Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against Arizona State University and the Arizona Board of Regents for “unlawfully mandating racist DEI training for faculty.” The lawsuit was brought by Dr. Owen Anderson and the Goldwater Institute. The Arizona Board of Regents brought a motion to dismiss the case, which Petersen and Toma are urging the court to reject.
In the text of the brief, Petersen and Toma establish first and foremost that the case brought by Goldwater and Dr. Anderson “is a civil rights case,” citing Arizona Revised Statutes “enacted in part to prohibit discriminatory state and local government practices, including conduct that could qualify as, or lead to, a discriminatory work environment and even liability for the State.”
Sharing the brief, the Arizona Republican Party wrote in a post to X, “We refuse to normalize discrimination in higher education, or anywhere in the state of Arizona.”
🚨ICYMI: DEI or "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" is simply discrimination under another name, and we won't tolerate your tax dollars supporting radical left ideology that provides preferential treatment for individuals based on race, skin color, or sex.
As reported by Goldwater, the crux of the complaint by Dr. Anderson is that Arizona State University is using taxpayer funds to mandate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training among the university’s faculty. And that Dr. Anderson’s refusal to participate in the inherently discriminatory training has left him open to discipline from his superiors.
“I shouldn’t be forced to take training and affirm ideas with which I disagree as a condition of employment,’” Dr. Anderson said. “This ‘training’ is simply racism under the guise of DEI. It goes against my conscience, and I want no part of it.”
Goldwater Staff Attorney Stacy Skankey noted, “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.”
“But the ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training teaches discriminatory DEI concepts, including things like ‘how…white supremacy [is] normalized in society,’ how to ‘critique whiteness’; ‘white privilege’; ‘white fragility’; and the need for ‘transformative justice.’ Even ‘seemingly innocuous questions and comments’—like asking people where they’re from or commenting on their hair—can be deemed ‘racist.’”
Skankey and co-counsel Parker Jackson, representing Dr. Anderson, alleged in the complaint that the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU are “using public money to prepare and disseminate mandatory faculty and staff training for its employees that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, in violation of state law.” They add that the University is “compelling the speech of public employees by requiring faculty and staff to take an examination following a training that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, and answer with Arizona State University’s ‘correct’ answers, in violation of the Arizona Constitution.”
The training included slides containing these objectively racial and gender discriminatory statements and concepts:
“[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-historical 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 seemingly 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 largely unquestioned.”
A video segment of the training includes the statements via transcript:
“[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 also 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 foundation documents of our nation.”
The original complaint summarizes: “The Inclusive Communities training provides discriminatory concepts including, but not limited to: white people are inherently racist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; heterosexuals are inherently sexist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; white people should receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of their race or ethnicity; white people bear responsibility for actions committed by other white people; land acknowledgement statements are a way of holding one race or ethnicity responsible for the actions committed by other members of the same race or ethnicity; transformative justice calls for an individual to bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race, ethnic group or sex; and dominant identities (whites or heterosexuals) are treated morally or intellectually superior to other races, ethnic groups or sexes.”
Skankey explained, “ASU is essentially forcing its employees to agree to a certain type of speech, which violates the Arizona Constitution’s broad protections for free speech.”
Speaking with Fox & Friends in March, Dr. Anderson explained, “I was told I need to ‘decolonize my classroom.’”
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, an ASU spokesman told Fox producers, “The Goldwater Institute suit misleads the court and misrepresents both the content and requirements of this training to make an argument the represents a political perspective but is not based on the law. ASU’s commitment to providing a support and welcoming educational environment for students of all backgrounds will continue and the university will respond appropriately to the Institute’s tactic.”
The case is currently awaiting a response from the Arizona Board of Regents.
A new study released by the ASU Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy found that while Generation Z voters have become frustrated with the current state of American politics, there is still major motivation to participate in the 2024 election.
The survey, published by Noble Predictive Insights, polled Arizona registered voters from 20-30 years old and showed that 66% of them say they will “definitely” participate in the 2024 election but are wildly dissatisfied with the political parties as they exist today. 80% said they feel that the major political parties are “out of touch” with their generation and that there should be more choices on the ballot.
