The University of Arizona (UArizona) will not reveal the identity of the student who threatened to shoot up the James E. College of Law campus over “transphobes” this past spring semester.
Police records reflect that the threats were made in the days leading up to April 10th, prompting concerns that lasted throughout the month and moved the law school to hold its last week of classes and finals remotely.
UArizona told AZ Free News that they redacted the student’s name from official records due to privacy and confidentiality issues.
According to records first obtained by 13 News, the University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) reported finding “threatening messages referencing killing people at UA campus” on the student’s phone. They found a search history that included questions around shooting accuracy, mass shootings, the Michigan State shooting, and Tucson shooting ranges. In an Instagram post included within police records, the student said they would rather kill a transphobe than be killed.
“All the gay people I know in the US are afraid for their life every day,” read the post. “I pack a loaded 9mm around with me because I’d rather kill a transphobe than get killed. But even then, I’d still probably die in a gunfight.”
Also according to police records, a friend reported to police that the student expressed an intent to shoot people. A friend also reported that the student would carry a gun onto campus property, despite knowing that it violated university policy.
“[The student] was talking oddly and that within the odd speech, [the student] stated, ‘I’m gonna shoot people’ as well as ‘they’re gonna come to shoot me’ and ‘I’m gonna shoot them before they shoot me,’” said the report. “[The student] has a gun and takes it to the university even though [the student] knows [they’re] not supposed to but uses it for protection in case [they’re] attacked.”
These threats emerged just weeks after the Christian elementary school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. The shooter — 28-year-old Aiden Hale, formerly known as Audrey Hale — was a woman who identified as a transgender man and a former student of the school. Three children and three adults were murdered by Hale before police stopped her.
Police records reflected that the UArizona student was hospitalized for mental health issues on April 10. Yet, on April 28, UAPD was notified that the student’s NetID WiFi was used in an attempted log-in on a campus computer. The student was not on campus. The interim public safety officer said the student was “in care” and not on campus at the time of the log-in.
In May, the student was reportedly entered into a federal database to prevent the future purchase of a firearm.
At the time of the threats and in a statement last week, the university repeatedly declared that the student posed no threat to campus. Interim Chief Safety Officer Steve Patterson said as much in a statement last Friday on the incident.
“UAPD has categorized the matter as a mental health-related case rather than a criminal matter,” said Patterson. “The investigation by the University of Arizona Police Department found that friends identified a student in crisis off-campus in April and sought care for their friend. While the student was in supervised care — and therefore posed no threat to the campus community — the student’s friends turned in a loaded handgun to the Tucson Police Department and informed them that the student had made verbal threats, although later statements indicated that the threat was less clear.”
Yet, Patterson advised students to remain vigilant on campus.
“The April incident is an important reminder that all of us must remain vigilant in the face of threatening or concerning behavior,” said Patterson.
According to the report, the student was banned from campus and university activities.
The University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) maintains a public list of banned individuals. Their policy maintains that these exclusionary orders are issued for a minimum of six months and potentially up to one year from the date of the offense. According to that list, there are 90 individuals who were banned within the potential same time frame as the student who issued the shooting threat.
At least one of the individuals within that time frame on the Exclusionary Orders list identifies as a transgender individual. It also appears that one of those individuals could have the ability to log in remotely to a campus computer — as it appears the student did on April 28 — having been an information technology services employee for the university until around May.
Questions concerning the ability of UArizona students to “remain vigilant” of an unidentified, banned student remain unanswered. UArizona referredAZPM to the redacted police report and Patterson’s statement when asked. The university also wouldn’t confirm whether the student is included in the UAPD exclusionary orders list.
