In honor of Black History Month, State Representative and congressional candidate Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) introduced a proclamation, HR2001, to assert that abortion was the leading cause of death for African Americans and that unborn African-American children have equal rights under the Constitution. Blackman asked for a moment of silence to honor the approximately 1,300 unborn African-American children whose lives would be lost to abortion that day, based on statistical rates of abortion.
“[Abortion is] something that’s not spoken about in our communities. It’s something that needs to be heard. It’s something that I’m very aggressively trying to fix in black communities, and it is a tragedy that this happens every single day in the black communities,” said Blackman.
In addition to the resolution, Blackman introduced a bill to abolish abortion in Arizona: “Abolition of Abortion in Arizona Act.”
I am proud to sponsor HB2265 Life starts at conception. ARS Title 13. Criminal Code 13-1105. First degree murder, A person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation. It’s time to abolish abortion in Arizona. https://t.co/kBKQP4iAuy
The legislator also asserted that Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger and its major supporters, like Hillary Clinton, are the “real racist[s]” and that abortion is “racial genocide.”
Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is responsible for the deaths of 19.4 million black babies since Roe v. Wade. Hillary Clinton received an achievement award in Sanger's name. WILL THE REAL RACIST STAND-UP. pic.twitter.com/tLX9tRidof
This not about your choice, it’s about abortion Is Racial Genocide! Government family planning programs designed for poor Blacks which emphasize birth control and abortion with the intent of limiting the Black population is genocide. pic.twitter.com/yZ2I2fDzUZ
State Representative Pam Powers Hannley (D-Tucson) issued an immediate response to the proclamation, noting that Blackman’s approach to Black History Month with an “anti-abortion manifesto” was “a little bit weird.” Blackman is a black legislator.
Powers Hannley claimed that Blackman wasn’t only blaming Planned Parenthood but the mothers of those aborted children. Powers Hannley further argued that the greater focus should be on the fathers, as well as encouraging citizens to make smarter choices concerning their sexual habits such as wearing protection or choosing their partners more wisely.
“How many of those women were raped? How many of those women were underage? How many of those women were already overwhelmed with the children that they have? And what about the fathers? It’s shocking to me that the Republicans constantly go after the women as if the women are solely responsible somehow for an unwanted pregnancy,” asserted Powers Hannley. “Fathers are the number-one line of defense against abortion.”
Powers Hannley then concluded with an argument that struck similar tones to those who advocate for abstinence, taking the bodily autonomy logic and applying it to abstaining from sex with certain partners or in certain situations.
“I thought that Blackman’s speech was insulting to women. Women have a choice over their bodies. I think they should make better choices, perhaps, with who they have sex with. And that goes for women of all ages, and all races, and all ethnicities,” said Powers Hannley. “If that guy is not to be there for you if you get pregnant, don’t have unprotected sex with him — come on! And guys, if you want to prevent abortions, wear a freaking condom. You have control over this. You can control it at the first step, rather than trying to regulate women’s bodies later.”
The full text of the resolution is reproduced below:
“Whereas, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the United States Supreme Court, more than 54 million babies have been aborted in Planned Parenthood centers around the nation, having drastic personal, practical and political effects on communities and citizens. Every town, city, ethnicity, and age group has suffered from the tragic effects of this mostly surgical and sometimes medical procedure. The true toll of abortion may remain unknown and immeasurable because the data, for the most part, has not been collected or has been ignored by those responsible for its collection; and […] abortion impacts African Americans at a higher rate than any other population group, and more African-American babies are aborted than born alive. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released an Abortion Surveillance Report stating that, although African-American women make up 14 percent of the childbearing population, these women obtained 36 percent of all abortions. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, African-American women have the highest ratio of any group in the country; and […] this alarming number equates to more than 1,300 African-American babies aborted every day in America. Of the more than 44 million abortions performed since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, 19 million African-American babies have been aborted, yet African Americans comprise just under 13 percent of the United States population; and […] the impacts of abortion on African-American communities are hard to fathom. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which generally supports abortion, 360,000 African-American babies were aborted in 2011. CDC statistics for 2011 show that 287,072 African Americans died from all other causes, excluding abortion, making abortion the leading cause of death among African Americans. African-American women and community leaders should be outraged about the racial disparity when African-American women are targeted by Planned Parenthood. […] The Members of the House of Representatives recognize abortion as the leading cause of death among African Americans and express their sentiment that unborn African-American babies conceived by legal citizens of the United States are protected under the United States Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona Senate Education Committee passed a bill to ensure K-12 schools afford greater transparency to parents concerning the content and adoption procedures for curriculum and all other learning materials. The bill, SB1211, passed 5-3 along party lines. 20 states have introduced similar legislation; the Wisconsin legislature passed a similar bill last year but their governor vetoed it; most recently, the Indiana House moved another similar bill forward. However, no other state has the same legislative language as SB1211.
