today. We're very pleased to have on the line Congressman Andy Harris of the first Congressional District of Maryland. Congressman Harris was a physician at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, medical officer in the Naval Reserve and a state senator before coming to Congress. Congressman, welcome to the program.

Chuck Warren: It's good to be with you, Congressman. This is Chuck. I want to start with two questions. The first one is a little more practical. You're the only Republican member of the Maryland delegation. Is that correct? That's right. That's right. Yeah.

Andy Harris: Hopefully we'll get another one. But I'm the only one now.

Chuck Warren: Do they treat you this? The other members of the delegation treat you like a misfit toy or are they good working with you?

Andy Harris: It depends on the issue. You tell me what the issue is. I'll tell you how I get treated.

Chuck Warren: Well, how about this? Regarding constituent issues in Maryland, do they work pretty well with you?

Andy Harris: Absolutely. No question. The senators work with me. Obviously, if we have a constituent who contacts my office from another representative's office. Yeah, they work. They work with me on that. Again, look, on some issues, on a lot of issues, we're going to disagree. But on the issues that are important to our constituents and where we have commonality, we agree.

Sam Stone: Congressman, I'm glad we touched on constituent services because I think that's something that doesn't get talked about enough. How important is that to just doing your job the right way and how much can that separate, frankly, a good Congress member from a great one?

Andy Harris: I think it's very important now, honestly, to be honest with you, it shouldn't be that important because the federal government should work without the intervention of representatives. But the problem is, is that it frequently needs it. Right now. For instance, passports are months and months behind. And if somebody has a trip coming up, you know, we have to we have to advocate on their behalf with the Department of State. It shouldn't be that way. I mean, you pay a fee to process a passport. It should be processed in a timely fashion.

Sam Stone: Chuck and I have a good friend who is in green card limbo right now. And, you know, I mean, it's a constant problem. And you're right, they shouldn't need intervention by someone like yourself.

Chuck Warren: With Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland. Congressman, so both your parents fled communist Eastern Europe to come to the United States. I find that background fascinating because I think it gives you a unique perspective on the immigration crisis our country faces now. How has that that giving you an outlook on immigration and what do you feel needs to be done?

Andy Harris: Sure. No, My parents came from my mother's ethnic Ukrainian. It was, you know, fled Poland That was part of Poland, part of the Ukraine she was born in at the time. But it was again, the communists took it over after World War II. My father fled Hungary when the communists took it over. They, you know, met at a displacement camp in Austria, and they waited literally years for the legal pathway to come to the United States. They came they found the American dream for them and, you know, raised four boys here, all all successful, the absolute American dream. But they waited years in line to come in legally. And this is a great country. You know, we accept, you know, a million immigrants every year legally. And that's what immigrants should expect. They should expect to respect our process. And, you know, a lot of them don't. I mean, some do like my parents did. So we're a country of immigrants. I get it. But, you know, you can't start out your trip to this country, a country of law and order, by breaking the law. It's just not right. It should never we should never allow it.

Chuck Warren: What are some things we can do to stop this crisis? You know, for example, we had a guest on the show months ago. Talk about that. If you don't come through a port of entry and there's 327 in the country, you're immediately denied asylum.

Sam Stone: Former US attorney out of Yuma, right.

Chuck Warren: I mean, is that the type of type of legislation we need to start getting this under control?

Andy Harris: Honestly, we don't even need legislation. The laws are on the books. We need an administration that will enforce the laws on the books. The last administration did. This administration doesn't. And what we've seen is roughly a tripling of the number of illegal immigrants coming in under this administration. We have plenty of laws. We don't need laws. You know, the Democrats want to pass laws because they want to legalize everybody who came in illegally. They want to legalize people and make citizens out of people who came in illegally. Again, we just need to enforce our current laws. And it's a shame. It's a real shame that we don't enforce our borders.

Sam Stone: Congressman, we recently had some hearings with Secretary Mayorkas on this issue. And one of the things I find so disconcerting with this administration is their officials will sit up there and flatly not merely deny the truth, but present a picture that is directly opposite. Of the reality. And I think a lot of folks in Arizona, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, California know the reality is not the picture he painted.

Andy Harris: That's absolutely right. And you know, about a few months ago when there was that crisis in Del Rio where you had, you know, 10,000 people flooded and, you know, one of one of the one of the broadcast outlets, you know, had had a helicopter taking pictures of it. Americans realize there is actually chaos at the border. You know, I blame the media. The media should be you know, it's American media. It should be protective of our laws in this country. And it should actually expose the administration when they are not enforcing the laws of this country. Instead, you know, most of the media is absolutely complicit.

Sam Stone: You know, one thing that came out in the media this week, Chuck, and Congressman Harris, that I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw it and the way they presented it, the media was talking this week about the Border Patrol keeping crossers in cages in this heat. They their entire talk was it's the Border Patrol that did that. Compare that to Trump when he was.

Chuck Warren: Trump, it was the Trump administration that did it. Yeah. Yeah, it's incredible. Congressman, you mentioned that we just need to enforce the laws on the book. Let's do a tutorial for our audience here because I don't think a lot of people, as we've talked to people, they really don't realize what's on the book. It's sort of like these gun laws. We have lots of gun laws on the book. There always seem to be ignored. And then a mass shooter who wasn't convicted of committing crimes with them, you know, bypassed them. So talk about what laws we have on the book with immigration that you feel we need to enforce.

Andy Harris: Well, one of the one of the first ones is, is that if you're if you're applying for asylum, you need to be detained until your asylum hearing. It's pretty simple. I mean, that's that's the law. The law is you're supposed to be detained. Now, when you when you allow, you know, hundreds of thousands, millions of people to cross the border, you don't have adequate detention facilities. The answer is don't allow any more people to cross the border instead of allow them across the border and then just release them into the interior of the country with perhaps the promise that they will one day show up for their asylum here and hearing years into the future, because literally we have a backlog of a couple of million cases. That's not the way it should be done. You know, you could interpret you could easily interpret the law to say you can't cross into the into the United States unless we have a detention facility that has a bed for you. And if we don't and that you get a prompt asylum hearing, we don't have enough detention facilities, we don't have enough judges. So we have a years long backlog with people being admitted into the interior with literally just the promise that, yeah, I'll show up, I'll show up for my asylum hearing. And of course the statistics are the vast, vast majority never show up. And of the ones that do show up, the vast majority are in fact denied asylum.

Chuck Warren: Let's talk about a minute here about the IRS whistleblowers. What have you found interesting about the IRS whistleblowers that came out this past week?

