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.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

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.”

RELATED: Chinese nationals on student visas allegedly ripped off elderly Americans in nasty scheme

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.

RELATED: Hot girls and denim: American Eagle rediscovers a winning formula

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.

RELATED: Academia fuels the fire that torched Jewish grandmothers in Boulder

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.

RELATED: Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts

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.

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

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?

60 universities face anti-Semitism investigations: Trump's Education Department



President Donald Trump's Department of Education announced on Monday that it has launched investigations into 60 universities across the nation over anti-Semitism concerns.

Last week, the Education Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to its "inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students," according to a DOE press release.

'Deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite US campuses continue to fear for their safety.'

The university was notified earlier this month that the joint task force would complete a review of its more than $5 billion federal grant commitments as part of an investigation into potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The action was linked to Trump's executive order combatting anti-Semitism, which also led to Immigration and Customs Enforcement's recent detainment of the leader of a pro-Hamas group associated with violent protests at Columbia University.

Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, "This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it."

"Many are not students, they are paid agitators," he continued. "We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America's Colleges and Universities to comply."

A spokesperson for Columbia University told the New York Post that the school will "work with the federal government to restore Columbia's federal funding."

"We take Columbia's legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting anti-Semitism and ensuring the safety and well-being of our students, faculty, and staff," the spokesperson stated.

On Monday, the Education Department took further action against the nation's universities that have allowed disruptive and sometimes violent pro-Hamas and anti-Israel protests to take over their campuses.

The department announced that its Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities "warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities."

It noted that those 60 higher learning institutions — including Arizona State University, Harvard University, Rutgers University, the State University of New York, the University of California, and Yale University — are currently under investigation.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated, "The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless anti-Semitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better."

"U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege, and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws," she added.

Universities respond

A spokesperson for ASU told KPNX, "Arizona State University has a long history of opposing anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts of intimidation whether they occur on our campuses or in the community. The university has been very clear about this position."

In response to potential funding threats, Harvard announced a temporary hiring freeze on Monday.

"Effective immediately, Harvard will implement a temporary pause on staff and faculty hiring across the University. In the coming days, we will work closely with the leadership of Harvard's Schools and administrative units to help determine how to implement this guidance in extraordinary cases, such as positions essential to fulfilling the terms of gift- or grant-funded projects," it stated.

A Rutgers spokesperson told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the school "condemns anti-Semitism in the strongest terms possible, and we always will do so. Our strong Jewish community is a point of pride for the university. The university adheres to state and federal law and will always strive to strengthen and enforce the policies and practices that protect our students, faculty, and staff."

A SUNY spokesperson told the Legislative Gazette, "SUNY has no tolerance for anti-Semitism and will continue to ensure that our campuses are safe and inclusive for Jewish students and free from all forms of discrimination and harassment."

"SUNY has frequently and consistently publicly condemned anti-Semitism, opposed [boycott, divestment, and sanctions movements], and taken major steps to ensure compliance with all federal civil rights laws. The safety and security of our students is and always will be paramount," the spokesperson added.

The UC Office of the President said in a statement to KXTV that it is aware that several of its campuses received a letter from the Education Department.

"We want to be clear: The University of California is unwavering in its commitment to combatting anti-Semitism and protecting the civil rights of all our students, faculty, staff, and visitors. We continue to take specific steps to foster an environment free of anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination and harassment for everyone in the university community," the statement read.

A Yale University spokesperson told the Yale Daily News, "Yale has long been committed to combatting anti-Semitism and strives to ensure that its Jewish community, along with all communities at Yale, are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Anti-Semitism is inconsistent with Yale's values and principles and has no place in our community."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Students are trapped in mandatory DEI disguised as coursework



Diversity, equity, and inclusion is now effectively illegal at the federal level and in many states, including Arizona. However, university administrators and professors remain deeply committed to its principles. Rather than disappearing, DEI will simply be rebranded under a new name.

At Arizona State University, where I have taught philosophy for 25 years, the university’s charter states that ASU will be “defined by who it includes and not by who it excludes.” That sounds good, right? Think again.

'Diversity at scale' serves as a Trojan horse for racial and social engineering.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. In response, universities like ASU insisted they were unaffected. The ruling applied to institutions that follow an elitist model with limited admissions slots, they argued, while ASU prides itself on welcoming as many students as possible — conveniently sidestepping the legal issue.

I support expanding access to education for as many students as possible. However, I oppose the continued use of race and ethnicity as a basis for determining how resources are allocated. ASU justifies spending more on students it deems “diverse” while allocating fewer resources to groups such as white Christian men. In effect, it continues to justify racial and religious discrimination.

