At Arizona State University, where I teach, faculty were recently told to “decolonize our curriculum.” On the surface, the directive sounded progressive: Expose power structures, elevate marginalized voices, and promote inclusion. But a closer look revealed something deeper.

“Decolonization,” as defined by many academic theorists, has less to do with confronting material exploitation and far more to do with dismantling the Christian worldview itself.

Leftists celebrate the new archbishop as a victory for progress. Yet the victory coincides with the collapse of the church that achieved it.

In today’s universities, decolonization has become a framework for deconstructing Western civilization — its moral assumptions, its epistemology, and, most of all, its biblical foundations. The movement borrows heavily from Marxism: Everything becomes a struggle between oppressors and oppressed, and redemption comes not through faith but through revolution.

Christianity has long condemned greed, injustice, and oppression. It calls for compassion, justice, and humility. The biblical ethic already provides a moral standard against exploitation. What “decolonization” targets, then, is not exploitation itself but the very source of the Christian moral order: creation, sin, redemption, and divine authority. Strip those away, and what’s left is a vacuum quickly filled by ideology — Marxism, postmodernism, or nihilism disguised as liberation. Think Antifa in the ivory tower.

The church follows the university

That same dynamic now defines the Church of England. The recent appointment of Sarah Mullally as archbishop of Canterbury — the first woman ever to hold the title — was heralded as a triumph for “equity” and “representation.” Yet the decision has fractured the Anglican Communion. Churches in Africa and the Global South have declared they will no longer recognize Canterbury’s authority.

Their leaders insist the move abandons biblical teaching: The pastoral office, they say, is reserved for men — not as a symbol of domination but as a form of service patterned after the Old Testament priesthood and Christ Himself. Scripture, not patriarchy, defines this calling.

The irony is painful. The very church that once sent missionaries to Africa now lectures African believers on theology — in the name of “decolonization.” British progressives who claim to defend the oppressed now reject the self-governing authority of African churches, imposing instead a white, European moral framework they no longer believe in.

The logic of ‘liberation’

The academic rationale behind this mirrors what I see on campus. In decolonization theory, patriarchy is treated as a system of control, and dismantling it becomes an act of liberation. But the Christian vision of leadership never equated masculinity with power. It defined male pastoral authority as a burden of service, not a privilege.

This distinction matters. In pagan antiquity, priestesses wielded ritual power at Delphi and other shrines, while biblical religion defined priesthood in terms of obedience and sacrifice. Christianity’s inheritance of that pattern was countercultural — not oppressive. To erase that distinction under the banner of equality is to mistake service for subjugation and hierarchy for injustice.

The irony of ‘progress’

Leftists celebrate the new archbishop as a victory for progress. Yet the victory coincides with the collapse of the church that achieved it. Attendance across England has cratered; belief is evaporating. The light they claim to be spreading has gone out.

Meanwhile, Christianity burns brightly in the very regions now scolded for their “backwardness.” African churches remain faithful, growing, and theologically vibrant — a continuity stretching back to Augustine of Hippo, the African theologian whose writings shaped European Christianity for a millennium.

RELATED: The castration of Christendom

Photo by FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP via Getty Images

If decolonization truly sought to redistribute power, it would look to Augustine’s model: a church grounded in scripture, not ideology; global, not provincial; rooted in divine order, not social theory.

The lesson

When my university asks me to “decolonize” my teaching, I ask in return: into what? If the answer is Marx, Freud, or Foucault — the very European thinkers who replaced faith with power analysis — then the process is just another colonization under a different name.

But if the goal is to return to the Bible’s vision of creation, fall, redemption, and service under Christ, then by all means, decolonize. Reclaim what ideology stole. Because the alternative is what we now see in England — a church that traded revelation for relevance and ended up preaching nothing at all.

Christians should take heed: The light leaving Canterbury won’t stay confined to England.

Antifa isn’t ‘anti-fascist’ — it’s anti-freedom and anti-God

Last week, a Turning Point USA student at Arizona State University found an Antifa recruitment brochure on campus. It looked like a fourth-grader’s art project, leading some to suspect it might have been a class assignment — perhaps an attempt by a sympathetic professor to portray Antifa as “not all that bad.” But the flyer included a real Instagram handle, suggesting a more deliberate effort than a student prank.

So what exactly is Antifa, and why does it still find support among radical professors?

The name sounds noble — until you define it

At first glance, “Antifa,” short for “anti-fascism,” seems harmless or even virtuous. After all, who would oppose being against fascism? But the real question is: What does Antifa mean by “fascism”?

Fascism and communism are rival branches of the same ideological tree — the radical left.

Historically, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term “fascism,” defining it as the belief that “everything is in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Fascism was a form of totalitarian national socialism that made the state the highest authority in human life. Every other institution — church, family, business, education — was expected to exist only under state control. Far from being a right-wing ideology, as popular myth holds, fascism emerged from the revolutionary left.