Andy Harris: Well, I think, you know, the 50,000 foot picture is it's amazing because when the whistleblowers, you know, two years ago, the Democrats loved whistleblowers. They respected it. Oh, my gosh, you can't say anything bad about a whistleblower because they were whistleblowers who were blowing the whistle on the Trump administration. Now you've got whistleblowers who I think any objective person would say, yeah, these are legitimate whistleblowers. They are, you know, some of the informants, legitimate informants, and yet they're supposed to be distrusted. Now, this is the hypocrisy of that is just is particularly stunning. I don't I think the average American has come to come to understand that there are two systems of justice, you know, one for Hunter Biden and one for everybody else in the country. You know, the judge the judge's decision yesterday to deny the plea bargain shows just how true that is. That here's a here's here's a man accused on a gun charge where if, according to the plea bargain, if he keeps his nose clean for a couple of years, doesn't even get doesn't even get a felony conviction on a gun charge on his record, that's pretty amazing. That's all I can say. And people and people that really bothers Americans. Americans, above all, would like to believe that there is a that, you know, Lady Justice wears a blindfold. But it's pretty clear that peeking out from under that blindfold for some people, especially if your last name is Biden.

Sam Stone: Congressman, I agree 100% with everything you just said, the except that the American people really understand and know this. One of the things I keep having conversations with Republicans about is that when you're talking to your Democrat and independent neighbors who aren't watching Fox News and things to the right of Fox News, there has been no coverage of any of this. No, I mean, no coverage of the whistleblowers, no coverage of Hunter Biden, no coverage of the border hearings. There's no coverage anymore of anything that is detrimental to the left point of view.

Andy Harris: Well, you know, but that's only the last in a long string of of incidents that tell the same story. So I think most people. And you'd ask most people that. Yeah. You know, if you went and protested at a school board. Yeah. The FBI actually began to open files, domestic terrorism files on you. I think people just understand that if you are part of the administration or agree with the administration, there's one way you're treated. If you disagree, there's another way. And the Hunter Biden incident is just the latest in a string.

Sam Stone: How much should Republicans be really featuring this in all the campaigns coast to coast coming up for for next year? Because quite frankly, when you look at all of this, the level of corruption and incompetence, I can't point to a single area right now where the Biden administration is succeeding in their policy.

Andy Harris: Look, I agree. I mean, you know, the biggest laugh is they somehow claim Biden is working out great. Well, I don't know. I go to the grocery store and I don't think it's working out so great. I go I go to the gas station. I don't think it's working out so great. So, I mean, I'm not sure I understand, you know, where they see that coming from.

Chuck Warren: Well, there was a I saw a news clip today from a liberal economist who said that the reason people are not impressed with the economy is that real wages went up for manufacturing and middle class workers during Trump administration. They're not doing that now. And so it's not affecting the people that they think it affects. And so then what they do is they take their paycheck, they go to the grocery store, they pay more for gas or pay more for groceries or pay more for utilities. Everything's gone up five, ten, 15, 20%.

Andy Harris: That's right. So so to compare the Trump administration and the Trump administration, wages went up faster than prices because inflation was low and wages grew in the Biden administration. Wages are going up way slower than inflation. So in fact, your paycheck doesn't go as far and everybody knows it. I mean, again, you know, you can talk all you want, but people, they take their paychecks and they go out and they try to you know, they try to buy things that they fully understand that this economy is very, very different from the one before Joe Biden took office.

Sam Stone: Yeah, enormously different. We have just about 30s before we go to break here, we're going to be coming back with more from Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland's first Congressional district here in just a moment. Folks, if you want to keep in touch with him, you can follow him on Twitter at Rep. Andy Harris, MD. That's at Rep, Andy Harris, MD. And definitely make sure you check him out. He's doing fantastic work there. Congressman, When we come back, we're going to be talking more on spending and the economy. Also, folks, stay tuned. Breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment.

Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True.

Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. We're continuing on with Congressman Andy Harris here in just a moment. But folks, we were talking about the economy. And if you're concerned about the economy and about your portfolio, you need to check out our friends at invest y refy.com that's invest the letter y, then refy.com they have an opportunity for you to earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right. 10.25% fixed. Phenomenal opportunity not tied to the stock market. The Biden economy goes down, the Biden economy goes down. You continue to earn 10.25%. Check them out. Again, that's invest y refy.com or give them a call at 888 Y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you.

Chuck Warren: Worth Congressman Andy Harris. Congressman, I want to take a step away from what we've been talking about for a moment. You are a doctor. You work from Johns Hopkins during Covid. Did your colleagues from both sides of the aisle come and talk to you about your opinion on it?

Andy Harris: Well, I will tell you that certainly from my side of the aisle, they did. You know, my opinion was that we didn't take the right course of action during Covid. So a lot of the members on the other side of the aisle didn't come talk to me about it. But it became pretty clear early on that this, first of all, that this was this was a function of the Chinese. There's no question about it. It came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's amazing that there's still not there's near-total universal acceptance of that now by the federal government, but it's not universally accepted yet. And that's dangerous because we need to know how dangerous China is and how they lied to us during the at the beginning of this pandemic.

Sam Stone: Congressman, you're a doctor. So one of the things that I've been dismayed about since the you know, since Covid is that our public health response was awful. I mean, it was just awful. But there doesn't seem to be any real effort to go back and look and say, hey, we need to redo our plans and reconsider how we're going to approach these things, how we interact with the public, all of that sort of stuff. I mean, they basically got everything wrong, but but aren't appearing to admit it or prepare to next time, hopefully, you know, long, long time from now. But whenever that may be to do better, Is there is there effort underway in Congress or in the federal government to really look at how we can do things differently than we did this last time?

Andy Harris: There certainly should be, and we're certainly trying to steer it that way. You know, the Republican majority in the House. But I'll tell you, they're still denial among the federal agencies. They deny that they did anything wrong. And look, they didn't get everything wrong. Honestly, if you were a high risk patient, you were a senior, you had multiple, you know, co-morbidities. We call them, you know, you were you were sick person. The vaccines were that was probably a good idea because the vaccines didn't prevent the disease. They did decrease the severity. But very early on, we knew that there were two categories of people, high risk and low risk. And if you were in low risk, there really was no need for the vaccine. And yet the government continued to push them. That was probably when that occurred that the government didn't give you a choice because, look, if you want if you're low risk and you want to take the vaccine, God bless you, your choice. When the government stopped giving you a choice, that's when I knew this government was out of control on this. And they were not following the science. They were just they were just going to deny that they had gotten something wrong. And in medicine, that's very dangerous. You know, if you realize you've made the wrong diagnosis, make the right one and begin the treatment on the right one, you don't just continue down the path saying, well, I'm really not going to admit that I made the wrong diagnosis because that doesn't end well for the patients.

Chuck Warren: Well, it's I I'm going back. It's amazing to me that members on both sides of the aisle, especially Democrats, didn't come to you. So there's you know, there's there's 19 members, 19 members of the Senate in the House who are doctors. There's 15in the House. Which of those ten are Republican and the Senate? All of them are GOP. I just find it appalling that they're not willing to talk to a colleague and say, you know, hey, Congressman Harris, what do you think about this based on your background? I just that's just so strange.

