January 6, 2024 • 32 mins
Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned from her position on Tuesday. Did she make mistakes in her testimony on Capitol Hill, as she admitted in her New York Times op-ed published on Wednesday, entitled Claudine Gay: What Just Happened at Harvard is Bigger Than Me. She wrote, “Yes, I made mistakes.” She said her published work contained passages where “some material duplicated other scholars’ language, without proper attribution.” Was Gay’s ascension at Harvard part of the larger diversity, equity and inclusion plan across colleges and universities nationwide? Newt’s guest is Kent Heckenlively. His new book with David Johnson is The Diversity Con, which takes a comprehensive look into how companies and schools are infiltrated and radicalized by DEI theory.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
On this episode of News World. Harvard President Claudine Gay
resigned from her position on Tuesday. Her departure comes just
six months after becoming Harvard's first black president. Did she
make mistakes in her testimony in Capitol Hill? As she
admits in her New York Times op ed published on
Wednesday entitled Clauding Gay, What just happened at Harvard is
(00:27):
bigger than me? She wrote, quote, Yes, I made mistakes.
She said her published work contained passages where some material
duplicated other scholars language without proper attribution. But she said
she never had claimed credit for this work, and she
stands by her original research. And at the December congressional
hearing that started the onslaughter criticism, she wrote, I neglected
(00:51):
to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish
people are abhorrent and unacceptable. Was Gay's ascension at heart
Harvard part of the larger diversity equity inclusion plan across
colleges and universities nationwide. In their new book, The Diversity
con David Johnson and Kent Heck and Lively take a
(01:13):
comprehensive look into how companies and schools are infiltrated and
radicalized by DEI theory. I'm really pleased to welcome my guest,
Kent Heckenlively. He is an attorney, science teacher, and New
York Times bestselling author. Kent, welcome, and thank you for
(01:40):
joining me on Newts World.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Thanks for having me nude. It's a great honor.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Well, and your book is so timely and so important.
Let's start, though, with the recent news that Harvard President
Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania President Liz McGill both
resigned and what that means. Harvard President Claudine Gay, University
of Pennsylvania president is Give mcgil and MIT president Sally
Cornbloth were questioned at the December fifth, twenty twenty two
(02:07):
House Committee on Education in the Workforce hearing unquote holding
campus leaders accountable and confronting anti Semitism. All three said
that it is context specific what is considered anti semitism.
Let's listen to some of that testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Doctor Cornbloth at MIT, does calling for the genocide of
Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying
and harassment?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 4 (02:34):
You've targeted at individuals not making public statements?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does
not constitute bullying and harassment.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews
on our campus.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Ms Migil at Penn, does calling for the genocide of
Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Or no.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yes, I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Does that constitute bullying harassment?
Speaker 4 (03:06):
If it is directed and severer pervasive, it is harassment.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
So the answer is yes.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
It is a context dependent decision.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Congresswoman, It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today.
Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context,
that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest
question to answer, Yes, Miss McGill.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
And Doctor Gay at Harvard, does calling for the genocide
of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (03:40):
Or no. It can be depending on the context.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
What's the context?
Speaker 5 (03:45):
Targeted as an individual, targeted at an individual, it's.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your
testimony is dehumanizing them. Do you understand that dehumanization is
part of antisseyemotism. I will ask you one more time.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules
of bullying and harassment?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Or no?
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation,
that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide
of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Correct.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Again, it depends on the context.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes,
and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable
answers across the board.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
The congressional hearing started backlash from the public, including the university,
alumni and donors. Miguil was the first to resign on
de Summer ninth, following a call for her resignation from
the board of the Wharton Business School and the withdrawal
of a donor's one hundred million dollar gift to the university.
Harvard President Claudine resigned on January second, making her the
(05:04):
shortest Harvard president in history, only serving six months. And
I tell you, President Sally Cornbluth is now the only
president testified at the December sixth hearing who is still president.
Let me start with that. Do you think that her
resignation is imminent?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
I think it is, and I think what conservatives can
expect in twenty four is for a lot of scalps
to be taken. Now, this is not about vengeance, it's
about competence. These jobs in academia should be filled by
our very best people, and what DEI has done is
(05:40):
it has put some very mediocre people in these positions.
They're pushing dangerous ideas and it's harming our youth. And
that's why we need to stand up and demand that
these people reveal who they are, and if they are
not qualified for the job, we need to call for
(06:00):
their resignation.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I was a little surprised to see that in Gay's case,
the president of Harvard, she makes nine hundred thousand dollars
a year.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
She's still going to make nine hundred thousand dollars a
year as a professor there, and so I'm a little
bit concerned that even though she's resigning, this is just
shuffling her around and we're going to see her in
a top position once again, we need to make sure
that stuff stops.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Well and isn't there sort of an insider's club at
work here.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
One hundred percent. And that's why we need to keep
the focus and we need to keep the attention on
these people. We need to make sure that the people
who ascend to these positions are qualified. And one of
the things that kind of gets me is, you know,
I'm a person who loves academia. I love the intellectual life.
(06:54):
I love debates of about ideas, and the fact that
these people are so intolerant and are allowed to be
instructing our youth, they're creating an intolerance in our youth.
The anti semitism of the Ivy League is out of control,
(07:16):
as well as the anti Asian prejudice, as shown by
Harvard's categorical lowering of Asian American admission to their university.
