The Charlie Kirk Show - The Reporter Who Brings Down Harvard Presidents ft. Aaron Sibarium

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

In prior decades, Aaron Sibarium would almost certainly have become a reporter at The New York Times and called himself a liberal. But attending Yale in the late 2010s pushed him in a very different direction, and he is now the premier investigative reporter on the American right. Aaron joins Charlie to talk about his scoops exposing anti-white discrimination in Covid treatment and in universities, and what the ideal response is to aggressive anti-Israel protests on college campuses. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey, everybody. Charlie Kirk here live from thebitcoin.com studio. Aaron Sabarium from Washington Free Beacon. Boy, this is a really illuminating conversation about DEI and medicine, about how your anesthesiologists might not be qualified, UCLA Medical and more. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. And subscribe to our podcast. That's the Charlie Kirk Show podcast page. And get involved, as always, with Turning Point USA at tp.usa.com.

That is tp.usa.com. Buckle up, everybody here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country.

He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, turning point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom. on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts,

and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers. Hey, everybody, we have a very special conversation with you today, a very smart person who honestly deserves some of those awards they keep giving out to those fake journalists. It's Aaron Saberian. Aaron, great to see you and meet you. Great to be here. And I've been following your work for a while.

And I want to go through some of your greatest hits because I have them here. But first, I want to just kind of give you a chance to introduce yourself. You're an investigative reporter with the Washington Free Beacon and you went to Yale. I did. I did. So you go to Yale and you don't end up at the New York Times. Correct. So I came into Yale, a moderate Democrat and then kind of went through a series of sort of incremental,

radicalizing moments that pushed me. I don't know how far right they pushed me, but they definitely pushed me further and further right. And by 2020, I certainly felt more comfortable within right-wing institutions than left-wing ones. What were those radicalizing events? Yeah. So, I mean, there were really two at Yale. The first is that Yale is the thing called the Yale Political Union, which is comprised of all these little kind of debating societies, political parties. And I came in thinking, Well, I'm a moderate Democrat, so I'll join the party of the left, right? That's what good Democrats do. But their first resolution of the term was resolved, abolished the police.

And this was in 2014, mind you, so kind of a little before. That was before Michael Brown. It was a, yeah, I think it was before. Michael Brown was 15. Yes, it was before Michael Brown. So at the time, I just thought, well, that's stupid. No one's ever going to take that seriously, right? Whereas.

Or make it policy. No, exactly. Whereas the conservative. party, which is another one of them, was debating resolve that Socrates deserve to die. And I remember seeing that and thinking, that's interesting. And I've never thought to ask that question. These guys seem cool. I'm going to hang out with them. That's a much more thought-provoking question.

Exactly. So right at the start, it just seemed like there was a sort of vibrancy to the conservative intellectual scene that was lacking on the left. And then the second big radicalizing moment was there were all these protests in 2015 over cultural appropriation, Halloween costumes. There was a famous video in which, at the time, he was an administrator, he got encircled in the courtyard of one of the residential colleges at Yale and basically accosted. I mean, he wasn't physically hurt, but he was surrounded by these jeering students who were saying, you haven't made this a safe space, you know, this is supposed to be a home, free speech doesn't matter, so on and so forth. And then things just kind of spiraled out

of control from there. And I guess the maybe sort of two point fifth radicalizing moment is, that during that time I was the opinion editor of the Yale Daily News, the campus paper, and so I had to sit there and field all of the op-eds from, I mean, of all sides of the campus debate, but from the protesters. And it's like, I remember sitting next to a girl editing her piece that was literally arguing that demands for rational debate were a form of white supremacy designed to police the emotionality of women of color. And in some ways, the creepiest part of all this is that this girl, I had a class with her. She's not a dumb girl at all. She's very, in terms of just raw IQ, very smart, but she was saying this just absolute. And I kind of had to sit

there and pretend that I thought it was a valuable perspective and edit it and say, yes, yes, your voice matters and edit it, make it better. But yeah, you know, seeing up close what the alleged best and brightest actually thought was pretty radicalizing. And now she's probably like a circuit court judge or something. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what she's doing now. But, I mean, I know she went to law school. So that's, you never know. Yeah, or she's like an FBI agent or something.

But no, that I think is an important thing to spend a little bit of time on is that this was not University Wisconsin-Madison. No offense to them. But this is the pipeline for our nation's decision-makers. Right, right. There was the South Park episode that kind of made fun of you a little. I love South Park. I think it was great.

Well, no, it was, it was, it was great. Well, but it was what I thought was funny. You know, the students in that episode, the fake students, you know, are trying to defend abortion rights or whatever and say kind of normal liberal things. Honestly, what they're saying in South Park, the kind of fake, you know, parodies of liberal students was a lot more reasonable than what the kids at Yale were actually saying in 2015, right? It's not like they were saying, well, you know, woman's right to choose and who are you to decide when life. No, I mean, this was full on, you know, you cannot debate anything or disagree with any minority or you're racist. I mean, and it really, the sort of Fox News caricature was in fact accurate. I mean, there really was no daylight between how, I think, kind of conservative media portrayed those kids and how they were really behaving.

Yeah, and it's just horrifying because so many of them are now in places of power, has it gotten worse or better since 2014 at Yale? I it probably I would assume that in 2020 it got pretty bad I think it kind of recovered a bit post 2015 then 2020 probably hit a nid year and then you know now with trump in office I expect that there is slightly more intellectual freedom in the classroom I do get the sense conservative kids on campus are a bit more emboldened yeah I think so I mean I would assume so I will also tell you that the undergrad, as bad as that was, was never as crazy as Yale Law School, which went through a period of just absolute insanity where, from what my friends who attended it told me, it really was like Sofia communists. I know you're not a Yale historian, but I mean, you do know the institution. Well, I mean, William F. Buckley obviously wrote God, you know, God, man in Yale. I think that was the time.

What, where did, for our audience, it doesn't quite follow this, but knows it's a problem. Where did this come from? Why is it that Yale would get to a place where you have to field an op-ed? where someone says, I wrote down like that basically I can't, I should be able to dismiss or have a higher elevation of my opinion based solely on immutable characteristics. Where does that come from? And how is that, why has that been taken seriously at our nation's elite? Yeah, I mean, that's obvious.

I mean, we could have a hour or two hour conversation just about that question. I will say what I observed was that it was not the majority. of students who actually believed that. But there was a kind of massive preference falsification. So one of... What does that mean? So people would just pretend to go along with it, right? And would never...

