Arizona State University (ASU) leaders accused of retaliation by a former employee for hosting two “faith-based” events have kept quiet on the allegations raised against them.
The former events operator of the ASU Gammage theater alleged retaliation in a letter last week to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for allowing “faith-based” events to take place.
The complainant, Lin Blake, alleged in a timeline spanning six pages that she had only received positive performance reviews for the nearly three years leading up to the controversial events. It wasn’t until January, the month leading up to the controversial events, that Blake faced challenges to her work performance. Blake allegedly experienced unprecedented scrutiny throughout the planning, preparation, production, and post-event processes concerning the event, though she noted the event was approved last fall.
“This marked the beginning of the micromanagement of my duties and the overall hostile work environment that would become my future,” stated Blake.
AZ Free News reached out to each of the individuals allegedly behind the intimidation campaign and punitive measures against Blake regarding the controversial events. None of them responded by press time.
One of the controversial events, hosted by the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center at Barrett Honors College, featured conservative speakers Charlie Kirk, president and founder of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, a personal finance book bestseller and PragerU presenter.
The other controversial event, hosted by Bethel Chandler Church, focused on raising awareness for sex trafficking.
Ahead of the events, Blake alleged that ASU Gammage leadership convened a meeting to express concern that she was allowing a “church program” and “white supremacists” to have a platform at their theater. She also alleged enduring public condemnation and boycotting from her colleagues.
“While I was left with the obligation to run two large and high-profile events, my colleagues that did not show up to work received praise for standing by their personal beliefs,” said Blake. “ASU Gammage staff and leadership should not discriminate against any views, yet they did in plain sight.”
In addition to the accusations of supporting white supremacy, AZ Free News reported previously that Gammage Executive Director Colleen Jennings-Roggensack was alleged to have told staff that they were aligned in beliefs, that they all had voted for President Joe Biden and Gov. Katie Hobbs — even if they hadn’t.
At a faculty and leadership meeting following the upbraiding from Jennings-Roggensack, Blake said she was singled out to explain Gammage’s core values.
Blake further alleged that two ASU Dean of Students representatives breached security to enter a restricted backstage area and intimidate former Lewis Center director Ann Atkinson.
“[I]f speech was truly free at ASU, producing events with unpopular viewpoints would not have cost my job. There is no freedom of speech when it comes with the punishment of job loss for those who administer it,” wrote Blake.
Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction and Democrat Attorney General are again at opposite ends of the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
On Monday, Superintendent Tom Horne responded to Attorney General Mayes’ recent comments about the ESA program, setting his department’s record straight.
Earlier in the day, Mayes issued a press release to “provide information about rights forfeited leaving the public school system.” The Attorney General first addressed parents of children with disabilities, stating, “Families should not be denied admission or kicked out of private schools because of a child’s disabilities. To make matters worse, private schools often refuse to share the educational records behind those decisions Because Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) don’t apply to private schools, families have no recourse under federal law. It’s important for Arizona families to be aware of the rights they give up when they leave the public school system.”
It’s important for Arizona families to be aware of the rights they give up when they leave the public school system with an education savings account.
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) July 24, 2023
Horne pushed back on the Attorney General’s notice, saying, “(Mayes) raised several issues, one of which centers on special education students. Under the ESA program, special education students receive the same funding as they would attending a public school.”
Mayes broached another issue on her consumer alert – this one about the ESA program and its vendors as a whole. The Attorney General’s Office wrote, “If using ESA funds for private school or schooling at home is the preferred educational choice, families should make sure they choose reputable schools and vendors. Even still, families should know that when they accept an ESA, they lose protections from discrimination related to a child’s learning abilities, religion and sexual orientation.”
— Arizona Attorney General's Office (@arizonaago) July 24, 2023
The Attorney General said, “As a mom, I know how important a child’s education is and I know that, as parents, we all want what is best for our children. I want families to know that if vendors or private schools take advantage of this, the Attorney General’s Office will investigate to the fullest extent of our authority.”