Specifically, the 14-page bill would require schools to post online in a searchable manner all learning material adoption procedures as well as the content organized by subject, grade, and teacher. The specified learning material covered requires readings, videos, audio, digital materials, websites, instructional handouts, worksheets, apps, assemblies, guest lectures, civics assignments or projects, and service learning projects. Any educational materials concerning nondiscrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, bias, action-oriented civics, service learning, or social and emotional competencies must be referenced in full online at least 72 hours before implementation. Materials outside that scope must be posted online within a week of their implementation and remain accessible on the site for two years. The bill also would require schools to allow all throughout the school day as well as a half an hour before and after school hours for textbook review prior to adoption.
Parents could seek redress for violations of this bill by first submitting a complaint to the school principal. If the principal doesn’t investigate and respond within 15 days, or the response doesn’t solve the issue satisfactorily, parents could submit a complaint to their school board. If the board doesn’t respond adequately or at all within 25 days, then parents may take legal action against the school’s governing body. No teachers would be subject to punishment.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) insisted all she was introducing was a “simple […] common-sense transparency bill.” Barto clarified that the bill would allow parents a heads-up about what their children would learn.
“So many parents are so frustrated at not having access to what their children are learning in schools. There are so many things that are accessible online now, and curriculum needs to be one of them,” said Barto.
Parent after parent highlighted personal and local incidents concerning willful lack of transparency from their schools and districts. In addition to parents, the Arizona Coalition of School Board Members and Heritage Action for America showed up to support the bill. A handful of teachers, most of them masked, and the Arizona Education Association (AEA) spoke out against the bill. They argued that the bill would create an undue burden on teachers and districts, foster distrust and malcontent between parents and teachers, and even further reduce educational quality. The Arizona Charter School Association (ACSA) was also reportedly against the bill, according to State Senator Gonzales, but none of their representatives gave testimony before the committee on Tuesday.
The first to provide public commentary on the bill was none other than Nicole Solas — the Rhode Island parent sued by her state’s teacher’s union, the National Education Association of Rhode Island (NEARI) for her public record requests and represented by the Goldwater Institute, the Phoenix-based conservative public policy and litigative think tank.
Solas told the committee that her story was a cautionary tale of what occurs when a state doesn’t have academic transparency. Her story began when she requested information about the education her daughter would receive, and learned that the school taught about gender at every grade level in “age-appropriate ways,” as well as teaching five-year-olds on the first day of Thanksgiving what could’ve been done differently during the pilgrim’s Thanksgiving. When Solas attempted to ask more questions about the curriculum, her school told her to submit public records requests. After doing so, the school board of her district put her name on the agenda of a public meeting with a threat to sue her for her records requests.
Solas recalled how the five hour meeting was filled with public harassment and open debates on her moral character and motivations by the board members. Solas shared further that her district then hired a public relations firm to defame her in the national media. The local teacher’s union then decided to sue Solas for filing those records requests. Even after enduring all of that eight months later, Solas said her original requests have gone unanswered. All she received was outdated curriculum; the district told her she hadn’t asked specifically for the current curriculum.
