The Queen Creek Town Council unanimously passed Resolution #1611-24 this week in a bid to push back on ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ or ‘DEI’ practices, which serve to discriminate against people based upon race and gender.
As reported by The Heritage Foundation, the council voted Wednesday on the new ordinance that will prohibit town tax dollars from being spent on any policies advancing the inherently discriminatory practices.
Queen Creek Councilman Travis Padilla said, “In Queen Creek, we want to focus on things that unite us like individual success and achievement, not things that divide us like political ideology.” He observed at the council meeting that the new ordinance will allow the city’s officials to target equal opportunities rather than artificially constructed equal outcomes.
In the text of the revised ordinance, the town states, “It is the policy of the Town Council that all recruitment and selection decisions for Town employment are based on merit.” The new law adds to the Equal Opportunity Employment ordinance that it is “the Town’s intention to (…) Not compel an applicant or employee to endorse any statement that provides preferential treatment to or discriminating against any individual as a condition of hire, promotion or transfer,” and “Not require nor support any affirmative action policies or practices.”
Another @GoldwaterInst victory agst DEI initiatives: Queen Creek’s city council unanimously passed a new ordinance that ensures taxpayer $$ won't be spent on policies that further race- & sex-based discrimination. https://t.co/uOfnCe0wBx
The new ordinance further goes on to prohibit the central tenets of DEI, “Training programs, workshops, and educational materials that are specific to and explicitly promote (…)
Any form of racial or gender superiority or inferiority.
Assigning guilt, blame, or responsibility to individuals based on their race or gender, such as unconscious bias, cultural appropriation, micro aggressions, or any related concepts.
Any content that promotes division or animosity among employees based on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, identity, or any other characteristic.”
Although the town “acknowledges that there will be external training and education classes that may address prohibited content topics as part of an overall conference, workshop or college level course,” the policy makes clear that ”the Town will refrain from conducting internal classes or workshops that are exclusively focused on those specific topics.”
The revision of the city’s personnel policy also included updates to the recruitment and selection process to make them explicitly “merit-based.”
As noted by Austin VanDerHeyden, the Director of Municipal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, the development in Queen Creek comes only a few months after Goldwater exposed the Town of Gilbert for its mandated DEI training for all new hires, occurring unbeknownst to citizens and town councilmembers alike.
VanDerHeyden observed in a release from the Goldwater Institute, “Queen Creek stands in stark contrast to the localities like Gilbert who have fully embraced divisive and dangerous ideologies on the taxpayers’ dime.”
He added that the policy enacted by Queen Creek is “a hallmark of Goldwater’s work to dismantle DEI across the country,” observing that diversity statements along these lines have been used as litmus tests in other towns “for ideological alignment, screening out candidates who do not adhere to specific progressive ideologies.”
He concluded, “It’s welcome news that Queen Creek has decided to stand apart among Arizona municipalities in promoting merit-based hiring practices, while keeping divisive and corrosive DEI policies and trainings out of the town. This is a huge win for the residents of the town, who can now be confident that their elected officials and town staff are focusing on actual town business, not obsessing about identity politics like so many of their neighboring communities have been doing for far too long.”
Congressmen Eli Crane (R-AZ) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have issued a letter directed to the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan. The letter called upon them both to answer for the prioritization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training over other considerations by the Coast Guard. The Congressmen are demanding the two address the impact of this prioritized training on the operational readiness of the Guard.
As noted in a press release from Rep. Crane, “USCG has reported that it is about 4,800 members short and has missed its recruiting targets for the past four fiscal years, leading to the decommissioning and shorter lifecycle of USCG ships and increased burden on USCG members.”
The Arizona Congressman further observed, “At the same time, the USCG is carrying out indoctrination training, including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) inclusivity training, which service members believe to be extraneous to mission-critical tasks.”
In April, the U.S. Naval Institute wrote that the Coast Guard, being 2,500 personnel under recruiting goals, has launched a “comprehensive talent realignment initiative that sought to address personnel shortages,” citing a top personnel officer.
In November 2023, Fagan was forced to acknowledge the then-shortfall of 3,500 recruits as it sidelined 10 Coast Guard Cutters and 29 stations according to Forbes.
The outlet reported, “Three east-coast based Reliance-class cutters, the USCGC Confidence (WMEC-619), the USCGC Dauntless(WMEC-624) and the USCGC Dependable (WMEC-626), will each enter layup in mid 2024, becoming little more than in-reserve ‘parts-barns’ for active, in-service cutters. Add in the March retirement of the Decisive (ex-WMEC-629) with the long-planned retirement of the USCGC Steadfast (WMEC-623) later this year, and the loss of Coast Guard cutter capability becomes quite significant.”