I think that's exactly that. And one very illustrative example is that as the opinion editor of the YDN, I also had to write sort of the editorial. That was the papers position. And we would have meetings where we would decide what the papers position should be. And during the meeting, where we would... where we were supposed to decide what to say about the protests, it became clear right away that if you spoke up and said,

hey, I think this is going too far. What about free speech? You were going to immediately be shouted down as a racist. And so no one did, but I had people come up to me afterwards and say, after we had basically democratically, quote unquote, decided to vote to endorse the protests. A lot of people told me, look, I didn't really agree with that. I have issues with the protests, but I felt like I couldn't speak.

Yeah, I remember one girl in particular literally said that almost verbatimated. to me. So much of this is just third grade peer pressure. That just gets elevated to, and that's, it shouldn't be too surprising. And you mentioned the New York Times earlier. I mean, some of these students without naming names did, in fact, go on to work at the New York Times. Or the Washington most. Right, which then, yes, right, which then like, I could name their names. Right, right, which then, like five years later had its own kind of struggle sessions during George Floyd. So, yeah, I mean, that's, so talk more about that, again, I didn't, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but what they do in the college campus doesn't stay there. It metastasizes into the next institution. Yes, yes. It

metastasizes into media and medicine is another big one. I mean, all of them, really, corporate America. But I think medicine is that is a story that has not fully, I think, been appreciated. Just how. So I did a lot of reporting in. We have these stories, by the way. Yeah. So but keep going.

Yeah. So I had a lot of, did a lot of reporting in late 2020, 21, early 2022, about the effort to ration COVID drugs based on race. Right here. It's one of your best, by the way. deserve huge credit. I remember we covered this for days. Keep going. Yeah. And so, I mean, these ideas about kind of race-based redistribution that were inculcating in the academy did not stay confined to a critical race theory seminar at Harvard Law School. I mean, they became government policy in not just, you know, a city or county, but in like multiple U.S. states. At least

three, New York, Utah, and Minnesota all had these race-conscious triage schemes, where basically the way it worked was that if you were not white, you automatically got two extra points added to your COVID risk score. And two points was about the same weight they would give to things like obesity or diabetes. And so if you held everything else equal, the non-white person was going to win every time. And there was really very, I mean, there was not any serious science. argument that, you know, this was an exact way to quantify risk or that all non-white people were really at, you know, that much more risk of developing serious COVID. I mean, this was all nonsense. But they didn't anyway. And they only stopped after I reported on it and then people

threatened to sue them. Yeah, I have the story. I mean, it's incredible. So just to be clear that life-saving COVID drugs were given in a rationed way. against white people to prefer black or Latino people? Or as they say, Latinx ethnicity? Yep, yep. And I would note, too, that it literally in some of these schemes just lumped in every single person who wasn't white, which even if you thought that maybe one particular racial group for some genetic reason was at a much higher risk of COVID, and there could be some reason why we really should take that into account, that's not what they were doing. They were just saying, well, all of these groups, which in fact had very different rates of COVID mortality, they're all not white. So we'll just kind of create a category for non-white and give them extra points.

So it says here in your story, in Minnesota, health officials have devised their own ethical framework that prioritizes black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds for COVID drugs. Now, I think this was monoclonal antibodies, if I'm not mistaken, which actually was a very effective. treatment. Remember, this was in January 2022, so we're about a year and a half into the whole thing. And monoclonal antibodies were very promising immediate developments to kind of

to help. So this is not just some trivial thing, but an 18 year old black kid in downtown Minneapolis like an 18 year old Somalian kid could get monoclonal antibodies easier than a 64 year old veteran that fought in Vietnam. Yeah, so holding constant

all of their health conditions right that's true but of course the thing is that age was the biggest predictor of COVID mortality by far yes but they're using race yes but they so I mean I really want to dwell on this for a second how is this possible I mean how did we as a country thankfully I want to get into that in a second have we actually turned the page on it but this this parasitic ideology what we want to call it woke mind virus whatever it went into medicine where we are less likely to give out life-saving drugs just because of some sort of oppression framework

we're working from. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of reasons why it became such a powerful force in medicine. One of them is that the field of public health kind of from its inception was based in sort of, you might call proto-woke premises, right? Because the whole idea behind public health, right, is that there are social forces

that affect the spread of disease. Now, of course, that's true and uncontroversial at a sufficient level of generality, but you can see how if that's your mindset to look for social forces that influence epidemiological patterns or influence the spread of disease, you're going to be more open to these kinds of DEI critical race theories that prescribe rationing drugs based on race, right?

I think that's one reason. And then the other, again, this is a little more speculative, but I get the sense that to become a doctor, you have to jump through all of these hoops, and it may select for a certain kind of person who's smart, but perhaps also somewhat conformist and just as willing to kind of do whatever, check whatever boxes they're told to check. And unlike, say, law, which has its own problems, but at least in law, you know, doing legal training, there's some emphasis on getting the other side, debating. There's nothing like that in medicine, so I just think medicine hasn't developed really any

antibodies against wokeism. How did you find this story? Someone, I think it might have been Carol Markowitz, the journalist, tweeted. Yeah, she tweeted about New York's and I just thought, huh, I wonder if any other states are doing this. And so I basically just started Googling. This was before ChatGPT. So I just started Googling trying to find other examples. And I found this is perhaps the most scandalous part. This was all public. I mean, they didn't even try to hide it. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. About $45 billion of that is labeled as distressed. Why Refi refinances distress or defaulted private student loans that others will not touch.

They provide you with a custom loan payment based on your ability to pay. Go to why refi.com. Why refi does not care what your credit score is when the payment on your distress or defaulted private student loan is so big that you can't ever get ahead in your finances. Y refi is surely your best option. Go to why refi.com and you can even skip a payment every six months of the 12 times without penalty. Go to YREFI.com. That is YR-E-F-Y-F-Y.com. I guarantee you somebody in this audience has private student loan debt issues. We'll get out of debt today at Y-refi.com. Because of private student loan debt, so many Americans feel helpless and they've even lost hope. Y-ReFi gives you a light at the end of the tunnel. So go to Y-R-R-R-E-F-Y-F-com.

Y-R-R-E-F-Y-F-E-F-Y-Fi-com.com. So the CDC said high risk states that, quote, systemic health and social inequities have put minorities at increased risk. So it's the systemic racism is the reason why they're dying. Yeah. And there was also this guidance the FDA put out that said race could be a risk factor. And again, you know, in some sense, like yes, it's true that there were statistical correlations between race and COVID. 19 mortality. But is it factoring for all the other variables? Well, no, probably not.