“What they did to me was government abuse of power just because I wanted to know what was being taught,” said Solas. “This is a kafkaesque, bureaucratic problem with a very easy academic solution.”
It wasn’t just the blame from the district that presented a problem to Solas — it was the cost of the records requested. Solas insisted that the cost to districts to fulfill public records requests was unnecessary, and that public schools needed to be protected from squandering their education dollars.
“Pass this bill for public schools and you can save them from themselves. We need our education dollars to be spent on students, not on a petty stand-off between schools and parents,” said Solas. “These are the games they play with public records requests. Our children’s education is not a game.”
Majority Leader Rick Gray (R-Sun City) said Solas’ story was heartbreaking to hear, and expressed condolences for the plight of New Jersey’s children.
“They wanted to send a message that if you want transparency […] they will retaliate against you and punish you for asking for transparency,” relayed Solas.
State Senator Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) asked Solas if New Jersey had a parental bill of rights similar to Arizona’s. She added that she didn’t understand what Solas’ issue had to do with Arizona schools. Solas said they don’t have anything like that in her state, and informed Marsh that the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute is representing her for the lawsuit.
Goldwater Institute Director of Education Policy Matt Beienburg offered insight from Arizona teachers in support of the bill. He read a letter from Jessica, an English teacher, who described how she covered over 70 absences in one week and insisted on the bill because it provided an “easy safeguard” for creating a “workshop” between families and schools.
“This bill is pro-student, pro-parent, and pro-teacher,” asserted Beienburg.
State Senator Tyler Pace (R-) asked what a pragmatic solution would be, instead of this bill. Thomas said the best solutions would be at the local level. He said parents already had “a lot of tools” to get the transparency they need.
“The unintended consequence of this is that kids are going to suffer in that their interests aren’t going to be explored at any given instance during the day,” asserted Marsh.
Gray pressed AEA President Joe Thomas, who insisted that better answers were to be had, to give them a tangible solution. Thomas couldn’t. Instead he repeated that parents had the tools to investigate the curriculum themselves. Gray insisted that wasn’t enough of an answer.
“When we see this as a legislative body and this is brought to us, it is our responsibility to see what we can do to solve this problem. Ideally we would never get this problem here because the schools would take care of it,” responded Gray. “We don’t have any solutions from the education industry, but we clearly have problems from the parents.”
In closing public remarks, Beienburg cited how an AEA spokeswoman last year reported that she submitted curriculum materials regularly to her district officials for review.
“That’s indicative of the fact that this is doable,” said Beienburg.
Curriculum Transparency!@NancyBarto's SB1211 bill will be heard on Tuesday at 2PM!
SB1211 would make the curriculum materials available online for parents to view.
Give it a ? on RTS Come testify and support Contact the Senate Education Committee to encourage a YES vote
Maricopa County residents may be called to a vote this November to determine the continuance of a transportation tax, according to a bill approved unanimously by the Senate Transportation and Technology Committee on Monday. The bill, SB1356, was described by its proponents as an emergency measure and not an additional tax for constituents.
SB1356 would be considered an updated extension to Proposition 400, a voter-approved transportation tax of half a cent — up to ten percent of the state transaction privilege tax. This latest legislation would have the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) collect an advanced version of the 2004 transportation tax beginning January 1, 2026, when Proposition 400 sunsets, and lasting 25 years; in addition to collecting at a rate up to 10 percent of the state transaction privilege tax, the new tax would collect at a rate up to 10 percent of the jet fuel excise tax rate and the energy consumption rate for customers subject to use tax equal to the state transaction privilege tax.
However, Arizona Free Enterprise Club Vice President Aimee Yentes asserted that the tax was, in fact, an increase because the previous one was set to expire. That wasn’t Yentes’ biggest contention with the bill, however, calling it “grossly unaccountable to taxpayers” based on the language and true layout of funds allocation.
