REP. MICHAEL WAY: Governor Hobbs Doesn’t Understand Arizona Or The Civil Rights Act

REP. MICHAEL WAY: Governor Hobbs Doesn’t Understand Arizona Or The Civil Rights Act

by | Jun 5, 2025 | Opinion

By Representative Michael Way |

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has signaled again and again that she is so committed to the dogma of the most extreme elements of her party that she’s willing to ignore wide swaths of the Arizona public and veto the most commonsense bills. The most recent is her veto of my bill, HB2868, that would have ended taxpayer-funded DEI in K-12 schools and public universities. She claims (disingenuously, of course) that such a commonsense prohibition will “jeopardize the continued stability” of Arizona’s universities and community colleges. How exactly, is intentionally left unclear. This adherence to extreme ideology by a blue governor in a red state is not unique to Arizona. Kentucky’s Governor, Andy Beshear, just did the same.

DEI—or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”—is the slick marketing name for what is a dangerous, bigoted, and divisive ideology. It’s actually about ideological sameness, inequity of opportunity, and exclusion. Today, it flavors the instruction in our K-12 schools, exerts total control over places of higher learning, and is used as a corporate bludgeon (or “re-education” tool) for employees who espouse ideas the ruling Left deems “out of line.” Not very American.

I’m a Constitution-loving, free-speech believer. Anyone is free to like or discuss bad ideas. If you want to think individuals should be elevated because of immutable characteristics like race or gender, and not by merit, go right ahead. But taxpayers shouldn’t be funding the totalitarian use of DEI in public classrooms. Students shouldn’t have to bend the knee to ideas they don’t agree with or face social shunning or worse.

How does totalitarian DEI look in practice? Think publicly-funded DEI offices charged with implementing this thinking across departments, curricula, and in hiring, selecting employees based on their race, sex, color or ethnicity (is this not a blatant violation of the Civil Rights Act?), requiring the signing of what amounts to a DEI-statement of faith, mandating “re-education classes,” and more.

President Trump signaled nationally that the federal government was done funding this circus and states’ funding was in jeopardy if they didn’t take action to eliminate it. The President is smart and understands—beyond the constitutional ramifications—that Americans are tired of being controlled by a woke, DEI thought-police funded by their own hard-earned dollars. I’ve sensed the same frustration from my own constituents. So, while I’m a first-term legislator, this was one of my top priorities. And we got it done. I held out hope, perhaps naively, that the Governor would sign at the very least out of political self-interest. She presumably hopes to be re-elected. But she once again signaled that she either doesn’t know the state she governs (her ban on tamale trucks, anyone?) or doesn’t care. She has been vetoing with immunity until now with the only consequence being that she is universally disliked on both sides of the aisle.

My fellow Republican legislators and I are holding the line against all the really dangerous stuff she’d like to do. But we’d like to do more than stop the bad. We’d like to make some real, positive, America-first change for our constituents. And that will require a governor who knows (and actually likes) the state he or she represents.

As a father of four, I’d like my children to grow up in a world where they can think and believe what they choose, disagree openly in institutions of higher learning, and rise in their careers based on merit, not race or gender. The extreme Left is clearly intent on taking us back. Next year, Arizona voters will have a chance to let them know exactly how they feel about that, starting at the top.

Representative Michael Way serves Legislative District 15 in the Arizona State House. He makes his home in Queen Creek with his wife Raimee and their four children.

AZFEC: Sean Duffy Slams Brakes On Woke Transportation Policy At USDOT

AZFEC: Sean Duffy Slams Brakes On Woke Transportation Policy At USDOT

by | May 19, 2025 | Opinion

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Joe Biden caused a lot of damage in just four years as president. He undermined national security, cratered the economy, and weaponized the deep state against ordinary Americans and civil liberties. Considering these monstrous failures, the devastation he caused in transportation and infrastructure is largely overlooked. But shockingly, Biden’s USDOT director Pete Buttigieg made it pretty far down the road implementing a woke transportation agenda across the country.

In the past decade, environmentalists and central planners have linked arms with woke evangelists to radicalize transportation policy across the country. This was super-charged under Biden’s administration that pushed propaganda about roads being racist, rewrote rules and policies to force the Green New Deal, and made billions in grants to states and localities contingent on them adopting this woke agenda.

Now, Trump is hitting the brakes on the Left’s anti-car agenda, and in just 100 days Secretary of USDOT Sean Duffy has begun reversing course, cleansing the agency of DEI, environmental red tape, and wasteful and damaging spending…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>

REP. MICHAEL WAY: Governor Hobbs Doesn’t Understand Arizona Or The Civil Rights Act

MIKE BENGERT: Scottsdale Unified School District Board Faces Heated Debate Over Social Science Curriculum

by | May 16, 2025 | Opinion

By Mike Bengert |

Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.

Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.

Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.

Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.

The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.

Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.

One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”

Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.

If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.

Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.

Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.

Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.

On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.

One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.

Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.

There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.

I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.

Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis. 

After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?

The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.

As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.

Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.

Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.

It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.

Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.

REP. MICHAEL WAY: Governor Hobbs Doesn’t Understand Arizona Or The Civil Rights Act

Arizona Education Department Publishes List Of Schools Complying With Federal DEI Guidance

by | May 4, 2025 | Education, News

By Jonathan Eberle |

The Arizona Department of Education has unveiled a new public webpage identifying which schools in the state are in compliance with the Trump administration’s recent directives targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The move comes amid national legal battles over DEI in public education.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance requiring schools to sign compliance letters affirming they do not engage in DEI practices that the administration deems discriminatory. Failure to comply could result in the loss of federal funding. In response, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced the launch of a tracking site aimed at promoting transparency around which schools have agreed to follow the guidance.

“I am committed to following the law and will abide by the latest guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to take no action against schools until further notice,” Horne said in a statement.

The federal guidance has sparked legal challenges and confusion across the country, with educators and administrators unsure what qualifies as a DEI program. Two federal judges have already intervened. In one case, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire criticized the vague language in the compliance letters, noting that they fail to clearly define DEI initiatives or how they allegedly violate civil rights laws.

Despite the legal uncertainty, Horne has voiced strong support for the administration’s position. “Federal law and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are clear that no person shall be discriminated [against] because of race, skin color or ethnicity, and this guidance aligns completely with my philosophy,” Horne said. “By contrast, the use of DEI programs does just the opposite and promotes racial discrimination.”

Horne said he believes the current DEI restrictions will ultimately be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and encouraged Arizona school districts and charter schools to take the issue seriously.

The Arizona Department of Education’s DEI compliance page can be viewed here.

Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.