Horne didn’t leave this part of Mayes’ release alone either, making sure onlookers understood his administration is dedicated to following the law. Horne stated, “In regards to the other concerns raised, under my Democrat predecessor as schools chief, the law was not strictly followed and ESA funds were used for non-educational purposes. One of my first acts when I took office was to hire from the Arizona Auditor General an internal auditor for the Department of Education. This person makes sure that every ESA transaction is conducted according to the law and all funding is used appropriately. There have been significant protests against me from people who were used to the old lax system, but I am insisting that every law is strictly followed and that every penny of these funds is used for valid educational purposes.”
The state’s top prosecutor received accolades for her statements from at least one Democrat legislator, Representative Nancy Gutierrez, who tweeted, “Thank you Attorney General Mayes for making it clear that private schools do not give students and families the same rights as public schools.”
Thank you @AZAGMayes for making it clear that private schools do not give students and families the same rights as public schools. https://t.co/UQm3rxe0Vv
— Representative Nancy Gutierrez (@nancygforAZ) July 24, 2023
The Arizona school chief’s response to Mayes follows two other significant battles between the two since they entered office this past January. Just last week, Horne called a recent formal opinion from Attorney General Mayes on a Structured English Immersion law “ideologically driven.” He also pushed back against Mayes when she went on television to say that “there are no controls” on the ESA program, “no accountability,” that “they” (presumably parents) are “spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money,” that this “needs to be looked at,” and that it’s (her) “responsibility to do that” as Arizona’s “top law enforcement officer.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A federal judge has issued a ruling in a case involving Arizona’s recently passed Save Women’s Sports Act.
On Thursday, Judge Jennifer Zipps, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, which was signed by former Governor Doug Ducey on March 30, 2022. The law would prohibit biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at state public schools, colleges, and universities. Judge Zipps’ order blocks the law from going into effect.
Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, released a statement after the judge’s order, vowing to continue his fight to uphold the law. Horne said, “We will appeal this ruling. This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
One of the representatives of the plaintiffs, Justin R. Rassi from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, lauded the judge’s ruling, writing, “The Court’s well-reasoned decision exposes the lack of any legitimate justification for this discriminatory law, which inflicts severe and irreparable harm on transgender girls like Megan and Jane. We are very happy that, as a result of this ruling, Jane and Megan will be immediately able to resume playing sports with their friends.”
“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision that allows our clients to play on girls’ sports teams while this case proceeds. We look forward to securing a permanent ruling.” -Rachel Berg, NCLR Staff Attorney https://t.co/PTcVs8k3q7pic.twitter.com/5qTndrAtdc
— NCLR – National Center for Lesbian Rights (@NCLRights) July 21, 2023
Judge Zipps found that “the Arizona legislature intentionally created a classification, specifically ‘biological girls,’ that necessarily excludes transgender girls, and expressly allowed only that exclusive classification to play girls sports to the exclusion of transgender girls.” The judge wrote, “Enforcement of the Act in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in and of itself is sufficient to presume irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction.”
While Superintendent Horne has taken the primary lead in defending this law, he hasn’t been the only public official to take action in this case. Earlier this year, both Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed a Motion to Intervene in the matter. The Senate Republican’s press release highlighted that “on April 17, 2023, plaintiffs represented by a radical organization filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being enforced in Arizona,” and “Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the constitutionality of the law.”
At the time of their filing, Petersen said, “In the absence of the Attorney General defending Arizona’s law, we’re looking forward to fighting for the rights of female athletes across Arizona, as well as for the Court making it clear Arizona’s law protecting women and girls should be enforced.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction is pushing back after the state’s Democrat Attorney General issued a legal opinion on a Structured English Immersion law.