Our country should be a meritocracy. A meritocracy is a
stable political system in which anybody can ascend. And when
(07:42):
they are pushing this DEI nonsense and saying there are
only certain immutable characteristics which render you capable of leadership,
that's an idea which needs to be confronted and defeated.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
What's fascinating about the resignation of President Claudingay and what
makes it, I think sort of a pivot point, is
that she actually was the kind of perfect product of
the DEI movement and the personification of Harvard's commitment to
placing diversity and inclusion over meritocracy and honesty. Could you
(08:23):
talk a little bit about how that occurred at Harvard
and how that movement became so dominant.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Well, this Dei philosophy is something that has been in
the works for years. So this is something that's grown
up over the past twenty thirty years, and so it's
not surprising that we're seeing kind of the flowering of
the DEI movement, and so it's in full flower, and
this is the time where they're supposed to show us
(08:52):
how wonderful they are, and it's just been a disaster.
So that's why we as conservatives need to confront this philosophy.
We need them to debate us in the public eye,
because when they do, the public will see the absolute
(09:12):
hollowness of this promise and how DEI is nothing less
than a civilization destroying idea.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
As early as October twenty fourth, the New York Post
sent twenty seven plagiarism allegations to Harvard, and they got
back a very blistering letter three days later from Thomas Claire,
who is counsel for both Gay personally and for Harvard,
which said the allegations were demonstrably false and said all
the examples were cited and properly credited. But then a
(09:44):
week later Harvard's investigation into the allegations began and it
only concluded on December ninth. And it seems to me
that as I read this, I we'll ask you to comment.
But over two dozen plagiarism charges were brought against her.
She allegedly lifted nearly half a page of material verbatim
in her two thousand and one article. In the article,
(10:06):
she borrowed four sentences from David Cannon's nineteen ninety nine
book Race, Redistricting and Representation without quotation marks or citations.
There are also complaints that she lifted for a nineteen
ninety six paper by Frank Gilliam. I mean they expelled
twenty seven underclassmen for plagiarism.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, and so you and I both write books. I've
written fifteen books. My books are known for having three
four hundred citations in them, because I am a stickler
for when it's somebody else's idea, I credit that idea.
And it is so personally offensive to hear that she
(10:45):
has that many allegations of plagiarism. And here I am.
You know, I'm a middle school science teacher who writes
books I know not to play drives. And the president
of Harvard being credibly accused of this and them seeming
to find her guilty. I just find appalling this woman
(11:07):
should be so far from any academic institution if she's
guilty of those charges.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
She's still in her New York Times article rejecting the idea.
In this New York Times op edsy she published on Wednesday,
which I think tells you a little bit about her ego.
It's entitled Claudine Gay, what just happened at Harvard is
bigger than me? And she wrote, I'm quoting, Yes, I
made mistakes. She said there was quote some material duplicated
(11:36):
other scholars language without proper attribution. Now can you imagine
if every undergraduate in the country adopted the without proper
attribution defense every time they were told that they were plagiarizing,
And of course, with the rise of modern artificial intelligence,
You're going to see more and more examples of term
papers written by computer. And now she said she never
(11:59):
claimed credit for others' work. She stands why our original research,
I mean, the arrogance implied. And this denial is amazing.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
In the regular world, Newt that's called a confession. It's
only in the IVY League that that's not a confession.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
And the Ivy League it is an explanation for why
she's going to remain powerful. And I was surprised that
she's apparently going to keep her nine hundred thousand dollars
a year salary even while she ceases to be president
and becomes just a faculty member.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
And this is why I think that conservatives need to
keep the attention on these people, because what the entire
DEI philosophy is doing is it's disempowering conservative voices, and
so we have to take back our power. We have
(12:53):
to stand up, we have to speak out, and we
need to demand answers to keep going. Because what happens
is that these people have lived in such an insular
world that when they come out to the public and
try to defend themselves, they look like idiots, and we
(13:15):
need to keep the pressure on these people. We need
these people to be exposed, and we need good people
in those positions. They don't have to be conservative, they
just have to not be crazy.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
I think crazy is a pretty good example. By the way,
she goes on to say, I love this re articulate.
She says in her New York Times peace quote. I
neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of
Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable. Now I believe that
at last Stefani, who did an amazing job in that hearing,
(13:52):
ask her seventeen times it's.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Not hard to say genocide is wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I watched in amazement. I thought, at least showed great
discipline and great restraint in just coming back and saying
again and again. So gay was given seventeen opportunities to
be clear yeah, and somehow turns it into I neglected
to clearly articulate. I've concluded that this woman is a racist,
(14:21):
she is dishonest, and she is stunningly arrogant, and that
it tells you about the system that promoted her that
she could get to be president.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Two tools that I think we need to use in
twenty twenty four are ridicule and contempt. We just need
to go there. We need to state what happened. How
is it that the president of Harvard could be asked
seventeen times to condemn genocide and she misses every single time. Okay,
(14:55):
you could get a plumber down the street. You only
need to ask him once. If he condemns genocide, he
knows the right answer. How can the president of Harvard
not know the answer.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
And write it off as a neglect? I neglected to
clearly articulate that level of latent dishonesty in itself is
I think condemnatory. Hi, this is newt. If you live
(15:29):
in California or you happen to be visiting, I'd like
to invite you to my two upcoming book events in January.
