The latest wheeze from global public health elites? Jack up taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and processed food by 50% to raise $3.7 trillion in new revenue. They call it “health policy.” In plain English, it’s government-sanctioned theft.
This isn’t about curing disease. It’s about expanding state power. These so-called health taxes, pushed by academic ideologues and international bureaucrats, are little more than economic punishment disguised as progress. They won’t meaningfully reduce illness, but they’ll absolutely hit working people the hardest.
Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it.
The new push for massive taxes on soda, smokes, beer, and snacks is social engineering with a hefty price tag. The goal isn’t better health so much as behavioral compliance. And who pays for it? Not corporations. Not policymakers. Regular people. Especially those already stretched thin.
The promise of $3.7 trillion in new revenue tells you everything you need to know. This is about cash, not caring. You’re not going to fix the obesity crisis by making a Coke cost $4. You’re just making life worse for the guy who wants a cold drink after work.
These aren’t just products. They’re small pleasures — a beer at dinner, a smoke on break, a soda on a hot afternoon. Legal, affordable, familiar. Stripping them from people’s lives in the name of “health” doesn’t uplift anyone. It makes life more miserable.
And this plan doesn’t educate or empower. It punishes. It uses taxes to bludgeon people into compliance. That’s not public health — that’s moral authoritarianism.
Proponents claim that higher prices discourage consumption, especially among young people. But that’s not smart policy — it’s an admission that the entire strategy relies on pricing people out of their own choices.
That’s not a sign of sound policy; it’s a confession that the aim is to price people out of their own choices. It’s hard not to see this as profoundly elitist. A worldview in which an ignorant public must be nudged, coerced, and taxed into making decisions deemed acceptable by a distant class of arrogant policymakers.
Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it. The more someone spends on a drink or a cigarette, the less they can spend on rent, groceries, or gas. In the U.K., economists found that sin taxes cost low-income families up to 10 times more than they cost the wealthy. That holds true in the United States as well. These are regressive by design.
History offers a warning. Prohibition didn’t end drinking — it empowered criminals. Today, in places like Australia, black markets for vapes and other restricted products are booming. When governments overregulate, people continue to consume. They just go underground, and quality, safety, and accountability go with them.
Public health bureaucrats love to talk about the “commercial determinants of health,” blaming industry for every social ill. But they ignore the personal determinants that matter even more: freedom, dignity, and the right to make informed decisions.
RELATED: Cigarettes and beer: The heady perfume that transports me to my childhood
People already know the risks of smoking, drinking, and sugar consumption. They’ve seen the labels and heard the warnings for years. They don’t need lectures from bureaucrats, government ministers, or international agencies. What they need is respect — and the freedom to live as they choose.
These new tax schemes don’t offer support or alternatives. They rely on coercion, not persuasion. The state becomes the enforcer, not the helper. It’s a government model that punishes pleasure and equates restriction with virtue.
The sinister core of this health tax agenda lies in its relentless condescension. It assumes people are too stupid, too reckless, or too addicted to choose what’s best for themselves, and so government must intervene forcefully and repeatedly.
This is control, not compassionate governance.
A better path exists — one rooted in harm reduction, not prohibition. Encourage low-sugar drink options. Expand access to safer nicotine alternatives. Support moderate alcohol consumption. Respect the people you’re trying to help.
If public health advocates truly want to improve outcomes, they should abandon these regressive, punitive proposals. They should promote innovation, not punishment. Education, not enforcement.
Because real public health doesn’t treat people like problems to be managed. It treats them like citizens — free to live, choose, and thrive.
Vice President JD Vance is not exactly a shrinking violet. The Marine veteran who rose from relative poverty to become second in command of the world's greatest nation has a habit of seeking out fruitful confrontation.
At the Munich Security Conference in February, for instance, Vance told European officials to their faces that they were stepping toward tyranny and turning their backs on the values they once shared in common with the United States. Just weeks later, he bashed the U.K.'s censorship regime with leftist British Prime Minister Keir Starmer seated right next to him in the Oval Office.
While he has long participated in fiery exchanges with Democratic lawmakers and other antagonists, both in person and on Elon Musk's X, Vance evidently wanted to bring the conversation to leftists on their own turf.
The vice president created an account Wednesday on the liberal Twitter knockoff Bluesky. Things went off the rails pretty quickly.
Vance kicked off his Bluesky residency by writing, "Hello Bluesky, I've been told this app has become the place to go for common sense political discussion and analysis. So I'm thrilled to be here to engage with all of you."
'I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids.'
