Last week, the Senate Education Committee passed HB2495, legislation to outlaw sexually explicit materials from K-12 schools.
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), the sponsor, noted that the legislation’s language incorporated some of the criminal code established in the 1960s banning obscenities from being exposed willfully to children. Hoffman argued that legislators in the 1960s couldn’t have imagined the materials given to minors as young as 9 years old in today’s age, referencing lewd cartoons, books depicting teenagers engaged in sexual acts, class skits requiring students to play out intimate or sexual relationships, surveys on sexual desires and fantasies, and reference materials with titles like “Dry Humping Saves Lives,” “It’s Okay to Have Sex With A Lot of People,” “How to View Porn,” and “Play With Yourself.”
“There’s truly nothing more sacred than the innocence of a child,” said Hoffman.
Hoffman added that scientific studies show that children are more vulnerable to sexually-explicit material because they have “mirror neurons,” which enhances what they see, and causes children to develop risky sexual behavior and intimacy disorders. He had to receive Department of Child Services (DCS) approval before showing to the committee some of the sexually explicit materials available to minors in K-12 schools.
ACLU of Arizona lobbyist Geoff Esposito argued that schools are perfectly capable of providing age-appropriate materials on their own without the interference of the legislature.
The Protect Arizona Children Coalition President Lisa Fink rebutted that inappropriate materials are, in fact, being taught in K-12 schools, citing multiple examples.
During the votes, State Senator Theresa Hatathlie (D-Coal Mine Canyon) said that while she doesn’t support pornography shown in K-12 schools, she believed that procedures existed in curriculum reviews outside the legislature. Hatathlie argued that the sexually inappropriate materials were occurring in a few schools, not many, and that perpetrators should be held accountable.
State Senator Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) said she agreed with Hoffman’s examples of what was inappropriate, but said his legislation went too far and would create many unintended consequences. Marsh said that she doubted such inappropriate materials existed in classrooms, having never seen them herself before, but said that any teachers giving out those inappropriate materials should be punished.
State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) said he bought the contentious, allegedly sexually inappropriate books to review them for himself, and their presence at the house caused serious issues with his wife. Pace rebutted that the incidents cited weren’t as isolated as his Democratic colleagues would like to believe.
Early last month, the House passed the bill along party lines, 31-28.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
UPDATE:Shortly after the publication of this story, AZ Free News received word that the events in question were restored. A follow-up email submitted late Monday afternoon explained that the events were restored because, “Under the leadership of President Michael Crow, Arizona State University is committed to intellectual diversity.”
Human nature remains constant, as evidenced by the relatability of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” to Arizona State University’s (ASU) latest actions. As fond as Plato and other ancient philosophers were of challenging their own and others’ ideas and beliefs through the dialectic, so it appears ASU shares a similar fondness for avoiding such interactions.
According to an email obtained by AZ Free News, ASU history department leadership forced the School of Philosophical and Religious Studies (SHPRS) to cancel two events funded by its Political History and Leadership (PHL) Program after asking history faculty in an unprecedented survey whether two guest speakers should be permitted to come. The two events featured speakers engaging in conservative rhetoric: Bret Weinstein, the controversial former Evergreen State College biology professor featured in a documentary by conservative radio talk show host and writer Dennis Prager on cancel culture, “No Safe Spaces,” and Katie Pavlich, a conservative commentator and University of Arizona (UArizona) alumna.
“For the first time since the conception of SHPRS, the head of the history faculty sent out an online survey to the history faculty asking them to vote on whether or not to bring these PHL funded speakers to campus,” read the email from PHL Co-Director Donald Critchlow.
Weinstein doesn’t consider himself a conservative; he has long considered himself a “deep progressive.” He was scheduled to speak in mid-October, while Pavlich was scheduled to speak sometime next spring.
AZ Free News reported January 19 that ASU canceled another PHL event featuring Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and former Utah congressman and Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz. As reported at the time, ASU offered three different reasons for canceling the event to different parties. Several of the featured speakers were told that the event had to be canceled due to an increase in COVID-19 cases. However, others were informed that the event was canceled due to controversy over Biggs and Chaffetz being guest speakers.
The final reason given to AZ Free News for the event cancellation came from ASU. University spokesman Jerry Gonzalez told AZ Free News that a faculty member broke ASU’s scheduling protocol.
“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,” said Gonzalez. “The university welcomes the opportunity for this event to be rescheduled following the required protocols.”
