DOJ Investigates ASU’s DEI Practices
The Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into Arizona State University’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. The focus will be on whether ASU’s policies contribute to unlawful discrimination related to race, color, or national origin in areas such as admissions, hiring, scholarships, tutoring, and academic support.
This announcement didn’t come as a shock.
Many universities speak about “inclusion,” but often, they’re more interested in compliance than genuine dissent. It’s been noticeable to those of us in higher education that many institutions have adopted a mindset that categorizes individuals as either oppressors or oppressed. This so-called enlightenment masks a darker reality.
The rhetoric claims to combat racism, yet seems to perpetuate it.
This isn’t just hyperbole—it’s the actual reasoning behind these programs. When moral standing is dictated by race, and students find themselves assigned categories of guilt based on ancestry, it suggests that an old form of injustice is merely being dressed up in modern academic jargon.
I can attest to this through my experiences.
The Arizona Supreme Court has chosen to consider a case I brought against ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents regarding mandatory DEI training. My challenge began when ASU made its staff undergo “Inclusive Community” training.
This particular training, developed in part by Starbucks, aimed to influence how employees thought about race, power dynamics, and identity, pushing them toward agreeing with preset “correct” conclusions. I couldn’t accept training that evaluates individuals based on skin color, ethnicity, gender, or religion.
The Supreme Court’s ruling to take up my case is crucial. It raises a fundamental question about whether a public university can compel employees to partake in ideological training that may contradict state law and basic principles of equal treatment. Arizona law explicitly forbids public educational institutions from utilizing curricula that includes racial discrimination.
This is a legal technicality, sure, but the moral implications are straightforward. Should anyone be able to contest a race-based policy imposed by a public university?
That question shouldn’t exist, yet here we are.
The reach of this ideology has become so broad that many campuses don’t even tolerate dissenting opinions. The faculty often leans overwhelmingly to the left, with a shocking 97% of ASU identifying as left-leaning. Conservatives and Christians, who challenge dominant views, struggle to find employment and, if they do, often face isolation or suppression.
Universities are all about that rhetoric of “inclusion,” but it really seems like they want uniformity instead of diversity of thought.
Any objections reveal true attitudes; those who preach kindness can swiftly show disdain toward dissenters. The language of empathy seems to vanish, replaced by cynicism.
Because, really, DEI is less about inclusion and more about asserting control.
Its framework echoes the old Marxist narrative of oppressor versus oppressed, just translated into discussions about race, gender, and sexuality. From their first day, students are taught to view the world through this lens. Instead of pursuing knowledge, universities are shaping them into activists aligned with a pre-existing ideology.
The irony lies in the fact that students are paying hefty tuition fees for lessons taught by self-declared advocates of the marginalized, many of whom enjoy secure salaries and public funding while critiquing systems of injustice.
Meanwhile, university leaders denounce oppression while benefiting from a government-funded system that enforces ideological conformity across institutions.
This isn’t liberation; it’s exploitation.
The DOJ’s probe into ASU is significant, not just for Arizona, but for the wider landscape. It may signal the waning of blind obedience to DEI protocols.
If investigators are scrutinizing whether ASU’s programs cross into illegal discrimination, other universities should also be questioning their own practices. How many scholarships or programs across the nation might be engaging in activities that civil rights laws explicitly ban?
I suspect the numbers are concerning.
American universities seem to have strayed from the core mission of education—seeking truth, beauty, and goodness—instead embedding a therapeutic political ideology where redemption is tied to identity confessions, public shaming, and constant activism.
Categories are rigid; someone must bear blame, someone must be oppressed, and the institution itself must always arbitrate justice.
What’s essential now is a moral reassessment.
Public universities shouldn’t teach their communities to judge one another by race. Taxpayer resources shouldn’t be used to promote theories that hold individuals accountable for inherent biases. We shouldn’t penalize or ostracize those who think differently.
The DOJ’s investigation and the Arizona Supreme Court’s willingness to hear my case are signals of potential pushback. Yet, more must be done.
Americans need to reclaim the courage to express the convictions many in academia seem to have overlooked—racism can’t yield justice, even when wrapped in claims of fairness, and discrimination has no virtue, even if it carries the endorsement of university bureaucracies.