On Tuesday, Superintendent Tom Horne issued a press release to call a recent formal opinion from Attorney General Kris Mayes “ideologically driven.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following the voter protected initiative that English Language Learners be taught in English. It is surprising that the Attorney General evades the key issue, placing ideology over the law. pic.twitter.com/5pXrWLUh2L
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 18, 2023
The Attorney General’s opinion answered the question of “which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education.” Mayes sent her findings to Democrat Representatives Jennifer Pawlik, Laura Terech, Nancy Gutierrez, and Judy Schwiebert.
The @arizonaago has issued a new Attorney General Opinion.
Re: Which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education: https://t.co/AveNs8HG20
— Arizona Attorney General's Office (@arizonaago) July 17, 2023
Mayes wrote, “Arizona law is clear that the Board has the sole authority to eliminate or modify an approved SEI model. The Board also has the sole authority to determine whether a school district or charter school has failed to comply with Arizona law governing English language learners. Only those school districts and charter schools found by the Board to be noncompliant are barred from receiving monies from the English language learner fund.”
The Attorney General declined to answer the Representatives’ question of “whether the Dual Language Immersion SEI Model approved by the Board is consistent with Arizona law.”
Horne disagreed with the opinion, stating, “The Attorney General, for ideological reasons, wanted to rule in favor of the Democrat legislators who favor dual language. So, she refused to comment on whether a dual language program without waivers violates the voter protected initiative (Proposition 203). She simply said that the State Board of Education has the power to adapt models under legislation. Neither the legislature nor the board has the power to overrule a voter approved initiative. Legislative Council found that dual language without a waiver does violate the initiative.”
The scuttle between Horne, Mayes, and Democrat legislators began on June 19, when the Superintendent announced that “public schools that are not teaching English Language Learners in English as required by state law risk losing funds for this legal violation.” Horne said at the time, “Proposition 203, the voter protected initiative passed in 2000, specified that classes for English Language Learners must be taught in English: ‘all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms.’”
Horne also included a memorandum from the Arizona Legislative Council to make his case, which read, “If the 50-50 dual language immersion model allows students to be taught subject matter in a language other than English as part of structured English immersion, the model likely violates Proposition 203.”
Later, he countered opposition to his action, saying, “In 2000, more than 925,000 Arizonans – 63 percent of voters – approved Proposition 203, making English immersion the law…. Before I took office the first time in 2003, when they had bilingual education, Lisa Graham Keegan reported to the legislature an English proficiency rate of 4%. The English proficiency rates for structured English immersion, by contrast for the last four years when I was last Superintendent (2007-2010), were an average of 31% each for those years.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following Arizona state law. Dual language education has led to a dismal 4%-6% proficiency rate in English. That is cheating students. When Superintendent Horne left office in 2009, that number was 31%. #EducationForAllpic.twitter.com/14BGddafUd
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 13, 2023
He then shared English proficiency rates for four Arizona schools, that the Superintendent asserted have had dual language for several years. According to the Superintendent’s release, those four schools had English Proficiency Rates of under 10%.
Earlier this month, Superintendent Horne posted a statistic on English Immersion success, writing: “English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they’re 50% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market.”
Superintendent Horne is committed to following state law and the data. English immersion gives students three quarters of a year more education, they're 50% more likely to earn a bachelors degree, and earn significantly more in the labor market. https://t.co/CFnFioojCt
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 7, 2023
In his response to Attorney General Mayes’ opinion, Horne charted the path forward for his battle with the state’s top prosecutor. Horne said, “This will obviously be resolved in the courts. Until that happens, the State Board will not withhold funds. However, there are other remedies in the initiative for violation of its requirements. Any parent can sue a school or district that adopts dual language without waivers, and if the parent is successful, the school board, and the superintendent, and maybe the principal must leave office and cannot apply for their offices for five years. That will be a considerable incentive for school districts not to adopt dual language without waivers.”
The battle over the Structured English Immersion law is the second significant conflict between the Attorney General and Superintendent this year. In May, Attorney General Mayes said on television that “there are no controls” on the ESA program, “no accountability,” that “they” (presumably parents) are “spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money,” that this “needs to be looked at,” and that it’s (her) “responsibility to do that” as Arizona’s “top law enforcement officer.”
