Progressive activist group leaders were charged and one was trespassed from Northern Arizona University (NAU) in connection with an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest.
The penalties resulted from the conduct of members from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Flagstaff during their ICE OUT protest earlier this month.
SDS Flagstaff is not a registered club on campus, and NAU does not recognize it as an official club on campus. The organization was founded in January 2026 and immediately began holding protests against ICE.
Kimberly Ott, associate vice president of University Strategic Communications, told The Lumberjack that SDS Flagstaff may register as an official club but has declined to take the necessary steps to fulfill registration requirements.
SDS Flagstaff Vice President Sarah Rogala and member Judah “Jay” Francabandera face allegations of code of conduct violations. Student Gio Alvarez also faces allegations. The students reportedly face penalties that may include suspension or expulsion.
The allegations include failure to comply with university officials and disrupting campus.
Rogala and Francabandera are scheduled to have their hearings on the charges later this month.
The organization held another protest opposing the charges against Rogala and Francabandera.
SDS is also accused of posting flyers and tabling on campus property, and using sound amplification without NAU permission.
Rogala was charged with code of conduct violations last semester and received probation set to expire Nov. 1, 2026.
NAU also trespassed Claire Wagoner, who is the SDS Flagstaff president, a member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization in Flagstaff, and a former NAU student.
Wagoner was also charged with code of conduct violations last semester as well. Those violations resulted in her receiving a deferred suspension set to expire May 1, 2028.
SDS Flagstaff is also demanding that NAU turn itself into a “sanctuary campus,” meaning that law enforcement could not detain illegal aliens on the property. SDS Flagstaff renewed their demands to the university in a statement following an ICE enforcement action that occurred on September 16.
“On Wednesday, September 16th, ICE agents kidnapped someone from Flagstaff, and these terrorists threatened to raid his home and kidnap his wife and children if they did not ‘self deport,’” stated SDS Flagstaff. “[ICE] is terrorizing anyone and everyone these fascist agents deem not white enough to be ‘legal.’”
In February, the organization held a sit-in protest and submitted more than 400 petition signatures as part of demands that NAU implement sanctuary campus policies. Justin Mallett, NAU’s vice president of Inclusive Excellence, and Bernadine Lewis, program director of Inclusive Excellence, met with Wagoner and Rogala but ultimately denied their demands.
That month, SDS Flagstaff also successfully protested against campus visits by the CIA, Border Patrol, and ICE. The CIA was scheduled to answer student questions, and all three agencies were anticipated to appear for the university’s Career Fair programming.
In March, SDS Flagstaff members demanded the Flagstaff City Council approve an ordinance from Keep Flagstaff Together banning ICE from operating on city property. The council rejected the proposed ordinance.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) narrowly approved a land acknowledgment statement for Native Americans during its regular meeting last week.
The board approved the land acknowledgment statement 3-2. The governing board will read a land acknowledgment statement at every meeting and at all graduation ceremony programs.
Board President Patti Serrano, donned in a pro-Palestine keffiyeh scarf and MEChA t-shirt, joined Member Claudia Mendoza and Vice President Barb Mozden in voting to require the land acknowledgment statement. Members Kurt Rohrs and Ryan Heap voted against the measure.
Serrano said this land acknowledgement statement was necessary to make Native American students feel “safe” to show up and learn at CUSD schools.
Serrano also claimed that a land acknowledgment statement did not mean that the district would be required to accept requests for acknowledgments for other identity groups.
CUSD has posted a land acknowledgment statement and accompanying video on its Indigenous Education Program page since 2025.
That land acknowledgment statement reads that the district exists on lands previously occupied by the Piipaash, Akimel O’odham, Gila River, Salt River, Pima, Maricopa, and Yaqui tribes.
Board member Rohrs questioned whether there would be future efforts to expand the requirement to read a land acknowledgment statement throughout other aspects of district activities, such as student functions like football games, CUSD staff meetings, and the beginning of classes.
Rohrs also said that land acknowledgement statements signaled bias and favoritism toward certain groups. He warned that the board’s approval would lead to demands by countless other identity groups: Holocaust recognition for Jewish students, acknowledgments for the various religious groups, or commemorations of veterans for students in military families.