About a week later on January 25, after the report by AZ Free News was shared on a national level, the email revealed that ASU’s history department implemented new, unspecified procedures for requesting guest speakers to come on campus. It was after PHL followed the new procedures that the head of the history faculty, Catherine O’Donnell, sent out the survey about the two speakers. After receiving the survey results, O’Donnell recommended SHPRS Director Richard Amesbury cancel both events featuring Weinstein and Pavlich. In turn, Amesbury directed PHL to cancel the two speakers.
Included in the closing portion of the email was a quote from ASU’s Statement of Freedom of Expression:
“Without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university,” read the statement.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona State Board of Education (SBE) will have a bunch of new faces at its next meeting following Monday’s announcement by Gov. Doug Ducey of seven new members.
Created within the Arizona Constitution, the mission of the 11 member board is to develop successful citizens through robust public education. The SBE oversees the public school system by establishing policies, setting courses of study, and gathering data on pupil performance.
The new members chosen by the governor are:
Jason Catanese, analgebra and geometry teacher at Pueblo Del Sol Elementary School in the Isaac School District who is a former national teacher of the year for Teach For America. He is also chairman, co-founder, and executive director of the Camp Catanese Foundation.
Jenny Clark, the founder and CEO of the non-profitLove Your School which helps families navigate school options, whether in a district, charter, private, online, homeschool, microschool, or learning pod setting.
Jacqui Clay, the electedCochise County superintendent of schools who has worked as a teacher, assistant principal, and director of career technical education.. She also spent 25 years serving in the U. S. Army.
Dr. Scott Hagerman, superintendent of the Tanque Verde School District and Continental Elementary School District. His experience includes past positions with Tucson Unified School District, along with work as a principal and classroom teacher.
Katherine Haley, whose nearly 20 years of experience in public policy and philanthropy has involved expanding educational opportunities by building coalitions to advance federal policies which improve school choice and strengthen students’ workforce readiness.
Julia Meyerson, the founder and executive director of Vista College Prep charter schools in Maricopa County. A Phoenix native, Meyerson joined Teach For America after college and served as an educator in Brooklyn, New York.
Karla Phillips-Krivickas, the founder and CEO ofThink Inclusion who has more than 20 years of experience in state and federal policy. She uses her experience to advise education leaders on sound policy and best practices to advance academic achievement for students, including those with disabilities.
The outgoing members are Janice Mak and Calvin Baker, whose terms had expired back in January 2020; Lucas Narducci, Michelle Kaye, and Patricia Welborn, whose terms ran only to January 2021; and Jill Broussard and Armando Ruiz, whose terms expired in January 2022.
“Arizona is grateful to the outgoing members for their service and commitment to students’ success, and for their steady hand in guiding our educational institutions during the pandemic,” Ducey said with the announcement. “Our new board members have big shoes to fill, but I am confident that with their new energy, fresh ideas and diverse backgrounds, we will be able to continue strengthening education for our students.”
The new SBE members will join Christine Burton (January 2023) and Dr. Robert Robbins (January 2024) and as well as Kathy Hoffman who is a member due to her position as the state’s elected Superintendent of Public Instruction. Also carrying over for now is Dr. Daniel Coor as the community college representative, whose term expired in January 2021.
Ducey’s announcement included two community members for the Arizona Board of Regents, which is the governing body for the state’s three public universities: Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona.
One of the new Regents is Gregg Brewster, a senior sales executive of Brewster HealthCare Consulting who has expertise in health care, supply chain management and transportation. According to the governor’s office, Brewster is a member of the AORN Foundation Board of Directors, as well as an active participant on the Arizona State University Alumni Board.
The other new Regent is Doug Goodyear, CEO and a founding partner of DCI Group, a public affairs firm with offices in Arizona and Washington, D.C. The company has grown into of the country’s largest independently-owned public affairs firms. Goodyear has been active in the Phoenix chapter of the Young Presidents’ Organization.
The outgoing Regents are William Ridenour and Ronald Shoopman.
An Arizona State University (ASU) American government class taught that requiring an ID to vote was a voter suppression tactic. The professor drew this conclusion in a lecture slide titled, “Gates to African American Suffrage.” The professor also claimed that current methods of voter suppression included getting rid of the state’s Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL), restricting PEVL access, getting rid of mail-in voting, and closed primaries.
The Twitter account @libsoftiktok first reported on the lecture.
This is a slide in an American Government class at Arizona State University @ASU. They are promoting the false narrative that requiring an ID to vote is voter suppression. pic.twitter.com/iFTblisSom
According to the ASU course catalog, there are two different ASU “government” classes: POS 110, American Government & Politics, and POS 310, American National Government. Five different professors teach the first class: Gina Woodall, David Wells, George Watson, Scott Spehr, and Keith Hollinger. The latter class has three different professors: Watson, Mark Simpson, and Jesse Chanley.