Killis and I are both going to be at the
Richard Nixon Library and Museum in yor Belunda on January
ninth at seven pm. Tickets are available now at Nixon
Foundation dot org. And Klist and I are both going
(15:49):
to be at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute
in Simi Valley on January tenth at five pm. Tickets
are available now at Reagan Foundation. I hope you'll join
us for a book signing and a talk and a
chance to get together and kick off the new year
at the Nixon Library and the Reagan Library. Let's talk
(16:20):
about your new book, The Diversity con which David Johnson
you wrote, because you really look at the whole way
in which this DEI has evolved. And I mentioned to
you a while ago a friend of mine had written
that we ought to rename it discrimination, exclusion and Intolerance.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Yeah, So David Johnson is a Project Veritas whistleblower. So
this is my fourth book that I've written with a
Project Veritas whistleblower. So I'm kind of becoming the unofficial
biographer of Project Veritas whistleblowers. So after millions of people
see the videos, they come to me and we do
a deep dive into it. And David Johnson is a
really interesting character because he's twenty six years old, describes
(17:00):
himself as left of center, and is gay, and he's
a packaging engineer and he was hired as a contract
employee for Hasbro and within the first week he's forced
to sit through one of these diversity trainings, and he
has the presence of mind to turn it on and
record it, and he's horrified by what he hears. What
(17:21):
he hears in this is that babies as young as
six months old can be racist. And he says to himself, look,
I'm a minority in this country. I've never felt discriminated against.
This is not the American which I grew up. So
he turns it over to James O'Keeffe, and when James
O'Keefe was at Project Veritas, it goes viral and he
(17:45):
goes through this journey of going to conservative conferences, being
warmly embraced and becomes obsessed with this Dei philosophy because
he considers it so harmful to the country. And so
that's when he hooks up with me. And what we
did was we had him go undercover at some of
(18:06):
these DEI events that are aimed at businesses, mostly in
educational institutions, to figure out how are they brainwashing people.
And it's really kind of interesting because as somebody yourself
Newe who's an academic, you know that there's a way
that you present information and you're trying to get people
(18:26):
to be intrigued by it. Let's say it's a three
day conference, the first day of the conference, you kind
of get a lot of interesting information, like you may
learn about the Tulsa Race riots, you know, where sixty
years after the end of slavery, a large number of
African Americans in Oklahoma had become pretty successful and their
(18:47):
community was burned to the ground. And so you say, oh,
that's really interesting, and so you feel a sense of
connection to the people giving you the information. Day two,
they present some more troubling ideas, but you know, still
within the bounds of reasonable thought. Day three is when
they go absolutely crazy. That's when they introduce the transagenda
(19:09):
and all sorts of weird ideas, basically saying, giving a
Marxist ideal that there's an oppressor and oppressed class. Now
where do you go with that? How can you be
only one of two things? I don't want to be
an oppressor and I don't want to be oppressed. But
(19:32):
that's what they set up as the dynamic in people's minds.
And you know, we also kind of do a deep
dive into how the Chinese had brainwashed American POWs in Korea,
and it's a real subtle form of brainwashing. It's first, Oh,
the history you think is true is wrong. Okay, so
(19:54):
the history is bad, then you are bad. Then hey,
but you can be I'm good if you do this,
and then I will break you of what you believe
about history. I will break you of what you believe
about yourself and then all create this new self. And
(20:14):
this is a terrifying idea, but you have to understand
how it's done. It doesn't start out with the crazy stuff.
It starts out with some interesting stuff that you know,
you and I would probably find to be compelling.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
It's a totally different world and one that I clearly
didn't grow up in. You say at one point that
in one of these classes, before you even saw the professor,
that with the backdrop of a rainbow flag, we were
presented with ally gay, intersex rights, human, lesbian, cisgender stereotype, asexual, free, homosexual, bisexual, transgender,
(20:54):
equal queer, sexism, identity, and LGBT.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
What is ally means means you will stand up for
somebody's sexual identity.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I mean what strikes me is and I'm writing a
series for the American Spectator starting in nineteen sixty looking
at how we evolve to the current situation. Well, what
struck me was that the growth of the civil rights movement,
ultimately joining in with the anti war movement during Vietnam,
(21:25):
and then along comes a sexual identity movement which becomes
its own massive force, and which in many ways is
now the most dynamic part of the Democratic Party and
many college campuses, the most dynamic part of defining what's legitimate?
Am I missing something here?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
You're absolutely right, because it's easy to destroy things. I
think that's the story of the French Revolution. It's really
easy to destroy things. What was great about the American
Revolution was we wanted to kick out the British, but
we really didn't want to have a reign of terror
(22:05):
after we won. Yes, some people left and went to England,
but we buy and large we avoided that. And you know,
new confusion about these terms. That's kind of why at
the end of the book we have the Newest speak Dictionary,
with a little nod to George Orwell, where we say, Okay,
you want to get the definitions of these things, you
(22:27):
can find them.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
It's easier to destroy than to build. Sam Rayburn, when
he was Speaker of the House, They've been a Texas farmer.
