They want money out of the university . . .

Right-wing money that is

In their article about why free speech at the secular university is a problem, two ASU professors tell us that it can lead to donors trying to influence the classroom and what is taught. They say, "'Free speech' and 'intellectual diversity' are the gates through which pours funding from donors, foundations, and state legislatures keen to align teaching and even research with ideological, often right-wing, agendas." Also, "They set out to offer a rationale for substituting legislative and donor wishes for faculty stewardship of curriculum and programming." The sub-title of their article is "it [free-speech] concedes too much to right-wing agenda."

Once again, you can see the sleight-of-hand here. In logic, it is called the motte-and-bailey fallacy. They begin with one concern, outside money that doesn't understand the curriculum, but then shift to "ring-wing agendas." If their concern was really just about outside donors, they would be equally concerned about left-wing money and about any money. They don't mention the left-wing organizations that give money, or money from China, or money from government agencies. They don’t mention student groups funded by organizations that promote communism and radicalization. They only mention right-wing money.

This is the double standard that people are tired of seeing from secular professors. And when you point it out to them, they can't see it because they are so deep into it. They tell others to "check your bias" but don't see their own. This creates a double standard about what outside money they are worried about and what speakers they believe are problematic. They justify teaching their personal biases in the classroom while being vigilant about the terrifying “right-wing agendas.”

Today, at the second legislative hearing on free speech at the Arizona Universities, we heard evidence that an ASU administrator removed advertising for an event with Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk last spring. The justification was that continued advertising could "inflame the situation." The "situation" was that the majority of honors professors called Prager and Kirk "bigots." So, the administrator caved in and did not want to inflame these professors. They successfully silenced ideas they disagree with. Not with a sound argument but with kindergarten level name calling.

We also learned from the ASU report that ASU found a professor used ASU resources to discourage students from attending this event. This is contrary to ASU policy, but so far, ASU has not done anything about it.

So, are these professors really worried about money from the outside? No, their only examples are about the right-wing. They have plenty of other examples of ASU taking money that they could have included (they even have an example of ASU paying $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation for a Hilary Clinton presentation but no mention of that). And what is this dangerous right-wing money doing? It is funding speakers like Dennis Prager, who teaches that God ordained marriage, marriage is between a man and woman, and men cannot get pregnant.