Rival totalitarians

Fascists and communists share more than they admit. Both demand total control of society under the pretense of “fixing” human problems. The difference lies in scale. Fascists exalt the nation; communists exalt the world.

The easiest way to spot a communist is to find the professor shouting loudest about “fascism.” The two are rival branches of the same ideological tree — the radical left. Both trace their roots to the French Revolution and Marxism, in sharp contrast to the liberty-born ideals of the American Revolution.

The intellectual roots

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the philosophical father of modern revolution, claimed humans are born good but “everywhere in chains.” Evil, he said, began with private property. Those who own property define crime, allowing them to oppress everyone else. His cure was the “general will” — the supposed collective will of the people expressed through the state. Every new tyrant since has claimed to know exactly what that will demands.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel built on Rousseau with his idea that history advances through conflict, a process he called the “dialectic.” Karl Marx stripped Hegel’s theory of its spiritual elements and turned it into the “materialist dialectic.” To Marx, all history is a struggle over material resources and capital. Religion, morality, and family were mere disguises for economic power.

This logic birthed the Marxist slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” and set the stage for revolutions in Russia and Germany. When fascists in Germany blocked the communist uprising, Antifaschistische Aktion — Antifa — was born.

A revolution against the West

Modern Antifa isn’t formally descended from the 1930s German movement, but its ideology hasn’t changed. The group still defines itself by opposition, not by principle.

Antifa claims to fight “oppression,” yet it chooses its targets selectively. Members denounce slavery from centuries past but ignore the slave markets that still operate in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Their real enemy isn’t tyranny — it’s the West, capitalism, and Christianity.

That’s why Antifa allies with any movement hostile to Western civilization, even those far more oppressive than what Antifa claims to resist. Members excuse such alliances by insisting those groups were “forced” into brutality by Western influence. In Antifa’s worldview, “oppression” means “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and Christianity. Belief in personal responsibility, hard work, or the rule of law — the very foundations of ordered liberty — become systems of oppression.

How Antifa operates

Antifa rejects reform in favor of perpetual revolution — viva la revolución! Its adherents champion “direct action,” not dialogue. Their tactics include doxxing, counter-rallies, vandalism, and physical intimidation — all designed to silence opponents by fear, not reason. Logic itself, they argue, is a “tool of oppression.” The result is an ideology that devours itself: incoherent, emotional, and rooted in will, not intellect.

Fascists and communists may fight each other, but they share one deeper hatred — the hatred of God.

A Hispanic Christian friend of mine pursuing a degree in Latin American studies once told me his professor said, “Ché su Cristo” — Ché as Christ. To this professor, revolutionary violence was redemptive. For many radicals, Ché Guevara is the true messiah; salvation comes not through grace but through destruction.

They don’t debate ideas — they annihilate opponents. That’s why they despise people like Charlie Kirk. He represented everything they can’t: clear reasoning, coherent argument, and defense of the American Revolution’s principles — limited government, ordered liberty, and faith in God.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Antifa’s real enemy

The American Revolution recognized that the state is not supreme. It is one institution among others — family, church, and business, each with its own God-given role. The state’s proper duty is limited: to punish wrongdoing and protect the innocent. That vision of ordered liberty is written plainly into the Constitution’s preamble.

America’s founders built a republic — a government under law, lex rex — “the law is king.” They believed that God’s law, revealed in both nature and Scripture, provides the moral order that makes true freedom possible.

At its core, Antifa’s ultimate enemy isn’t any human institution — it is God Himself. Whether its adherents are atheists or occultists, they view God as the oppressor because He gives law. Their rebellion echoes Lucifer’s ancient creed: “Do what thou wilt.” Saul Alinsky, in “Rules for Radicals,” openly admired Lucifer as the arch-rebel. Antifa’s devotion to the sexual revolution and the LGBTQ+ movement flows from the same impulse: the rejection of divine order in favor of self-will.

Fascists and communists may fight each other, but they share one deeper hatred — the hatred of God. Both reject the idea that rights come from a Creator and that moral law defines justice.

America stands in opposition to both. Our republic rests on the conviction that God endows every person with rights and that government exists to protect — not replace — the moral order rooted in divine law. No state can perfect humanity. Salvation from sin and death comes only through Christ.

That makes Christianity, not Marxism or fascism, the true enemy of tyranny.

As we defend Christian truth in public life, we must do so with discernment, knowing that our opponents’ hatred runs deeper than politics. It is spiritual. And when they finally drop the mask of “tolerance” and “niceness,” they reveal exactly what they’ve always been.

When they tell you who they are and what they hate — believe them.