Rohrs contended that the statement was rooted in “identity politics” that would further cause division in the CUSD community.
“Despite denials, this is clearly a political statement that reveals a preferential and exclusive bias towards a certain point of view of a certain identity group. The district must remain neutral in these matters,” said Rohrs. “For practical matters, this unnecessarily politicizes our board meetings. It has no real purpose in addressing our primary mission of improving academic performance for our students. This statement is an empty performance gesture of wokeness which really doesn’t accomplish anything and distracts from our core mission.”
Board member Heap remarked that the district faces much more pressing matters concerning student outcomes, citing an example of two more students who left the district for homeschooling due to the district ignoring or dismissing requests to curtail teacher and student usage of vulgar language. Heap also remarked that reading scores have declined to the lower 50th percentile.
Heap expressed doubt that the lack of a land acknowledgment statement was having negative impacts on the district, especially the current pressing issues of declining enrollment. According to the board, less than 2% of students will be directly impacted by the land acknowledgement statement.
Heap questioned why there were acknowledgments for certain identity groups but not others, which prompted laughter from the pro-land acknowledgment statement audience in attendance.
“Any time when we choose to highlight a group of students only based on their identity, nationality, heritage, we indirectly eschew — that means, you ignore — other people. We have a Hispanic heritage month. Do we have an Irish month? Do we have an Anglo-Saxon month?” asked Heap. “I don’t think that it’s appropriate for us to engage in that activity, either, because we are now wandering in areas that even if it’s right or wrong, I believe this statement ends up [having] a political connotation. Anytime you do that, you show bias, and that’s going to end up driving away students.”
Mendoza said that the statement was necessary for respecting diversity and belonging.
“By doing this, we are demonstrating that every story matters and every voice has value,” said Mendoza.
Mozden predicted the statement would improve Native American students’ academic performance.
“We have to start somewhere to try to raise our academic performance for some of our subgroups,” said Mozden.
The land acknowledgment incited some community members to call on Serrano to step down from the board, since Serrano led on the effort of its adoption.
Serrano has been accused of imposing a land acknowledgment without board concurrence at board meetings and graduation ceremonies.
Serrano has historically declined to participate in recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and took her oath of office on a fiction book written by Arizona State University professor David Boyle describing the gay sexual fantasies of a boy and his peers and the boy’s rejection of the values held by his conservative, Christian parents.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is contemplating more school closures as enrollment continues to decline.
The SUSD governing board discussed their options going forward during Tuesday’s meeting. Superintendent Scott Menzel said “some very, very difficult decisions need to be made.”
Since 2010, SUSD enrollment has declined by 6,000 students and the district has only closed one school. SUSD also reported rising costs, competition against school choice programs for students, and underutilized facilities as key pressures on district conditions.
“We have far more physical space than we have students to fill that space,” said Menzel.
As part of Phase I of restructuring for “full and thriving schools,” SUSD decided to close Pima Elementary School and Echo Canyon School. The district is now in Phase II, where it will decide the fate of the Desert Mountain Learning Community and Copper Ridge School.
Capacity is below 50% at Laguna Elementary (43%), Desert Canyon Elementary (37%), and Cheyenne Traditional (11%).
SUSD is facing an open meetings violation complaint pertaining to these closed-door Phase II proceedings to determine closures and consolidations.
SUSD’s Phase II Design Advisory Team doesn’t permit the public to attend its meetings under its classification as a Superintendent Advisory Committee, but the complaint against the district contends that the team was formed at the direction of the governing board.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) is now handling the complaint after the Arizona Attorney General’s Office cited a potential conflict of interest.
The MCAO told AZ Free News that they just recently received the complaint from the attorney general on July 17, though it was filed back in April. Their office also told us that it couldn’t provide any additional details at this time since it is an open investigation.
The Phase II Design Advisory Team presented three options for further restructuring, in the following order of greatest to least preferences:
First-most preference: close Copper Ridge K-8 and Laguna Prep, redistribute boundaries, and a possible Desert Canyon K-8 merger. This option would impact 773 to 872 students and provide more than $2.7 million in savings.
Second-most preference: move Cheyenne Traditional K-8 to Copper Ridge, move Laguna Prep and Redfield to Cheyenne campus, and a potential Desert Canyon K-8 merger. This option would impact 2,126 to 2,232 students and provide nearly $2.6 million in savings.