According to the poll, several conclusions stood out. Notably, the cohort predominantly identifies as independent with 49% of them eschewing membership in either major party.
The pollsters added, “they are profoundly frustrated with the political world that has been handed down to them. Only 20 percent of this group feels that the current political system works for their generation and 80 percent feel that both the Democratic and Republican parties are out of touch with people their age. Well over half feel that all politicians are corrupt.”
Thom Reilly, professor and co-director for ASU CISD explained, “Arizona’s Gen Z voters are sending a clear message that they are dissatisfied with the political status quo. They’re rejecting traditional party affiliations in favor of a more independent stance. Still, they haven’t given up on the democratic process. They are looking for alternatives and believe in their power to affect change through voting.”
Our recent survey of 1315 registered Gen Z voters: 2 out of 3 in Arizona say they will vote in November; 4 in 5 say the 2 major parties don’t represent them ; 49% are registered as independent ; top issues: economics , abortion, fair and secure elections https://t.co/ecsdYzVIKl
The poll indicated that by far the most pressing concerns of the Generation Z voters are economically and resource driven with the cost of living, affordable housing, and the protection of the water supply as most important, followed by healthcare, free and fair elections, jobs, and abortion.
Co-director Jacqueline Salit added, “Understanding these priorities is crucial for any candidate or party hoping to engage with Gen Z voters. These young Arizonans are deeply concerned about their economic futures, but they’re also engaged with broader social issues like healthcare access, election integrity, and reproductive rights.”
Clean Elections Executive Director Tom Collins told ASU News, “Understanding how Gen Z voters see our electoral system is particularly important for outreach to build and sustain democratic principles.”
Conversely, lowest on the agenda for Generation Z voters according to the survey are the potential ban of Tiktok, the U.S. role in the Russo-Ukrainian war, student loan debt, and LGBTQ+ rights.
Noble Predictive Insights found that the broad issue revealed by the poll is political disengagement in addition to a general dissatisfaction with the existing political status quo. Mike Noble, NPI Founder & CEO noted, “Young voters are giving us a clear message: ‘Show me that you care about what I care about.’ The data from this survey can act as a roadmap for political campaigns and civic organizations to motivate young voters.”
He added, ”What we’re seeing is a generation that’s rejecting political labels and traditional party loyalties. They’re independent-minded, issue-focused, and deeply committed to their principles. Any candidate or party that hopes to succeed with these voters will need to speak to their unique concerns and values and engage with them on the digital platforms where they’re getting and communicating information and opinions.”
A year-long study by the Arizona State University Center for American Institutions examining the Department of Defense (DOD) has identified and soundly condemned what the authors refer to as the “Vast DEI Bureaucracy” that has pervaded the everyday operations of the Pentagon and the varied service academies of the U.S. Uniformed Services. Damningly, the report found that the DOD has spent millions in taxpayer dollars creating a culture of “race and sex-based scapegoating and stereotyping.” The study in and of itself is a brutal excoriation of the military under the Biden Administration and “calls for an immediate end to the Pentagon’s multimillion-dollar DEI bureaucracy.”
The study, “The National Commission on Civic Education in the Military,” was compiled by Commissioners Lt. Col. (ret.) Matthew Lohmeier, Karrin Taylor Robson, and John Cauthen, along with a team of ASU researchers who over the past year evaluated, “the history, evolution, and implementation of diversity and equity programs across all branches of the military and military academies.” The final report is titled, “Civic Education in the Military: Are Servicemembers More Prepared for Micro-Aggression or Macro-Aggression?”
Professor Donald Critchlow, Director of the Center for American Institutions, explained the findings in a release provided to AZ Free News, “Our research reviewed DEI policy in the military starting in the nineteen seventies to the modern day and concluded there are far more effective ways to promote unity and respect among military ranks than by spending millions annually to divide servicemembers by their gender or race.”
Critchlow added, “Just as private companies have abandoned the toxic advice of DEI consultants and programs, military leaders should end social engineering based on critical race theory and restore approaches that promote character and merit.”
