Timothy Minella, a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute’s Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy, expressed concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideology during an appearance on the Grand Canyon Times Podcast. He said that DEI ideology “abandons equal treatment in favor of race-based institutional engineering.”
“You start to see that it’s anything but inclusive and equitable,” said Minella. “You will see DEI proponents openly say that equality is not enough. Treating people equally simply reinforces the dominant structures that have been oppressing people.”
Debates over DEI have intensified across higher education, with state lawmakers and policy groups reexamining whether DEI offices promote equal treatment or entrench ideological divisions. According to national reports, legislators in numerous states have introduced bills to curb mandatory diversity trainings, DEI statements in hiring, and race-conscious programming on public campuses. These efforts often draw on model legislation developed by the Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute.
Since 2023, state-level efforts to regulate college DEI programs have accelerated. A policy brief from the Missouri-based MOST Policy Initiative notes that 18 states have passed laws restricting DEI initiatives in public higher education. These measures include targeting compulsory diversity training, DEI administrative offices, and the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotion. Supporters argue these reforms are necessary to protect institutional neutrality and reaffirm equal treatment principles.
Additional data show how widespread the legislative backlash to DEI has become. The Movement Advancement Project reports that since 2023, at least 157 bills aimed at limiting or dismantling DEI in education have been introduced across 34 states. At least 15 states have already enacted bans or significant restrictions into law.
Minella serves as a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute’s Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy. He advances policy and public programming promoting American constitutional principles in education and civic life. Before joining Goldwater, he taught at various universities including the University of Kentucky’s Lewis Honors College. Minella earned his Ph.D. in history from the University of South Carolina.
___________
FULL, UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT
Leyla Gulen: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Grand Canyon Times podcast. I’m your host, Layla Golan. In this episode, we welcome our guest Timothy Manila. Timothy is a senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute’s Van Sitter Center for constitutional advocacy. He advances policies and develops programming that promote constitutional principles in education and public life.
Timothy has served as. Faculty of the Lewis Honors College at the University of Kentucky and is also taught at Emory and Villanova universities. Timothy welcome.
Timothy Minella: Thank you Layla. Great to be here.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. So we wanna unpack a little bit more about DEI, uh, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Um, you say that DEI policies are antithetical to the American ideal of equal opportunity.
Um, wanted to know if you could elaborate on just how DEI contradicts this founding principle. [00:01:00]
Timothy Minella: Certainly so. DEI that I think what people have to understand is that when, when we, when people use those words, diversity, equity, inclusion, they, they sound like things that we should all want and that we should all be striving for.
But when you start to dig into what is actually happening under the banner of DEI, you start to see that it’s anything but. Inclusive, um, and equitable. And the reason I say that is what, what you start to see is the people who are running workshops dedicated to DEI, the people who are staffing offices dedicated to DEI, you start to see it, they’re operating under an ideology.
And that ideology says that our society is made up of. The oppressors and the oppressed [00:02:00] and only a fundamental transformation in the structure of our society will, will work to rectify this fundamental injustice that we have. People who are, or structures that are oppressing people of certain backgrounds, um, and identities and.
W and often the solution they propose is quite radical. We need to of you will see DEI proponents openly say that EQ equality is not enough. Treating people equally. Is actually playing into this unjust system because treating people equally simply reinforces the dominant structures that have been oppressing people.
So you see that if we, if you adopt that point of view, you quickly see that things like the constitutions guarantee of equal [00:03:00] protection under the law equality. Equality for all citizens. That becomes under this DEI framework, A means of continuing to oppress people of certain identities. Um, I believe this is fundamentally wrongheaded that the best way forward for us as a country is to promote and, and relentlessly pursue equality under the law.
To say that everyone deserves no matter what their background. We are all Americans and we deserve to be treated equally by our institutions. Um, and that includes. Government obviously, and also public universities that are extensions of state government in most cases. So I think I’d start there that, um, that that’s to me the big problem with DEI [00:04:00] is that it is a rejection of the American principle of equality.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah, some proponents of DEI say that equity is simply fairness in practice. So how would you respond to that characterization?
