A year-long study by the Arizona State University Center for American Institutions examining the Department of Defense (DOD) has identified and soundly condemned what the authors refer to as the “Vast DEI Bureaucracy” that has pervaded the everyday operations of the Pentagon and the varied service academies of the U.S. Uniformed Services. Damningly, the report found that the DOD has spent millions in taxpayer dollars creating a culture of “race and sex-based scapegoating and stereotyping.” The study in and of itself is a brutal excoriation of the military under the Biden Administration and “calls for an immediate end to the Pentagon’s multimillion-dollar DEI bureaucracy.”
The study, “The National Commission on Civic Education in the Military,” was compiled by Commissioners Lt. Col. (ret.) Matthew Lohmeier, Karrin Taylor Robson, and John Cauthen, along with a team of ASU researchers who over the past year evaluated, “the history, evolution, and implementation of diversity and equity programs across all branches of the military and military academies.” The final report is titled, “Civic Education in the Military: Are Servicemembers More Prepared for Micro-Aggression or Macro-Aggression?”
Professor Donald Critchlow, Director of the Center for American Institutions, explained the findings in a release provided to AZ Free News, “Our research reviewed DEI policy in the military starting in the nineteen seventies to the modern day and concluded there are far more effective ways to promote unity and respect among military ranks than by spending millions annually to divide servicemembers by their gender or race.”
Critchlow added, “Just as private companies have abandoned the toxic advice of DEI consultants and programs, military leaders should end social engineering based on critical race theory and restore approaches that promote character and merit.”
The report opens with an Executive Introduction in which Critchlow definitively states, “Given its importance, the U.S. Armed Forces should not be a laboratory for social experimentation, especially one based on Critical Race Theory, a contentious and abstract social theory. Yet, as this Commission Report on Civic Education in the Military shows in great detail, Critical Race Theory is promoted within Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training throughout the military from the Pentagon through the ranks and in our service academies.”
NEWS: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in U.S. Military. https://t.co/7WEWrveNcc
A sampling of the most egregious findings includes:
“DEI themes dominate the training and education that members of the armed forces receive about their country. As ‘white supremacy’ and racism have become a central focus of DEI trainings, white supremacist racism is assumed to be the core problem of the nation and of the military.”
“DEI training focuses on rooting out ‘white supremacy’ even though there is little or no evidence that there is a problem of white supremacy in the military. The massive hunt during the stand-down in 2020 located roughly 100 out of a force of 2.1 million.”
“Spending on DEI programming is increasing. The DOD’s allocation for DEI projects jumped from $68 million in fiscal year 2022 to $86.5 million in fiscal year 2023. The Pentagon is requesting $114.7 million for fiscal year 2024.”
West Point Military Academy offers a minor in “Diversity and Inclusion Studies,” with courses such as “Social Inequality,” “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality,” and “Power and Difference.” In the course description, the report reveals the courses as “an introduction to the theoretical concepts of post-modernism. This will include a focus on Feminist Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Queer Theory.”
U.S. Navy training asserts that servicemembers who reject implicit racial bias are “potential problems” saying, “Participants who refuse to acknowledge how bias has affected their lives or the lives of others may invalidate the experience of those with marginalized identities in the room and cause them harm,” and instructs sailors to “Prioritize a continuing conversation, rather than attempting to shut the conversation down. One suggestion is to acknowledge the bias-denier’s comments and ask for other perspectives from the rest of the group.” A procedure which could be compared to a classic Maoist “struggle session.”
The Army released directives Wednesday prohibiting soldiers from defined extremist activities and guiding commanders on how to handle cases. https://t.co/5JKIPQchKU
As reported by Task and Purpose, an Army directive has been aimed at rooting out “extremism” which includes “requirements set in the 2021 NDAA for service IGs to work with the Deputy Inspector General for Diversity and Inclusion and Extremism in the Military ‘to establish policies, processes, tracking mechanisms and reporting requirements for allegations of supremacist, extremist, and criminal gang activity in the Army,’” citing a statement from Sean Mackintosh of the Army Inspector General Agency.
As Lohmeier, a former Space Force commander who was removed from duty in 2021 after drawing public scrutiny to DEI training, summarized, “It’s no surprise that young people are turning away from military service in record numbers. As this comprehensive report illuminates, DEI indoctrination has become a core component of military training that begins for officers even at the service academies.” He continued, “How can we be prepared to confront our adversaries if our warfighters aren’t laser focused on the mission but instead are divided and distracted by ideology?”
The report makes several recommendations on how the DOD can remediate the situation and begin to undo the damage. It calls upon the Pentagon to:
“Immediately end the DEI bureaucracy or pursue alternative avenues to affect positive change despite existing policies.”
“Return to the military’s outstanding tradition of merit-based selections and promotions and nondiscriminatory equal opportunity.”
“Make the syllabi for all humanities and social sciences courses taught at our military service academies publicly available.”
“Provide educational training materials to enhance personnel understanding of American philosophy, politics, government, and the Constitution.”
