by Corinne Murdock | Jun 4, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Phoenix Police Department (PPD) is focusing its recruitment efforts on bringing in more women and diversity staff.
PPD announced they wanted female officers to make up 30 percent of their force. Presently, women make up 14 percent of PPD’s force. The push by PPD is part of the 30×30 Initiative, a national effort to increase the number of females in police departments. PPD signed a pledge in January to fulfill the initiative.
The pledge comes at a time when PPD continues to sustain significant staffing shortages. Although PPD departures from Jan. to April were less than they were during the same time period last year according to PPD data, PPD still has over 560 vacancies to fill. Vacancies totaled 500 last June.
In an interview with 12 News, a PPD spokesman credited the reduction in departures to the $20,000 raise given to officers.
PPD credits Commander Aimee Smith for persuading the department to sign the initiative. Smith has served in PPD since 1997, working 11 years in patrol as both undercover and investigative positions, five years as a sergeant, four years as a lieutenant, and for the past five years as a commander. Smith also teaches as an adjunct criminal justice professor at Rio Salado College within the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).
PPD follows in the footsteps of other police departments across the state who have already signed onto the 30×30 Initiative: Tempe, Mesa, Apache Junction, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Tucson, University of Arizona, and Arizona State University. Over 320 law enforcement departments in the U.S. have signed onto the initiative
The Secret Service, Marshals Service, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Agriculture, Supreme Court of the United States Police, IRS Criminal Investigation division, and FBI have also signed on to the 30×30 Initiative.
The 30×30 Initiative encourages special accommodations for women, including nursing stations for female officers. Some departments, like in Mesa, are developing special accommodations for women: medical benefits for life, alternative work schedules, part-time positions, and around-the-clock daycare.
The 30×30 Initiative was launched to establish “gender equity,” over equality, by artificially reducing natural disparities in law enforcement departments. The initiative is based on a Critical Race Theory (CRT) approach of weighing individuals based on intersectionality.
“Each of a woman officer’s many identities — race and ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability, and more — defines her experience, and often multiplies her exposure to discrimination,” states the initiative. “Black women and other women of color, in particular, face compounding experiences of bias and discrimination in law enforcement because of their race or ethnicity, in addition to their gender. Transgender and gender non-conforming officers face discrimination on the basis of their gender identity and presentation. Other identities, too, shape a woman officer’s experience in law enforcement: a mother or caregiver may require a modified schedule for caretaking duties, or a pregnant officer may require certain physical accommodations.”
The 30×30 Initiative issues a lengthy list of action items that it ranks “essential,” “strongly recommended,” and “recommended.” Those that are deemed essential are considered integral to fulfilling the pledge to the initiative.
Essential action items include: collecting gender, race/ethnicity, and age data on sworn officer applicants, hires, promotion applicants, promotion recipients, and separations and retirements. Also deemed essential was bias training for individuals seated on promotional panels, and for recruitment content to exactly reflect the community demographics.
The 30×30 Initiative declares that “latent bias” may exist if a department has more female applicants than female hires, and that “gender-relevant issues” may exist if a greater number of female officers voluntarily leave than men.
The initiative justifies purposeful prioritization of hiring female staff over males based on research showing that females present a reduced risk of excessive force incidents, make fewer arrests, and are named in fewer lawsuits and complaints.
However, other research shows that female officers are at a greater risk of enduring assault and sustaining injuries when responding to calls.
The 30×30 initiative works in partnership with the New York University School of Law Policing Project, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE), Crime and Justice Institute, Police Executive Research Forum, National Policing Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, International Association of Women Police (IAWP), NOBLE National Headquarters, Women Leaders in Law Enforcement Foundation, and Women in Federal Law Enforcement.
The initiative receives funding from Arnold Ventures, a progressive philanthropic organization, and Mark43, a law enforcement-oriented technology company.
Arnold Ventures was founded by John Arnold, a billionaire hedge fund trader, and his wife, Laura.
Mark43’s angel investors included Goldman Sachs, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Hollywood actor Ashton Kutcher, and General David Petraeus.