In a post to X, Gaetz explained, “The U.S. Coast Guard is prioritizing indoctrination training over addressing its staffing shortages and military readiness. Today, I sent a letter with @RepEliCrane to DHS @SecMayorkas and USCG Commandant Linda Fagan to demand answers on why the USCG is focusing on training for Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity inclusivity instead of improving manning issues, meeting recruiting goals, and recommissioning ships.”
The U.S. Coast Guard is prioritizing indoctrination training over addressing its staffing shortages and military readiness.
In the text of the letter, Crane and Gaetz tell Mayorkas and Fagan, “We have heard from service members concerned with trainings and events they believe to be extraneous to mission- critical tasks, specifically Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) inclusivity training programs, including the attached examples of official USCG announcements encouraging service member participation in Transgender Shipmates Inclusion Training.”
Among the Congressmen’s inquiries, they are demanding the Coast Guard and DHS answer: “How much of the USCG’s budget has been spent on developing and carrying out SOGI inclusivity trainings and events within the last three fiscal years?” They are also demanding a citation of the statutory authority which DHS and the USCG are using to justify said training and whether these trainings are taking place during work hours or after duty hours. Finally, they ask, “Do USCG personnel who attend SOGI inclusivity training events receive promotion points or recognition?”
The two conclude definitively, “We ask you to end SOGI inclusivity training programs within the USCG and focus on mission-critical operations.”
Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Gautier suggests low recruitment numbers are a result of "young people not knowing about the Coast Guard."
Eli Crane asks if the real reason is because of “wokeness and drag shows on base." pic.twitter.com/ujd7CuvUFT
As noted by Citizen Free Press, Crane has been questioning the effectiveness of Coast Guard recruiting since at least November 2023 when he challenged Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Gautier that the real cause of the decline could be “wokeness and drag shows on base.”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against Arizona State University and the Arizona Board of Regents for “unlawfully mandating racist DEI training for faculty.” The lawsuit was brought by Dr. Owen Anderson and the Goldwater Institute. The Arizona Board of Regents brought a motion to dismiss the case, which Petersen and Toma are urging the court to reject.
In the text of the brief, Petersen and Toma establish first and foremost that the case brought by Goldwater and Dr. Anderson “is a civil rights case,” citing Arizona Revised Statutes “enacted in part to prohibit discriminatory state and local government practices, including conduct that could qualify as, or lead to, a discriminatory work environment and even liability for the State.”
Sharing the brief, the Arizona Republican Party wrote in a post to X, “We refuse to normalize discrimination in higher education, or anywhere in the state of Arizona.”
🚨ICYMI: DEI or "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" is simply discrimination under another name, and we won't tolerate your tax dollars supporting radical left ideology that provides preferential treatment for individuals based on race, skin color, or sex.
As reported by Goldwater, the crux of the complaint by Dr. Anderson is that Arizona State University is using taxpayer funds to mandate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training among the university’s faculty. And that Dr. Anderson’s refusal to participate in the inherently discriminatory training has left him open to discipline from his superiors.
“I shouldn’t be forced to take training and affirm ideas with which I disagree as a condition of employment,’” Dr. Anderson said. “This ‘training’ is simply racism under the guise of DEI. It goes against my conscience, and I want no part of it.”
Goldwater Staff Attorney Stacy Skankey noted, “Arizona state law prohibits mandatory training for state employees and use of taxpayer resources to teach doctrines that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other characteristics.”
“But the ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training teaches discriminatory DEI concepts, including things like ‘how…white supremacy [is] normalized in society,’ how to ‘critique whiteness’; ‘white privilege’; ‘white fragility’; and the need for ‘transformative justice.’ Even ‘seemingly innocuous questions and comments’—like asking people where they’re from or commenting on their hair—can be deemed ‘racist.’”
Skankey and co-counsel Parker Jackson, representing Dr. Anderson, alleged in the complaint that the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU are “using public money to prepare and disseminate mandatory faculty and staff training for its employees that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, in violation of state law.” They add that the University is “compelling the speech of public employees by requiring faculty and staff to take an examination following a training that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, and answer with Arizona State University’s ‘correct’ answers, in violation of the Arizona Constitution.”
The training included slides containing these objectively racial and gender discriminatory statements and concepts:
“[A]cknowledging the history of white supremacy and the social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon.”
“How is white supremacy normalized in society.”
“[G]iven the socio-historical legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of structural inequality, perceptions of authority and control are not always granted to minoritized [sic] faculty.”
“White Fragility.”
“What is White Privilege, Really.”
“Explaining White privilege to a broke white person… .”
“7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege.”
“Racism … can take the form of … and include seemingly innocuous questions or comments, such as asking people of color where they are from … .”
