arizona state university

Many people were shocked when they learned last year Hillary Clinton earned nearly $2 million in the span of 18 months giving speeches at colleges nationwide. Turns out there’s plenty more where that came from.

Arizona State University gave $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation for hosting a Clinton Global Initiative University event on the Tempe campus in 2014, The Arizona Republic reports.

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton all headlined the three-day meeting, which encourages student attendees to pledge themselves to causes such as education, climate change, human rights, poverty, and public health, the initiative’s website states.

“Student attendees had the opportunity to attend … working sessions and other special events covering topics across CGI U’s five focus areas and allowing them to network with their peers, build skills, and identify potential partnerships,” the initiative’s website states. “Youth organizations, topic experts, and celebrities joined students at the CGI U meeting to help them gain the skills and knowledge needed to take action.”

ASU spokesman Mark Johnson told The Arizona Republic in an e-mailed statement that the money used to pay for the event did not come from publicly funded coffers, but rather other parts of the university’s budget, such as tuition, private donations and grants.

“[T]he university co-invested in this educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our students, and for students from around the world. No state funds were used for this purpose,” Johnson stated.

But Republican Sen. John McCain, who attended as a panelist, told The Arizona Republic that now that he knows how much the Clintons were paid, it wasn’t worth the price.

“Frankly, if I had known that that was the situation, that they were being paid $500,000, I would have spoken up at the time that I thought it was outrageous,” McCain told The Arizona Republic on Friday.

The Republic credited Vox for first bringing to light ASU’s $500,000 expense late last month. In that report, Vox highlighted 181 Clinton Foundation donors that lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton was in charge, calling it “not illegal, but … scandalous.”

“Ultimately, it is impossible to tell where one end of the two-headed Clinton political and philanthropic operation ends and where the other begins,” Vox reported.

This year’s Clinton Global Initiative University event was held in March at the University of Miami, where once again Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton headlined the festivities. It was the second time the campus played host to the event. It has yet to be reported what the university paid the foundation.

For the last 14 years that private university was run by Donna Shalala, who served at Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Clinton. Now Shalala is set to become chief executive officer of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the Wall Street Journal reports.

When news of the money Hillary Clinton made giving speeches at college campuses came to light last year – even though she donated the proceeds to her foundation – many college students wondered how she could reconcile her fees with statements bemoaning the high and rising cost of higher education.

And some questioned whether the fact that Hillary Clinton can collect so much for campus speeches is sort of a work-around of campaign finance laws, not from Clinton’s end – but from a donor perspective.

Now the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threaten to create political problems for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post reports in an article that notes the foundation “did not properly report donations from foreign governments” since 2010.

According to the Clinton Global Initiative University website, the event was launched in 2008 at Tulane University. The University of Texas at Austin hosted it in 2009, followed by the University of Miami in 2010. In 2011, it was hosted at UC San Diego. The following year it took place at George Washington University. In 2013 the event was hosted at Washington University in St. Louis.

RELATED: Trust, But Verify? Hillary Clinton Campus Speech Donations Can’t Be Confirmed

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Three sociology professors have offered a spirited defense of Arizona State University’s controversial new “The Problem of Whiteness” course in interviews with The State Press campus newspaper.

Noel Cazenave, a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut, told the paper he has taught similar classes and that “I want people to realize in Arizona that it is OK to talk about whiteness as a problem.”

“Don’t play language games that keep people from using straightforward and honest language to talk about our very serious problems in this country, and white racism is a serious problem,” he added.

Joe Feagin, a sociology professor at Texas A&M, told the paper: “Our history is rooted in white supremacy. Eighty-three percent (of history) was ruled by slavery and Jim Crow. We’ve only theoretically been a free country since 1969, when the Civil Rights Act went into effect.”

And Charles Gallagher, a sociology professor at La Salle University, said that “we may have a black president, but this is a white nation. Look at Congress. Look at the halls of justice. Look at corporate America. It’s white people running the show.”

Read the full article.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Gregor Maclennan/Flickr

Arizona State University’s Lee Bebout is teaching eighteen students in a class titled “U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness.”

The course, according to ASU, “… is designed to empower students to confront the difficult and often thorny issues that surround us today and reach thoughtful conclusions rather than display gut reactions. A university is an academic environment where we discuss and debate a wide array of viewpoints.”

“Wide array,” eh? As long as the viewpoints maintain that “Whiteness” is a problem, I bet. reports:

Five books are listed as required for the upper-division class, called “U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness.” The texts include “Playing in the Dark” by Toni Morrison, an acclaimed novelist who has won a Pulitzer Prize, a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The other required books are “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” by Richard Delgado, “Everyday Language of White Racism” by Jane Hill, “Alchemy of Race & Rights” by Patricia Williams, and “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness” by George Lipsitz.

The idea of “Whiteness” as a concept, rather than just skin color, has been a popular topic for research and academic classes since the late ’90s.

Lauren Clark, a student at ASU and a contributor to Campus Reform, appeared on “Fox and Friends” last Friday to discuss the matter:

Does anyone — anyone — think a course titled “U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Blackness” would be permitted to be taught on a campus? To heck with microaggressions — such would be dubbed an irreconcilable macroaggression complete with sit-ins, die-ins, teach-ins, and the usual demands for mandated sensitivity training, “cultural competence” courses, increased number of minority faculty and students, and on and on and on …

Read the full article.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter.

IMAGE: Elias Schewel/Flickr


Progressive activists who criticize Florida State University for taking $1.5 million from a libertarian billionaire might want to look at other FSU programs bound by ideological strings – from the left.

