by Corinne Murdock | Jul 18, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Three of the Arizona State University (ASU) professors behind a campaign to oppose an event featuring conservative speakers argue that only inclusive persons belong on university campuses.
In an opinion piece published in the Arizona Republic, the three professors argue that those who reject inclusive ideals were the real threat to debate and therefore should be barred from participating in democratic exchange. The trio — Barrett Honors College professors Jenny Brian, Michael Ostling, and Alex Young — noted that they weren’t opposed to all conservative speakers, referencing a 2018 event featuring conservative legal scholar Robert George.
Earlier this year, the three professors signed onto a letter petitioning Barrett Honors College leadership to oppose an event featuring conservative personalities Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk, and Robert Kiyosaki. The trio insisted that their original letter wasn’t an attempt to cancel the event, but merely a means of expressing consternation. AZ Free News learned that on-campus marketing of the controversial event was removed following the complaint letter. 37 of 47 Barrett faculty members signed onto the letter.
“By platforming and legitimating their extreme anti-intellectual and anti-democratic views, Barrett will not be furthering the cause of democratic exchange at ASU, but undermining it in ways that could further marginalize the most vulnerable members of our community,” read the letter. “Our collective efforts to promote Barrett as a home for inclusive excellence demand we distance ourselves from the hate that these provocateurs hope to legitimate by attaching themselves to Barrett’s name.”
In terms of reported attempts to recruit students to boycott the event, the three professors denied the charges. The trio added that they held an alternative “teach in” event preceding the T.W. Lewis Center event: “Defending the Public University.”
The three professors also denied responsibility for the dissolution of the T.W. Lewis Center and dismissal of its executive director, Ann Atkinson.
“As Barrett faculty, we see a brighter future for public higher education. We will continue to fight for a university ‘measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes,’” stated the trio. “The ‘antagonistic cooperation’ of democratic exchange in Arizona’s public universities deserves to be defended against those who reject the inclusive ideals that make it possible.”
The letter was met with immediate response from a vocal critic of the Barrett Honors faculty opposed to the T.W. Lewis Center event: ASU humanities professor Owen Anderson. He criticized the three professors’ opinion piece as a poor display of logic and reason.
“[W]hat was their argument? They never gave one (not one that got above informal fallacies),” wrote Anderson. “No professor would give a good grade to a paper like this from a student. How can a professor who thinks this way teach others?”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 18, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Last Tuesday, Gov. Katie Hobbs announced that she signed the state onto the U.S. Climate Alliance: a Democrat-led initiative advancing the progressive energy reforms within the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal.
Hobbs characterized the alliance — a project of the private nonprofit United Nations Foundation — as bipartisan. The only state in the alliance with a Republican governor is Vermont.
According to their 2021 tax filing, the United Nations Foundation pulled in $86.7 million according to ProPublica, with over $281 million the previous year. It spent nearly $23.1 million on climate initiatives in that 2021 filing, and around $25.2 million in the 2020 filling.
The alliance was founded in 2017 by the governors of California, New York, and Washington after the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement. California raised the initial funds to kickstart the alliance.
The current executive committee, elected in May, consists of all Democrats: Govs. Gavin Newsom (California), Janet Mills (Maine), Michelle Lujan Grisham (New Mexico), Kathy Hochul (New York), and Jay Inslee (Washington).
Other Democrat-led states in the alliance are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
The territories of Guam and Puerto Rico are also in the alliance.
Express goals of the alliance concern fulfillment of the U.S. pledge to the Paris Agreement and proposals outlined by the Green New Deal. The alliance was behind recent joint efforts with the White House to decarbonize government buildings and purchase of low-carbon, American-made construction materials. In February, the alliance convened in Washington, D.C. to deliver 21 specific federal climate actions to accomplish a “net-zero future” — aka, zero carbon.
A zero carbon future includes replacement of coal, gas, and oil-based power sources with total electrification. The World Economic Forum (WEF), a globalist activist organization, defined a net zero carbon future as including decarbonized buildings, wind and solar energy reliance, and electric vehicles.
Collectively, alliance goals include reducing collective greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 26-28 percent by 2025, 50-52 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050; centering equity, environmental justice, and a “just economic transition” in all initiatives; and building a globalist accountability network between states and “the global community.”
California leads on all fronts except one: statewide building performance standards for efficiency. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary form of GHG. The secondary GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and the industrial gasses: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
Alliance staff hail from a variety of high-profile progressive backgrounds within state or federal government, or climate advocacy organizations.
