How a federal case could decide the future of faith-based schools



School choice is on the move in America, and President Donald Trump’s January 29 executive order to expand education freedom and opportunity for families marks another critical step toward breaking public schools’ monopoly over the country’s educational system. Ensuring that religious freedom safeguards are part of school choice initiatives will be another crucial step.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which is run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has sought to bar St. Isidore from the state’s charter school program. Approving St. Isidore, Drummond claims, “will require the state to permit extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer-funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law.”

Unless religious freedom is safeguarded, the promise of school choice to Catholic families will be empty.

Such manufactured obstacles to parental choice are petty, vindictive, and out of step with the times. Just ask the Abols family of Colorado.

Andy and Gina Abols, parents of five children ranging from 1 to 11 years old, moved to Colorado primarily because Medicaid provides the best coverage for their 9-year-old daughter, who has spina bifida. “We’re in Colorado pretty much only because her medical needs are covered by Medicaid better here than any other state,” Andy said.

Education expenses, however, remain a challenge. Two of their children attend a charter school that, according to Andy, “doesn’t dabble in the realm of politics or anything along those lines.” Their 10-year-old son, who has learning disabilities, is enrolled in a hybrid school where he homeschools with Gina a few days a week. Their 3-year-old attends preschool at St. Mary’s, their Catholic parish in Littleton.

The biggest financial strain comes from their youngest daughter’s preschool tuition, which the family must pay out of pocket. That burden could have been avoided if not for the anti-Catholic bias embedded in Colorado’s universal preschool initiative, which excludes religious institutions like St. Mary’s from receiving funding.

In 2022, Colorado established a universal preschool program to provide all preschoolers with 15 hours of free education per week at a private or public school of their parents’ choice. The catch: Schools can participate in the program only if they agree to a broadly worded “anti-discrimination mandate.” If you suspect that’s shorthand for a piece of secular bureaucratic bullying, you’d be right.

A statewide coalition of religious preschool providers, including the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, sent a letter to state officials requesting that faith-based preschool providers be exempt from the mandate’s “equal opportunity” provision, concerned that compliance could undermine religious teaching on human sexuality and identity — which, of course, was its real purpose.

After state officials denied religious exemptions, the archdiocese directed its preschools not to participate. Along with two parishes that operate preschools — St. Mary’s of Littleton and St. Bernadette of Lakewood — the archdiocese went to court.

That lawsuit argues that the sexual orientation and gender identity aspects of the mandate exclude many parents from receiving a generally available public benefit in violation of the Constitution. While allowing the schools to prefer Catholics in enrollment, the lower court ruled in favor of the state last year. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the case. The court heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court and set an enormous precedent.

The Abolses and four other Colorado families submitted an amicus brief to the appellate court to support the archdiocese. When discussing his children’s education, Andy says, “Our faith is critical.” He “absolutely trusts” St. Mary’s, explaining, “They’re just a lot more tender with the kids” than the other private schools his older children attend. “They have the compassion that our special needs family needs,” he explained.

The Abolses are thankful that preschool at St. Mary’s integrates stories from the Bible as part of classroom teaching. Andy emphasizes that St. Mary’s “prioritizes virtue and faith” and notes “a clear difference in our children who have gone to preschool at St. Mary’s versus our children who have gone elsewhere.”

The Abolses are not alone in making heroic sacrifices to send their children to religious schools, including preschools. Many parents understand that educating their children includes forming them in the faith and regard Catholic schools as perfect partners in this endeavor. Colorado should respect them.

Hundreds of Catholic schools nationwide are not merely surviving in the 21st century; they are thriving. “The Catholic School Playbook,” a new resource from Word on Fire Publishing, highlights this trend. Authors Michael Ortner and Kimberly Begg note, “Parents who discover [Catholic schools ] are often thrilled at the formation and education their children are receiving, often to the point of benign envy once they realize how deficient their own education and faith formation were.”

These revivified Catholic schools have embraced the study of classic texts, Latin, grammar, art, poetry, and music, alongside history, math, and science. In short, Ortner and Begg write, “they prioritize the cultivation of wonder and virtue over the trendy concerns of college and career readiness.”

Never before have the prospects for Catholic parents been so exciting. Never before have both the executive branch and the federal judiciary been so committed to defending parents' right to choose the best educational option for their children. But unless religious freedom is safeguarded, their promise to families like the Abolses will be empty.

Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?