At that time, AZ Free News featured Horne’s reaction to Mayes’ comments: “Under my predecessor, who was unfriendly to universal Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), the laws were not strictly enforced, and therefore funds were used for non-educational purposes, including restaurants and clothing stores. Because I am the defender of the ESA program, I want the laws to be strictly adhered to. I want to ensure that not one penny is used for a non-educational expense. Arizona is the first in the nation, and a model for the rest of the country. I am determined that all laws be strictly enforced, and all funds be used only for valid educational purposes. I’m disappointed that Attorney General Mayes has chosen, at every single opportunity, politics over the law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The special advisor to the president for Arizona State University (ASU) said that universities can achieve their diversity goals despite the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling against affirmative action last month.
The special advisor, Jeffrey Selingo, said in an interview with KJZZ last week that the SCOTUS ruling meant that universities would have to get creative with achieving diversity in admissions.
“Now the question is how to achieve that [diversity], and during the admissions process previous to this decision, they could use race as a factor — so there was a little thumb on the scale, per say,” said Selingo. “But now they won’t be able to do that. So now they’re going to have to look at other parts of the process that they still have control over where, maybe, race doesn’t come into being, but where they could control the ultimate outcome.”
Selingo then clarified that this process would likely involve manipulating the applicant pool to yield better diversity picks. He gave one example as universities partnering with high schools in minority communities.
“If you focus on and target schools in certain areas and certain communities, you’re more likely to have students of color applying,” said Selingo.
Selingo added that the COVID-19 pandemic practice of waiving of standardized testing — namely the SAT and ACT — during the admissions process enhanced diversity quotas. He predicted that universities wouldn’t require these tests in the future for that reason. ASU, along with UArizona and NAU, were among those universities that ceased requiring the ACT and SAT for admission.
“Many of [the universities] saw much more diverse applicant pools as a result. So it’s very unlikely that schools will go back to requiring the tests as a result,” said Selingo.
The avoidance of test scores as a factor would also mean that aggrieved individuals would have a harder time proving discrimination.
“Without test scores now, it’s going to be more difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They’ve used test scores in the past cases because they could say, ‘You denied somebody with a 1550 [SAT score] and accepted someone with a 1200,” said Selingo. “I’m not saying colleges won’t comply with the law, but there’s a lot of ambiguity, let’s say, in the admissions process, and I don’t think this is going to make it any clearer.”
As special advisor for innovation, Selingo works directly with President Michael Crow on new product design and initiatives in online education, lifelong learning, and partnerships with private companies and universities.
Selingo’s confidence that universities can achieve diversity in admissions despite the SCOTUS ruling contradicted his prediction in his 2020 bestseller “Who Gets In & Why: A Year Inside College Admissions,” in which he expressed the belief that a SCOTUS decision striking down affirmative action would hinder holistic admissions and require greater transparency.
“Giving students the opportunity to learn from peers is a major benefit of a college education, one that will be even more important to students once they graduate and enter a diverse workforce. That’s why Fortune 500 CEOs largely back race-conscious admissions policies as an economic necessity,” wrote Selingo. “Any future court decision that strikes down affirmative action could also put limits on holistic admissions. That likely would force schools, for the first time in more than a century, to move to a more transparent set of academic measures in admitting students.”
At the time, Selingo did note that universities precluded from using race in admissions, citing the University of Washington specifically, rely on holistic “personal score” factors to ensure diversity, like socioeconomic status, hardships, income, and whether or not the applicant is the first in their family to attend college.
Selingo cited the research presented in “The Chosen” by Jerome Kabel, which revealed how colleges first developed holistic admissions as a means of countering academic merit and thereby limiting the admission of Jewish students.
Although Selingo is based out of Washington, D.C, he’s also a professor of practice and leads ASU’s Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a partnership with Georgetown University. Selingo is also a contributor to The Atlantic and co-host to the podcast “FutureU.”
