Conservative group pressures ASU on illegal DEI trainings, just the beginning.
Recent investigations conducted by the Goldwater Institute revealed how mandatory DEI trainings mandated by Arizona State University are used to “illegally train professors on how white supremacy was ‘written into the foundational documents of our nation’ and is ‘normalized in society’ today.” ASU also requires students at the Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication to enroll in DEI-focused classes to graduate.
ASU has thus far withheld information about the curricula from the public, so the Goldwater Institute sent two letters to the university along with public records requests demanding more information. The decision to apply pressure came as a result of recent laws passed by the Arizona Legislature prohibiting government spending on trainings that ”present any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.”
House Bill 2898 prohibits DEI trainings like those at ASU in K-12 public and charter schools and establishes fines for violations. Despite this, DEI remains a prevalent feature of major academic institutions nationwide.
DEI has seen an uptick in support in universities and public institutions across the country. Reporting from Education Week claimed that “district-wide diversity, equity and inclusion training has gained significant popularity in recent years.” But a study from Harvard Business Review indicates that the trainings are ineffective and even divisive, saying, “Laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out.”
This sort of trend has prompted think tanks and policymakers alike to push for legislation prohibiting such curricula while calling out policies like ASU’s which are a clear violation of existing laws. Despite Arizona state law, “ASU continues to provide the training, and the school has yet to even reveal the post-training test or the criteria it uses to grade the test.”
Previous pressure from the Goldwater Institute prompted ASU to eventually discontinue their requirement for the “vast majority of faculty job applicants to pledge allegiance to progressivism by submitting a mandatory ‘diversity’ statement.” Their continued legal pressures also produced results in other states and universities.
The Goldwater Institute demanded that ASU “stop illegally using taxpayer funds to mandate DEI training… and that the university immediately comply with Arizona public records law by disclosing the information it has withheld.” ASU acknowledged the request but has yet to return with any public records.
Conservative policymakers and pundits remain steadfast in targeting the ”cancerous web of taxpayer-funded, racially discriminatory initiatives” that permeate our institutions, “from faculty hiring to faculty training to classroom indoctrination.”
What are the arguments from proponents and critics regarding the necessity and effectiveness of DEI trainings in addressing systemic inequities?
As exploded in popularity in recent years, driven by growing concerns about social justice and the need for inclusive environments in schools and workplaces.”
However, the increasing presence of DEI trainings has sparked controversy and debate. Critics argue that these trainings often promote a divisive and ideologically driven agenda, while proponents claim they are necessary to address systemic inequities.
The recent investigations conducted by the Goldwater Institute shed light on the specific nature of DEI trainings at Arizona State University (ASU). The Institute claimed that these trainings unlawfully teach professors that white supremacy is inherent in the foundational documents of the United States and is still prevalent in society.
Furthermore, ASU mandates that students at the Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication enroll in DEI-focused classes to graduate. However, the university has been reluctant to provide information about the curricula to the public, prompting the Goldwater Institute to demand greater transparency through public records requests.
The pressure applied by the Goldwater Institute reflects recent laws passed by the Arizona Legislature. House Bill 2898 prohibits DEI trainings in K-12 public and charter schools and imposes fines for violations. The aim of this legislation is to prevent trainings that blame or judge individuals based on race, ethnicity, or sex from being funded by the government.
Despite the increasing scrutiny and legislative action, DEI trainings continue to be a prominent feature of academic institutions across the country. Education Week reports that district-wide DEI training has gained popularity due to a desire for more inclusive learning environments. Supporters argue that these trainings are necessary for fostering understanding, empathy, and combating systemic discrimination.
However, the controversies surrounding DEI trainings should not be ignored. Critics argue that these trainings can sometimes veer into indoctrination, promoting a specific ideology rather than encouraging critical thinking and open dialogue. They raise concerns about the potential suppression of differing viewpoints and the stifling of free speech on campuses.
Balancing the need for inclusive education with respect for intellectual diversity is a complex task. It is essential for academic institutions to carefully craft DEI curricula that foster inclusivity without compromising academic freedom. Transparency and open dialogue should be at the forefront of these efforts to ensure that DEI trainings remain constructive and inclusive for all.
In conclusion, the investigations conducted by the Goldwater Institute and the subsequent scrutiny of DEI trainings at ASU highlight the ongoing debates surrounding these programs. While DEI trainings aim to address systemic inequities and create inclusive environments, critics argue that they can sometimes promote a divisive ideology. Academic institutions must navigate this complexity by promoting transparency, open dialogue, and intellectual diversity to ensure that DEI trainings serve their intended purpose without imposing a specific worldview.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
