Legal Docket: Conscience and consequences

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for July 13th, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket: Summer edition, where we step away from the U.S. Supreme Court to hear of legal battles in the lower courts.

Today: A professor says a public university fired him not for anything he taught—but for what he said as a parent at school-board meetings.

Dan Grossenbach is a former ethics professor fired from his alma mater and former employer, the University of Arizona.

EICHER: The university says it fired Grossenbach because it wanted to hire a tenure-track full time professor of ethics. As an adjunct, Grossenbach was only part time.

His performance reviews had been exemplary on all counts. And he had a long association with the university:

GROSSENBACH: I went to U of A, was a criminal justice major in the School of Government and Public Policy, and maintained a relationship. I also worked in government and had a relationship with them, managing interns from their program, coming back as a guest speaker, and I … had a really good relationship. So I was brought on as an adjunct … to teach in the school … 0:39 I was teaching about three and a half, almost four years, and things were awesome … .

REICHARD: Three years ago, he was looking to expand his duties:

GROSSENBACH: I was working with a publisher who was asking if I’d be interested in writing a text on this niche area of ethics for the public administrator, because there wasn’t a lot of resources for this kind of class that I was satisfied with.

And so I was looking at doing a book, and I had to answer some housekeeping questions, some basic administrative questions about how many people were in the program, how many other teachers were teaching, because maybe other teachers would be interested in teaching or contributing to this book….

When he put those questions to his department, he received no answers, just a surprise invite to a meeting.

GROSSENBACH: I went along with it and had a Zoom session….set up with the director of the program, who told me, “you’ve been a great teacher. Our students love you…but we no longer need you, because we’ve been endowed with extra financial resources to be able to hire full-time tenure-track professors, and your time has come to an end.”

So, with that, I thanked her, and we ended the call, but something didn’t sit right with me, because I know in the news they had this major multi million, multi 100 million dollar shortfall in a financial crisis so I thought that was strange.

EICHER: Strange enough that Grossenbach decided to dig deeper.

GROSSENBACH: So I sought out a freedom of information request … said, anything with “Grossenbach,” ….I’d like to see it. A month went by, nothing. Another month went by, nothing, and I kept asking until the point where I had to go to….a law firm to…demand them, through a demand letter, and it was at that point, … when I come across these anonymous emails sent to my department saying I’m anti-gay. I want trans people not to exist. I don’t want anybody in my classes who aren’t part of the Christian church, and all these nasty, untrue statements about their perception of what my religious beliefs were. And I also saw evidence of behind the scenes chatter of some concern about these emails and about concern about me teaching, which never before was an issue.

EICHER: Those records told a very different story about why he’d lost his job.

They showed anonymous complaints accusing him of anti-LGBT views—and those complaints traced back to something he’d done outside the university.

The records also showed what had triggered the complaints. He’d learned the school district had a policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s gender identity and mental health.

GROSSENBACH: There were questionnaires that asked specifically the child’s, and this is early high school, so this was, I think, 10th grade, asking them their sexual preferences, what turns them on, you know, what their identity is in their sexuality, and whether they want to talk one-on-one with the teacher, and whether or not their parents can know about these sexual preferences and identities. It was couched in a “getting to know you” survey, I think that was the title of it. …but it was very intrusive of parental rights, intrusive of the child’s own rights to be parented and directed by their parents…and I also learned that the school refused to provide copies of these records to the parents once asked….I have to say that I’m speaking as a personal private citizen, not as a representative of the University of Arizona….I wanted to be extra clear that there was no authority coming from my role implied or explicitly stated.

REICHARD: So he began speaking up at meetings of the Catalina Foothills School District school board.

Grossenbach argued the district’s policy was wrong. He said officials would answer questions if parents asked—but never tell parents there was something they needed to ask about.

GROSSENBACH:… See, the problem with these is that you’re intentionally hiding something that we have a moral duty to disclose … This interferes directly with a parent’s ability to give the best medical and mental health care to their child, and directly hurts the kids.

REICHARD: He wasn’t the only parent speaking up. He and others brought up the lack of transparency on textbook selection. Grossenbach again at different meeting:

GROSSENBACH: Here’s a list of textbooks that this board voted just in April. First on the list is Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime, required for every ninth grader, including my son next year. The book teaches it’s okay to steal something if you identify as poor, black, and you really want it.

There’s more…..The central message of another book you approved that same day, The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas, teaches students to say, "F___ the police,” page 46, “because all cops are racist murderers."

You have rules of decorum here. So, unless we’re directly quoting your agenda material, we can’t use language like that here. I can’t say with my own words the very same words you require our freshmen to read.

EICHER: He asked the board directly:

GROSSENBACH: Where did these resources come from? What’s the criteria to select them? Who’s on the review team? We can’t know, because the process is hidden. That’s why, in 2017 the legislature outlawed what the Arizona Supreme Court calls secret textbook meetings. In a few minutes, you’re about to vote on another set of resources brought to you from another anonymous team. Even if these resources were free from controversy, which they’re not, and even if it was legal for you to hide the process, which it’s not, secret meetings give the perception at least that you’re hiding something. … Please table tonight’s vote until the entire process can be done openly and legally. Thank you.

Evidently, what he said offended someone. Anonymous complaints about his comments at his children’s school made it over to the University—where he taught.

REICHARD: The university ultimately declined to renew his teaching contract. Grossenbach says the anonymous complaints—not budget reasons—were the real reason. He sued the university, alleging it retaliated against his protected speech and discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs.

His attorney is Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel.

STAVER: They found out through information that one of the individuals in the school district actually leaked...

Staver says the university’s response is what violated the law:

STAVER: They said that they were going to bring in a full-time professor, they got funding. They didn’t bring in a full-time professor, and in fact…they issued ads for part-time adjunct professors with the exact same credentials as the Professor Daniel Grossenbach whom they terminated.

EICHER: The lawsuit alleges the university’s stated reason for firing Grossenbach was pretext. It claims the university retaliated against his protected speech and religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment, Title VII, and Arizona law.

REICHARD: I asked both the University and the local school district for an interview or to comment for this story. I left word with the media department at U.A. as well as school-board members at Catalina Foothills, its leadership, and its staff. After more than four days, I still haven’t heard back. So we won’t know their position until they respond to the lawsuit.

EICHER: Grossenbach is seeking a permanent injunction declaring what the university did unconstitutional, along with reinstatement, restoration of benefits, and compensatory damages.

REICHARD: My last question to him: Did you ever think of just giving up? The answer was a resounding no.

GROSSENBACH: …If we don’t fight this battle, our kids are going to have to fight it. So that is a horrifying thought to think. If I just sit on the sidelines and say nothing, I am handing the fight over and pushing my children into the boxing ring. You know, we don’t want to fight battles just for the sake of being controversial or being provocative. …We want to be loving and we want to focus on what matters, and I think a lot of times, you know, we’re not doing that, and we’ve got the truth on our side as Christians, and I think we have the law on our side as citizens, and so we just need to go boldly with that assurance. We’re blessed by having the greatest country on earth and that country has our back.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.