KJZZ covers my case

What is ASU's new reputation?

Will ASU become known as the anti-whiteness anti-heterosexual university? According to an article out today at KJZZ, ASU is doubling down on both of those.

KJZZ has an article out today updating its readers on my case. Let’s review ASU’s argument as told to KJZZ. Is it a sound argument? That is a different question than how it will work out in court. The Goldwater Institute lawyers are the best and will do just fine countering legal nonsense. But ASU’s response represents those who want to educate you or your children. Have they proven themselves to be competent thinkers who can construct sound arguments to defend their conclusions?

Here is their conclusion: A spokesperson for ASU said in a statement that Anderson’s case misrepresents training intended to reinforce the university’s commitment to inclusiveness and student success.

ASU’s core values are access, excellence, and inclusion. Those are great values. They should be the values of any state university and I think they are if we look into it. But what is at issue is how ASU’s “inclusive communities” DEI training interprets “inclusion.” To be inclusive means to 1) believe critical race theory and intersectionality philosophy are both true 2) to claim that the entire system is racist 3) that all people with “whiteness” have perpetuated this systematic oppression for their own privilege 4) this same thing holds true for the patriarchy and heteronormativity, and 5) the only way to address this is by more discrimination against whiteness and heteronormativity. That is not what ASU represents the training as to the public. It is not “let’s get trained to work together at a job with people from many different backgrounds and religions.”

ASU’s argument as represented to KJZZ is: “The Goldwater Institute suit misleads the court and misrepresents both the content and requirements of this training to make an argument that represents a political perspective but is not based on the law.”

That means if I can show from ASU’s own materials that what The Goldwater Institute claims in court filing is true then this is a false statement from ASU made to KJZZ. If I were the KJZZ reporter I’d be upset that I was lied to in such an obvious way.

First, did The Goldwater Institute mislead the court? Here’s what Goldwater did: it submitted the transcripts of the training to the court. That means that it is impossible that Goldwater misled the court about ASU’s training because what was submitted was ASU’s training transcript obtained from ASU.

Well, maybe they left something out? No, Goldwater submitted the entire transcript it received from ASU after a Freedom of Information Act request. That means if anything was left out it was by ASU not cooperating with a legitimate request for information.

But ASU says, “don’t feel blame” at the beginning of the training doesn’t that mean they can say whatever they want in the training? No, you can’t get out of breaking the law by saying ahead of time “I don’t plan on breaking the law later.” And that ASU even made such an argument should be startling to everyone who cares about the rule of law.

Second, ASU claims that the training is not required. And this is for two reasons. 1) They never said it was required, and 2) I haven’t been punished yet so it must not be required.

I am attaching the email I received from ASU. It clearly says “required.” It also says I am past due in taking the training, implying that there could be consequences. Their web portal for the training still says “required” in red letters. That I have not yet been punished does not mean I should expect I never will be punished.

ASU says it has taken down their required test associated with the training conceding a victory to Goldwater. Such a test requires the taker to put in the “correct” answers even if they disagree with those answers. However, ASU still defends the test as a way to make sure that a person did indeed watch the videos. In other words, ASU directly contradicts itself! It says that the training is not required and then it says it wants to test the employee to make sure they took the test.

That’s the argument crafted by a group of Ph.D.s and lawyers. These same Ph.D.s want to educate you and your children. What do you think of their reasoning process? Have they been able to form a sound argument to defend their conclusion? Let me know in the comments and share this widely to help others see what ASU is doing.

https://www.kjzz.org/education/2025-01-09/asu-professor-files-lawsuit-over-inclusive-communities-faculty-training-he-says-is-discriminatory