Truth is whatever Hillary says today

If you’ve spent any time in politics, you know progressives contradict themselves so often that exposing their double-talk could keep conservative commentators busy for several lifetimes.

At first, young conservatives may find it thrilling to point out those blunders and imagine that the liberal across from them will be persuaded. But here’s the hard lesson: Only people with integrity change their minds when they find contradictions in their own thinking.

The goal isn’t to win the argument but lose your integrity. It’s to speak truth with courage and charity.

Progressives don’t stumble into incoherence by accident. They wield it like a smokescreen. The confusion keeps conscientious conservatives chasing their own tails. Conservatives, by temperament, want coherence, so they expect others to want it, too. But the record shows otherwise.

Take Hillary Clinton. Last week on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” she urged Americans to stop finger-pointing — before immediately blaming Republicans for the country’s problems. A Yale degree didn’t inoculate her against incoherence. As Charlie Kirk once observed at Cambridge, high IQ is no guarantee of wisdom. Clinton didn’t notice the contradiction, and even if she did, it wouldn’t matter. She is paid handsomely to talk, and truth never slows her down.

Moments later in the same appearance, she called for a return to “truth-based reality,” insisting that facts and evidence must matter again. This from the same woman who affirms that a man can become a woman. Truth wasn’t invited to that party. Now, she tells us it must rule the day.

The effect is dizzying, and that is the point.

What should concern us isn’t simply the logic game. It’s the condition of her soul. What happens to a soul shaped for decades by falsehood and injustice?

Clinton also revealed her deepest fear. She does not fear God. She fears the people of God — especially white, male Christians. She said so on national television just weeks after Kirk was assassinated by a trans-supporting terrorist who bought into rhetoric spewed by politicians like her. And yet, here she is again, pouring fuel on the fire.

The irony didn’t stop there. She wondered aloud how today’s politics could be “so contrary to the founding principles and values this country was built on.” This from the same politician who treats the Constitution as a “living document” to be reshaped whenever it confounds her political prejudices. She wasn’t concerned with founding principles when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter or prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department.

But pointing out contradictions only goes so far. The deeper warning is this: Hillary Clinton is what happens when you spend a lifetime saying whatever advances your career. She is willing to contradict herself publicly — and attack Christians — for money and applause. My own university, Arizona State, paid her $500,000 to host the Clinton Global Initiative.

Socrates put it best: The true philosopher, the lover of the good, doesn’t chase political power, money, or fame. He wants only this — that when he leaves this life, his soul is not defiled by injustice.

Photo by Jon Putman/Anadolu via Getty Images

That’s the lesson for young conservatives. Exposing contradictions is fine. It can even be fun. But don’t forget what matters more: Never let your soul become like Hillary Clinton’s.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that the modern mind cuts down the signposts and then complains no one knows the way home. That is the progressive project in our time: Deny first principles, denounce those who keep them, and demand the comforts those principles once secured.

So take this counsel seriously:

Guard your soul more than your timeline. Social media glory is cheap; a clean conscience is priceless.
Pursue coherence because it is true, not because it is clever. Wit is garnish; truth is the meal.
Fear God more than fashion. Today’s trends are tomorrow’s embarrassments; the fear of the Lord endures.

The goal isn’t to win the argument but lose your integrity. It’s to speak truth with courage and charity, to resist compromise with evil for the sake of applause, and to leave this world with a soul unstained by injustice.

That victory is higher than anything Hillary Clinton will ever claim — and it is the only victory that lasts.

Locked up for a joke. It can’t happen here ... can it?

A comedian lands at Heathrow and finds himself met by officers as though he posed a terrorist threat. His offense? A social media joke about trans people. He’s released on bail on the condition he doesn’t post on X.

Another man prays silently outside the “safe zone” of an abortion clinic and is hauled off, given a two-year conditional discharge, and fined £9,000 (just over $12,000).

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations.

A third man waves the Union Jack at a pro-Palestinian march in England — only to be arrested. Reuters quickly ran interference: not for the flag, they said, but for a “racially aggravated public order offence” and “homophobic abuse.” As if that makes it better.

And we’re still not mentioning the Islamic child-rape scandal that grows worse with every new revelation. The United States watches Britain collapse into a kind of Reformation-era persecution, this time in the name of Islam, paganism, and sexual license. Americans shake their heads, maybe reassure themselves: We fought a revolution to escape this. Charles II jailed Christians. Charles III praises Islam. And we have the First Amendment. Case closed.

Not so fast. We may be on the same road. Once you begin policing speech to protect feelings, the end point looks very much like the UK. And we have plenty of warning signs.

The university test case

Universities may be the clearest early indicator. Professors tell us every profession must “look like” society — except their own. If a field is 97% male, they call it systemic bias. But in the academy itself, where atheists and leftists dominate, they see no problem.