The entire list of those banned within the same potential time frame as the student who made the shooting threat are listed below:
Timothy Hallman, exclusion through Oct. 11, 2023
Lawrence Littlefield, exclusion through Oct. 12, 2023
Eric Gates, exclusion through Oct. 13, 2023
Joseph Mackinder, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jeffery Garland, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jorge Howard, exclusion through Oct. 20, 2023
Kyle Narreau, exclusion through Oct. 25, 2023
Christopher Bravo, exclusion through Oct. 28, 2023
Jacob Ficek, exclusion through Oct. 29, 2023
Daniel Frescura, exclusion through Nov. 2, 2023
Bob Bernal, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jack Music, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Eva Arevalo, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jerry Johnson, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jordan Daniel, exclusion through Nov. 9, 2023
Peter Fass, exclusion through Nov. 10, 2023
David Petersen, exclusion through Nov. 14, 2023
Ronald Andrews, exclusion through Nov. 15, 2023
Luis Leveta, exclusion through Nov. 16, 2023
Randy Elam, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Kieth Davis, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Chester Carroll, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Joshua Neuser, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Benjamin Burch, exclusion through Nov. 18, 2023
Kimberly Meadows, exclusion through Nov. 22, 2023
Wallace Leight, exclusion through Nov. 23, 2023
Victor De Anda, exclusion through Nov. 26, 2023
Roderick Davis, exclusion through Nov. 27, 2023
James Aguilar, exclusion through Nov. 29, 2023
Jarrod Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Chana Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Jamal Shannon, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Carlos Castillo, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Lucas Griffith, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Adrian Davis, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Gregory Nelson, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Victor Zevallos, exclusion through Dec. 12, 2023
Matthew Verheyen, exclusion through Dec. 18, 2023
Wayne Martino, exclusion through Dec. 21, 2023
Mariah Ruiz, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Aaron Collelmo, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Sandra Steinmetz, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Brittney Garcia, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Selahattin Toprak, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Steven Helming, exclusion through Jan. 2, 2024
David Meracle, exclusion through Jan. 4, 2024
Curtis Linner, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Zachary Kindell, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Christian Diaz De Leon, exclusion through Jan. 7, 2024
Dustin M. Klett, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Cody Hill, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Gregory Schmitt, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Robert Ramsey, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Steven Asmar, exclusion through Jan. 17, 2024
Michael Todd, exclusion through Jan. 18, 2024
William Turnbow, exclusion through Jan. 20, 2024
Russell Higgins, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Leona Arreola, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Elijah Salzwedel, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Derek Kirven, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Jeffrey Jorgenson, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Paul Curran, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Jorge Ruiz, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Joseph Hardin, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Johnathan Keeney, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Chad Harvey, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Arik Ruybe, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Anthony Fuentes, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Isaac Gracia, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Jordan Young, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
Raymond Ramirez, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
John Lawicki, exclusion through Feb. 16, 2024
Tristen Dejolie, exclusion through Feb. 17, 2024
Richard Bowlby, exclusion through Feb. 18, 2024
Roman Arriero, exclusion through Feb. 21, 2024
Aric Ballard, exclusion through Feb. 22, 2024
Jason Blaylock, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Ryan Kuhns, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Andrea Young, exclusion through Feb. 25, 2024
Michael Burks, exclusion through Feb. 26, 2024
Leonard Johnson, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Michael Clampitt, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Kevin Huma, exclusion through March 3, 2024
Shannon Baker, exclusion through March 4, 2024
Enrique Lopez, exclusion through March 7, 2024
Kenton Landau, exclusion through March 21, 2024
Herbert Forreset, exclusion through March 30, 2024
The University of Arizona (UArizona) is allegedly teaching nursing students to introduce preschoolers to transgenderism.
In two class slides obtained by Libs of TikTok, nursing students are told to ask pediatric patients aged three to 13 years old about their gender identity. The students are given a script to read, in which they advise the child that inside feelings determine gender and that objective truth doesn’t exist.
“Some kids feel like a girl on the inside, some kids feel like a boy on the inside, and some kids feel like neither, both, or someone else,” read the suggested script. “How do you feel on the inside? There’s no right or wrong answer.”
The second slide advised nursing students to begin asking patients about gender identity around the age of three years old, specifically.
Research indicates that children don’t begin to make clear distinctions between reality and fiction until after seven years old. Prior to that point and starting around the age of two, children begin to “play pretend.” This aspect of childhood is expressed through the belief in fantasy beings such as Santa Claus, invented entities such as imaginary friends, and storylines explored through play such as their role in a Power Rangers “battle.” One study found that four-year-old children believed Big Bird from “Sesame Street” was real.
Notably, researchers have found that children were more likely to accept information when they believed someone was an expert or credible source on a topic. This indicates a self-fulfilling prophecy: if a nurse tells a child to believe it’s possible to swap genders or be neither gender, and further tell that child that no objective truth about gender exists, then the child is more likely to believe and accept that as truth.
AZ Free News reached out to the nursing school for details on the slides, such as the class from which they came. They didn’t respond by press time.
State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-LD17) pledged to investigate the course immediately.
UArizona still refers individuals seeking transgender procedures for minors to El Rio Health on its LGBTQ Community Resources page, describing the provision of “affirming, respectful, and quality healthcare to pediatric and adult transgender and gender non-conforming communities.” The listed services include hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and “sensitive referrals.” However, the link on the university page no longer exists, likely due to Arizona laws banning such procedures for minors.
El Rio clinic gender transitions for minors were provided by Andrew Cronyn for years prior to the recent changes in Arizona law. Cronyn initially turned away minors for gender transition procedures; by 2014, Cronyn said he relented and accepted his first minor patient.
UArizona hosted Cronyn as a guest speaker for his work on transitioning children.
