Diversity, equity, and inclusion are effectively illegal in many states, including federal level and Arizona. However, university administrators and professors are deeply committed to that principle. Dei does not disappear, but is simply rebranded under a new name.
At Arizona State University, where I have been teaching philosophy for 25 years, the university's charter states that ASU is “defined by who is included and by who excludes it.” That's good. Think about it again.
“Diversity of Scale” serves as a Trojan horse for race and social engineering.
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court opposed the use of race in university admissions. Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard Students and SFFA vs. University of North Carolina. In response, universities like ASU claimed they were not affected. Although they argued that the ruling was applied to institutions following the elitist model, where admission slots are limited, ASU is proud to welcome as many students as possible.
I support expanding access to education for as many students as possible. However, I oppose the continued use of race and ethnicity as a basis for determining how resources are allocated. ASU justifies spending more on students who appear to be “diverse” and allows for less resources to groups such as white Christian men. In fact, it continues to justify racial and religious discrimination.
Even if the DEI prohibitions are in place, ASU is committed to seeing everything through the lens of the race. What's worse, external influences such as the United Nations can shape the curriculum. For example, the required “sustainability classes” of ASU follow a framework determined by the United Nations
Let's look into the details.
Introducing “large-scale diversity”
Despite DEI's new federal ban, ASU continues to insist that it does not use race in school admissions. However, Dei remains deeply embedded in its structure and is rebranded as “large diversity.”
ASU is currently injecting racial quotas into all aspects of the employee and student structure, with an emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity. As a result, ASU is no longer defined by the students that are included, but are excluded from access to resources.
One way ASU ensures that DEI remains at the heart of its education model is to pass its mandatory sustainability course. All faculties (counting 180,000 students) are required to take this class, which appears to focus on environmental issues and resource management. However, if you look closely, the course has been built around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals since 2015 and extends far beyond environmental concerns to gender and social justice.
Signed under the Obama administration, these SDGs promote a wide range of progressive political goals, including a vast definition of gender equality rooted in John Money's philosophy that allows for potentially unlimited gender. Masu. This course does not introduce these ideas for discussion. It presents them as unquestionable facts.
By embedding social justice objectives in the SDGS, ASU has transformed its sustainability courses into a means to strengthen the left-wing ideological position, pose as scientific and environmental education.
With this in mind, the same federal government that outlawed DEIs in education is expected to withdraw from these UN goals under the second Trump administration. But ASU embed them Required Learning, ensuring that all students need to be involved in these perspectives regardless of changes in federal or state policy. This is not education, it is an ideological conditioning.
Ideology beats strictness
ASU has devised a smart strategy. University leaders recognize that totally racial preferences are legally vulnerable. Instead, they shifted their approach to curriculum duties that are difficult to challenge in court.
By making courses such as Sustainability a graduation requirement, ASU ensures that students are immersed in the principles of DEI, even if the official policy prohibits DEI programs for hospitalization and employment. The university uses the UN module to emphasize “diversity and equity,” while the ASU itself focuses on “inclusion.” This allows the institution to claim that it “doesn't teach Dei.”
This approach is particularly important in Arizona, where state laws prohibit DEI and race-based liability. However, ASU continues to operate in ways that contradict these laws. “Large diversity” serves as a Trojan horse for race and social engineering. The university claims that no one is excluded based on race. This is a technique that helps in assert compliance with the Supreme Court decision. However, it still constitutes education on race, gender and social justice ideology, ensuring that these perspectives dominate student learning and resource allocation. Those who are considered “not diverse” receive fewer resources and are effectively excluded.
The sustainability class is just an example. In multiple disciplines, ASU integrates DEI and the principles of social justice under different names, making it almost impossible for students to graduate without absorbing these perspectives. Teachers are trained in the educational methods of “inclusive communities.” Degree programs and gender studies like School for Social Transfer (yes, that's reality) receive funds for activism under the banner of fairness. The department also offers courses featuring terms like “social justice” to continue to advance the same racially-based ideology that lawmakers and courts have sought to eliminate.
ASU's strategy provides a roadmap for other universities that navigate federal and state restrictions of DEI. Rather than exclude these principles, institutions embed them deeply into the curriculum and disguise them within courses that appear neutral or non-political. The language may change, but the purpose remains the same. It is to instill radical ideological commitment in students under the guise of student rigor. Without realizing it, parents are enrolling their children in classes shaped by an undriven curriculum.
This presents an important challenge for those who value academic freedom and political neutrality in education. The university has shown that it is rapidly adapting to legal and political change and is more committed to an ideological agenda than it is perceived by the public. As the federal government is considering further action against the DEI, policymakers must understand that limiting admission practices is not enough. The actual battle is now within the curriculum, and institutions like ASU ensure that ideological conformance remains a graduation requirement.
What can you do?
If DEIs are truly removed from higher education, it is not enough to focus solely on hospitalization and employment. The curriculum itself must be vetted, and policies must prevent mandatory courses from becoming ideological indoctrination. ASU's necessary sustainability course is the fact that Dei continues to remain entrenched despite the legal ban, so the university continues to push its radical political agenda under the new label. This is a typical example.
As a parent or future student, you can take action by choosing another institution. If you are a current student who is frustrated paying for undriven coursework, contact Arizona Legislature and provide examples from your class. Your voice is important to keeping the university accountable.
As the future of policymakers and public debate higher education, they must recognize that the fight is already changing. The fight is no longer an admissions office. It's in the classroom and embeds ideological agendas in ways that universities like ASU are much more difficult to dismantle.
The next question is whether this fight will also reach court. Will students file a class action lawsuit against a university that misrepresents the curriculum and promotes its activities under the guise of education?