Timothy Minella: Yeah, it, it, I think it’s, it’s very evidently not simply fairness in, in practice. Um, what, what we see for instance is, um, is that. There, there are a number of programs put in place that say, you know, we need, we need our institutions to perfectly reflect the demographic makeup of the broader society.
And once you, you start with that as a goal, you very quickly. Become a bean counter of saying, okay, we need such and we need, we need a certain percentage of people from this group. We need a certain percentage of people from this group. And very [00:05:00] quickly this turns into racial discrimination or other forms of racial discrimination in order to achieve some sort of balance that the, the DEI administrators believe is, is equitable.
Um. What, what I, what Goldwater and what I believe is, is that we need to focus again, relentlessly on ensuring that everyone is treated equally, that no one receives disfavor treatment based on who they are. Um, and that’s what we should be focusing on. Um, this idea of of, of trying to. Make our institutions, um, reflect a certain demographic makeup is, is now what we should be pursuing.
Mm-hmm.
Leyla Gulen: How do DEI programs in public institutions differ from the civil rights efforts of the past? [00:06:00]
Timothy Minella: Um, well, I, I, I think in many ways they, they grew out of, um, um, in, well, what, what I should say is. What’s, what’s very different from the civil rights, um, frameworks that have been adopted in the past is that, is this emphasis on, as I said before this, the fact that there are these structures in place that might look, this is the DEI proponents their view that.
There are structures in place that on their surface look like they’re promoting equality, like the 14th Amendment says you should that, that you must ensure equal protection under the law. And what the DEI advocates say is that looks on its face like it’s fair and equal, but that surface [00:07:00] level fairness.
Is actually serving to keep the dominant group in power. Um, and so this is basically in their view, a ruse to keep, um, to keep a dominant group lording over the rest of society. This is false, and I, I think what’s, what’s kind of tragic is. The DEI, proponents, proponents do adopt the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement, but the Civil Rights Movement relentlessly fought to remove unequal treatment from our institutions.
They’ve, they, the Civil Rights movement was very clear that they were trying to fulfill the promises of the Constitution and the Dec Declaration of Independence. The, with the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming boldly that all men are created equal, they were trying to fulfill that. They talked about a promissory note that had not been [00:08:00] filled, um, at the time of, of the civil Rights movement.
And so that to me is a big difference that it, it seems in in, in current, in. In the present times with, in what, what DEI advocates are saying is, is that that pursuit of equality. They seem to be saying that’s, that hasn’t worked. We need something more radical. We need to reject equality and, and pursue this, this equity, this sort of, um, distribution of goods based on demographics, um, which I reject and I think most Americans reject.
Leyla Gulen: Mm-hmm. What are some of the most damaging effects that you’ve seen from DEI initiatives in, say, public universities or government?
Timothy Minella: Yeah, so let me talk about public universities. Um, so what, what I wanna emphasize is there are a number of, as we’ve talked [00:09:00] about, DEI programs that are blatantly discriminatory based on race or other factors.
But what I think is perhaps just as important for the audience to know is that. The public universities, along with many other private universities have kind of adopted DEI as a North Star. And what they’ve done is they’ve embedded DEI principles into the curriculum. A group called Speech First has released a report last, they released a report last year that showed that 60%.
Major universities in this country require students as part of their graduation requirements to take DEI courses. So they’re instructing them on, on this worldview that says that [00:10:00] our co, our, our society is fundamentally rigged against people of disfavored groups and they’re instructing them on ways that we can.
Purportedly remedy this by adopting radical policies. And this worldview is embedded throughout the curriculum. Um, but even more so, it’s many universities are requiring students to take courses that teach these principles. And what I would argue is that. That is particularly damaging, especially in a situation where in many of these same universities, students are not getting basic instruction in American principles, in principles of the Constitution in free speech and, and the 14th Amendment as we’ve discussed.
They’re not getting that, I believe the figure [00:11:00] from the American. Council of trustees and alumni is only 20% of universities they surveyed require some sort of civics or American government as part of their general education requirements. And so you compare that, that 60% require DEI, only 20% require basic instruction, American civics.