He used to say, you know, any jackass can knock
down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one. Yeah,
And I think we're in kind of that cycle where
what you have as a group of fanatics who for
(22:49):
some reason are collectively against Western civilization and against American civilization,
but don't actually have a coherent alternative and have come
together as kind of a coalition of the haters.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Yeah, and so I think that's going to be the
real challenge for we conservatives is the fact that we
look at the academic institutions and we're horrified by what
we see, and we know there needs to be a
remodel of the academic institutions, but it could be so
(23:24):
easy for us to destroy the academic institutions, and we
don't want to do that, I know very much. In conservatism,
there is the idea that, you know, let me just
go out on my own, and maybe I don't need college,
but I'm somebody who really advocates for education, while at
the same time saying a lot of what you're getting
(23:46):
in our current academic environment is not ultimately helpful to
you and your success in the future.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
We agree that there are things that are deeply profoundly
wrong with many of our institutions, and particularly with many
of our elite institutions. What's the solution.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Well, I think there's a couple things we can do.
First of all, we can rediscover the work of Martin
Luther King. Be judged by the content of your character,
not by immutable characteristics. Let's talk again about the meritocracy,
which allows anybody to rise. I think one of the
(24:40):
really interesting statistics I ran across in putting this book
together was to look at the number of hours that
students by racial groups spend on academic activities outside of
regular school hours. Asian kids spend about eleven hours on
(25:02):
average every week, Caucasian kids spend about eight hours, Hispanic
and Black kids spend about five and a half hours.
That's something real and specific. So what we can say is, okay,
let's have some measurements. You know, let's say to everybody,
(25:23):
all right, if you want to be a really superior student,
it looks like you need to be spending nine to
eleven hours a week outside of regular school activities doing
something intellectually stimulating. Well, that works out to about an
hour and a half a day. An hour and a
half a day is not that much. I mean you
(25:45):
could do thirty minutes a day during the week and
then you know, a couple hours on the weekend, and
so we need to be looking at what are the
strategies for success. The strategies for success is you obtaining
skills and hopefully stacking those skills in sort of a
(26:06):
talent stack, so that not only are you good at thinking,
you're good at reading, you're good at writing, you're good
at public speaking, you can convey information, you can get
people to understand what you're thinking and agree to a
common course of action. Those are the skills that are
(26:26):
necessary for success, not how we're all different, you know,
not that you know, oh my god, I'm a straight man,
you're a gay man, all this other sort of stuff.
It doesn't matter. And I think that's what was great
about David Johnson's perspective on it, because he says, Okay,
so I'm black and I'm gay. What does that have
anything to do with how well I package your product
(26:50):
so it arrives to the customer and it's not broken.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
If you could waive a magic one, how would you
actually reform Harvard.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
One of the things that I think is great is
the power of social media. Social media has driven clouting
Gay's resignation because the stupidity of what she said could
not survive social media attention. So what we need to
(27:22):
do is we need to actively engage with these academic leaders,
knowing that the mainstream media won't do its job. Social
media will do its job as well as the alumni donors.
When the alumni donors hear this nonsense coming from their schools,
(27:45):
they will rise up and take action. That's why I
think that this is a perfect model for what we
need to do all through twenty twenty four, and we
will have a cleaning house in academia and we will
hopefully have non crazy people at the head of these institutions.
(28:07):
And also what we're doing is we're educating the students.
So I think that's a really important thing to understand
because as much as we talk about the students being brainwashed, well,
to be young is also to be a bit rebellious.
So I think we need to activate the natural rebellion
in the young because I think that they're more open
(28:28):
to these ideas than we may think.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Which leaves me an idea I've had for a while,
but maybe too big a stretch. I think that we
ought to require that any school that receives federal aid
that any student the ones who can tape the class
they're in.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Yeah. I think that's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
Because that would automatically create a sense of outside observation,
and I think you would suddenly see a startling drift
back towards normalcy from faculty members who right now are
arrogant in their isolation.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
The left wing has opened that door for us because
they have obliterated people's privacy. They've gone after them for
all of these things, and so all we're asking for
is the same kind of openness with which they've gone
after our private lives. And we're saying, hey, look, if
(29:19):
you're saying something in the classroom, the students have a
right to make a copy of that to discuss what
you said. I mean, that's the idea of education, right
that we discussed these ideas, So why wouldn't we do that.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
The other problem is very different. I talked a lot
about there are five schools in Baltimore City high schools
in which not a single student can do math. That's
about twenty one or twenty two hundred students and not
one can do math. So the problem in higher education
is people are being taught, but they're being taught the
(29:55):
wrong things. The challenge in these large inner city unionized
public schools, they're just not learning. To me, that's a
crisis for our survival because you're not going to compete
with China with a workforce that is illiterate and incapable,
and you're not going to have citizens that can make
serious decisions if they have no ability to learn. How
(30:16):
would you deal with this substantial number of places where
literally no learning is occurring.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
I think you just need to call it an emergency
in those areas, let's figure out what to do. I mean,
and I think that you could get the local population
on that side, because parents want their kids to do
better than they did, and so I think that there's
a lot that's going on in these communities that can
(30:46):
be changed. I'll admit that it's very hard. I teach
in at school, which is a high performing school. I
don't quite see that population, so I may not have
the best view of that. But I think that you
can look at samples of schools that have been turned
around and there are some strategies you can use.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
I think the work you're doing is very very important.
This book could hardly be timelier. We're going to remind
all of our listeners that your new book The Diversity
Con The Secrets and Lies behind the Shady DEI Industry
is available in Amazon and in bookstores everywhere. And I
really want to thank you for joining me. I think
this is a very important contribution to what is becoming
(31:29):
a very big national debate.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Thank you very much, Nude.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Thank you to my guest, Kent Heckan Lively. You can
get a link to buy his new book, The Diversity
Con on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld
is produced by Gingriish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive
producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson.
