by Mike Bengert | May 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 18, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Vaccines may not be the most spectacular of all the miracles of modern medicine, but they are arguably the most beneficial. They have virtually eliminated the infectious diseases of childhood, including measles, diphtheria, mumps, rubella, smallpox, and polio that were once the sources of unimaginable worry and grief for parents everywhere.
Vaccines are estimated to have saved over 150 million lives in the last five decades, cutting infant mortality by 40% globally and over 50% in Africa. Closer to home, of all babies born in the U.S. in 2001 alone, a 2005 study showed that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million illnesses. Vaccines are also the most cost effective of all medical interventions, easily yielding the greatest amount of benefit received per dollar spent.
Like all medical treatments, vaccinations have side effects and risks, but they are rare and mostly insignificant, like a sore shoulder. There was for some time a concern that vaccines or the mercury in them caused autism, understandably so because autism was becoming much more frequently diagnosed just as vaccine use was expanding worldwide.
The scientific community took the threat seriously. Today, many exhaustive studies involving hundreds of thousands of children have all shown the same thing: vaccines don’t cause autism.
Yet in spite of the record of success and all the lives and dollars saved, experiences with COVID have led Americans to become less trusting of vaccines. Before COVID, America was a world leader in vaccination rates with 95% coverage. Since 2020, though, the percentage of children receiving the recommended vaccines has declined by 2% or about 70,000 children.
The result has been a resurgence of childhood diseases once considered vestiges of the past. Measles was considered to be entirely eliminated in 2020, yet last year multiple outbreaks sickened hundreds of children. Cases of chickenpox, whooping cough, and pneumonia are all on the rise. Trend lines don’t look good.
Clearly, millions of Americans have become skeptical of medical authority, especially that coming from government. What happened to cause Americans to adopt behaviors that re-introduced these diseases into the population and caused needless suffering?
The answer is that our public health establishment became politicized, shilling for approved government policy rather than acting as honest, reasonably humble stewards of the public good. The bonds of trust were broken because we were often manipulated rather than informed. We were proselytized rather than respected. Vaccines were rushed to market and their benefits oversold.
Fairly or not, the bulk of criticism has centered on Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Adviser to the President on COVID. Dr. Fauci was a respected, competent public health physician until he became a celebrity. Signature prayer candles, action figures, and other trappings apparently caused him to lose his way.
For example, Dr. Fauci early on warned against dependence on mask wearing, citing “unintended consequences” and noting that they didn’t provide much protection. Yet he later repeatedly overstated the known benefits of masks and never disavowed his previous declarations, leading many to conclude that his counsel seemed rooted more in shifting public perceptions than actual evidence.
Fauci also had the exasperating habit of changing his estimate regarding the percentage of the population needing to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the point at which protection effectively extends to all, vaccinated or not. He finally admitted that he changed his statements based only on his assessment of what the public was ready to hear.
He recommended mandating six feet of distance from others in public, although he later admitted it was nothing more than a personal guesstimate. He initially was an enthusiastic supporter of gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan lab, but later evaded questions and denied involvement when the consequences of the catastrophic lab leak became known.
What Fauci left unsaid was equally harmful. He neglected to point out that participating in a George Floyd riot was as unhealthy as mingling in any other crowd in 2020 and that there was no evidence supporting school shutdowns.
Fauci indignantly informed his critics that “I am the science.” But the days of authority-based science are past. Fauci’s self-serving deceptions broke the trust relationship with the American people. We may be reaping the consequences for years to come.
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 Corinne Murdock | Sep 28, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The town of Queen Creek has committed to not enforce pandemic-related mandates in the future, namely concerning COVID-19.
The Queen Creek Town Council issued a resolution during its regular meeting last week to not implement mandates concerning masks, vaccines, business closures, curfews, or “any similar measure,” effectively refusing to establish emergency orders that would put its citizens through a repeat of this recent COVID-19 pandemic.
The council declared that their resolution was passed to counter a trend among other local and state governments that have been, once again, implementing COVID-19 mandates. The council declared that they were taking the proactive measure to assure their citizens’ “God-given rights and liberties.”
“The Queen Creek Town Council believes the decision to wear a mask and receive a COVID-19 vaccination are personal decisions, not something to be mandated by the government,” stated the resolution. “[The council] believes in the right and liberty of individuals to make personal decisions according to their convictions.”
The resolution recommended town employees practice personal responsibility for illness prevention and declared that the town’s policy would be to allow employees to make their own decisions on vaccines and mask-wearing. The resolution also declared that no employee would be fired for refusing to wear a mask or receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
Councilman Travis Padilla said that the resolution affirmed Queen Creek’s commitment to not allowing a repeat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“This is a loud and clear message we are sending, that it is important for our town to make a statement that says what happened in the past is not going to happen in the future,” said Padilla.
Back in June 2020, the town refused to implement mask mandates while its governing neighbors in Gilbert and Chandler did, as well as the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Almost all other local governments in the state enforced mask mandates, including: Avondale, Bisbee, Buckeye, Casa Grande, Carefree, Clarkdale, Clifton, Coolidge, Cottonwood, Douglas, El Mirage, Flagstaff, Fountain Hills, Gila Bend, Glendale, Globe, Goodyear, Guadalupe, Jerome, Kingman, Litchfield Park, Mammoth, Mesa, Miami, Nogales, Oro Valley, Paradise Valley, Payson, Peoria, Phoenix, San Luis, Sedona, Scottsdale, Somerton, Superior, Surprise, Tempe, Tolleson, Tucson, Youngtown, and Yuma.
