The Reporter Who Brings Down Harvard Presidents ft. Aaron Sibarium

Hey, everybody.

Charlie Kirk here, live from the Bitcoin.com studio.

Aaron Sebarium from Washington Free Beacon.

Boy, this is a really illuminating conversation about DEI and medicine, about how your anesthesiologist 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 tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com.

Buckle up, everybody.

Here we go.

Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.

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 Siberian.

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 has this 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, abolish the police.

And this was in 2014, mind you.

So kind of a little before.

It was before Michael Brown.

It was a, yeah, I think it was before.

Before Brown was 15, if I'm not.

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, resolved that Socrates deserved 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's 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 2.5th 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

really, 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 absolutely, 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 of Wisconsin-Madison, no offense to them.

But this is the pipeline for our nation's decision makers to be able to do that.

Right, right.

There was the South Park episode that kind of made fun of you a little.

Yeah.

It was great.

No, it was great.

Well, but 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 begins.

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.

Yeah, which is horrifying because so many of them are now in places of power.

Has it gotten worse or better since 2014 at Yale?

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 Soviet 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 Man in Yale.

I think that was the title.

Yeah.

Where, for our audience that 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 feel the n-ed where someone says,

I wrote down like that, 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 illegal?

Yeah, I mean, that's obviously, I mean, we could have an 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

pretend to believe it.

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 paper's position.

And we would have meetings where we would decide what the paper's position should be.

And during the meeting, 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 verbatim to me.

So much of this is just third grade peer pressure that just gets elevated to.

And that's

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 watch that most of them.

Right, which

then could name their names earlier.

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 don't want to spend too much time on this, but what they do on 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 202021, early 2022 about the effort to ration COVID drugs based on race.

Right here.

It's one of your best, by the way.

You 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 we're 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 scientific 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 did it 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 clear 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.

Yes.

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 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 monoclotal 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're not.

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 page on it, but

this parasitic ideology, whatever you 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 what 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, and 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

the check whatever boxes they're told to check.

And unlike, say, law, which has its own problems, but at least in law, you know, when 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.

WhyReFi refinances distressed 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.

WhyReFi 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, YReFi is surely your best option.

Go to YRefi.com.

You can even skip a payment every six months of the 12 times without penalty.

Go to yrefi.com.

That is why FY.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.

YReFi offers a three-minute rate check without any credit impact.

Go to yrefy.com.

That's whyrefi.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, though?

Well, no, probably not.

And that's because, I mean, this is not a racist thing to say, but black Americans tend to be more overweight in the 40s or 50s, especially black women than their counterparts.

So that's just

statistical factors.

Yes, yes.

And there's also probably difference.

I mean, there's also class differences, right?

Of course.

And I'm not judging.

Yeah, like 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 the 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, but I...

The whole premise is so cynicism.

Yes, right.

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.

didn't even do accomplish its desired goal.

80%

or 90%.

Right, right.

10% are like Polynesian.

I mean, they have like very small black populations.

Yeah.

I mean, they're, 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.

Well, so in the experience, 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 Trovamab?

That's one of the monoclonal analyses.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, okay, got it.

So you report this,

which is just obviously like a ridiculous violation of the Civil Rights Act, right?

Which has its problems, but, and then they back off.

And Minnesota and Utah health, 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, you know, public schools in red states.

That is not true.

There's a great, another journalist named John Saylor who's done really good FOIA work

FOIAing 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 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 into all of them, right?

Is that

what?

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 the NFL, but you also have to control our monoclonal antibody distribution.

Right.

It's almost a

Islamic ummah.

You know, the ummah 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 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.

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, it just 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 yes can you comment on that yes I think that's a big problem so for for many years you know although quotas were officially outlawed there was this concept called disparate impact which was that if you do a kind of race-blind test employment test but it has a disparate impact you know more uh whites than blacks pass the test then

the test unless you can prove like beyond a reasonable doubt basically that it is sort of in essential, that it is

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

liability,

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 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 discrimination.

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 B, 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.

Not knowing anything.

That's what one of them told me almost verbatim.

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.

Oh, wearing MAGA hats.

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

right right and they were failing these things called the the shelf exams which you take after each clinical rotation there were some

cohorts where like 50% of the kids would fail and that that had never happened before it 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 to explain, but 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 you also see that the overall failure rate goes from like very low to something closer to like 20 or 25 percent.

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 what those statistics are capturing.

What are the implications of this?

I mean, well, you know, the obvious one is, well,

you know, someone

crew and then they take out your appendix, your kidneys out of your appendix.

Yeah, you know, that's the kind 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 see, 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 care.

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 Sinai.

