
Loading summary
Stephen A. Smith
At&t has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed in a world where nothing is guaranteed, AT T is bringing something new to the table. AT T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity. You can depend on deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn more@att.com guarantee@t connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.com. for details.
Ryan
It is Ryan here and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like are you a fist pumper? A woohooer? A hand clapper? A high fiver? If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly plus free daily bonuses. So don't wait. Start having the most Fun ever@shumbacasino.com no.
Stephen A. Smith
Purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21/ Terms and conditions apply now it's time for me to get into some political talk due to a headline that I just saw yesterday that I found very, very interesting. Far right conservative Candace Owens is speaking out against one of her favorite people in the world, supposedly Mr. President Donald Trump himself, and accusing the administration of fighting against free speech right here in the United States of America. The comments are a reference to Harvard University, who is suing the Trump administration for threatening to withhold federal funding if the school did not comply with its list of White House demands. As a result, lawyers for the university sued the administration earlier this week. In the suit, university lawyer claimed the Trump administration is unlawfully using billions of dollars in federal funding as, quote, leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard, end quote. They also allege that the funding freeze violates the First Amendment and flouts federal law. And that is essentially what Owens is saying as well. Take a listen to her thoughts from her podcast yesterday.
Candace Owens
I never thought that I would see a day where I would be rooting for a university above Donald J. Trump and his administration, but I don't recognize his administration right now. I don't recogn what's happening. I have a theory. I do. We were kicking around some theories earlier, me and the team, and we were going what? How could Trump be such a free speech enthusiast and being allowing these things to happen, going after college universities trying to suppress speech while pretending that you're not suppressing speech while pretending that you're fighting dei. It's so messy it's so obvious everyone knows what you're doing. People who are still trying to grift, I get, I suppose, are not willing to challenge you on this, which is ridiculous, because when you are out of office, we are going to have to live with these consequences. Our children are going to have to grow up in this America. Okay? So when you threaten our speech, it's not worth it. So that we can have pom poms and go hurrah for a couple of years, then go, okay, well, yeah, now it kind of stinks because, oh, we're getting arrested for wrong. Think we got David Friedman. Yeah, arrest them. Arrest Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Get them. I love it. And if you think it's gonna stop with college campuses, you're out of your mind. So you better buck up and root for Harvard University in this fight.
Stephen A. Smith
See, it's moments like this that when the show is over and I go home and I have an opportunity to look at some content and then I see the comments that come in my direction, one of the things that grates my last damn nerves is when everybody's acting like, oh, I'm flip flopping or I'm timid or I'm scared to take a position. No, ladies and gentlemen, there's something to be said about exercising common sense, not living on the fringes or the extreme, and deducing that both sides can actually make sense. Because that's what we're going to do here. First off, to stop the presses and disappoint some of y'all, Candace Owens is not totally wrong. The President of the United States knows that Harvard receives billions of dollars in funding. He knows this, that last year, in fiscal year 2024, Harvard got 600 million in taxpayer dollars for fiscal year 2024. Now this is an institution with an endowment exceeding $53.2 billion. And so when you hear stuff like the President is trying to impose his will on the country's oldest university, accusing it of engaging in anti Semitism along with other things, wanting them to eradicate DEI programs, how far fetched is it to deduce that he's trying to control speech? He's trying to control what institutions of higher learning are actually teaching and disseminating to the masses, how far fetched is it to say that the present President of the United States of America, the 47th president, who campaigned on a lot of this stuff, is keeping his word yet again, albeit to the chagrin of millions of tens of millions of American citizens throughout the United States of America? It's not far fetched. And when Candace Owens sit up there and says, be alert, be alarmed, because if they get away with this, if you're not rooting for Harvard on this and the federal government and the Trump administration is successful in muzzling or dictating, dare I say, the kind of education that a university like Harvard is allowed to impart upon its student body. If they get away with that, one could easily argue it does interfere with free speech. Remember, Harvard University just sued the federal government this past Monday after Trump threatened to pull $9 billion in federal funding unless the school agreed to a set of demands that included broad changes to its admissions, its discipline, and its management policies. I'm reading from the story right here. The Trump administration says its actions, which include a threat to revoke Harvard's tactics, tax exempt status, or a response to unchecked antisemitism on campus. Remember, just a few weeks ago or a few days ago, Trump threw out two tweets. One, he said, perhaps Harvard should lose its tax exempt status and be taxed as a political entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological and terrorist inspired, supporting sickness. Remember, tax exempt status is totally contingent on acting in the public interest. Before that, Trump had said this about Harvard. Harvard is an anti semitic, far left institution, as are numerous others with students being accepted from all over the world that want to rip our country apart. The place is a liberal mess. Allowing a certain group of crazed lunatics to enter and exit the classroom and spew fake anger and hate. It is truly horrific. Now, since our filings began, they act like they are, quote, all American apple pie, end quote. Harvard is a threat to democracy with a lawyer who represents me, who should therefore be forced to resign immediately or be fired. He's not that good anyway. And