Prior to Yentes’ comments, Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers and Mesa Mayor John Giles insisted in their presentations that the bill contained many compromises which left none of its creators overly pleased. The language of the bill tells a different story. Yentes declared that the bill relies on nebulous terms when eliminating the previously-established 67 percent of funds for freeways and roads to “virtually zero” by consolidating three funding buckets into two focused on major arterial streets as well as undefined “regional programs” and “implementation studies.” Ultimately, Yentes explained, that language assures that funds may be siphoned to virtually anything: bike paths, trails, and even public service announcements to encourage more walking.
“We cannot stress enough that the way this bill is drafted, zero percent of the funds have to be spent on roads and freeways. That is a big backdoor where all of the money can just go to God knows what,” said Yentes.
Yentes warned that SB1356 was likely the largest piece of tax policy to come before the legislature in several decades. Yet, Yentes pointed out that these private groups and local leaders wanted to have the legislature pass this bill without questioning it.
“I’m a little dismayed because I keep hearing almost a lamenting that this policy has to go before the legislature. What I’m hearing is that the insiders have already brokered this deal, it’s fully baked, it’s done with, and your job is to just push the green button. Quite frankly, I think the legislature has a very important role to play in authorizing this legislation,” said Yentes. “I think that you guys represent a more accountable body, even more so than the cities and towns — I say that on behalf of sitting on a city council — and this process is a more transparent one.”
Weiers claimed during his presentation that those opposed to the bill decided not to engage throughout the three years they spent developing the bill, warning that those who change the bill were “monkeying around” and would cause it to “blow […] up.” Yentes asserted that wasn’t true, that this bill was the first some were hearing of this intended tax.
Yentes also criticized that money would be pulled from the roads fund to “basically rig the election” on the subject, by requiring election offices to mail out publicity pamphlets about the tax. She added that it wasn’t comforting that the creators of the bill included their own ballot language rather than allowing for independent creation, which she called “egregious.”
That wasn’t the worst of it, according to Yentes. She lambasted the drafters for setting aside unlimited funds for political consultants, lawyers, election officials, information to voters about the tax, and assistance for conducting the election.
“In effect, the tax extension will function as a multimillion dollar get-out-the-vote effort paid for by taxpayers to drive supporters to the ballot box in support of the tax. It’s kind of like the new twist on Zuckbucks, I guess,” said Yentes.
Majority Leader Rick Gray (R-Sun City) insisted that the legislature has a duty to address potential concerns and tweak the bill accordingly. State Senator Sine Kerr concurred, indicating she had asks of her own.
“As we’re looking at the negatives, we’re not trying to derail — no pun intended. We’re not trying to just be a problem, a bump in the road, but I do think it behooves us as legislators to look at all the opinions. If there’s a way that we can, again, refine and develop and get consensus on that so that we don’t sabotage it but improve it, I think that’s necessary,” said Gray. “We just want to make sure we get the best plan possible because it will last 25 years.”
Giles told the committee that this bill wasn’t their “only chance to bite at the apple.” He warned that the county’s resources were dwindling and growth was only increasing as they spoke. Giles said that their county could address immediate needs, such as the freeway traffic congestion and extend State Route 24 in Pinal County. He concurred with Gray’s point that the bill would be the key to finishing State Route 30.
“We just literally cannot entertain the idea of stopping investing in transportation at this time,” said Giles. “[This bill] will be Maricopa County’s gift to the state, frankly.”
In response to a question from State Senator T.J. Shope (R-Coolidge) about whether the bill would bring more tourists and visitors out of Phoenix to areas like his, Giles confirmed and added that the bill wouldn’t penalize non-Maricopa County Arizonans through revenue-gathering initiatives like tolls. Giles added that they’d essentially made the impossible happen, likening their work to fitting 20 pounds of flour in a 10-pound sack.