Andy Harris: Well, again, you know, they made everything partisan. You know, you know, if you agreed with President Trump on anything, you were wrong. It didn't make a difference whether you're a physician or not. You were wrong. That's not that's just not the way it should be. And literally to a person, I mean, I knew all the physicians, all of them who are Republicans, literally every single one of them knew that we were heading in the wrong direction. And yet the what the problem was, what there were only a couple of doctors that were appearing every day. You know, their names were Berks and Fauci. Right. And Dr. Fauci clearly had a conflict of interest here because he held responsibility for the Wuhan Institute of Virology doing some of that gain of function research. And I think, again, there is this and it may come to light, you know. In the future that there was a kind of a collaboration with the NIH and people with the NIH, with this with this denial that this was this this came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, partly because they were funding them. They didn't want to again, they didn't want to admit they made a mistake. You make a mistake. Just admit it. People in the end are much more forgiving if you just admit it rather than double down on on the on the misleading, the misleading evidence. And that's what they were doing.

Chuck Warren: And people would have understood that. I mean, that's the thing. They all knew. This was knew people were caught off guard. They knew that. I mean, it's just so simple to say, okay, look, this is what we've learned. We need to change course.

Andy Harris: Absolutely. Again, the conflict of interest here was that obviously the NIH and the National Institute that Dr. Fauci headed, you know, funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And again, you know, again, you know, at some point and part of it is that Dr. Fauci was a little naive. And a lot of scientists are naive believe that, well, you know, we can trust the Chinese scientists. Well, no, you can't. Because, you know, if you to succeed as a Chinese scientist, you have to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and you have to do what you're told. That's not science. Science is when you follow the scientific truth, not do what you're told. And again, I think it's just being naive about the ways of the world and communism. Again, with my parents having come from communist countries, I fully understood what was going on here. The communists were lying about it. And again, there are people who refuse to believe that somehow a scientist would lie. No, that's not the way it works in communist countries.

Sam Stone: Yeah, One of the things so we just touched on China, and that's kind of been one of our running themes on this show. We are in a period of contest between great nations, and it doesn't seem like we fully comprehend that that is the case here in the United States.

Andy Harris: I agree with you. And the evidence of it is if you go into one of the large container ports in the country, you see ships loaded with 1000 containers from China. We are we are literally funding our enemy. When we purchase things from China, we are funding our enemy. And this is just a bad it's just a bad choice. I don't know how we end it. I think President Trump, through some of his tariff and trade policies, was getting in the right direction with it. And then, of course, the Biden administration just whistling past the graveyard.

Sam Stone: Yeah, absolutely. We have just about a minute and a half before we go to break, Congressman, anything coming up on the docket that you think people should be keeping an eye on?

Andy Harris: Well, the most important thing is the is the appropriations, the spending struggle that's going on in Washington right now. Again, many people in Washington, honestly, on both sides of the aisle, are just addicted to a deficit spending. But when we're running deficits over $1 trillion a year, I think the average person understands, you know, they take out a home mortgage, they take out a car loan. The proviso is you're actually going to pay it back. There are people in Washington who believe that somehow you can borrow trillions of dollars without ever having a plan to pay it back. That doesn't work. It doesn't work. That doesn't end well.

Chuck Warren: It's never worked.

Andy Harris: Nope, it never will and never will for mathematical reasons.

Chuck Warren: Never will. Yeah. Math. Math is a real stinker, I have found out.

Andy Harris: It's like science. It's a real.

Chuck Warren: Stinker. You know.

Sam Stone: Those absolutes. Democrats just don't want the binary answers to anything. No, they don't. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today. Folks, we want to thank Congressman Andy Harris for taking his time this morning. We're really pleased to have him on the program. You can follow him at Rep. Andy Harris, MD, on Twitter and breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back with more in just a moment. We have a we have a hot couple of segments coming up for you. Stay tuned. All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host. I'm Sam Stone. Chuck Warren actually stepping out of studio because in a certain way, this next couple of segments are a continuation of some segments we did a few weeks ago. So we have Michelle Ugenti-rita back in studio here in Chuck's place. Thank you again, Michelle, and in studio with us today. And thank you for joining us. Professor Brooks Simpson, ASU Foundation Professor of history at Arizona State University, member of the College of Integrated Sciences, Sciences and Art Faculty, a member of the Honors Faculty at Barrett the Honors College during Spring 2017 semester. He serves as associate dean at Barrett's downtown campus. So, Professor, thank you so much for joining us.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm really glad to be here, Sam. And right now I have to give the disclaimer that I am speaking for myself and not as a representative of Arizona State.

Sam Stone: Absolutely. And folks, that's an important distinction. If he were if we wanted to get him in here speaking from Arizona State, we'd have to go through them. And that's a that's a complicated process. So we appreciate your willingness to step out here and speak on it. When we were talking last time, Michelle, we were talking about an incident surrounding the Barrett College, an event Health, Wealth and Happiness event featuring some conservative speakers that brought some controversy to ASU. And there's since been a rather great deal of fallout. After we did that segment, Professor Simpson said on our Twitter, Hey, you guys are wrong, said we got it wrong. So we're having him in here today and we thank him for the courage to come in here, because not everyone is willing to do that and tell us how and why we were wrong. And we want to get into that. More in just a minute. But first, start out, Professor, with a little bit about you and your background. How how did you get into teaching in the first place?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Um, I enjoyed history as a historian. I've written some books and done some other things as that goes, my concentration is in American history, especially the presidency, military history, political history, civil war and reconstruction. Pretty traditional stuff.

Sam Stone: So is there a book I saw you've written a couple of them. Is there one of them that you're like, Hey, this is my best piece of work.

Professor Brooks Simpson: The one for which I'm most known is the first of a two volume biography of Ulysses S Grant called Ulysses S Grant Triumph over Adversity, 1822 to 1865.

Sam Stone: And I I'll admit I haven't read that yet, but I am actually going to order it because I'm a huge US Grant fan. I think he's one of the more underreported figures from the Civil War and the post-war period, quite frankly. But okay, so you grew up where did you grow up?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Long Island, New York. I am unlike you, a born and bred Yankees fan and also a New York Islanders fan. But we can still talk.

Sam Stone: All right, folks. Now, I'm not sure about that. We may need to throw him out of the studio before we continue any further. Yankees fans are not allowed in here, so. Okay. So you started out in New York, Long Island. Where did you go to school?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Undergraduate University of Virginia Graduate School. University of Wisconsin. Worked at the University of Tennessee, then at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Came out here in 1990.

Sam Stone: Okay, so 1990 pretty much makes you a native Arizonan at this point.

Professor Brooks Simpson: It sure looks that way.

Sam Stone: 70%. Did you know, Michelle? 70% of our state was born elsewhere?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: No, I was born here. Really? So I guess I'm. Yeah, You're not the norm. You're them. But I'm not the norm in a lot of different ways. But yeah, I'm one of them.

