Owen Anderson Discusses His ASU Training Lawsuit

Host Shabbos Kestenbaum asks Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson why he sued the university. Anderson traces the dispute to 2023, when he defended an appearance by Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk and Robert Kiyosaki after honors faculty objected. He says the event took place at ASU but not at the honors college.

Anderson describes the change of venue as censorship. He then turns to mandatory diversity, equity and inclusion training for employees, saying that material about Christianity, race and gender offended him and went beyond what he considered ordinary workplace guidance.

Anderson says the Goldwater Institute contacted him and offered to challenge the training under Arizona law. He argues that state agencies cannot require instruction assigning racial blame. His case is before the Arizona Supreme Court; the video's description says ASU disputes that the training was discriminatory and that the merits have not been finally resolved.

Asked for examples, Anderson characterizes the material as presenting a decolonization perspective and criticizing Christian missions and the Bible. He says it was presented as a single accepted account rather than one view among several. These are his descriptions of the training, not findings established in the interview.

Anderson says a quiz was dropped after he objected and argues that requiring employees to give the expected answers would compel speech. Kestenbaum asks how training described as inclusive could be discriminatory; Anderson responds that he supports inclusion in principle but objects to what he sees as mandatory ideological agreement.

Anderson says part of the training dealt with LGBTQ topics in a way he believed required employees to accept a particular viewpoint rather than simply work respectfully with people holding different views. He argues that public employees should be free to disagree with that material.

He also raises a separate dispute over his 2025 annual review. Anderson says a dean criticized his courses as biased toward Christianity and that he appealed. The courses he identifies concern world religions and philosophical issues around death and dying.

Anderson says five questions were cited as evidence, including one asking whether death should prompt reflection on life's meaning. He considers the evidence inadequate and says the provost upheld the assessment. The interview does not present the university's review documents or its account of the dispute.

Anderson links the matter to his earlier defense of Prager and says an ASU vice provost who appeared at an Arizona Senate discussion signed a letter about his teaching. Kestenbaum then asks how Anderson understands the training's discussion of whiteness and privilege.

Anderson says he accepts that racial discrimination has occurred but objects to what he describes as assigning blame to people because they are white. His account is a criticism of the training and of interpretations he attributes to its proponents; the interview does not establish that his characterization represents all discussions of privilege.

Kestenbaum asks whether universities are teaching students what to think instead of how to think. Anderson, a philosophy professor, argues for examining arguments critically and says he believes some teaching imposes an ideological framework. His broad characterization of critical theory is his own view.

Asked whether a public university may require training professors disagree with, Anderson distinguishes practical instruction such as fire procedures and computer security from training he considers ideological. He presents the ability to disagree as a question of academic freedom.

The speakers discuss the university's legal response. Kestenbaum says ASU argued that Anderson was not punished for refusing the training and therefore had no claim. Anderson responds that being required to sit through what he alleges was discriminatory training was itself the injury.

Anderson recounts what he describes as changes in ASU's public response to his complaints and says he supplied screenshots. He says the current dispute before the Arizona Supreme Court concerns whether he can bring a claim under the statute. The university's position is not represented directly by a guest in this interview.

He invokes the principle that a legal right should have a remedy and recalls questions he says justices asked during argument. Anderson says no decision had been issued at the time of the interview and that he did not know how long the court would take.

Asked about colleagues, Anderson says some conservatives at ASU have told him they tolerate practices they dislike in order to remain in academia. He cites a survey about faculty views but does not provide its methodology in the interview, so the figure is not independently established here.

Kestenbaum asks what the case could mean beyond the university. Anderson says the issue concerns whether the statute allows an individual to sue when it does not expressly list who may do so. He says his lawyers and ASU disagree about the application of Arizona precedent.

Anderson predicts the ruling could affect future disputes regardless of political viewpoint. He argues that protections should apply even when the people holding institutional power change. His prediction about the case's reach is an opinion, not a court ruling.

The conversation turns to the risks of speaking out. Anderson alleges that students may feel pressure to echo professors and that faculty can face isolation. He worries that, despite tenure, repeated findings of insubordination could threaten his position if disagreements over his teaching continue.

Asked what he would change about universities, Anderson calls for more logic and critical thinking and argues against an ideological approach he believes dominates the humanities. Kestenbaum agrees and says the program will follow the case. The conversation ends without reporting a court decision.