NFL Alumni Association chaplain and Phoenix-based pastor Drew Anderson addressed the Senate Education Committee in favor of a bill to expand Arizona’s school choice system, SB1657, calling school choice the “civil rights movement of our era” and condemning the modern K-12 public school system as “educational slavery.” He insisted that the current education system fails the black and brown community.
“There is nothing more important to humanity right now than school choice,” said Anderson. “In 1865, it was an unpopular decision for a lot of legislators to get together to end a system that was as American as apple pie,” said Anderson. “But here we are in 2022, asking a group of legislators once again to make an unpopular decision, which is to end educational slavery.”
SB1657 would expand eligibility for Arizona’s school choice system, the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, by allowing students with: disabilities identified by public school systems in other states; a parent that is a veteran, first responder, or full-time health professional; income that qualifies for federal free and reduced-price lunch programs; a household that receives benefits from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Section 8 Public Housing Assistance; participation in federal Title I services for low-income students under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); residence in the attendance boundary of a school that qualifies for schoolwide Title I Program funding under ESSA or whose governing board submitted a plan to the School Facilities Oversight Board within the last two years requesting additional construction or funding due to exceeding existing capacity; or current or past participation in the Education Recovery Benefit Program, Open for Learning Recovery Benefit Program, or any successor state grant program.
The Senate Education Committee passed the bill along party lines, 5-3. Even Anderson’s testimony on how the current education system fails the children of his community, and how school choice initiatives helped him escape a life of crime, poverty, and even early death wasn’t enough to persuade the three committee Democrats.
State Senator Paul Boyer (R-Glendale), the bill’s sponsor, explained that voters overwhelmingly showed bipartisan support for school choice expansion.
“I just have to mention this — and I don’t normally talk about voters in the chamber — but it’s been brought up twice now,” stated Boyer. “I have a poll from last year, Signal, considered the most accurate pollster by the New York Times. Once voters heard the description of this particular bill last year, they supported this. Seventy percent support. That was last year. This year, again when the particulars of this program were described, 74 percent. It’s an increase of four percent just this year, with strong majorities among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. This is simply what the public wants and what the parents want.”
During his testimony, Anderson challenged the rhetoric that systems needed to end and funding needed to increase or be left untouched, pointing out that the current system of public funding trapping and hurting minority children was steeped in financial self-interest. He said that the school-to-prison pipeline was the elephant in the room.
“We have school districts who sit and complain about losing funding while all these black and brown kids are going to prison. Nobody complains about public funds going to private prisons to incarcerate black souls, but everybody wants to complain about public funds going to educate black minds,” asserted Anderson. “Why is it okay for public dollars to go to private prisons, but it’s not okay for public dollars to go to private schools?”
Anderson argued further that the $31,000 spent by the state on each prisoner could be mitigated by allowing the $15,000 it would take to offer a student school choice.
“We need a lifeline in the black community right now,” said Anderson. “In 1864 we were chained to plantations, but in 2022 we’re chained to failing schools.”
Boyer asked if Anderson had personally seen ESAs help minority children. Anderson revealed that he had, and was also one of those children who benefited from school choice. The pastor described how he was able to avoid being recruited for selling crack cocaine because he received a scholarship to attend an elite private school in Chicago, Illinois — one that his mother couldn’t dream of affording, though she worked three jobs. Anderson recounted how that education set him on a path to playing for the NFL and eventually earning enough money to ensure his mother didn’t have to work again. Anderson added that of his five childhood friends, three were in prison and two were dead by the time he graduated high school.
“I’m not here because of what I heard. I’m here because of what an ESA did for me,” explained Anderson. “We talk all the time about funds, we talk all the time about test scores. You know what we need to talk about? These private schools that are offering our black and brown kids a 98 percent graduation rate and a 90 percent continuation rate. I’m not worried about an AzMerit score. To hell with that! What I’m worried about is, if I send my kid to Brophy [Preparatory School], 98 percent of those kids are graduating. If I send my kid to Brophy, 90-odd percent of those kids are going to college. Men lie, women lie, but numbers don’t.”