Sam Stone: I didn't realize until the other day it was that high. I think that's a pretty extraordinary number. It's one of those things I laughed at. I think in campaigns, when you see someone come out, I'm a native Arizonan and my opponent only moved here, it's like, well, most of the voters just moved here too.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So yeah, well, we're kind of a melting pot within a melting pot. Arizona.

Sam Stone: Yeah, Very, very true. We've got just about two minutes before we get a break. We're going to get into the specific story, why we have Professor Simpson in the studio. Touch on that a little bit more. But before we go, we'll just kind of lay out the basics of it. Michelle, do you want to kind of just lay out the basic what happened?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, there was a an event hosted by an organization, organization associated with the Barrett College. They were bringing in.

Sam Stone: Guests to Lewis Center.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Lewis Center, Correct. They were bringing in guest speakers. This event was being advertised to anyone who wanted to attend, but primarily geared for the the students of the college. And there was subsequently a letter signed by the faculty of that college.

Sam Stone: A majority, but not all of the faculty.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Correct? Correct. A majority, but definitely not all that outlining their frustration and. And opposition to hosting a open event with speakers that they.

Sam Stone: Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Rich dad, poor dad.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Robert Kiyosaki right that they and they labeled these individuals purveyors of hate and they outlined in the letter why they disagreed with the choice of the college to promote such an event for students to attend.

Sam Stone: And then subsequently there were some blowback and repercussions with an Atkinson who helped organize that event, being let go from her position and then also the director of the Gammage Center being let go from their position as well. So we're going to get into now all of the fallout from that. Our take, Professor Simpson's take when breaking battlegrounds comes back in just a moment.

Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True.

Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone. In studio with me today, my co-host, Michelle Ugenti-rita, for the second half of the program, and Professor Brooks Simpson of the ASU of ASU folks. But before we get into our next segment, I got to tell you a little bit more about our friends from Refy. They are doing a fantastic job creating a tremendous investment opportunity with an up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right, 10.25% fixed rate of return. And by investing with by refy, you help them. You help them refinance distressed student loans, getting students who have fallen behind on their private student loan payments back on track, getting their lives back in order. And you make money doesn't get any better than that. Check them out. Invest. Why refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a call at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Okay. Continuing on now with Professor Simpson, Michelle Ugenti-Rita in studio. So we've laid out on the program what we have been told happened or what we believe happened. Tell us why we were wrong.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, you're not wrong so much as it's incomplete. And that's what I said, that I think Ms.. Atkinson's account is incomplete. And some of the statements made since then.

Sam Stone: What are what are some of the things that are incomplete?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay. First of all, there was a history of friction between the Lewis Center and Barrett from its inception that this is not something that.

Sam Stone: What's the what was the basis of that friction?

Professor Brooks Simpson: There were administrative issues and there was a perception among the faculty of donor overreach on the part of. Mr. Lewis.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: May I ask, But what does that have to do with the faculty's position on the health, wealth and happiness event that they sponsored?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, I think that what happened is when when Miss Atkinson went ahead and had this much more public program, so this was not student programming anymore, but a public presentation. A majority of the Barrett faculty said, we don't like this program, not not because of its subject matter. And I think that's been misunderstood, but because they didn't like Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk in particular, and they expressed their opposition to having Barrett associated with those two speakers names in what was originally a private petition to the dean. So this was not originally supposed to be for public release.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But who who who cares why? Why should we care about what the faculty think about these individuals and their ability to express themselves to students who want to attend an event?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Matters who you are, whether you want to care or not. But the fact is that they were expressing their opinion about these speakers and about being associated with those speakers. They wanted, in fact, just to be disassociated from the Lewis Center. They had no problem with the programming, so to speak. They had a problem with the speakers. And so that is the.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Programming, the speakers, because in their letter, which, you know, they they talk about how the event runs contrary to the core values of the community. And then they call the speakers purveyors of hate. They say that this platform legitimizes the speakers, legitimizes their anti-intellectual and anti-democratic views. I mean, I think that's more than just expressing a dislike or displeasure for the speakers, but really trying to, in my opinion, um, well. And squash the event.

Sam Stone: And I want to add a second part to that question is why should any professor or a group of professors be out front saying, we don't want students to have a choice to go listen to someone who has very different views, even views they may find hateful. I mean, this is this is the difference between the definition of free speech that has traditionally been in this society, which says the answer to speech you don't like is more speech. But, Sam.

Professor Brooks Simpson: They didn't say that the event shouldn't be held. They just wanted to have Barrett disassociate.

Sam Stone: Well, they want the university to not be involved with the event.

Professor Brooks Simpson: No, no. They just wanted Barrett not to be involved with the event. They understood that the event was going to take place, and they were. They observed in that petition, not crossing that line that they said, we're not opposed to the event being held. We're opposed to being associated with it.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: What is the distinction there? I mean, the kind of one of the same not being associated with it. I mean, my question is, it is why even opine? This is not a mandatory event. It's it can be attended by everyone and anyone. Why?

Sam Stone: And this is not the other part to this professor, is that this is not an isolated incident. This is a they are now becoming a chain of these type of incidents, not only across the country, but even right here at ASU with people who objected. A bunch of professors really pulled the exact same thing in regards to an event with Don Critchlow's I forget the name of the center, but Don Critchlow's Center, where they were bringing in Jason Chaffetz and Andy Biggs to speak. I mean, you're talking about a former congressman and a sitting congressman, and they said we can't hear them. And they gave the same reasoning, the same, oh, this is hate, This is this, this is that. And how is this not just them being too weak to to listen to and then stand up to opinions they don't like?

Professor Brooks Simpson: I wouldn't frame it that way. They didn't say that they were going to stand up to opinions they didn't like.

Sam Stone: And again, no, they they they didn't stand up to opinions. They didn't like. They went back door and said, hey, we're not going to listen to it. We're not going to we're not going to propose an alternate event with different speakers. What they did is say, we want to make it difficult for them to speak.

Professor Brooks Simpson: That's your reading of their petition? That is not my reading of their petition. And this goes back to, I think, what you said. What's the difference? There's a difference between saying, I don't want to be associated with that and saying, I don't think this event should take place on campus. If they said, I don't think this event should take place on campus and we are protesting this event and we think these speakers should be disinvited and the event canceled, then that's a much more serious issue of faculty.

Sam Stone: Well, I mean, I feel like they sort of learned their lesson the first time because Crow stepped in to defend Critchlow's program and allow it to continue when they did try to cancel that one entirely. Right. So to me, this is they're just finding whatever line they can defend, the farthest line out there they can to suppress speech.

Professor Brooks Simpson: But was it the Barrett faculty who did with the center of the study?

Sam Stone: There were a bunch of names that were adjoined. I mean, I wasn't 100% the same group, but a bunch of the same people, same professors were part of the objection to.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Both, but it wasn't identified as a barrack or they may have been acting.

Sam Stone: It was it was a professor group.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, but there are different professors, right?

