Citing an endorsement statement on a Mark Stegeman campaign flier he calls “deplorable” and “dog-whistle racism,” Don Jorgensen, former chair of the Pima County Democratic Party, has withdrawn his endorsement from the TUSD board candidate.
Jorgensen says he had endorsed Stegeman because he wants to see “greater transparency and accountability on the TUSD board.” Jorgensen also said he is “disappointed by the Board failure to keep their commitment to direct Prop 123 funds to teachers.” I respect his concerns even if I don’t entirely agree with them.
However, Jorgensen withdrew his endorsement when he saw Stegeman’s campaign flier. Jorgensen is quoted on the flier as a supporter, but he was disturbed by a comment above his from Carolyn Cox, former chair of the Pima County Republican Party. According to Jorgensen, “I condemn Cox’s comments and reject any association with her views, which are nothing more than dog-whistle racism.”
In her statement, Cox says she supports Stegeman because he will “keep the board’s emphasis on accurate American History.” The statement is a thinly veiled message to voters who don’t want schools to include the teaching of American history from the perspective of the country’s racial and ethnic minorities, assuring them that Stegeman will do what he can to make sure history is taught from an Anglocentric point of view. In a longer quote on Stegeman’s website, Cox adds, “The texts used in classes are critical and those decisions are a major function of the school board.” This statement reminds those same voters that Stegeman, who was instrumental in dismantling TUSD’s Mexican American Studies program and banning the use of texts which were part of the MAS curriculum from classroom use, will be in a position to monitor the purchase of new textbooks.
Below is Don Jorgensen’s complete statement about why he is withdrawing his endorsement, followed by Carolyn Cox’s endorsement of Stegeman as it appears on his campaign website.
Don Jorgensen’s statement withdrawing his endorsement:
“I supported Mark’s reelection because I support his focus on the need for greater transparency and accountability on the TUSD board. I was also disappointed by the Board failure to keep their commitment to direct Prop 123 funds to teachers. (Like many others I did not buy their rationalization for the diversion of funds.)
However, the recent mailer including my endorsement alongside one from Carolyn Cox has caused me to withdraw my endorsement. I condemn Cox’s comments and reject any association with her views, which are nothing more than dog-whistle racism. I am disappointed to see that Mark has associated himself with such divisive and deplorable comments.”
Carolyn Cox’s statement on Stegeman’s website:
“Mark Stegeman is a critical member for re-election to the TUSD board. He will keep the board’s emphasis on accurate American History plus math and reading skills to prepare students for good jobs. The texts used in classes are critical and those decisions are a major function of the school board.”
This article appears in Nov 3-9, 2016.
Got the call from a Grijalva lackey. Safier, was that you?
Sir, do you have no shame? The Weekly needs to push your rubbish to the back pages with the porn and pot ads.
This school-board election was the most confusing ever! My main concerns are the selling of closed schools and my dislike of charter schools.
Also think there is something seriously wrong with Desegregation and all the $$$ spent on it (as well as busing); maybe 20-years ago (or was it 30-years ago) it was necessary but now?!
This is really getting out of hand! The lesson from all these charges and counter-charges is no one should ever endorse anyone! Early endorsements carry explosives and written statements will be parsed beyond belief.
I don’t know Ms. Cox but her statement looks to me like it could be interpreted to support MAS. To say that Mark Stegeman “was instrumental in dismantling” the MAS program is very misleading, because it was the state legislature that was responsible for that. TUSD was given the choice of ending it or losing 10% of their state revenue. They didn’t have a choice. It’s because of the political hackery of people like Jorgensen that I am registered as an independent. I know Mark Stegeman from when I worked for TUSD as a teacher and he helped me and a group of parents out on an issue that we had with the 1010 administration. It appalls me to see the local politics become every bit as much a mudslinging contest as the national election.
That’s because it is the same progressive political hacks Mr Anderson. Tucson is full of them. The only thing here that is sustainable is their ability to cause failure. They are experts at it.
Republican for Stegeman.
Maybe we ought to be asking “why the rush to eliminate American History?”
That is what’s going on here.
In a country where the first lady says, “for the first time in my adult lifetime I was proud of my country.” Really?
She has detested it for nearly 50 years. It makes sense that her types would like to change American History to some sort of villianous/aggressor types that better advances their attempt to overthrow sanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw
Too bad her husband was unable to accomplish much of anything to benefit the existing citizens.
Hard to pick a favorite from all you razor wits on display here (What, Again always hovers in the top three) but for sheer unintentional humor I’ve got to go with this pearl:
“It makes sense that her types would like to change American History to some sort of villianous/aggressor types that better advances their attempt to overthrow sanity.”