And so that, that’s what I think is, is. The reason why that’s so damaging is because it sends a clear message about, uh, to our young people and to people going through. College programs that this is, this is sort of a, the natural right way to think that this is, you have to adopt a DEI perspective in order to be an educated person.
Um, and while students should be free to take those courses that they should choose, they should not be forced to be indoctrinated by having those courses be a requirement in the core curriculum. [00:12:00] And that is something that Goldwater and I are, are working on. Right now we have a reform called the Freedom from Indoctrination Act that ends these mandatory DEI requirements and also institutes basic instruction in American Civics.
Um, that doesn’t come from an ideological perspective, just says that we need to teach students these basic principles of the constitution of our governing institutions. Um. And so that’s what I think is, is quite damaging from the university perspective is how embedded it is. In all aspects of the institution, including the curriculum.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. And it’s not just students, it’s also professors as well. And Goldwater helped to pass, uh, landmark legislation. So I wanna talk about that in a moment. But your legal team represents individuals who’ve been victims of discriminatory DEI policies, one in particular, professor Owen [00:13:00] Anderson of Arizona State University.
Can you share more on this particular case?
Timothy Minella: Yeah, so I’m glad you brought that up. ’cause this is another, I think, example of how embedded DEI is in these public universities. Um, Dr. Anderson, like, like many other faculty, was forced to take DEI trainings, and as part of that training was required to answer a quiz.
With right answers about purportedly right answers about D, the DEI topics that were being discussed there. So, Dr. Anderson objected to the idea that, um, that whiteness was a problem, that one of the teachings in this, in these trainings was saying that one of the problems here is, is a privileging of so-called whiteness and [00:14:00] Dr.
Anderson. Who, who is a devout Christian, um, objected to this idea that, that, um, that dividing people based on race like that is the way forward to promote, um, justice and to promote peace among people in our society. And, and so he, along with Goldwater, represented him in suing Arizona State to. Um, uh, as is showing that this was a violation of both the Arizona Constitution, um, and Arizona state law that prohibits these kinds of trainings that compels people to adopt these certain political or social positions.
Um, and that, that, um, uh, that litigation is ongoing. But I think it’s a, it’s a really important example of how. Um, [00:15:00] DEI compels belief compels you to ascent to certain propositions. Um, and if you don’t, you receive certain sanctions. Um, and that is extremely disturbing, especially in a public institution of higher education where people should be free to pursue the truth, um, and should not be sanctioned for.
Um, questioning received wisdom. Um, so, so I think Anderson’s, Dr. Anderson’s case, a really important case that shows the reach of DEI
Leyla Gulen: to have to undergo a test like that sounds rather unconstitutional. Uh. Uh, is it, I mean it, what, what would be the basis for an argument that these types of quote unquote tests or quizzes should not be imposed upon anyone?
Timothy Minella: Well, I mean, we, we certainly agree [00:16:00] with that, that it’s, it’s unconstitutional. Um, you know, I, I think I, again, I, I would just say that it is particularly contrary in my opinion. To what a public university should be pursuing and, and their, their mission, um, to, to have, and, and again, I come back to the fact that this is, this is about imposing a certain ideology.
It’s not just the awful discrim discrimination based on race or other identity categories. It’s imposing an ideology on everyone in the in the institution. And if you’re a private university that wants to say that DEI is our guiding ethos and we, we demand that everyone subscribe to the tenants of DEI, you’re free to do that.
But you are, that is unacceptable in a public institution [00:17:00] that is supposed to be open and supposed to serve the entire state. And that’s what I think Dr. Anderson’s case reveals and we’re, we’re hopeful that it will come to a. A successful conclusion. Okay.
Leyla Gulen: Uh, Goldwater helped to pass landmark legislation removing mandatory DEI from the curriculum in Idaho public universities.
Can you expand on this?
Timothy Minella: Yeah. So we were very pleased that in, in Idaho, the legislature there took up our reform, um, the Freedom from Indoctrination Act, and they were actually the first state legislature to. Pass our reform that, that says you can’t require DEI in graduation requirements at any level of the university.