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 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 classes 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 mediocritization 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 of Nature fruit and veggie supplements on a shelf 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 vegan-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 limited time, a free bottle of fiber and spice.

Go to balanceinature.com, use discount code Charlie.

So order online at balanceinnature.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 this.

Led by Lucero, who you introduced earlier in the piece,

she also serves, or I think it's she,

I think it's she, right?

As the vice chair of the equity, diversity, and inclusion of UCLA's anesthesiology department.

Yes.

So let me misunderstand this.

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 have 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 steel man.

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 anesthesiologist will murder the black woman.

Maybe we have implicit bias, and so if we don't correct the implicit biases, we won't really get the most qualified anesthesiologists.

Yeah, look, like, it's silly.

It's silly.

It 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 the black woman they're about to put under.

And so, you know, she needs someone that knows the struggle of being a black woman.

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.

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 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, wow, we already have enough white people.

And

I think that ultimately was reversed.

But still, I mean, she was explicitly saying we should, you know, move the rank of different candidates around based on race.

And the residents would be actually performing anesthesiology.

Yeah, I just, again, of all the places that have a 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 it.

If anything other than making sure the patient wakes up is the mission statement of anesthesiology department,

no good.

After a Native American applicant was rejected in 2021, Luchero 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 anesthesiology 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 are some rainbows.

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

violence.

Right.

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 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 this progressive pseudosciences.

It's literally like mysticism.

It's not a good defense.

They shouldn't have done that either.

Again,

we can make fun of it.

We should.

God forbid Peep, someone's going to die because of this, and people die all the time under general aesthetesia.

Again, anesthesiology, one is someone who's gone under anesthesiology a couple times, like it's no joke.

In the anesthesiology department, where Luchero 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 Dylan 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, and that's 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 commentary.

I'm just reading.

Right.

Narliky.

No, yeah.

It's not a comment you could imagine being said about any other group.

Nor should it be said about any of you.

Yeah, of course.

No, of course, of course, of course.

She told doctors, 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.

Yeah.

Oh, nice.

She told doctors who voiced concern that they had no right to have an opinion because they were not BIPOC.

For people listening on radio or podcasting, that is not a Star Wars character.

What is BIPOC?

It stands for Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color.

People of color.

Yeah.

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 you might be a white man.

That's according to the admissions.

The admissions directly.

That is what she's saying.

Yeah, honestly, this is like real life horrifying if people have to get medical care in the UCLA system.

The focus on racial diversity has coincided with a dramatic shift in racial and ethnic composition of medical school, where the number of Asian matriculants fell by almost a third by 2019-2022, according to publicly available data.

No other elite medical school in California saw a similar decline.

Yeah, I think that's true.

Maybe there there was one that 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.

But so like, I mean, look, I need to just voice this.

If we're all so afraid of being called a racist, is it conceivable that just a, again, this says a third to a 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.

Yeah, I mean, look, and the way, and I would say, too, you know, the way also 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.

I totally agree.

You know, gets

looking at you, right?

I mean, if you're a super qualified black applicant, 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 that took down claudine gay in addition to a least stephonic 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.

So

in high school and then in college, they really would say, just, you know, if it's more than a few words, right, you know, even if it's not verbatim, but it's paraphrased, 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?

You know, 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,

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 patterns, because she's gone now,

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, those are, you know, 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

to get published in the Harvard Law Review, you have to have like half of your authors be

basically,

there's this initial stage.

That's our.

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

everything that remains is subject to this additional screen where

some editor reads it and kind of writes a short memo.

And 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

the racial diversity of the sources cited.

racial, gender, all kinds of diversity.

What if you have a really good citation from a white man?

You're at your quota?

Yeah, I mean,

they would literally say things like, they would literally say things like,

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

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 penalize 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 because often, right, the immediate response is, oh, you're making it up or you're exaggerating.

And I just, look,

you can look at the entire branch of documents, right?

You know, you judge for yourself.

And so

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 employs 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 pre-born.

There are 24,836 kindergartners starting school this month who wouldn't be alive today if it hadn't been for what pre-born did in 2019.

That's how many babies were saved that 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 or five or hundreds, it's just a phone call or click away.

Join me now by saving babies.

It's 833-850-2229.

I'm a donor to pre-born and you should be too.

Or click on the pre-born banner right now at charliekirk.com.

That is the pre-born banner 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 aberrant.

How much of it is put in writing may vary depending 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 in every part of university decision making.

And your reporting's so good I mean this 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 they're debating who to publish okay 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 what before I go any further what does it take to become an editor 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.

Keep going.

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 just...

Of antitrust law.

Yes, and it's like...

This is just

a lot of people.

This is a 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.

