by Mike Bengert | May 16, 2025 | Opinion
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.
by Staff Reporter | May 16, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill to provide restitution to individuals harmed by gender transitions they obtained as minors.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1586, sought to expand civil liability on health care professionals or physicians who provide gender transition or transition procedures.
Under the bill, health care professionals and physicians that provide gender transition procedures for a minor would have been strictly and personally liable for all costs associated with subsequent detransition procedures for that minor within 25 years after the gender transition procedure. Individuals who undergo a detransition procedure would be able to bring a civil action lawsuit against the health care professional or physician who provided their gender transition procedure before turning 26 years old.
The bill would have also prohibited the health care professionals or physicians from obtaining a contractual waiver of liability for gender transition procedures.
In her veto letter, Hobbs said the bill was redundant given present medical malpractice statutes, and she further stated the bill was not a priority compared to Arizonans’ current needs.
“Medical malpractice statutes currently exist to give patients a private right of action related to matters of informed consent,” stated Hobbs. “This bill will not increase opportunity, security or freedom for Arizonans. I encourage the legislature to join with me in prioritizing legislation that will lower costs, protect the border, create jobs, and secure our water future.”
The bill author, Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp, issued a press release accusing Hobbs of allying herself with “radical left-wing ideology” and ignoring harms endured by children who have undergone gender transition procedures.
“There have been many tragic stories about children who have submitted to life-altering surgeries to change their gender – only to experience awful repercussions later on when they mature,” said Shamp. “Unfortunately, Governor Hobbs and her band of Democrat allies would rather these children’s lives be forever changed in one of the worst ways imaginable to satisfy their extreme ideological lust. Republicans will not stand for this callousness and endorsement of defacto child abuse. We will continue to fight on behalf of our precious sons and daughters until these inhumane and ungodly practices are abolished.”
Shamp later indicated she would take another run at securing restitutions for individuals who underwent gender transition procedures while they were minors.
“I will never stop fighting for children who are being butchered by this ungodly and inhumane practice,” said Shamp.
Arizona law already bars health care professionals and physicians from providing gender transition procedures. The state legislature passed the prohibition in 2022. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, less than three percent of minors identify as transgender.
Although surgical procedures were prohibited, the law didn’t speak to the prescription of drugs impacting sex-based hormones. Health care providers continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormone replacements to minors. It wasn’t until earlier this year that providers known for these prescriptions, like Phoenix Children’s Hospital and Planned Parenthood of Arizona, ceased issuing them in order to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting gender transitions for minors.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | May 16, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, and State Treasure Kimberly Yee are continuing a legal battle against the administration of former President Joe Biden and his surrogate, Attorney General Kris Mayes to defeat what they say is an “unlawful, dictator-style land grab in northern Arizona.”
The lawsuit, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, centers around the confiscation of a massive tract of Arizona land in Coconino and Mohave Counties which bans “the productive use of almost 1 million acres in northern Arizona,” and “permanently entombs one of the nation’s largest and highest-grade uranium deposits,” in addition to forbidding any road or infrastructure development in “an area the size of Rhode Island,” according to a legal brief submitted Wednesday.
The Biden White House, via Presidential Proclamation launched this audacious expropriation of Arizona land in August 2023 under the color of the Antiquities Act, creating “the Ancestral Footprints Monument.” In February 2024, Petersen launched a lawsuit to stop him.
“Former President Joe Biden and his army of radical bureaucrats abused their constitutional authority on countless levels during his failed administration. Their infatuation with locking up federal lands from productive uses is a prime example of the harm inflicted on states like Arizona,” said Petersen. “As we have argued throughout this case, Biden’s maneuver had nothing to do with protecting actual artifacts. This was an attempt to halt all mining, ranching, and other local uses of federal lands that are critical to our energy independence from adversary foreign nations, our food supply, and the strength of our economy. Republicans in the Arizona Legislature will continue to fight these actions to free our state from the grasp radical environmentalists had over the previous administration. Thankfully, we now have President Donald J. Trump in office, who has a consistent track record of safeguarding state sovereignty and promoting common-sense uses of federal land. I am continuing to work with his administration in an effort to end this legal battle.”
As Petersen and his legal team point out to the court, the unlawful seizure by the Biden administration stood in direct violation of the 1909 Antiquities Act. It uses as a basis given that a president is only empowered to reserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
In a press release, the Republican group said the coalition assembled to oppose Biden’s act of illegal seizure asserts that Biden failed to follow the law, “and the guardrails Congress established to create a check on the president’s power were violated.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | May 16, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2700 on Monday which would have compelled the Arizona State Board of Education to include Geography in its prescribed competency requirements for graduation from high school and defined that instruction to include instruction accurately referring to the Gulf of America.
In her veto letter to Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Hobbs chose to adopt an adversarial, scolding tone toward Republican leaders.