The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley.
(31:57):
Special thanks to the team at Gingish three sixty. If
you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple
Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give
us a review so others can learn what it's all about.
Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my
three freeweekly columns at Gingrichtree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(32:18):
I'm NEWT Gingrich. This is news world,
On this episode of News World. Harvard President Claudine Gay
resigned from her position on Tuesday. Her departure comes just
six months after becoming Harvard's first black president. Did she
make mistakes in her testimony in Capitol Hill? As she
admits in her New York Times op ed published on
Wednesday entitled Clauding Gay, What just happened at Harvard is
(00:27):
bigger than me? She wrote, quote, Yes, I made mistakes.
She said her published work contained passages where some material
duplicated other scholars language without proper attribution. But she said
she never had claimed credit for this work, and she
stands by her original research. And at the December congressional
hearing that started the onslaughter criticism, she wrote, I neglected
(00:51):
to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish
people are abhorrent and unacceptable. Was Gay's ascension at heart
Harvard part of the larger diversity equity inclusion plan across
colleges and universities nationwide. In their new book, The Diversity
con David Johnson and Kent Heck and Lively take a
(01:13):
comprehensive look into how companies and schools are infiltrated and
radicalized by DEI theory. I'm really pleased to welcome my guest,
Kent Heckenlively. He is an attorney, science teacher, and New
York Times bestselling author. Kent, welcome, and thank you for
(01:40):
joining me on Newts World.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Thanks for having me nude. It's a great honor.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Well, and your book is so timely and so important.
Let's start, though, with the recent news that Harvard President
Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania President Liz McGill both
resigned and what that means. Harvard President Claudine Gay, University
of Pennsylvania president is Give mcgil and MIT president Sally
Cornbloth were questioned at the December fifth, twenty twenty two
(02:07):
House Committee on Education in the Workforce hearing unquote holding
campus leaders accountable and confronting anti Semitism. All three said
that it is context specific what is considered anti semitism.
Let's listen to some of that testimony.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Doctor Cornbloth at MIT, does calling for the genocide of
Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying
and harassment?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yes? Or no?
Speaker 4 (02:34):
You've targeted at individuals not making public statements?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does
not constitute bullying and harassment.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews
on our campus.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
Ms Migil at Penn, does calling for the genocide of
Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Or no.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yes, I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Does that constitute bullying harassment?
Speaker 4 (03:06):
If it is directed and severer pervasive, it is harassment.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
So the answer is yes.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
It is a context dependent decision.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Congresswoman, It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today.
Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context,
that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest
question to answer, Yes, Miss McGill.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
And Doctor Gay at Harvard, does calling for the genocide
of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (03:40):
Or no. It can be depending on the context.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
What's the context?
Speaker 5 (03:45):
Targeted as an individual, targeted at an individual, it's.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your
testimony is dehumanizing them. Do you understand that dehumanization is
part of antisseyemotism. I will ask you one more time.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules
of bullying and harassment?
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Or no?
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation,
that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide
of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Correct.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Again, it depends on the context.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes,
and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable
answers across the board.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
The congressional hearing started backlash from the public, including the university,
alumni and donors. Miguil was the first to resign on
de Summer ninth, following a call for her resignation from
the board of the Wharton Business School and the withdrawal
of a donor's one hundred million dollar gift to the university.
Harvard President Claudine resigned on January second, making her the
(05:04):
shortest Harvard president in history, only serving six months. And
I tell you, President Sally Cornbluth is now the only
president testified at the December sixth hearing who is still president.
Let me start with that. Do you think that her
resignation is imminent?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
I think it is, and I think what conservatives can
expect in twenty four is for a lot of scalps
to be taken. Now, this is not about vengeance, it's
about competence. These jobs in academia should be filled by
our very best people, and what DEI has done is
(05:40):
it has put some very mediocre people in these positions.
They're pushing dangerous ideas and it's harming our youth. And
that's why we need to stand up and demand that
these people reveal who they are, and if they are
not qualified for the job, we need to call for
(06:00):
their resignation.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I was a little surprised to see that in Gay's case,
the president of Harvard, she makes nine hundred thousand dollars
a year.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
She's still going to make nine hundred thousand dollars a
year as a professor there, and so I'm a little
bit concerned that even though she's resigning, this is just
shuffling her around and we're going to see her in
a top position once again, we need to make sure
that stuff stops.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Well and isn't there sort of an insider's club at
work here.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
One hundred percent. And that's why we need to keep
the focus and we need to keep the attention on
these people. We need to make sure that the people
who ascend to these positions are qualified. And one of
the things that kind of gets me is, you know,
I'm a person who loves academia. I love the intellectual life.
(06:54):
I love debates of about ideas, and the fact that
these people are so intolerant and are allowed to be
instructing our youth, they're creating an intolerance in our youth.
The anti semitism of the Ivy League is out of control,
(07:16):
as well as the anti Asian prejudice, as shown by
Harvard's categorical lowering of Asian American admission to their university.