The report opens with an Executive Introduction in which Critchlow definitively states, “Given its importance, the U.S. Armed Forces should not be a laboratory for social experimentation, especially one based on Critical Race Theory, a contentious and abstract social theory. Yet, as this Commission Report on Civic Education in the Military shows in great detail, Critical Race Theory is promoted within Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training throughout the military from the Pentagon through the ranks and in our service academies.”
NEWS: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in U.S. Military. https://t.co/7WEWrveNcc
A sampling of the most egregious findings includes:
“DEI themes dominate the training and education that members of the armed forces receive about their country. As ‘white supremacy’ and racism have become a central focus of DEI trainings, white supremacist racism is assumed to be the core problem of the nation and of the military.”
“DEI training focuses on rooting out ‘white supremacy’ even though there is little or no evidence that there is a problem of white supremacy in the military. The massive hunt during the stand-down in 2020 located roughly 100 out of a force of 2.1 million.”
“Spending on DEI programming is increasing. The DOD’s allocation for DEI projects jumped from $68 million in fiscal year 2022 to $86.5 million in fiscal year 2023. The Pentagon is requesting $114.7 million for fiscal year 2024.”
West Point Military Academy offers a minor in “Diversity and Inclusion Studies,” with courses such as “Social Inequality,” “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality,” and “Power and Difference.” In the course description, the report reveals the courses as “an introduction to the theoretical concepts of post-modernism. This will include a focus on Feminist Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Queer Theory.”
U.S. Navy training asserts that servicemembers who reject implicit racial bias are “potential problems” saying, “Participants who refuse to acknowledge how bias has affected their lives or the lives of others may invalidate the experience of those with marginalized identities in the room and cause them harm,” and instructs sailors to “Prioritize a continuing conversation, rather than attempting to shut the conversation down. One suggestion is to acknowledge the bias-denier’s comments and ask for other perspectives from the rest of the group.” A procedure which could be compared to a classic Maoist “struggle session.”
The Army released directives Wednesday prohibiting soldiers from defined extremist activities and guiding commanders on how to handle cases. https://t.co/5JKIPQchKU
As reported by Task and Purpose, an Army directive has been aimed at rooting out “extremism” which includes “requirements set in the 2021 NDAA for service IGs to work with the Deputy Inspector General for Diversity and Inclusion and Extremism in the Military ‘to establish policies, processes, tracking mechanisms and reporting requirements for allegations of supremacist, extremist, and criminal gang activity in the Army,’” citing a statement from Sean Mackintosh of the Army Inspector General Agency.
As Lohmeier, a former Space Force commander who was removed from duty in 2021 after drawing public scrutiny to DEI training, summarized, “It’s no surprise that young people are turning away from military service in record numbers. As this comprehensive report illuminates, DEI indoctrination has become a core component of military training that begins for officers even at the service academies.” He continued, “How can we be prepared to confront our adversaries if our warfighters aren’t laser focused on the mission but instead are divided and distracted by ideology?”
The report makes several recommendations on how the DOD can remediate the situation and begin to undo the damage. It calls upon the Pentagon to:
“Immediately end the DEI bureaucracy or pursue alternative avenues to affect positive change despite existing policies.”
“Return to the military’s outstanding tradition of merit-based selections and promotions and nondiscriminatory equal opportunity.”
“Make the syllabi for all humanities and social sciences courses taught at our military service academies publicly available.”
“Provide educational training materials to enhance personnel understanding of American philosophy, politics, government, and the Constitution.”
A speaker at Arizona State University’s George Floyd-themed art exhibit claimed Floyd died for “each and every last one of us.”
“Had not George Floyd died, we wouldn’t be here,” said Eliza Wesley, Minneapolis resident and “gatekeeper” of the Square. “God chose him. He was a chosen vessel.”
Wesley said she “almost had an emotional breakdown” on her way to the exhibit in response to Floyd’s death, the four year anniversary of which is on May 25.