Sam Stone: This in this case, though, it was just a broad group of professors that were objecting.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's a different thing. I know Don Critchlow very well, a former colleague of mine. That's a different issue than what we're talking about in terms of what happened with Barrett in this February 8th presentation. So there I think the Barrett faculty said we don't want to be associated with this, but you can have the event. Now, you some people may not see a distinction there, others do. It's what happened after that that became even more interesting. Talk about students being intimidated, which if. True would be quite serious.

Sam Stone: Well, I mean, there's a lot about this that, quite frankly, I depending on exactly what happened, I find kind of offensive. I mean, ASU released a statement. There were flyers for this event put up around campus. Asu, released a statement, said if anyone removed flyers, it was not at the direction of ASU or Barrett leadership. But we also have evidence from who was taking those down that it was campus campus employees who went around and took down all that those advertising materials.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's what I think this investigation is going to try to determine what really did happen there, because we have differing accounts of what's going on from from differing sides. And there are people watching this who are not in either camp who are saying, boy, there's a lot of confusion here about what did happen. And and this did not turn out well, in part because people didn't explore alternatives post event.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, what is the confusion? I mean, I read this letter, which is off the chart. I mean, the the kind of pompousness this letter.

Sam Stone: Read a few of the passages because I think this is relevant.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Um, our collective efforts to promote Barrett as a home of inclusive excellence demands that we distance ourselves from the hate that these provocateurs hope to to legitimize by attacking or attaching themselves to the Barrett name. Um, yeah.

Sam Stone: I mean, this is the thing. Here's here's the thing. I don't, I don't see it as all that different to, say, the Barrett name versus the ASU name, right? I mean, at the end of the day, what you're trying to do is say, hey, these people should not be speaking to our students because they're hateful according to these individuals.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Right. So what do you say to that?

Professor Brooks Simpson: I say that is not what the petition letter says. And we'll go back to that again and again. So we're going to disagree on that. I don't see them as wanting to stop the event because they understood that would have violated free speech protections. I do say, yeah, they wanted to disassociate themselves from Lewis. And and frankly, you know, one of the questions should be why would Lewis want to stay with Barrett after this? You could set up a center for free speech or for career development. I mean, this was not supposed to be a free speech center. This was a personal development center set up the Lewis Center outside of Barrett. No one seems to have explored that. Well, why should they? You could still because.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You have a handful of professors who have their.

Sam Stone: I mean, to me, that that seems like a cop out because at the end of the day, what would these professors not be objecting to? The exact same let's say the exact same curriculum was put on by a different center will create. It's the t.W. Lewis Standalone Center.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Part of free speech. Sam is the ability to object, the ability.

Sam Stone: The ability to.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Object and and and I'm not, you know, going to vouch for the wording used in this petition. That's that's why I don't sign petitions, because I don't want someone else pretending to speak to me for me. All right. I watched the event on tape. It seemed to me to be, except for a few comments about the controversy. A pretty straightforward event.

Sam Stone: Yeah, I mean, that's part of it, too, that this was not a political event in the way these speakers normally focus on their things. So they were adjusting their message. But it's like, okay, if you if we've said something you don't like, then that forbids you from coming on and talking about anything else either.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: To me, this is the this is the faculty thinking that they're smarter than everyone else and this is them disguising their prejudices and their biases under the guise of intellectualism. And that's what this this that's what this letter says, that they're smarter. The people who have opposing views are dumb and they shouldn't be exposed to these people that they've labeled as provocateurs and hatemongers. And and that is concerning. That's actually very concerning in our democratic United States of America.

Sam Stone: I would say that I would I would be more apt, professor, to agree with your take on this if we didn't have things like students who had come forward to say that in their you know, as soon as this controversy broke, they went to a class and the professors in that class spent 30 minutes dedicated to talking about the potential dangers associated with the event and how the T.W. Lewis Center has given in to its donors philosophy by hosting a dangerous speech, which have been debunked through speakers who have propagated hate towards various minority communities and who undermine getting an education in the first place. I'm sorry, isn't the point of getting an education to be exposed to ideas that aren't yours?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Absolutely. Okay. So let's let's address two things here. First of all, the faculty member who was supposed to have done that has actually issued a denial that that account is accurate. So that's going to be part of an investigation. What went on in that classroom? We're talking now about a single faculty member, not all of the signers of the document, 39in all acting like this in class. And I think you're right about how do people talk about each other. So I do know that one of the professors who is supportive of Ms.. Atkinson has gone ahead and declared that anyone who disagrees with him is showing contempt for God. Now, I find that a chilling of a piece of speech myself, that my my faith is being questioned by someone who disagrees with me. Okay.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I think you you digress. I think we need to go back to this.

Sam Stone: We've got just one minute before we we come to the end of our on air program, folks. Be sure to tune in. Professor, do you have a few more minutes? Sure. Fantastic. We're going to continue on in our podcast segment because I think this is a really important discussion. We want to we want to really dig into this some more folks. Make sure you stay tuned for that podcast segment. You can also get all of our past podcasts at Breaking battlegrounds dot Vote. Check us out there, follow us on social media, substack, Spotify, all the good places to find your podcasts. Breaking battlegrounds is there. And again, you're not going to want to miss the rest of this show, so be sure you're subscribed and you get our you get our podcast in your email box. You don't have to do anything else. Breaking battlegrounds back on air next week.

Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now.

Sam Stone: All right, Welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone, in studio with me today. The lovely Michelle Ugenti-Rita is taking Chuck's place so we can continue on with the conversation. Michelle and I started on the air a few weeks ago and in studio a man who and I always appreciate this, quite frankly, who dared to challenge us because that, you know, there's lots of people who will tell you to. And thank goodness. Jeremy And we're in the podcast segment, I can say it. They'll just tell you to go f**k off when you're online, right? It's, you know, some poop emoji. Poop emoji. Finger emoji. But you didn't do that. I appreciated the discussion and I appreciate having you in here. Professor Brooke Simpson of the of ASU. We really enjoy the chance to talk about this. When we were before we went to break, we were talking about there was one professor who reported, according to their student, and they've denied this. The professor has denied this, spent a bunch of time in class really kind of dissuading students from attending this event and kind of trying to make sure that they were lined up against it. And unfortunately, I mean, we do have two other students who said more or less the same thing about other classes. So that that one I was referring to was a professor. Dr. Miller. I have one student who was I have no idea what CWHAL101 is. Some human events class by a professor Sores got the same thing and then a second student who said the same thing about the Dr. Miller's statement. So I don't think I mean, obviously you said ASU is looking into this. They're investigating what happened in these classes, but it doesn't seem like it was just that one incident. I mean, this was a really concerted effort by the 37 signees to to try to to, if if nothing else, disrupt this event.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I haven't seen evidence of that. I've seen one professor, Dr. Miller, discussed extensively in two of those three accounts. Professor Suarez seems to have been a between class discussion from which the student assumed other things were going on in the class. That doesn't always happen. Students walk out and they ask you other things and you give your opinion. They know what your opinion, and that doesn't mean what's going on in the classroom is an ideological rant. I mean, to characterize this faculty as some sort of radical Marxist group and Marxist has been. I mean, no one of those faculty are more like Groucho Marx in terms of their live and let live attitude towards this than they are towards Karl Marx. And you see, this is where, you know, I I'm saying that sometimes faculty behave ways that outrage people. And I would argue that if you don't want to be ticked off, don't go on a college campus because there'll be something that will tick you off.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But but, but but let me just ask because do you think the letter signed February 1st by by faculty was designed to disrupt the event? No. No. What did what was it.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Designed to do? I think it was designed to start to move the Lewis Center outside of Barrett and said we cannot have this kind of programming. The Lewis Center programming beforehand was so internal that it didn't get this kind of public scrutiny.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But. But who are the professors to be the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong and what's hate and what's not and what people can listen to and what they can't listen to and what's described as anti-democratic or anti-intellectual? Who are why are they the ones that get to be the judge of that?