Because, I mean, this is not a racist thing to say, but black Americans tend to be more overweight in the, you know, 40s or 50, especially black women than their counterparts. So that's just, that's just a statistical fact. Yes, yes. And there's also probably difference, I mean, it's also class differences, right? Of course. Not, I'm not judging. I'm just saying that.

Like, I think, I mean, one thing that's interesting is actually one of the states, Utah later claimed that one of the reasons they abandoned this scheme is, that it wasn't even working to get the drugs to minorities. And reading between the lines, I, well, right, and of course, that wouldn't make it okay. The whole premise is so sinister, right? Yes, yes, yes. But I would just point out that, you know, it may well have been that the problem here was that, you know, the people they wanted to get the drugs to just weren't coming in the door.

And so all they really ended up doing was kind of erecting barriers for white people. It didn't even do accomplish its desired goal. Right, right, right, right. Or 90%, the 10% are like Polynesian. I mean, they have like very small black population. Yeah. I mean, they're, yeah. And if your goal was to reach them, there probably were ways you could have done it.

But sort of this crude scheme of racial preferences was not the way to be. I mean, this is somewhat of like a really cruel and dark thought experiment. You could imagine a philosophy professor or a morality ethics professor saying, what if I had a life-saving drug? How should we distribute it to the population? You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. That's kind of what was on display. And he's like, let's have a discussion about it today.

Yeah. And you see how that is actually put in practice. Right. And it was this fact sheet from what is so trova Mab? That's one of the monoclonal antibodies. Okay, got it. Yeah. Okay, got it.

So you report this, which is just obviously like a ridiculous violation of the Civil Rights Act. Yeah. Right. Which has its problems. But, and then they back off. And Minnesota and Utah, Utah, Utah, that's a red state. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's really amazing how even in red states this stuff has spread very far. You see this in universities too, where people have this idea that the DEI programs are much worse at Ivy League schools than they are at public schools in red states.

That is not true. There's another journalist named John Saylor who's done really good FOIA work, foying just all of these red state universities, and they put things in writing. like, you know, we don't want to hire a white man. I mean, that's how explicit it is. And that's, that's in red states. So it's, yes, it really any kind of, this is a bit of an overgeneralization, but generally institutions that are not directly subject to the levers of electoral power or that state governments have kind of taken a hands-off approach to, that it got its hooks in to all of them, right?

Is that, what is it about wokeism? I hate that term, because it's overused, that it just has to keep on infecting, has to keep on spreading. Like, you guys control enough already, you control Hollywood, you control the schools, you control the music, you control, you control the NFL, but you also have to control our monoclonia antibody distribution. Right. It's like, it's almost a, it's like an Islamic umah.

You know, the uma in Islamic theology is like the all covering of God. it's like wokeism must cover all society right well i mean one thing about wokeism is that it doesn't really acknowledge kind of a the distinction between the public and private sphere right you hear people say everything is political right and so all the institutions of civil society are are seen as sites of political contestation um i think that's a big part of it look another this is changing now but for a while when civil rights law was exclusively really used by the left as kind of a tool of social engineering, that was another thing, right? There were legal pressures that I think helped accelerate and reinforce the woke takeover.

I don't want to reduce it all to that. But like, you know, hostile environment complaints, right, do create incentives for corporations to censor speech and to do these sorts of trainings that morph into DEI. I do think that is changing now because there are new civil rights enforcers in town and they have adopted a very different interpretation of the civil rights laws. And so we're seeing now that civil rights law does not necessarily have to lead to wokeness. But I think that until the right sort of seized the levers of the civil rights state and started using it very aggressively, the civil rights bureaucracies were all populated by progressives.

and that was a big, that was a big kind of bureaucratic mechanism that pushed. Yeah, I mean, and part of the civil rights regime is built on disparate impact, which is, can you comment on that? Yes, I think that's a big problem. So for many years, you know, although quotas were officially outlawed, there was this concept called disparate impact, which is that if you do a kind of race blind test, employment test, but it has a disparate impact, you know, more whites than blacks pass the test. then the test, unless you can prove, like, beyond a reasonable doubt, basically, that it is sort of an essential, that it is, like, you know, inextricably tied to the job qualifications and that this is really the only way to assess people, unless you can prove that, which is a very high bar, the test was basically unlawful, right, and it was considered discriminatory.

And now that is starting to be changed because President Trump has issued an executive order, revoking one of his most important. But yeah, going after disparate impact, it's possible that some of the Supreme Court cases that kind of solidified this concept will get overturned depending on what the litigation is. But yeah, I mean, for many years, there was this phrase called goals and timetables where the government would say, well, you know, you don't have to, you don't have to adopt quotas. You just have to have goals and a timetable for reaching them. And, you know, if you don't, that could be evidence of unlawful discriminatory.

We're not saying it is evidence. It just could be. And so, of course, in practice, that means that you kind of. do have to have at least some approximate racial balance, which leads to some of these discriminatory policies. Continuing on the whole medical theme, you have another story that was published in May of last year, which is a failed medical school, how racial preferences supposedly outlawed in California have persisted at UCLA.

Yes. So this is kind of connecting. This is a, what happened at UCLA? Yeah, so at UCLA, to my knowledge, this is, maybe the first time this has ever happened that multiple members of the admissions committee basically came to me and told me anonymously about the affirmative action they were doing and provided various emails and even some internal data that kind of backed up that there was a lot of racial preferences going on and the reason they came forward was that they

a just thought it was intrinsically unjust but be they were really worried because they were seeing medical students start to really fail basic tests of medical competence and show up to their clinical rotations not knowing anything um not knowing anything that's what one of them told me almost verbatim and i and i would note that none of the whistleblowers i would say struck me as particularly conservative i mean i don't think anyone involved in this story are wearing maga hat No, no one who was worried about this was wearing a maga hat. I'm sure they all voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, or almost all of them did, right? But they were worried because they just saw kids showing up and they couldn't, you know, name basic arteries and stuff.

