The Matt Walsh documentary “Am I Racist?” marks the first theatrical release for The Daily Wire, and for such an occasion, it was only right to roll out the black carpet. The film’s team, Daily Wire talent, and multiple VIP guests were all in attendance on Monday, September 9, for the film’s big premiere event at Regal Green Hills in Nashville.

Several premiere attendees took time to speak with the camera crew and express their excitement for the release, including what it means for the future of conservative entertainment.

Matt Walsh arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Walsh said of the film, “If something is funny, [people are] more receptive to your message, I think. And look, the Left is also incredibly ridiculous — among other words we could use to describe them. And if we’re not having success making fun of that in a funny way, then what the hell are we doing?”

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE – SEPTEMBER 09: (L-R) Jon Lewis, Dallas Sonnier, Justin Folk, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Jeremy Boreing, Caleb Robinson, Benyam Capel, and Brian Hoffman arrive at Am I Racist? Movie Premiere at Regal Green Hills on September 09, 2024 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Ben Shapiro arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Ben Shapiro said during a red carpet interview, “Well, obviously, DEI is at the center of everything. It’s the heart of the Biden-Harris administration. They’ve said so.”

He continued, “And they’ve said that equity infuses all of their policy. And what this movie does, it takes that concept, and not only does it break down the cons, it breaks out what it really is, which is a complete grift.” Shapiro went on to describe how Walsh does “something no one else in America is capable of doing, which is keep a straight face in front of people while they discuss this stuff and they think they’re talking to a friend.”

“And so they really show you what they think,” Shapiro said. “And what becomes absolutely clear is what a con this is. This is just a con, beginning to end. So it’s not just a matter of it being morally bad. It also is a ripoff. It’s a ripoff of corporations, of consumers, of taxpayers, and it needs to stop.”

John Bickley arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Sean Spicer arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Jeremy Boreing and Matt Walsh arrive at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boreing noted that “in many ways,” Walsh’s film is “a fulfillment of the dream of The Daily Wire to be creating culture, not just critiquing culture.”

Boreing also praised Walsh: “The fact that this film is coming out nationwide in wide theatrical release, I think is a testament to Matt Walsh’s unique talent. He’s one-of-one, the only person in the conservative movement who could have made this film.”

The Daily Wire co-founder also spoke to how culture changes people’s minds.

“And so that’s why culture is so important, because it’s really the ground in which people’s worldview grows, and now we’re planting seeds into that soil. So I think that absolutely people’s minds will change because of this film…”

Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!

Dr. Jordan B Peterson called the genre of film “a very new phenomenon – to have conservative satirists or even Christian conservative satirists, which is more absurd.”

He added, “I mean, it shows a kind of maturity and it’s a very good way of introducing people to ideas that they might not otherwise consider. It’s also a very effective way of critiquing ideas. I mean, satire and ridicule are appropriate responses to ideas that are very worthy of being satirized and ridiculed. And Matt handles that in a manner that I think everyone will find relatable.”

Peterson also said most average Americans don’t realize how pervasive the DEI con has become. “I mean, most people are tangled up enough in the details of their own lives, so they don’t attend much to politics or to philosophy. And so no, and I think people tend to take things at face value so that when they hear well-meaning, theoretically well-meaning people talk about equity, they think, well, of course things should be equitable.”

“They have no idea what it means,” he added. “They have no idea that it’s grounded in a kind of nihilistic Marxism. And so that’s another service that Matt and [the crew] are performing is to show the nature of the charlatans who are involved in this movement, which I think this movie does quite effectively, especially with regards to Saira Rao and and Robin DiAngelo, who get what they deserve, as far as I’m concerned.”

Caleb Robinson arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Cabot Phillips arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Bo Loudon arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Matt Fradd (L) arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Kirk Cameron arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Siaka Massaquoi arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Blain Crain, Jake Crain, and David Cone of Crain & Company arrive at Am I Racist? Movie premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Andrew Klavan arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Michael Knowles arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Michael Knowles said from the red carpet, “What’s really amazing is Matt is performing a farcical and absurd character, and he’s going up against people who are raking in tens of thousands of dollars or more in speaking fees to give very serious presentations for the Left. And the two characters are indistinguishable. In fact, when the earnest people see the farcical version, they don’t even recognize it … that’s scary.”

