What began more than three years ago as a Substack post is now headed to the Arizona Supreme Court. That fact alone should give Arizonans pause, not because of me, but because of what Arizona State University is arguing the law allows it to do.
The controversy began with a required ASU employee training called Inclusive Communities. On its face, that title sounds unobjectionable. Having worked at ASU for over two decades as a philosophy professor, I have seen many trainings and ideological fashions come and go. Universities, after all, are places where leftist ideas circulate freely and enforce a chilling effect on the few conservatives that slip through the DEI filter.
The ASU email announcing the required training read: “The training accelerates continuing efforts to encourage meaningful change at ASU while contributing to a national agenda for diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging and social justice.” The letter tells us it is required to be taken every two years.
But this training was different. Once I began it, I realized I was being compelled, as a condition of employment, to sit through material that engaged in race-based blame and overt anti-Christian rhetoric. It caused psychological harm and emotional distress.
There were slides with the following teaching straight out of Neitzche’s power dynamic: “Privilege is interconnected with power in our society i.e. those who have privilege have the ability to create/maintain social norms, often to their benefit at the expense of others.” Truth is whatever those in power say it is and the only solution is to disrupt the power dynamic and get your truth into the privileged position. There was a module about how white supremacy is normalized in our society by the unconscious bias of white people.
The race-based content instructed employees to judge entire groups of people according to skin color—precisely the sort of racial essentialism Arizona law prohibits in education when funded by the state. The anti-Christian content was equally clear. Employees were told we must “decolonize” from Christian missionaries and be liberated from “heteronormativity,” the belief, rooted in Scripture, that God created human beings male and female.
This was not optional professional development. It was mandatory bigotry. And it was funded by taxpayer dollars.
Knowing Arizona law well enough, I believed ASU was violating it. So, I wrote about the training on my Substack, expecting little more than to register a protest. Instead, I was surprised when the Goldwater Institute reached out to confirm that yes, ASU’s required training did in fact violate state law, and asked whether I would be willing to take the issue to court.
There is no money involved in this case. The goal is straightforward: enforce Arizona law and end race-based, ideological anti-Christian training imposed on public employees.
ASU’s response has been telling as it flails about trying to find a strategy. First, it denied the training existed. Then it claimed the training did not involve race-based evaluation. Next, it said the training was not required. When those arguments failed due to the simple existence of screenshots, the university abandoned its in-house legal team and hired Perkins Coie (the firm best known for its role in the Clinton campaign’s Russia dossier) to reframe the case entirely.
ASU now argues that I lack standing to sue, that even if the university violated the law, no employee has the right to challenge it in court.
That argument should alarm every state employee, regardless of political ideology. Suddenly, I have gone from the conservative Christian professor opposing DEI intersectionality, to the champion of all employees in Arizona. I’ll take the promotion.
If ASU prevails, the implication is clear: state employees have no legal recourse when their employer violates the law. Today, the issue involves DEI training. Tomorrow it could involve something else entirely.
Imagine a future administration in which MAGA ideology dominates the university, and faculty are required to attend a hypothetical ICE training they believe violates state law. Under ASU’s position, those employees would have no standing to challenge it. The university would simply move to dismiss the case, and the courts would never reach the merits.
I do not expect bags full of thank-you cards from Marxist professors to arrive at court a la Miracle on 34th St. But ASU has chosen a strategy that places it squarely against employee rights. That is no small matter.
This case is no longer just about defending Christianity against intersectional ideology. It is about whether state employees in Arizona retain the basic right to hold their employer accountable under the law.
That is a cause worth fighting for, all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
The post From Substack to the Arizona Supreme Court: Why This Case Matters to Every State Employee appeared first on CrossExamined.
CrossExamined