Our country should be a meritocracy. A meritocracy is a
stable political system in which anybody can ascend. And when
(07:42):
they are pushing this DEI nonsense and saying there are
only certain immutable characteristics which render you capable of leadership,
that's an idea which needs to be confronted and defeated.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
What's fascinating about the resignation of President Claudingay and what
makes it, I think sort of a pivot point, is
that she actually was the kind of perfect product of
the DEI movement and the personification of Harvard's commitment to
placing diversity and inclusion over meritocracy and honesty. Could you
(08:23):
talk a little bit about how that occurred at Harvard
and how that movement became so dominant.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Well, this Dei philosophy is something that has been in
the works for years. So this is something that's grown
up over the past twenty thirty years, and so it's
not surprising that we're seeing kind of the flowering of
the DEI movement, and so it's in full flower, and
this is the time where they're supposed to show us
(08:52):
how wonderful they are, and it's just been a disaster.
So that's why we as conservatives need to confront this philosophy.
We need them to debate us in the public eye,
because when they do, the public will see the absolute
(09:12):
hollowness of this promise and how DEI is nothing less
than a civilization destroying idea.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
As early as October twenty fourth, the New York Post
sent twenty seven plagiarism allegations to Harvard, and they got
back a very blistering letter three days later from Thomas Claire,
who is counsel for both Gay personally and for Harvard,
which said the allegations were demonstrably false and said all
the examples were cited and properly credited. But then a
(09:44):
week later Harvard's investigation into the allegations began and it
only concluded on December ninth. And it seems to me
that as I read this, I we'll ask you to comment.
But over two dozen plagiarism charges were brought against her.
She allegedly lifted nearly half a page of material verbatim
in her two thousand and one article. In the article,
(10:06):
she borrowed four sentences from David Cannon's nineteen ninety nine
book Race, Redistricting and Representation without quotation marks or citations.
There are also complaints that she lifted for a nineteen
ninety six paper by Frank Gilliam. I mean they expelled
twenty seven underclassmen for plagiarism.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Yeah, and so you and I both write books. I've
written fifteen books. My books are known for having three
four hundred citations in them, because I am a stickler
for when it's somebody else's idea, I credit that idea.
And it is so personally offensive to hear that she
(10:45):
has that many allegations of plagiarism. And here I am.
You know, I'm a middle school science teacher who writes
books I know not to play drives. And the president
of Harvard being credibly accused of this and them seeming
to find her guilty. I just find appalling this woman
(11:07):
should be so far from any academic institution if she's
guilty of those charges.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
She's still in her New York Times article rejecting the idea.
In this New York Times op edsy she published on Wednesday,
which I think tells you a little bit about her ego.
It's entitled Claudine Gay, what just happened at Harvard is
bigger than me? And she wrote, I'm quoting, Yes, I
made mistakes. She said there was quote some material duplicated
(11:36):
other scholars language without proper attribution. Now can you imagine
if every undergraduate in the country adopted the without proper
attribution defense every time they were told that they were plagiarizing,
And of course, with the rise of modern artificial intelligence,
You're going to see more and more examples of term
papers written by computer. And now she said she never
(11:59):
claimed credit for others' work. She stands why our original research,
I mean, the arrogance implied. And this denial is amazing.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
In the regular world, Newt that's called a confession. It's
only in the IVY League that that's not a confession.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
And the Ivy League it is an explanation for why
she's going to remain powerful. And I was surprised that
she's apparently going to keep her nine hundred thousand dollars
a year salary even while she ceases to be president
and becomes just a faculty member.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
And this is why I think that conservatives need to
keep the attention on these people, because what the entire
DEI philosophy is doing is it's disempowering conservative voices, and
so we have to take back our power. We have
(12:53):
to stand up, we have to speak out, and we
need to demand answers to keep going. Because what happens
is that these people have lived in such an insular
world that when they come out to the public and
try to defend themselves, they look like idiots, and we
(13:15):
need to keep the pressure on these people. We need
these people to be exposed, and we need good people
in those positions. They don't have to be conservative, they
just have to not be crazy.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
I think crazy is a pretty good example. By the way,
she goes on to say, I love this re articulate.
She says in her New York Times peace quote. I
neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of
Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable. Now I believe that
at last Stefani, who did an amazing job in that hearing,
(13:52):
ask her seventeen times it's.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Not hard to say genocide is wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I watched in amazement. I thought, at least showed great
discipline and great restraint in just coming back and saying
again and again. So gay was given seventeen opportunities to
be clear yeah, and somehow turns it into I neglected
to clearly articulate. I've concluded that this woman is a racist,
(14:21):
she is dishonest, and she is stunningly arrogant, and that
it tells you about the system that promoted her that
she could get to be president.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Two tools that I think we need to use in
twenty twenty four are ridicule and contempt. We just need
to go there. We need to state what happened. How
is it that the president of Harvard could be asked
seventeen times to condemn genocide and she misses every single time. Okay,
(14:55):
you could get a plumber down the street. You only
need to ask him once. If he condemns genocide, he
knows the right answer. How can the president of Harvard
not know the answer.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
And write it off as a neglect? I neglected to
clearly articulate that level of latent dishonesty in itself is
I think condemnatory. Hi, this is newt. If you live
(15:29):
in California or you happen to be visiting, I'd like
to invite you to my two upcoming book events in January.