Senator Theresa Hatathalie (D-Coal Mine Canyon) expressed concern that there weren’t accountability measures for the academic progress of ESA students. Boyer reiterated what Anderson pointed out: that private schools have better graduation rates and other indicators of success than public schools have shown.
Anderson brought up data that the graduation rates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were higher for students coming from private schools than those from public schools. He said that it wasn’t just about the success metrics, but safety. Anderson described how, just that morning, he witnessed eight black elementary school children exposing themselves to danger because they had to walk to their public school in South Phoenix before daybreak.
“If you’re going to a school where 98 percent of the people are graduating, there’s no other proof, there’s no other test you could give somebody to say the school is succeeding,” said Anderson. “I’ve never watched the news and it says, ‘Harvard graduates rob Circle K, details at six.’ That’s not what you see. But what you do see is, ‘South Mountain High School dropout mugs lady, details at six.’ So instead of test scores, why don’t we worry about graduation rates and continuation rates? If black and brown kids are going to college, that means they’re not going to penitentiaries.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Certain House Republicans have decided to shift from the defensive to the offensive concerning their opposition to school choice as proposed by the rest of their party.
Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate and State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) introduced HB2185, a bill to require annual standardized testing for Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) recipients from grades 3-12. It would also require schools to post an aggregate of the test scores on their website, organized by grade level. The bill would exempt students with disabilities. State Representatives Joel John (R-Buckeye) and Joanne Osborne (R-Goodyear) signed on as cosponsors.
The bill continues the three legislators’ arguments that ESAs needed greater oversight. Udall stated last October that she’s not opposed to school choice outright if it comes with “appropriate accountability measures.” Udall explained that charter schools initially had the same problems that plague certain schools receiving ESAs currently.
“The issue I have with ESAs is the lack of accountability. When I tried speaking to proponents about appropriate accountability, they walked away from the conversation (on multiple occasions),” tweeted Udall. “When we first started charter schools, we had the same problem. The lack of accountability led to subpar education for many. We had to add accountability over the years. Our students can’t afford to repeat that mistake again with private schools that have even less accountability. Children at subpar public schools (D/F letter grades) already have access to ESAs. And when I submitted a proposal with some modest accountability and a restriction that children eligible for the expansion could only use ESAs to attend high achieving schools, they walked away.”
I’m not opposed to school choice with appropriate accountability measures. The issue I have with ESAs is the lack of accountability. When I tried speaking to proponents about appropriate accountability, they walked away from the conversation (on multiple occasions).
Udall’s latest bill was assigned to the House Education Committee, but hasn’t been given a date for review.
Last December, there were talks that the Maricopa County Republican Party would censure Udall, John, and Osborne for voting against State Representative Shawnna Bolick’s (R-Phoenix) expansion of the ESA program as part of the summer budget bill. The party passed the resolution to oppose the three legislators in their campaigns — “In Support of Parental Involvement and Choice in Education,” introduced by former State Senate President Russell Pearce — with nine votes in favor, one against, and one abstention. The following is the text of Pearce’s resolution:
“Whereas Republicans, like most Americans, believe that parents, not bureaucrats, should be making decisions for their children’s education; Whereas it is a core conservative belief that the people who matter most in our schools are our students and our teachers, even though liberals believe it is the administrators, diversity training officers, and vaccine mandate supervisors; and
Whereas what remains of the old public school monopoly continues to fight to obstruct efforts to
expand school choice in Arizona, because they are desperate to hang on to as much money and control as they can for as long as possible; and Whereas today’s Democrat Party is targeting parents and has weaponized the Department of Justice to pursue parents who oppose radical curriculum like Critical Race Theory; and Whereas Arizona parents know what is best for their children and deserve as many education options as possible; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party remains 100% committed to expanding
school choice options for students and parents; and further be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party encourages parents to rise up, run for school board offices, and make their voices heard, and that the Maricopa County Republican Party will support those efforts whenever possible; and further be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party calls attention to, and opposes Republicans who campaign as conservatives while voting against school choice and against the best interests of students and parents – specifically Representatives Joanne Osborne, Michelle Udall, and Joel John.”
The party also opted to pass a resolution to hold Udall accountable for her voting record.
