EDITORS' CORNER
Key Takeaways
- Professor Owen Anderson from Arizona State University is seeking a review from the Arizona Supreme Court after a lower court dismissed his lawsuit against mandatory DEI training at ASU.
- The lawsuit, supported by the Goldwater Institute, claims the DEI training violates an Arizona law prohibiting judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex, asserting that it includes concepts such as inherent racism and privilege.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Anderson could not proceed, stating the statute does not provide an avenue for individuals to challenge such mandates.
Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson is asking the state Supreme Court to hear his case after a lower court dismissed his lawsuit challenging mandatory ideological DEI training.
The Goldwater Institute is representing Anderson in this case. Ryan Mills, a spokesperson for the conservative nonprofit, told The College Fix “there’s a very good chance” the court will take it.
He said the case will involve further briefing and potentially oral arguments, but no timeline has been established.
“Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue—it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law,” Anderson stated, according to a Monday news release from Goldwater.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” the professor stated.
Anderson filed the lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024, alleging ASU’s mandatory DEI training violates an Arizona state law that prohibits public agencies from requiring employees to participate in training that “presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex,” The College Fix previously reported.
The lawsuit claims the training materials include concepts such as inherent racism and privilege that employees are compelled to affirm. ASU claims the training is consistent with state law.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Professor Anderson could not proceed with the lawsuit, reasoning that the statute offers no avenue for individuals to challenge unlawful training mandates.
“There’s no way around it—a law is meaningless if it can’t be enforced. If allowed to stand, the error by the Arizona Court of Appeals would eliminate an essential civil-rights safeguard for public employees and taxpayers,” Goldwater’s news release states.
“The ruling changes how Arizona laws are enforced by removing the ability of an ordinary Arizonan to ensure government officials obey the law,” it states.
Goldwater’s petition to the Arizona Supreme Court states that the law does “create an implied private right of action.”
The petition also states the case warrants review because the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error on a matter of statewide importance affecting crucial civil rights protections.
“If allowed to stand, the decision—which disregards this Court’s binding precedent and directly conflicts with decades of Court of Appeals decisions—would broadly eliminate private causes of action whenever a statute does not expressly create one,” the petition states.
MORE: ‘Significant harm’: Stanford student gov’t endorses anti-ICE walkout
