Arizona School Board Under Fire For Updated Curriculum That Includes BLM
As someone who's resided in Arizona for most of my life, I'll tell you that it is a deeply confusing place. You'll meet some of the most left-leaning folks you could ever know, and then turn around and see a house decked out in Trump flags. This conflict plays out in our state politics on all levels. Take, for instance, the Scottsdale Unified School District, which is currently under fire for a new social studies curriculum that acknowledges Black Lives Matter and protests against police.
According to ABC 15, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne gave a press conference on Wednesday to challenge a social studies textbook that will be used in Scottsdale schools for the upcoming school year. Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, as well as Jim Hill, the president of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Association, were also in attendance as they felt the curriculum was anti-police. Horne called the curriculum a 'DEI-oriented textbook,' and labeled the school board as 'woke.'
Why?
Because the textbook acknowledges that over the last decade, we experienced events ranging from NFL players like Colin Kaepernick protesting police violence, to the racial uprisings in 2020 stemming from the murder of George Floyd. Apparently, simply talking about these things is seen as 'anti-police.'
These are all events that have occurred in modern American history. History shouldn't be ignored because you don't like it or agree with it. As a millennial, my economic mobility has been stifled due to the long-lasting effects of Reaganomics. Do I like it? No. But thanks to history class, I know exactly who to blame for the socio-economic hellscape that is current-day America. The more you know, you know?
Scottsdale Superintendent Scott Menzel pushed back against Horne's claims. 'To label them woke without having ever read what was the 1,250 pages in the textbook is a problem from my perspective,' Menzel told AZ Family. Source: Erik McGregor / Getty
'We would never adopt a curriculum that was anti-police,' said Menzel. 'We do have historically situations where some people argue that we should defund the police. Here in Arizona we had people who removed school resource officers. That's not something that we would ever contemplate, but from a historical perspective our students should be able to wrestle with why someone might have made that argument.'
Wow, a curriculum designed to allow students to consider all the different viewpoints they coexist with on a daily basis? You know what? I take it back, that does sound like indoctrination to me.
The curriculum had already been discussed by community members during the May board meeting where it was approved, and for the most part people seemed on board with it.
'Is it messy? Yes. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. You may not like the fact that George Floyd is brought up, but Derek Chauvin is serving time for murder. So, if you have a problem with that being discussed and that is somehow anti-police, then I don't know what to tell you,' one community member said during the meeting.
Another community member read from a petition signed by 100 students, alumni, and parents in Scottsdale approving the new curriculum. 'Now more than ever, it's vital to provide students with a comprehensive education rooted in trust and fairness. The adoption in this curriculum is a critical step in ensuring all SUSD students receive the education they deserve,' she read.
Not everyone is on board, though, as Scottsdale resident Karen Martinson stood beside Horne during the press conference. 'As a Black lady, I don't want my son learning about Black Lives Matter because it is too violent,' Martinson said. Man, wait till she finds out about what they were doing at Klan rallies.
Horne has said he will report the curriculum to the federal government as he believes that the school is violating an agreement not to have DEI in K-12 classrooms. It really feels like I'm watching what likely happened in the '70s and '80s when schools began teaching about the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s in my own backyard. Arizona, what a strange place you are.
SEE ALSO:
Texas Is The Latest State To Censor Higher Education Over DEI Concerns
UNC Asheville Dean Of Students Fired For Pro-DEI Comments
SEE ALSO
Arizona School Board Under Fire For Updated Curriculum That Includes BLM was originally published on newsone.com
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
27 minutes ago
Russia launches largest attack of August on Ukraine after Trump-Zelenskyy meeting
LONDON -- Ukraine's air force reported a major Russian attack on Monday night and into Tuesday morning -- the largest overnight barrage for weeks, coming while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with President Donald Trump and a delegation of European leaders in Washington. The air force said Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into Ukraine, of which 30 drones and six missiles were intercepted or suppressed. The air force reported the impacts of 40 drones and four missiles across 16 locations, with debris reportedly falling in three locations. Monday night's attack was the largest attack since Russia launched 309 drones and eight missiles into Ukraine on July 31, according to the daily figures published by the Ukrainian air force and analyzed by ABC News. Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said its forces shot down 23 Ukrainian drones overnight into Tuesday morning. Thirteen of the craft were downed over the Volgograd region, the ministry said. Regional Gov. Andrey Bocharov said on Telegram that falling debris set fires at an oil refinery and on the roof of a hospital building, though added there were no casualties. The overnight exchanges bookended a day of high-level talks in Washington. Trump, Zelenskyy and a host of European leaders met in the capital on Monday to discuss a possible roadmap to end Russia's full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022. Monday's summit followed a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, during which Putin refused an immediate ceasefire and demanded that Ukraine cede the entirety of its eastern Donetsk region in exchange for an end to the fighting, two sources told ABC News. Ahead of Monday's meetings, Trump appeared to be pressuring Zelenskyy into making a deal. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump wrote on social media on Sunday. The president also said Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO and would not be able to regain Crimea -- occupied by Russia in 2014. Such remarks raised concerns of another fractious Oval Office meeting, akin to Zelenskyy's February visit when the Ukrainian leader was publicly lambasted by Trump and Vice President JD Vance for his alleged ingratitude for American wartime support. But Monday's meetings were cordial, though the parties still appeared to be some way apart on key issues. Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders all confirmed their support for a direct bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin -- a proposal the Russian president has repeatedly dodged. Such a meeting would be followed by a trilateral meeting involving Trump, the president said. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is "ready" for a trilateral discussion. Trump remarked, "I think it's going to be when, not if." Later, Trump posted to social meda saying he had spoken by phone with Putin "and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy." The Kremlin is yet to explicitly confirm Putin's readiness to attend such a meeting. Yuri Ushakov, a top Kremlin aide, said in a statement that Trump and Putin "expressed their support for the continuation of direct negotiations between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations." "In this regard, in particular, the idea was discussed that the level of representatives from the Ukrainian and Russian sides should be increased," Ushakov said. "This refers to the representatives who participate in the aforementioned direct negotiations." On the question of security guarantees for Ukraine, Trump said during his meeting with Zelenskyy, "We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security." The president later confirmed that Putin would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, though Russian officials on Monday said that the presence of NATO troops in the country would be unacceptable. Zelenskyy and his European partners again stressed their desire for a full ceasefire, only after which peace negotiations could take place. Trump has repeatedly demanded a ceasefire since returning to office in January, but appeared to drop the idea after last week's meeting with Putin. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," Trump told Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Monday. "I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically, like, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn't want it." Trump added that he likes "the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you'd stop killing people immediately." Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to Trump for hosting the meeting, and wrote on Telegram afterwards thanking the White House for "the important signal from the USA regarding readiness to support and be part of" post-war security guarantees. "The leaders personally came to support Ukraine and discuss everything that will bring us closer to real peace, a reliable security architecture that will protect Ukraine and all of Europe," Zelenskyy wrote. Post-meeting comments from European leaders, though, hinted at unresolved obstacles to peace. "You have an American president, European presidents and a Ukrainian president all wanting peace," French President Emmanuel Macron said. "For my part, I have the greatest doubts about the reality of a desire for peace on the part of the Russian president, because as long as he thinks he can win through war, he will do so," Macron added. "His ultimate objective is to take as much territory as possible, to weaken Ukraine and to have a Ukraine that is not viable alone or is within the Russian fold." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the thorny issue of Ukrainian territorial concessions was not discussed. "The Russian demand that Kyiv give up the free parts of Donbas is, to put it in perspective, equivalent to the U.S. having to give up Florida," he said. "A sovereign state cannot simply decide something like that. It is a decision that Ukraine must make itself in the course of negotiations," Merz added.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump administration weighs 10% stake in Intel via Chip Act grants, making government top shareholder
The Trump administration is discussing taking a 10% stake in Intel, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday, in a deal that could see the U.S. government become the chipmaker's largest stakeholder. As part of a potential deal, the government is also considering converting some or all of Intel's grants from the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act into equity in the company, the report said, citing a White House official and other people familiar with the matter. At the embattled chipmaker's current market value, a 10% stake would be worth roughly $10.4 billion. Meanwhile, Intel has been awarded about $10.9 billion in Chips Act grants, including $7.9 billion for commercial manufacturing and $3 billion for national security projects. The report noted, however, that it remains unclear if the idea has gained traction broadly within the administration or whether officials have broached the possibility with affected companies. It added that the exact size of the stake remains in flux, and it remains unclear whether the White House will actually proceed with the plan. Intel and the White House did not immediately respond to CNBC's queries regarding the report. Intel, once a dominant force in the U.S. chip industry, has fallen behind global competitors in advanced chip manufacturing. Reviving the former U.S. chip champion has become a national priority in Washington, with reports about a potential government stake in the company first circulating last week. The company has been the largest recipient of the 2022 Chips Act, passed with bipartisan support under the Biden administration, as part of efforts by Washington to revitalize U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. The bill allocated $39 billion in grants for American semiconductor manufacturing projects, with funding committed to many of the world's chipmakers such as TSMC and Samsung, as well as American chip companies such as Nvidia, Micron and GlobalFoundries. U.S. President Donald Trump, though supporting the general goals of the Chips Act, has been a vocal critic of the bill and even called for its repeal earlier this year. While republican lawmakers in Washington have been reluctant to act on that call, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in June that the administration was renegotiating some of the bill's grants. If Intel's Chip Act funds were to be converted into a potential government stake in the company, it could decrease the total amount of capital infused into the company as part of any deal by Washington. However, it would serve as the latest example of the Trump administration's interest in building government-backed national champions in strategic industries. Intel has struggled to gain an advantage in the artificial intelligence boom and has yet to capture a significant customer for its manufacturing business despite spending heavily on it. Some analysts have argued that government intervention is essential for the struggling chipmaker and for the sake of U.S. national security. Others contend that Intel's problems are deeper than funding, and it is not clear how the government can help with that. Analysts have also noted that Trump may be able to sway companies to buy Intel chips or assist indirectly, through tariffs and regulation. On Tuesday, it was announced that SoftBank was investing $2 billion in Intel. According to LSEG, the investment is worth about 2% of Intel, making SoftBank the fifth-biggest shareholder. Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SoftBank Group, said: "This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the United States, with Intel playing a critical role." Intel investors had initially welcomed news of the government investment, which resulted in a share rally of nearly 9% on Aug. 14. Shares of Intel fell over 3% on Monday on the Bloomberg report, but rebounded by more than 5% in overnight trading on the trading platform Robinhood following news of a Softbank investment. Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, who was appointed in March 2025, met with Trump at the White House last week, after the U.S. president had called for his ousting due to his past ties to China. After the meeting, Trump had changed his tune on the Intel chief, saying he had "an amazing story." It's unclear if a potential government stake in the company had been discussed at the time. Read the full Bloomberg story here.
