This is serious. They are making their move.

Before I get into today’s topic, I want to remind you that I do my best not to use names on my Substack. I want everyone to focus on ideas and not people. Do not harass anyone with whom you disagree. Respect them as individuals with their own ideas and the ability to think. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with them or ignore their harmful behaviors and ideas. But be sure to give a sound argument against ideas rather than an attack against people.

Unfortunately, I have not been extended this same respect. I have often been personally attacked and called names by colleagues at ASU who disagree with me. I have documented some of that here and have many more screenshots I could share. Many times, these attacks are from brand-new anonymous accounts. Sometimes, the person has the courage to use their name and claim their ideas.

I have a general rule that I go about three rounds in comments, and if we don’t make progress or the other person resorts to personal attacks, I move on. When the person doesn’t respect that, then I block them.

All of that is to say that things aren’t good at ASU. Below, you will see two articles from the Chronicle. One is about two of our professors, and the other is by those two professors. Last year, these two professors wrote an article for the Chronicle (which is not peer-reviewed) arguing that liberal professors are the experts and that academic freedom should be counterbalanced by listening to the experts and not questioning them. I wrote a peer-reviewed journal article where I discussed their claim about experts and I made the case for academic freedom. Here is a link to my article.

In their recent article, they argue more of the same. The occasion is the University of Pennsylvania sanctioning Professor Amy Wax. Professor Wax said some very controversial things on her own time. I disagree with what Professor Wax said. I believe I can give a sound argument to show why she is wrong. I’ll debate her in a public university setting if it can be set up. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights of Expression) is defending Amy Wax. Here is a link to their statement.

However, rather than have a public debate, the University of Pennsylvania sanctioned her. My two colleagues at ASU wrote the article below to defend that approach. This is where it gets scary. This is where we see the end of the classical liberal university. These two professors say we should listen to the radical liberal experts and that if such experts don’t agree with your opinions, even when they are expressed outside of class, they could sanction you. [Last year, when students complained to the Az Legislator that honors professors were teaching their personal sexual philosophy about raising children without a gender, ASU defended the honors professors because they did so outside of class].

The examples given to support such claims are always sensational. For instance, one common example used is, “Should a flat-earther be allowed to present his ideas in an astronomy class?” My answer is, “Sure, he gets 30 minutes, and then the professor gets to explain to the students the proof that the earth is a sphere.” It sounds like a great learning opportunity. I suspect most university students do not know how to prove that the earth is a sphere. Using the flat-earth arguments is an excellent way to show why we know the earth is not flat.

Another example is the kinds of racial comments made by Professor Wax. Once again, why not debate her and show she is mistaken? This is what John Stuart Mill advocated (he was a real advocate). He argued against censorship and instead said to let bad ideas get public attention so they can be publicly rebuked with reason and proof. What makes these ASU professors seem disingenuous on the Prof Wax issue is that they stand by in silence while ASU DEI training says white people are inherently racist—which is itself a racist claim.

The desired outcome for these professors is that leftist professors get to decide which opinions to sanction and which are approved. This is the last step in their takeover of the state universities. No opinion deemed unworthy will be permitted. Everyone looking to be hired will know they must say the right things, and everyone already working at ASU will self-censor to avoid losing their job. The chilling effect will suppress all real learning and debate. Professors and students will simply parrot the approved answers.

We should be asking ourselves how professors who are leaders at ASU came to publicly reject the classical liberal university without being ashamed of themselves. Why do they think it is acceptable to censor and suppress their ideological opponents rather than meet them in debate? It is the outcome of the war on Reason. Not surprisingly, these are humanities professors. They are not able to give sound arguments to support their beliefs, and therefore, they want out of that requirement. See my series of Theses where I talk about this in more detail.

There are different laws for public and private universities. A private university can have a faith statement and, on that basis, hire or fire employees. A state university does not have a faith statement. ASU’s President Crow has continually affirmed that ASU is a place where all ideas will be debated. But will these professors have their way and get to sanction professors who they disagree with on social media? Those sanctioned will be conservatives who are already the extreme minority at state universities.

It is worth noting that one of these professors follows everything I do on social media. Presumably, this is not out of good intentions or because they are interested in my ideas. The other professor is one of the persons blocking my REL 270 Introduction to Christianity syllabus. I’m on their list.

I will keep you updated. What can you do to help? Please share my Substack articles widely and tell your friends to subscribe. The general public needs to know what ASU professors are saying.