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, the Arizona Board of Regents said in a statement from its chair, Lyndel Manson, that they didn’t believe Arizona universities’ admissions would be impacted.
“The admission standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents for Arizona’s public universities are based solely on academic performance,” said Manson. “The board is proud that each of Arizona’s public universities are Hispanic Serving Institutions and student enrollment continues to grow in diversity. We are reviewing the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but do not anticipate any impact at our universities.”
ASU said that the decision wouldn’t impact the diversity of its student body or its commitment to having its student body reflect the population of the state.
“Because ASU admits all students who meet the university’s admission requirements and does not artificially cap enrollment for students from Arizona, ASU will continue to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the country,” said ASU.
In 2010, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, or Prop 107, which prohibited discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A fight for the future of some federal grant dollars for Arizonans appears to be brewing.
Last week, John Thorpe with the Goldwater Institute sent a letter to Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, expressing the organization’s “concern about Governor Hobbs’ purported cancellation of ESA-related grants that would enable children to attend all-day kindergarten” and urging Yee’s office “to go forward with the program as a legal obligation and for the sake of the parents.”
The Goldwater Institute’s letter references Hobbs’ action in May, which determined that “a $50 million grant made to the Treasurer in the final hours of the Ducey Administration is illegal and invalid.” Hobbs said at the time, “Illegally giving $50 million to private schools while failing to properly invest in public education is just one egregious example of the previous administration’s blatant disregard for public school students.”
After receiving the governor’s notice earlier this year, Treasurer Yee released a statement, writing: “It is clear Governor Hobbs does not care about what is best for Arizona kids or respect the rights of parents to determine the best environment to educate their child. Instead, she is using these children as pawns in a desperate and transparent attempt to win back support from union bosses and her ultra-progressive base. Educational choice is the civil rights issue of our time, and unfortunately, Governor Hobbs thinks she knows better than parents. I fundamentally disagree, and so do Arizona families.”
Governor Hobbs has just denied thousands of Arizona kids access to kindergarten through this politically driven and belligerent decision.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) May 25, 2023
In that statement, Yee also said that her legal team was “currently reviewing the lawfulness of the governor’s move and determining next steps.”
The Goldwater Institute’s June 14th letter to Treasurer Yee states that “on January 1, 2023, the Governor’s Office entered an Interagency Service Agreement with the Treasurer’s Office to provide up to $50,000,000 in federal grant money from the American Rescue Plan (ARPA), via the ESA program, to children in kindergarten starting with the 2023 academic year…In exchange for your office’s commitment to administer and report on the grant program, the Governor made a contractual commitment to provide the funds and to ‘work with’ your office ‘to establish a cadence whereby [the Governor] will transfer funding to [the Treasurer] to then disburse to grant program recipients.’ The Agreement was, and is, a legally binding contract.”
Thorpe’s letter also asserts that “nothing in the Agreement or in state law permits unilateral termination by the Governor,” calling Hobbs’ prior justifications “groundless,” adding that “the Governor has no right to simply cancel an agreement based on unfounded speculation that the agreement violates the law.”
The first-year Arizona governor had touted that by taking this action, her office had “adverted a violation of federal law and the State Constitution.”
The attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation also communicated that “we find it troubling that Governor Hobbs is attempting this rollback of the ESA program after a long history of campaigning against, and promising to end, the Legislature’s recent expansion of the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship program.” He continued, “Having already failed in her bid to defund the ESA program through the budget process earlier this year, it appears Governor Hobbs is attempting to cancel the all-day kindergarten grants, not in order to comply with state or federal law (as described above, the program is entirely lawful), but as part of a transparent effort to harm and undermine the ESA program wherever possible.”
In a supplemental post, Thorpe added, “It’s simple: the governor does not have a right to lawlessly renege on promises made to Arizona families. Goldwater will never stop fighting to empower parents, expand choices in education, and to hold government officials accountable – in Arizona and throughout the country.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