Third-most preference: merge Desert Canyon schools into K-8 at Copper Ridge, close Laguna Prep, repurpose Desert Canyon campuses and Laguna Prep. This option would impact 2,132 to 2,153 students and provide nearly $2.7 million in savings.
Impact was measured beyond students moving into schools to include certain students at receiving schools.
All three options were presented with multiple potential models for restructuring boundaries.
Member Amy Carney attempted to explain that she believed closing schools was the “easy option,” to which she objected, but was interrupted multiple times by Governing Board Vice President Mike Sharkey and counsel with cautions that she shouldn’t express opinions about what the board should and shouldn’t do prior to community debate on the options.
Member Carine Werner urged agendizing a board discussion about the options before them prior to the board meeting in October in which they are scheduled to make a vote.
Member Matthew Pittinsky expressed caution against exploring other options beyond what the Phase II Design Advisory Team had presented to them; he characterized Carney’s position as “a very slippery slope.”
The district said it has not yet determined how it would repurpose any closed schools.
SUSD scheduled a special session to receive additional community input on September 22.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Eli Crane (R-AZ-02) are urging the Trump administration to select Arizona State University (ASU) as the home of a new national advanced manufacturing center aimed at strengthening military readiness and the U.S defense industrial base.
Biggs led a letter this month alongside Crane to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth supporting an ASU Research Enterprise proposal to establish the Applied Research for Manufacturing Operational Readiness Center or ARMOR Center, at ASU’s Polytechnic campus.
The U.S. Army is seeking to establish the center to help move advanced manufacturing technologies from research and development into practical military applications.
Under ASU’s proposal, the ARMOR Center would create a pipeline for developing, testing, qualifying, and scaling new manufacturing technologies before transitioning them into the Army’s Organic Industrial Base, defense contractors, and other manufacturing partners.
The center would focus on areas including additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence-enabled manufacturing, advanced composites and point-of-need production.
“Led by institutions and companies like Arizona State University, our state continues to position itself at the forefront of America’s defense industrial base,” stated Congressman Biggs. “Throughout my time in Congress, I have been pleased to support projects and initiatives that strengthen our national defense and help safeguard our citizens, freedoms, and interests.”
I recently led a letter to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth supporting Arizona State University’s application to establish the Applied Research for Manufacturing Operational Readiness Center at ASU’s Polytechnic campus in #AZ05.
Biggs said ASU is well positioned to lead the effort and expressed hope that the administration will select the university’s proposal.
In their letter to Hegseth, Biggs and Crane argued that Arizona’s existing defense industry, military installations, semiconductor investments, and research capabilities make the state a strong candidate for the center.
Arizona is home to major defense and aerospace companies including Raytheon, Honeywell Aerospace, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Boeing, along with hundreds of suppliers involved in the production of missiles, aircraft, avionics, and electronics.
Biggs and Crane also pointed to more than $210 billion in semiconductor and microelectronics investments announced in Arizona since 2020, arguing that the expanding industry could provide the Army with an established network for developing and scaling advanced manufacturing technologies.
Arizona’s military presence was also highlighted in the letter.
Fort Huachuca and Yuma Proving Ground support Army missions and testing, while Luke Air Force Base, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma provide additional military infrastructure within the state.
“Few states combine manufacturing, research, testing, and military operations in one place,” wrote Biggs and Crane.
ASU has also invested heavily in manufacturing research at its Polytechnic campus. It’s $200 million interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building 12 contains approximately $6 million in advanced manufacturing equipment, according to the letter.
The university offers bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in manufacturing engineering and graduates more than 1,000 students annually across manufacturing, mechanical, and industrial engineering programs.
ASU has also conducted nearly $300 million in Department of War research during the past three fiscal years and leads one of the nation’s eight Microelectronics Commons hubs.
Beyond establishing the ARMOR Center, ASU’s proposal could position Arizona to host a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) supporting the Army’s modernization and readiness efforts.
Such a center would provide the Army with a long-term research partner focused on developing and transitioning technologies needed for national defense.