Professor Brooks Simpson: I wouldn't frame it that way. First of all, they are expressing their dissent and dissatisfaction and criticism of the speakers. All right. And and not the topic as far as what goes on afterwards after they had spoken. It's really up to the Barrett leadership, the deans, to deal with this. The faculty had their say. They organized their counter workshops or whatever you want to call them. And in a sense that is an exercise of free speech, just as the three professors, including Don Critchlow, who wrote in response to this, they were exercising their free speech. I didn't like that they characterized this petition as trying to shut down the event altogether because the Barret faculty was actually very careful to say, no, the event could go on. We don't want to be associated with it anymore.

Sam Stone: Well, but so I think they're very smart and toeing a line they knew if they crossed would would make it more difficult for them. So I get that. But at the same time, there is an underlying issue with this that we're seeing at universities across the country, which is an intolerance of speech. Deemed anathema to the left. And we've seen this at with speaker after speaker after speaker and for professors. What makes this different to me when they're when those things are led by students, I think you kind of just got to shrug and roll your eyes and say, we need to do a better job of trying to get through to these students. But when it's led by professors, the the fundamental issue behind all of this is that we've reached a place where what is it? I think 90% of positions at ASU require a diversity statement in your in your application.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Now, I'm unaware of that. Okay. And I know that that that accusation has been made. And I do know that in Barrett there is a request for a statement that's been produced. So, you know, they didn't have Dei statements when I came in in 1990.

Sam Stone: So and that's my point is like, why why all of a sudden do we need to do to universities and a subset of professors. It's not all but a subset of professors that those universities feel the need to limit the speech that they don't like or that they deem hateful rather than contend against that speech. Because to me, what they're demonstrating to the students is not a commitment to academic excellence and intellectual pursuit. What they are demonstrating to the students is intellectual cowardice.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand that. And and that's a good broader conversation now for multiple years. And I you know, I think I informed you folks that I served as the chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. So academic freedom is important to me and freedom of speech is important to me. And I understand the desire of the contest of ideas in the public square so I can understand the concern and the need for discussion of whether such statements, statements are the kind of thing we want to have in the environment. We have that it's hard. It is up to President Crowe and others to justify a commitment to the University of Chicago statement and these hiring requirements. Okay. But that's that gets outside of what we're talking about, a very specific event and a very specific response. And I understand that you're saying is this the tip of an iceberg?

Sam Stone: Well, I think that is the basic problem that underlies what happened with this health, wealth and happiness event. The basic problem is that we are we are we are accepting now more and more of professors who are. And it's anti free speech.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I don't know who the we are.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, I'll. We'll do these. I mean, they put their name on it. We'll just talk with these professors. I mean, they're right here. We'll just start with this list. And since it's local and ASU, I mean, I think we're over complicating this. This was an event with national speakers designed to communicate, you know, certain points of view to college kids and others who are invited. And the professors took it upon themselves. Not all of them, but the majority of them in the college took it upon themselves to label this a hate event and with with the expressed motivation to disrupt it. What other motivation would there be other than to stop it and squash it?

Professor Brooks Simpson: I again, that's.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Something that you kind of see in China and other third world countries.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's where this argument begins to.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: When you don't like something, you squash it. When you don't like the point of view expressed by someone else. Instead of having an intellectual conversation and trying to persuade someone with your argument, you label them and then you try to stop it.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I think, you know, you make a point about labeling. And so what I've heard this faculty, again, labeled as Marxists, they've come under attack. They were put on a professor watch list. Okay.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And then that person who did that and that person who did that can come in here and you can talk to them. I'm just talking about this letter. I didn't put anybody on.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But that's why you opined. I mean, you went on Twitter and you opined and we're giving you a platform.

Professor Brooks Simpson: That's right.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And so defend it.

Professor Brooks Simpson: My comment on Twitter was that the story that you were getting from Ms.. Atkinson was incomplete. So let's understand what I did say and what I haven't said. Now, you've characterized labeling as counter intellectual, and I agree with you, but that's also what the people who've criticized the actions of the. Well, two.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Rights don't make you know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's and that's why this is a larger discussion about how we're going to conduct a free speech environment. The real difficulty with free speech is that you have to defend the free speech of people who you disagree with. Yeah, I.

Sam Stone: Mean, famously, the ACLU defended the Klu Klux Klan. Right now, I'm Jewish. I'm certainly not jumping out front to defend the KKK, but that was the right thing to do because it guarantees my ability to say pretty much anything I want to say. And that runs.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Contrary to what what.

Sam Stone: What is happening.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Here. So I think we all agree and that's not what happened here. To your point, it's to me the greatest expression of free speech is tolerance. It's tolerance of other speech that you may not like.

Sam Stone: Or to to go attend this event, then hold your own event and counter it if that's what you feel you need to do.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Which is what they did outside. Prior to the.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Event, they sent a private letter outlining why the college should disassociate themselves from the event. They took a, I guess, a vote of no confidence in the leadership of T.W. Lewis Center. You know, they didn't want this event to go on. And they highlighted in their letter why and they outlined why these speakers.

Professor Brooks Simpson: We will continue to disagree on the issue of them not wanting to.

Sam Stone: But but, but, but but with all of this. So we can disagree on that one point. But other than that, I mean, you did say on Twitter we were hilariously wrong that Ann Atkinson was hilariously wrong. So other than that one point of disagreement, which is between whether they're saying it shouldn't be part of Barrett versus it's the broader issue, which I would call quibbling. But. But you say it's significant. Okay.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Because the the Barrett faculty isn't speaking for all.