The University of Arizona (UArizona) has gone back to the basics — way back, in fact: one course fulfilling the university’s mandatory diversity & equity (D&E) curriculum requires students to play pretend as bugs.
The Goldwater Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank in Phoenix, discovered that a UArizona course fulfilling the diversity and equity requirement directs students to experiment with “living like a bug” by wearing tissue paper “wings” as they walk around, an exercise meant to provide symbolic understanding of the experience of others from different races, social classes, or physical or intellectual abilities.
Additionally, students engaging in this play pretend of bug life must submit a written reflection on the “assumptions that inform popular attitudes toward insects” and then identify “ways that attitudes of othering interfere with self-identity and foster systems of privilege or oppression/marginalization.”
The course, Entomology 106D1, is marketed as assessing the impact of insects on human history, including human inequities, cultural diversity, and new ways of understanding sexuality.
“Bugs have built and destroyed human empires, aided our advances, propelled our catastrophes, and exacerbated our inequities. We learn how arthropods have shaped human history and cultural diversity, improved our health, wealth, and art, and continue to teach us new ways to understand human nature, sexuality, intelligence, and even how to approach \”alien\” ideas,” reads the course description.
The course is part of a track to earning an undergraduate certificate in entomology and insect science.
Insect play pretend isn’t the only option for UArizona students to fulfill their required D&E credits. As Goldwater Institute noted in their vast report, other courses offer different learning opportunities to fulfill diversity and equity requirements.
An anthropology course on race, ethnicity, and the American Dream instructs students to learn how the U.S. is deeply embedded with racism — systemic — through its history, society, and institutions. The course declares that only white people can attain the American Dream because they “hold unearned privilege,” unlike people of color.
In order to remedy the proposed inequities, the course then directs students to learn about different reparations plans.
Another course, “Constructions of Gender,” offered students extra credit to undergo training at an LGBTQ center on campus, or to attend an allyship development training.
UArizona quantified valid D&E courses as those which center on one or more marginalized populations in the course content, such as racial or ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA+ people, economically marginalized communities, and disabled people; explore historical developments, causes, and consequences of structured inequality; and examine how power, privilege, and positionality shape systems related to the discipline of the course and how knowledge is constructed.
Valid D&E courses, according to the university, shape the student to understand which historical and contemporary populations have experienced inequality — specifically, racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people, the marginalized, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, and those from colonized societies — and how various communities experience privilege and/or oppression or marginalization.
At the end of their D&E courses, students must be able to theorize the means to creating a more equitable society.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
In a recent opinion piece, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Superintendent Scott Menzel highlights what he considers a long list of accomplishments. According to Superintendent Menzel, the “2023-2024 school year has been marked by significant progress and achievements as we continue to implement initiatives aligned with our Strategic Plan to improve academic achievement and outcomes and prepare students for real-world opportunities in an ever-evolving landscape.”
Let’s delve into the statistics.
Nearly 1,800 seniors graduated from SUSD on May 23rd. During the May 14th Governing Board meeting, 11 seniors were recognized for their academic excellence. In his column, Dr. Menzel highlighted that 51 graduates had received math and science diplomas. While these acknowledged students have rightfully earned praise for their hard work and accomplishments, including receiving various scholarships, what about the remaining 1,800 graduates? How have they fared after receiving a purportedly “world-class, future-focused” education from SUSD?
According to the Arizona Department of Education’s comprehensive school report card system, the overall performance isn’t encouraging. In 2023, when these graduating seniors were juniors, their proficiency levels were assessed, yielding the following results:
Only 63% demonstrated proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA), leaving 37% (or 666) lacking proficiency.
Math proficiency was even lower at 55%, indicating that 45% (or 810) were not proficient.
Science proficiency was the lowest, with a mere 25% demonstrating proficiency, leaving 75% (or 1,350) lacking in this area.
On average, only 48% (or 858 students) of the 1,800 graduates were proficient across all three academic subjects.
Given these outcomes, it seems apt to reconsider the SUSD slogan “Because kids,” as it appears the district may not adequately prioritize the needs of all students. Perhaps it should be restated as “Because some kids.” A school district’s quality should be judged by how well it supports its lowest-performing students.
Yet, despite this concerning academic record, three outgoing members of the current governing board decided, without public input or feedback from district stakeholders, to extend Superintendent Menzel’s contract by two years and grant him a 4% raise.
Dr. Menzel’s emphasis on using class time for destructive “Social Emotional Learning,” “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion,” and gender identity at the expense of teaching academics appears to be falling short for SUSD students, parents, and taxpayers. It’s perhaps unsurprising that parents are increasingly withdrawing their children from SUSD, and staff turnover, including principals, is at an all-time high.
If you share my frustration with the Governing Board’s apparent rubber-stamping of Dr. Menzel’s failing agenda and believe our children deserve better, I urge you to vote for change this November.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
In the corridors of education, a seismic shift is underway. Local superintendents, entrusted with shaping the educational landscape, are being influenced by a woke agenda that transcends their official roles. Behind this phenomenon lies the shadowy hand of leftist interests, channeled through national and state chapters of the School Superintendent Association (AASA), driving an agenda that reaches deep into the heart of public education.