I hope that my very big and beautiful company, now run by my sons, get rid of him asap. There's a word other than anger and hate to bring into this equation. And the word to bring into this equation is liberal. Why? Because Trump, although one would argue he's not necessarily a conservative, in the same breath, to me he is. Because you ran with the gop. You won representing that ideological body, and on top of it all, you put three conservatives on the Supreme Court, basically registering the 6:3 majority. So again, you are conservative. Why does that liberal. Why was the word liberal throw me aback a little bit? I'd love to hear if Trump feels the way that Hillsdale College runs its operations as a conservative institution. How about Liberty University in Virginia? Hillsdale is in Michigan, by the way. How about Grove City College in Pennsylvania? How about Texas A and M University, a large public university with a strong military tradition and conservative student base? That's Texas A and M. How about Brigham Young University? That's just naming a few. Patrick Henry College of Virginia, University of Dallas in Texas, Pepperdine University. These are institutions that some would say are conservative. I'm saying it shouldn't matter. If you feel that way about liberal institutions, why are you not feeling the same way about conservative institutions? If you felt that way about both on either side of the ideological bar, then there's no argument. The problem is it only seems to be one side that's problematic. Now, that's Stephen A. On this side. Let me go to this side and bring this point up, because we like to be fair on this show. When we've seen some of the actions taking place on some of these campuses, it has looked like anger and hate. There's no way around that. When we think about speech, we don't talk much about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We don't talk much about when Hamas or members of Hamas stormed into Israel and kidnapped and ultimately murdered hundreds, if not thousands of people. We don't talk about that. Nor have we talked about the fact that even though you want to go after any terrorist organization because no terrorist organization is a good organization, the flip side to it is that you have a lot of people out there lamenting the fact that innocent women and children are being harmed, if not killed, in the Gaza Strip and beyond. And that's where some of the protesters on these college campuses come from. I'm not taking a side. I don't know enough. I didn't bring that up for that reason. I brought it up because that's what folks on the right are saying. And they're accusing some of our prestigious universities, like Harvard, like Columbia and others in the United States of America of fostering thoughts of anti Semitism, building tents on campuses, blocking students from getting their education, pointing out Zionists when they see them, and impeding the ability to learn peacefully. Now, when the right brings that up, what do you say? I don't know. I'm simply saying that's the reason we got to watch the outcome of this case. Because if Trump wins this case, even though he's highlighting liberal institutions which will be alarming and concerning in and of itself, because we know he's going to favor the right over the left, he's going to leave some other institutions alone while he bothers others. It's problematic because there's a bigger, grander issue Here, if he wins the case, then guess what? He's showing an ability to impede upon one's right to the First Amendment, which is free speech. And if he could pull that off, what can he do to anybody that opens their mouth and dissents in any way that is displeasing to him, what will he do then? We don't know. But it's scary. It is scary. My thing is, we also have to be mindful that when somebody brings up the fact that Harvard received $686 million in taxpayer money for fiscal year 2024, when they ask the question on the right, why does an institution with an endowment of over $53 billion, which is the largest in this country, why do they need taxpayer dollars close to 700 million of our money? That is a legitimate question. I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm not saying that it doesn't benefit our society, considering the students and the quality of the students that emanate from places like Harvard and Columbia and come out into American society and make a contribution to this country. I'm simply saying it's a legitimate question. This is not, Stephen A. Casting the spurs. It's a casting judgment. You have some folks on the right that believe some of these universities are engaging in anti Semitism and beyond, which is what Trump articulated. You got Candace Owens, a renowned Trump supporter, unapologetically so, suddenly going against the administration because she says they're impeding on free speech. Which side do you roll on and why? You want me to give y'all a piece of advice on this subject? Bump the individuals. Don't think about Donald Trump. Don't think about Candace Owens. Think about the issue. Think about the potential policy, not the people. Because if you really, really think about what has ailed our society, that's really what it comes down to. We don't like him or her. We love him or her. And that's what the issue is. And a lot of times our emotions are dictated by, by people we do or don't like, as opposed to the actual policy and issues that will affect lives far extended beyond ourselves. This is one of those times. Candace Owens is bringing up the issue of free speech. And Donald Trump, who she has supported for years, is challenging Harvard's right to do whatever it wants as an institution of higher learning, which, by the way, is a private institution. Who's right, who's wrong? The courts will decide. And if the courts decide that Donald Trump is right, Candace Owens is arguing that the courts will be giving him the right to impede on free speech not just for institutions of higher learning, but for American citizens all over this nation. Is she right or is he right? Inquiring minds would love to hear what you think. That's why you gotta watch this. I know I am. Oh I know I am.
Ryan
AT&T has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed. Like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed in a world where Nothing is guaranteed. AT&T is bringing something new to the table. AT&T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on, deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn more@att.com guarantee@&t connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.comguarantee for details. Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores automate allowance and keep an eye on what your kids are spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight Risk free today@greenlight.com iheartra.
