ASU's Design Justice against the Heteropatriarchy

and white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and settler colonialism.

ASU has started a program called Principled Innovation that shapes all it does. What is it? The ASU Provost gave us material to clearly define it. Let’s take a look.

At ASU’s Future of Learning Community Fest in February, the university promoted the idea that professors should adopt “design justice” as a framework for embedding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) into their curricula and classrooms. It may seem surprising that this initiative continued even after January 20th and the executive orders against DEI and racial discrimination in university education, but here it is—circulated directly to faculty by the Office of the Provost.

When the Provost, the university’s highest-ranking academic officer, endorses a pedagogical approach, it sends a clear message: this is not merely a suggestion. It signals that this is what ASU expects from its faculty. To dissent from this recommendation is not simply to disagree with a fellow professor—it is to take a position at odds with the chief academic authority responsible for hiring, promotion, and oversight of curriculum.

Let’s take a closer look at the material. It is not presented as optional or simply “interesting.” It is framed as something that should be actively implemented in ASU courses.

And what, exactly, is being implemented?

The material presented at the event makes it clear: ASU is encouraging faculty to “decolonize the design education curriculum” in order to advocate for so-called inclusive practices or what ASU called “inclusive excellence.”

On the surface, that may sound reasonable—after all, a state university should aim to be inclusive. But a closer reading reveals that “inclusion excellence” here does not mean welcoming all students equally. Instead, the emphasis is on centering the marginalized.

You can see this in the section labeled “Equity and Inclusion”—located in the lower middle portion of the document—shows that DEI is still an important part of ASU’s plans. The “marginalized” are to be given more resources so that the benefits of the oppressors are taken away and redistributed.

But who counts as “marginalized”?

The next slides are very clear about this.

This is not neutrality. It is ideological privileging, and it raises serious concerns about fairness, academic freedom, and the true mission of a public university.

ASU tells us about the “matrix of domination.” It is what I have shown from their inclusive communities required employee training also: whiteness, heteronormavity, capitalism, and those settlers. These groups need to be punished and have their benefits and resources taken to be redistributed to the marginalized.

Next, we are presented with ten principles that are intended to shape ASU courses under the framework of “design justice.” These principles are not vague gestures toward equality. They are explicitly aimed at achieving “liberation from exploitative and oppressive systems.” And what are those systems?

They are listed plainly: white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, and settler colonialism.

This is not neutral academic inquiry. It is a deeply ideological framework that assumes these systems are at the root of society—and that the purpose of education is to dismantle them.

Accordingly, the goal is to “center” those not seen as part of these so-called oppressive groups and to redistribute resources and benefits to ensure they are “more included.” In other words, inclusion is not understood as equal access or opportunity, but as preferential treatment for those who fall into certain identity categories as defined by ASU’s Provost approved design justice principles.

Here we learn that ASU is specifically asking us to focus on indigenous knowledge practices in our classrooms.

Is ASU in conformity with federal law and the executive orders against DEI and racial discrimination in education?