Recent events in El Paso County, Colorado, underscore the extent of this influence. Allegations have surfaced of a superintendent employing intimidation tactics, supported by legal counsel, to suppress reports of a sexualized gender focus in classrooms. Such incidents reveal a troubling trend of silencing dissent and stifling transparency in the pursuit of ideological conformity.
At the national level, the AASA is actively seeking to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), often hailed as the Parents Bill of Rights (PBOR). While PPRA mandates parental notification of policies and surveys, the proposed amendments could erode parental consent requirements, potentially leading to increased control over data collection by schools, to the detriment of parental rights and oversight.
Arizona provides a stark example of the consequences of such ideological influence. In Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), Superintendent Scott Menzel’s equity-driven agenda has resulted in a dramatic reallocation of funds away from academics toward social support infrastructure. The repercussions are profound, with declining academic achievement, escalating violence, and growing student dissatisfaction.
Menzel’s emphasis on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has permeated every aspect of district life, reshaping classroom dynamics and disciplinary measures. Yet, amidst the proliferation of gender identity and sexuality clubs, concerns about academic focus and student safety persist.
Similar challenges echo across Arizona’s educational landscape. In Flagstaff, revelations about controversial sex education curriculum content have sparked parental concern, while in Mesa, allegations of clandestine aid to students undergoing gender transitions have led to legal battles and ethical scrutiny.
The reluctance of some superintendents to address concerns about new survey questions addressing social-emotional learning and sex education, further exacerbates tensions and raises questions about accountability.
Amidst these local debates, broader concerns loom about the influence of ideological agendas within educational institutions. The rise of what critics term the “Communist Whole/Community School philosophy” underscores the need for vigilance and a return to fundamental principles of education.
In this landscape of change, House Bill 2717 proposes a radical overhaul of the educational system in Mohave and La Paz County. Advocates argue for increased efficiency and cost savings, but questions linger about the potential concentration of power in the hands of county superintendents and its impact on local autonomy and accountability.
As parents and residents, it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant and hold school officials and school board members accountable. The future of education hinges not only on academic excellence but also on safeguarding the principles of transparency, parental rights, and proper legal oversight in our schools.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and currently with Arizona Women of Action.
The town council of Fountain Hills tabled a proposal for a policy prohibiting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) discrimination during its meeting on Tuesday.
The council overwhelmingly voted to table the proposal, 6-1, with Councilman Allen Skillicorn, the introducer of the policy item, being the sole vote for it. Vice Mayor Brenda Kalivianakis led a motion to suspend the proposal awaiting further guidance from the state legislature, who has similar legislation in the works currently.
Kalivianakis’ motion occurred after Hannah Toth expressed confusion over town members’ opposition to the policy, because it accomplished the main objective of DEI: preventing discrimination based on race, color, and ethnicity. Toth suggested tabling the policy to allow the state legislature to act on a similar bill.
Skillicorn warned that the state legislature was deadlocked due to Governor Katie Hobbs vetoing nearly all legislation containing Republican or conservative substance.
The policy would prohibit the town from hiring or contracting a DEI officer, as well as prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination against an individual on the basis of race or ethnicity as a condition of hiring, promoting, or contracting.
Further, the policy would prevent DEI teachings on affirming concepts like unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, antiracism, systemic oppression, social justice, intersectionality, neopronouns, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender theory, and racial or sexual privilege.
In the agenda item for the policy, town staff clarified that the town had no plans to create an office of DEI administration, and that the town adheres to all state and federal nondiscrimination laws for hiring, promoting, disciplinary measure, and terminations.
The town further noted that it would be required to collect and report race or ethnicity and gender demographics to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) since the number of town employees has exceeded 100.
Those who spoke against the policy included town council candidate Clayton Corey. Corey claimed DEI was “the right thing to do morally” that would contribute to the town’s financial and social well-being.
Among those who spoke in favor of the policy was Goldwater Institute’s Austin VanDerHeyden, who cautioned against DEI policies by citing the controversial Digital Government team within the town of Gilbert. The Goldwater Institute assisted in drafting the policy.
In a press release, Skillicorn condemned the tabling as opposition to DEI discrimination. Skillicorn described his fellow council members and those supportive of DEI discrimination as “cultural marxists.”
“Last night the cultural marxists won. We had the opportunity to prevent DEI discrimination,” said Skillicorn. “We had the opportunity to protect the taxpayers from woke bureaucrats. We let down the people of Arizona and Fountain Hills.”
Kalivianakis is a longtime Republican — a member of the Fountain Hills Republican Club and former Republican National Committee legal team member — and has generally been supportive of right-leaning policies on issues like free speech and support for Israel. Kalivianakis voted in favor of banning future mask and vaccine mandates last year.
So glad Tucker Carlson is back on Twitter. Infact, I'm very happy I'm on Twitter, I just set up an account with free speech on the horizon.