House and Senate Republicans this session have focused on strengthening voter ID as part of their election integrity bills.
One bill that passed the Arizona legislature and was received by the secretary of state earlier this month for final approval by the governor, HCR2025/SCR1012, the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act,” will require voters to sign an affidavit with their ballot, including their birth date and any of the following early voter ID proofs: driver’s license number, nonoperating Id number, last four digits of Social Security number, or unique identifying number.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and the rest of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform are probing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision last fall to ban media outlets’ drones from flying over the southern border.
On Monday, the committee announced that its ranking member, Congressman James Comer (R-KY-01), sent a response letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson. According to their press release, “heavily redacted documents” provided by the FAA in response to an initial committee letter revealed that an FAA headquarters manager believed that banning drones would be illegal initially. However, an “unknown U.S. Customs and Border Protection official” called the manager and convinced that person to change their mind.
“The FAA’s decision to abruptly reverse course on the legality of banning media drones raises questions about potential political interference at the agency to hide President Biden’s border crisis from the public,” read the letter. “That telephonic or other assistance apparently changed FAA’s opinion on the legality of issuing a TFR. Ultimately, the TFR was issued later that evening, raising concerns about its legality and FAA’s rationale for changing its position. These emails call into question FAA’s conduct, particularly where a TFR may have been issued improperly and for the purpose of disrupting media attention related to the border crisis. The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.”
The FAA banned media drones from covering the border crisis in September.
The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.
The FAA first announced its ban in mid-September of last year. At the time, media outlets were informed that the ban was a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) of two weeks. It’s now been a little over six months.
NEW: We’ve learned that the FAA just implemented a two week TFR (Temporary Flight Restrictions) over the international bridge in Del Rio, TX, meaning we can no longer fly our FOX drone over it to show images of the thousands of migrants. FAA says “special security reason”. pic.twitter.com/aJrjAPO2Pz
However, the FAA reversed course again after some resistance from the media. Fox News received clearance to fly its drones the next day. In a later tweet, the FAA encouraged other outlets to apply for clearance. An FAA spokesperson later told Fox News that Border Patrol requested a temporary flight restriction because drones were interfering with those flights made by law enforcement.
. @FoxNews applied this morning and has received clearance to operate from now until the end of September in the restricted airspace linked below.
The ban occurred after media outlets filmed the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the Del Rio, Texas area of the border, especially focusing on those huddled under a bridge.
The committee requested more documents from the FAA pertaining to all documents and communications referring or relating to the day of the TFR, unredacted copies of the emails given to the committee, documents and communications from Biden’s inauguration to present regarding the legality of issuing the TFR, and an explanation of the legal basis relied on by the FAA to issue the TFR.
BORDER: Illegal immigrants wait to be transported by Border Patrol after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Del Rio.
Most are under the international bridge and out of public view.
It started in January when several supporters withdrew support of Hobbs’ run to be the Democratic nominee for governor following her comments about a jury’s verdict in a racial and gender discrimination lawsuit by a former staffer.
Then in her role as Arizona Secretary of State, Hobbs was shot down by a superior court judge when she tried to sidestep possible consequences for her planned shut down of the E-Qual system at a time when legislative and congressional candidates were relying on the system to get on the ballot.
Next, Hobbs was called out by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for her failure to draft an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) which complies with state law. Without an approved EPM, elections officials across the state are unsure what protocols to follow for the 2022 election cycle.
Earlier this month, Hobbs the candidate has come under scrutiny for the recent announcement that women of color have been appointed as her campaign manager, political director, and Finance Director. Only two of the three live in Arizona, leading to questions of why Hobbs turned to out-of-staters for key campaign roles.
The latest embarrassment came last week when the Secretary, a Democrat, was thrashed by the attorney for several Democratic Party organizations after she argued that the Arizona Supreme Court should listen to her—and her alone—in defense against an effort by the Arizona Republican Party to have voting by mail declared unconstitutional.
According to Hobbs, the justices should reject a motion to intervene filed by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It is those same voters and party leaders that Hobbs will need to get out of the gubernatorial primary in August.
The Democratic groups argue they should have standing to “protect their voters, their candidates, and their interests” as respondents in the case. The AZGOP did not object to the motion, but Hobbs has cried foul against her fellow Democrats, alleging that she is capable of adequately representing those interests.
However, Hobbs has argued that the Arizona Supreme Court has no power to even hear the constitutional challenge. The Democratic intervenors, on the other hand, agree with the AZGOP that the Court “can and should exercise its power” to adjudicate the case.
