A Republican State Senator is speaking out against the Arizona governor’s decision to veto one of his education-related bills.
Last week, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1151, which would have allowed state teachers or administrators in all schools to “read or post copies or excerpts of the Ten Commandments.”
Hobbs, in a veto letter to Senate President Warren Petersen, explained that she had “serious concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation,” adding that she also felt it “is also unnecessary.”
The sponsor of the bill, Senator Anthony Kern, expressed his outrage over the governor’s action, writing, “I’m appalled the state’s top elected official is abandoning God and the very foundation our country was built upon by not allowing teachers to expose their students to the morals and ethics outlined in the Ten Commandments. When you look at some of the garbage being forced on our children in the classroom, it’s no wonder rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among youth are at their highest levels ever recorded. When children are exposed to good, noble, honest, and righteous ideas, they are more prone to being better human beings with sound character, able to navigate life’s problems with grace, and have a greater chance of treating each other with respect and dignity throughout life. Sadly, Katie Hobbs’ veto is a prime example of Democrats’ efforts to push state-sponsored atheism while robbing Arizona’s children of the opportunity to flourish with a healthy moral compass.”
On the Arizona Legislature’s Request to Speak system, the proposal drew a significant amount of opposition, including representatives from the Arizona Association of County School Superintendents, Arizona Education Association, American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, Save Our Schools Arizona, Arizona School Boards Association, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
SB 1151 had first passed the State Senate in February with a 16-12 vote (with two members not voting), before being approved in the State House earlier this month with a 31-28 tally (with one member not voting).
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Racist programs and activities do not belong in our state. But in the name of so-called “progress,” they have taken Arizona’s universities by storm. This isn’t the way it was supposed to be. Back in 2010, our state’s voters passed Proposition 107. This amendment to Arizona’s Constitution banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts. But the left found a loophole and has been working to exploit it ever since.
Using words that sound harmless like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), our universities have been flying under the radar in an attempt to indoctrinate students and bring racial discrimination back to campus.
At ASU, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication currently requires some of its students to take a course called, “Diversity and Civility at Cronkite.” And the Goldwater Institute recently revealed that more than 100 classes offered in ASU’s Spring 2024 catalog include terms like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” The University of Arizona’s medical schools in Tucson and Phoenix have been the epitome of DEI best practices—with DEI offices, requirements to complete six hours of DEI credit, and more. And NAU has launched multiple initiatives to increase the number of Native American and Hispanic science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduates, including revising graduate admissions processes to increase inclusivity and diversity.
But it’s not just students who have been affected by DEI programs…
Arizona’s chief law enforcement officer announced a legal action over the 2022 election, angering some of the state’s legislative Republicans.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Kris Mayes revealed that “the State Grand Jury has returned an indictment charging Peggy Suzanne Judd and Terry Thomas ‘Tom’ Crosby with the felony offenses of Interference with an Election Officer and Conspiracy.”
.@AZAGMayes today announced that the State Grand Jury has returned an indictment charging Peggy Suzanne Judd of Willcox, and Terry Thomas “Tom” Crosby of Sierra Vista, with the felony offenses of Interference with an Election Officer and Conspiracy. https://t.co/JUGP6aMYag
In a statement issued in conjunction with the announcement, Mayes said, “The repeated attempts to undermine our democracy are unacceptable. I took an oath to uphold the rule of law, and my office will continue to enforce Arizona’s elections laws and support our election officials as they carry the duties and responsibilities of their offices.”
The repeated attempts to undermine our democracy are unacceptable. I took an oath to uphold the rule of law, and my office will continue to enforce Arizona’s elections laws and support our election officials as they carry out the duties and responsibilities of their offices. https://t.co/boKPiNtiUi
According to the indictment, Judd and Crosby are alleged to have “conspired to delay the canvass of votes cast in Cochise County in the November 2022 General Election,” and to have “knowingly interfered with the Arizona Secretary of State’s ability to complete the statewide canvass for the 2022 General Election.”
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs cheered on the indictments, posting, “To give Arizonans the free & fair elections they deserve, we must hold those who seek to undermine our democracy accountable. Thank you, AG Mayes, for protecting our democracy & enforcing the law without fear or favor.”
To give Arizonans the free & fair elections they deserve, we must hold those who seek to undermine our democracy accountable.
Republican lawmakers were not as complimentary toward Mayes. Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman issued a lengthy statement, attacking the decision and the process for these indictments, calling it “a disgusting weaponization of the AZ Attorney General’s office.” Hoffman said that “this is ELECTION INTERFERERNCE by an extremist AG who wants to chill any future efforts by local election officials to challenge potentially inaccurate elections.” He predicted that these indictments would set a precedent that would be used against other local officials and encouraged Arizona County Supervisors to “leverage every tool you have at your disposal to make it clear to the entire AG’s office that weaponizing Arizona’s government has harsh consequences.”
