My University Required DEI Training. I’m Suing

T wo years ago, Arizona State University, where I’ve taught philosophy and religious studies for more than two decades, began requiring all professors to take a training in “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or DEI.  

I’m in favor of each of those terms: Diversity (including intellectual diversity), equity (insofar as it means equality of opportunity), and inclusion (helping people from all backgrounds succeed at the university) are undoubtedly good things. 

But when I began the mandatory training, I found something troubling: It engaged in race blaming, warning of the supposed “problem” of “whiteness” and encouraging judgement of people based on their skin color. I could not, in good conscience, continue such a racist training. 

Nor should I have to endure such ideological hazing as a condition of employment at the state’s largest public university. Now, with the help of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, I’m suing my employer for violating Arizona state law, which prohibits mandatory training for state employees that teaches doctrines that discriminate based on race, sex, and other characteristics. 

One part of the training frames “whiteness” itself as inherently bad, then conflates it with “white supremacy”: “[I]t scares people to talk about white supremacy or to be called a white supremacist. But if we start thinking about it in terms of whiteness as something that is culturally neutral and we’re moving it from that neutral space into a critical space.” Another part of the training it even less subtle: “[W]e also have to open the space to critique whiteness.”

That’s the essence of racism. This training asked me to judge and condemn people based on their skin color because of atrocities possibly committed by their ancestors. But viewing everything through the lens of white people (“oppressors”) versus minorities (“the oppressed”) foments hatred and division — not true diversity, equity, or inclusion. As a philosopher, I see it as my duty to question the false assumptions behind this racist view of society, history, and humankind. 

Around the country, DEI programs are withering under the sunlight of public scrutiny, as policy-makers recognize its incompatibility with a rigorous education and true equality of opportunity. But ASU is doubling down, and the university’s DEI training encourages “political mobilization” in order to advance this toxic ideology:

“And on the other hand it’s also about political mobilization — social political mobilization in terms of community formation. That where people who are gender and sexually minoritized come together to resist to support to create a new or different kind of reality where there are safe spaces for people who do not fit into normative identity categories of gender and sexuality.”

A university education is supposed to be about learning and seeking truth. Instead, ASU appears to be weaponizing DEI as a political tool to breed the next generation of radical progressive activists. Indeed, one of the questions on a quiz at the end of the training module for professors indicates that “DEIB” (“B” is for “belonging”) should be part of every phase of university life. The question asks, “Which of the following areas of the university should address DEIB?” The “correct” answer: “D) DEIB should be part of every facet of the university.” 

Professors are required to take other mandatory trainings (fire safety, information security, etc.). If they refuse, they risk losing access to ASU computer resources like email and Canvas (an online-learning software), or even face other disciplinary action that could ultimately mean losing their job. The university has required the DEI training alongside those ones. 

And DEI has indeed become present in all areas of campus life. The director of my school at ASU — the School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies — started pressuring all faculty in the school to “decolonize” our syllabi and curricula by taking out all aspects of “whiteness.” The concept of “decolonizing” comes from a Marxist philosophy from South America, but when I asked if we could discuss its intellectual origins, I was told a firm “no” by the director of my school. Meanwhile, colleagues regularly seized faculty meetings as opportunities to talk about the problems of “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and their hostility toward conservatism.

But the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion can be reached without such discriminatory practices. 

Defenders of DEI rely on the motte-and-bailey fallacy. They begin by judging people based on race and sex, but when this is criticized, they claim they just want a more “inclusive” workplace. A truly inclusive workplace means a place where people of all races, ethnicities, and political viewpoints can work in peace. But at ASU, staff members routinely insult “whiteness” and conservatism in our faculty meetings. When I’ve pointed this out and asked for an apology, I have been told it doesn’t matter when certain groups — the alleged “oppressor” groups — are insulted. 

I have been singled out for harassment in a faculty meeting. My dean told me to get permission from my school before talking publicly about these issues — in violation of ASU’s free-speech code. It is truly the definition of a hostile workplace — all because of my beliefs and my willingness to question DEI. 

But each day that I see a news story about another university ending its DEI programs, I know that we are making progress toward restoring higher education to its original purpose: the pursuit of truth. DEI is exposed for what it really is, which makes efforts like mine worthwhile and valuable. Now, it’s time to end the racism at the heart of DEI for good. 

Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated to clarify the author’s comment about harassment.