Accompanying his initial post was a screenshot of the Supreme Court's majority decision in United States v. Skrmetti, in which the court upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors — clearly a touchy subject for the Bluesky crowd.
RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime
Vance highlighted a portion of the decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class. First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the 'wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.'"
Roberts noted further in the excerpt, "Contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts' view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves."
Vance added in a follow-up message, "To that end, I found Justice Thomas's concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth."
"I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids," continued Vance. "What do you think?"
— (@)
Regardless of whether Vance's intention was to troll the netizens of Bluesky, the result was the same.
Apoplectic leftists immediately piled into the comments various smears and accusations. Many threatened to report Vance in hopes of getting him banned for some perceived offense or another.
The attacks were, however, interrupted roughly 12 minutes after Vance's first post when the platform suspended him, according to Axios reporter Marc Caputo.
Leftists looking to vent were confronted with a message that read, "Not found. Account has been suspended."
RELATED: Runaway judges, rogue rulings — and JD Vance is having none of it
Despite the appearance that Vance's account may have been suspended because of his politics or perhaps because he shared a court ruling that struck at the heart of the sex-change regime, Bluesky claimed in a statement obtained by Forbes, "Vice President Vance's account was briefly flagged by our automated systems that try to detect impersonation attempts, which have targeted public figures like him in the past."
"The account was quickly restored and verified so people can easily confirm its authenticity," continued the statement. "We welcome the Vice President to join the conversation on Bluesky."
As of Thursday morning, Vance's initial posts were buried in negative comments, although he had netted over 7,500 followers. According to the user tracker Clearsky, he had been blocked by over 81,000 users at the time of publication.
Blaze News reached out to the vice president's office for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Democratic deputy speaker of the Connecticut House silenced a Republican colleague during debate over the state budget on Monday, thereby proving her point: Some of the content in the Constitution State's public schools is far too obscene to be read even before a crowd of adults.
While important, Republican state Rep. Anne Dauphinais' concerns about pornographic content in elementary school libraries would normally be irrelevant to a state budget.
However, in an apparent effort to limit public scrutiny, Democratic lawmakers Trojan-horsed legislation into the Connecticut budget that would greatly restrict concerned parents' ability to have sexually graphic content, LGBT propaganda, and other inappropriate materials removed from school libraries.
'Parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries.'
In addition to painting resident "school library media specialists" as the experts on what content American children should consume, the legislation:
In the wake of the controversial budget's passage on party-line votes and Gov. Ned Lamont's (D) subsequent indication that he plans to sign it, Dauphinais told Blaze News that "if it should pass, parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries."
RELATED: Texas bans explicit content in schools — and Democrats are not happy
Some of the books at issue made an appearance during a February press conference where Dauphinais, state Sen. Henri Martin, and other Connecticut Republicans underscored the need for greater parental control. Among the books cited for their sexually graphic content were "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human (A Graphic Novel)" by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, and Cory Silverberg's "You Know, Sex: Bodies, Gender, Puberty and Other Things."
'Let's try to keep some decorum.'
During the budget debate in the state House, Dauphinais, the ranking member of the Children's Committee, provided a better sense of the kinds of obscenities to which state schools are exposing Connecticut children.
After warning onlookers with children to remove them, Dauphinais read an excerpt from Lauren Myracle's book "l8r, g8r," saying, "Have you ever given Logan a blow job? No blow job for you, missy? What about plain old sex?"
The material appeared to make some of Dauphinais' colleagues across the aisle uneasy, even though they were effectively fighting to protect kids' access to it.
Dauphinais, among the Republican lawmakers who stressed that parents should have a say in whether obscene content remains in school libraries, also read from the book, "Me and Early and the Dying Girl," quoting a character as saying, "'Are you gonna eat her p***y?' 'Yeah, Earl, I'm going to eat her p***y.'"
Democratic Deputy Speaker Juan Candelaria interrupted the conservative Republican, banging his gavel and saying, "Madam, I would ask that if we not try to use that type of language in the chamber. Let's try to keep some decorum."
Candelaria asked Dauphinais to refrain from uttering such words out of respect for children and for "others that might get offended."
Dauphinais, who previously suggested that an adult reading such books to kids outside of school would justifiably be accused of "grooming," responded to Candelaria, "This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts."
The CT Mirror reported that Democratic state Rep. Larry Butler expressed outrage — not with the fact that such books are in Connecticut school libraries but that Dauphinais read from them.
'It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there.'
"I will tell you that in my 18 years here, I have never seen the demonstration of such vulgarity tonight, reaching the lowest level that I've ever seen in this chamber," said Butler. "When we're talking about books in libraries, that's one thing. You could just mention a book."
