Owen Anderson, a professor of philosophy and religion at Arizona State University and author of The Declaration of Independence and God, will argue before the Arizona Supreme Court this week that state law designed to protect employees from discriminatory training must be enforceable. The case centers on whether Arizona’s statute prohibiting government agencies from mandating employee participation in training that imposes racial, ethnic, or sex-based blame can actually be upheld by those it was intended to shield.
The legal dispute began when Anderson alleged that ASU violated the law by requiring employees to complete mandatory “Inclusive Communities” training. The course included instruction on academic concepts such as “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and “transformative justice.” It featured quizzes asserting that land acknowledgments are accountability tools and that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) must permeate all university operations. Training materials also addressed “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and claimed American institutions normalize racial oppression, including a segment describing a Starbucks employee’s “existential crisis” over pronunciation of her name.
Arizona law explicitly states state agencies “may not require an employee” to participate in training that presents “any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.” It also prohibits using public funds for such programs. Anderson contends ASU’s policy directly contravenes this statute. While a trial court allowed his lawsuit, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled he lacked standing to bring it, citing that the law does not expressly create a private right of action for employees to sue their employers.
The Arizona Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case, framing the central question as whether state precedent implies an “implied private right of action” when a statute protects individuals from government overreach but lacks explicit language authorizing lawsuits. Anderson’s attorneys argue that because the law is designed to shield employees from prohibited training, it must be actionable in court—otherwise, the law becomes meaningless.
The case extends beyond ASU or DEI initiatives. It addresses whether citizens can hold government accountable when laws intended to constrain officials are rendered unenforceable. If a state agency violates Arizona’s protections but cannot be challenged legally, Anderson warns that “a government constrained by law is safer than a government permitted to decide for itself whether the laws restraining it will actually be enforced.”
The outcome will determine whether employees can answer the question Arizona has already told its agencies: “You may not.” Now, the court must decide if those protected by the law are allowed to say, “Then prove it in court.”