Sam Stone: But then where were we hilariously wrong?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Ann, for example, has portrayed this as a very harmonious relationship that all of a sudden was disrupted and it was harmonious with the previous dean, Marc Jacobs. People I've talked to suggest that that was not the case, that Jacobs did not look very carefully at the donor agreement. And Lewis is very good. Mr. Lewis is very good at structuring donor agreements very carefully so that he continues to have influence. There are reports that, in fact, an was not the choice of Barrett to head Lewis, but rather was Mr. Lewis's choice forced upon them with the suggestion that perhaps if Mr. Lewis did not get his way, he might pull his.

Sam Stone: Okay, okay. But we we don't have any.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm just saying there's a longer institutional.

Sam Stone: Well, that may be, but none of that's qualifies as being hilariously wrong. I mean, what what was hilariously wrong?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, got your attention if I said, Oh, yeah.

Sam Stone: Absolutely it did. But I mean, this is where this is.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Where are you intimately involved in the contracts or are you part of.

Professor Brooks Simpson: No, no, that's that's your watch this. I watch this as an outsider. I okay.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So you don't have any direct.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Information? No, no. And that's why I think I as part of the investigation, I'd like to see these contracts. I'd like to see the agreements. What harassment? The harassment of the Barrett faculty and the. But. So wait, wait.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So you're just repeating hearsay?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Because you don't have an eye.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm repeating a lot of this is hearsay at this point. Those student reports were redacted and reformed by the person who gave them that. That's hearsay. So it's okay.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, I'm glad you just admit that you're repeating hearsay.

Sam Stone: That's fine. Well, that's actually witness testimony versus hearsay, which is third party second hand.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And so but until I see the original document. With names redacted to protect the students. I'm going to go. What? I'm not quite sure what's going, but.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: What is that I still don't get? That's that's a separate issue with the students. Said we have the professors signatures on a letter where they outline why they think that this event should be labeled, you know, or should be stopped, frankly. And I think you're right. They did it in a way where they just kind of.

Sam Stone: They knew where the line was from the previous event, from when they got when they got pushed back from Michael Crow. And that brings up a different point, which we haven't touched on, which is that crow is always a day late and a dollar short coming to these things. It's always down the road. And his response is. Is never up front to to stand behind these type of events and say, no, before this gains any traction, before it gets the point that people start getting fired. I'm going to stand on the front line and say, say we do have a commitment to the Chicago Chicago University free speech commitment. It seems always late. And this is the for a lot of conservatives, this is a fundamental issue right now with universities that they will put out these these broad statements that they're committed to free speech. But when the rubber meets the road, it's the they they do not stand behind it.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand that that that's how this has been portrayed in various venues, etcetera. And the reporting on how was the.

Sam Stone: Portrayal different than the reality? I mean, isn't that the reality?

Professor Brooks Simpson: The reality is the event came off. It was successful. You've already heard this? Yeah.

Sam Stone: No, the event the event did happen. Okay.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And so actually what then interests me is post event, what actions were taken by various actors and what happened. Mr. Lewis pulls his donation as is every right to do that means Ann Atkinson no longer as a funded position because that's a soft money position. She contends that she has donors ASU contests that.

Sam Stone: Well, but she wasn't given any time to do it. I mean, I've tried to raise money before. You can't raise $1 million in a day.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I know, but I understand that. I'm saying let's have that investigation take place. We know that the Barrett faculty were targeted by both Charlie's Professor Watchlist and by Dennis Prager calling for their firing. And since then. So if you're going to fire somebody for their freedom of expression, then you violated free speech.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But that was just his opinion on a radio show and that was after the fact.

Sam Stone: Well, also also, though, no.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Actually, that is not after the fact. He made his first protest on February 3rd on his podcast After after.

Sam Stone: But it was after the letter came out. That's what.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I'm saying.

Sam Stone: And I'm saying where this was already under attack and he's responding. Now.

Professor Brooks Simpson: You have a state senator who headed that hearing committee who also called for the firing of faculty. So. If you fire faculty and the expressions, if you fire faculty for their expressions of opinion. Then you're violating free. No, no, no.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's the action I'm asking. So what? Someone said that.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, then so what? So that's all it happened with the Barrett faculty. They made a request to the event. Went on?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: No, they. What they did was try to disrupt the event, and what they did was try to walk. No, no, I'm just reading the language they call these individuals. And I want to get your opinion. White nationalist provocateurs. Do you agree with that?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I and referencing Charlie Kirk.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And Dennis Prager. Do you agree that these two are white nationalist provocateurs as outlined in the letter signed by the majority of faculty at the Barret at the Barret College?

Professor Brooks Simpson: For what I've listened to about Charlie and Dennis, they often say things about American history, which I would take issue with. Okay. Okay. Would I have used that language? No. All right. But again, part of free speech is fighting for people who may use language of which you do not approve. And so as much as you want to focus on that petition, the petition triggered so many other things that I think do address and raise concerns about how we're going to govern free speech on campus in the future. What are going to be the parameters ET?

Sam Stone: I guess that concerns me because I'm an absolutist on free speech and I don't think it should be governed.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And I knew it. I knew it. I'd say governance. You'd go, Hmm. And I got that. And that's why. On the other hand, Crowe has endorsed this Center for American Institutions. That's why there are people who are supporting this. The criticism of the Barrett faculty, who, you know, are themselves, in a way, shining examples of free speech because they're there. And I've never heard, you know, another job I've had is run the university's promotion and tenure committees for the last level of review before it goes to the provost and the president's office. No one ever talked about anyone's political views.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But but see, there's we're kind of blurring a couple of lines because.

Sam Stone: You don't have to talk about their political views when you weed them out with.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: The diversity.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I know because some people who have been involved in this, their their files went forward. And all I'll say is I've never heard a discussion about political views at that level at all or saw it discussed in the files. Uh, so we can continue to talk about the narrow issue of the petition. And you and I will go around and circle.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But it's not, it's not, it's not narrow. I mean, it's really the crux of the issue, which is you have a letter signed by the majority of faculty attacking the individuals, not attacking or talking about or offering a different opinion about what was presented at the event, but attacking the individuals personally, labeling them just trying to discredit them and stifle speech and trying to be disruptors and trying to stop these individuals from expressing themselves.

Sam Stone: Only thing, Michelle, that I agreed with that they said at all, and it wasn't really part of the letter, but but part of the discussion at that time was I'm not sure what some of these folks have to do with health, wealth and happiness. Now, I would disagree. Knowing more about them in their backgrounds, that would be a reasonable point to contest. Right?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Right. What's the nexus between the speaker and the event.

Sam Stone: And the event? But when these attacks, Michelle, is exactly right. When you start out with saying that the reason this shouldn't be that this should be disassociated, that this should be cut out of of our circle, is because these people are X, Y and Z. And frankly, those those contentions are not provable unless you come from a very specific mindset.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And they and they and they list things that have nothing to do with the event and have everything to do with, I mean, other incidents, other situations and quotes that happened know, in the past. So.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Then you can test it by saying the Barrett faculty have incorrect understanding of the speakers of what they said, which which has been said that, you know, media matters is not exactly the most unbiased source if we're going for information. But and I think and I think that was a really good point that I think you have to listen to the people. I mean, because.