The American Nurses Association (ANA), which defines standards for nurses, issued a statement last October condemning restrictions and bans on gender transition procedures for minors. As of January, ANA’s president is Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, a UArizona alumna and, up until last year, an Arizona State University (ASU) nursing instructor.
In May, ANA issued another statement opposing restrictions and bans on gender procedures. Mensik Kennedy advocated for the unfettered right for patients to obtain “gender-affirming care” from health care providers.
“Discrimination does not belong in health care and has no place in nursing practice,” said Mensik Kennedy. “Unfortunately, people are dying from the lack of access to this critical care. The delivery of modern and culturally sensitive care requires that no patient be left without the care that they need, seek, and require.”
The assistant dean of University of Arizona (UArizona) law school admits that they have an ongoing system in place that effectively curtails the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling prohibiting affirmative action.
The SCOTUS ruling ended race-based admissions in June, requiring colorblind criteria. Cary Lee Cluck, UArizona James E. Rogers College of Law assistant dean for admissions and financial aid, admitted that they still factor race in admissions during last month’s Association of American Law Schools (AALS) conference on affirmative action. Cluck was a key panelist tasked with discussing how law schools can achieve diversity without affirmative action.
Cluck shared that UArizona’s law school relies on a “holistic review” of applicants. In defining what a holistic review entails, Cluck explained that their admissions team reviews college transcripts and resumes to better understand what an applicant is all about, within the context of meeting the law school’s diversity goals. Cluck added that applicants who volunteer more information about themselves in their application are more likely to benefit, specifically citing race.
“When I say ‘holistic file review,’ we’re looking at all of those little pieces of things that we’ve asked you to give us and, some that are optional, that you can give us to get a fuller picture of who you are as a person,” said Cluck. “[I]ncluding other types of diversity beyond or alongside, you know, talking about your racial background is a good thing because it gives us, like we’ve been talking about, another piece or many more pieces of the puzzle to consider who you are in a holistic manner and trying to make a decision about you.”
Cluck said that they don’t proactively ask for a diversity statement, but do consider them when they’re submitted by applicants.
“It’s another piece of the puzzle […] that we take into consideration, when we are reading the application,” said Cluck. “They’re not always about racial discrimination or gender discrimination, but they can be a diversity statement about a lot of different things. They are very useful in the application process.”
It’s likely that applicants include a diversity statement into either materials containing their personal statement or “other considerations.” The law school requires applicants to submit a personal statement concerning personal characteristics and qualities, education and work experiences, talents and special interests, socioeconomic background, involvement in community affairs and public services, and “any other circumstances that have helped shape your life or given it direction.” The law school admissions team also reviews an unspecified slew of “other considerations.”
Both UArizona College of Law students and faculty sit on the admissions committee, but Cluck is the final arbiter.
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, UArizona issued a press release noting that Arizona law has already prohibited the consideration of race or ethnicity in university admissions since 2010. It appears that the university and its law school have had 13 years to find a workaround to the prohibition.
Arizonans are eligible to receive $1.03 billion in student debt relief, according to the latest estimates from the Biden administration.
Arizona’s cut accounts for about 2.6 percent of the $39 billion issued for 804,000 total borrowers (an average of over $48,500 per borrower). In a press release, the Department of Education (ED) clarified that the billion-odd in funds applied to over 20,500 borrowers in Arizona.
$1.03 billion for 20,500 borrowers averages about $50,200 per borrower: about $2,000 short of four years of in-state tuition at Arizona State University, $2,600 short of four years of in-state tuition at the University of Arizona, and $4,500 more than four years’ tuition at Northern Arizona University.
The relief constitutes the 12th-highest award from the Biden administration. The 11 other states above Arizona, in order from highest to lowest award amount, were: Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
In a statement, President Joe Biden said that the past mistakes of the federal government were to blame for individuals not paying their debts. Biden also said that Republican lawmakers were hypocritical and dismissive for rejecting his sweeping student loan forgiveness.
“I have long said that college should be a ticket to the middle class — not a burden that weighs down on families for decades,” stated Biden.
The federal relief comes from the Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans launched by the Biden administration. The IDR plans slash undergraduate loan payments in half and abolish payments for low-income borrowers. The Biden administration determines IDR plans based on discretionary income: the difference between annual income and 150 percent of the poverty guideline based on the borrower’s family size and state of residence.
There are four possible IDR plans: Revised Pay As You Earn Repayment Plan (REPAYE) lasting 20 years for undergraduate loans only or 25 years for any graduate or professional loans, requiring 10 percent of discretionary income; Pay As You Earn Repayment Plan (PAYE) lasting 20 years, requiring 10 percent of discretionary income or a maximum based on the 10-year Standard Repayment Plan amount; Income-Based Repayment Plan (IBR), requiring 10 percent of discretionary income for new borrowers on or after July 1, 2014 and lasting 20 years, or 15 percent of discretionary income for older borrowers on or after July 1, 2014 and lasting 25 years, with both contingencies capped by the 10-year Standard Repayment Plan; and the Income-Contingent Repayment Plan (ICR) lasting 25 years, requiring 20 percent of discretionary income or projected payment on a repayment plan with a 12-year fixed payment adjusted to income.