Mark43’s co-founders — Scott Crouch, Matt Polega, and Florian Mayr — attended Harvard University together in the early 2000s. Polega interned for three months for major defense technologies contractor Raytheon in the summer of 2012 while co-founding Mark43.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Mar 3, 2023 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Jonathan Haidt is a professor at NYU, an acknowledged leader in the field of social psychology, and a champion of free speech. He recently faced a requirement that all scholars wishing to present research to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology were to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advanced the equity, inclusion, and antiracism goals of SPSP.”
He resigned instead. This was no small sacrifice, but Haidt takes his principles seriously. Moreover, as he pointed out on his way out the door, “Most academic work has nothing to do with diversity.”
Scholars working, for example, on ultra-bright, nano-structured photo emission electron studies would be required to present their “anti-racist” bona fides. Academics in all disciplines, as well as administrators, would be forced to “betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity.”
This is not just another quibble among pointy-headed academics. Refusing jobs to dissenters is meant to quash the last remnant of open debate in American higher education.
Our universities, particularly the elite, were once celebrated as sanctuaries for unpopular ideas, where free discourse was sacrosanct and none need face fear of censure over doctrinal disputes.
But when the Left achieved numerical domination in the majority of universities over recent decades, their mindset evolved into rooting out the few dissenters in their midst, or, better yet, blocking them from getting a job in the first place.
The reason so-called anti-racists feel justified in forcing their views into unrelated disciplines, such as the hard sciences, is that they view the entire world through the lens of race. Ibram S. Kendi, the leading proponent of anti-racism, writes “there is no such thing as a non-racist or race-neutral policy.”
Their opinions on everything from raising taxes (good) to merit-based promotion in schools (bad) are race-based. It follows that if you disagree with their views, then you’re a racist.
The philosophy of anti-racism is profoundly anti-education and anti-merit. Colleges and universities are less and less committed to the search for truth or the transmission of knowledge. Instead, they are in thrall to the endless dictates of the ironically titled “social justice” bureaucracy.
DEI offices, larger than many academic departments (and better paid), are now sprouting in the halls of academia. 25% of all universities now mandate DEI statements from job applicants, and 40% more are considering jumping on the bandwagon.
DEI statements are loyalty oaths to race-based ideologies, similar to those required by authoritarian regimes throughout history. They often demand evidence of the applicant’s past support of such notions as Critical Race Theory, which holds that an individual’s tendency to racial bias can be reliably determined from their skin color.
To our state’s shame, Arizona’s universities have enthusiastically thrown themselves into the front lines of this movement. According to a Goldwater Institute report, Arizona State University last fall required DEI loyalty oaths for 81% of all job applicants. NAU was at 73% while the University of Arizona demanded 28% bend the knee to be considered for a job.
Such required ideological allegiance makes a mockery of the value of any research these aspiring scholars may do. The results are predetermined. In 2020, two major research organizations and 16 scientific societies issued a joint statement that researchers “must stand against the notion that systemic racism does not exist.” No research was cited.
Topics like urban crime, immigration, and welfare fraud are rarely studied when only the approved narrative is permitted anyway. Ignoring data inconsistent with the agenda gives us startling conclusions as when “scientists” proclaimed that family dinners and church services were COVID “superspreaders,” while massive racial protests and pro-abortion rallies were no problem.
The Left has a way with words. Diversity now means rigid conformity. Equity stands for unearned equal outcomes. Inclusion means exclusion of dissenters.
But Americans are starting to catch on. Outraged parents are protesting overt racism in school curricula. A growing number of universities and corporations are pulling back on DEI mandates. In Arizona, SCR 1024 is a proposed constitutional amendment that will hopefully be on the ballot next election. It would eliminate racist instruction in our public schools.
Take heart.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Feb 25, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Racist policies have no business in Arizona. And in 2010, our state’s voters made that clear when they 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 as we’ve become all too familiar with here in the U.S. and the state of Arizona, politicians and bureaucrats have figured out ways to skirt the language in our constitution. That’s led to where we are today.