State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas said, "I think it just threw people off quite a bit to hear that kind of language being used on the floor."
RELATED: Parents fight evil in schools — and seek justice at the Supreme Court
Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson told Blaze News, "If Democrats thought this policy was defensible, they wouldn’t have buried it in a 700-page budget. They're shielding graphic, sexually explicit content in school libraries — and they know parents wouldn't stand for it if they saw it in the light of day."
"The irony?" continued Sampson. "When my colleague read a passage from one of these books aloud, they ruled it out of order. If it's too obscene for the House floor, it's too obscene for a school. This isn't about banning books — it's about protecting kids."
"Democrats claim these books are fine for kids in schools, but too explicit for adults in the House Chamber," said Dauphinais. "They’re choosing pornography over parents — and then call us crazy for speaking out. I am appalled but not surprised."
When asked whether this is the end of the story now that the budget has passed, Sampson told Blaze News, "There's still a chance to strip this garbage out of the budget, but it'll take a spine from the governor and a spotlight from the press."
Dauphinais told Blaze News that there is presently uncertainty over whether Lamont can veto the legislation as it is not a budget item.
"It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there," said the Republican. "The maneuver was putting it in a budget where it didn't belong."
"Because it doesn't have dollars attached to it, we're told that that's not something that he's able to veto," added Dauphinais.
To undo the legislation, a new bill may be needed.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If it’s happening in Georgia, you can bet it’s happening all over the country. Embedded bureaucrats are quietly rewriting the policies voters put in place.
Georgia’s Medicaid program exists to serve the state’s most vulnerable — low-income children and foster youth, pregnant women, and disabled adults. It was never meant to be a vehicle for radical politics. But recent revelations about how the state awarded multibillion-dollar Medicaid contracts show exactly how far left-wing ideologues inside government agencies will go to push their agenda.
When the bureaucracy pushes a progressive agenda behind closed doors, the public has no choice but to push back. Loudly. Clearly. Immediately.
Internal documents reveal that senior staff at Georgia’s Department of Community Health inserted ideological land mines into the bidding process for companies seeking to serve more than 1 million Medicaid recipients — most of them children. This included a scenario question focused on how insurers would treat a hypothetical “fourteen (14) year-old, transgender White female (assigned male sex at birth but identifies as a female).”
Responses that didn’t align with leftist orthodoxy were penalized. In other words, companies lost points unless they promised to steer kids toward hormone therapy — despite state laws banning gender reassignment procedures for minors. That isn’t just dishonest. It’s a direct subversion of the law.
Just this year, Georgia’s legislature passed bills barring men from girls’ sports and locker rooms. But inside the state’s Medicaid agency, officials rewarded insurers for endorsing gender transitions for minors. One winning bidder justified its position by claiming such treatments “could come up in the future.” Never mind that they’re illegal in Georgia.
One losing insurer offered to connect the hypothetical child with a range of community resources, including faith-based organizations. That response was met with scorn. A state official actually complained that faith-based groups shouldn’t have been included — because they weren’t mentioned in the scenario.
Never mind that faith-based organizations have served Medicaid populations for decades. They often provide the only consistent care in struggling communities. But for these bureaucrats, churches and people of faith pose a bigger danger to kids than radical gender ideology.
This is no small issue. Georgia expects to spend $4.5 billion next year on Medicaid and PeachCare, the program for uninsured kids. That makes this one of the largest contracts in state history — and leftist staffers nearly hijacked the entire process.
RELATED: Why is deep-red Oklahoma paving the way for the Green New Deal?
Lawmakers have a duty to step in now. During the last session, they considered a bill that would have barred ideologically charged questions from state procurements. It didn’t pass. That needs to change.
There’s still time. The Medicaid contracts haven’t been finalized. Legislators must act. They should demand a full rebid, remove these radical questions, and ensure that reviewers score responses based on biology, patient welfare, and fiscal responsibility — not on whether companies genuflect to left-wing doctrine.
Georgia’s leadership has worked hard to uphold conservative values and protect taxpayer dollars. But as we’ve seen in Washington, unelected bureaucrats can — and will — undermine that progress if no one stops them.
When the bureaucracy pushes a progressive agenda behind closed doors, the public has no choice but to push back. Loudly. Clearly. Immediately. We must call it out, correct course, and pass the kind of reforms that ensure this never happens again.
Let’s start with the obvious: I love dogs. I’ve had them as pets for my entire life, and they really do become part of your family. I tear up thinking about Hemingway, a tenacious Westie and my best friend, and Biscuit, a magnificent Great Pyrenees, both of whom have passed away. Dogs are beautiful. Dogs are loyal. Dogs make humans better.