Um, and so, um, that was the first, as I said, the first legislature to [00:18:00] pass our reform. But I will say that there have been other states that have done similar things, not. At the legislature level, for example, in North Carolina, their board of governors for their entire state university system, um, they voluntarily said that, um, you know, we are no long, we, we are, we are directing every university in our system that they cannot require DEI courses as a condition of graduation.
And so I think, um, I think Americans are. Realizing, um, the extent of the indoctrination that’s happening in our universities, in our public universities, and it’s, it’s heartening that to see people take steps to restore universities to their core purposes of education, and especially education of citizens, to prepare them for the important responsibilities of citizenship.[00:19:00]
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. Well, and you mentioned that D-I-D-E-I advocates are rebranding this ideology. So what forms are these rebranding tactics taking and how can people identify it so that they know what they’re hearing, what they’re seeing?
Timothy Minella: Yeah, so one of the frustrating aspects here is that we’ve seen. Um, hidden Camera investigations and other organizations who have done reporting on this where they’ve had staffers, for instance, in, in public university, say, well, we’ve been directed that we can no longer do DEI trainings, DEI programs.
But what we’re doing is we’re basically simply renaming what we’re doing. Instead of calling it DEI, we’re [00:20:00] calling it civic engagement. We’re calling it, um, uh, um, belonging for instance. And what, what I would say is Goldwater, in addition to the Freedom from Indoctrination Act that I’ve talked about has, is, has also prior to that successfully passed.
Um. A, a, a piece of reform called the free, the, um, abolished, DEI bureaucracies policy, where if you look at that piece of, of policy, DEI is defined very specifically in terms of what counts as DEI. So for example, you can’t dis, you can’t give people. Benefits or give or downgrade people from benefits or, or deny people benefits on the basis of race.
Mm-hmm. Um, you can’t [00:21:00] develop programming or, um, on, on, on the basis of race with reference to race. Um, there are very specific things that we’ve. Defined as DEI in that policy that no matter what you label it, if you wanna call it civic engagement, if you wanna call it belonging, it doesn’t matter if you are doing these specific actions that is prohibited under our, our legislation.
That, and that legislation has been passed in, in many states, including Texas, um, in including many other states. Um, so I, I would, I would point to that, that. And, and for people to be aware of that, that, um, that no matter what you call it, you can’t discriminate based on certain identity, identity categories.
It’s, it’s against the law, it’s against the constitution, and it doesn’t matter what you label it as. Um, [00:22:00] it, it is still. In many cases in states that have passed these DEI prohibitions, it’s against the law. Um, so people need to be, have their eyes open to that. And, and I would just add in one more thing that, that state governments need to have their eyes open to this.
In many states, the, the person that’s responsible for enforcing these prohibitions is the attorney general. Attorney Generals need to be very aware of this, and they need to be, have their eyes open and, and take serious action when a violation has occurred.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. That was, in fact going to be my next question.
How can policy makers ensure fairness and opportunity for all citizens without falling into that ideological trap?
Timothy Minella: Yeah. Um, I, you know. The, one of the promises of America is that it doesn’t matter where you’ve come from. Um, it doesn’t matter what your family’s [00:23:00] background is. Um, you can make something of yourself in this country, and that is, that is enshrined to me in the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law.
And, and so anything that goes against. Those principles we as Americans should oppose, um, and we should take strong action to, to prevent. Um, this, this goes beyond just what is taught in schools, um, or what is, um, what the ideological or, or, um, fight of the day is. Um, this is about, fundamentally about who we are as Americans and.
I, I think it’s fundamentally against the American idea to, um, to distribute benefits, um, or to withhold benefits based on someone’s identity. And, and [00:24:00] so that’s what we need to be aware of. Um, and those states that have not. Taken action to eliminate DEI. Um, they need to do so, and for, and like I said, they need to also, like Idaho has done, look into their curriculums of their public universities.
Um, if, let me just say one more thing about it. A lot of much has been made of the Trump administration’s executive orders targeting DEI discriminatory, DEI in certain ways. And while many of those actions are welcome, those. Executive orders explicitly said we as the federal government are not going after the curriculum.
