By Mike Bengert |
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
