The steady decline of academic success and moral integrity is an undeniable reality in many Arizona school districts. K-12 libraries are plagued with sexually graphic novels. Science textbooks tout evolutionary theory and climate change nonsense. ELA assignments contain race-baiting themes and false social justice narratives. LGBTQ+ clubs are in full force, while private spaces still pose a safety risk to female students.
Do Christian/conservative teachers have any responsibility to restore order in our public schools? Aren’t they on the frontlines of steering young minds and upholding ethical standards in the classroom? Why don’t we see more exposure of subpar curricula and corrupt policies that fail to protect educators’ constitutional rights at work?
Will this school year be any different, or will Arizona teachers maintain the status quo?
Jessica Tapia’s Story
California educator and parental rights advocate Jessica Tapia
Jessica Tapia is an alumna and former employee of Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD). She graduated from Jurupa Valley High School, secured a full-time position in the district, and eventually landed her dream job as a high school P.E. teacher.
Tapia loved her career and her students, but she loved God foremost. And her faith would soon be tested.
Six years into her career, some JUSD students decided to research Tapia and discovered Christian/conservative posts on her social media page. The juveniles reported their findings to district officials, who conducted an internal investigation. Tapia was placed on administrative leave and admonished to hide her online profile. As a condition of employment, she would also have to agree to use students’ preferred names and pronouns, even without parental consent.
If Tapia complied with JUSD’s policies—including allowing boys to access girls’ locker rooms—she would keep her compensation package and enjoy acceptance among her peers. Otherwise, she faced serious and permanent consequences. Thankfully, Tapia not only believed in the unchanging truth that God created male and female, she was also willing to defend her faith and freedom of speech on school grounds.
Tapia was fired from her dream job, and the woke mob demanded her head on a platter. In a moment of truth, Tapia lost nearly everything she worked hard to achieve, and her reputation was now tarnished. JUSD reprimanded her for unprofessional conduct and accused her of publishing “racist, offensive, and disrespectful” content. No doubt, the most painful experiences came in the form of separating from her students and watching colleagues turn their backs.
This would be a sad story if it ended here.
Tapia knew her rights and filed a lawsuit against JUSD. Turns out, firing a teacher who refused to lie to students and families is not only morally reprehensible, but it’s also illegal. After a long battle with many ups and downs, stretching and testing her faith, Tapia finally won! JUSD settled with Tapia for $285,000 and another $75,000 for her attorney fees. She’s now one of America’s leading advocates for teachers and parental rights in education.
When JUSD violated Tapia’s First Amendment rights, she pushed back. When dangerous transgender policies contradicted her faith—and put female students at risk—Tapia refused to comply. When following orders suddenly meant hiding vital information from parents, she said no. Tapia didn’t cower in fear, take a bribe, or ignore the situation altogether. Instead, she chose to do the hard thing. The right thing.
What’s Your Story?
School board members are elected officials who swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Protecting teachers is their responsibility when it comes to drafting and voting on district policies. Administrators should not manipulate or control this process. Furthermore, school districts don’t have the legal right or moral authority to give ultimatums or blackmail employees into submission. It’s time teachers say, “Enough is enough.”
Transgender ideology is a dangerous lie and a mental illness that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone. Still, K-12 educators often conceal their Christian beliefs to avoid backlash and discrimination. These are the “don’t rock the boat” types. It’s also possible that some teachers are simply unaware or unbothered by high-profile issues on campus. These are the “ostrich” types. For the sake of moral clarity, consider the following real-life scenarios that also degrade our public education system.
We currently have teachers who, for whatever reason, purposely pass unprepared students on to the next grade level. Rebellious teachers hide inappropriate books in their classrooms and read filth to children behind parents’ backs. An increasing number are perpetrating or ignoring signs of sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Public schools are overflowing with activists disguised as teachers whose sole mission is to advance union agendas.
I say, enough is enough.
Of course, there are a host of problems that educators shouldn’t be blamed for, including:
overspending, mismanagement, and corruption at the district level.
excessive classroom sizes.
laxed or nonexistent disciplinary policies.
the expectation of training fellow teachers without compensation.
submitting to self-important, intimidating administrators (many of whom don’t even like children).
These hardships don’t go unnoticed by parents, community members, and board members who share educators’ concerns. Nevertheless, Tapia’s story is a prototype, a demonstration of boldness that highlights every teacher’s responsibility to always respond with moral integrity and conviction.
It’s simple: Set and keep professional boundaries. Respect students and safeguard their innocence. Be straightforward with parents and never lie to save face. Refuse to be intimidated or comply with unconstitutional policies. Don’t quit in the heat of the battle. Know your rights. If you experience legitimate discrimination on school grounds, consult legal counsel and file a complaint.