Under the guise of words that sound harmless enough like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT) and similar programs largely flew under the radar and have been used to indoctrinate our students. Floods of parents eventually caught on, making it their mission to stop the invasion of CRT and DEI in our school districts. And while the newly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, has already taken steps to stop such indoctrination in our schools, there’s more work to be done.
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Jan 15, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
The University of Arizona (UArizona) College of Medicine epitomizes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) best practices, based on the latest report released by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
The AAMC released a report in November assessing the DEI efforts at its 157 U.S. schools, 14 Canadian schools, and about 400 teaching hospitals and medical centers (including the Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers), and 80 academic societies. AAMC quantified its DEI assessment through a “Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory” consisting of 89 questions. UArizona’s College of Medicine campuses in Tucson and Phoenix qualify for high DICE Inventory scores based on the report.
Both campuses have DEI offices, though the Phoenix campus has an Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion while the Tucson campus has an Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Though both are through UArizona, each college of medicine charts slightly different paths for achieving DEI goals.
UArizona’s College of Medicine in Tucson (COMT) requires all faculty, staff, residents, fellows, graduate students, and medical students to complete six hours of DEI credit during the year. This includes an “Implicit Association Test.” The linked test directs users to “Project Implicit” by Harvard University, and offers 15 different tests of one’s implicit association of skin tone, gender science, weight, Asian Americans, Native Americans, race, sexuality, weapons, gender and careers, disability, religion, Arabs and Muslims, age, transgender people, and presidents.
A DEI credit is also eligible through the college’s DEI book club. Books read this past year include “Dying of Whiteness” and “Beautiful Country: A Memoir of an Undocumented Childhood.”
Each department at UArizona COMT has a “Diversity Champion,” or a DEI designee. Nearly every month, the college hosts a diversity lecture. In August, attendees learned about how unconscious racial bias impacts clinical care; in October, attendees learned about LGBTQ-inclusive climate initiatives.
UArizona COMT’s diversity statement includes an acknowledgement that the campus exists on indigenous land and territory. It expresses a commitment to diversity through increasing diversity of students, residents/fellows, faculty and staff as well as hosting culturally relevant activities. The college also includes a breakdown of its demographics across faculty, staff, medical students, graduate students, undergraduate students, and residents.
UArizona COMT also has an anti-racism initiative tasked with reforming the school’s operations, such as admissions and curriculum. The sub-committees assigned to this initiative achieved certain reforms, such as changing the selection process for the medical honorary to admit more underrepresented minorities, as well as implementing a racism and discrimination reporting system.
UArizona’s College of Medicine in Phoenix (COMP) employs many similar, though different DEI initiatives.
Following George Floyd’s death in May 2020, UArizona COMP issued a joint statement with AAMC, the American Medical Association (AMA), Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and Arizona Medical Association condemning racism and declaring racism a public health problem.
Then last year, UArizona COMP joined 10 other medical schools nationwide in the “Anti-Racist Transformation in Medical Education” initiative. So far, they’ve secured nearly $500,000 in scholarship funding for underrepresented student populations, created a four-year anti-racist curriculum, developed faculty on teaching anti-racist medicine, and included an anti-racist medicine statement into each clerkship orientation.
Additionally, the Phoenix campus has launched its own 12 action steps for DEI achievement.
As of September 2021, they reported achieving three of these 12 steps: creating a scholarship fund for medical students interesting in serving the underserved Black/African American community, supporting the formation of employee resource groups for faculty and staff of color and other groups, and issuing a statement on the college’s website recognizing racism as a public health issue in line with AAMC and AMA.
The other nine steps are ongoing. So far, the college has achieved its “most diverse” class in history with 22 percent underrepresented minorities, established a “post application review” program focused on underrepresented minority applicants denied admission, gathered demographic profile information for a diversity review, hired managers in the selection of search committee members to increase diversity of Black and other underrepresented minority staff, established unconscious bias and cultural competency training for residents, prospected for Endowed Chair of Health Justice and Equity Research, drafted unconscious bias training for all faculty/students/staff/residents/fellows/postdocs, approved anti-racism curriculum, and secured funding for an underrepresented minorities mentor director.