Udall aligns neatly with her party on other school-related issues: opposition to masking and vaccination mandates, and critical race theory, to name a few. On the topic of school choice, however, Udall disagrees, coming from the perspective of an educator and candidate for the state’s superintendent of education.
I'm a mom. I'm a teacher. And I'm running for Superintendent of Public Education. Because our kids can't afford 4 more yrs of school closures, contentious mandates, and Critical Race Theory.https://t.co/kgB6uqCYm3
On Thursday, the Arizona House approved two separate bills cracking down on divisive and adult content in K-12 schools: a bill banning critical race theory from curriculum, HB2112, and a bill outlawing sexually-explicit materials from schools, HB2495. Both passed along party lines, 31-28.
Both bills received a similar partisan reception when passed by the House Education Committee: in their opposition of the bills, Democrats doubted their efficacy and necessity, whereas Republicans championed their cause and applauded them.
Introduced by State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa), HB2112 bans teachings rooted in the traditional, original definition racism: that one race, ethnic group, or sex is superior to any other, and that an individual’s race, ethnicity, or sex predetermines their moral character and makes them inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive. The bill also rings of Biblical wisdom: similar to what Ezekiel 18 imparts, teachers also may not assign guilt or lay blame on any student for the actions and events of others who share the student’s race, ethnicity, or sex. Additionally, the bill would reject teachings that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist. Violations of this legislation could result in teachers facing penalties such as suspension or the loss of their teaching certificate, and school districts receiving up to $5,000 in fines per violation.
The legislature’s previous attempt to ban critical race theory was struck down in court last year because it was integrated in a bill that the judge ruled was a violation of the single subject requirement of the state constitution.
Udall explained that she received “countless” pleas from parents on the divisiveness and harms caused by critical race theory teachings in public K-12 schools at present. She cited several specific examples; for one, a Red Mountain High School teacher required students to study the critical race theory terms “intersectionality,” “anti-racist,” and “restorative justice,” then write a self-reflection paper about their privileges. Another example concerned an Arizona State University (ASU) teacher preparation program assigning a book called “Nurture Shock,” in which one chapter discussed “why white parents don’t talk about race.” Yet another example concerned a social studies teacher in Glendale who sent her colleagues materials to discuss race in class, focusing in part on how white people have a greater burden for being anti-racist, such as understanding their privilege.
“This categorization and scapegoating will not heal racial divides. Instead, it emphasizes ethnicity and gender as insurmountable barriers to peace,” said Udall.
Udall then described the gaslighting parents endured when they contended the presence of critical race theory in classrooms: how parents were told their experiences were a one-off incident and that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, despite the National Education Association (NEA) repeatedly advocating for the theory after issuing a resolution last summer that they would make concerted efforts to instill critical race theory teachings in classrooms.
“These concepts should be things we can all agree on: that all men are created equal, that hard work and persistence pay off, that students of all races are capable of being held to a high standard of academic excellence,” said Udall.
Democrats’ arguments against the bill alleged that it would get in the way of teaching history. However, the bill didn’t outlaw teachings of certain history, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws — rather, the bill focused on conclusions and statements of fact imparted by critical race theory teachings.
State Representative Judy Schweibert (D-Phoenix) argued that critical race theory teachings imparted lessons of honesty, integrity, and freedom to pursue dreams.
“When we teach history, it’s not about assigning guilt or blame. It’s about teaching young people to think deeply and critically themselves so we don’t repeat the same mistakes,” said Schweibert.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) insisted that critical race theory teachings were “the truth.” State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Ahwatukee) said that she agreed that “the sins of the father shouldn’t be visited on the children” and appreciated the intent of the bill, but feared that the bill’s wording would prevent teachers from placing any blame on anybody.
HB2495 bans the sexual explicitness of materials given to K-12 students. State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) introduced the bill. It would prohibit K-12 public schools from exposing or referring students to “sexually explicit material,” which was defined as depictions of sexual conduct such as masturbation, intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, public area, buttocks, or a female’s breast; sexual excitement, meaning the sexual stimulation or arousal of human male or female genitals; and ultimate sexual acts, such as any form of or allusion to intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, or sodomy.