The numbers don’t lie. At Arizona State University, a December 2024 survey found just 19 Republicans among 544 faculty members. At the University of Arizona, only eight Republicans out of 369. Entire departments lacked a single Republican. A 2023 Harvard Crimson study found only 2.5% of Harvard faculty identify as conservative. If any other profession looked this skewed, professors would scream about bias. In their case, they call it “normal.”

And the consequences? They’ll defend freedom of speech for burning an American flag. Burn a trans flag, and suddenly you’ve committed a hate crime. That is one step removed from Graham Linehan’s arrest in the UK for an X post.

Censorship in practice

Students already know what this means. A 2022 FIRE survey found they self-censor in class. They parrot leftist slogans on gender and race, not because they believe them, but because they want the grade. We are teaching them to lie to advance. No one is being asked to confess Christ; they are being asked to confess Ibram Kendi and John Money.

I’ve seen it firsthand. At ASU’s Honors College, faculty blocked Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, and Robert Kiyosaki from speaking, smearing them as “white supremacists.” That label alone was enough to push the event off campus. These professors weren’t interested in argument. They wanted silence.

Blaze Media illustration

Truth vs. lies

How do they justify it? With “hate crimes.” Not crimes that incite violence, but crimes of opinion. Disagree with LGBTQ ideology? That’s hate. Straight to jail. Professors sleep well at night because we’ve accepted their framework: society divided into oppressors and oppressed. Bad outcomes aren’t the result of choices, but of systemic injustice. Victims must be coddled, even at the expense of truth.

Once you accept that, feelings erase the First Amendment.

We need a spine. Sexual sins are real and destructive. Abortion ends a life. A comedian may say this through jokes; a philosopher may say it through essays. Either way, it’s the truth. The mob can gnash its teeth, plug its ears, strip away free speech, and jail comedians, but reality doesn’t change.

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations. We must pray for the end of abortion, speak plainly about the damage sexual ideology inflicts on children, and reject the false frame of “oppressors and oppressed.” The real categories are truth and lies. Choose wisely, while you still can.

The real fraud in higher ed: Universities need that Chinese money

The universities preaching that America is structurally racist now say they need international students to survive. Sad but true.

President Trump on Monday floated a proposal that has conservatives buzzing. Just before meeting with the president of South Korea, while discussing trade negotiations with China, Trump suggested that the deal might include allowing 600,000 Chinese students to attend American universities.

Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing. Why should taxpayers fund that?

I’ve learned not to sprint ahead of Trump’s negotiations. He often uses public remarks as part of the bargaining table — dangling outrageous possibilities to shove the other side into error. And inconveniently for his critics, it usually works. Still, this one deserves a closer look.

Universities built on sand

As a professor at Arizona State University, the nation’s largest state school, I see firsthand how fragile higher education has become. Universities increasingly depend on international students to prop up their budgets. They reorient themselves not around local students but around foreign ones, reshaping programs and communications to make sure outsiders feel at home.

ASU boasts 195,000 students. Yet when the semester began, the university’s homepage highlighted international arrivals, not Arizona students. The welcome-back email did the same. Arizona families — the taxpayers who actually fund the place — were treated as an afterthought.

Administrators justify this by pointing to economic contributions, diversity, and talent. But native students notice the slight. Parents notice it too. The message is clear: Tuition dollars matter more than the citizens who built these schools. ASU may call itself the “New American University,” but more often it presents itself as the “No Longer American University.”

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A house of cards

Here’s the truth: Many American universities cannot survive without international tuition checks.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted as much on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, saying the bottom 15% of U.S. colleges would simply shut down without that revenue. Universities have operated like Ponzi schemes, built on the illusion that enrollment growth never ends. But as American students tire of being hectored with radical political agendas, growth slows and the budgets collapse.

The U.S. already hosts about 270,000 Chinese students, not counting tens of thousands more from India, South Korea, and elsewhere. ASU alone has 16,000 international students, down from 18,000 last year. Trump’s proposed deal would more than double the number of Chinese students nationwide overnight.

What are they learning?

Even if you grant the economic benefits, the bigger question — maybe the biggest — is: What sort of education would these 600,000 students receive?

We could introduce them to the greatness of the American experiment, the sweep of Western civilization, and the biblical truths that shaped both. We could even present the gospel to hundreds of thousands of students who may never have heard it before. That would be a noble exchange.

But that isn’t what happens on most campuses.

Drop them into a humanities classroom and they’ll be steeped in anti-racism, DEI dogma, LGBTQ activism, “decolonizing the curriculum,” and the thesis that America and the West are irredeemably wicked. Instead of winning hearts and minds, universities would be exporting American self-loathing — either by turning foreign students into residents who despise their host country or sending them home as ambassadors of contempt.

Why should American taxpayers fund that?

