The University of Arizona’s (UA) newly implemented civics requirement, adopted under an Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) mandate, is intended to ensure every graduate receives instruction in American government and constitutional principles. But critics warn the university’s rushed structure may undermine the very purpose of the reform.
Under the proposed plan, UA students will fulfill the entire ABOR civics mandate through a single three-credit general education course. As mandated by the ABOR policy, the curriculum requires instruction in seven areas “at a minimum,” including U.S. history’s impact on the present, core principles of constitutional democracy, our major founding documents, landmark Supreme Court cases, practical civic participation, and basic economic literacy, material that peer institutions typically divide across multiple courses.
Mark Stegeman, an associate professor of economics at the University of Arizona and longtime member of the university-wide General Education Committee (UWGEC), recently described the policy proposal as “a car crash in the making” in an op-ed for the Tucson Sentinel. Stegeman cited both academic and procedural concerns with the program’s development and execution.
Stegeman noted that a former UWGEC chair admitted the committee was “just throwing stuff against the wall” during a previous breakneck approval process. He added that at the last meeting of the committee, no one present could answer his questions about seat capacity and course availability by spring 2027. He asked whether UA can reliably offer enough sections of the new civics course to accommodate all graduating students without creating scheduling bottlenecks that delay completion.
He warned that “thousands of students arriving in nine months will face a graduation requirement” built on courses that do not yet exist, with no completed development, approval process, or clear seat-capacity plan.
Those logistical concerns amplify the academic ones. Should the course become oversubscribed or rushed through, the civics requirement could devolve into a mere procedural hurdle rather than a meaningful educational foundation.
The Board of Regents’ directive was designed to restore structured instruction in American institutions across Arizona’s public universities. Other state universities interpreted the requirement differently. Arizona State University requires students to complete both an American institutions course and a civic engagement-focused course. Northern Arizona University has also implemented a two-course model.
As Stegeman summarized: “ABOR’s Civics mandate spans history, economics, landmark Supreme Cases and constitutional debates, information literacy, opportunities to practice civil disagreement and civic engagement, etc. Neither ASU nor NAU attempt to squeeze it all into a single 3-unit course, which would be nearly impossible to do well. UA’s proposal simply omits most of it.”
Beyond the academic criticism, Stegeman raised concerns about how the program was developed internally. According to his analysis, key committees lacked clear structure and broad representation, with significant influence coming from administrative offices rather than a balanced cross-section of departments.
At a time when national surveys consistently show declining civic knowledge among younger Americans, fewer than a third can name most of the First Amendment rights, and only 7% can name all five, according to Annenberg’s 2024 survey.
Many critics among the media and online have argued that universities should expand, not compress, serious instruction in American government.
In March, Fox News’ Jesse Watters shared a segment in which beachgoers in Fort Myers, Florida, failed basic American civics questions alarmingly, including naming the first President of the United States, the three branches of government, and the number of Supreme Court Justices.
Did the Dept. of Education fail people? Johnny hit the beach with a civics quiz…and nobody passed. pic.twitter.com/jZgisUpWZC
In an August 2024 report on youth civics, News21 and the Associated Press noted that in the 2022 midterm elections, only about 1 in 10 voters nationwide was between 18 and 29, according to the Pew Research Center. A June Marist survey found that about 67% of registered Gen Z and Millennial voters said they intended to vote in 2024—compared with 94% of Baby Boomers. After the election, Tufts University’s CIRCLE program estimated that roughly 47% of young people ages 18–29 actually cast ballots in 2024, based on aggregated voter-file data from 40 states. Together, those numbers suggest a generation that is sizable, but still underrepresented and underprepared in the electorate.
When civic education is treated as a matter of efficiency rather than formation, the result can be accurately termed credentialed ignorance: students who pass a requirement but leave without the depth of understanding it was designed—and indeed legally mandated—to provide. The Board of Regents’ civics mandate was supposed to rebuild civic education with rigor and seriousness. Critics like Stegeman argue that UA’s one-course model risks missing that opportunity by prioritizing speed and administrative simplicity over depth.
University of Arizona (UA) English professor Dr. Matthew Abraham has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was blacklisted from key faculty-governance committees after raising concerns about DEI-driven hiring practices within his department. The complaint, filed Nov. 25 in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, names the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) as the sole defendant and alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Abraham, a tenured faculty member, argues that the university systematically excluded him from participation in faculty oversight bodies, including the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) and the English Department’s Academic Program Review Committee (APR), after he questioned policies, which he believed to be rooted in racial preferences, through legally protected internal and administrative channels.
LAWSUIT FILED on behalf of Dr. Abraham, a tenured @uarizona professor, after the University excluded him from key faculty committees when he opposed and sought records on what he believed were unlawful, race-based DEI hiring practices. https://t.co/ZkimvQvYyLpic.twitter.com/pqq2XPJZgb
According to filings and documentation released by the Liberty Justice Center, Abraham’s concerns date back several years, culminating in multiple internal grievances, public records requests, and a 2022 complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC initially dismissed the complaint but later issued a right-to-sue letter in August 2025, clearing the way for the federal lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, Dr. Abraham alleges that UA administrators and faculty leaders applied “confidential” criteria when selecting committee members, criteria he argues were influenced by DEI ideology and were used to sideline dissenting faculty.