But pit bulls? Enough already. We need to stop pretending this isn’t a problem. This week we saw yet another horrific attack in which a pit bull sent a family of four to the hospital in Minneapolis.
In 2023 alone, pit bulls were responsible for 78% of all fatal dog attacks.
Pit bulls — or, if you want to split hairs like a lawyer in a cheap suit, “pit bull-type dogs,” including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier — account for a terrifying share of serious dog attacks in this country. And I’m not talking about a nip at the mailman’s calf or a Chihuahua snapping at a child pulling its tail. I’m talking about hospital visits. Reconstructive surgery. Coffins.
Here’s the reality: Between 2005 and 2020, pit bulls were responsible for 67% of all dog bite-related deaths in the United States, according to DogsBite.org. That’s 380 deaths. Let that sink in. That’s more than two-thirds of fatal attacks from a breed that makes up an estimated 6% of the total U.S. dog population.
In 2023 alone, pit bulls were responsible for 78% of all fatal dog attacks. It’s a pattern, not a coincidence.
The apologists come next: “It’s the owner, not the breed.” That’s the refrain — the trite excuse of the well-meaning urbanite who’s never seen a mauled kid. Sure, some pit bulls are sweet, some lions are tame, and some meth dealers go to church. But as humans, we don’t regulate for the exceptions. We regulate the pattern — and the pattern here is undeniable.
These dogs were bred for violence — quite literally. Bull-baiting, bear-baiting, dogfighting. These were blood-sport animals, selected for jaw strength, aggression, and a drive that doesn’t shut off. They’re not just strong — they’re biologically wired to hold and shake. A Lab bites and lets go. A pit bull clamps and doesn’t stop until a shotgun is used. Ask any vet — the damage a pit does isn’t just physical. It’s anatomical carnage.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, while “breed is not a reliable predictor of dangerous behavior,” studies do show that pit bull-type dogs are disproportionately involved in severe and fatal attacks. The Centers for Disease Control stopped publishing breed-specific fatality data in 1998, likely because the backlash wasn’t worth it. Independent data continues to accumulate, however, and it doesn’t look good.
So who’s keeping these dogs?
You might assume it would be ex-cons with illegal kennels and dogfighting rings. But these days, it’s yoga moms and guys who brew their own kombucha. Somehow, the pit bull has undergone a rebrand — from backyard killer to misunderstood underdog. Blame social media. Blame the rescue industrial complex. Blame that viral post from your friend with the “pibble” wearing a Halloween costume.
RELATED: Ban the breed? Allie Beth Stuckey says pit bulls are too dangerous to be pets
Animal shelters are overrun with the breed, and well-meaning yuppies are “rescuing” them. It’s like adopting a kid, only to find out he’s actually a 22-year-old MS-13 member.
In 2022, over 5,300 U.S. Postal Service employees were bitten by dogs, with pit bulls topping the list of offending breeds. Pediatric hospitals report that children under 9 compose a growing share of dog attack victims, often bitten in the head or neck. The emotional trauma can last a lifetime. But hey — your Instagram reel of “Zeus” licking peanut butter off a spoon got 30,000 likes, so I guess it’s all worth it.
We ban all kinds of things in America. Lawn darts. Raw milk. Kinder Eggs. But somehow, we won’t touch pit bulls. The reasons are a sentimental attachment to these canine thugs and a culture that equates feelings with truth. And, of course, a fear of being called prejudiced — against a dog breed, no less.
But public policy shouldn’t run on sentiment. It should run on data. On risk. On whether a 5-year-old can walk down a sidewalk without losing half her face.
I’m not calling for a dog holocaust. But if you’re going to bring a living weapon into a crowded urban neighborhood, maybe we should pause. Maybe we need strict breed-specific legislation, as is common in the U.K., France, Denmark, and even parts of Canada. Maybe some things don’t belong in apartments or parks full of toddlers.
It’s not heartless to say that. It’s compassionate. It’s sane.
Dogs are incredible. They’ve been our partners for thousands of years. In fact, anthropological theory posits that domesticating wolves saved humans from extinction during the Ice Age. But not all partnerships are created equal. Some breeds were forged for companionship. Others were forged for war. Pretending they’re the same because it makes us feel good is how people, especially children, get mauled or, God forbid, killed.
You want a dog? Great. Get a mutt. Get a spaniel. Get a Greyhound — they’re fast, they’re sweet, they sleep 18 hours a day. Just don’t gaslight the rest of us into pretending your 70-pound muscle missile with a vice-grip jaw is “just misunderstood.”
