For years, Americans were told our schools existed to expand minds, encourage debate, and prepare young people to think independently. Today, too many do the opposite.
Conservative voices are being shouted down, disinvited, or silenced by radical activists and administrators more interested in appeasing the far left than defending free speech. What happened recently in South Carolina is just the latest of numerous incidents across the country.
Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, a successful businesswoman, unapologetic conservative, and strong supporter of President Trump, was pushed out of delivering the commencement address at South Carolina State University after activists objected to her political beliefs. University officials cited “security concerns,” but the real issue was ideological intolerance.
From Ivy League institutions to taxpayer-funded public universities to our K-12 schools, activists increasingly dictate who may speak, which ideas are acceptable, and what students are allowed to hear.
Administrators routinely surrender to pressure from the left while treating conservatives as threats rather than participants in open debate. That should concern every American.
Our education system has drifted far from its mission. Instead of teaching students how to think critically, schools now teach them what to think. Activism has replaced scholarship, and ideological conformity has replaced intellectual diversity. And taxpayers are funding it.
The time for cosmetic reform is over. America needs structural change.
First, tenure at publicly funded colleges and universities must end.
Tenure was intended to protect academic inquiry. Too often now, it protects ideological activists from accountability while classrooms become platforms for political agendas unrelated to education.
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year, several professors openly celebrated or excused political violence against someone they opposed politically. That moment exposed how radical parts of academia have become.
Lt. Governor Evette rightfully called for the end of tenure because employment should be based on performance and professionalism, not guaranteed lifetime protection.
Second, our schools must return to education instead of indoctrination.
Parents expect schools to teach reading, writing, math, science, history, and critical thinking. They do not send their children to be immersed in divisive identity politics, anti-American rhetoric, or gender ideology.
Students should graduate understanding the principles that built this country, capable of thinking independently, and able to engage with opposing viewpoints.
Finally, parents must have real authority over their children’s education.
For too long, bureaucracies and special interests trapped families in failing schools. Every parent deserves the freedom to choose the educational setting that best serves their child, whether public, charter, private, technical, or homeschool.
Choice creates accountability. Competition drives improvement. Parents, not government officials, should make these decisions.
This is not just a South Carolina problem. It is happening nationwide.
We need conservative leaders like Lt. Governor Pamela Evette, who are willing to confront these problems directly. She understands what is at stake and has consistently fought for parental rights, accountability, school choice, and classrooms focused on education instead of activism.
If we fail to reclaim our schools and universities now, the consequences will reach far beyond the classroom.
Mick Zais is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and has been a dedicated conservative voice in the fight for education reform. Zais served as Acting Secretary of Education and as Deputy Secretary under the first Trump Administration. He also served as Superintendent of Education in South Carolina from 2011 to 2015 and President of Newberry College from 2000 to 2010. Zais retired from the Army as a brigadier general.
Leading under divided government is hard, but it does not excuse a governor from actually governing. Republican legislative leadership has held a clear and defensible line when it comes to the state’s budget: spend only the revenues the state actually has, provide full tax relief by implementing full conformity and don’t force Arizonans to file their taxes twice and pay more in the process. When Hobbs couldn’t move them off that position last week, she didn’t really explain why their position was unreasonable or come back with a new proposal. Instead, she walked away from the table.
Recently, a rumor was circulating around the Capitol that the Governor and legislative leadership were discussing a deal to deliver conformity tax cuts and build the contours of the budget around a speculative state land trust ballot referral. Referring a Prop 123 extension would dump hundreds of millions of new dollars into district K-12 schools without any strings attached. By the end of last week, that balloon had popped, along with any credibility that Katie Hobbs knows how to lead.
As governor, it is Katie Hobbs’ job to bring people together and solve difficult problems. Yet before the calendar has even turned to April (very early for budget season at the capitol), Governor Hobbs has already admitted that she is out of ideas.
The Prop 123 Gimmick Was Never Going to Work
Now that the budget breakdown has gone public, details of the Hobbs proposal have been released, and it was far worse than anyone had even thought. Under the Hobbs plan, Arizona’s entire budget would somehow hinge on the passage of a new Proposition 123 referral at the ballot in November…
Arizona legislative Republicans criticized Gov. Katie Hobbs after she stepped away from budget negotiations, raising concerns about her proposed plan involving the state’s Public Land Trust Fund, according to a joint statement released by GOP leadership.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro said in a statement that Hobbs “chose to walk away from budget negotiations despite a path forward being within reach.”