A higher-ed reckoning

Universities like ASU showcase international students while sidelining their own. They rely on foreign tuition to mask fiscal rot. And in exchange, they sell a curriculum that treats America as racist, the West as evil, and Christianity as oppressive.

No “economic benefit” offsets that catastrophic formula.

If American universities want to survive, they must first clean their own house.

Admit the harm caused by their reckless anti-America, anti-West, anti-Christian curriculum.
Abandon DEI dogma, corrosive identity politics, and “decolonized” philosophy.
Value American students — the citizens and taxpayers who fund these schools.
Reorient higher education toward the people of the states and communities that built it.
Teach again that we are created by God, equal in worth, and capable of knowing truth, goodness, and beauty.

Only then can we discuss whether more international students make sense. Until then, it is rich with irony: The same universities that teach contempt for America now admit they need foreign students to survive.

The left’s real enemy isn’t Sydney Sweeney

The recent outrage over an American Eagle ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney would be hilarious if it weren’t so revealing. The ad shows Sweeney wearing jeans with the cheeky caption, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” It’s a harmless pun — wordplay on both genetics and denim.

But as we know, grievance culture doesn’t do humor. According to outraged leftists, this ad is “Nazi-coded propaganda” because Sweeney has the wrong look: blonde hair and blue eyes. That’s right — Sweeney didn’t goose-step across your screen or quote “Mein Kampf.” She just smiled in a pair of jeans. Apparently, that was enough to unleash the fury of the perpetually offended.

It’s not a crime to recognize beauty. It’s an act of sanity.

Why does something so lighthearted spark such disproportionate rage?

Beauty threatens the left

At first glance, the reaction seems to fit a familiar pattern. Sweeney is white. She’s conventionally attractive. She’s not apologizing for either of those things. That’s three strikes in the diversity, equity, and inclusion playbook.

The new cultural catechism of the left says that beauty is a “social construct.” It’s used by oppressive systems to maintain unjust hierarchies, so it must be redistributed according to equity quotas.

Admiring beauty becomes an offense. It must be deconstructed — if not altogether abolished — and reprogrammed with DEI.

But there’s something deeper at work — something more visceral and more theological. You can sense it in the feral energy of the backlash. It’s not just that Sweeney is beautiful. It’s that she didn’t earn it. And the leftists are mired in high-schoolish insecurity.

She didn’t pass a DEI review. She didn’t seek approval from the sensitivity board. Her looks aren’t the result of a curated political identity — they’re the result of, well, her parents.

And that’s what drives the left insane. Beauty, in this case, violates the central tenet of their moral framework: fairness. Sweeney didn’t do anything to deserve being attractive (aside from perhaps watching her diet and going to the gym). Her features are, largely, inherited — in their language, “privilege.”

‘Why not me?’

The old-school leftists like Herbert Marcuse rightly critiqued the one-dimensionality of ads like American Eagle’s. Commercial culture does not aim at beauty, truth, or goodness. But the modern leftists dropped that message. Now, beauty is whatever the activist class tells you it is, as long as it serves the cause.

This is the theology of the grievance industrial complex: If something is unearned, it’s unjust. It's just not fair. “Why not me?” is the battle cry — less a revolution, more a toddler’s tantrum.

This is why leftists don’t just go after people — they go after beauty itself. I’m not equating sex appeal to beauty. But the outrage is beyond sex appeal and is aimed at the very idea that someone can be beautiful without approval from the Committee of Twelve.

Spend five minutes on any state university campus or in Democrat-run city and look at the newest buildings. They are intentionally not beautiful. They have even abandoned Soviet functionality. Concrete cubes with exposed ductwork and LED-lit virtue slogans where cornices and stained glass used to be are statements of contempt, monuments to cynicism and self-hatred, rather than structures designed to lift the soul.

The leftist assault on beauty goes beyond architecture. University art galleries — such as the one run by my school, Arizona State University — are considered “activist installations.” Chaotic splashes of rage, deconstruction, profanity, and noise aren’t merely misguided attempts at beauty — they are refusals of it. They reject order and celebrate cacophony.

A war on God

This reveals a deeper truth: Leftists' war on beauty is ultimately a war on God.

Beauty is not a construct. It is not the invention of Western power structures. Beauty is real — it flows from the nature of God Himself. As Augustine wrote, ”Being is good.” Evil is not a thing in itself. It’s the corruption of the good. Likewise, beauty is not a weapon of oppression. It’s the radiance of order, truth, and harmony.

But if you hate the Creator, you will hate creation. You won’t rejoice in beauty; you’ll resent it. The truly dark impulse behind much of leftist cultural production is not liberation. It’s vengeance.