Arizona State University was among a lengthy list of institutions under federal investigation this week for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a provision designed to prevent discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. This should be noncontroversial. Yet, universities across the country are engaging in systemic discrimination disguised as social justice under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Universities justify racial discrimination by applying the Marxist dialectic of “oppressor versus oppressed,” now repackaged in academic jargon as “privileged versus marginalized.” They argue that so-called marginalized groups require extra resources to address past injustices, assigning “oppressor” status based on skin color, sex, and religion.

University administrators who implemented these discriminatory DEI programs should issue a public apology — for starters.

At ASU, for example, DEI employee training explicitly labels “whiteness” and “heteronormativity” as inherent oppressor categories. The training presents as fact — not as one perspective among many — that America has always been a white supremacist nation. Faculty are expected to accept this assertion without question.

I am currently suing ASU to stop this required DEI training. Instead of acknowledging its discriminatory nature, the university defends it in court.

ASU’s inclusive charter has been weaponized into a Marxist dialectic that teaches students to hate the United States and Christianity. The school explains its practices by referring to its charter, which emphasizes “inclusion.” Obviously, a taxpayer-funded university should be inclusive. In practice, however, ASU’s definition of inclusion means privileging some groups — the so-called marginalized — over others — the so-called oppressors.

And how do they determine who belongs to which category? Skin color, sex, and religion.

This is not education; it is indoctrination. Yet, professors often claim, “You cannot discriminate against white people because they are the oppressors.” At one event I attended, a speaker stated it was time to “take white men down a notch.” These people are entrusted with teaching your children — on your dime.

Discrimination in DEI

The Title VI investigation at ASU and 39 other universities targets the Ph.D. Project, a program that provides networking and career opportunities for doctoral students but excludes participants based on race. This is blatant racial discrimination. The program defends its practices using the same Marxist logic — arguing that historic injustices justify present-day racial “preferences.”

ASU reinforced this reasoning in 2023 when it hosted Ibram X. Kendi for the A. Wade Smith and Elsie Moore Memorial Lecture on Race Relations. Kendi’s stance, repeated many times over, is clear: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”

That argument fails both legally and morally. In contrast, President Donald Trump’s Department of Education made its position explicit: “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination.”

For decades, universities positioned themselves as defenders of civil rights. Now, they are being exposed for violating those very principles. The irony would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive.

From racism to anti-Semitism

ASU isn’t just under investigation for racial discrimination — it is also one of 60 universities under federal scrutiny for anti-Semitism. This is particularly rich coming from the same academics who spent the last decade yelling that “Trump is Hitler.” And yet, the Department of Education now says:

The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better.

Professors support Hamas, leave their Jewish students open to harassment, and yet take to social media to denounce Elon Musk as a Nazi. They need to look in the mirror. Maybe the Department of Education will help them do so.

University administrators who imposed these discriminatory DEI programs should start by issuing a public apology — not just to Jewish students but to all who have suffered under their race-based policies, as well as to the taxpayers who fund them.

If they refuse, it reveals one simple truth: They have not changed their beliefs. More likely, they will resort to bureaucratic rebranding, repackaging the same DEI policies under a new name while continuing business as usual.

A path forward

The only way to break this cycle is to dismantle the oppressor/oppressed dialectic in all its forms. The Marxist framework behind DEI must be exposed for what it is — a pseudoscientific ideology that justifies discrimination under the guise of justice. It aligns with those who oppose the United States. Parents, students, and faculty must demand transparency and reject participation in discriminatory programs.

Federal investigations are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. Universities like ASU must face accountability — not just legally but intellectually. Public universities should be required to disclose what professors teach in their classrooms. Taxpayer-funded faculty must be held responsible for their actions like any other government employee.

The woke university system has long relied on an illusion of moral authority, but that illusion is crumbling. Under its leadership, the worst forms of discrimination have flourished, and those who cry loudest about justice have been the worst offenders. The question is: Will we seize this moment to force real change, or will we allow these institutions to rebrand and continue their deception under a new name?

Californians Sue Alameda County For Picking Government Contractors Based On Skin Color

The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, an anti-discrimination nonprofit, plus two California taxpayers are challenging a pair of Alameda County programs that put non-minority-owned companies at a disadvantage when competing for government contracts. Pacific Legal Foundation, the nonprofit representing the Californians pro bono, filed a lawsuit in state court on Monday alleging that the programs […]