Category: The American Spectator
My court fight over DEI at Arizona State isn’t culture-war noise
“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?”
Arizona State University hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will. I’m confident that my case against required diversity, equity, and inclusion training raises issues far larger than one professor or one ideological program. Fundamental questions about employee rights, public accountability, and the rule of law hang in the balance.
If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program.
Why would the largest state university in the country defend mandatory DEI training in court? Why would it spend thousands — likely tens of thousands — defending its “inclusive communities” training, a program that teaches employees about the alleged moral and social failures of “whiteness” and “heteronormativity”?
The answer defies common sense. Yet ASU presses forward. In doing so, it has turned what many dismiss as a culture-war skirmish into an employment-rights case with statewide consequences.
Most people hear “DEI” and instantly map the political lines. This case deserves a different reaction. Required ideological training should make any employee — left, right, or indifferent — pay attention.
First, the training relies on racial essentialism. It instructs ASU employees to view themselves and others primarily through skin color, then assigns moral weight and collective guilt on that basis.
Second, it attacks traditional Christian moral teaching, especially marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Either flaw should have pushed administrators to retire the program long before I raised formal objections.
A third issue should unite every employee, regardless of where they stand on DEI: ASU treated this as an employment matter. The university did not admit error, revise the program, and move on. It hired Perkins Coie to defend racial essentialism. Yes, Perkins Coie — the firm widely associated with the Hillary Clinton-era Steele dossier controversy. ASU employs a full team of in-house attorneys. Why pay a nationally prominent and politically charged firm to defend a training program many already viewed as controversial — and, I argue, unlawful?
ASU’s posture gets stranger. The university has since taken down the required training, yet it continues paying lawyers to defend it in court. When this ends, Arizona lawmakers and taxpayers will want a number: How much did ASU spend on legal fees, and which administrators approved the contracts?
RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?
Just_Super via iStock/Getty Images
ASU’s legal strategy aims at dismissal. The university claims I lack standing. Put plainly, ASU argues that an employee cannot hold his public employer accountable for violating state law. At that point, the dispute stops being about DEI and becomes about every employee in Arizona. If ASU wins at the Arizona Supreme Court, employees across the state lose a crucial tool for legal accountability.
Professors to my political left may sneer at my critique of DEI. They should still worry about the precedent.
Imagine a scenario pulled from their nightmares: A future administration takes over ASU and imposes mandatory ideological training from the opposite end of the political spectrum — required ICE-themed training, or MAGA-themed training. If that training violated Arizona law, those same professors would demand the right to sue. ASU’s argument would bar them. This case concerns enforceable employee rights, not just contemporary politics.
ASU’s first bid to dismiss the case failed. A lower court rejected the university’s argument. ASU appealed, and the appellate court sided with the university. That posture put the case on a path to the Arizona Supreme Court.
RELATED: A gay whistleblower just punked Colorado’s DEI machine
AndreyPopov via iStock/Getty Images
Two facts matter here. The Arizona Senate and the state representative who authored the law I claim ASU violated have filed an amicus brief supporting my position. Their message is simple: A public employee has standing to hold a public employer accountable for breaking the law. The statute prohibits the kind of racial blame and collective guilt that ASU’s training promoted. The principle should not require explanation: Don’t assign moral fault to entire groups based on skin color.
So why does ASU defend this?
Because ASU does not view this fight as one training module that can be swapped out and forgotten. Race-based blame sits near the center of the contemporary left’s approach to education. If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program. ASU’s initiatives aimed at combatting “whiteness” would come under scrutiny. Its embedded social justice goals face legal challenge and public examination. Students could follow with suits over race blame in a “decolonized curriculum.”
“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?” ASU really hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will.
Every employee in Arizona should watch what happens next. The outcome will determine whether public institutions answer to the law — or whether employees must comply silently, no matter what ideology administrators impose from above.
Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good
Barack Obama used the same U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as Donald Trump. During his eight years in the White House, his administration deported more illegal aliens than Trump has.
Yet the Obama years did not feature mass protests over deportations. No governors or mayors compared ICE to the Gestapo, a comparison so obscene it should end careers. No district attorneys vowed to “hunt down” ICE agents for doing their jobs. No late-night comedians insisted that ICE agents ranked “worse than Nazis.”
Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power.
That backlash became routine only after Trump. Two factors explain why.
First, the left hates Trump to the core. Not as a political rival, but as a personal and moral affront. This visceral, uncontrolled hatred has swallowed identities and replaced judgment. It fuels social media tantrums, office politics, family feuds, and the constant need to punish dissent. Among allies, people congratulate each other for hating the right man. For everyone else, they virtue-signal.
This hatred will not fade with time. It will persist after Trump leaves office, and it may even outlive him. Ronald Reagan hate still lingers decades after his death. Trump hate runs hotter, deeper, and more irrational. It will not burn out on schedule.
Second, the immigration fight has turned strategic.
During the Obama years, the left had not yet internalized two tactics that now help it hold power.
Once Democrats win office, many push policy as far left as state and federal constitutions allow: higher taxes, soft-on-crime governance, heavier regulation, and soaring costs that punish families. That agenda drives productive citizens out of blue cities and blue states and into red states. Conservatives hold few truly red cities now; the activist class has captured many local institutions.
Red states gain taxpayers and workers. Blue states lose them.
Democrat leaders have chosen to replace the citizens who leave, but not with similarly productive citizens. They replace them with illegal aliens.
That strategy helps explain Joe Biden’s first-day border reversals and the torrent of executive actions that followed. The signal was plain: Enforcement would relax, entry would rise, and the federal government would look away. Millions came, many without legal status. Many settled in blue jurisdictions that offer sanctuary policies and advertise benefits.
