Inside CUSD80's Equity Office: Ideology, Optics, Accountability
- Valley Telegraph
- 8 hours ago
- 4 min read
Updated: 8 minutes ago
The Chandler Unified School District (CUSD80) changed Adama Sallu's title from Director of Equity and Inclusion to Director for Educational Access and Strategic Partnerships. Has anything actually changed?
The Chandler Unified School District (CUSD80), one of Arizona’s largest public school systems, has spent years expanding its equity and inclusion infrastructure. At the center of that effort is Adama Sallu, the district’s Director for Educational Access and Strategic Partnerships, a senior administrative position funded by taxpayers and charged with serving all students in the district.
However, our research indicates that Sallu appears to be an intensely partisan far-left figure who seems to have no problem showing her political leanings to the public. This includes racial references.
Her former title was Director of Equity and Inclusion. Equity and Inclusion are part of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), which is a framework born out of CRT (Critical Race Theory), a ethno-communist ideology that replaces the Marxist class struggle that never materialized, except in the Soviet Union, with a race struggle. To learn about ethno-communism, sometimes called race-communism, readers may wish to consult this article on Jim Jones, perpetrator of the infamous Jonestown massacre.
The fact that the district changed her title but kept her on the payroll may give an indication as to the district's intentions in terms of transparency and accountability.
What that role now represents—and whether it has drifted from neutrality into ideological advocacy—is increasingly at the center of public concern.
A District Role With Broad Authority and Limited Transparency
The Director of Educational Access and Strategic Partnerships (formerly Director of Equity and Inclusion) carries influence over professional development, curriculum guidance, district culture, and policy framing. It is also an administrative role that typically commands compensation well above that of classroom teachers, justified on the basis of district-wide impact. We estimate that Sallu is being paid around $200,000 per year.
Yet CUSD has offered little public-facing documentation that clearly answers basic questions:
What measurable outcomes define success for equity initiatives?
How are programs evaluated for effectiveness?
What academic or behavioral metrics have improved as a direct result?
Those gaps matter, particularly in a district that continues to cite budget pressures, learning loss, and staffing challenges.
Training Materials Reveal an Ideological Framework
One publicly shared image from a statewide education conference shows Sallu as a breakout-session presenter on “Unpacking Culturally Responsive Teaching.” The visual display emphasizes concepts such as:
“If it’s not explicit, we cannot expect it”
“Not a thing… an algorithm”
“I don’t see color → Then you don’t see me”
A recurring focus on “marginalized populations”
Notably absent are references to:
academic performance data,
literacy or math outcomes,
or evidence-based instructional benchmarks.
The material reflects a specific worldview commonly associated with modern DEI frameworks—one that treats identity as a central organizing principle in education. Whether one agrees with that approach or not, it is clearly ideological, not merely operational. For a public school district, that distinction is significant.
Social Media, Symbolism, and the Question of Neutrality
An image displayed on Sallu’s social media page shows former CUSD80 governing board member Lindsay Love wearing a shirt that reads, “BLACK WOMEN ARE EVERYTHING.”
No inference about intent is required for the issue to be apparent.
[Note from the Editor: Black women are not actually everything. As an example: there isn't/wasn't a single black woman who has ever won a Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry or medicine. Scientists can win this price by doing extraordinary, important and beneficial work in those disciplines].
A district administrator responsible for “equity and inclusion” is publicly associating—by her own curation—with messaging centered on specific racial identities, alongside a former policymaker from the same district. The message is not subtle, and the context is not private.
There are no comparable public images highlighting Asian, European, Hispanic, Native American, or multi-ethnic advocacy with similar emphasis. The imbalance raises a legitimate question: is the district’s equity leadership representing all students equally, or prioritizing specific identity narratives?
In public education, perception is not trivial. Neutrality is not optional. Trust depends on it.
From Inclusion to Alignment
Supporters of equity initiatives often argue that acknowledging specific groups is necessary to address historical disparities. Critics counter that such approaches risk replacing inclusion with hierarchy—where some identities are visibly championed while others are assumed, minimized, or ignored.
What is striking in CUSD’s case is not that equity exists as a function, but that its leadership appears comfortable blurring the line between public service and ideological alignment.
That blurring is especially consequential given:
the compulsory nature of public schooling,
the diversity of the district’s families,
and the lack of opt-out mechanisms for district-wide cultural initiatives.
The Accountability Problem
CUSD residents are regularly asked to approve funding measures and trust district leadership with increasingly complex administrative structures. That trust depends on clear answers to straightforward questions:
What does the Educational Access and Strategic Partnerships (Equity and Inclusion) office produce?
How does it improve outcomes for all students?
Why does its public messaging appear selective rather than universal?
To date, the district has not provided transparent, data-driven answers.
Conclusion: Equity Requires Credibility
When a taxpayer-funded official occupies a role meant to unify, but publicly signals alignment with particular racial or ideological messages, the burden shifts to the district to explain how neutrality, balance, and accountability are being maintained.
Absent that explanation, skepticism is not hostility—it is civic responsibility.
CUSD’s Educational Access and Strategic Partnerships (equity) office may believe it is advancing inclusion. But without transparency, measurable results, and professional restraint, it risks doing the opposite: deepening division and eroding public trust in the district’s leadership.
Comments