Slides and internal correspondence referenced in the lawsuit reportedly categorized certain faculty members as “problematic,” “not appropriate,” or otherwise unfavored for committee roles. Abraham says those labels stemmed directly from his vocal opposition to using race as a factor in hiring or governance.
“University officials cannot blacklist a professor because he dared to question race-based hiring practices,” said Ángel J. Valencia, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, in a press release. “Retaliation for speaking out about unlawful discrimination is itself illegal. We seek to restore lawful, transparent standards for committee service, to remove the stigma the University has placed on Dr. Abraham, and to hold the University accountable for their unlawful actions.”
Abraham’s lawsuit seeks several remedies, according to the Liberty Justice Center, including:
Removal of “stigmatizing” labels placed in faculty records
Clear, viewpoint-neutral criteria for determining eligibility for governance committees
An injunction barring ABOR and UA from using race-based or DEI-based selection practices in committee assignments
Restoration of Abraham’s participation rights within faculty governance
The University of Arizona declined comment, citing “what is an active legal matter,” according to The Center Square.
Dr. Abraham’s lawsuit comes as public universities nationwide face increasing scrutiny over the role of DEI in hiring, admissions, and internal governance. Arizona’s public higher-education system has been under heightened legal and political pressure in the past year, as previously reported by AZ Free News.
If Abraham prevails, even just by forcing broader disclosure of committee-selection records, the case could become a significant test of how DEI principles intersect with federal civil rights protections and the speech rights of public employees.
The Board of Regents has not yet filed a response in federal court as of this report.
A required biennial training program for Arizona State University (ASU) employees and faculty violates state law, per a complaint letter submitted by the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute.
In a letter to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on Tuesday, the organization alleged that the ASU Inclusive Communities, a required biennial training program for all employees and faculty, violates a new law passed last year, A.R.S. § 41-1494.
The law prohibits public funding for training that promulgates “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.” The department of administration is required to submit an annual report listing all state agencies complying with the law to the governor, the state senate president, the house speaker, and the secretary of state.
Per the law, “blame or judgment” qualifies as declaring that race, ethnic group, or sex determines inherent moral superiority, racism, sexism, oppression over another race, ethnic group, or sex. It also qualifies as concepts declaring an individual’s race, ethnic group, or sex as definitive of their moral character, endowing responsibility for the actions of others within their shared biological traits, insisting on negative, self-conscious feelings such as guilt or anguish with regard to their biological traits, and meriting discrimination or adverse treatment against them.
“Blame or judgment” also includes the concept that meritocracy or traits such as hard work are racist, sexist, or created by members of a particular race, ethnic group, or sex to oppress members of another race, ethnic group, or sex.
In their complaint letter, the Goldwater Institute noted that the ASU training does impart blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
“The statute makes clear that while the state may, of course, teach that such ideas exist, it may not promulgate these messages of blame or judgment in any official sense, or mandate the participation of employees at any session where these ideas are promulgated,” said the organization. “The ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training, however, is premised on the ‘blame or judgment’ referred to in this statute.”
The organization included the following quotes from obtained training materials reportedly promulgating the concepts that white people are inherently privileged, racist, and supremacist, regardless of intent or consciousness, and that heterosexuals are inherently privileged and maintaining power over other “sexual identities”:
“[A]cknowledging the history of white supremacy and the social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon”
“How is white supremacy normalized in society”
“[G]iven the socio-historial [sic] legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of structural inequality, perceptions of authority and control are not always granted to minoritized [sic] faculty.”
“White Fragility”
“What is White Privilege, Really”
“Explaining White privilege to a broke white person […]”
“7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege”
“Racism […] can take the form of […] and include seemly innocuous questions or comments, such as asking people of color where they are from […]”
“Sexual identities are linked to power, and heterosexuality, the dominant sexual identity in American culture, is privileged by going on largely unquestioned.”
“[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.”
“[W]e have to open the space to critique whiteness.”
“[W]hite supremacy […] referring to here is the period between the 1500’s and the 1800’s that encompasses both Spanish colonization and Euro-American colonization. And what colonization did, was it really created this system of binary thinking. There were folks that were inherently good and folks that were inherently bad, and that led to the systems of superiority that were then written into the foundational documents of our Nation.”
The Goldwater Institute requested ABOR to direct ASU to cease spending any public monies on its Inclusive Communities training, or make the training optional rather than mandatory.
Additionally, the organization suggested that ABOR audit ASU’s other courses and the activities and courses of the University of Arizona (UArizona) and Northern Arizona University (NAU) to ensure compliance. As examples of potential anti-discriminatory violations, the organization linked to the UArizona Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion trainings, the UArizona Eller College of Management Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training, and the NAU employee and faculty training.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona State University (ASU) leaders accused of retaliation by a former employee for hosting two “faith-based” events have kept quiet on the allegations raised against them.