Hobbs wrote, “Today, I vetoed House Bill 2700. Arizonans want us to work together to lower costs, secure the border, create jobs, and protect public education. Instead of joining with me to do that, this Legislature has chosen to attempt to dictate how teachers refer to geographic features. I encourage you to refocus your time and energy on solving real problems for Arizonans.”
State Rep. Teresa Martinez (R-LD16) held a different view however and emphasized the importance of accurate and patriotic instruction for Arizona students: “It’s important to start teaching pro-America to our students. What better way to promote a patriotic country and teach children about patriotism than to start calling it Gulf of America and taking pride in that?”
While making her disapproval of the bill clear, Hobbs called upon Republican legislators to “work together to lower costs, secure the border, create jobs, and protect public education,” despite her recent vetoes, which have thrown aside meaningful reforms in all four policies.
In 2023, Hobbs infamously vetoed SB 1184 which would have eliminated rental taxes that drive up the monthly rent of millions of Arizonans, and SB 1063 which would have banned sales taxes on groceries. The sponsor of SB 1063, Senator Sonny Borrelli, said that Hobbs “would rather have windfall taxes go to cities on the backs of people that need to survive on essential items like groceries consumed at home.”
On Border Security, Hobbs vetoed the Arizona Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement (ICE) Act, SB 1164 this April, and SB 1610 earlier this month, which would have required county detention facilities to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by providing access to data on illegal aliens arrested for serious crimes.
On the subject of Jobs, Hobbs drew severe criticism from Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp (R-LD29) when she vetoed SB 1584.
“The Governor despicably vetoing this bill demonstrates her support for discrimination and a lack of leadership for refusing to push back against fellow Democrats who support these unethical hiring practices,” Shamp said at the time. ” I am extremely disappointed, yet not surprised, that Hobbs continues to appeal to the radical left with her tone-deaf veto decisions, rather than support legislation to reform workplace policies that prioritize anything other than talent and hard work. It’s truly petrifying that we have a governor who can, without shame, prioritize discrimination and favoritism, over unity and respect for every Arizonan.”
Hobbs also vetoed another school related bill, SB 1050, sponsored by Senator Vince Leach (R-LD17) in April. The bipartisan measure would have directed tax dollars from Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) to schools by prohibiting the abatement of school district-designated tax revenues. “This was a missed opportunity by the Governor,” Leach told AZ Free News. “She says she supports education funding, but her veto suggests otherwise.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | May 15, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Former state lawmaker Amish Shah, a Democrat, announced his intent to again challenge Congressman David Schweikert in 2026.
Shah failed to defeat Schweikert in last November’s general election, despite attempts to style himself as an independent to Maricopa County voters.
The former state lawmaker spread the news of his intent to run to The Arizona Republic. Shah said the voters must have regrets for electing Schweikert.
“I see a country that is in chaos,” said Shah. “I don’t think this is what people voted for.”
Shah indicated he may take a more openly progressive approach to his second run against Schweikert. Shah emphasized his defense of abortion access, specifically to the abortion drug mifepristone, and a desire for “actually getting stuff done for the people” rather than his view of Schweikert’s approach to office “just talking about stuff.”
“Instead of fighting for Arizonans, too many of our leaders are standing by and choosing to do nothing as we are confronted with some really serious challenges,” said Shah.
Shah also criticized Schweikert’s continued support for President Donald Trump’s economic policies. Schweikert, vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee and member of the Ways and Means Committee, has indicated some reservations about the president’s tariffs and the ongoing trade war.
“[W]e see uncertainty injected into the environment, where businesses are afraid to invest,” said Shah. “[Schweikert] should have been out there saying, full-throatedly, that for the people of CD1, this is going to cause them massive disruption. It’s going to cause economic harm.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists named Shah “Legislator of the Year” for his successful defense of the abortion pill, mifepristone, during the 2022 legislative session.
That year, Shah also cosponsored a bill to expand anti-discrimination laws to cover gender identity and sexual orientation advanced by former House Speaker Rusty Bowers, a Republican. Shah also put forth bills to redefine marriage within the state constitution.
Prior to his run last year, Shah openly situated himself within the socialist camp of the Democratic Party.
Shah headlined a 2019 town hall for then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, organized by the Phoenix Democratic Socialists of America and Progressive Democrats of America, where he advocated for government-run universal healthcare.
The year before that, Shah proposed ending capitalism and, in its place, implementing socialist policies.
Schweikert defeated Shah with 52 percent of the vote: a lead of about 16,600 votes. That lead made theirs one of the narrowest federal races — second only to the contest between incumbent Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani and another repeat Democratic challenger, Kirsten Engel (in that race, Ciscomani led Engel by just over 10,800 votes).
Shah lost despite having outspent Schweikert by several million, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) data. Shah’s campaign spent over $6.2 million on his race, while Schweikert’s campaign spent over $4.2 million.
There are other Democrats vying to challenge Schweikert: Tammi Medlin, Marlene Galan-Woods, Brandon Donnelly, and Brian Del Vecchio.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
