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.”
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.
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.
Any sensible person can see that there is something seriously wrong with many American universities.
For several decades many of our most prestigious seats of learning have become hostile to free speech and genuine inquiry. Speech codes have been introduced to prevent so-called ‘microaggressions.’
Speakers that do not subscribe to ‘woke’ orthodoxies have been ‘de-platformed.’ Those that do get invited on to campus risk being mobbed, as recently happened to a federal judge at Stanford and Riley Gaines at San Francisco State.
Intellectual inquiry, too, has narrowed. Anyone presenting ideas outside the approved parameters risks having their career terminated. (See what happened to Harvard’s then-president, Larry Summers, in 2006 when he suggested that genetics might help explain why there are more male than female scientists.)
Then on October 7th, Hamas slaughtered over a thousand Israelis, most of them civilians. Far from condemning the massacre, student groups at Harvard, Cornell and other universities rushed to issue statements attacking Israel.
Anti-Israel protesters on campus made statements and chanted slogans that went beyond being merely rude or unpleasant. Some seemed antisemitic. Others sounded like they were calling for a Jewish genocide.
How come those campus speech codes suddenly no longer applied? Having spent years policing what could be said to avoid ‘microaggressions,’ where were the university authorities when Jewish students faced actual aggression?
Giving evidence before a Congressional committee the other week, Claudine Gay of Harvard appeared to suggest that however unpalatable the protesters might be, it was all part of their right to freedom of speech. “Our university embraces a commitment to free expression” she said. Both she, and Liz Magill of Penn, failed to confirm that calls for genocide of Jews violated the university’s code of conduct.
Free speech appears to apply at these universities when you want to call for genocide, but not if you want to talk about genetics.
Watching both Gay and Magill give evidence, they both appeared out of their depth. I may not have been the only person left wondering how either of them was appointed to their respective roles in the first place. (Some have unkindly suggested it may have something to do with ‘woke’ hiring practices.)
The problems at US universities run deeper than just a handful of poor appointments.
Many US universities, including some right here in Mississippi, have DEI, or Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, programs. This needs to stop. Now.
DEI can sound entirely harmless. Who could possibly be against supporting different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations? Pretty soon, however, DEI proves to be something much more sinister.
In the name of diversity, some US universities have been systematically discriminating against some Americans on the basis of their race, limiting admissions to ‘overrepresented’ groups. In the name of equity, US universities have set out to address structural inequalities – historic and current – that advantage some and disadvantage others. In the name of inclusion, those with the wrong views are excluded.
DEI is flawed because it demands we think in terms of groups of individuals, rather than just individuals. Universities that apply DEI no longer treat everyone on campus equally, but on the basis of their immutable characteristics. DEI is a fundamentally un-American ideal.
DEI is also a formula almost guaranteed to produce institutional incompetence. Imagine, for a moment, that your favorite football or basketball team was to be run on the basis of DEI. If they recruited players on the basis of something other than their ability to play the game, they would lose. It makes no sense to run a public university that way.
What is to be done?
Last week, the Governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt, showed the way. He issued an executive order banning DEI programs in public universities. Mississippi needs to do something similar.
An executive order in Mississippi could prohibit public universities from using state funds, property or resources for DEI initiatives.
To be sure, if the Governor was to do this in Mississippi there would be howls of protests. Various pundits would whine. It is what pundits do. Some will scream “supremacist!” There is nothing supremacist about insisting every American is treated equally. Others will warn that unless we continue to pay DEI staff six figure salaries Mississippi will somehow regress.
I suspect most Mississippi parents wanting the best for their children would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the sort of scenes we witnessed at some of those so-called ‘elite’ institutions never happen here.
If we want to stop the ‘woke’ takeover of our institutions, we need to act now.