The former events operator of the ASU Gammage theater alleged retaliation in a letter last week to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for allowing “faith-based” events to take place.
The complainant, Lin Blake, alleged in a timeline spanning six pages that she had only received positive performance reviews for the nearly three years leading up to the controversial events. It wasn’t until January, the month leading up to the controversial events, that Blake faced challenges to her work performance. Blake allegedly experienced unprecedented scrutiny throughout the planning, preparation, production, and post-event processes concerning the event, though she noted the event was approved last fall.
“This marked the beginning of the micromanagement of my duties and the overall hostile work environment that would become my future,” stated Blake.
AZ Free News reached out to each of the individuals allegedly behind the intimidation campaign and punitive measures against Blake regarding the controversial events. None of them responded by press time.
One of the controversial events, hosted by the now-dissolved T.W. Lewis Center at Barrett Honors College, featured conservative speakers Charlie Kirk, president and founder of activist group Turning Point USA; Dennis Prager, radio host and founder of PragerU; and Robert Kiyosaki, a personal finance book bestseller and PragerU presenter.
The other controversial event, hosted by Bethel Chandler Church, focused on raising awareness for sex trafficking.
Ahead of the events, Blake alleged that ASU Gammage leadership convened a meeting to express concern that she was allowing a “church program” and “white supremacists” to have a platform at their theater. She also alleged enduring public condemnation and boycotting from her colleagues.
“While I was left with the obligation to run two large and high-profile events, my colleagues that did not show up to work received praise for standing by their personal beliefs,” said Blake. “ASU Gammage staff and leadership should not discriminate against any views, yet they did in plain sight.”
In addition to the accusations of supporting white supremacy, AZ Free News reported previously that Gammage Executive Director Colleen Jennings-Roggensack was alleged to have told staff that they were aligned in beliefs, that they all had voted for President Joe Biden and Gov. Katie Hobbs — even if they hadn’t.
At a faculty and leadership meeting following the upbraiding from Jennings-Roggensack, Blake said she was singled out to explain Gammage’s core values.
Blake further alleged that two ASU Dean of Students representatives breached security to enter a restricted backstage area and intimidate former Lewis Center director Ann Atkinson.
“[I]f speech was truly free at ASU, producing events with unpopular viewpoints would not have cost my job. There is no freedom of speech when it comes with the punishment of job loss for those who administer it,” wrote Blake.
On Tuesday, House Democrats attempted to kill a Republican-introduced bill to address the teacher shortage.
The bill, HB2428, would allow private universities and colleges to participate in and receive funding from the Arizona Teachers Academy (ATA). Reimbursements for academy scholarships would be capped at the average in-state tuition and fees determined by the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR): currently, about $7,100. The four Democratic members of the House Education Committee opposed the bill.
The bill sponsor, State Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD04), said that there are thousands of students seeking an educational degree currently, noting approximately 3,000 qualified students at Grand Canyon University alone. Gress cited data that approximately 80 percent of these types of students go on to teach in public schools, but not necessarily in Arizona. Gress argued that they should be pulled into Arizona ones.
“It represents a state commitment to addressing our teacher workforce shortage,” said Gress.
ATA helps pay for tuition and fees for state university or community college students, with the contingency that these students commit to one year of teaching in an Arizona public school.
Over 3,300 individuals were enrolled in the ATA last year, the largest class since its creation in 2017 under former Gov. Doug Ducey. Enrollment for the past five years totaled nearly 9,300. Scholarships totaled $22.7 million, averaging $7,100 each. Gress’ proposed expansion of the ATA to private institutions may cost an additional $17 million. The ATA funds student-teachers across 16 different graduate and undergraduate programs.
The teacher shortage may soon worsen: over 20,000 teachers qualified for retirement last year, according to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Committee Democrats admitted that the state’s ongoing teacher shortage is urgent. However, they disagreed that public dollars should go into private institutions.
State Rep. Judy Schwiebert (D-LD02) said the state should prioritize public institution students over private ones. She expressed concern that expanding ATA eligibility would disrupt the current waitlist of public university students.
“I feel like our priority needs to be with our public schools that need to be held accountable, and if they’re going to be accountable we need to make sure that we’re providing the funding for them to be able to train as many teachers as they have applications for, and right now they don’t,” said Schwiebert. “We need to make it a priority to further invest in our institutions before we send any money, or if we even should send any money to a private institution that doesn’t require any accountability from the state.”
State Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D-LD18) concurred, arguing that it wasn’t appropriate to use public funds for private institutions. Gutierrez said the teacher shortage wasn’t due to a lack of accessibility to programs like ATA, it was teachers enduring purportedly low pay and disrespect.
State Rep. Laura Terech (D-LD04) said she didn’t believe this bill was a long-term solution for the shortage.
“I have a fundamental problem with sending public money to private institutions,” said Terech.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