Casey Katims, the executive director, formerly worked as the deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations at the EPA, director of federal and inter-state affairs for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, senior legislative assistant for Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, and executive assistant for Inslee when he was a congressman.
Taryn Finnessey, managing director, formerly worked as the senior climate change specialist for Colorado and water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates.
Andrew Sand, the policy director and formerly the senior policy advisor, formerly worked as the deputy director, assistant director, legislative liaison, and policy advisor for the Colorado Energy Office; chaired the Colorado New Energy Improvement District’s board of directors; served as chief of staff for former Colorado Sen. Gail Schwartz.
Marwa Kamel, senior policy advisor, also works as a freelance climate consultant; she formerly worked as a policy advisor to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and a consultant for the World Bank.
Mark Teschauer, senior policy advisor, formerly worked as a senior consultant for the WSP environmental consulting firm and program manager for the American Public Transportation Association.
Kareem Hammoud, senior policy analyst, formerly worked sporadically as a Yale University teaching fellow and research assistant, contractor with the Rocky Mountain Institute, and analyst for Parnassus Investments.
Kristin Igusky, programs and analysis director, formerly worked as an associate for the World Resources Institute and climate change analyst for SAIC.
Evan Westrup, communications director and founder of Sempervirent Strategies consulting firm, formerly worked as a fellow for the German Marshall Fund, press secretary and communications director for former California Gov. Jerry Brown, and deputy press secretary for the California Department of Justice. Last year it was reported that Westrup’s consulting firm would receive $10,000 a month from a committee formed by his former boss, Brown, using the millions in leftover campaign funds. Westrup formed the firm nine months after Brown termed out, according to his LinkedIn profile; the California secretary of state’s office reflects an LLC registration for his firm occurring in January 2021.
Nikki Burnett, senior communications associate, formerly worked as a communications officer for C40 Cities, communications fellow for the Pacific Council on International Policy, and associate with CLS Strategies. That last company is known for its manipulation and influence of foreign politics using a coordinated network of fake social media profiles and pages.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 17, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The State’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction continues to fight on behalf of an Arizona law.
Last week, the Arizona Department of Education sent a media advisory to note that “State schools chief Tom Horne is at U.S. District Court in Tucson to stand up for the state’s law prohibiting biological boys from participating in girls’ sports.” The communication announced that “a federal judge is hearing arguments whether to temporarily block the ban that was signed into law last year.”
That law was SB 1165, which was signed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 30, 2022. The law prohibits biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at state public schools, colleges, and universities.
The Department later posted a tweet on the issue, which stated, “Superintendent Horne is defending Arizona state law which bans biological boys from competing in girl’s sports. Title IX was created for equal opportunities for female athletes, and allowing males to compete in women’s sports undermines everything these athletes have fought for.”
AZ Free News reached out to Superintendent Horne about his thoughts on the legal hearing and the case in general. Horne replied, “It’s partly about safety but it’s mostly about fairness and the fact that there have been many news articles about girls who focused very strongly on sports, worked really hard, hoped to excel, maybe get a college scholarship or be in the Olympics or whatever, and then all of a sudden have to compete against biological males. They have no chance to compete successfully against them and they’re devastated by it. Now they have found what they believe to be sympathetic plaintiffs because they’re 11-year-olds who are using puberty blockers, so they say they lose the advantage of males. But we have presented numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies to the court showing that even before puberty, males still have an advantage. Our evidence is overwhelming compared to theirs.”
The Arizona Women of Action applauded the latest action from the Department, writing, “We greatly appreciate Tom Horne for upholding the Save Girl’s Sports Act. AZ Women of Action stands with Tom Horne in this endeavor by joining the lawsuit & representing Arizona families who want to save girls’ sports.”
At least some Democrats saw Horne’s defense of the law in a different light. The Yavapai County Democrats tweeted, “Sup. Horne seen here wasting time on a manufactured crisis. Protect public schools. Do something useful for education. Horne is a disgrace.”
Horne isn’t the only Arizona official who has weighed in on this court case. Earlier this year, both Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed a Motion to Intervene in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Tucson Division. 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, 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.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 17, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
One of Arizona’s county attorneys is taking the lead in pushing back against one of the governor’s recent, controversial executive orders.