Yeah, I mean, feminist analysis of antitrust law is almost going to be like the conservative position in 10 years.

I was going to say, right?

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 who 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 toe 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 ways.

Well,

they've lost all credibility.

Yeah, I know.

I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think they have the benefit of that.

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, talking 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.

But I think 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

worldview is bad on the merits and should be rejected, right?

And we don't want to reinforce its premises.

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,

it's not why anti-Semitism is rising, but it's not helping.

It does not help.

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

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.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: 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, that's not,

well, first of all, you can't make ideologies illegal because of the First Amendment.

But let me, here's, here's the, the, the other

comeback 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 seen, framed as an example of maybe, maybe not even anti-Semitism, but insensitivity.

And they spend all this time talking about it.

Okay.

I don't know.

It's kind of a silly...

Yeah, it's not really

anti-Semitism.

It's also, for one, 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.

River to the sea

will be found.

Zionists deserve to die, right?

That's what actually was at issue, not someone being a little insensitive about whether or not you organize an event or

a code, right?

That's not the problem.

But then the other key thing to see is that this training was facilitated by a diversity 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 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 the students.

Well, you know, when you're trying to block classes, right?

Like, of course, that's illegal.

You know, pull the visas.

I mean, the whole thing is just ridiculous.

Yeah, there's all sorts of levers you can use, but, 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 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 in America totals about $300 billion.

About $45 billion of that is labeled as distressed.

WhyReFi refinances distressed 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 YReFi.com.

YReFi 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, YReFi is surely your best option.

Go to YReFi.com.

You can even skip a payment every six months of the 12 times without penalty.

Go to whyRefi.com.

That is YREFY.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.

YReFi offers a three-minute rate check without any credit impact.

Go to yrefy.com.

That's whyrefi.com.

Why 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 phylo-Semitic 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-millenarian like

idiot eschatology in which there was sort of this idea that like it was important to support Israel because the end of days was imminent.

I should say I am Jewish, so I don't know.

No, you just said it better than

Jesus.

I'm not, I'm not, you know, I'm not an expert on this stuff.

Pre-trib, pre-millennial theology.

And I think a lot of 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 at 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.

But yeah, you know, I have to say, 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 rots the brain yeah trying to even

you're you're trying to explain the thought process of

you know the the the logic of something that is fundamentally irrational I mean it is not logical so it can be hard in some ways to to provide a rational explanation but I will 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 an oppressor, oppression-oppressed

dynamic.

The assumption that Israelis are white and the Palestinians are brown.

Correct.

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

one of the darkest skins.

We'll go meet a Misrahi right now.

But you see even Ethiopian Jews who have some of the darkest skin

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, and on the left, 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, 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 you know, an obscure government position with the an entire political party or with the entire country, certainly, right?

I think that's that's a problem.

Um

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 they're you know they're to go back to the anti-Semitism training, there's this this impulse to say, well, anti-Semitism, it's another ism, frame 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 it's self-defeating.

Yeah.

And I think, and I think Israel is actually like a very cool country.

And if they talked 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, you know, if you think about how to reach like young men who are turning right, send them to the Tel Aviv for a weekend.

Yeah, well, no, yeah.

It probably would make them 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, you're a bigot for X, Y, or 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 know.

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 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,

you're going to lose people.

You know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of people.

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.

I think there needs to be a little bit of allowance there.

Yeah.

But, like, 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 Krav Maga lessons.

Kravmaga 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 gold rhetoric, right?

Don't 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 see, think Israel and they think, oh, cool fighting system that teaches us how to defend ourselves against criminals.

It's like, okay, that's the kind of message that

a young 18, 20-year-old guy is going to like, right?

Yes.

And the more they understand Islam, the better Israel looks too.

They have no idea what Israel's up against, right?

Which is these Islamic barbarian monsters.

Yeah.

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.

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.

That's

fundamentally

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 has 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 phylo-Semitic consensus for granted.

It's a new terrain.

Yeah, and you know, like, probably

not the worst thing for Jews to learn is in self-defense,

unfortunately.

How can people follow you, support you, look at your work?

I'm on Twitter at Aaron Severium.

I write for the Washington Free Beacon.

Which is great, by the way.

Yeah.

I do important work.

Talk a little bit about that.

Oh, yeah, sure.

So

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.

Yeah, and I think for young people interested,

it's the most important thing.

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

it's not impossible to be influential as an opinion columnist.

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 investigating.

There's so many unreported stories in this country.

And to be honest,

it's it's not all that hard.

It's not all that hard to do.

It takes a little work, but 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 Peel at Surprises, you would have got one, especially for the Monoclona antibody story.

Thank you.

Aaron Siberian, 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 charliekirk.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.