Supporters contend that bringing the ARMOR Center to Arizona could strengthen domestic manufacturing capacity, expand the military’s ability to adopt emerging technologies, and reduce vulnerabilities within defense supply chains.
“A UARC in Arizona would deepen the Army’s partnership with a state that already delivers defense manufacturing, semiconductor production, federally funded research, and a skilled engineering workforce,” Biggs and Crane wrote.
Biggs and Crane asked Hegseth to give ASU’s proposal “full and fair consideration,” arguing that Arizona’s combination of defense manufacturing, military infrastructure, research capabilities and engineering workforce makes the state a natural location for the new national center.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) Governing Board member Kurt Rohrs is calling for Board President Patti Serrano to step down, accusing her of attempting to impose a land acknowledgment at board meetings and graduation ceremonies without the board’s concurrence. His proposed resolution comes as the board is scheduled to consider approving the acknowledgment at its September 9 meeting.
The district’s current agenda lists Serrano’s proposal as Item 9.01, “Possible Action to Approve CUSD Land Acknowledgement.” The proposal requests approval to include the acknowledgment at every governing board meeting and in all district graduation ceremony programs.
The proposal initially appeared as an information item on the August 19 agenda, announcing that the practice would begin September 9. According to the district’s draft minutes, board member Ryan Heap requested that it return at the next meeting as an action item.
The district’s proposal describes the acknowledgment as a “meaningful expression of respect and recognition” honoring Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty, history, and contributions. Serrano defended the practice during the August discussion.
Rohrs’ resolution alleges that Serrano attempted to introduce the acknowledgment without the board’s agreement and created division through politically motivated activity unrelated to academic performance.
In the resolution, Rohrs wrote that Serrano “has abused her authority as Board President” and “should immediately step down as Board President and be replaced by another Board Member who can faithfully carry out those duties.” The document contains no recorded vote or adoption date.
Rohrs also criticized Serrano for declining to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the resolution. Video obtained from meeting attendees in April 2025 showed Serrano standing with her hand over her heart without reciting the pledge. The report said Serrano declined to discuss her reasons during public comment because the matter was not on the agenda and offered to follow up personally with the community member who raised it.
In his written request to remove the item, Rohrs argued that the acknowledgment would inject political and social activism into district business.
“This is an arbitrary decision that was never discussed or approved by the board,” Rohrs said during the August meeting. “There is no district policy that either requires or allows this. Land acknowledgment can be considered as a progressive socialist partisan political performance piece that has nothing to do with improving academic performance of our students.”
In his written removal request, Rohrs alleged that the acknowledgment appeared to violate provisions of A.R.S. § 15-112 and A.R.S. § 41-1494. “This statement is also divisive and promotes negative stereotypes and guilt-shaming regarding certain other ethnic groups,” he wrote.
Serrano disputed Rohrs’ contention that the acknowledgment would violate state law, arguing that the acknowledgment concerns sovereign Native nations and pointing to similar practices at Arizona’s public universities and community colleges.
The dispute also involved Rohrs’ decision to speak during public comment as a private citizen and taxpayer. The draft minutes record Serrano warning that the attorney general’s office had discouraged board members from switching roles during meetings because of potential Open Meeting Law concerns and confusion over whom they represent.
Rohrs responded that he had a right to speak and would not be intimidated into silence. Serrano said she was relaying the attorney general’s guidance and that her remarks were not intended to intimidate him, as noted in the minutes, which remain a draft pending board approval.
CUSD already maintains a “Land Acknowledgement 2025” section on its Indigenous Education Program website. The page identifies the district’s location as ancestral land of the Piipaash, Akimel O’odham, Gila River, Salt River, Pima, Maricopa, and Yaqui tribes and includes a land acknowledgment video.
Board members Barb Mozdzen and Claudia Mendoza expressed support for the acknowledgment during the August discussion, citing respect for Indigenous history, Native students, and the district’s community.
The September 9 public meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at 1525 W. Frye Road in Chandler. The action portion is tentatively scheduled for 8:20 p.m. The agenda notes that listed times are approximate.
Goldwater Institute attorneys urged the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson to pursue his lawsuit alleging that the school’s “Inclusive Communities” employee training violated state law.
During oral arguments in Arizona Board of Regents v. Anderson, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches argued that the Arizona Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal analysis when it concluded that Anderson had no implied private right to enforce the statute in court.