Teachers shouldn’t be discouraged when criticisms are ignored and questions go unanswered. Those with the most power are typically the least compelled to solve problems that don’t immediately affect them. Oftentimes, negative publicity is the only way to disrupt the status quo. To be sure, nothing will change if good teachers keep playing nice, remaining silent, or walking away. There’s no outrunning the madness in government schools—you must find the backbone to confront the madness head-on.
Tapia’s testimony aligns with a theme we see throughout the Bible: God rewards obedience and courage; He hates rebellion and cowardice. Tapia’s story is a provocation for teachers to blow the whistle and stand on truth regardless of the consequences. Even if you’re not particularly religious, your First Amendment rights don’t end where bad district policies begin.
This school year can be different than years past. It just takes one good teacher to find their voice and lead the way.
When we launched the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), we did it with an important mission in mind: to give voice to the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of watching their retirement dollars fund woke liberal corporate activism. That mission brought us face to face with a troubling trend: major U.S. companies using their platforms not to grow shareholder value, but to push divisive political agendas. One of the worst offenders is Airbnb.
That’s why, through First Amendment legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Airbnb. The lawsuit says Airbnb violated federal securities law and illegally excluded our shareholder proposal(s) from its 2025 proxy statement. Our proposal was simple.
We wanted Airbnb to explain the risks to its business from denying or restricting service to users based on their religion, political status, or Airbnb’s expansive speech codes. Instead of playing fair and following the law, we believe Airbnb broke the rules to shut us out. Here is a link to the lawsuit.
We believe Airbnb ignored SEC Rule 14a-8, which requires companies to notify shareholders within 14 days if they plan to exclude a proposal and give them an opportunity to challenge that decision. Airbnb didn’t do that. They just silently buried our proposal because it didn’t fit their politics.
Let me be blunt; This is what corporate viewpoint discrimination looks like in 2025. And we’re not going to let it stand.
We believe in free markets and free speech. As institutional investors, we believe that companies, especially publicly traded ones, should be focused on delivering value to their shareholders, not playing political referee. But Airbnb has turned itself into a culture war weapon. And now they’re shutting the door on shareholders who dare to question that approach.
We firmly believe that Airbnb’s behavior isn’t just wrong. It’s illegal. It undermines the entire purpose of shareholder democracy. Rule 14a-8 exists so that companies can’t pick and choose which viewpoints they allow on the proxy ballot. The SEC has made it clear that if a proposal meets the technical requirements, it belongs in front of all shareholders. Period.
When two different conservative groups (our co-plaintiff, The Heritage Foundation, also had a proposal ignored) submit 14a-8 compliant resolutions, those just get “lost in the mailroom.” That proves our point.
It’s our belief that Airbnb isn’t trying to stay out of politics. They’re just trying to silence one side of the political spectrum. Our proposals were lost in the mailroom while a proposal from a left-leaning group managed to make it to the ballot.
That’s why we’re taking this to court. This lawsuit isn’t just about one proposal or one company. It’s about defending the right of every investor including conservative investors to be heard. It’s about holding companies accountable when they break the law to protect their political biases. And it’s about making sure that our money isn’t used against us.
We’re grateful to stand with fellow conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, our co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit in this fight. We’re grateful to be represented by excellent attorneys at ADF and Boyden Gray. Together, we’re demanding that Airbnb follow the law, include our proposals, and respect the rights of all shareholders, not just the ones who agree with their worldview.
We know this case could set a major precedent. If we win, it will send a loud and clear message to every boardroom in America. Conservatives will no longer be silenced. We have just as much right to shape the direction of the companies we invest in as anyone else. And we won’t stand by while biased corporations break the rules to push their agenda and shut us out.
So Airbnb had a choice. We believe they could have engaged with us, followed the process, and shown respect for their shareholders. Instead, they chose arrogance and exclusion. That choice now comes with consequences.
The woke bubble is bursting. The days of silent conservative investors are over. And we’re just getting started.
William Flaig is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the Founder and CEO of the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF). www.investconservative.com.
The Arizona State Supreme Court has granted a petition for review in the case Center for Arizona Policy v. Hobbs, which revolves around Proposition 211 and the right of political donors to privacy.
The case, brought by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argues that the protections of the Arizona Constitution, which are stronger than even the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, forbid Prop 211’s forced disclosure of donors and nonprofits who support or oppose ballot initiatives. The Goldwater Institute cited the Arizona Constitution in a press release, “The state constitution, after all, provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than does the federal constitution—promising both that ‘every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,’ and that ’no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs.’”