The bill passed with Udall’s amendments to exempt classical literature, early American literature, and books required for a course awarding college credit, but only with written parental consent prior to exposure of each material. If parental consent can’t be obtained, the school must furnish the student with an alternative assignment without sexually explicit material.
“This is simply a practice that I believe a majority of Arizonans don’t want. I don’t believe that they want sexually-explicit material shown to their children,” said Hoffman.
In rebuttal, Democrats argued that there were already laws prohibiting inappropriate materials from being shown to children. They insisted that they were equally opposed to showing children pornography in schools.
Schweibert argued that parents didn’t have a right to determine what other people’s children were to learn — even in this case. She asserted that the legislature was “treading on dangerous territory” tantamount to instigating a book burning movement. Schweibert cited bans on historically revered books like “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Of Mice and Men,” and the Bible; however, those were the doing of left-leaning groups, often with blessings from Democratic leaders.
Both bills now head to the Senate for consideration.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It’s not just teachers influencing children on issues like sexuality and gender identity. Kristin Downing, a Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona troop leader in Tucson for over eight years, advocates heavily for gender identity rights for children. Downing has repeatedly helped fundraise and advocate for LGBTQ+ activist organizations with dedicated efforts to influence children such as the Trevor Project, Southern Arizona Gender Alliance (SAGA), and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Prior to volunteering with the Girl Scouts, Downing served five years as a children’s ministry leader with the Church of the Apostles.
On Wednesday, Downing addressed the House Government and Elections Committee that they passed, HB2294, which would require state documents to list an individual’s sex as either male or female. Downing explained that her 15-year-old daughter announced that she was non-binary at 12 years old, and was celebrated and praised by their entire community, including coaches, medical care providers, friends, family, and Downing’s fellow Girl Scout troop leaders.
Downing asserted that her daughter feels unsupported when state paperwork requires her to list her biological gender. She claimed that the same wouldn’t be true of “more welcoming states” like California — a state that recently allowed a 26-year-old male convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl to serve out his prison sentence in a girl’s juvenile detention facility because he claimed he was a transgender female. Downing said her daughter’s excitement over the prospect of getting her driver’s license was dampened by the fact that she would be required to list her biological gender, and not be able to identify legally as “nonbinary.”
A judge gave a 26yo who molested 10yo girl in 2014 2-years in Juvenile facility. Judge: his hands are tied because LA County DA Gascon will not try the then 17yo as adult. James Tubbs does NOT have to register as sex offender. Could be 8-12 years if tried as adult. @KFIAM640pic.twitter.com/HBVcFdHFo7
Downing suggested allowing nonbinary adults and children to mark an “X” instead of acknowledging their gender as either male or female.
“It’s very difficult every time we have to start a new semester, or go to a new activity, we have to have a whole conversation ahead of time about my child’s pronouns,” said Downing.
On social media, Downing has expressed that those against transgenderism in any way are inciting harm. In a Facebook post, Downing characterized opposition to transgenderism as “violence.” She insisted that “kids should be allowed to be kids” by allowing them to use the bathroom or join the sports team of their choice, regardless of their biological sex.
“They shouldn’t have their existence debated. Nobody should. I’m so exhausted from this discussion that is happening on a national stage — the kids are watching, they hear it all, and you are harming them,” wrote Downing. “Trans and non-binary kids deserve the same rights and the same ability to be their damn selves as everyone else. So I guess that’s today’s post about the trans week of visibility. A bit of a rant, because this is all f*****g b******t and I’m so tired of trying to tiptoe around it and make room for people’s discomfort and feelings — let’s call it what it is — it’s bigotry and transphobia. It’s an act of violence against the trans community and our children. There shouldn’t be allowances made for that.”
Girl Scouts allows transgender girls to join troops on a case-by-case basis, so long as the boy “is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl.” They also sell rainbow LGBTQ pride “fun” patches to encourage girls to show their inclusivity and support for the LGBTQ community.
In 2019, Girl Scouts recognized a member as one of their National Gold Award Girl Scouts for that year, their highest award, because she started a now-defunct online magazine for children within the LGBTQ community. The publication, Gliterary Magazine, mainly showcased fanfiction-style works about children discussing their LGBTQ experiences.
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.