And they were- In another with the catholic. Right, right. And they were failing these things called the shelf exams, which you take after each clinical rotation. There were some cohorts where, like, 50% of the kids would fail. And that had never happened before. There was a huge spike in the failure rate on these exams. And this all happened after a kind of new dean of admissions came in

and really pushed the DEI very aggressively. So your reporting says up to half of UCLA medical students now fail basic tests of medical companies. Yeah, it's not half of all UCLA medical students. What it is is basically in each clinical rotation, it's a little hard. basically, basically there were certain classes at UCLA, certain rotations where like half of the kids in that small cohort were failing. And, you know, and then you also see that the overall failure rate goes from like very low to something closer to like 20 or 25%. So there's a change over time. So, you know, look, probably the average graduate of UCLA medical school is still very good, but there are far more people who are not up to snuff than there used to be. And that's really those statistics are captured. What are the implications of this? I mean, well, you know, the obvious one is, well, you know, someone leaks through and then they take out your appendix and your kidney instead of your appendix. Yeah, you know, that's the kind of nightmare. That's the

nightmare scenario. I mean, I mean, the other thing that may happen is that some of the folks graduated, they may be good enough to be very basic kind of primary care doctors and competent at sort of more basic fields of medicine, but they're not going to go into high-level research. And the problem with that is part of how medicine advances and what these schools are supposed to do is to be engines of medical innovation. And so if all of the schools do this sort of heavy affirmative action and fewer and fewer of the graduates are really qualified to do the kind of cutting-edge research that pushes the frontiers of medicine forward, you know, you may not it's not necessarily that the surgeons are going to, like, kill you. I mean, that might happen,

but I think that's probably not really the main concern, at least in the immediate term. The deeper concern is that you just see this kind of slow and hard to quantify, but nonetheless very real decline in kind of the quality of academic research. I mean, but we all see it. I mean, I've had friends in Cedar Sinai Hospital, and they might have graduates from the UCLA Medical School. Is the UCLA Medical School good? Is it considered to be competitive? It's considered very competitive, yes. And so I've seen it Cedar Cynum, some of these nurses are kind of like space cadets at times. I don't want to insult them.

You have to wonder, I mean, and everybody knows this, that the quality of hospital care has gone down in the last 20 years. It's just anecdotally. Yeah, and the other thing I would say, too, that there's another dynamic here, which is maybe only, say, 20% of the kids are really struggling and the rest are fine. But because you don't want to flunk those bottom 20%, you have to make the class. is easier for everyone to avoid the bottom 20% flunking out. And so the top kids don't get the same quality of education. So they might still be good, but they won't be as good, right? And so there's this kind of progressive mediocratization of the medical profession driven

by this sort of bottom 20% dragging kids down. Ingredients. When I flip a container around and cannot pronounce nor recognize the ingredients, I put it back. That's why you'll find balance in nature, fruit and veggie supplements on a in my home. Every single ingredient is a fruit or veggie plucked from the soil. No binders, no additives, or artificial colors. No fillers. Just whole fruits and veggies, gluten-free and friendly. These harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum cold process to better preserve nutritional value. I can say with absolute confidence that I'm

getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies every single day with Balance of Nature. Imagine a platter with 31 different fruits and veggies on it every day. Join me in taking Balance of Nature. Use my discount code Charlie to get 35% off free shipping plus a limited time a free bottle of fiber and spice. Go to balance to nature.com and use discount code Charlie. So order online at balance and nature.com use discount code Charlie. You have 35%

off plus a free bottle of fiber and spice. So I have to read this. This is one of my favorite paragraphs. I just saw led by Lucero, who you introduced earlier in the piece, she also serves or I think it's she, yeah, as the I think it's a she right, as the vice chair.

of the equity, diversity, and inclusion of UCLA's anesthesiology department. So let me understand it. So the practice of administering general anesthesia, which is incredibly important, people die way too much, and thankfully we're one of the leaders in the world. What is the, it says,

the admissions committee routinely gives black and Latino applicants a pass for subpar metrics for people who served on. It said, while whites and Asians need perfect scores to be considered. What is the, like, steel man that, argument for me. Why does an anesthesiology department need a DEI office? That argument's pretty hard to steal me. I mean, at some point, I mean, you're super smart. You went to Yale. You're part of the debate club. What is the argument for that we're trying to figure, you know, we need your body weight. We need to figure out how long, you know, the mixture

of these very, very powerful chemicals. The argument you would hear is that somehow the white anesthesiologists will murder a black person. Maybe we have implicit bias. And so if we don't correct the implicit biases, we won't really get the most qualified anesthesiologist. Yeah, look, like, it's silly. It's silly. It's just collapses.

But you pointed on something. So implicit bias, that would be their argument probably, or their argument would be like, hey, a white anesthesiologist, they don't know the struggle of a black woman they're about to put under. And so, you know, she needs someone that knows the struggle of being a black one. I'm sorry, you're administering drugs to, go under surgery, don't you want the best? Yeah.

I mean, but definitionally, don't you want, you can die under general anesthesia. Yeah. It's very high stakes. Yes, yes. I mean, and this has always been the kind of canonical argument against racial preferences, right? Well, you know, do you care if your surgeon is black or white? But it's like in front of us. I know, I know, I know.

It's not theoretical. And, you know, there's another detail in the story where she apparently, according to at least one or two people, said that when they do residency admissions, which is a different thing, that's for when they're actually admitting basically like, trainee doctors who already graduated in medical school. They have this sort of rank list of who they want to admit, and she advocated for bumping a white candidate down many slots because she thought, well, we already have, you know, enough white people. And I don't, I think that ultimately was was reversed, but still, I mean, she was explicitly saying we should, you know,

move the rank of different candidates around based on race to do, and these, and the residents would be actually performing anesthesiology. So, yeah, I just, again, of all the places, out of DEI office. If you want to have the DEI office at the Department of Labor, I'm going to fight that, but you can maybe make like a stronger anesthesiology. Yeah, not where I would put it. Not where I would put a deed. That's, that's, if anything other than making sure the patient wakes up is the mission statement of anesthesiology department. Uh, no good. After a Native American applicant was rejected in 2021, Lucero chewed out the committee and made members sit through a two hour lecture on native history. What is this all about? So there was a struggle session administered by this DEI anesthesiologies czar? Yeah, I guess so. And I think that struggle session was, if I remember, right, delivered by her sister. Yeah, that's right. I'm sorry. Native American history delivered by her own sister. Yeah. So I, yeah. And again, you know, it's also, this is the other thing. It's just a time suck, too. Like there's something else. I mean, you know, we haven't even gotten to what they did to their curriculum at UCLA, which

was to make all the kids take a required structural racism and health equity class. And in that class, I mean, they literally learned one of the readings said that fat phobia was medicine status quo and said that the concept of obesity enacts violence on fat people. Basically said doctors just shouldn't treat obesity as a health condition. And this was in a required class for UCLA medical students. And so one of the put some of the pushback I got on the. the piece about racial preferences was you don't understand. They made these changes to their curriculum and they had a little less time in class, so maybe that's why the performance went

down, but it's not about the racial preferences. Okay, it's about the curriculum. Well, what did they do to the curriculum? They took time away from the hard sciences to teach them sort of progressive pseudoscience, right? This is literally like mysticism. That's not a good defense. They shouldn't have done that either. Again, we can make fun of it. We should. Godfrey peep, someone's going to die because of this, and people die all the time under general acesia. Again, anesthesiology, one of someone who's gone under anteliology a couple times, like it's no joke. In the anesthesiology department

where Lucero or Lucero helps rank applicants to the department's residency program, she's rebuffed calls to blind the race of candidates, telling colleagues in January 2020 email that despite California's ban on racial preferences, quote, we are not required to blind any information.