“Sexual identities are linked to power, and heterosexuality, the dominant sexual identity in American culture, is privileged by going largely unquestioned.”
A video segment of the training includes the statements via transcript:
“[I]t scares people to talk about white supremacy or to be called a white supremacist. But if we start thinking about it in terms of whiteness as something that is culturally neutral and we’re moving it from that neutral space into a critical space.”
“[W]e also have to open the space to critique whiteness.”
“[W]hite supremacy … referring to here is the period between the 1500’s and the 1800’s that encompasses both Spanish colonization and Euro American colonization. And what colonization did, was it really created this system of binary thinking. There were folks that were inherently good and folks that were inherently bad, and that led to the systems of superiority that were then written into the foundation documents of our nation.”
The original complaint summarizes: “The Inclusive Communities training provides discriminatory concepts including, but not limited to: white people are inherently racist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; heterosexuals are inherently sexist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; white people should receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of their race or ethnicity; white people bear responsibility for actions committed by other white people; land acknowledgement statements are a way of holding one race or ethnicity responsible for the actions committed by other members of the same race or ethnicity; transformative justice calls for an individual to bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race, ethnic group or sex; and dominant identities (whites or heterosexuals) are treated morally or intellectually superior to other races, ethnic groups or sexes.”
Skankey explained, “ASU is essentially forcing its employees to agree to a certain type of speech, which violates the Arizona Constitution’s broad protections for free speech.”
Speaking with Fox & Friends in March, Dr. Anderson explained, “I was told I need to ‘decolonize my classroom.’”
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, an ASU spokesman told Fox producers, “The Goldwater Institute suit misleads the court and misrepresents both the content and requirements of this training to make an argument the represents a political perspective but is not based on the law. ASU’s commitment to providing a support and welcoming educational environment for students of all backgrounds will continue and the university will respond appropriately to the Institute’s tactic.”
The case is currently awaiting a response from the Arizona Board of Regents.
As Scottsdale parents, grandparents, community members, and taxpayers evaluate their choices for school board, it’s important to remember that your vote reflects not just your choice of a candidate, but also the values and policies they represent.
One group of candidates—Michael Sharkey, Donna Lewis, and Matt Pittinsky—are endorsed by the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), which is affiliated with the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) teachers’ unions. Their campaign suggests they aim to “protect SUSD,” implying they will defend and uphold current policies. This includes supporting Superintendent Dr. Menzel’s agenda, which focuses on “dismantling and disrupting” SUSD to promote social justice and equity.
While Dr. Menzel emphasizes social emotional learning (SEL), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and gender identity, academic performance in SUSD has declined. Teacher and principal turnover are at an all-time high, and Dr. Menzel’s performance evaluation shows he has failed to meet any of the district’s academic achievement goals. For instance, only 60% of 3rd graders are proficient in English Language Arts (ELA), 46% of 8th graders in math, and just 34% of 9th graders in science.
Michael Sharkey, one of the SEA-endorsed candidates, claims one of his priorities is “Represent With Integrity,” pledging respect, honesty, and transparency. However, his LinkedIn statements suggest a dismissive attitude toward parental input on educational decisions, which raises concerns about his commitment to academic integrity. He says:
“So why am I running? Over the last few years, there’s been an uptick in the ‘parent’s rights’ movement. This is the notion that parents are best situated to make educational and healthcare decisions for their kids. While I am 100% in support of parents working WITH teachers and doctors, I reject the premise that parents know better than experienced/trained professionals.”
Once Sharkey received significant pushback on his post, he quickly rewrote it.
Remember the saying, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Dr. Donna Lewis, another SEA-endorsed candidate, highlights her being selected as the 2020-2021 Arizona National Superintendent of the Year while serving as Creighton Superintendent. That year, only 13% of the students enrolled at Creighton were proficient in ELA and only 8% in math. Not exactly superintendent of year numbers.
Her tenure at Creighton School District saw her implement so-called innovative approaches like dual-language, multi-age, and constructivist learning. However, even two years after the COVID-19, union-driven school shutdown, academic proficiency rates at Creighton remained dismally low, raising questions about the effectiveness of these innovations. In 2023, ELA proficiency was 17% and math 12%. So much for the innovative approaches.
Why would SUSD parents and Scottsdale community members vote to elect someone to the school board with this less-than-impressive past performance as a superintendent and no past or present ties to SUSD? How long has she even lived in Scottsdale or the SUSD?
Matt Pittinsky, the third SEA-endorsed candidate, says he supports neighborhood schools yet chose to send one of his kids to Brophy, which could indicate a lack of commitment to improving SUSD from within.