Brett Cooper arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

“It’s important to have a movie like this because comedy teaches us things,” Brett Cooper said on the red carpet. “Comedy is one of the most important mediums for moving the needle and having people face uncomfortable conversations comfortably, kind of like dipping their toe in the water.”

She added, “This is a conversation that has been dominated by anger and vitriol and aggression and cancellations for so many years. And it feels like it’s exited for a little bit. And now it’s like anti-racism is back in vogue. Influencers getting canceled right and left. We’re back in, like, very touchy territory. And so to have something come out that is so comedically fueled, that has such a good heart, but is also going to teach a lesson … I think it’s so perfect for this time.”

Jon Lewis arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Amber Coyle arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Mary Morgan arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Clay Travis arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Sebastian Gorka arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Sam Alvey arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Tyler Fischer arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

ZUBY arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Benyam Capel arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Jordan Peterson arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Bryson Gray arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

Jenna Ellis arrives at Am I Racist? premiere | Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+

After impressive ticket pre-sales, the film was expanded to 1,500 screens nationwide. Get your tickets now at amiracist.com.

The ongoing controversy at Brown University over a potential upcoming vote to divest from companies tied to Israel exposes a growing trend: the weaponization of economic disruption against Israel and, by extension, its ally, the United States. At the heart of this issue lies a strategy aimed at destabilizing economic stability and prosperity by targeting university endowments — a crucial part of the venture capital ecosystem that fuels innovation and domestic economic growth.

This tactic, employed by groups like the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), seeks to pressure both Israel and the United States by urging divestment from companies perceived as ‘complicit’ in Israeli policies. While the rhetoric may be cloaked in calls for ‘justice,’ trustees should not be fooled: the underlying motives of the movement are discriminatory at best, and every such terrible decision could have real and devastating consequences on a number of different fronts.

Economic Terrorism: A New Battleground

Unlike violent forms of terrorism, economic terrorism focuses on disrupting financial systems and institutions to achieve ideological motives. NSJP’s campaign to target university endowments is a prime example. These endowments, key players in the venture capital ecosystem, serve as limited partners (LPs) in private investment entities, supporting the growth of innovative startups while diversifying their portfolios for long-term sustainability.

The structure of venture capital firms, which operate as limited partnerships, relies on a careful balance between General Partners (GPs) and LPs. GPs make critical investment decisions, manage funds, and provide strategic guidance to portfolio companies. Meanwhile, LPs, including university endowments, provide capital with the expectation of returns but without involvement in day-to-day operations. This arrangement supports entrepreneurship and innovation in the U.S. market while maintaining financial stability for academic institutions.

However, if university endowments deviate from their role as passive investors and succumb to activist pressures for divestment, they risk destabilizing this delicate structure. Attempts to withdraw investments could trigger broader market crises, exacerbate future liquidity challenges, and cause wealthy donors to pull back amid accusations of anti-Semitism.

The Broader Impact On Innovation And National Security

Disruptions to the venture capital model would have far-reaching consequences beyond financial portfolios. The ripple effect could impede the growth of technology — a sector designated as critical infrastructure by the Biden administration — undermining national security and economic vitality. As university endowments are instrumental in fueling the venture capital that drives tech innovation, any destabilization could weaken the U.S.’s competitive edge in critical technological advancements.

Moreover, calls for divestment often overlook Israel’s significant contributions to global innovation. Despite facing economic and geopolitical challenges, Israel’s economy thrives on innovation, with sectors like water sanitation, cybersecurity, and agriculture demonstrating its global prowess. Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East and our only reliable source of intelligence and cyber defense. Israeli-developed technology protects our citizens and troops at home and abroad. Our shared security interests include but are not limited to preventing nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, containing Iranian, Turkish, and Russian expansionism, and promoting the rule of democracy. An attack on Israel’s economic stability will inevitably affect its ally, the United States, highlighting the deep economic and security interdependence between the two nations.

The Risk Of Divestment And The Legal Backlash

Brown University now finds itself in a precarious position. The recent warning from Attorneys General in 24 states highlights the potential legal and financial fallout if the university’s trustees vote to divest from Israel-tied companies. These top law enforcement officials have threatened to terminate state contracts, withdraw investments, and divest state pension funds from Brown’s holdings, citing potential violations of state laws against boycotting Israel. One trustee, Joseph Edelman, has already resigned in protest. This decision was not only morally correct, it was prudent.