So this is a great case for Harmeet Dillon to come swooping in from the U.S. Office of Civil Rights, right? And I believe... They're already looking into it, I think. Yeah, I think it's HHS's Office of Civil Rights that's looking into it. But HHS has opened an investigation, and there was also a lawsuit from students for fair admissions, not just the same group that did the Harvard lawsuit.

She said here, you're right, knocked down a white person and said, quote, white male may be knocked down several spots because, quote, we have too many of his kind. Right. Not a comment. I'm just reading from your case. Right. It's not a comment. It's not a comment you could imagine being said about any other group. Nor should it be said about anything.

Yeah, of course. No, of course, of course, of course. She told doctors who, who is this person again? I got to reread this. She's the head of admissions at the school. Delightful. Is she still there? Yeah, I believe so.

Yeah. Oh, nice. She told doctors who voiced concern that they had no right to be an opinion because they were not bi-Pock. For people listening on radio or podcasting, that is not a Star Wars character. What is bifoc? It stands for black, indigenous, and other people of color. People of color. Yeah.

So let's say you're a 45-year-old, you know, 45-year-old, you've been there 45 years as a doctor, award-winning, saved lives. You don't have an opinion because you might be a white man. That's according to the admissions, the admissions director. Yeah, that is what you're saying. Yeah, honestly, this is like. like real life horrifying if people have to get medical care in the UCLA system. The focus on racial diversity has coincided with dramatic shift in racial and ethnic composition of medical school where the number of Asian matriculants fell by almost a third by 2019,

2020, according to the public available data, no other elite medical school in California saw a similar decline. Yeah, I think that's true. Maybe there was one that, you know, saw something kind of close, but I think most of the, I think it was really, when I double-checked the data, it was quite noticeable how much UCLA dropped. But so, like, I mean, look, I need to just voice this. If we're also afraid of being called a racist, is it conceivable that just a, again, this says a third to half of the medical school, this is a professor that told you is incredibly unqualified. Is it possible that just a super unqualified doctor is slipping through the cracks that's like a black woman? And eventually she's going to have to make life-saving decisions.

Yeah. Like, that's where we're heading. We're all afraid to say anything because she might report you to the racial board. Yeah, I mean, look, and the way, and I would say, too, you know, the way also to. to avoid having a, if there's a, you know, qualified black female doctor, the way to avoid people questioning her qualifications and the way to avoid sort of placing her under this constant cloud of suspicion is to stop doing racial preferences that sort of rationalize the suspicion, right? Like, I mean, you know, I feel bad for anyone who gets into UCLA who really is

very good, but, you know, gets, everyone's always looking at them, right? I mean, if you're a super qualified blackout. Now people are going to wonder, you know, and that's not right. So now going to the other coast, you, my friend, have been like a ninja towards Harvard. And I love it. So let's start with, let's start with this one, because this one's a little bit more, is older, I think. Yeah, I am right. Harvard President Claudine Gay hit with six new charges of plagiarism.

So you were one of the ones that took down Claudine Gay. in addition to Elise Tophonic and her wonderful performance, how does a Harvard University president plagiarize herself to the top? Yeah, I mean, so look, what she did was clearly covered by Harvard's plagiarism policies, which were written in a very exacting way. I think I don't know, you know, what you were told growing up, but I always had sort of the fear of God put into me. when it came to plagiarism.

Oh, 100%. In high school and then in college, they really would say just, you know, if it's more than a few words, right, that, you know, even if it's not verbatim, but it's paraphrase, that could be plagiarism, and that's a very serious offense. And so I would, in college, read over my papers and think, is it plagiarized? I have to make sure I'm changing enough of the language. I have to be sure I'm putting it in my own words. Everything's cited.

And look, you know, of all the plagiarism scandals, there have been hers, was not the worst, but she was probably in the, not the worst in terms of the severity of the plagiarism, but it was plagiarism. It did violate Harvard's policies, and she was the president of Harvard University, right? And so subject, I think, presumably to kind of the highest possible standard for academic integrity. And she oversaw an institution that then you have internal documents reveal pervasive, because she's gone now, reversal, reveal pervasive pattern of racial discrimination at Harvard Law Review. Yes.

What's going on here? Yeah, so some of the discrimination is in the selection of editors for the law review, but the lion's share of it is in the selection of articles. Which is important. Right. I mean, the Harvard Law Review is influential. It matters who's published there. The Law Review articles really do shape the state of the law to some extent, right?

You know, how important legal academia is can be debated. But to the extent it matters, this is a pretty powerful. journal, right? It matters what they publish. And they are not selecting articles just based on merit or subject matter diversity, but explicitly based on both the author's race and in many cases the race of the authors cited in the footnotes. No. Yes. And that was in fact part of their rubric for evaluating. So to get published in the Harvard Law Review, you have to have like half of your authors be black women. Basically, there's this initial. That's, that's how well, and so here's the thing, right, and this often is the case with any kind of regime of racial preferences. It doesn't

just happen at one kind of stage of decision making. It happens at every stage. So there's an initial kind of screen out process where they're told to consider author diversity. And that process, which is done by just a few editors, weeds out like 80% of submissions. And then there, then everything that remains is subject to this additional screen where the you know some editor reads it and kind of writes a short memo and there's a there's a template that they're supposed to fill out about the pros and cons of each article and one of the things they are supposed to look at or at least they were as of a year ago was uh the racial diversity of the sources cited racial gender all kinds of diversity what what if you have a really good citation from a white man you're not

you're at your quota that yeah i mean they literally they would literally say things They would literally say things like, I'm very, you know, I'm disappointed that the piece didn't have much diversity in terms of its sources cited. That was a real negative and they would give it a poor recommendation based in part on that lack of diversity. I mean, you can, we published over 2,300 pages of documents of these internal memos so people can judge for themselves and you can just see what they said. And in some cases, it's kind of an afterthought or they don't really take it into account. but there are quite a few cases where the editors explicitly penalized pieces for the diversity of the citations. How did you find out about this one? You know, I got a tip from someone who shall remain nameless that it was going on at the Harvard Law Review

and then started doing some digging and managed to get my hands on a lot of these documents. One thing I generally like to do in my reporting is to publish as many primary source documents as possible. Yes, of course. Often, right, the immediate response is, oh, you're making it up or you're exaggerating. And I just, look, you can, you can look at the entire tranche of documents, right? You know, you judge for yourself. And so the Harvard Law Review is an independent nonprofit and legally distinct from the university. It operates out of a Harvard building.