A world that won’t conform to their demands must be punished. If they can’t make reality fair by their standards, then they’ll make it ugly and demand that you call it a masterpiece

Reject the mob

But you aren’t required to play along. You don’t have to pretend that brokenness is beauty, that chaos is art, that bitterness is profound, or that atheism is intellectually deep.

You don’t have to nod along when they tell you that Sydney Sweeney’s ad is a hate crime and that art school murals of screaming female body parts are sublime. You can say, without apology: That’s not beautiful.

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

And that’s a kind of cultural resistance we desperately need. Christians in particular must recover a theology of beauty. We serve the God who clothes the lilies of the field in splendor, who filled the skies with stars and the oceans with wonder, who made the human form. This God of beauty is the same one who redeems the lost sinner and works all things together for good.

So don’t let the rage mob deprive you of beauty. Don’t let their tantrums over privilege drive you into false guilt. And don’t let the secular liturgists of ugliness define what your heart is allowed to love.

We were made to love what is good, true, and beautiful. That includes a well-cut cathedral, a sonata in a major key, a sunrise over the Grand Canyon — and God, who created all of this.

It’s not a crime to recognize beauty. It’s an act of sanity.

The lie that launched a thousand riots

For decades, academic leaders insisted on "neutrality" when it came to life’s most important questions — whether God exists, what defines the highest good, and how to live a virtuous life. But that neutrality was always a ruse. Now the roof is caving in.

In Los Angeles, rioters burn police cars, wave foreign flags, and earn praise from elected officials who call them “peaceful demonstrators.” These aren’t isolated incidents. They reflect the long-term effects of a philosophy cultivated on campus and subsidized by taxpayers.

The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep.

The recent unrest didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the predictable bloom of a poisonous seed — one we let grow under the false belief that the First Amendment demands silence in the face of subversion. It doesn’t. And this strategy from America’s enemies didn’t begin last week. It’s been unfolding for decades.

Attacking the American order

Arizona State University, the nation’s largest public university, offers a snapshot of the broader national crisis. It imports professors from elite graduate programs and churns out activist graduates steeped in a worldview that condemns the United States as irredeemably evil.

Look at the student organizations ASU endorses — like MEChA, whose stated mission reads like a political ultimatum:

“[We] devote ourselves to ending settler colonialism, anti-Black racism, heteronormativity, borders and prisons because our liberation does not exist until these legacies of colonization are abolished.”

In 2024, ASU suspended the campus chapter of the far-left Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán — and only suspended them — after the group declared, “Death to the ‘Israeli’ entity! Death to the ‘American’ entity! Long live Palestine! Long live Turtle Island!”

("Turtle Island" refers to a Native American creation myth that North and Central America rest on the back of a giant turtle.)

Despite the suspension, MEChA remains listed as an active club on campus. The group still enjoys faculty support.

This isn’t about revising reading lists or replacing Shakespeare with indigenous poetry. “Decolonizing the curriculum” masks a much larger goal: revolution. This is a coalition of radicals — communists, LGBTQ+ activists, pro-Mexico nationalists, anti-Semitic “Free Palestine” organizers, land acknowledgment militants, and Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations — who align not because they share values, but because they share a target: the American constitutional order and its Christian foundations.

And yet naïve liberals and sentimental Christians often fall for the rhetoric. These groups invoke empathy, community, and sacrificial love — virtues rooted in the Christian tradition. But they weaponize those virtues. They wear sheep’s clothing to cloak their wolfish designs.

Rather than reform through representation, they aim to abolish representative government entirely. They don’t seek equality before God; they demand a transfer of power — to a Native tribe, to Mexico, or to some vague utopia where oppression has been deconstructed out of existence and LGBTQ sex litters every street corner.

That may sound absurd. It is. Mexico, after all, functions under cartel rule and bleeds citizens who risk everything to escape. But revolutions don’t require coherence. Absurdity often accelerates them. These movements aren’t governed by logic or principle. They run on resentment — the fury of those who believe life cheated them.

What the moment demands is moral clarity. That begins with rejecting the lie of neutrality.

Neutral education is a lie

A “neutral” education doesn’t exist. Every curriculum is built on a view of the “good life.” Every professor teaches from a vision of what humans are and what we are meant for. When we allowed universities to abandon the pursuit of wisdom and virtue — to stop teaching that God created us and that our rights come from him — we didn’t establish neutrality. We created a vacuum — and radicals rushed in to fill it.

As a professor, I’ve seen firsthand how godless academics wield the First Amendment as both shield and sword. They argue that “free speech” protects those who seek to dismantle the very system that guarantees that right, while insisting those same protections exclude Christian ideas from the classroom.

But the Constitution doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize sedition. Nothing compels a university to hire professors who publicly call for the abolition of the American republic.

Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

This isn’t about banning ideas. People can believe whatever they want. But taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to underwrite the education of young Americans in philosophies that teach them their country is an imperial cancer.

