ASU forces professors to agree with discrimination
Owen Anderson has taught philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University for 21 years. He’s authored a dozen books, written countless journal articles and is a popular professor.
Despite all this, he might face discipline from the university for not pretending to believe something he finds false.
The school has mandated faculty training on “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” each word sounding quite benign. Until you dig into the details, that is.
The ASU Inclusive Communities course teaches controversial opinions about how white supremacy is “normalized in society,” the requirement to “critique whiteness,” and the need for “transformative justice.”
Individual faculty members are free to
believe in all of the above, as I’m sure many do. But to require such beliefs of a diverse group of professors is unrealistic at best.
Philosophy professors are trained to question the nature of reality itself; to compel strict compliance with this ornate and ever-changing ideology is a nonstarter.
Most free-thinkers will likely accept
the mandate: pretend to agree with training and keep getting a paycheck. That’s not Anderson’s plan.
“I shouldn’t be forced to take training and affirm ideas with which I disagree as a condition of employment,’ ” the professor said. “This ‘training’ is simply racism under the guise of DEI. It goes against my conscience, and I want no part of it.”
ASU not only mandates training but includes a test forcing agreement with these principles. If Anderson doesn’t give the “correct” answer, he’ll be reported to his supervising dean. There is no room for conscience.
This week, the professor filed a lawsuit to stop ASU’s plan, not only for compelled speech, but for its violation of state law.
“Arizona state law prohibits mandatory training for state employees and use of taxpayer resources to teach doctrines that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other characteristics,” Goldwater Institute’s Stacy Skankey said.
The Inclusive Communities training clearly targets certain groups due to their innate characteristics. It intends to replace one form of bigotry with a shiny new bigotry.
Any professor daring to suggest we end bigotry altogether is treated as a pariah.
Then there’s the issue of free expression.
“ASU is essentially forcing its employees to agree to a certain type of speech,”
Skankey added, “which violates the Arizona Constitution’s broad protections for free speech.”
This isn’t the first time the state university tried this gambit.
ASU requires journalism students to take a course about “microaggressions” and checking their “privilege.” They once mandated that all faculty applicants submit a “diversity” statement, a move they abandoned after significant legal pressure.
Amazing as it may seem to ASU leadership, not everyone is enthusiastic about taxpayer-funded discrimination.
Some people believe treating people differently based on melanin count is a bad idea. None should be punished for this viewpoint, considered common sense a few years ago.
In 2010, Arizona voters rejected such policies when they ratified – by a 19-point margin – a constitutional amendment to ban preferential policies on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin from our public institutions.
Yet ASU now tries to circumvent this language under the banner of DEI. It can use whatever euphemism it likes, but no one should undermine the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal treatment for all.
Even deep-blue California voters rejected a similar attempt to legalize racial discrimination under the guise of DEI dogma. Surely an idea too extreme for California has no place in the Grand Canyon State.
The greatest irony is the name of the training itself. ASU Inclusive Communities was specifically designed not to include, but exclude anyone who dissents from the new orthodoxy.