My column revealing the sweetheart deal Arkansas State University gave private entity Cobblestone to sell liquor on campus disturbed Jeff Hankins, the Vice President for Strategic Communications and Economic Development for the Arkansas State University System.
1. Hankins' first response to my exposé that Cobblestone receives all the profits from campus-alcohol sales in exchange for paying ASU $10/year was the non sequitur that Craighead County only grants private entities liquor licenses. But the business form isn't my concern. The money is.
ASU could receive any portion of the alcohol-sales profits. ASU gets none.
Rather, Cobblestone transfers its profits to the Red Wolves private-athletics foundation, and, critically, only after skimming off most of the money to pay expenses in a shell game of public-money hand-offs through which only the detritus subsidizes ASU's generous coaching salaries and other athletic interests. None goes to academics.
2. Prior to my previous column, Hankins responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with a spreadsheet listing Cobblestone's "total net revenue after taxes" as $788,950. When I requested records breaking down Cobblestone's operating expenses, Hankins said he didn't have any.
Now, Hankins laments that the figure he provided--with the label "total net revenue after taxes"--isn't profit. However, the business-law textbook from which I teach graduate school states: "'Gross' means total revenue, 'net' means profit--revenue minus the costs of earning it." Words matter, even simple ones.
More interestingly, after I published my column and continued to seek records, Hankins wrote: "At my request Thursday, [Cobblestone] voluntarily--not as a matter of Arkansas FOIA--agreed to send me a summary of its revenue and expenses."
Don't you love how Cobblestone--housed on campus with a sweetheart alcohol-sales deal--isn't subject to the FOIA (according to ASU) when I initially asked for its operating expenses, but after my exposé, ASU was able to turn over to me those very same records? It all sounds very "arm's length," doesn't it?
Then Hankins reveals that of the $357,460 Cobblestone received in alcohol profits, it skimmed off almost $200,000 for insurance, licensing, office and legal expenses--even though yet another private company, Sodexo, actually sells the alcohol. The remaining $152,500 went to the foundation with the intention of some percentage going to beneficiaries. But how much did the foundation skim off for its own operating expenses?
In the end, how much money went to the beneficiaries after this daisy-chain of private entities passed it around?
3. Regarding ASU's public venues being private clubs, Hankins asserts they operate legally. A private-club public-facility entitled to exclude non-members sounds to me like a Kosher bacon cheeseburger. (If only!)
4. Hankins is concerned that--notwithstanding many media reports about my gun-access lawsuits--you might not know I represent a patriot, Chris Corbitt, suing ASU for illegally relying on the Cobblestone contract to prevent armed concealed-carry licensees into ASU venues. If you're unaware, I'm sorry. (My argument before the Arkansas Supreme Court on guns in courthouses is available on YouTube.)
5. Finally, Hankins references my discussion of ASU's squelching of student Ashlyn Hoggard's membership-solicitation efforts for Charlie Kirk's conservative Turning Point USA because Hoggard wasn't in a "free-speech" zone on campus. I described ASU's opposition to State Sen. Dan Sullivan's original (outdoor) free-speech bill, born from the Hoggard affair, and subsequent proposals to extend free-speech guarantees indoors.
Hankins disputes that ASU opposed Sullivan's original legislation. Let's see.
Bowen Law School professor Josh Silverstein said: "ASU's opposition to the [original free-speech on-campus] Act resulted in the bill's sponsors organizing a meeting involving ASU's chief counsel, Rob Steinbuch, and me. Although Steinbuch and I have opposite political views, we both were asked to advise legislators on the bill. ASU had a litany of concerns. The bill was modified to address some but certainly not all." Thereafter, Sullivan asked ASU to support the bill. ASU never did.
ASU also claims it prevailed in the litigation Hoggard instituted after ASU trampled her free-speech rights, notwithstanding that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reiterated the circuit court's conclusion that ASU's "policy of restricting speech around the student union was unconstitutional." ASU did avoid paying Hoggard due to qualified immunity. Some win, huh?
Finally, Hankins asserts that Sullivan's 2021 bill to extend free speech indoors interfered with "[s]tudents['] ... right to be educated without unlawful disruptions." Let's see.
The bill read: "A member of the campus community who wants to engage in noncommercial expressive activity ... shall be permitted to do so freely ... if the individual's conduct: (1) Is not unlawful; and (2) Does not materially and substantially disrupt ... the functioning of the state-supported institution of higher education."
Does ASU condone this Maoist double-speak? Hasn't Arkansas had enough of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"?
Sullivan's indoor-campus free-speech bill (SB125) is before the Legislature now. Call your legislators and tell them you want free speech in our schools, and come hear a free-speech forum including Sullivan, Hoggard, Silverstein and me at 6 p.m. Monday at Bowen Law School.
This is your right to know.
Robert Steinbuch, professor of law at the Bowen Law School, is a Fulbright Scholar and author of the treatise "The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act." His views do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.