State Senator Rosanna Gabaldon (D-Tucson) requested that they consider including trucker rest stops in their bill; Giles said her request wasn’t mutually exclusive. Shope further questioned whether there would be definitive consideration of truckers, especially in light of President Joe Biden’s supply chain crisis.
Giles insinuated in his response that Gabaldon and Giles were siding with groups that were attempting to prioritize their special interests. He noted that the trucking industry, specifically Swift Transportation, had a seat at the table for the past three years in developing this bill and ultimately voted in favor of it. Only recently did they reportedly rescind their support.
“My understanding is that the trucking industry has asked for 10 percent of this with really no specific plan as to how that would be spent,” said Giles. “This is an idea that is a wonderful idea that deserves merit, deserves to happen; but if everyone who contributed to this plan decided now that, ‘Oh wait, I’m now king for a day and I can withdraw my support and get my priorities put back in here after we’ve gone through a lengthy negotiation.’ That’s not a constructive way to going forward. That’s not how this body could get anything done.”
Arizona Trucking Association President and CEO Tony Bradley clarified that not all trucker groups agree with or speak for one another, saying he doesn’t speak for Swift Transportation. He argued that the bill wasn’t feasible.
“Blow it up and put it back together for something that works,” said Bradley.
Arizona State Mine Inspector Paul Marsh issued support of the bill and agreement with both Weiers and Giles’ presentation. Marsh insisted that the bill would ensure efficient transportation required to deliver needed items to customers and producers.
“With the current state in which we have traffic in Phoenix, without having additional infrastructure this will affect the ability to move products within the city and within the county,” said Marsh.
State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) responded that there was nothing stopping their legislature from tackling the other problems outside the bill, like truck parking. He insisted the senators should flip their concerns into budget bills rather than modifying this bill.
“Everything that we change in this bill changes something else,” said Pace. “We can fight all day and say we can change some, or we can say, ‘You know, that’s really important. I’m going to make that my budgetary ask for the general fund, because I think we should do that. I think we should expedite that plan.’”
After the committee approved the bill, Pace congratulated the members for their bipartisanship.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Pastor Drew Anderson called for the Arizona Board of Education to revoke the teaching license of controversial elementary school teacher and prominent Red for Ed, Save Our Schools activist Wes Oswald. As AZ Free News reported, Oswald posted a video of himself cutting up a national school choice scarf as a “really fun craft” in honor of National School Choice Week. Anderson — lead pastor of Legacy Christian Center, chaplain of the NFL Alumni Association, and former NFL player — appeared on the Conservative Circus radio show on Monday to discuss his petition against Oswald.
Anderson’s perspective on the issue wasn’t borne out of mere opinion. The pastor explained in an Arizona Daily Independent opinion piece that he was one of the lucky few that benefited from school choice. Anderson recounted that the opportunity likely saved his life.
“Growing up, I had to attend the same K-8 government assigned schools that the rest of the black kids in my neighborhood had to go to and it was challenging to say the least. Many kids did not see graduation day and my five closest friends were either in prison or dead by the time we were 18 years old. Fortunately for me though, I was able to escape those schools and by the grace of God was able to attend an outstanding private Catholic school which led to me graduating high school, going to college on a scholarship, and ultimately living my dream and playing in the NFL,” said Anderson. “Today I am a pastor and not only do I fight to win souls for Jesus, but I also fight for children, especially minority kids, to have the same opportunity I did growing up and attend the right school to help them achieve their goals in life like I did.”
In a follow-up with Conservative Circus host James T. Harris, Anderson asserted that school choice is the key to achieving equal opportunity. He lambasted Oswald for calling himself a champion for children’s needs while opposing school choice.
“Next to anything in this modern-day era, school choice is the only way that inner city kids right now are having an opportunity to even remotely catch up or get up out of the poverty situation that they’re living in. So to see somebody that calls themselves an educator be so heinous to me is one of the most appalling things I’ve ever seen,” said Anderson. “How do you call yourself a champion for kids and you’re discriminating against kids based on your own opinion, which to me is crazy.”