Last week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell went on Arizona Horizon on PBS to talk about her opposition to Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ executive order last month, which would “centralize all abortion-related prosecutions under the Attorney General to ensure differences in application of the law by county attorneys do not restrict access to legal abortions.”
Mitchell has consistently framed her counterargument in a way that allows the application of the law to overshadow the divisive issue of abortion. During the interview, Mitchell acknowledged that there were strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate, saying, “It’s certainly an emotional topic, and I certainly understand why there are very emotional views on both sides.”
Though the Maricopa County Attorney recognizes the feelings for this issue, she is unwavering in her stance on the importance of following the law. She stated, “But the bottom line is that this is a government of laws, not of men – and there is a process for enacting laws in this state – and we have done that. It involves the legislature and the governor – or a referral to the people. And it cannot be governed by just one person’s decision. That is a government of men, and that is something that is just not appropriate – it’s not consistent with the American way of doing business.”
The Republican County Attorney also addressed the argument that the authority of the state’s attorney supersedes that of individual county attorneys, saying, “The attorney general is not the primary prosecutor in the State of Arizona. The primary prosecutors are the various 15 county attorneys, and so they are the ones with the greater jurisdiction – and so the governor cannot just take jurisdiction away from county attorneys who are elected in their own right…. If you look at the jurisdiction of the various county attorneys, it is a more general jurisdiction. The attorney general, for example, she can’t even go into a county grand jury without either my permission or the permission of a judge. Not a governor. So it’s not something where she can just assume someone else’s jurisdiction.”
Mitchell also poked significant holes in the idea that there was even a need in the first place for the governor and attorney general to step in to referee the issue of abortion, adding, “We know that the Dobbs’ decision came out a year ago now, and there has not been a single prosecution brought in any of the 15 counties. So I don’t know who would be considered to be overzealous. What I’m concerned about is somebody who is an extremist in another way, and that is if we set this as a precedent, where a governor thinks that they can strip another elected official’s powers – it may not be a bad thing today to some people, but in the future it may be…. They did not react to a specific case where extremism was occurring. They tried to take all of the power away from elected county attorneys in all circumstances, including cases that don’t involve that – and that is not appropriate. And it’s a very, very frightening precedent to start.”
When asked about her next move in response to the governor’s executive order, Mitchell didn’t completely close the door on being proactive, but instead indicated that her office might wait until conflict arose between the two jurisdictions: “I would have liked to have handled it in a professional way through discussion. I was hoping that the governor, through talking to others as well as the letter, would understand, that there is a better way to handle this, that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. She chose not to, and that’s within her purview. But that does not give her the authority. And so where it goes from here is that we’re going to continue to conduct business as we have for the past year. If a case is submitted – and there have been no cases submitted to me – we’re going to follow the same procedure that we have followed for every other case.”
The first-term county attorney ended her interview on Arizona PBS by announcing her commitment to following the law in this circumstance where she and the governor might take opposing sides. Mitchell reiterated that Hobbs’ “executive order doesn’t have the authority of overcoming the law,” and that “the law trumps executive orders and the constitution trumps the law.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 16, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) is allowing males into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, overlooking evidence of females harmed by policies allowing gender identity to dictate bathroom usage. Legal counsel for the members advised a need to align with the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX, based on recent legal rulings in the Ninth Circuit.
Board members Melissa Ewing, David Sandoval, and Bill Sorensen supported allowing students to use the bathrooms or locker rooms based on their gender identity. Board members Heather Rooks and Rebecca Hill opposed it.
The Biden administration announced in 2021 that it intended to expand Title IX sex-based protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Education Department proposed the change to the policy last year; in May, the Biden administration announced that it would publish the final Title IX rule in October.
The rule change received over 390,000 public comments.
The Biden administration’s updated version of Title IX would not only allow gender identity to determine locker room and bathroom access — it would also impact sports team admissions.
In an April meeting, PUSD member Ewing claimed that no problem existed against preventing boys from entering girls’ spaces because no similar crimes have been reported in PUSD schools. Ewing further claimed that national data doesn’t support the belief that female-identifying males present a danger in private female spaces.
“If you look at our incident reports, and the narrative about assaults in the bathroom, it has not come as the result of a transgender-identified student. There is not a single incident that has happened,” said Ewing. “And if you look at the nationwide data, that does not show it as well. As board members, we need to be making sure that we are making data-driven decisions.”