The Stephen A. Smith Show: Detailed Episode Summary
Episode Title: Stephen A's Take: Candace Owens Turns on Trump Over Free Speech Crackdown
Release Date: April 26, 2025
Host: Stephen A. Smith
Producer: iHeartPodcasts
In this episode of The Stephen A. Smith Show, host Stephen A. Smith delves into a significant political development involving Candace Owens, a prominent far-right conservative commentator, and former President Donald Trump. The discussion centers around Owens' unexpected criticism of Trump, specifically accusing his administration of undermining free speech in the United States.
Stephen A. Smith begins by outlining the backdrop of the current controversy. He explains that Harvard University has initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The administration purportedly threatened to withhold federal funding unless Harvard complied with a set of White House demands related to academic policies, admissions, discipline, and management.
Smith highlights the university's stance, noting that Harvard lawyers argue the Trump administration is "unlawfully using billions of dollars in federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making" (01:30). They further claim that this funding freeze violates the First Amendment and federal laws.
Transitioning to Owens' perspective, Smith references her recent podcast episode where she voiced her disapproval of Trump, a move that surprised many given her previous strong support for him. Smith reads a segment of Owens' commentary to provide listeners with her exact words:
"We were kicking around some theories earlier, me and the team, and we were going what? How could Trump be such a free speech enthusiast and being allowing these things to happen, going after college universities trying to suppress speech while pretending that you're not suppressing speech... when you threaten our speech, it's not worth it... so you better buck up and root for Harvard University in this fight."
— Candace Owens (02:15)
Owens criticizes the administration's actions as contradictory to Trump's alleged advocacy for free speech, suggesting a deliberate attempt to control academic discourse under the guise of combating anti-Semitism and other issues.
Stephen A. Smith provides a comprehensive analysis of the situation, acknowledging that while Candace Owens has legitimate concerns, there are complexities to consider:
Financial Implications: Smith notes that Harvard received approximately $600 million in federal funding for fiscal year 2024, despite having an endowment exceeding $53.2 billion. He raises the question of why such a well-funded institution requires substantial taxpayer dollars (02:45).
Trump's Position: Smith reviews Trump's public statements targeting Harvard, including threats to revoke its tax-exempt status, labeling it as "anti-Semitic" and a "liberal mess." He quotes Trump urging Harvard to eliminate leaders he disapproves of, reflecting his broader strategy to influence educational institutions (04:00).
Conservative Institutions: To present a balanced view, Smith compares Harvard's situation with other conservative institutions like Hillsdale College, Liberty University, and Texas A&M University. He questions why criticisms predominantly focus on liberal institutions, suggesting potential bias (06:15).
Free Speech Concerns: Emphasizing the core issue, Smith discusses the implications of the Trump administration's actions on free speech. He warns that if triumphing in this case, it could set a precedent for impeding free speech beyond academic settings, affecting broader American society (10:30).
Balanced Perspective: Smith urges listeners to evaluate the situation based on policy rather than personal loyalties or animosities towards individuals like Trump or Owens. He encourages a focus on the potential long-term impacts on free speech and academic freedom (14:20).
The episode underscores the delicate balance between government oversight and institutional autonomy. Smith posits that while government funding can influence institutional policies, it is crucial to ensure that such actions do not infringe upon the foundational principles of free speech and academic independence.
He raises concerns about the broader ramifications if the administration succeeds in exerting control over universities. This could lead to a slippery slope where dissenting voices within academic institutions are marginalized or silenced, undermining the democratic ethos (12:50).
In closing, Stephen A. Smith reflects on the importance of discerning policy issues from personal biases. He emphasizes that the debate between Candace Owens and Donald Trump highlights a pivotal moment in American politics, where the integrity of free speech and institutional autonomy are at stake.
Smith invites listeners to form their own opinions based on the merits of the arguments presented, encouraging active engagement with the ongoing legal battle and its potential outcomes (15:30).
Candace Owens:
"How could Trump be such a free speech enthusiast and being allowing these things to happen, going after college universities trying to suppress speech while pretending that you're not suppressing speech."
— Candace Owens (02:15)
Stephen A. Smith:
"If he wins this case, then guess what? He's showing an ability to impede upon one's right to the First Amendment, which is free speech."
— Stephen A. Smith (14:45)
Stephen A. Smith:
"This is not, Stephen A. Casting the spurs. It's a casting judgment. You have some folks on the right that believe some of these universities are engaging in anti Semitism and beyond."
— Stephen A. Smith (10:05)
This episode of The Stephen A. Smith Show provides a nuanced examination of the clash between Candace Owens and Donald Trump over issues of free speech and governmental influence on higher education. By dissecting both viewpoints, Smith offers listeners a comprehensive understanding of the stakes involved and encourages thoughtful consideration of the broader implications for American society.
For those interested in the intersection of politics, free speech, and education, this episode serves as an essential discourse, shedding light on the complexities that define contemporary political debates.
Timestamps:
Note: Timestamps correspond to the points in the transcript where the quotes and discussions occur.