At issue is the governor’s proposal to increase distributions from Arizona’s Public Land Trust Fund, which supports K-12 education and is protected under the Arizona Constitution. According to the statement, legislative budget analysts estimate the proposal would reduce the fund from approximately $9.7 billion to $4.7 billion over the next 20 years.
The Republican leaders explained that the proposal calls for a 10.9 percent annual distribution over 20 years, compared to a previous structure of 6.9 percent over 10 years. They also raised concerns about the assumptions underlying the plan, including projected long-term investment returns.
“At the center of this dispute is her proposal to dramatically increase withdrawals from Arizona’s Public Land Trust, a voter-protected fund designed to support K-12 education for generations. This is not a solution. It is a long-term raid on a critical resource,” Petersen and Montenegro said.
“The Governor wants to drain a voter-protected education fund, pile on $1.5 billion in new debt, and rely on numbers that simply don’t add up,” they added. “We have shown the Governor’s Office a balanced budget with tax conformity. We’ve put forward a responsible plan that cuts taxes for working families and funds schools without gimmicks. She walked away from the table because her math doesn’t work. Arizonans deserve better than headlines and blame-shifting.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Arizona Republicans Blast Hobbs for Walking Away from Budget Talks, Pushing Risky Education Fund Raid
The joint statement also criticized the broader budget framework, alleging it includes approximately $1.5 billion in new debt, higher taxes and fees, and revenue projections they described as unrealistic.
Republican leadership stated they had presented an alternative budget proposal that they described as balanced and including tax conformity, though details of that proposal were not included in the release.
The lawmakers said they intend to continue working on a budget plan in the coming weeks.
Hobbs’ office has not yet publicly responded to the statement as of publication, but in a post to X following its release, she wrote, “As Governor, and the sister of public school teachers—I know how important strong public schools are for Arizona families. I’m proud to keep fighting for our students, educators, and classrooms, because a great public education is key to expanding opportunity and the Arizona Promise.”
Petersen and Montenegro concluded their statement saying, “While the Governor plays political theater, Arizona families are dealing with real consequences. This impacts your cost of living, your paycheck, your kids’ classrooms, and whether Arizona remains affordable for the families who live here. A temper tantrum won’t balance the budget, and it is not leadership to rely on voters to pass the funding we need after the fact. We’re ready to get this done. The question is whether she is.”
Katie Hobbs would love nothing more than for Republicans at the legislature to start wheeling and dealing on Prop 123, the roughly $300M per year K-12 funding stream from Arizona’s State Land Trust.
Republicans should not even entertain it.
In fact, negotiating over Prop 123 now would amount to a political self-own of the highest order.
Prior to 2025, the argument for extending Prop 123 was the imminent “funding cliff” for school districts because the distributions from the land trust to K-12, which were temporarily increased for a period of 10 years, were set to expire. But lawmakers addressed this concern when they increased K-12 funding from the general fund a few years ago in the amount districts were receiving from the trust.
Last year, there were discussions about initiating a new 123 enhanced distribution, but only if it included significant education reforms, one of which involved constitutionally protecting school choice programs in the state. Outside of these types of reforms, there is no reason for Republicans to even be discussing any plan that involves dumping hundreds of millions into K-12 with no strings attached.
Yet somehow the conversation has been resurrected…
K-12 superintendents are the CEOs of public schools, spearheading a cabinet of professionals who manage district resources and implement safety and academic programs. Superintendent qualifications may include a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) or education (Ed.D.) and some experience in finance, communications, and organizational leadership.
Superintendents are paid exorbitant salaries topping close to $1 million, depending on the district size. This amount does not include performance bonuses, work vehicles, mobile devices, or lavish vacation packages—er, I mean, “out-of-state professional development conferences.” Whether superintendents do good or evil, employment agreements stipulate that they receive full compensation and benefits, largely at the taxpayers’ expense.
Arizona public schools are home to some of the most ethically challenged and morally questionable high-level administrators. K-12 superintendents across the Valley primarily care about aesthetics and the “business of the district.” Below is an incomplete list of superintendents with controversial reputations, alongside the elected officials who bow to their almighty paper-pushing agenda.