The art exhibit, titled “Twin Flames: The George Floyd Uprising from Minneapolis to Phoenix,” features Black Lives Matter 2020 protest posters and an image of Floyd wearing a crown of thorns.
One of the displays draws parallels to religious figures, with George Floyd wearing a crown of thorns. Why does the left continue to lift up and idolize a man we know was a convicted criminal?@TPUSApic.twitter.com/Qfr0cZVgnl
The exhibit opened Feb. 3 and will remain at the ASU Art Museum until July 28. According to the website, the exhibit showcases “the thousands of offerings laid by mourners and protesters at George Floyd Square.”
“This exhibition recognizes that creative and artistic expressions of pain and hope exist beyond the walls of museums, in all forms and a myriad of cultural expressions, and that George Floyd Square is a public space that can teach us how to mobilize as we mourn victims of police violence and imagine a more just world,” ASU’s description of the exhibition reads.
Frontlines Turning Point USA shared the video of Wesley’s speech on X. The exhibit “features shocking imagery and narratives that elevate Floyd to a near-mythical status,” Frontlines wrote.
EXCLUSIVE: At the opening of a George Floyd-themed art exhibit at ASU, the “Gatekeeper of George Floyd Square” in Minneapolis makes a bold claim: George Floyd died for “each and every last one of us.”
Arizona State University (ASU) banned a professor after his verbal confrontation with a Muslim woman on campus went viral online.
ASU professor Jonathan Yudelman, a School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership postdoctoral research scholar, confronted a hijab-clad Muslim woman during a pro-Israel protest near campus last Sunday, captured in viral footage amplified by pro-Hamas activists.
The events leading up to the heated, expletive-laden exchange weren’t captured or circulated, and the identity of the woman is unknown. It is also not known if she is an ASU student.
“You’re disrespecting my religious boundaries,” said the woman.
“What does this have to do with religion? You’re spewing hate,” said the man with Yudelman, former IDF soldier Sammy Ben.
“You disrespect my sense of humanity, b****,” said Yudelman.
“Get the f*** out of my face,” responded the woman.
“Get the f*** out of here,” said Yudelman.
“Go back to Jihad,” said Ben, to which another woman recording the viral exchange began screaming “Hate Crime!” and yelling for the cops to come handle the two men. At that point, Ben turned around to face the woman filming.
“What do you say about the seventh of October? Do you have an opinion about it? You also glorified it? You’re happy about it?” asked Ben.
His identity must be discovered and revealed! Footage shows a former Israeli soldier harassing a Muslim woman in the United States, along with other pro-Israeli gang members. The police do not intervene in Islamophobic and racist attacks against women. pic.twitter.com/oFz1vMePb2
Clemson University professor C. Bradley Thompson, a peer of Yudelman, offered some background to the viral exchange: the mystery woman had allegedly engaged by verbally accosting him first, and Yudelman wasn’t initially part of the pro-Israel protest.
According to Thompson, Yudelman is talking with a lawyer about his situation.
ASU President Michael Crow said in a statement that Yudelman was not only dismissed, but completely banned from campus and future teaching opportunities.
“He is no longer permitted to be on campus and will never teach here again,” said Crow.
Yudelman resigned before Sunday’s incident, though his resignation wasn’t scheduled to take effect until the end of June. Yudelman is an associate professor with University of Austin, a new private university enrolling its first undergraduate class this fall.
Yudelman formerly held positions with Harvard University, Princeton University, Baylor University, and the University of Texas.
Activists and organizations such as the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-AZ) demanded Yudelman to be arrested and fired for the exchange.
CAIR-AZ Executive Director Azza Abuseif said Yudelman’s rhetoric amounted to a “broader pattern of Islamophobia and religious intolerance weaponized by pro-Israel, pro-genocide extremists.” Abuseif also called for any criminal charges possible to be filed.
In a Wednesday press release, ASU reported that it had placed Yudelman on leave on Monday pending their investigation. The university referred the matter to Tempe police.
“Arizona State University protects freedom of speech and expression but does not tolerate threatening or violent behavior,” said ASU. “While peaceful protest is welcome, all incidents of violent or threatening behavior will be addressed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