Additionally, the college recognized last month as Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Health Month. Students who attend most of the eight DEI events scheduled this month may earn “Diversity Hour” credits. These credits aren’t compulsory. However, students who earn 50 Diversity Hours receive a Distinction for Inclusive Excellence on their Dean’s Letter upon graduation.
The events included discussions of female nurses who served Tuskegee Airmen, ableism, Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander immigration, and Native American, Asian American, and Latino physicians and patients.
Similar to the Tucson campus, UArizona COMP has faculty from different departments serving as DEI designees called “Inclusive Excellence Champions.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Nov 11, 2022 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
One of the things I appreciated most during my 30 years practicing medicine in community hospital ERs was that race just didn’t matter very much. ERs were open to all, and there was one standard of care for all races and classes.
That was then. Today a wave of intolerant wokeness is sweeping over our healthcare system, insisting that medicine is shot through with systemic racism and that research and education efforts must be diverted from medical science to “dismantling white supremacy” in medicine.
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recently introduced their new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines, which require that all medical students be taught to practice “allyship” when “witnessing injustice such as ‘microaggressions.’”
Residents are told to use their more advanced knowledge of intersectionality in making clinical decisions. (Just when you thought that race-based medical protocols were in our dark past.). Faculty are charged with teaching how “systems of power, privilege, and oppression inform policies and practices.”
Medical schools are enthusiastically falling in line. Examples abound. In 2021, the Anti-Racism Task Force at Columbia and the Diversity Task Force at Indiana University, joined by the University of Texas and other medical schools, endorsed the recommended AAMC “competencies.” “Health equity” concepts have become a prominent component of medical education.
The University of North Carolina is one of many schools that not only teach “social justice” and “anti-racism,” but use medical school applications to ensure compliance with principles of diversity in race, gender, and sexual orientation. Applicants who demonstrate reluctance toward the DEI agenda are weeded out in the application process. Oregon Health and Science University faculty are among those evaluated on their “DEI, anti-racism, and social justice core competencies” in performance appraisals.
The University of Arizona is on board too, with some additional twists. All faculty and staff are required to complete six hours of DEI training and complete one Implicit Association Test annually (in spite of its dubious relevance). Each of 17 clinical departments is required to hold three DEI credit-eligible events per year. All departments also have designated “diversity champions” to oversee compliance and round up laggards.
This is bad, very bad news for medical education, future doctors, and patients. Even before DEI was a thing, the quality of medical instruction had been in decline. Incoming students are less qualified and fail rates on board exams are climbing, partly because some students from groups that have been historically underserved are either allowed to skip the Medical College Admissions Test or are admitted with lower scores than those required from white and Asian applicants.
But instead of beefing up instruction in anatomy, physiology, and other disciplines that might come in handy when actually practicing medicine, medical schools are spending instructional time on such matters as white privilege and anti-racism, including Critical Race Theory (CRT).
CRT includes the notion that white people are inherently prejudiced against people of color and that there really is nothing they can do but acknowledge their defect, apologize, and grant compensating privileges to people of contrasting skin color, who by definition are incapable of bigotry. Dissenters from this new orthodoxy can be accused of “micro-aggressions” and “repressive practices” with ominous repercussions for their careers.
This intellectual intolerance also extends to those skeptical of “gender affirming care” for adolescents. This new practice provides permanent medical and surgical alterations to gender-confused school children for the rest of their lives so they can pretend to be the gender they choose when a teen. What could go wrong?
Several countries, including the U.K., Sweden, and France are now pulling back from relying on the judgments of impressionable adolescents for such drastic remediation, but dissenters in the U.S. are still punished.
Medical educators who teach students that racism and mutilation are okay when officially approved should humbly recall the history of their own profession. Modern medicine has been of immeasurable benefit to mankind. But when evidence-based science is ignored and authority replaces free inquiry, bad things happen.
Bleeding and purging, eugenics, thalidomide, lobotomies, and nonsterile wound probing are among the historical results. It is the duty of the medical profession to protect us from such horrors, not promote them.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