The 2008 donation from the Charles Koch Foundation that set up and funded FSU’s program for the Study of Free Enterprise and Political Economy has sparked an entire industry of anti-Koch activities, targeting schools as varied as Boston’s Suffolk University and the University of Kansas. (The latter has become a referendum on academic freedom in the context of “scholarly communications.”)

Arizona State University is the next target of the UnKoch My Campus campaign: Founding member Kalin Jordan told The College Fix it’s trying to uncover documents that show ideological strings attached to a $3.5 million Koch donation from November that created the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty in ASU’s business school.

Selectively targeting ‘undue influence’

Critics have seized on the controls imposed on the FSU money – giving the foundation a say in whom to hire and what to teach – saying they constitute improper meddling in internal decisions and violate academic freedom.

According to FSU’s written agreement with the Charles Koch Foundation, the purpose of the program is to “advance the understanding and practice of those free voluntary processes and principles that promote social progress, human well-being, individual freedom, opportunity and prosperity based on the rule of law, constitutional government, private property and the laws, regulations, organizations, institutions and social norms upon which they rely.”

For faculty members, journalists, bloggers, and students who have criticized those conditions, hiring teachers to study free-market institutions is unacceptable bias.

Jordan of UnKoch My Campus said her organization aims to fight “undue influence on academic freedom” on college campuses nationwide. Speaking of the Koch brothers, Jordan said they “use their political capital and finances to push research through that benefits their bottom line.”

Gladys Nobriga, a member of the FSU Progress Coalition, told The Fix her group supports “academic freedom” as defined by the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, from the American Association of University Professors.

Its statement that “freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth,” Nobriga said, conflicts with the ideological intent of the research undertaken by the Koch-funded FSU program.

Yet right under her nose exist a research center and an entire academic department that impose a liberal litmus test on their FSU faculty.

Circumscribed by climate-change dogma

The mission statement for FSU’s Energy and Sustainability Center contains a number of assumptions any would-be researcher or student would have to accept before undertaking work there. The statement says “the need for energy systems that have much lower emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse materials to the atmosphere is of paramount importance” to its research.

Does acceptance of that statement as fact imply ideological commitment? Absolutely—belief that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change is implicitly required. A professor or student who believes otherwise would have his or her “academic freedom” restricted by working for the center.

The FSU’s Women’s Studies department operates under similarly restrictive ideological boundaries. The description of its major says the department “seeks to delineate the richness and diversity of women’s experiences and viewpoints.” It also says the department aims to “use gender as a category of analysis.”

These statements imply a belief in women as a distinct human category that ought to be studied for its own sake. An academic working for the Women’s Studies department would conduct his or her work under the confines of that belief.

These ideological restrictions are no less binding than the ones established by the Charles Koch Foundation for its program at FSU, yet Koch antagonists aren’t setting up picket lines outside the Women’s Studies department and the Center for Energy and Sustainability.

Limitations are fine if ‘clearly stated’

What does “academic freedom” mean to them? That once an academic is equipped with a doctorate and hired by a university, she is free to direct her scholarly energies wherever she pleases? That agreeing to conduct research within ideological confines make her a sellout?

In truth, however, academic research always takes place within practical or ideological confines.

The 1940 Statement of Principles itself says that “[l]imitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

“The precise terms and conditions of every appointment [i.e., professor hire] should be stated in writing and be in possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.”

By indicating that conditions may be placed on a professor’s employment, these statements show that academic freedom is not absolute. Colleges may impose limitations on academic freedom in the interest of “religious or other aims of the institution.”

Why is it unacceptable for the advancement of the principles outlined in the Koch Foundation’s agreement – “the understanding and practice of those free voluntary processes that promote social progress, human well-being, individual freedom” – to fall under “other aims” of FSU?

To prove they aren’t hypocrites, those who oppose ideologically motivated donations to universities on grounds of “academic freedom” ought to open their eyes to the myriad academic projects that violate their absolute definition of this concept.

College Fix contributor Stephen Edwards is a student at Furman University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Florida State University

The police officer who arrested a black, female Arizona State professor for jaywalking last May – and is on the verge of being fired for it – is publicly defending himself for the first time since the controversy erupted.

The arrest of Arizona State English professor Ersula Ore, which included a bit of a tussle between the officer and the scholar, was recorded and drew national attention, as well as claims of racial profiling. Ore pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of resisting arrest.

Now suspended ASU police officer Stewart Ferrin is telling his side of the story about the arrest that might cost him his job. AZCentral reports Ferrin said he had no idea Ore was African-American until after he stopped her. He also said Ore wasn’t just jaywalking but walking down the middle of the street.

“I can tell you flat out there’s no racism involved in this whatsoever,” Ferrin said. “… I stand by the decisions that I made that night.”

Meanwhile, Ore has filed a $2 million claim alleging civil rights violations, even though the U.S. Attorney’s Office decided not to pursue the case.

Read the full article.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Update on this summer story: The police officer who arrested a black female Arizona State professor for jaywalking, sparking a civil rights debate about aggressive and racially charged policing, is on the verge of being fired.

The Arizona Republic reports that the school has started “termination proceedings” against Stewart Ferrin, who has been on administrative leave since July, when video of his arrest of professor Ersula Ore went viral:

Ore was arrested on May 20 when she refused to show identification and reportedly kicked Ferrin in the shin after he stopped her for jaywalking near College Avenue and Fifth Street in Tempe, according to police records.

Dashcam video of the arrest shows Ore struggling with Ferrin and kicking him in the shin. The footage shows the officer throwing Ore to the ground and telling her he would “slam” her on the hood, records show.

Ferrin’s lawyer said he would appeal.

Read the Republic story.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Internet screenshot