In response, Harris opined that the destruction of an image of hope for so many children, especially those of color, was especially appalling.
“I think it’s a powerful image of why parents should be pulling their kids out of government-run schools or at least have the choice to put them where they want to,” said Harris.
On the topic of current teacher’s unions, Anderson added that removing choice from education could be likened to a modern-day slavery: an “educational slavery” that he asserted lends to the school-to-prison pipeline. The pastor insisted that the state could reduce the more than $30,000 it spends on prisoners by investing in the $15,000 he asserts it would cost to give students school choice.
“Back in the day, there was a union that fought hard to keep slavery because slavery was so productive for the people in the South, and right now, James T., we have what I call ‘educational slavery’ and we need to abolish educational slavery. Educational slavery is what’s funding all these private prisons, because there’s this thing called the ‘public school to prison pipeline’ that nobody wants to talk about,” said Anderson. “If I can chain you up to a public school that’s failing and a public school that’s in a bad area, then eventually I can chain you up to a wall in a prison and have you working for thirty cents a day instead of being a productive, tax-paying citizen. It’s time for us to start properly incarcerating people and it’s time for us to properly educate people. And the way you properly educate people is to give them a choice to pick whatever school’s best for them.”
Anderson noted that he’s praying for individuals like Oswald that are against school choice.
“I pray for them because most of them have no idea of what they’re even talking about because none of them are black, first of all. None of them are from the inner city, second of all. And none of them, when they say ‘save our schools,’ none of them are talking about saving our schools that over 79 percent of most minorities have voted to say that they do want school choice,” said Anderson. “I’m not against public schools at all. But what I am against is hindering people from picking what education works best for them. I’m praying for people like that because the ignorance that they spew and the ignorant view that they hold, they’re hindering kids from being properly educated.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) President Michael Crow faced questioning from State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) concerning the root of some of the university’s controversies that made national headlines. However, it wasn’t Crow’s fate to face Hoffman’s inquisition alone — he found an intercessor in Chairwoman Regina Cobb (R-Kingman).
Hoffman posed questions during Wednesday’s House Appropriations Committee meeting relevant to ASU’s funding. The legislator’s first question pertained to the cancellation of a fundraiser for a conservative program at ASU: the Political History and Leadership (PHL) program.
As AZ Free News reported last week, ASU’s initial response to the event cancellation was murky. Out of the three reasons given to various individuals involved in the situation, Crow asserted that an unnamed staff member’s failure to follow planning policy was the reason for the event cancellation, which he insisted was really a postponement. At the time, ASU spokesman Jerry Gonzalez concurred with that statement.
“The event at the Desert Botanical Garden was canceled due to a breach of scheduling protocol by a faculty member in the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies,” stated Gonzalez. “The university welcomes the opportunity for this event to be rescheduled following the required protocols.”
However, several of the scheduled speakers for the event were informed by ASU officials prior to publication of our report that the event was canceled due to an uptick in COVID-19 cases. Those speakers were informed that Crow wasn’t aware of the event or its cancellation at the time. Others reported that the choice of speakers was deemed too controversial: Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and former Utah congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz.
Hoffman addressed this most recent controversy first in his line of questioning for Crow. The representative’s question flowed seamlessly with Crow’s closing request: that the legislature afford more funding for ASU’s “Freedom School”: the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership (SCETL). Hoffman applauded SCETL, but asked about the treatment of the PHL program.
“I’m wondering how you feel about the political history and leadership program that you canceled the event on?” asked Hoffman. “How come that doesn’t get the same level of praise considering its disproportionate impact on the department?”
Crow responded that the event was delayed, not canceled, and blamed an unnamed faculty member for not following proper schedule procedures, which he didn’t elaborate. He promised that the event was rescheduled.
“This is an event I’m very familiar with. We’re very happy to host that event, we’re very happy to host all of the individuals that are coming to the event,” said Crow.