The SEA-backed candidates often promise to engage with parents respectfully and transparently but simultaneously criticize those who express concerns or exercise their legal rights in education. This disconnect between their promises and actions reflects a broader trend of undermining parental involvement and accountability. The Scottsdale community has resisted SEA-endorsed candidates, with two other candidates winning the last election.
At the last SUSD Board meeting, a Board member read a Let’s Talk message from a Scottsdale Unified employee revealing the employee’s fears about speaking out against current administration policies:
“… in light of the current climate where many of us feel apprehensive about speaking out. It’s become increasing evident that dissent with the current administration may result in severe consequences.”
So much for the SUSD value of inclusion, where “we create an equitable environment where everyone is respected, is treated with dignity, and has a sense of belonging.”
We cannot afford a slate of SEA-backed progressive candidates who will only continue to “protect” Dr. Menzel and his failed policies.
We need a Governing Board dedicated to academic excellence, parental rights, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
A Phoenix public school district has come under fire after the Goldwater Institute revealed it’s Governing Board and Administrative Team were treated to a three-day $4,000 per person “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) conference at a Napa Valley wine country resort. The conference was hosted by the California Association of Black School Educators.
According to the report released by the Goldwater Institute, the “4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute,” was held at the posh Meritage Resort and Spa, where off-season rooms run about $400 per night between July 14 – 17. The Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board and Administrative Team reportedly enjoyed the offerings of the conference, which included, “a five-hour ‘Chairman’s Soiree’ at a local winery, where participants were bussed in to enjoy wine and haute cuisine.” According to a post on LinkedIn, registration for education leaders was $850 per person.
Taxpayer-funded wine tastings? School leaders splurge on glitzy DEI conference: https://t.co/M1o1FGTClt
The theme of the conference, “Black to Basics, Root Causes, Interventions” is an overtly race-driven plan to “foster collaborative action among California education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students.”
The agenda for the convention was conspicuously absent from the CABSE website, however, based upon the 2023 offerings we can glean an understanding of the likely content.
In 2023, the conference offered:
“A Whole Village Approach to Equity,”
“Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning,” and
“Equity in Mental Health.”
Images posted to X by the ‘UCLA Center for the Transformation of School’ taken at the conference showed presentations from CTS Project Director Dr. Stanley L. Johnson, Jr. entitled “What Are Your Basics For Black Students?” and “The Machinery of Improvement: Practices, Policies, and Advocacy”
Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board documentation located by AZ Free News confirmed that the Governing Board officially approved the trip during its April 16 Regular Board meeting. The document noted:
“Governing Board members and staff from the superintendent’s office are requesting permission to attend the 4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute to be held in Napa, California, July 14-17, 2024, at a cost of approximately $3,800-4,000 per person. The CABSE Institute Is a three-day convening designed to foster collaborative action among education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students. This conference is a unique gathering of board members, district superintendents, administration officials, teachers, leaders, and decision makers from across the nation. “
At the same meeting, the district’s personnel action report revealed that over fifty educators resigned effective May 24 with the vast majority described as for “personal” reasons.
During the August 6th Governing Board Meeting, Board Member Katie Gipson McLean reported on the conference, saying it was, “a cool, fun conference to go to,” and adding that “they’re encouraging people to be candid and open and honest and have these larger conversations among the group about issues that are impacting specifically black and brown youth.”
Board President Sophia Carrillo summarized the conference stating, “Their theme was ‘Black to Basics’ and it was just awesome to know that we were in a conference where that it was aligned with our goals. Right? One of our goals is our zero percent black students in grade will pass the math standardized test. And to be in a room full of doctors, educator professionals, Superintendents, school board members from California knowing that this is an issue that’s happening statewide. And they also are having these conversations in their local governing board meetings and making sure that our students that are, you know, that are most vulnerable are getting the attention and the resources that they need was just awesome. A lot of good networking from there to hopefully bring into the school district as well.”
The Goldwater Institute wrote “Plenty of unanswered questions about this year’s event remain. In a three-day conference, why was only 9.25 hours committed to substantive conference content (the sessions where one would qualify for continuing education credit), compared to 22.25 hours spent on ‘networking’ events like the winery soiree.
Why are officials from a Phoenix school district attending a California state education DEI conference with a clear California focus? And why is the district—in which 80% of students fail to meet proficiency levels in reading (across all races combined)—narrowly focusing resources toward a single racial demographic to the exclusion of others, while apparently deprioritizing the 80% of students who are Hispanic or Asian, for instance?”
The institute added, “The district should also produce a detailed conference agenda, a list of all persons attending the conference (the entire governing board and the superintendent’s cabinet were approved to attend), and receipts for all relevant travel expenses, in addition to divulging whether any attendees brought guests to enjoy this taxpayer-funded vacation.”