Killis and I are both going to be at the
Richard Nixon Library and Museum in yor Belunda on January
ninth at seven pm. Tickets are available now at Nixon
Foundation dot org. And Klist and I are both going
(15:49):
to be at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute
in Simi Valley on January tenth at five pm. Tickets
are available now at Reagan Foundation. I hope you'll join
us for a book signing and a talk and a
chance to get together and kick off the new year
at the Nixon Library and the Reagan Library. Let's talk
(16:20):
about your new book, The Diversity con which David Johnson
you wrote, because you really look at the whole way
in which this DEI has evolved. And I mentioned to
you a while ago a friend of mine had written
that we ought to rename it discrimination, exclusion and Intolerance.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Yeah, So David Johnson is a Project Veritas whistleblower. So
this is my fourth book that I've written with a
Project Veritas whistleblower. So I'm kind of becoming the unofficial
biographer of Project Veritas whistleblowers. So after millions of people
see the videos, they come to me and we do
a deep dive into it. And David Johnson is a
really interesting character because he's twenty six years old, describes
(17:00):
himself as left of center, and is gay, and he's
a packaging engineer and he was hired as a contract
employee for Hasbro and within the first week he's forced
to sit through one of these diversity trainings, and he
has the presence of mind to turn it on and
record it, and he's horrified by what he hears. What
(17:21):
he hears in this is that babies as young as
six months old can be racist. And he says to himself, look,
I'm a minority in this country. I've never felt discriminated against.
This is not the American which I grew up. So
he turns it over to James O'Keeffe, and when James
O'Keefe was at Project Veritas, it goes viral and he
(17:45):
goes through this journey of going to conservative conferences, being
warmly embraced and becomes obsessed with this Dei philosophy because
he considers it so harmful to the country. And so
that's when he hooks up with me. And what we
did was we had him go undercover at some of
(18:06):
these DEI events that are aimed at businesses, mostly in
educational institutions, to figure out how are they brainwashing people.
And it's really kind of interesting because as somebody yourself
Newe who's an academic, you know that there's a way
that you present information and you're trying to get people
(18:26):
to be intrigued by it. Let's say it's a three
day conference, the first day of the conference, you kind
of get a lot of interesting information, like you may
learn about the Tulsa Race riots, you know, where sixty
years after the end of slavery, a large number of
African Americans in Oklahoma had become pretty successful and their
(18:47):
community was burned to the ground. And so you say, oh,
that's really interesting, and so you feel a sense of
connection to the people giving you the information. Day two,
they present some more troubling ideas, but you know, still
within the bounds of reasonable thought. Day three is when
they go absolutely crazy. That's when they introduce the transagenda
(19:09):
and all sorts of weird ideas, basically saying, giving a
Marxist ideal that there's an oppressor and oppressed class. Now
where do you go with that? How can you be
only one of two things? I don't want to be
an oppressor and I don't want to be oppressed. But
(19:32):
that's what they set up as the dynamic in people's minds.
And you know, we also kind of do a deep
dive into how the Chinese had brainwashed American POWs in Korea,
and it's a real subtle form of brainwashing. It's first, Oh,
the history you think is true is wrong. Okay, so
(19:54):
the history is bad, then you are bad. Then hey,
but you can be I'm good if you do this,
and then I will break you of what you believe
about history. I will break you of what you believe
about yourself and then all create this new self. And
(20:14):
this is a terrifying idea, but you have to understand
how it's done. It doesn't start out with the crazy stuff.
It starts out with some interesting stuff that you know,
you and I would probably find to be compelling.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
It's a totally different world and one that I clearly
didn't grow up in. You say at one point that
in one of these classes, before you even saw the professor,
that with the backdrop of a rainbow flag, we were
presented with ally gay, intersex rights, human, lesbian, cisgender stereotype, asexual, free, homosexual, bisexual, transgender,
(20:54):
equal queer, sexism, identity, and LGBT.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
What is ally means means you will stand up for
somebody's sexual identity.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I mean what strikes me is and I'm writing a
series for the American Spectator starting in nineteen sixty looking
at how we evolve to the current situation. Well, what
struck me was that the growth of the civil rights movement,
ultimately joining in with the anti war movement during Vietnam,
(21:25):
and then along comes a sexual identity movement which becomes
its own massive force, and which in many ways is
now the most dynamic part of the Democratic Party and
many college campuses, the most dynamic part of defining what's legitimate?
Am I missing something here?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
You're absolutely right, because it's easy to destroy things. I
think that's the story of the French Revolution. It's really
easy to destroy things. What was great about the American
Revolution was we wanted to kick out the British, but
we really didn't want to have a reign of terror
(22:05):
after we won. Yes, some people left and went to England,
but we buy and large we avoided that. And you know,
new confusion about these terms. That's kind of why at
the end of the book we have the Newest speak Dictionary,
with a little nod to George Orwell, where we say, Okay,
you want to get the definitions of these things, you
(22:27):
can find them.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
It's easier to destroy than to build. Sam Rayburn, when
he was Speaker of the House, They've been a Texas farmer.
He used to say, you know, any jackass can knock
down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one. Yeah,
And I think we're in kind of that cycle where
what you have as a group of fanatics who for
(22:49):
some reason are collectively against Western civilization and against American civilization,
but don't actually have a coherent alternative and have come
together as kind of a coalition of the haters.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Yeah, and so I think that's going to be the
real challenge for we conservatives is the fact that we
look at the academic institutions and we're horrified by what
we see, and we know there needs to be a
remodel of the academic institutions, but it could be so
(23:24):
easy for us to destroy the academic institutions, and we
don't want to do that, I know very much. In conservatism,
there is the idea that, you know, let me just
go out on my own, and maybe I don't need college,
but I'm somebody who really advocates for education, while at
the same time saying a lot of what you're getting
(23:46):
in our current academic environment is not ultimately helpful to
you and your success in the future.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
We agree that there are things that are deeply profoundly
wrong with many of our institutions, and particularly with many
of our elite institutions. What's the solution.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Well, I think there's a couple things we can do.