Well done, Concerned Mom. *clap* *clap*
Please take into account all the dysfunction and lack of progress that has beset TUSD during the last four years. Stegeman long ago forfeited his right to a third term. Juarez and Foster have in no way earned a second term.
Three of the challengers, Putnam-Hidalgo, Rustand and Sedgwick, offer TUSD the best chance to leave the chaos and failures of the past in the rear view mirror. They have shown themselves to be mature, responsible leaders who will focus on supporting the staffs at the sites who serve the kids. If you seek to change the Board, wholesale change is the choice you must make.
Stop the petty fighting and remember that the school board race is supposed to be NON PARTISAN! If Cox and Jorgenson endorsed Mark Stegeman it would be for their own reasons, but a Dem retracting his endorsement because he didn’t like what a Repug endorser said is petty and partisan.
“Accurate American history” IS a dog whistle, plain and simple. Thanks to Jorgenson for saying so and doing the right thing. We should not have such short memories to forget Stegeman’s role in shutting down MAS.
Stegeman testified for Huppenthal AGAINST TUSD and called MAS a cult. He was not a reluctant witness. When he was called to testify, he brought a book with him to the witness stand. Apparently, he believed it supported his accusation. When he tried to start reading from it, the judge had to admonish him to merely answer the questions. Stegeman actively worked against TUSD to sabotage a program in his own district.
Accurate American history, indeed.
On the subject of Stegeman’s views about curricula, the comment stream on this piece, where Stegeman weighs in repeatedly, is also interesting:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/11/03/the-smearing-of-mark-stegeman-tusd-board-candidate
In the comment stream, Stegeman refuses to answer questions about what, specifically, his UHS separate site plan involves. (Those who’ve heard discussions of the plan know that it includes closing a neighborhood-feed high school, withdrawing the UHS faculty from the Rincon site where they currently co-locate with Rincon, and installing them in the high school campus from which neighborhood occupants have been evicted).
Stegeman has never been clear, when answering questions about whether or not there are plans for school closures and when speaking to TUSD-general (as opposed to narrower, “select”) audiences, that the UHS separate site plan involves a closure. Nor has he been clear about the fact that in two distinct ways the UHS separate site plan involves taking from the “have-nots” in the district to give more to the “haves.” (Taking AP faculty from the Rincon campus where Rincon students currently have the opportunity to enroll in some of UHS’s AP offerings, taking a school site from neighborhood students and giving it to students who gain admission by a competitive, exclusive process.)
In the comment stream referenced above, Stegeman states that he agrees with a commenter who recommends that he not answer questions about his UHS separate site plan and who writes, among other things, “Minority students are dropping out at higher rates than whites. The answer isn’t to look at why this is the case with the students, be it taking parental responsibilities at home despite being minors, lack of discipline at home, disrespecting teachers and school administration in the application of consequences for bad behavior, etc. No, you can’t blame bad parents; “culturally-relevant courses” is the cure all to the disastrous effects of single-motherhood and other crimes parents (more like sperm and egg donors) commit.” Stegeman also thanks this commenter for his comment.
Ms. Happel is correct: “Thanks to Jorgenson for…doing the right thing.” And it is right not just based on what happened during the MAS controversies; it is also right because of Stegeman’s specific plans for the district going forward. These plans have unfortunately not received adequate attention in the press, so many voters will be going to the polls (or have already mailed in early ballots) without a sufficient understanding of what specific changes to the district they can expect Stegeman to make, if he is re-elected to a governance position a gains a majority on plans like the UHS-separate-site plan. Stegeman knew he could not be re-elected just on the basis of support from those who will directly benefit from the UHS-separate-site plan (a very narrow group), so he has spoken only in vague, incomplete terms about what exactly these plans involve when he addresses general audiences.
Too bad Safier didn’t have a sound enough understanding of TUSD to highlight these aspects of Stegeman’s plans earlier on. He could have done the community a real service by conveying this information, but he was too busy defending the Board majority and Superintendent and drumming up ridiculous conspiracy theories about their political opponents.
Tucson Weekly: please ask Safier to stop covering TUSD and assign someone who actually knows what they’re doing to report on this district.
I do agree that it is waaaayy past time to resolve the desegregation issue. Times have changed the demographics of much of Tucson and with the open schools it may now be impossible. The curriculum for social studies, including Mexican culture, needs to be professionally created without an agenda for activism by students. All of us matter; all of us have to live and adapt to our times. Stegeman is not the superintendent and his mandate if elected is to work with the rest of the team, with compromises, to make TUSD work.