If a professor wants to advocate abolishing the United States, let him do it honestly. Declare it on the syllabus. Reject public funding. And stop pretending any of this qualifies as neutral education.

A little truth in advertising would go a long way. Imagine just a few basic reforms.

Preparation: Professors should demonstrate a grasp of foundational truths — about God, goodness, virtue, wisdom, and the greatness of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who denies these basics has no business teaching at a taxpayer-funded institution. Private universities exist for that. Once upon a time, American universities valued this knowledge, often requiring courses in natural theology for all students.

Transparency: Require state-employed professors to disclose if their courses promote a political or ideological agenda — especially one hostile to the principles on which this country was founded.

Accountability: Tie public funding to standards that reflect the values of the citizens footing the bill. That includes respect for the rule of law, representative government, and the God-given rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Reform: Restore universities that teach what used to be obvious — that God is our Creator and knowing Him is the highest good of human life. State dollars come with strings. Those strings should include love of God and country.

That last point may sound idealistic, but it’s far more grounded than the utopian fantasies now taught with your tax dollars. It takes human nature seriously. It acknowledges the need for redemption, the pursuit of virtue and wisdom, and the moral order built into creation.

It’s time for students, parents, donors, governors, pastors — and yes, President Donald Trump — to recognize what the Los Angeles riots truly represent: not just political unrest, but philosophical collapse. The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep. They’re outside your child’s classroom, dressed in regalia, holding a metaphorical Molotov cocktail.

Enough pretending. The time for reform has come.

Higher ed’s shield shatters under Trump’s new directive

The Department of Education on Wednesday delivered a long-overdue strike against the activist university system. While headlines focused on Columbia University, the message was broader: Every institution living off federal student loan money now faces pressure from two sides — financial scrutiny and accreditation reform.

As a professor inside the academic machine, I can say this is exactly the disruption higher education needs. If we want universities to educate rather than indoctrinate, this is the pressure point to hit.

The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia.

One of Donald Trump’s core campaign promises was to overhaul how universities receive accreditation. Most Americans don’t realize it, but accreditation is the golden ticket. Without it, colleges can’t rake in billions from student loans and federal grants. And yet, the organizations in charge of accreditation have turned a blind eye to blatant, systemic discrimination.

They’ve allowed public violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — discrimination under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Conservative faculty are nearly extinct. In DEI-infused hiring committees, ideology has replaced merit. If the roles were reversed, the left would call this what it is: systemic discrimination.

On April 23, Trump signed an executive order titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” Its aim is simple: to upend the broken accreditation process and hold universities accountable for civil rights violations.

Here’s the language that has the ivory tower in a panic:

The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall ... investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the Council, including unlawful "diversity, equity, and inclusion" requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.

Translation: Universities are finally being forced to follow the anti-discrimination laws they pretend to champion.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon followed up by naming Columbia University, noting that the school “looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment.” That broke Title VI protections. No revocation yet — but the accreditor has been notified. Unless Columbia takes corrective action, its funding could be in jeopardy.

This isn’t just about Columbia. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard unlawfully discriminated with its admissions practices. Elite schools have behaved as if laws don’t apply to them. Now, they’re finding out otherwise.

The rot runs deeper. Across the country, universities have quietly purged conservatives, Christians, and dissenters in favor of radicals, atheists, and left-wing ideologues. Hiring committees dismiss this as "meritocracy" while ensuring no one to the right of Bernie Sanders gets tenure.

Photo by Zhu Ziyu/VCG via Getty Images

At Arizona State University, where I teach, we boast a student body that is 70% female — while faculty can’t even define “woman.” That imbalance raises serious questions. Are men now a legally protected group under Title VI? They should be. Universities that brand masculinity as "toxic" while ignoring misandry are engaged in discrimination, plain and simple.

This moment marks a shift. For decades, the university system cloaked itself in moral superiority while wielding tax dollars like a cudgel. But now, the empire is wobbling. Institutions that once policed speech and purity tests may finally have to explain themselves.

The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia. Universities broke the law. Now they’re being forced to live under it.

And maybe — just maybe — future professors won’t need to hide their beliefs to keep their jobs. That’s the kind of education reform America deserves.

Academia fuels the fire that torched Jewish grandmothers in Boulder

It is an eerie and existential feeling to be so close to a terrorist attack, especially with your wife and children.

My family came to Colorado for vacation. We visited Boulder for the mountain views — the kind that lift your eyes toward the heavens and, if you’re paying attention, your heart toward the Creator. But here, where beauty should awaken gratitude, the air smells more like weed than wonder.

While Boulder boasts that it welcomes all 'spiritual paths,' it slams the door on the word of God. It tolerates everything except truth.