It's tended by Harvard janitors and employees only Harvard students and editors. It's also advised by administrators, professors at Harvard Law School, including the dean and some student editors are on federal financial aid. And so someone is planning to sue over this? Is that right? Yes. So Jonathan Mitchell, who's the former Solicitor General of Texas. Bad guy to tick off. Yeah, he's planning to sue. But they're also now under three different federal investigations by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Justice Department. And obviously, the deal. that the administration is trying to reach with Harvard could resolve those investigations.

We'll see. I mean, I don't know. But until that deal happens, at least, you know, they are under multiple federal probes. Hey, everybody. Charlie Kirk here. We are saving babies with preborn. There are 24,836 kindergartner starting school this month who wouldn't be alive today if it hadn't been for what preborn did in 2019.

That's how many babies were saved. year because of the gift of ultrasounds from people like you. When a woman considering abortions sees her baby on that ultrasound and hears the baby's heartbeat, it doubles the chance she'll choose life. $140 gives mothers a free ultrasound and saves babies. $280 can save 10 babies and just $28 bucks a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day. And a $15,000 gift will provide an ultrasound machine that will save babies' lives for years to come. Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, it's just a phone call or click away. Join me now by saving babies. It's 833-850-229. I'm a donor to pre-born and you should be two. Or click on the

pre-born banner right now at charliekirk.com. Check it out right now. Yeah, so what is your instinct? Do you think this is just the tip of the iceberg at some of these elite schools? I mean, there's so much worse stuff that's going on that we don't know about. Yeah, I generally think that's right. Now, again, some of them are probably trying to course correct a little bit just because they're so scared of Trump. But I think that I don't think this is particularly aberrational. How much of it is put in writing may vary depend on the institution. But again, like I said earlier, there's red states, state schools. You can find tons of this stuff in kind of every part of university decision making. And you're reporting so good. I mean, you got a Slack message in here? That's like, that's the best because that's really a window. Yeah.

This is so good. Four out of five people raised in this message. So message, I'm guessing this is a communique or. Yeah, they're debating who to publish for like a forum or something. Four out of five people raised in this message are white men, which I find concerning. One editor wrote in Slack. This is an editor of the Law Review. Before I go any further, what does it take to become an editor?

or of the law review? Well, a few people get on just through the strength of their grades or this kind of competition they do, right, if they're really, really strong students, writers. Most people are chosen through the, or about half of them are chosen through this sort of holistic review process that takes into account, their grades, this kind of writing competition, and then also their personal statement and kind of DEI factors. Says, quote, having read the article pretty thoroughly, I think a huge, missing piece was that of how race fits into policing and misconduct right and keep going yeah well this is another important point which is that they don't just screen the

articles based on the race of the author or even the race of the sources cited they also look at just does the article talk enough about race and gender so my favorite one actually is they this is in another article i wrote about this they nixed i think an article that was a feminist analysis of antitrust law. That sounds as woke as it can get right. Feminist analysis of antitrust law. Why did they nix it? Well, because it advanced a binaristic conception of gender and didn't talk enough about the experiences of trans and non-binary people. And they put this in writing, right? I mean, and it's of antitrust law. Yes, and it's and so this is just, yeah, you can't make it up. This is the fall of civilization. By the way, why should we even take

seriously a feminist analysis of antitrust law? How about this? Analysis of antitrust law. It doesn't matter. Right, right, right. Well, now, yeah, I mean, feminist analysis of antitrust law is almost going to be like the conservative position in 10 years, you know. I was going to say, yeah, it's well said. In a separate exchange, an editor implied that a piece should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority. This person of color author, the editor wrote in Slack, adding that the scholar had already had a publication offer from Northwestern. We should send for review tonight if we want to move on this. So you get elevated and fast-tracked if you're a person.

of color. Yes. And in fact, in some of these memos, they explicitly say recommend publishing scholars because they say by being published in the Harvard Law Review, they will advance their career. So they basically say we should publish so and so because by doing so, we will advance the career of a young scholar of color. That's part of their calculus when deciding we to publish. I mean, it's just, it's remarkable. And the Law Review, you write, has also adopted several policies while not racially discriminatory seem designed to ensure editors to the party line. One resolution passed in 2023 called for, quote, indigenous inclusive citation practices. You mentioned this.

So just so we're clear, I don't know what that means. Indigenous inclusive citation practices. So we need like more Iroquois Indians or something. Yeah. To be fair to them, I think it has something to do with how you cite cases involving tribal law or native tribes. I mean, you know, there might be something legitimate there, but they obviously package it in the most. Well, they've lost all credibility. Yeah, I know. I'm not inclined. I'm not inclined. I'm going to say, I don't think they have the benefit of the doubt. So I want to close with some time,

and we have a little bit of time here. Because this, you know, we're talking about the universities, so I'm about your reporting. And President Trump is certainly clamping down on them. And a lot of the activity happening on campuses that gets the headlines is this Jew hate stuff, the anti-Israel stuff. And there's been a debate on the right of what should we do to respond to this campus activity and it's quite split it's all over the map as you know I resolutely reject all this Jew hate stuff and I want to talk about that you know but I think we're actually more interestingly let's make this a starting point there are some not all there are some in the Jewish community of whom I respect them greatly but I fundamentally disagree they say now is the

time for a Jewish civil rights where we need kind of a new DEI style regime people like Jonathan Greenblatt, who I don't love, obviously, or respect, he's kind of come out and said something similar. What are you thinking about this while balancing the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism with constitutionally protected speech? Yeah, I don't think it makes any sense to try to add Jews to the list of, to kind of bring Jews under DEI's protective umbrella. I think that's going to backfire for lots of reasons. I mean, one is just DEI's, the worldview is bad on the merits and should be rejected right um and we don't want to reinforce its premises um you know i also think there frankly is a dynamic where especially for people on the right it's very important

i think to be consistent about this stuff and when you're not and you're hypocritical people see the hypocrisy and while i don't think that the hypocrisy is like the main or it's not it's not why anti-semitism is rising but it's not helping like it's not helping i guess i would say No, it does not help. You're right. And, you know, look, the other thing I would say, too, is just this is not effective. I mean, this is not how you get rid of the problem. The way you get rid of the problem is by admitting students who actually want to study and are not scholar activists who are going to go out and take over public spaces and violate laws, right, instead of just going to class.

