ASU Benefactor Pulls Donation Due To Left-wing Hostility

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 9 months ago

   "Benefactor pulls six figure donation from Arizona State University, citing ‘left-wing hostility and activism’
   
   Tom Lewis, a millionaire benefactor to ASU's Barrett honors college, stated, 'I no longer had any confidence in Barrett to adhere to the terms of our gift'
   
   A real estate magnate who has donated millions to Arizona State University over the last two decades pulled back on a six figure donation he had pledged to the college. His move was prompted by faculty condemning a staff member for organizing on-campus events with prominent conservatives.
   
   In a recent statement, Scottsdale real estate investor Tom Lewis claimed he would not go through with his annual $400,000 pledge to the university’s honors college – where he has a center in his name.
   
   His decision came after one of its faculty claimed the school fired her for inviting conservative commentators Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk, and Robert Kiyosaki to speak on campus.
   
   Lewis cited "left-wing hostility and activism" on campus and among ASU staff the factor pushing him to rescind his support.
   
   Over 20 years, Lewis has donated millions to ASU and has developed the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development, which is part of ASU’s Barrett, The Honors College.
   
   In late June, Lewis pulled the money because of faculty’s reaction to the event organized by Ann Atkinson, the T.W. Lewis Center’s executive director in February.
   
   That month, around three dozen Barrett faculty members signed a petition to the honors college dean condemning the on-campus event featuring the conservative speakers. The petition referred to the speakers as "purveyors of hate."
   
   Barrett faculty chair Jenny Dyck Brian told a local news affiliate that she and her colleagues had an issue with the honors college appearing to endorse the event. She stated, "I didn't have a problem with them speaking, but the event was being advertised in Barrett's name with Barrett's logo... We wanted to make it clear that we were not endorsing the event."
   
   The event happened with no disturbances. However, several months later ASU fired Atkinson. In a statement following her termination, the former faculty member suggested ASU parted ways with her for bringing the right-wing speakers on campus. "
   
   read more ---   https://www.foxnews.com/media/benefacto … y-activism

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I can't argue with you here, all voices should have the opportunity to be heard.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

         Yes. some are shunned we no longer have a democracy. We lose our right to hear free speech, and only hear what someone else feels suitable.

         replyreport
      2. 90

         IslandBitesposted 9 months agoin reply to this

         Apparently, they were heard. "The event happened with no disturbances."
         
         This is the University version:
         
         Ms. Atkinson’s current job at the university will no longer exist after June 30 because the donor who created and funded the center decided to terminate his donation. Unfortunate, but hardly unprecedented. ASU is working to determine how we can support the most impactful elements of the center without that external funding.
         
         Ms. Atkinson’s frustration with those who would suppress freedom of speech is one we share.  But her conclusion that ASU students are the “losers” misses the obvious point: the “Health, Wealth and Happiness” event hosted by Robert Kiyosaki, Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk was a success.  Speakers came, they spoke, and more than 600 people attended.
         
         Ms. Atkinson is correct that this event was opposed by many faculty, students and others who are part of the ASU community. She is right to say that this opposition was vocal. This is not uncommon in a university setting.
         
         As a public university, ASU is committed to free, robust and uninhibited sharing of ideas among all members of the university’s community. The university values and adheres to the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution, which provides freedom of speech. These values apply to the students and other members of our community who helped to organize the speaker program -- and to the faculty who expressed strong opinions about the event.
         
         https://newsroom.asu.edu/statement/lewi … university
         
         So it seems to be that the right-wing donor wanting to protest against "the left", cause another right-winger to lose her position.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

               So, I have to come after you for the "rest of the story". So, what was the basis of the donor protest against the left? So, there was controversy, as to be expected. But, the controversial speakers were allowed to speak,so what is the problem? The donor just had sour grapes about the left in general as a reason the stop his funding?

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Annegrayposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Deleted
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                     Conservative based orators are always at a disadvantage in the University environment. Exploration and inquiry, and embracing what is new, is by definition, young and liberal. It was preferable to my mom's admonition to stay away from drugs, that "LDS" and to change your drawers daily, now that was conservative.
                     
                     The donor was just fed up with the General academic environment that was increasingly resistant to conservative ideas. The conservative speakers come and go, there was no guarantee that their seminar would be even attended. But, students should be courteous and let them have their say. Can't help it, though, if the occasional boo is heard.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                        Perfect, I think you hit the nail upon the head ---   "The donor was just fed up with the General academic environment that was increasingly resistant to conservative ideas. The conservative speakers come and go, there was no guarantee that their seminar would be even attended. But, students should be courteous and let them have their say. Can't help it, though, if the occasional boo is heard."
                        
                        It seems both sides had the opportunity to be heard in the end. One via a letter of protest the other by withdrawing support from the institution.
                        
                        Both spoke loudly and clearly got their point across. Both can feel they were heard.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                           A fair and accurate summation.  With an increasingly strident conservative point of view from the standpoint of a young adult, I suspect that I will see more of the same in the future.

                           replyreport
               2. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure you need to come after me. I simply posted an article, as IB  posted an opposing article which as she put it "university version." Which is very appropriate for a political chat.
                  
                  "So, what was the basis of the donor protest against the left? "
                  
                  Shortly after the February event, Tom Lewis decided to terminate his endowment accusing the faculty of failing to respect free speech. What I have gleaned he is very conservative.  "But Lewis, who is conservative, says his relationship with the Honors College started to fray when the Lewis Center focused on what he says are the traditional American values of faith, family, and freedom. Something Lewis believes rubbed faculty members the wrong way."  https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/a … rmer-donor
                  
                  The Article I posted certainly shared his conservative nature, he was pissed off due to a woman he felt was fired due to planning a couple of conservative speakers.  I would think he ultimately walked away protesting what he may have felt was the college leaning too far from his own beliefs.
                  
                  This would be my view. I also would think the fact that around three dozen Barrett faculty members signed a petition to the honors college dean condemning the on-campus event featuring the conservative speakers. Did not sit well either. I mean being that he is a conservative, I would think he would not feel comfortable donating any further cash to a college that he no longer has anything in common with.  Hey, he took a stand. Many are doing that these days...
                  
                  "But, the controversial speakers were allowed to speak, so what is the problem?"
                  
                  Yes, in the article I posted the last paragraph provides that  --- the speakers were allowed to speak.
                  
                  I think you are correct in thinking that Lewis was angry about what he may have seen as the ideologies shifting into ideologies he could not support.
                  
                  After looking at a couple of different articles, he felt they canned the woman that planned for the two conservative speakers.
                  
                  It's clear the university certainly has a different view.

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks, IB for further investigating this matter. I tried to find an alternate source for the story, as I don't trust Fox.
            
            The revelation that the position was terminated has nothing to do with "leftwing" harassment is eye opening.

            replyreport
      3. 76

         Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months agoin reply to this

         All voices should be heard. That is the essence of a higher education. Just wish there was a source other than discredited Fox.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Oh no, Kathleen, not Fox News
            
            Recipient of the Ted Baxter Award for excellence in Journalism?

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I could not find left-leaning websites that reported the story. 
            https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/a … rmer-donor
            https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/new … llege.html

            replyreport