Even if borrowers don’t fully pay off their loan balance under their IDR plan, the federal government will forgive the remaining loan balance. ED will also count months of nonpayment based on certain criteria toward the total repayment period: economic hardship deferment, repayment under other plans, and required zero amount payment periods. Additionally, ED offers borrowers total forgiveness of any remaining balance after 10 years of payments, rather than 20 or 25 years, should the borrower participate in both an IDR plan and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program.
ED began notifying eligible borrowers of the relief earlier this month. The Biden administration has issued over $116 billion in student loan relief for three million borrowers: an average of $38,600 per borrower.
That average is roughly several hundred dollars less than the average national total for four years of in-state tuition at a public college, and about equivalent to the average national total for just over one year of out-of-state tuition at a public college.
High schoolers will learn from firsthand experiences of the evils of communism in a documentary series featuring two Arizona lawmakers who survived it.
The series, produced by the University of Arizona (UArizona) Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, features House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01) sharing their personal accounts of communism and their emigration to America. Toma escaped from Romania, and Nguyen escaped from Vietnam.
Nguyen praised UArizona for granting war survivors like him a platform to enlighten future generations.
The videos were created in response to the state legislature passage of a bill sponsored by Nguyen last year requiring high schools to incorporate a comparative discussion of political ideologies: the principles of communism and totalitarianism compared and contrasted with America’s founding principles.
Nguyen recounted how, a week before the Fall of Saigon, his father boarded him and his brother on an airplane with hundreds of other people. Nguyen was 12 years old at the time; his father advised the brothers that they wouldn’t see their family again. He and his brother were transported to Subic Bay, then Guam, then to Travis Airforce Base, Fort Pembleton, and finally Fort Chaffee.
However, Nguyen and his brother were able to reunite with his family in San Joaquin, California. Nguyen explained that he only ever experienced kindness among American military members, contrary to the narratives he heard that the U.S. forces had invaded his country. To this day, Nguyen says he visits with Vietnam veterans nationwide to thank them.
The representative shared that his quality of life in America was better than in Vietnam: he was able to get a strong college education and well-paying employment as a young man.
Nguyen explained that hallmarks of communism include government control of food source, specifically severely limiting the supply; control of education, specifically focusing on propagandizing children; and confiscation of weapons.
Toma’s video includes his mother and father, Ana and Cornel Toma. They recounted how the Romanian secret police labeled their family as an enemy to the government.
Ana recalled how government indoctrination in schools taught her and her peers false history, such as that the rest of the world loved and admired Romania as a great nation, when in fact she would later learn that few Americans knew of Romania’s existence. Ana also recalled waiting in lines for hours to obtain food, sometimes reaching the front without receiving the few rations available.
Cornel recalled how the government took away people’s cattle and land, only allowing them one cow and a half-acre of land. Those who dared speak out would “disappear overnight.” The government also didn’t allow people to have vocational freedom: similar to the military, the government assigned citizens their vocations and where they would live.
The Toma family was forced to flee Romania after the Secret Police began visiting them. They only managed to escape after a family friend convinced a member of the secret police to assist in smuggling them out of the country under the guise of a vacation: at that point, the Toma family wasn’t allowed to leave the country otherwise. Ana and Cornel were forced to escape first, then send for their children.
Ana and Cornel navigated the legal immigration process for admittance to the U.S., traveling across Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Rome over the course of about a year. Ana said that, upon first landing in America, she witnessed a novel display of patriotism and love for America that touched her deeply.
“I was so impressed that somebody love the country so much. I was impressed by the attitude they had on the flight. I thought, ‘This is the first taste of freedom,’” said Ana.
The Toma family settled in a two-bedroom apartment for their family of seven. Speaker Toma shared his delight in the abundance of America through the simple joy of eating oranges: something not possible in Romania. Ana and Cornel shared that they found work rather quickly.
In addition to Toma and Nguyen, the series will include Mesa Community College economics professor Sylwia Cavalcant, who fled Poland’s communism.
Freedom Center Director Mary Rigdon said that the series would serve to advise students of the realities of communism.
“The mini-documentaries powerfully demonstrate our commitment to inform current and future generations, consistent with the Center’s mission to be an intellectually diverse, inclusive, and nonpartisan resource for leaders and students seeking to address society’s significant challenges. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight the power of freedom in a democratic society,” said Rigdon.