In Goldwater’s case summary, the organization warned, “Everyone has the right to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being canceled. Unfortunately, a new measure in Arizona—Proposition 211—tramples on this foundational right. It requires individuals who donate to nonprofits to risk having their private information reported to the government and disclosed to the public. It was sold to Arizonans under the guise of transparency and ‘disclosure.’ But voters weren’t told the full story.”
The AZ Supreme Court will hear @GoldwaterInst’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop 211, a 2022 law that strips donors & nonprofits of their privacy rights if they support or oppose ballot initiatives. https://t.co/aUU8E40rK1
Goldwater Senior Attorney Scott Day Freeman explained, “This is a very exciting development. There are few rights more precious to Arizonans than their rights to free speech and to the ballot initiative process. The anti-privacy law undermines these freedoms by telling people that if they dare to support a political position, they have to give up their confidentiality and potentially become a target for retaliation and even violence.”
A lower Arizona court rejected the Goldwater’s arguments under the guise that “having an informed electorate,” in service of the government’s interests overrides campaign donors’ right to confidentiality, claiming that they can simply “opt out of contributing to campaign media spending.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Andrew Gould, disagrees. Back in legal practice with the law firm Holtzman Vogel, and representing the plaintiffs alongside the Goldwater Institute, Gould said, “That’s just not true. Even under the law’s ‘opt-out’ provisions, some donors’ information must still be made public, and donors don’t really have a way of controlling how an organization spends donations, which means they can’t really control whether their information is made public.”
Because the case raises claims based on the Arizona Constitution, the burden of protecting donors’ privacy is even greater than in other states according to Gould who wrote, “Our state constitution provides stronger security for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution does. The authors of the state constitution intended to protect the right to donate to ballot initiative campaigns and the right not to have one’s ‘private affairs’ made public by the government. This law violates both those promises and says that if you donate to a nonprofit group that supports or opposes a ballot initiative, the government’s going to paint a target on your back.”
The Goldwater Institute referenced several serious incidents in the past decade which saw political donors and non-profits become targets for threats, vandalism, and violence from radical political extremists. It noted that donors to California’s anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008 became targets of property destruction and physical assault when they were effectively ‘doxxed’ by the state. A similar incident in 2020 unfolded when a group of non-profit organizations engaged California in a lawsuit after Sacramento published approximately 2,000 documents with donors’ personal identifying information. Inevitably this led to a campaign of violence and harassment by far-left extremists.
The California law that allowed this to happen was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
Demonstrators supporting the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and Congressman Abe Hamadeh have lined the busy thoroughfare of Bell Road to peacefully counter-protest the “Indivisible” group, who have been holding an anti-Hamadeh, anti-Trump protest for the past two weeks.
The demonstrators, from several local Republican legislative districts, have turned out in growing numbers to support Hamadeh, Musk, and Trump. In a post to X, one user wrote, “Today’s support for Congressman Abe Hamadeh! We love the Happy Warrior!!!”
“Well, we became aware of what was going on with the ‘indivisible’ group and there being a dislike of everything conservative, especially with Abe and Elon Musk. And we felt the need to share our feelings, which are much in the opposite realm of the protest group. So, we felt we should get out and counter that protest and share our beliefs that we appreciate Hamadeh, we appreciate Elon Musk, we appreciate what’s going on in Washington, D.C.”
Jacobs stated that the demonstration saw as many as 35 supporters from Legislative District 28 as well as a number from neighboring LD29 on Monday. She said they also saw as many as 40 from LD28 and several more from LD29 on Tuesday.
When asked if the demonstrations will continue, Jacobs replied, “If they’re going to be there, then we plan to be there.”
One of the organizers of the demonstration, Republican LD29 Chairwoman Lisa Everett, told AZ Free News that the demonstrations came about when she and others saw the protests against Hamadeh. “I said, ‘Oh no we can’t let that stand.’ And I organized some folks and yes we are out there every Monday. We get there a little before the other guys do, so we can get some prime real estate, and we hold our signs, and we have a great attitude. And… well I do my best to make sure that the two groups don’t mix because we don’t want anything ugly happening,” Everett said.
She continued, “And you know, when you get in large groups, you know things can happen. And so the leader of their side and I actually have spoken so everybody has agreed to try to keep the groups separate, but we both believe in the First Amendment so that’s why we are demonstrating.”
Everett added, “We support what is going on in our government now. You know, I made some signs for folks to carry that say ‘We voted for this,’ because we did! It’s very funny to me that the left walks around saying ‘No one voted for Elon Musk,’ and you know I can’t help myself. My response is, ‘No one voted for Anthony Fauci,’ so that’s my comeback to them because it’s a true statement.”
