The Goldwater Institute has petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked a lawsuit against Arizona State University over mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
The case centers on ASU professor Owen Anderson, who sued the university in 2024 after being required to attend its “Inclusive Communities” DEI training program.
Stacy Skankey, an attorney representing the Goldwater Institute, told The Center Square that the petition challenges a December ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals. That ruling found that public employees cannot sue to enforce a state law that limits certain forms of race- and sex-based training.
Skankey said the appeals court misinterpreted a law that prohibits public institutions from assigning blame or moral judgment based on race, sex, or ethnicity.
She argued that the ruling effectively stripped the law of any enforcement mechanism.
“A law without any mechanism to enforce it is just words on paper,” Skankey said. “It made the law meaningless.”
She added that the Arizona Supreme Court must intervene to correct what she called a serious legal error.
Arizona law prohibits state and local governments, including public universities, from mandating DEI training that violates the statute. It also bars the use of taxpayer funds for such programs.
Despite the law, Skankey said ASU continues to offer and require its Inclusive Communities training.
Anderson said his objections to the training focused on what he viewed as moral judgment tied to race and religion.
He told The Center Square that white skin was portrayed in ways that could be “morally judged” and that some material reflected “anti-Christian rhetoric.”
He also said many participants described the training as unhelpful.
“People told me it was not valuable and a waste of time,” Anderson said.
According to Anderson, the lawsuit raises broader issues about employee rights in Arizona.
“This is a really important employment issue,” he said. “It has implications for whether state employees can take their employer to court when they believe the law is being violated.”
He warned that if his case is blocked permanently, universities could ignore the statute altogether.
“If this can’t go to court, ASU is effectively striking down the law,” Anderson said. “It becomes unenforceable.”
Anderson also argued that mandatory ideological training suppresses open discussion.
“It shuts down free speech because it tells employees what the boss’s political perspective is,” he said. “If you disagree, you risk your job or your promotion.”
He said universities should encourage debate rather than impose political viewpoints.
“There’s no place for employers taking political stands instead of encouraging free discussion,” he said.
Anderson emphasized that free expression is central to higher education.
“The whole value of a university is to pursue knowledge and wisdom,” he said. “If we can’t have free debate, all those goals go out the window.”
He added that while DEI programs often claim to promote inclusion, they frequently exclude conservative and religious viewpoints.
“Today, that means a conservative Christian perspective,” Anderson said. “I’m asking ASU to live up to its own standards.”
The Center Square contacted Arizona State University for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
If the Arizona Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the ruling could have statewide implications for how public institutions implement and enforce DEI policies.
Supporters say the outcome will determine whether existing civil rights laws can be meaningfully applied. Critics argue it could limit universities’ ability to address workplace diversity.
A decision on whether the court will take the case is expected in the coming months.