Last month, Ewing shared a legal opinion from an LGBTQ+ advocacy site which argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title IX protections.
Although Ewing claimed no bathroom assault cases exist due to transgender individuals, there were several high-profile cases over the last few years. Their existence was brought up in a viral video pulled from a recent meeting.
Ben Larrabee, project manager for conservative activist organization Turning Point USA, cited multiple cases in which males identifying as females were alleged to have flashed, sexually assaulted, or raped girls or women after entering female bathrooms or locker rooms.
This included the two teenaged girls sexually assaulted by the same gender-fluid teenage boy at two different schools in Loudoun County, Virginia; the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl by a gender-fluid boy in Decatur, Georgia; and the assault of a teenage girl by a teenage boy identifying as a female.
“Before you say that these are anecdotal evidence, just note that in a survey of trans inmates in federal prisons, half were convicted of sexual assault and 90 percent were convicted of violent crimes: well above the general prison population,” said Larrabee.
Larrabee noted that the perpetrators in the study he cited had all received some form of transgender care or gender identity accommodations.
“You do not affirm that people with anorexia can be healthy in any way, you do not affirm that somebody with schizophrenia is hearing voices, and you do not affirm that somebody in a manic episode is having great ideas,” said Larrabee. “When you leave someone to languish in their false mental state — i.e. men who think they’re women — they will inevitably lash out and harm themselves and those around them. Hurt people hurt other people.”
Board members Rooks and Hill attempted to enact a policy preventing males from entering female bathrooms and locker rooms in April. Ewing, Sandoval, and Sorensen blocked that policy.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 16, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona will be at the forefront of the presidential campaign come the 2024 general election, but there’s one contest that might take on more importance.
On Monday, Save Democracy Inc., an Arizona-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, gave a preview of an election-oriented voter initiative that could be coming the state’s way in November 2024. They tweeted, “Coming Soon: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries.”
The post shared that this initiative would prohibit “the use of taxpayer funds to pay for private political party primaries; that all candidates (would) appear on the same ballot and compete under the same rules; and that all registered voters (would) use the same ballot to vote.”
Save Democracy Arizona’s website asks and answers the question, “Why do we need reform?” by alleging that “the current system is not working,” that “we need an even playing field,” and that “Arizona has a tradition of open elections.” On their home page, they write, “At a time when many Americans are concerned about the health of our election system, our coalition was formed to educate voters about how Arizona’s voting system currently operates. Join us as we explore alternative primary structures that could make our system work better for ALL Arizonans.”
The group’s efforts have already caught the eye of longtime Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts, who wrote a piece about the likely potential for action on this front. She tweeted, “Coming soon to a neighborhood near you: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries. Makes total sense here, in the state where independents now outnumber Republicans and Democrats.”
In her column, Roberts elaborated on what voters might see over the coming year, opining, “(This group) has scrapped plans for an initiative to bring ranked-choice voting to Arizona. Instead, it is preparing an initiative asking voters to outlaw taxpayer-financed partisan primary elections. The Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs would be directed to develop a new system that puts all candidates on one primary-election ballot. With one set of rules to get there.”
The Roberts’ piece grabbed the attention of Representative Austin Smith, who has been fighting against Ranked Choice Voting since the day he entered the Arizona Legislature – and may be one of the significant reasons why there may not be a direct attempt to bring Ranked Choice Voting to Arizona via a November 2024 ballot initiative.
Smith tweeted, “Two competing initiatives!? Fun! I look forward to helping Arizonans pass HCR 2033 protecting Arizona’s primary election system and keeping the entrenched consultant class out of picking our representatives. Looks like the Arizona Freedom Caucus is effective yet again like Laurie Roberts said.”
The freshman legislator sponsored HCR 2033, which sent a question to voters on an amendment to the state constitution to “determine that a Legislature-enacted direct primary law supersedes any contrary or inconsistent provision of any charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy of any city and modifies nominee requirements for a direct primary election.”
The vote in the Senate was split down party lines – 16-13, with one Democrat (Senator Miranda) not voting. Earlier in the session, the Arizona House passed the resolution – also along party lines – 31-28, with one Democrat (Representative Shah) not voting. The legislature then transmitted the resolution to the Arizona Secretary of State.
After the Senate passed the resolution, Smith wrote, “This constitutional referral to protect our party primaries and girding us against radical experimental election systems that disenfranchise voters such as ‘ranked choice voting.’”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
