Is ASU going to fire a Christian professor for being too Christian?



I believe Arizona State University has taken the first step toward terminating me, a tenured Christian professor, for being too Christian.

You might think tenure would protect a professor from religious discrimination by state university administrators. You would be mistaken. What I am experiencing at ASU demonstrates how university administrators can use the annual review process to punish professors for their beliefs and potentially build a case for terminating them.

This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.

Here is what is happening.

I am currently engaged in a lawsuit against ASU over its DEI training requirements. After more than two years of litigation, my attorneys argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 1. We are awaiting the court's decision.

This week, ASU’s provost has officially upheld a decision penalizing me for allegedly being too Christian in my classes.

In May, the dean of my college deducted points from my annual performance review and reduced merit pay because he claimed my teaching in 2025 was too Christian. What evidence did he offer for this remarkable accusation? Five quiz questions out of more than 80, along with two negative student evaluations.

That's it.

This is no longer merely one dean's judgment. ASU's senior administration has now endorsed the decision to penalize me for allegedly teaching classes that are too Christian. I have no further avenue of appeal within that process.

I have spent my career teaching students how to think. My administrators now seem determined to teach me what not to think. One wonders which of us has misunderstood the purpose of a university.

And the evidence? Let's examine it.

One question asks, "Why is knowing God the highest good?"

Is that uniquely Christian? Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom were Christians last I checked, explored the relationship between the divine, knowledge, and the highest good. Eastern philosophers have done the same. These questions have occupied philosophers for thousands of years.

Another asks, "What is the relationship between God and morality?"

Again, this is a foundational question in the history of philosophy. Plato raised it in the "Euthyphro." Aristotle connected ethics with his account of the highest good and the divine. Are we now supposed to eliminate questions about God and morality from philosophy courses?

RELATED: A Christian guide to trolling without sinning

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A third question states, "True or False: Death should not make us think about the meaning of life." This is a question from my class on the philosophical aspects of death and dying. It is a course I developed with ASU’s online specialists as part of master teacher training. ASU signed off on the class and then penalized me for teaching it!

The relationship between death and life's meaning is central to existential philosophy, including the writings of Viktor Frankl (not a Christian). Surely students studying philosophy should be allowed to consider how death relates to meaning in life.

These are philosophical questions, not evidence that I am improperly promoting Christianity.

One student wrote: "If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and truly believed in reincarnation, I would be offended if I were asked to denounce it."

But I never asked that student, or anyone else, to denounce reincarnation, and the student gave no evidence that I did. Notice the hypothetical nature of the complaint: If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and if I were asked to denounce my beliefs, I would be offended.

The student did not report that this actually happened.

The second student wrote: "Although I agree with what Owen Anderson teaches, I completely understand if people feel offended after taking his class."

Read that again. The student agrees with what I teach but imagines that someone else might be offended.

Apparently, at ASU, hypothetical offense by hypothetical students is sufficient grounds to penalize an actual professor. And this brings us to the larger problem.

Annual performance reviews are recurring evaluations. Once administrators officially determine that a professor's teaching is deficient because it is too Christian, what happens at the next review? I will be asked what steps I took to stop being so Christian? If administrators decide I have not adequately corrected the alleged problem, they can penalize me again. Repeated negative evaluations could then become the foundation for escalating disciplinary action.

That is how ASU could build a case for terminating a tenured professor.

RELATED: Campus free speech is alive — barely

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

And consider the burden this imposes. Rather than spending my time exclusively on teaching, research, and serving students, I must defend myself against accusations supported by a handful of philosophical questions and speculative complaints. Are the non-Christian professors put through this same scrutiny and additional burden?

This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.

If you discuss God, morality, eternity, or the meaning of life, administrators can apparently decide your teaching is too Christian. Can they then deduct points from your annual review? Deny you merit pay? Can they begin documenting supposed deficiencies that might eventually threaten your employment?

The chilling effect is obvious. Christian professors may decide that silence is safer than risking administrative punishment.

I have spent more than two decades teaching philosophy at ASU. I believe students deserve to encounter the great questions of philosophy, including the questions about God that philosophers have discussed since antiquity.

A public university should encourage those questions, not punish professors for asking them. ASU receives public funding, including federal money. It should not be permitted to use its administrative power to discriminate against Christian faculty.

Today, the accusation is that my classes are too Christian. Tomorrow, the question may be whether I am allowed to remain a professor at all. And if ASU can do this to me, what prevents other public universities from doing the same to Christian professors across America?

Berkeley set out to defend DEI — and found no financial upside



A new study meant to reassure corporations about diversity, equity, and inclusion programs has delivered an awkward finding for DEI advocates: Keeping the programs produced no measurable financial advantage over abandoning them.

Researchers at the University of California in Berkeley compared S&P 500 companies that maintained DEI after President Trump’s January 2025 executive order with companies that scaled back their commitments. Firms that kept their programs performed about as well in stock returns and revenue as those that retreated.

Whether a company favors DEI or rejects it, executives cannot assume that a politically popular label will protect conduct that violates anti-discrimination law.

The authors and sympathetic news coverage emphasized the other half of that result: Companies could keep DEI without suffering a significant financial penalty. CBS News framed the finding that way, as did a subsequent Forbes analysis. But the conclusion cuts both ways. If companies paid no price for keeping DEI, they also paid no price for dropping it.

For investors, that raises a straightforward question: Where is the financial return from DEI?