Tucson and Phoenix also enforced vaccine mandates. Tucson maintained their vaccine mandate, even fighting against a legal challenge from former Attorney General Mark Brnovich. Phoenix suspended their enforcement due to federal ruling against the Biden administration’s federal contractor vaccine mandate.
Pima County also enforced a vaccine mandate up until the legislature passed a ban against the practice last year.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Apr 1, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A push to protect Arizonans’ constitutional liberties for future health emergencies hit a dead end after clearing both chambers of the Arizona Legislature.
This week, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1250, which dealt with vaccine requirements and religious exemptions to those mandated medical shots. The governor’s veto was her 20th of the legislative session.
In a letter to President Warren Petersen on Thursday, the governor explained her reasoning for rejecting the legislature’s proposal: “This bill is unnecessary, as legal protections for an employee’s religious beliefs already exist in federal employment law. This bill also threatens employers with a civil penalty and a hefty fine, which could be devastating for Arizona’s many small businesses.”
Hobbs encouraged legislative leaders to “work to find bipartisan solutions that promote the educated and healthy workforce that is essential for Arizona’s economy.”
Senator Janae Shamp, the bill’s sponsor, was not pleased with the governor’s action, releasing the following statement in response: “I spent my entire career as a nurse, being an advocate for my patients and ensuring that their beliefs are respected and protected. The reason I’m here at the Senate, is because I was fired from my job as a nurse after refusing to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine. My top priority is this bill because during the pandemic, Americans’ medical freedoms were taken from them, myself included. For me, the Governor’s veto is personal. Not just for me but for every Arizonan who lost their job in the same manner.”
Shamp also addressed the governor’s call for bipartisan solutions, saying, “To call out those who stood to protect our health from an experimental shot that is proving to be toxic for many, is beyond an insult. If we truly care about our healthcare and getting people back to work, then maybe we should come together to get nurses back into our hospitals.”
The senator promised “to continue to fight for Arizonans’ medical freedom.”
On Twitter, Senator Shamp went further, calling Governor Hobbs “an open medical tyrant.”
SB 1250 instituted these main provisions (among others) for state law:
– “Requires employers to allow employees that complete a religious exemption form to opt out of vaccination requirements for COVID-19, influenza A, influenza B, flu or any vaccine authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for emergency use only.”
– “Prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee regarding employment, wages or benefits based on vaccination status; and from inquiring into the veracity of an employee’s religious beliefs practices or observances to the extent beyond what is allowed under federal law.”
– “Allows a terminated employee who was not offered or was denied a vaccination religious exemption by their employer to file a complaint with the Attorney General.”
This legislation closely tracked an opinion request from former Senator Kelly Townsend to former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, which was answered on August 20, 2021. Townsend asked three questions, including whether an employer could require a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment. Brnovich, who had several lawsuits over federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates (including the first one in the nation that was filed in Brnovich v. Biden), found that “under federal and state law, employers who mandate vaccinations must provide reasonable accommodations to employees who cannot obtain the COVID-19 vaccine due to a disability or a sincerely-held religious belief.”
Brnovich’s opinion also outlined that “a sincerely-held religious belief about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine includes a moral or ethical belief against receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that has the strength of a traditional religious view.” On the 2022 campaign trail, current Attorney General Kris Mayes was asked about forced vaccine mandates by private businesses and responded, “Of course they can. It is a private business.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Jan 14, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Individuals may receive $100 grocery gift cards if they get vaccinated fully through the city of Phoenix’s mobile COVID-19 vans. Those interested must register with either Vincere Cancer Center or Premier Lab Solutions, the two health care companies operating the vans. Vaccination will be free, as will be testing.
The city didn’t disclose how many gift cards they would give out in their initial announcement, only saying that the number of gift cards given would continue while supplies lasted. AZ Free News asked the city how many gift cards they were distributing. They didn’t respond by press time.
Phoenix’s move appears to fall in line with the suggestion from President Joe Biden this summer to offer $100 to incentivize vaccinations.
Phoenix will have one to two vaccination vans eligible for the $100 gift card offer at various locations around the Valley. A list of vaccination dates, times, and locations is available on the city’s website.
Like many other cities across the country, Phoenix has relied on monetary incentives or rewards for compliance with encouraged or mandated vaccination. Last December, the city council voted to give its employees bonuses of up to $2,000 for getting vaccinated, costing the city anywhere from $25 to $29 million in federal relief funds.
Other governmental authorities have opted to offer financial incentives for vaccination as well. In December, the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Governing Board voted to give employees $500 for being vaccinated fully, with $100 for each booster shot. The board reported that these vaccination payments would total approximately $3 to $5.8 million of their federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds.
According to one of the latest special reports from the Arizona Auditor General, school districts and charter schools spent less than 25 percent of their federal relief monies by the end of June. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) spent far less: they had 95.5 percent of federal relief funds left to spend by the end of June.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
