ASU's “New American University” Still Runs on an Old Operating System
Arizona State University loves to quote its charter: it wants to be "measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes."
As an educator, I think that is a great idea. It's a good model—one that echoes, in a secularized way, the Christian Great Commission. Open the gates. Teach all nations. Bring the truth to everyone about what it means to be wise and lead a good life.
But here’s the problem: for all the talk about breaking new ground in higher education, ASU’s newest promotional page gives us no reason to believe they’ve actually done so.
Why not?
Because they’re still measuring the world primarily through race. That’s not new. That’s the old model—just with fresh packaging.
Take their recent promotional video. ASU proudly declares that its student body now “better reflects the community it serves.” But what metric do they use to make that claim? Race. Only race.
Why is that still the focus?
If ASU wants to be the “New American University,” it has to offer something new—something better than a worldview stuck in 20th-century identity politics. Reducing people to skin color, and society to power dynamics, isn’t forward-thinking. It’s outdated and reductive. And it won’t escape the new laws passed by the Federal Government.
And here’s the irony: ASU doesn’t even represent the community it claims to serve.
The greater Phoenix area and the state of Arizona are home to a strong majority of Christians. But ASU’s faculty doesn’t reflect that reality at all. Among thousands of professors, committed Christians are few and far between. So how can the university claim—with a straight face—that it’s trying to reflect the community it serves?
The disconnect doesn’t stop there.
A few posts back, I mentioned that my own college within ASU proudly announced its student body is now 70% women (how do they know?). But then they go on to say that women are still the “vulnerable group.”
How does that make sense?
If ASU is serious about representing its community, then why has it left the men of Arizona behind?
The deeper issue is this: when you read through ASU’s public material, it’s clear they believe the future of education lies in new technologies. They envision human progress powered by innovation—not by truth, beauty, virtue, wisdom, or God.
ASU won’t say anything overtly hostile about Christ. But the message is clear: you can be educated without Him. In fact, you can flourish without Him. Just plug in, upload, automate, and engineer your way to the good life.
That’s not a vision for the future. That’s the recycled dream of every failed atheist regime and every dystopian sci-fi novel.
I want ASU to become the New American University. I want it to model true inclusivity—not the kind that checks racial boxes, but the kind that makes space for truth-seeking, character formation, and yes, even the love of Christ.
But if it just repackages the old models—obsessed with race and fixated on technology—it won’t be new at all.
It’ll just be the same thing, again.
Perhaps this will be amusing:
Yesterday, in conference with a student in my English Language academic writing course, i asked what she read in her reading class with the Intersectionality Obsessive.
She said, "Everything New York Times about black people. I had to ask her to please give us something else to read."
I had to laugh.
Does the Intersectionality Obsessive believe that assigning only the New York Times "about black people" is inclusive? Is it diverse? Not only that, but our students are mainly Chinese nationals. This particular student is a Japanese-Brazilian. Our program is advertised to prepare students for undergraduate studies in design. What do black people have to do with that? And to read about black people for an entire semester?