Politicians sell those benefits as “free”: child care, health care, schooling, housing programs. Taxpayers pay the bills. Debt fills the rest.
California offers the clearest example. The state has lost large numbers of residents to Texas and Florida. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) does not treat the exodus as a crisis. He treats it as ideological sorting. If taxpayers leave, he can replace the head count with people who will not challenge his machine at the ballot box.
Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. They still count. Biden made sure of that.
The census counts residents, and those numbers drive seats in the United States House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. Add population, gain power. Lose population, lose power. Democrats understand the arithmetic, which is why they fight enforcement as fiercely as they fight elections.
RELATED: ‘This isn’t organic’: Joe Rogan says Minnesota’s anti-ICE protests are ‘coordinated’ to induce chaos
Photo by Geoff Stellfox/Getty Images
Then comes the long game. Children born here can vote. Democrats assume those children will vote Democrat for life. They are building a future electorate while padding current representation.
Trump’s deportation strategy threatens that structure. Democrats have already watched citizens flee Illinois, New York, California, and other strongholds. If deportations also shrink the illegal-alien population those states have absorbed, Democrats lose House seats, Electoral College strength, and national leverage.
So they raise the temperature. They smear ICE as “secret police” and dare Trump to enforce the law anyway. They bait confrontation because chaos can create a veto: If streets burn long enough, Washington may flinch.
If Trump refuses to flinch, they reach for the next weapon: the camera. A clash becomes a “crackdown.” An arrest becomes “political persecution.” A dead protester becomes a martyr, and the headlines write themselves. The moral damage does not scare them; it serves them.
Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power. They do not need tanks to do it. They need prosecutors, mayors, and media partners willing to treat law enforcement as evil and disorder as virtue.
Why ICE Exists
On January 28, 2026, the United States Department of Homeland Security released a short video honoring the life of Megan…
The End of DEI’s Legitimacy
Much has been made of how a federal judge last week struck down the Education Department’s guidance advising schools to dismantle their…
Canada Looks an Awful Lot Like Venezuela. And Trump Has Noticed.
Recently, the United States of America (USA) successfully completed Operation: Absolute Resolve and, thereby, liberated the Venezuelan people from Nicolás…
The Spectator P.M. Ep. 189: Doctors Performing Trans Surgeries Are in Huge Trouble
Two New York doctors pushed Fox Varian to get a double mastectomy when she was just 16 years old. Varian,…
The Australian Open and the Politics of Words
The news from Melbourne is that Elena Rybakina beat Aryna Sabalenka in the women’s final of the Australian Open, and…
‘No one is illegal on stolen land’: Grammys audience goes wild over anti-ICE speeches
The 2026 Grammys seemed like a political rally at times as the audience screamed and cheered over anti-government sentiments.
Simple statements garnered standing ovations as some award winners specifically condemned Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their remarks.
‘Um, f**k ICE is all I want to say. Sorry.’
After singer Billie Eilish won Song of the Year, she told the crowd that “no one is illegal on stolen land.”
This statement brought the house down, as attendees rose to their feet and nodded along with impassioned fervor.
ICE-capades
“It’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now,” the 24-year-old continued. “I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter.”
“Um, f**k ICE is all I want to say. Sorry,” she added as the crowd went wild.
The audience similarly cried out like victors of an intergalactic war when Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny accepted the award for Best Urban Album, which was called “Best Música Urbana Album” by the Grammys.
“ICE out,” he began, garnering huge applause. “We’re not savage. We’re not animals. We’re not aliens. We are humans. And we are Americans,” Bad Bunny strangely said, given that ICE works to enforce immigration law.
What did not receive as much raucous applause was when the singer asked the audience to “be different. If we fight, we have to do it with love.”
“We don’t hate them. We love our people. We love our family. And that’s the way to do it, with love. Don’t forget that, please,” he said.
RELATED: ‘This isn’t organic’: Joe Rogan says Minnesota’s anti-ICE protests are ‘coordinated’ to induce chaos
Pop-star punditry
According to Variety, Eilish was joined by singers like Justin Vernon and Jack Antonoff in wearing “ICE Out” pins to the ceremony. Also included in that group were Justin and Hailey Bieber, although the singer looked incredibly unhappy to be at the event while on the red carpet.
Singer Jelly Roll was asked why he has been silent on political issues, to which he replied, “People shouldn’t care to hear my opinion, man. You know, I’m a dumb redneck. I haven’t watched enough. I didn’t have a phone for 18 months. I’ve had one for four months and don’t have social media.”
However, he went on to say that he is going to have “a lot to say” in the next week, and audiences will hear him “in the most loud and clear way I’ve ever spoke in my life.”
Shut up and sing
Comedian Ricky Gervais made a simple remark on Monday morning, mocking the celebrities for their political speeches.
“They’re still not listening,” he wrote on X, with an attached quote of his remarks from the 2020 Golden Globes, which reads: “If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
China Is Stealing Our Tech. And It’s Partly Our Fault.
In recent years, there has been growing concern that the United States and China might find themselves in a war over Taiwan. Such worries overlook an important fact: Washington and Beijing are already at war. But as David Shedd and Andrew Badger document in their new book, The Great Heist: China’s Epic Campaign to Steal America’s Secrets, only one side has been acting like it.
The post China Is Stealing Our Tech. And It’s Partly Our Fault. appeared first on .
The Bonds of Affection
In Howards End, E. M. Forster makes a powerful case that connection between people is the most important thing in…