Even with DEI bans in place, ASU remains committed to viewing everything through the lens of race. Worse, it allows outside influences, such as the United Nations, to shape its curriculum. For example, ASU’s required “sustainability class” follows a framework dictated by the U.N.

Let’s examine the details.

Introducing ‘diversity at scale’

Despite the new federal ban on DEI, ASU continues to insist it does not use race in admissions. However, DEI remains deeply embedded in its structure, rebranded as “diversity at scale.”

ASU now infuses racial quotas into every aspect of its employee and student structure, focusing heavily on racial and ethnic diversity. As a result, ASU is no longer defined by the students it includes but by those it excludes from accessing resources.

One way ASU ensures DEI remains central to its education model is through its mandatory sustainability course. Every undergraduate — 180,000 students and counting — is required to take this class, which appears to focus on environmental issues and resource management. However, a closer look reveals that the course is built around the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals from 2015, which extend far beyond environmental concerns into gender and social justice.

These SDGs, signed under the Obama administration, promote a wide range of progressive political goals, including an expansive definition of gender equality rooted in the philosophy of John Money, which allows for potentially unlimited genders. The course does not introduce these ideas for debate — it presents them as unquestioned facts.

By embedding social justice objectives within the SDGs, ASU has turned its sustainability course into a vehicle for reinforcing leftist ideological positions under the guise of scientific and environmental education.

To put this in perspective, the same federal government that has outlawed DEI in education is also expected to withdraw from these U.N. goals under the second Trump administration. Yet ASU has embedded them as mandatory learning, ensuring that every student is required to engage with these perspectives, regardless of federal or state policy shifts. This is not education — it is ideological conditioning.

Ideology trumps rigor

ASU has devised a clever strategy. University leaders recognize that outright racial preferences are now legally indefensible. Instead, they have shifted their approach to curricular mandates that are harder to challenge in court.

By making courses like sustainability a graduation requirement, ASU ensures that students are immersed in DEI principles — even when official policies prohibit DEI programs in admissions and hiring. The university uses United Nations modules to emphasize “diversity and equity,” while ASU itself focuses on “inclusion.” This allows the institution to claim, “We aren’t teaching DEI.”

This approach is especially significant in Arizona, where state laws ban DEI and race-based blame. Yet ASU continues to operate in ways that contradict these laws. “Diversity at scale” serves as a Trojan horse for racial and social engineering. The university argues that it does not exclude anyone based on race — a technicality that helps it claim compliance with Supreme Court rulings. But it still structures education around racial, gender, and social justice ideologies, ensuring that these perspectives dominate student learning and resource allocation. Those deemed “not diverse” receive fewer resources, effectively excluding them.

The sustainability class is just one example. Across multiple disciplines, ASU integrates DEI and social justice principles under different names, making it nearly impossible for students to graduate without absorbing these viewpoints. Faculty are trained in “inclusive communities” teaching methods; degree programs like the School for Social Transformation (yes, that’s real) and Gender Studies receive funding for activism under the banner of equity; and departments offer courses featuring terms like “social justice” to continue advancing the same race-based ideologies that lawmakers and courts have sought to eliminate.

ASU’s strategy provides a road map for other universities navigating federal and state restrictions on DEI. Rather than eliminating these principles, institutions will embed them deeper into the curriculum, disguising them within courses that appear neutral or apolitical. The language may change, but the objectives remain the same: instilling radical ideological commitments in students under the guise of academic rigor. Without realizing it, parents are enrolling their children in classes shaped by U.N.-driven curriculum.

For those who value academic freedom and political neutrality in education, this presents a significant challenge. Universities have quickly adapted to legal and political changes, demonstrating that they are more committed to their ideological agenda than the public realizes. As the federal government considers further action against DEI, policymakers must understand that restricting admissions practices alone will not be enough. The real battle now lies within the curriculum, where institutions like ASU have ensured that ideological conformity remains a requirement for graduation.

What can be done?

If DEI is truly to be removed from higher education, focusing only on admissions and hiring will not suffice. The curriculum itself must be scrutinized, and policies must prevent mandatory courses from becoming ideological indoctrination. ASU’s required sustainability course is a prime example of how universities continue to push radical political agendas under new labels, keeping DEI entrenched despite legal prohibitions.

As a parent or prospective student, you can take action by choosing a different institution. If you are a current student frustrated by paying for U.N.-driven coursework, contact Arizona state legislators and provide examples from your classes. Your voice matters in holding universities accountable.

As policymakers and the public debate the future of higher education, they must recognize that the battle has already shifted. The fight is no longer in admissions offices — it is in classrooms, where universities like ASU have embedded their ideological agendas in ways that will be far more difficult to dismantle.

The next question is whether this battle will also reach the courtroom. Will students file class-action lawsuits against universities that misrepresented their curriculum and promoted activism under the guise of education?

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.