Conservative Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson told The College Fix that he introduced a motion at a faculty meeting on Tuesday to add a “settler-capitalist” acknowledgement to the Indigenous land statement read before every meeting.
But not a single colleague backed his attempt to make the statement more inclusive.
“I argued that it is very inclusive to do so. Not one professor seconded the motion to be more inclusive,” Anderson said.
The professor’s proposed expansion reads:
We acknowledge the generations of settlers, farmers, builders, capitalists, and families who transformed the Salt River Valley into a place where a great modern city and a world-class university could thrive. Their labor in cultivating the land, establishing communities, developing infrastructure, investing in growth, and building the civic and religious institutions of Phoenix created the foundations that allow us to be here today. We honor their vision, industry, grit, and perseverance, and we commit ourselves to contributing to the continued flourishing of this city and its people. We welcome all students to this university and are committed to helping them prosper.
In a post on his Substack Friday, Anderson wrote, “ASU’s motto is ‘inclusive excellence.’ … It dawned on me that we need to be more inclusively excellent. We need an expanded Land Acknowledgment at ASU.”
“It would be discriminatory for ASU’s New College to limit the Land Acknowledgment to only Native Americans. Discrimination based on race could threaten federal funding for the college,” he wrote.
He added that the faculty meeting is essentially a gathering of state employees, so taxpayers have a right to access it, and it’s recorded.
“I will propose the new Land Acknowledgment, and if it isn’t simply voted on unanimously we will then have a debate about this improved and more inclusive acknowledgment, and you’ll be able to watch the arguments various professors make,” Anderson wrote.
He also wrote that according to university policy, new business can’t be voted on until the following meeting. However, if two-thirds of the members present agree, it can be discussed and decided on right away.
“Why wouldn’t they want to be more inclusive?” Anderson wrote.