First of all, we can rediscover the work of Martin
Luther King. Be judged by the content of your character,
not by immutable characteristics. Let's talk again about the meritocracy,
which allows anybody to rise. I think one of the
(24:40):
really interesting statistics I ran across in putting this book
together was to look at the number of hours that
students by racial groups spend on academic activities outside of
regular school hours. Asian kids spend about eleven hours on
(25:02):
average every week, Caucasian kids spend about eight hours, Hispanic
and Black kids spend about five and a half hours.
That's something real and specific. So what we can say is, okay,
let's have some measurements. You know, let's say to everybody,
(25:23):
all right, if you want to be a really superior student,
it looks like you need to be spending nine to
eleven hours a week outside of regular school activities doing
something intellectually stimulating. Well, that works out to about an
hour and a half a day. An hour and a
half a day is not that much. I mean you
(25:45):
could do thirty minutes a day during the week and
then you know, a couple hours on the weekend, and
so we need to be looking at what are the
strategies for success. The strategies for success is you obtaining
skills and hopefully stacking those skills in sort of a
(26:06):
talent stack, so that not only are you good at thinking,
you're good at reading, you're good at writing, you're good
at public speaking, you can convey information, you can get
people to understand what you're thinking and agree to a
common course of action. Those are the skills that are
(26:26):
necessary for success, not how we're all different, you know,
not that you know, oh my god, I'm a straight man,
you're a gay man, all this other sort of stuff.
It doesn't matter. And I think that's what was great
about David Johnson's perspective on it, because he says, Okay,
so I'm black and I'm gay. What does that have
anything to do with how well I package your product
(26:50):
so it arrives to the customer and it's not broken.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
If you could waive a magic one, how would you
actually reform Harvard.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
One of the things that I think is great is
the power of social media. Social media has driven clouting
Gay's resignation because the stupidity of what she said could
not survive social media attention. So what we need to
(27:22):
do is we need to actively engage with these academic leaders,
knowing that the mainstream media won't do its job. Social
media will do its job as well as the alumni donors.
When the alumni donors hear this nonsense coming from their schools,
(27:45):
they will rise up and take action. That's why I
think that this is a perfect model for what we
need to do all through twenty twenty four, and we
will have a cleaning house in academia and we will
hopefully have non crazy people at the head of these institutions.
(28:07):
And also what we're doing is we're educating the students.
So I think that's a really important thing to understand
because as much as we talk about the students being brainwashed, well,
to be young is also to be a bit rebellious.
So I think we need to activate the natural rebellion
in the young because I think that they're more open
(28:28):
to these ideas than we may think.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Which leaves me an idea I've had for a while,
but maybe too big a stretch. I think that we
ought to require that any school that receives federal aid
that any student the ones who can tape the class
they're in.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Yeah. I think that's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
Because that would automatically create a sense of outside observation,
and I think you would suddenly see a startling drift
back towards normalcy from faculty members who right now are
arrogant in their isolation.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
The left wing has opened that door for us because
they have obliterated people's privacy. They've gone after them for
all of these things, and so all we're asking for
is the same kind of openness with which they've gone
after our private lives. And we're saying, hey, look, if
(29:19):
you're saying something in the classroom, the students have a
right to make a copy of that to discuss what
you said. I mean, that's the idea of education, right
that we discussed these ideas, So why wouldn't we do that.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
The other problem is very different. I talked a lot
about there are five schools in Baltimore City high schools
in which not a single student can do math. That's
about twenty one or twenty two hundred students and not
one can do math. So the problem in higher education
is people are being taught, but they're being taught the
(29:55):
wrong things. The challenge in these large inner city unionized
public schools, they're just not learning. To me, that's a
crisis for our survival because you're not going to compete
with China with a workforce that is illiterate and incapable,
and you're not going to have citizens that can make
serious decisions if they have no ability to learn. How
(30:16):
would you deal with this substantial number of places where
literally no learning is occurring.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
I think you just need to call it an emergency
in those areas, let's figure out what to do. I mean,
and I think that you could get the local population
on that side, because parents want their kids to do
better than they did, and so I think that there's
a lot that's going on in these communities that can
(30:46):
be changed. I'll admit that it's very hard. I teach
in at school, which is a high performing school. I
don't quite see that population, so I may not have
the best view of that. But I think that you
can look at samples of schools that have been turned
around and there are some strategies you can use.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
I think the work you're doing is very very important.
This book could hardly be timelier. We're going to remind
all of our listeners that your new book The Diversity
Con The Secrets and Lies behind the Shady DEI Industry
is available in Amazon and in bookstores everywhere. And I
really want to thank you for joining me. I think
this is a very important contribution to what is becoming
(31:29):
a very big national debate.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
Thank you very much, Nude.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Thank you to my guest, Kent Heckan Lively. You can
get a link to buy his new book, The Diversity
Con on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld
is produced by Gingriish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive
producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson.
The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley.
(31:57):
Special thanks to the team at Gingish three sixty. If
you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple
Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give
us a review so others can learn what it's all about.
Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my
three freeweekly columns at Gingrichtree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(32:18):
I'm NEWT Gingrich. This is news world,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.