Democrat Kris Mayes is engaged in a disgusting weaponization of the AZ Attorney General’s office.
Make no mistake, this is ELECTION INTERFERENCE by an extremist AG who wants to chill any future efforts by local election officials to challenge potentially inaccurate elections.… pic.twitter.com/NK6GqKGoIH
Both Senator Anthony Kern and Representative Jacqueline Parker threatened Mayes with impeachment for these indictments.
The @AZHouseGOP absolutely should get on this. I wonder which Republican(s) are too cosy with Mayes to defend the Constitution against clearly partisan attacks…? 🤔 Time will tell. https://t.co/apdxMN8Vxu
Parker also broached the idea of indicting other County Supervisors around the state to ensure “equal treatment under the law in AZ.”
If Mayes wants to get all righteous about election integrity, there are A LOT of other BOS members who need to be indicted as well. Or do we NOT have equal treatment under the law in AZ? https://t.co/4oMMsRJmPE
On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Representative Oscar De Los Santos praised the action, writing, “A grand jury of everyday Arizonans has indicted two MAGA politicians for conspiring to prevent the certification of a free and fair election. Criminals who conspire to undermine our democratic republic and the rule of law must be prosecuted to the fullest extent.”
A grand jury of everyday Arizonans has indicted two MAGA politicians for conspiring to prevent the certification of a free and fair election.
Criminals who conspire to undermine our democratic republic and the rule of law must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. https://t.co/FSWDcNjl76
These Cochise County indictments from the State Grand Jury may be the start of Mayes’ actions against Republicans on the election front. The Democrat Attorney General is believed to be progressing in her investigation over the presidential alternate electors from the Arizona Republican Party in 2020. Not much is known about this investigation or the timeline for any possible indictments, but legal action over this matter would undoubtedly create an exponentially greater firestorm with Republicans than the expressed outrage over the Cochise County indictments.
The growing dispute between the Republican-led legislature and Attorney General’s Office could have major implications for the state’s budget negotiations in 2024. Earlier this year, Attorney General Mayes expressed disappointment over the lack of resources appropriated to her office in the compromise between legislative Republicans and Governor Hobbs. At the time, Mayes said, “Today, we see a budget proposal moving forward that appears to be politically expedient for a few, but wholly inadequate for the majority of people in our state.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal“I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
Inflation is forcing Americans to spend more of their hard-earned dollars over the past two years.
The rate of inflation has become a common refrain the past couple of years. While experts are hopeful that skyrocketing inflation may be a thing of the past, data shows that men and women around the nation continue to dig deeper into their wallets than they did before.
Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist for Moody’s Analytics Economics, recently tweeted that “the high inflation of the past 2+ years has done lots of economic damage. Due to the high inflation, the typical household spent $202 more in a July than they did a year ago to buy the same goods and services. And they spent $709 more than they did 2 years ago.”
To be sure, the high inflation of the past 2+ years has done lots of economic damage. Due to the high inflation, the typical household spent $202 more in a July than they did a year ago to buy the same goods and services. And they spent $709 more than they did 2 years ago.
Even with this analysis, Zandi expressed optimism with the future of inflation and the American economy, writing, “The trend lines look good, and suggest inflation is set to moderate further. Vehicle prices will decline more, so too will electricity prices, and the growth in the cost of housing will slow further.” However, he warned that his “biggest worry is the jump in oil prices, which bears close watching.”
The news about the current state of inflation comes as President Joe Biden heralds the anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was executed in an attempt to address the runaway inflation that has, at times, crippled certain sectors of the American economy. Biden posted, “One year ago, I signed into law one of the most significant laws ever enacted: the Inflation Reduction Act. Emerging from a deadly pandemic and doubts about America’s future – we delivered. Looking forward, not back. Taking on the special interests and winning.”
One year ago, I signed into law one of the most significant laws ever enacted: the Inflation Reduction Act.
Emerging from a deadly pandemic and doubts about America’s future — we delivered.
Arizona officials also weighed in on the significance of the law’s passage, sharing their perspectives on the progress (or lack thereof) since its execution. Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego wrote, “Clean-energy jobs, a more secure water supply, and lower utility bills. These are just a few ways the Inflation reduction Act is delivering for Phoenix families since it became law one year ago today.”
Clean-energy jobs, a more secure water supply, and lower utility bills.
These are just a few ways the Inflation Reduction Act is delivering for Phoenix families since it became law one year ago today. Thank you, @SenMarkKelly, for your work to get it across the finish line! pic.twitter.com/ekiNtefi7z
Republican Senator Anthony Kern responded to Gallego, saying, “More left political lies. Has anyone’s electric bills, water bills, gas bills, and food bills been lowered??”
More left political lies.
Has anyone's electric bills, water bills, gas bills, and food bills been lowered??