I mean, it's really an admissions problem. It is, and it's an Islamist problem. So some people are saying, though, that, hey, we need to, some people in the government have alluded to this, not President Trump, but we need to make anti-Semitism, like, illegal, basically. And I'm paraphrasing, but you've seen that kind of. Yeah, so that's not, well, first of all, you can't make ideologies illegal because of the First Amendment. But let me, here's the other come back to this. So I just reported this today. We're recording in late August, right?

So Columbia Law School just did this diversity training. Yeah, tell us all about it. Right. And the diversity training was organized around a single vignette about anti-Semitism. It was something silly where, like, someone complains that it's hard to schedule events around the Jewish holidays in the fall. And that's framed as an example of maybe not even anti-Semitism, but insensitivity, and they spend all this time talking about it. Okay, you know, whatever. I don't think that's a silly.

Yeah, it's not really. That's not anti-Semitism. It's not, it's also, for one, it's, it's not the kind of thing that actually upset Jewish students, right? What upset Jewish students at Columbia was calls to kill them, which actually happened. Right, you know, kills, well, I mean, you know, Zionists deserve to die, right? Yes, correct. That's, that's what actually was at issue, not, you know, someone being a little insensitive about whether you organize an event or Yon Kippur or Sikot, right? That's not the problem.

But then the other key thing to see is that this training was facilitated by a diverse. consultant who has written all sorts of ridiculous things, including that she never, she even wrote a blog post, I think, saying that she doesn't ask if someone, if she sees a man attempting to go into the women's restroom, she won't stop him or ask questions because she doesn't want to inadvertently commit a microaggression. I mean, that's who Columbia decided to do tap for this training. During the training, she explicitly accuses President Trump of committing a microaggression when he complimented the president of Liberia on his English. She says that the terms crazy uncle and grandfathering can be offensive and up-and-coming

lawyers should not say them. I mean, it has all the kind of hallmarks of a stupid crazy DEI training. It's just that the vignette they chose was about anti-Semitism, right? So not only is it not addressing the real anti-Semitism problem on Columbia's campus, it's also reinforcing the crazy DEI stuff that Trump, I think, has rightly been against. So, yeah, I think it is, there is a role for the federal government to play in fighting anti-Semitism, you know, content neutral civil rights laws that just say that you can't, you know, deny Jewish students access to. Well, yeah, when you're trying to block classes, right, like that's, of course that's illegal, you know. And pull the visas. I mean, the whole thing is just ridiculous.

Yeah, there's all sorts of levers you can use. you know demanding additional anti-Semitism training i just i think that's going to backfire look also like has anyone ever enjoyed sitting through one of these trainings and does anyone ever come out of it thinking i'm i'm so glad i had to do that no everyone hates the trainings so why add jews to that right because then the jews are more kind of proximate to the resentment just it's it's i think it is very short-sighted private student loan debt number America totals about $300 billion. About $45 billion of that is labeled as distressed. Y-ReFi refinances distress or defaulted private student loans that others will not touch.

They provide you with a custom loan payment based on your ability to pay. Go to whyrefi.com. Why refi does not care what your credit score is when the payment on your distress or defaulted private student loan is so big that you can't ever get ahead in your finances. Why refi is surely your best option. Go to why refi.com. You can even skip a payment every six months of the 12 times without penalty. Go to why refi.com. that is yerefy.com, I guarantee you somebody in this audience has private student loan debt issues. We'll get out of debt today at yrefi.com. Because of private student loan debt, so many Americans feel helpless and they've even lost hope. YREFI gives you a light at the end of the tunnel. So go to yrefi.com.

Why refi offers a three minute rate check without any credit impact. Go to yREFY.com. That's yrefi.com. are we seeing a rise in Jew hate in this country? Again, another thing we could talk for hours about, I think some of it is just the result of us getting more and more distance away from the Holocaust and this kind of basically philosemitic consensus we had breaking down. I also think, and I'm not an expert on this, my understanding is that among evangelicals, I think there used to be this kind of pre-millanarian, like, eschatology in which sort of this idea that, like, it was important to support Israel because the end of days was imminent.

I should say I'm, I am Jewish, so I don't. No, you just said it better than 90% of Christians out. I'm not, you know, I'm not an expert on this stuff. You used it very, pre-trib, pre-millennial theology is. But that, and I think a lot of people. The state of Israel is fundamental to that. Right. And I think a lot of people, including, frankly, many progressive Jews sort of held their noses at that and sneered it and thought, well, that's, you know, stupid, weird theology.

But, you know, one of the benefits of that theology was that it meant that the. predominantly Christian American right was very, yes, very pro-Israel. And it's a good example of, you know, Chesterton's fence, the idea that you don't always want to tear things down when you don't quite understand the function they're serving in society, right? I think that you kind of got rid of that theology and it maybe opened the door to some not good stuff. And honestly, look, yeah, I mean, obviously the war in Gaza has increased the salience of

the issue. Obviously, just the internet allows all sorts of radical, ideologies to spread um but yeah you know i have to say i i struggle with this because i just fundamentally have always thought that like hardcore anti-semitism is just so sort of irrational and not rooted in reality that i mean it rocks the brain yeah trying to even you're you're trying to explain the thought process of you know the logic of something that is fundamentally irrational. I mean, it is not logical. So it can be hard in some ways to provide a rational explanation. But I will just say, I will also say, though, I do not think

the main cause, frankly, is college students at Columbia. I think they are more a symptom and a reflection than a cause. I think the cause is much deeper kind of demographic. Yeah, the Columbia problem is actually really simple. It's actually, we've imported a bunch of Muslim students that hate Jews and have many of which hate the West. And then you couple that with a bunch of secular people that are looking for meaning and they look at everything through in a pressure, oppression, oppressed dynamic. The assumption that Israelis are white and the Palestinians are brown. Correct. No, that's right. Which if you actually go to the region and look at people, it's like totally not true. I was there last year and saw a, a, a, one of the darkest skin.