If a legal right exists, so does the right to enforce it.
That's the case we made before the Arizona Supreme Court today on behalf of @dr_owenanderson, a professor at ASU who is fighting for his right NOT to be forced into discriminatory DEI training. pic.twitter.com/OoPngHtixm
“Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy, is one of the oldest maxims in Anglo-American law,” Riches told the justices. “For decades, this court has applied that principle to find implied causes of action where a statute does not expressly create them. Yet without citing a single one of this court’s cases, the lower court did exactly what this court commanded it not to; it treated legislative silence as dispositive as to whether a statute creates a cause of action. But as this court [has held], legislative silence begins rather than ends the inquiry.”
In a post to X on Tuesday, Anderson invoked the legal maxim in Latin, writing, “‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ if there is a right there is a remedy. A cornerstone principle of common law. Yet @ASU and @AZRegents are asking the @AZCourts to suspend this principle and keep me as an employee from holding them responsible for racist DEI training.”
Anderson also shared a clip from the hearing in which Justice Clint Bolick characterized the right-remedy maxim as “the indispensable common law principle” and invoked Chief Justice John Marshall’s discussion of the principle in the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.
Following the hearing, Anderson posted a statement saying, “That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts. Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly as to say, ‘I forgot the question.’ Oops! Now we wait for a decision.”
That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly…
The Supreme Court limited its review to whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the factors established in the court’s 1988 Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Courtdecision before finding that A.R.S. § 41-1494 provides no implied private right of action.
Those factors include the statute’s context and language, its subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the law’s overall purpose. Riches argued that the lower court improperly treated the Legislature’s silence about a private cause of action as conclusive instead of beginning the broader analysis required under Transamerica.
The Arizona Board of Regents asked the justices to uphold the appellate ruling. In its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court, the board argued that courts should begin with the statutory text and consider secondary factors such as legislative history, consequences, and purpose only when the text is ambiguous.
The board maintained that § 41-1494 regulates government conduct without creating a private right or remedy. It also pointed to the statute’s annual compliance-reporting requirement and argued that lawmakers left enforcement to elected officials. The board said nearly all surrounding statutes contain express private rights of action, indicating that the Legislature deliberately omitted one from § 41-1494.
The statute prohibits the state, its agencies, and political subdivisions from requiring employees to undergo training, orientation, or therapy that presents blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex. It also prohibits the use of public money for such training and directs the Arizona Department of Administration to submit an annual compliance report to the governor and legislative leaders.
Anderson’s case began after ASU informed employees in October 2022 that they were required to complete its “Inclusive Communities” training. Anderson, a philosophy and religious studies professor, filed suit against the Board of Regents in 2024, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Anderson alleges that the training presented prohibited concepts involving race, sex, and identity. His court filings cite training materials discussing “whiteness,” white supremacy, heterosexual privilege, land acknowledgments, and efforts to “decolonize the university.” The accompanying examination identified designated answers concerning systemic bias, transformative justice, and the incorporation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging throughout the university.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the statute contained no express private cause of action but concluded that it implied one for employees subjected to prohibited training. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, finding that the statute “unambiguously does not create a private right of action.”
The Court of Appeals left Anderson’s underlying allegations about the training unresolved. The Supreme Court’s current review also concerns the enforcement question rather than whether the content of ASU’s training violated § 41-1494.
The Board of Regents has disputed that the training was mandatory. Anderson said the alleged injury arose from being required to undergo the training.
“Well, I think the hurt is in taking the training, and so I would ask them to consider it from their perspective if they were asked to sit through hours of training that involved racial discrimination against a group they identify with, they would be offended by that and feel hurt,” Anderson said. “So the hurt — the consequence — is just in the fact that I had to sit through that.”
Anderson previously asked the Supreme Court to accept the case after the appellate ruling, arguing that public employees would otherwise lack an effective way to enforce the training prohibition. Goldwater’s petition sought recognition of an implied private cause of action allowing employees to challenge alleged violations by government employers.
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement following Tuesday’s arguments. Anderson said that he intends to proceed toward trial if the justices recognize his right to bring the claim. The court has not announced a deadline for its decision.
