Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging: A new name for the same game

Is DEI really on its way out at American universities? Don’t be fooled. While many institutions claim to have abandoned diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, they have often rebranded them, continuing the same practices under new names. The values taught in these programs are so deeply ingrained among faculty and administrators that only a fundamental overhaul of American universities can offer an education free from Marxist conflict theory or John Money’s gender ideology.

The Republican landslide victory gave former President Donald Trump and Congress a mandate for change. Within two days, Trump released a video outlining his plan to reshape American universities. He aims to tackle student loans and tuition costs — which rise in direct proportion to the availability of student loans — and to threaten the accreditation of universities that teach “critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.” However, these universities will likely shuffle or rename that material instead of eliminating it.

Is DEI on its way out? Not without fundamental reform of American universities. Is that reform possible? Yes.

How do I know? I am a tenured professor of philosophy and religion at Arizona State University, and I am suing the university over its mandatory DEI employee training. The Goldwater Institute represents me. Arizona law prohibits using taxpayer funds for classes or training that promote racial blame, yet ASU’s “Inclusive Communities” training does precisely that. From inside the system, I have seen faculty use university time to denounce Trump, call his supporters evil, and plot ways to keep their favored curriculum alive despite legislative scrutiny. ASU’s employee training is just one example.

Hiding the truth

The university claims it no longer offers DEI training, now calling it “DEIB training,” where the “B” stands for “belonging.” This rebranding allows administrators to publicly assert that they have abandoned DEI training, expecting the public to believe it without further investigation. However, screenshots I have shared on my Substack reveal that DEIB covers the same material as DEI. Additionally, the Goldwater Institute has posted the transcripts from ASU’s “Inclusive Communities” training on its website as part of our court case.

How common is this practice across universities? A quick glance at their websites often reveals the answer. In some cases, DEI or DEIB training materials are hidden behind password-protected systems, requiring current employees to access and share them publicly. It’s unlikely there has been a widespread shift away from Marxist conflict theory and racial blame toward an emphasis on the American ideal that all people are created equal and endowed with the same rights.

Professors and administrators remain the same individuals, with the values they held before the second Trump election. Instead, these ideas are simply being taught under different names.

Take, for example, ASU’s sustainability course, a requirement for the university’s 180,000 students. At first glance, the course appears to focus on pollution and global warming. But its curriculum includes lessons on social justice and, unexpectedly, a section advising students on where to shop. It concludes with: “And now watch this video from Starbucks.” Yes, ASU’s students are required to watch a video from Starbucks. And where are the Marxist professors who claim to oppose big business? They remain silent because the corporation is promoting their ideological agenda.

Redoubling discrimination

In the latest development, ASU’s attorneys argued that because the required training begins with a statement advising participants not to feel blame, the university can say anything afterward.

Consider the logic: If someone says, “I don’t intend to drive drunk tonight, so do not construe any of my actions as drunk driving,” would that grant them a valid defense if they do drive drunk? Could a thief say, “I do not intend to make anyone feel as if I am stealing from them” and then take whatever he wants?

Simply declaring in advance that you do not intend to break the law does not grant immunity from legal consequences. Telling white people at ASU that the university does not intend to make them feel blame does not justify subsequent discrimination with a shrug of, “I told you not to feel that way.” Think of an abusive spouse who professes love before committing abuse. It’s a disturbing argument, and whoever made it should be ashamed. ASU risks becoming known as an anti-white, anti-heterosexual institution.

Yet this is the rationale a room full of Ph.D.s and J.D.s produced. Even a humble philosophy professor can see its flaws. Why not simply end the required training and stop discriminating based on skin color? The only plausible explanation is that ASU is so ideologically entrenched that this straightforward solution never occurred to the administration. Instead, the university escalates its DEI “inclusiveness” training rather than removing the modules that target whiteness and heteronormativity.

In the next stage of our case against Arizona State University, administrators will testify under oath. The university’s spokesman has denied the existence of required DEI training, questioned my standing to bring the lawsuit, and insisted we have no right to feel discriminated against. What will they say in court? Potential students are watching to see how ASU conducts itself.

Is DEI on its way out? Not without fundamental reform of American universities. Is that reform possible? Yes, I believe so. We are witnessing a shifting era, as more students reject DEI and openly demand changes on campus. Parents are also scrutinizing these curricula and exploring alternatives to DEI-heavy institutions. Meanwhile, enrollment in the humanities — where DEI often runs deepest — remains abysmal, suggesting that the current model is unsustainable, despite ASU’s talk of “sustainability.”

Universities’ persistent use of new labels like “DEIB” shows they have not truly embraced reform. Instead, they recycle the same divisive ideologies under different names, hoping the public will not notice. Real change requires sustained pressure from parents, students, accreditors, and lawmakers to hold universities accountable. We must demand transparency, champion an education based on equality and intellectual rigor, and end the misuse of taxpayer dollars to push ideologies that divide rather than unite. The era of unchecked DEI dominance is nearing its conclusion — if we stand firm and see reform through.