On support for Rep. Hamadeh in the district, Everett told AZ Free News, “The reality is Congressman Hamadeh supports President Trump, and President Trump ran on the whole concept of DOGE. We’re going to look at everything. And if you objectively look, many presidents, including Democrats, have talked about government waste and that we need to get to the bottom of it. And we need to clear things out. Sadly, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. I mean there are, bless their hearts, there are people that genuinely think that because of Elon Musk, they’re not going to get their Social Security anymore. And that’s just not the case. The reality is, the 200-year-old people are not going to get Social Security anymore. We support Abe Hamadeh because he’s a true patriot. He served our country well. Great, honest man, and he is truly living the American Dream which is amazing.”
Many Americans believe the Supreme Court rulings on Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)—landmark cases banning prayer and Bible reading from public schools—effectively removed all forms of religious activity during educational hours.
As a result of these decisions, and the incessant drumming of “separation of church and state,” mainstream society now considers it unconstitutional to read Scripture or bow one’s head on government property. Every generation since 1963 has gone along with this diabolical rhetoric that blatantly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
Truly, the progressive left succeeded in its efforts to (morally) overthrow the United States.
At issue, in 1962, was a nondenominational prayer recited alongside the Pledge of Allegiance in K-12 schools:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
These 22 words pose no threat to anyone’s sincerely held beliefs. Although prayer was a standard part of every school day before 1962, students and staff members were not mandated to participate in the invocation. Nevertheless, anti-God activists have always deemed public prayer—that is, calling upon a higher power than government—an act that goes against the First Amendment. So, under the guise of nondiscrimination, several state laws were amended to abolish religious activities in public schools and bar educators from sharing their faith.
Don’t misunderstand what’s really at play. The false “church and state” narrative as well as the prohibition of Scripture and prayer are all aimed at one religion: Christianity. The progressive left wasn’t hellbent on expelling every god from mainstream society—they specifically intended to eliminate the God of the Bible (namely Jesus Christ) and silence His followers. Once God and Christianity were declared unlawful on school grounds, an alternative moral/religious code came into effect.
In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watson—just one year before God and prayer were banned from public education—the Supreme Court asserted that “secular humanism” (a form of atheism) was a religion fully protected by the First Amendment. If you will, the religion of unbelief is now considered to be legally and morally on par with Christianity. Yet only the former is allowed in public schools.
Of course, parents don’t recognize that their children are absorbing secular humanism because the doctrine is masked by minimal education requirements. Secular humanism is bright red lipstick on a filthy pig. If your child’s K-12 school requires a class or an assignment in the following subject areas, they’ve likely been indoctrinated with secular humanist dogma:
Evolutionary Theory—secular Creation Story
Social Studies—secular civil code (falsely teaches America is a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic founded on Judeo-Christian principles)
Social Emotional Learning—secular moral code (falsely teaches restorative justice)
God may not be permitted on school grounds, but the religion of secular humanism is alive and well.
In his 2007 book “Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant,” David Barton wrote:
“[F]ollowing the 1962-1963 court-ordered removal of religious principles from students, teenage pregnancies immediately soared over 700 percent, with the United States recording the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Similarly, sexual activity among fifteen year olds skyrocketed, and sexually transmitted diseases among students ascended to previously unrecorded levels. In fact, virtually every moral measurement kept by federal cabinet-level agencies reflects the same statistical pattern: the removal of religious principles from the public sphere was accompanied by a corresponding decline in public morality.
Furthermore, consider the fact that suicide is one of the top five leading causes of death among children aged 12 to 19. Homicide among 15 to 29 year olds makes up 40% of the total number of homicides worldwide each year. There’s not enough time to discuss the increase in school mass shooting incidents over the last two decades.
Every case of teen violence and sexual deviance may not be directly linked to secular humanistic education. However, after nearly 18 years of being told you evolved from nothing, you’re a “clump of cells” with no inherent worth or purpose beyond the present moment—what reaction should we realistically expect other than rage and rebellion?
Parents choose public schools for a number of reasons, ranging from convenience to affordability to sports. And while there’s no shame in keeping certain traditions, it’s clear that America’s public education system is on the verge of total moral collapse. The emergence of “trans” activists coupled with the lack of basic social/survival skills among youths is evident. Ignorance is willful at this point.
According to Proverbs 22:6, God holds parents primarily responsible for educating their children. If we don’t want them indoctrinated with a secular humanistic worldview—one that says gender is fluid, America is systemically racist, and God is dead—then it’s time to abandon public education. This is one sure way to conserve family values, strengthen our nation’s moral foundation, and secure the freedom of future generations.