Sam Stone: The media matters, media folks who we've kind of back up on this media matters. A lot of this started the letter was prompted by information sent out by Media Matters, which is a far left wing organization designed to promote and help elect Democrats, essentially is why it was founded to create a narrative to help elect more Democrats. So fine, but a lot a lot of their contentions are pulled so far out of context as to be absolutely ridiculous. But again, they weren't contesting why they're there or the ideas they're contesting these people as individuals and saying they hold views we don't like, therefore we don't want to have any association with them or allow any association with them. Isn't that exactly the opposite of the way we should be treating academia?

Professor Brooks Simpson: We agreed all the way to the last sentence. So we we have a common narrative here at this point, which, given how this discussion has been going on in the broader sense, is is an achievement.

Sam Stone: Well, no. And that's why we appreciate you being here.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And so. I think that the way to push back against the petition is also to exercise free speech, which is what those three professors did. Okay. This was not a I hate, you know, not because there were issues of publicity. A lot of issues, a big place. Lots of things are going on we have no idea about. I would not have known about this except, frankly, for for Critchlow, because I've known Don. I helped bring him to ASU. So, you know, if you're going to talk about me, that's a little different than Marxist radical.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I feel like we need to answer questions, though, here.

Professor Brooks Simpson: But.

Professor Brooks Simpson: But I've answered the questions that I can answer. You keep on asking me to defend a document that I did not author and to decide where the charge is made. Well said document are true.

Sam Stone: So okay.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You went on Twitter and claimed that there were falsehoods being made and there was a lack of understanding and parts of the story was not discussed.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And yeah.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I think, for example, the harassment, rather serious harassment of the Barrett faculty and calls for their termination, that also brings in the issues of free speech.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Like how?

Professor Brooks Simpson: If you speak up, you get fired.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's just what one person said.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Why can't they say that? No, no, no.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You keep talking about if that's acted upon.

Professor Brooks Simpson: It's not one person.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So what's someone say? Wait a minute.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Excuse me. Well, when a state senator says it at a hearing, I pay attention.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Really?

Professor Brooks Simpson: Don't you pay attention to what?

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: As a state. As a former state senator.

Sam Stone: I was about to say, as a former state senator, there's no way you pay attention every time one of your colleagues opens their mouth and.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Says and demands someone be fired.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay, Well, then if you.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Want to say that Anthony Kern is just talking out of his hat, that's fine. That's fine.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But the point but the point is, why can't he why can't anyone why can't these individuals attend an event and talk about health, wellness and happiness without the faculty trying to interfere with the event and try to stop it?

Professor Brooks Simpson: We're going to continue to go around Michelle time and again. And I'm saying the faculty said you can have your event, but we don't want to be touched by this anymore. We don't want to be associated by this anymore. We do not want to have Barrett the Honors College presents, Charlie Kirk and Dennis Prager. That was the crux of their complaint. So so.

Professor Brooks Simpson: And.

Sam Stone: I do look, I don't want to go back around in circles. We've been on this long enough. I do feel like that is a bit of a cop out. I mean, I feel like what they did was a very fine line that they knew where the line was. And they they tried to walk that line. But the fundamental issue for me is that there is this underlying attitude that has pervaded a large portion of faculty at universities, which is anti free speech and which quite frankly is very totalitarian in their instincts and how to prevent that speech.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay, then we can either from this event say, okay, let's step back for a moment. People on both sides and people in the middle and say, okay, how do we want to do this in the future? Okay, we could stop this now. And the conversation going on now I don't think is productive for anybody because there is a lot of labeling, There is a lot of name calling. It's on both sides. We could say it's faculty behaving badly. But I mean, this is not just one side. There's there's a larger controversy going on.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I do. I don't really I.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Don't see that.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I'm sorry.

Sam Stone: I make a distinction. I make a distinction like Michelle does, I think because one is a group of faculty at that institution and the mission of the institution should be the open pursuit of knowledge. Right? I mean, basically, the fundamental mission of every university should be the open pursuit of knowledge. So they have they should have a commitment to that. Do I expect radio listeners to always have that exact same level? No, No. And so when you're saying people are calling them, you know, who listen to Charlie on the radio and he said something and then people are sending emails or calling, I don't hold I'm not going to hold them to the same standard I do. A professor that professor is in some sense on the public payroll, and they're there to enhance the overall mission of the university. And when we're failing from that, that is a very different thing than some state senator or some radio listener calling in and saying saying something on the same level. Even when they're saying the same thing, the role makes it different.

Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand what you're saying. And look, I just wrote a piece for the conversation which was non argumentative, didn't give a point of view at all, just a descriptive issue about the Tuberville holds. And I've already gotten hate mail and I'm going, Where is this from? So hate mail is part of this They.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Hate What is.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That? What is the.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Point?

Professor Brooks Simpson: The point is we all get that. Didn't ask for my job. That didn't ask that that I be fired, that didn't threaten my family, that didn't threaten to have CPS come into my household part of. And, you know, when you're threatened to be fired. No, you're not fired yet. But your state employees and now you've got a state senator calling for you to be terminated. Yeah, we might want to take a step back.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I think we're just.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: We're putting blame somewhere else. I mean, the real focus is that the professors intervened and tried to stop an event.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You continue to say, because.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's the point. And you keep ignoring it and you want to opine on Twitter. But then when we invite you here, you you can't seem to defend the position. That's what I'd love defend why the professor should be allowed to interfere with an event sponsored by a college to bring guest speakers.

Professor Brooks Simpson: No, I said that the the story was incomplete.

Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That is the that's the story.

Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, you and I then disagree. So. So you know Michelle to have I. Make a better conversation. We probably You've said your piece on this. I've said my piece on this. There really are other things we we might want to explore that I think are more fruitful and frankly, more pertinent because.

Sam Stone: I think I think there are a lot of broader issues attached to this. I mean, that I think fundamentally, when you're talking about people on the right related to this, what we're looking at is this being a symptom of a much larger disease, right? And so the symptom itself is bad, but the disease is the concern. The symptom goes away if you address the disease. And I think there is not much evidence at this point that universities, including ASU, are taking that disease seriously enough. And that we can get into all of that. And I think it would be a great piece for another podcast, another program, because we're deep into this one. And I want to thank Brooke Simpson, professor at ASU, for coming on with us, challenging us here a little bit. Michelle, again, always lovely to have wonderful in studio folks. Be sure if you are not subscribed, that's the easiest thing in the world. Literally click one button and we will come to your email box every single week when breaking battlegrounds comes out. Thank you so much for tuning in. We appreciate you. We're back on the air again next week.

Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

AI Today Podcast: AI Glossary Series – Malicious AI, Adversarial Attack, DeepFake

AI Today Podcast

Misuse of AI, Adversarial Attacks, and Deep Fake

The AI-powered Podcast Player