Parents, advocates demand accountability after board member’s use of derogatory slur
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Four public commenters told the Queen Creek Unified School District governing board that a board member used the “R word” on social media and urged the board to apologize, seek training, and improve oversight for students with disabilities. The board took no formal action during the meeting.
Four community members used the board’s public-comment period to press the Queen Creek Unified School District governing board for accountability after a board member’s recent use of a derogatory term online.
Brandy [redacted], a parent and executive director of Raising Voices Coalition, described her son’s experience in district special education and said leaders’ language matters: “When leaders use dehumanizing language, even casually, it sends a message to staff.” She said her son has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and left district schools for an ESA because she lost faith the district would adapt to his needs.
Rachel Mostovizadeh, who identified herself as an advocate for disability rights, said she wanted more than an apology: “I want you to understand why it’s not okay to use the word,” and urged the board member to participate in disability-focused trainings and community events.
Jason Smithson, parent of a child with autism, recounted past district complaints and lawsuits alleging mistreatment of students with disabilities and called the board member’s use of the slur “indefensible.” He said he was seeking accountability short of requesting resignation and urged the board to do better in oversight and culture.
Karen Oliver, a retired Queen Creek special-education teacher, said she and local volunteers are distributing informational packets from organizations such as the ACLU to school sites and offered to help the district protect students.
The speakers requested an apology, training for board members and staff, and clearer district responses to alleged mistreatment. The meeting transcript records the comments but does not show a public apology, a board vote on discipline, or an agenda item addressing the allegations. Under Arizona law cited by the board during public comment (ARS 38-431.01(H)), the board’s immediate options following public comment are limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to criticism, or scheduling the matter for future consideration. The board did not indicate a specific follow-up action during the regular session.