Every decision a trustee makes should put the interests of the university first, above their own personal feelings or the interests of third parties (including disgruntled law-breaking student groups), and should reflect reasonable skill, care, and caution, in managing investments. Especially after they have been put on notice, university fiduciaries will be personally responsible for the massive losses likely to be caused by divestment, and will be in clear violation of both their duties of loyalty and of prudence. Such legal consequences underscore the broader implications of what we term an “Economic Intifada” — a strategy that seeks to leverage economic tactics to achieve political objectives.

It is also worth noting that a vote in favor of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement cannot be considered even a ‘socially responsible investment’ decision. In fact, it is the opposite. BDS proponents often use classic anti-Semitic tropes in their materials, including, but not limited to: false accusations of Jewish conspiracies; blood libels; portraying Jews (not just Israelis but caricatures of religious Jews) as Satanic, demonic, and evil (at times even using actual Nazi propaganda), accusing Jews of dual loyalty, and engaging in Holocaust denial and Holocaust inversion. And those are easy examples; the truth is that saying Jews are not a people while calling for the destruction of the world’s lone Jewish state, along with the ethnic cleansing and/or the genocidal extermination of its millions of Jewish inhabitants, is also anti-Semitic. And these calls should not be taken lightly given the terrifying and undeniable fact that the nonprofit umbrella group for US-based BDS organizations funnels money to terrorist organizations; that more than 30 of its leaders are actual violent terrorists; and the well-documented evidence that the anti-Semitism some BDS leaders spout often breaks through the “nonviolent” veil, leading to innocent people getting hurt.

Nor is this in any way a partisan issue: both the Republican and Democratic parties have consistently denounced BDS in their platforms. Nor is it only a federal issue; in 2017, the governors of all fifty states signed onto a statement affirming their opposition to BDS, noting that “[t]he goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states[,]” and reiterating that BDS’s “single-minded focus on the Jewish State raises serious questions about its motivations and intentions.

For the record, anti-BDS bills, like the ones cited by the 24 AG’s, are fully constitutional. It is well within their rights for states to protect their own interests, and the interests of the United States, by removing state funding for discriminatory actions. SJP and its allies remain free to say whatever they want however abhorrent about Jews or the Jewish State; there is a fundamental difference between a state suppressing free speech and a state simply choosing how to spend its dollars. Spending (especially with accompanying legislative findings) in this context is government speech, and “as a general matter, when the government speaks, it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and it carries out its duties on their behalf.” Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 208 (2015)

In fact, the Supreme Court has continually refused “[t]o hold that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals.”Id. In the case of these and all similar statutes, the government does not even seek to fund a controversial program, it merely seeks not to fund a program that discriminates on the basis of ethnicity or national origin. While people remain free to engage in hateful actions, that does not make them less hateful, nor does it mean that the State must agree to subsidize those actions. To quote one governor, “To argue otherwise would be to suggest that [a] state is constitutionally obligated to support the BDS [M]ovement, which is not only irrational but also has no basis in law.”

A Call For Strategic Decision-Making

As Brown University and other institutions weigh their next steps, they must recognize that the stakes extend far beyond campus politics. The interconnectedness of the global economy means that destabilizing one part can have cascading effects elsewhere. Any decision to divest should be made with a clear understanding of the broader economic and legal landscape and the potential consequences for innovation, national security, and university financial health. Especially in light of the clear repercussions, such a decision would represent a shocking abdication of appropriate corporate governance and responsibility, exposing the university to material self-inflicted diminution, and its trustees to potential litigation and legal sanctions. And all to support a movement that is deeply anti-Semitic.

In essence, the move to weaponize university endowments as a tool of economic warfare poses a grave threat, not only to both Israel and its allies, but to the very bodies taking these ill-conceived votes. This moment calls for strategic thinking and a commitment to preserving the stability and collaboration that underpin global economic prosperity. As the pressure mounts on universities to take sides, it is imperative that they do so with a full appreciation of the complexities and stakes involved.

Brown’s trustees are at a crossroads, facing a decision that could set a precedent for how universities across the nation navigate the intersection of law, politics, and finance in an increasingly polarized world. A decision to divest would be unjustified and bad for business, and Board members should think long and hard about liability for violation of their fiduciary obligations before they allow their schools to submit to extortion. Their choice will also likely resonate far beyond their Ivy League campus, shaping the future of university governance and its role in supporting innovation and economic growth.

* * *

Professor Anat Alon-Beck teaches corporate law and governance at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, and teaches at the Touro Law Center.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.