When Hoffman attempted to follow up with another question, Cobb said Hoffman’s line of questioning wasn’t appropriate for the subject.
“That’s a question that shouldn’t have been asked, so don’t do a follow-up on that one,” said Cobb.
Hoffman responded that they could discuss the subject later and insisted he wasn’t done.
“Well, you’re only addressed to when I addressed you,” said Cobb.
“Which you have already authorized,” responded Hoffman.
“I said ‘Don’t follow up,’ and you said, ‘Okay, then.’ Do you want a different question, Mr. Hoffman?” asked Cobb.
“I want less hostility from my chairman. That’s what I’d like,” responded Hoffman.
Cobb repeated whether Hoffman would like to ask a different question, and Hoffman confirmed. Hoffman then asked what Crow was doing about the multiple incidences of high-profile racism on his campus.
“Unfortunately the racism that we’re seeing is permeating from a cultural and institutional level[,]” asserted Hoffman.
Before Crow could respond, Cobb intervened with an assertion that Hoffman’s question wasn’t relevant to their budget material being reviewed that day. Cobb would only interrupt Hoffman as he attempted to ask her if or when the committee would bring Crow back for questioning on the subject of additional funding.
“Are you going to have him back to testify in front of us so we can ask him that question? Because if you expect us to sign off on more funding for ASU…” said Hoffman.
Cobb ignored Hoffman and called on State Representative Lorenzo Sierra (D-Avondale), who lavished praise on Crow for his work. When Sierra said to Crow that he only had one question for him, Cobb chimed in to say, “Thank God,” and chuckled to herself. At that point, a soft, inaudible exchange occurred between Cobb and an unknown male as Sierra continued to address Crow. It is unclear whether that exchange was related to Cobb’s next response; after Sierra finished asking Crow about what work ASU was doing with the state’s economic agencies, Cobb chimed in again to accuse legislators of grandstanding.
“Again, that’s off the subject. I really want to stick to the appropriations. We got a lot of people here to speak today, we can grandstand all we want to —” said Cobb.
Hoffman interrupted Cobb to call a point of order.
“This is not grandstanding from Sierra or myself. These are things that will impact how we vote on funding for this man’s school,” insisted Hoffman.
Cobb seemed to agree.
“And what we’re talking about is the funding right here, okay…” said Cobb.
“Correct. And he’s standing in front of us and we have material questions for Arizona State,” responded Hoffman.
Cobb disagreed. She insisted that she determined neither Sierra or Hoffman’s questions were relevant to the task at hand, but refused to elaborate why. Hoffman insinuated that there was no point to the committee’s presence, if what Cobb said was true.
“So this is just a dog and pony show?” asked Hoffman.
“No, this is to let us know what their initiatives are this year. That’s what they’re here to do, is to let us know what their education initiatives are coming forward to this year,” said Cobb.
When Hoffman attempted to insist that Crow should answer to “substantive questions, like issues of racism on campus,” Cobb threatened him with removal from the committee if he didn’t stand down.
It appeared that Cobb’s refusal to allow any substantive questions caused the remainder of the committee to dare not pose any questions of their own. Several questions from State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) were permitted prior to Cobb shutting down the subject: Kavanagh asked about foreign enrollment and online learning trends.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Hoffman expressed disappointment that Crow didn’t step up and answer for the controversies plaguing ASU.
“Michael Crow’s refusal to answer for the extremely concerning allegations of institutionalized racism, viewpoint discrimination by professors, and rampant wokeism at Arizona State University during yesterday’s House Appropriations Committee is yet another glaring example of his utter disdain for any level of transparency, oversight and accountability,” stated Hoffman. “Under his watch, racism and wokeism by professors and staff has led to an increase in high profile incidents of discrimination on campus, yet when questioned during his testimony in front of the state’s top appropriators he chose to hide behind Ms. Cobb, the committee chairwoman. Mr. Crow’s appalling behavior has given legislators merely one more in a long line of reasons to oppose any new funding for his university.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