Boulder markets itself as spiritual, but it rejects any higher moral authority. Cafés glow with Himalayan salt lamps. Bumper stickers push peace, pansexuality, and “coexistence.” But behind every soft smile, the city enforces a hard orthodoxy — LGBTQ absolutism, DEI dogma, and the gospel of oppressor versus oppressed. You can burn incense. Just don’t quote Moses. You can chant. Just don’t pray to the living God.

Bookstores warn visitors against racism, as if that’s been a problem in their aisles. Trans flags flutter at courthouse doors. Rainbow crosswalks stretch beneath Pride banners. But real justice doesn’t live here any more. The place preaches inclusion and practices exclusion — especially of Christianity.

Hours before Sunday’s fiery attack on mostly elderly women, we passed the Boulder County courthouse on the Pearl Street Mall. My children strolled beside me, laughing in the sun beneath flags meant to signal that biblical morality and equal justice under law are no longer welcome.

Later that day, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, reportedly shouting “free Palestine,” allegedly hurled a Molotov cocktail at a peaceful gathering of people praying for the hostages held in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023.

You might miss Boulder’s spiritual decay if you only look at the Flatirons. But step closer. The library near the creek now serves as a homeless encampment. Spring no longer smells like flowers — it reeks of drugs. Pride Month never ends. Boulder turned it into a liturgical calendar.

And while Boulder boasts that it welcomes all “spiritual paths,” it slams the door on the word of God. It tolerates everything except truth.

Boulder’s decline isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a larger collapse. We buried two Israeli embassy workers gunned down in Washington, D.C. Harvard refused to cooperate with the federal probe into campus anti-Semitism, citing “academic freedom” with zero irony. An MIT commencement speaker scolded graduates for not doing more to “free Palestine.” And across the country, publicly funded professors preach that America’s enemies are “whiteness” and “heteronormativity” — and that resistance justifies any cost.

Sam Harris, atheist poster child of the old intellectual left, recently claimed it would be worth ending democracy to stop a Trump presidency. At my own university, Arizona State, I’ve been forced to complete DEI training, confess “whiteness,” recite native land acknowledgments, and “decolonize” my own syllabus. I’ve been told Christianity is oppressive, gender is infinite, and heteronormativity must go.

This isn’t theory. It’s happening right now. In classrooms. To your kids.

I’m not claiming the Boulder suspect read Ibram X. Kendi before allegedly carrying out his firebombings. But this much is clear: He overstayed his visa, wasn’t deported under the Biden administration, and targeted Jewish women in particular — elderly, peaceful, praying — with fire.

That isn’t coincidence. It fits the anti-Semitic, anti-Western pattern sanctified by academia.

Democrats own this.

Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images

They defend illegal immigration while insisting illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than citizens — ignoring the obvious truth that none of those crimes would happen if they weren’t here at all. They cry “tolerance” while enforcing LGBTQ+ orthodoxy. They call conservatives bigots while defending anti-Semitism as free expression.

Imagine this exchange:

Democrat: “You’re a racist, fascist bigot.”
Republican: “You support anti-Semitism, child mutilation, open borders, and the suppression of Christianity.”
Democrat: “Correct. Read our platform.”

These aren’t insults. These are bragging rights.

As a tenured professor at the largest public university in the country, I can tell you what many humanities programs now teach: grievance. Anger. Victimhood as identity. They don’t educate. They radicalize.

Check the marketing. Many departments proudly list “activist” as a top career goal. They’re not preparing students to build anything. They’re preparing them to burn it down. One poet said the world needs more activists like a fish needs a bicycle. Academia ignored the advice.

Universities now operate like cults of deconstruction. They tear down the Bible, faith, family, and country. They don't ask students to think. They teach them what to think — and who to hate.

No, not every DEI seminar leads to a Molotov cocktail. But when professors claim that Christianity is oppression, that white families are systems of violence, that gender is a fiction, and that America itself is illegitimate — why are we shocked when students act accordingly?

Smerdyakov acted out Ivan Karamazov’s nihilism. Our students are doing the same.

The solution starts here:

Parents — Stop sending your kids to be trained by people who hate you.
Students — Refuse to pay for indoctrination. Ask hard questions. Better yet, avoid the ideologues altogether.
Legislators — Defund institutions that despise your voters.
Pastors — Prepare your congregations for the wolves that wait in lecture halls.
Donors — Close your wallets. They cash your checks and mock your most cherished beliefs.

Universities hide behind “academic freedom.” Fine. But American freedom means you don’t have to subsidize it. You don’t have to pretend not to see the fire.

And even if the Boulder firebomb had no direct tie to campus ideology — if it was just coincidence — we still have to ask: Why are taxpayers funding professors who hand students the ideological Molotovs?

Hey, teachers! Leave them kids alone.

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?