The researchers found no statistically significant revenue or stock market advantage from maintaining the programs during the period they examined. Their paper reports an estimated effect on revenue close to zero. That does not prove every DEI initiative is worthless. It does mean this study offers no measurable payoff for the policies its authors defend.

DEI advocates have spent years insisting that diversity improves the bottom line. McKinsey’s influential reports linked leadership diversity with financial outperformance. But a 2024 reanalysis of its findings failed to reproduce statistically significant relationships using U.S. public-company data. A 2025 review found the broader empirical case considerably less certain than the confident corporate sales pitches suggest.

Companies that believe particular DEI practices improve performance should identify those practices and produce evidence that their gains are real and repeatable. The obligation to prove the promised return belongs to the people making the promise.

Even a demonstrated financial benefit would not settle whether a practice is ethical or lawful. The moral defense of DEI deserves scrutiny too. A corporate policy that uses race or sex to distribute opportunity may generate its own grievances, regardless of the language used to promote it.

Employment discrimination complaints have hardly disappeared. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 88,201 new charges in fiscal year 2025, roughly level with the previous year and substantially above 2021. Those figures alone cannot tell us how many complaints involved DEI. They do underscore why employers should examine the legal consequences of their hiring and promotion rules.

The Berkeley paper also reveals an unmistakable political perspective. It refers to the Trump administration as a “regime,” discusses what its authors regard as “democratic erosion,” and describes the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and George Floyd collectively as “murders.” It suggests that organized corporate resistance can hinder the consolidation of executive power.

RELATED: Nikole Hannah-Jones learned the hard way what ruins schools

Paras Griffin/Getty Images

Those judgments do not, by themselves, invalidate the statistical analysis. They do help explain the argument the authors want their findings to support: Corporations should feel free to maintain DEI as an expression of political and moral commitment, even without a measurable financial gain.

But companies face risks beyond the market response measured in the study. Public controversy can damage a brand, and legal enforcement can carry a steep price.

Consider Cracker Barrel’s 2025 rebranding backlash. Critics connected its logo redesign to broader complaints about the company’s “woke” direction. By mid-September, its shares had fallen nearly 16% since the August announcement, customer traffic had weakened, and the company had reversed course. A logo controversy is not a controlled test of DEI policy. It is a reminder that political and cultural backlash can have financial consequences.

The federal government has supplied a more direct warning. In April, IBM agreed to pay more than $17 million to resolve Justice Department allegations involving discriminatory employment practices and federal contracting. Deloitte settled for $21.5 million in August, and Accenture agreed to pay $25 million in September to resolve similar allegations. The settlements resolved government claims without findings of liability, but the costs were real.

The Justice Department also issued guidance outlining its view of unlawful discriminatory practices tied to federal funding. Whether a company favors DEI or rejects it, executives cannot assume that a politically popular label will protect conduct that violates anti-discrimination law.

The Berkeley study shows that companies maintaining DEI suffered no detectable financial penalty in the period examined. It also fails to establish a financial reward. Advocates who want shareholders, employees, and customers to support these programs still owe them a case grounded in performance, ethics, and law. That case cannot rest on assurances that DEI is harmless.

‘I Don’t Think Morality Is Objective’: Meet the AI Ethicists Shaping Claude’s Conscience

In January 2026, Anthropic announced a new approach to AI safety. Rather than hard-coding a list of rules and decision procedures, the company would train its model, Claude, on an 84-page "constitution" meant to instill "good judgment" and "ethical character."

The post ‘I Don’t Think Morality Is Objective’: Meet the AI Ethicists Shaping Claude’s Conscience appeared first on .

Is In Vitro Fertilization Ever Justified For Christians, Even With Careful ‘Safeguards?’

Are humans meant to be begotten, not made?

Meet The Fertility Org Funding Dystopian Embryo Experiments Across America

ASRM has a quiet but heavy influence and financial hand on assisted reproductive technology protocols in the United States.

Meet The Fertility Org Funding Dystopian Embryo Experiments Across America

ASRM has a quiet but heavy influence and financial hand on assisted reproductive technology (ART) protocols in the United States.

Surrogate Mom Fights For Custody Of Babies She Raised After Purchaser Abandoned Them

The commercial surrogacy industry asks us to believe that contracts can redefine motherhood, assign parenthood, and eliminate the bonds formed during pregnancy and infancy. Kyla's experience demonstrates the opposite.

'Anti-Corruption' Senate Candidate Chris Pappas, Whose Ex-Lobbyist Husband Works for Uber, Sits on House Transportation Committee That Uber Heavily Lobbies

Rep. Chris Pappas (D.), running for Senate in New Hampshire on an "anti-corruption" agenda against "corporate special interests" in Washington, serves on a House committee that oversees Uber, where his husband, a former lobbyist, serves in an executive policy role.

The post 'Anti-Corruption' Senate Candidate Chris Pappas, Whose Ex-Lobbyist Husband Works for Uber, Sits on House Transportation Committee That Uber Heavily Lobbies appeared first on .

IVF Couple ‘Devastated’ By Sperm Mix-Up After Depriving Child Of Biological And Birth Mothers

The flippancy IVF demonstrates toward a mother's DNA by encouraging the use of surrogates and donor eggs turns women into 'interchangable body bags.'

Like Abortion, IVF Kills Babies For Having ‘Less Desirable’ Traits

Many pro-lifers support IVF, a procedure that discards embryos that don’t look like they’re developing properly based on visual inspection.