Newly hired Higley USD Superintendent David Loutzenheiser now sits on the dais with governing board members, leaving his cabinet on the floor. This arrangement was approved by the purple-haired board president, Amanda Wade, who once advocated for striking the word “immoral” from teacher-student communication policies. Radical board member Tiffany Schultz—who once declared that professional dress codes “sexualize children’s bodies”—backed Wade’s decision to disrupt the chain of command. No one but Loutzenheiser benefited from this stunt. He set a bad precedent for what’s to come. Read more in AZ Free News.
Earlier this year, a resident in the Cartwright Elementary School District sued two board members for nepotism, citing A.R.S. 15-421. Cassandra Hernandez (elected at age 19) is the daughter of board president and state representative Lydia Hernandez (D). Despite using different addresses on their campaign applications, constituents cried foul and called for their resignations. The Hernandezes led a charge to install the disgraced former Maricopa County Superintendent Steve Watson as district superintendent. Watson is accused of fraud and leaving behind an infestation of financial deficits, lawsuits, and dysfunction in the county office. Cartwright residents have no reason to expect Watson will leave their district any better than he found it.
Deer Valley USD residents constantly complain across social media about Superintendent Curtis Finch’s dismissive “leadership” style. Residents are also suspicious of Finch’s camaraderie with board president Paul Carver, who once told a room full of conservatives that Finch is the best superintendent in the state. Both men support a twice-failed ballot measure that would allow the district to exceed its budget. Finch defended the 15% override, stating: “The anti-public school movement is growing here in Arizona, which is a crime against humanity.” Whether or not good things are happening in DVUSD is up for interpretation, but declining enrollment numbers are the telltale sign of a district in freefall. Go Parents!
No list of sketchy superintendents is complete without Scottsdale USD’s Scott Menzel. He is a freak show in his own right, accounting for the majority of the district’s media exposure. Menzel is widely known for shaming white people who don’t feel guilty about their skin color. Before vacating their seats, debased board members Zach Lindsay, Libby Hart-Wells, and Julie Cienawski extended Menzel’s contract through 2025. Under his “leadership,” SUSD chartered more student-led sexuality clubs, adopted an anti-police curriculum, and circulated hundreds of pornographic books in school libraries. As a result, in 2024, the Arizona School Administrators organization proudly named Menzel the National Superintendent of the Year (this title must be reserved for clowns).
Peoria USD has a slightly better handle on its administration problem since board president Heather Rooks removed Superintendent K.C. Somers from the dais. This establishes a clear separation of employer and employee while respecting the expertise each brings to the district. Unfortunately, though, Somers is developing a reputation for operating in subtle forms of manipulation and subversion, as if he’s trying to sabotage the board members he can’t control. I once attended a meeting where Somers yowled at board members when they ripped off the COVID-19 funding band-aid. Interestingly, before coming to Arizona, Somers was the superintendent of a Colorado school district steeped in scandal and cover-up. He would do well to note that PUSD residents won’t sit for that.
(Dis)honorable Mentions: Tolleson Union HS Superintendent Jeremy Calles morally and financially bankrupted his district. Former Mesa Public Schools Supt. Andi Fourlis oversaw an untold number of social gender transitions without parental knowledge. Tucson USD Supt. Gabriel Trujillo encouraged and attended a student-led drag show on campus, even after one teen was sexually abused by a high school counselor who organized the opening event. Chandler USD Supt. Frank Narducci declared a “week of kindness” and distributed 9-1-1 stickers after unchecked bullying led to one student’s murder and another student’s suicide. There’s more, but we’re out of time.
Those who can’t get elected apply for high-power jobs. Most K-12 superintendents have no campaign grit and no winning personality. Thus, they depend on compromised board members to execute their agenda. Superintendents don’t represent the whole community—they represent the educated community. They may be intellectual experts, but they don’t swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and they are not the final governing authority.
The board of education—elected officials who report to taxpayers (that’s you!)—hires the superintendent, and they ultimately decide what to approve or reject. No one is demanding perfection. Arizona families simply want integrity, transparency, and common sense. K-12 community members who experience dissatisfaction with bloated, overcompensated administrative teams should call, email, request meetings, alert the media, and speak at school board meetings. When superintendents refuse to operate within the scope and ability of their job description, expose them.