Well, go meet a misrahi or Sephardic Jew, right? But you see, you see even like Ethiopian Jews who have some of the darkest skin you can ever, you've ever seen. who are wearing the full Orthodox garb in Jerusalem. Like, it's an amazing country, right? But just the whole racial imaginary that we project onto that region, it's totally wrong. Yeah. So what would you say are one or two of the biggest lies about what's happening right now? Again, we're taping this, so we don't know things can change.

But let's just say more broadly with Israel that you wish could be corrected, that are just falsehoods that are spread, that you kind of pound your table, and you're like, I can't believe people believe this. I mean, the race thing is a big one in terms of the left, right? That's a big issue on the left where they project this. They try to basically project American racial categories onto a region that just totally rejects them and resists them. I think on the right, you know, it on the left, people will just take, they'll take something crazy from Israel out of context, like something really bad that one person said. and say, oh, you know, clearly Israel wants to do X, Y, or Z.

It's like, well, you know, if some obscure government minister says something nuts, right? Like, we don't, it's not fair to, regardless of which party's in power, you know, it's not fair to conflate, right, you know, one crazy person in, you know, an obscure government position with an entire political party or with the entire country, certainly, right? I think that's a problem. The other thing I would say, too, though, is so much, and I think this is more the fault of the Americans who talk about it than it is Israelis. But to go back to the anti-Semitism training, there's this impulse to say, well, anti-Semitism, it's another isom, framed Jews as victims and kind of add Jews to the list of victim categories. I just don't think that that's compelling.

No. Right. And I think Israel is actually like a very cool country. And if they talk more about the coolness and the tech and the military, right, you know, one reason I think you do see some of the anti-Semitism percolating on the right in some cases is that if you think about how to reach like young men who are turning right. Yeah. Send to the Tel Aviv for a weekend. Yeah. Well, no, yeah. It probably probably would make a more pro-Israel. But also, right, you know, how not to reach them. You don't want to do this kind of hectoring school marm. Like, you have to be, you're a bigot for X, Y, Y, Z. Just because people have been sort of trained understandably from all the DEI to react with suspicion to any kind of accusation of bigotry. Again, there is real anti-semitism. It's a problem.

But, you know, when you lecture people, I just don't think it works. Yeah, and I think some, and this is where I get some pushback. I was just debating the other day privately with a very nice woman, who you would know, I'll tell you off camera. And she was insistent that you can't, if you were. are anti-Israel, you're anti-Semitic. And I said, well, what do you mean by anti-Israel? And so, and she was getting to the place where, like, you must support the Netanyahu government, otherwise you're anti-Semitic. I'm like, that's, you're going to lose people. And you know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of, actually, there's Jewish people.

There's a lot of conservative American Jews who think the Netanyahu government mishandled the war and would prefer, like, Naftali Bennett, who's actually to Netanyahu's right. So, I mean, that's the other thing. People don't, it's a very complicated situation, right? I think there needs to be a little bit of allowance there. Yeah. But here's another thing I would say, I don't know how, I have no idea how they would do this. But one thing I've been doing since April is actually taking Kravmaga lessons. Pravmaga is the martial art of the Israeli defense forces.

It's cool. I think every young Jew should learn it. Yeah. But also just like young people. It's good exercise. You feel like a badass after you do one of the moves correctly. You're basically learning to be like a real-life action hero who, can actually defend yourself and your loved ones from an aggressor and like I would just think

again if you're trying to reach you know young men who are tired of being scolded and tired of the victim of rhetoric right word right don't just just talking too much about anti-semitism again I'm not saying don't talk about it at all but like if you want to make people just think Israel's cool like talk about Krav Maga talk about like the badass stuff that comes out of Israel like I feel like a lot of young guys if they think Israel and they think, oh, cool fighting system that teaches us how to, you know, defend ourselves against criminals. It's like, okay, that's the kind of message that like a young, like, 18, 20 year old guy is going to like, right? Yes. And the more they understand Islam, the better Israel looks to. They have no idea what Israel's up against, right? Which is

these Islamic barbarian monsters. Which everyone, no one wants to say out loud. But so final thought on that though how would you say is a domestic prescription to quell and defeat this rise in jew hate which rots the brain and destroys the soul yeah um look i generally go back to if you enforce the laws evenly and just hold everyone to the same standards i think you do end up solving a lot of the problem you get rid of a lot of the protests that violated the content neutral rules. You show that, look, just everyone has to treat each other equally. You model that kind of ethic of equality. You know, I think just talking about, again, dividing the world into oppressor and oppressed that's never going to end well for the Jews. So getting rid of DEI is good.

Very good. It's fundamental. That's very important. And yeah, I mean, that's basically what I would say. Look, and the other thing I would say, though, too, is just, unfortunately, you know, anti-Semitism's always been with us. It's not a rational force, and we no longer enjoy the kind of golden era where you could just take this very pro-Israel and philosemitic consensus for granted. It's a new terrain. Yeah, and, you know, like, probably not the worst thing for Jews to learn some self-defense. I unfortunately but um how can people follow you support you look at your work uh i'm on twitter at aaron sabarium i write for the washington free beacon um which is great by the way yeah they do important work talk a little bit about that oh yeah sure um so we we're one of the few

outlets on the right that's really dedicated almost exclusively to investigative reporting yeah i know that's what makes you guys different um yeah and and i think for for young people interested uh it's the most important type of report. Yes. I would say there's also a temptation on the right in particular to want to go into opinion journalism which we've sort of over-indexed on. Guilty. Yeah, no, look, I mean, I was

that way, as a college student, I was like, I want to be a New York Times columnist and spout off my views. The reality is that that it's not impossible to be influential as an opinion columnist but it's very, very difficult. I agree. And it's much easier. You'll get much more bang

for your buck if you go into investing. There's so many unreported stories in this country. And to be honest, it does not, it's not all that hard. It's not all that hard to do. It takes a little work, but like you just, you interview people, you get people to give you documents and you just, you report it accurately. You don't have to editorialize. You let the facts speak for themselves. Aaron, thank you for your time. Incredible work. If I was giving out Pulitzer's surprises, you would have got one, especially for the monoclonia antibody story. Thank you. Aaron Sabarian, keep up the great work. You're welcome back anytime. God bless you. Thank you.

Thanks so much for listening. Everybody, email us, as always, freedom at charley kirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.