Some things don’t belong in polite society. And pit bulls are one of them.
Mark Zuckerberg appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” in January sporting a new hairstyle and a gold chain — an image makeover that began with the billionaire tech mogul sparring with MMA fighters in 2023. He cast himself as a reformed free-speech champion, admitting that under the Biden administration, Meta’s fact-checking regime had become “something out of '1984.'” Something, he said, needed to change.
What he didn’t say: Meta’s censorship playbook has long resembled the Orwellian dystopia he now claims to oppose.
‘Meta lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.’
Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta has operated with "1984"-style control — censoring content, shaping political narratives, and cozying up to authoritarian regimes, all while pretending to remain neutral. While Zuckerberg criticizes China’s digital authoritarianism, Meta has adopted similar strategies here in the United States: censoring dissent, interfering in elections, and silencing political opponents.
Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy is increasingly obvious. His ties to China and Meta’s repeated attempts to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party expose a willingness to bend democratic principles in the name of profit. Meta mimics China’s censorship — globally and domestically — even as it publicly condemns the CCP’s control over information.
For years, Meta attacked China’s censorship and human rights abuses. But as China-based tech companies gained ground, Zuckerberg’s rhetoric escalated. He warned about Chinese AI firms like DeepSeek, which were producing superior tools at lower costs. In response, Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan assured Americans that the company would build AI based on “our shared values, not China’s.”
Zuckerberg even declared he’d partner with President Trump to resist foreign censorship and defend American tech. But that posturing collapses under scrutiny.
Behind the scenes, Zuckerberg worked hard to ingratiate himself with the Chinese regime. As Steve Sherman reported at RealClearPolicy, Meta pursued “Project Aldrin,” a version of Facebook built to comply with Chinese law. Meta even considered bending its privacy policies to give Beijing access to Hong Kong user data. To ingratiate himself with the CCP, Zuckerberg displayed Xi Jinping’s book on his desk and asked Xi to name his unborn daughter — an offer Xi wisely declined.
These overtures weren’t just about market share. Meta developed a censorship apparatus tailored to China’s demands, including tools to detect and delete politically sensitive content. The company even launched social apps through shell companies in China, and when Chinese regulators pressured Meta to silence dissidents like Guo Wengui, Meta complied.
On April 14, an ex-Facebook employee told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism that Meta executives “lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.”
After the Trump administration moved to block Chinese tech influence, Meta backed off its China ambitions. But the company didn’t abandon censorship — it just brought it home.
In the United States, Meta began meddling directly in domestic politics. One of the most glaring examples was the two-year ban on President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Framed as a measure against incitement, the decision reeked of political bias. It showed how much power Zuckerberg wields over American discourse.
Then came the 2020 election. Meta, under pressure from the Biden administration, suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story — a move Zuckerberg himself later admitted. Though the story was legitimate, Facebook and Twitter labeled it “misinformation” and throttled its reach. Critics saw this as an obvious attempt to shield Biden from scrutiny weeks before Election Day.
Meta’s interference didn’t stop at content moderation. It also funded election infrastructure. Zuckerberg donated $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and another $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research. These funds were funneled into swing states under the guise of pandemic safety. But critics viewed it as private influence over public elections — a dangerous precedent set by one of the most powerful CEOs in the world.
Meanwhile, Meta executives misled the public about the company’s relationship with China.
Zuckerberg’s deference to China wasn’t a phase — it was part of a long-term strategy. In 2014, he wrote the foreword for a book by Xi Jinping. He practiced Mandarin in public appearances. He endorsed Chinese values in private meetings. This wasn’t diplomacy — it was capitulation.
Meta even designed its platform to comply with CCP censorship. When regulators in China asked the company to block dissidents, it did. When Chinese interests threatened Meta’s business model, Zuckerberg yielded.
So when he criticizes China’s authoritarianism now, it rings hollow.
Meta’s behavior isn’t just a story of corporate hypocrisy. It’s a case study in elite manipulation of information, both at home and abroad. Zuckerberg talks about free speech, but Meta suppresses it. He warns of foreign influence, while Meta builds tools that serve foreign powers. He condemns censorship, then practices it with ruthless efficiency.
Americans shouldn’t buy Zuckerberg’s rebrand. He wants to sound like a First Amendment champion on podcasts while continuing to control what you see online.
Meta’s past and present actions are clear: The company interfered in U.S. elections, silenced political speech, and appeased authoritarian regimes — all while pretending to stand for freedom.
Zuckerberg’s censorship isn’t a glitch. It’s the product. And unless Americans demand accountability, it will become the new normal.
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.
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.
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.
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?
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com