We’re not overseeing the curriculum of of universities, and that is, that is entirely appropriate. It also shows the need for state governments. To look into their own houses, to look into their curriculums of their own public uni universities, and to say [00:25:00] that DEI does not serve the educational goals that we have for this institution, and that while.
Students may be free to take DEI courses if they want. We shouldn’t be requiring someone major in accounting and do this. We shouldn’t be requiring someone majoring in, in biology to do this. Um, and I think that’s an important next step in this, in this, um, in the, in policy making in DEI. Yeah.
Leyla Gulen: What think DEI has been so.
I don’t know if the word is successful, but it’s embedded itself in American institutions despite public skepticism. I mean, there’s a lot of voices out there that denounce it, but why do you think it has seen a level of success?
Timothy Minella: Um, y yeah. I, I think I’d, I, I’d point to, you know, the first thing is that who wants to really come out and say.
That I’m against diversity. I’m against [00:26:00] e equity, I’m against inclusion. Um, those I think Americans of Goodwill. Um, what, see those words and think, of course, we want these things. We want people to have a fair shot. We want, we want people to feel included. Obviously you don’t want feel pe people to feel not included, right?
But then, but then when you look into what’s actually happening. Um, you know, let me just mention one thing that the University of Michigan spent more on DEI than perhaps any other institution in the country. Wow. And their own surveys that tried to track how DEI was working on that campus showed that following the, um, the, this, the implementation of this multimillion dollar program.
That students felt less included on campus. They interacted less with [00:27:00] students of different religions and different backgrounds. This is based on their own surveys that they conducted, and so you see that one of the labels here is inclusion. The, the result is people feel less included. Um, it, it doesn’t, it doesn’t work.
Um, and so that’s one aspect of it that I think just the labeling of it made people, um, perhaps hesitant to question it. Um, um, and, and, and did people felt like there didn’t need to be such strong, um, actions taken to prevent it. Yeah, that’s one thing. Um, but, but I think another thing is that, is that there are, there’s a whole, um, these, these factors are related obviously, but there, there has been a whole bureaucracy built up on campus and beyond campus dedicated to implementing DEI practices and DEI [00:28:00] ideology.
And I think that. That bureaucracy was built up, um, sort of slowly, but then quickly in response to certain events over the past few years. And once you have this bureaucracy built up, it’s going to take some time to dismantle it. Um, and, and so I, I think that, um, Goldwater has recently released a podcast series and one of.
On dismantling, DEI and one of the guests on that series is a, is a scholar named Wilford Riley. And he talks about this very compellingly that once you have a bureaucracy in place dedicated to pursuing a certain thing, it, it’s gonna take work to, to take that down. Um, because now people’s jobs are, are dependent on it.
Um, and so I think that that is a challenge going forward and I think that’s. Part of the answer to [00:29:00] your question of why it, it was so successful in embedding itself is because it, it, it not only was an academic theory, there was a whole, um, there were structures built up, uh, to implement it and, and people’s jobs were to implement it.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. And you bring up two points. So the first one, since you just brought it up, uh, you know, if DEI is dismantled, what do you think should take its place, if anything? Um, in promoting opportunity or just preventing discrimination?
Timothy Minella: Yeah. Um, so Goldwater is currently, for example, working on a constitutional amendment in Arizona.
And, and where, um, at, at the constitutional level. DEI would be, um, prohibited. Um, and, and it’s a very strong piece of, of, um, of law that we’re supporting, um, that that should be taken up in the next legislative session here. Mm-hmm. Um, [00:30:00] and, and one of the motivations behind that piece of legislation is that there was, there was previous, the Arizona Constitution currently has this kind of loophole.
Where it says, you know, it, it, it appears to have very strong prohibitions against discrimination based on race. Except there’s this, there’s this exception for if federal programs require certain. Things. Um, and, and certain affirmative actions that need to be taken in terms of, um, in term to get money for federal programs.
That’s a way around the sort of very, the very clear prohibition on ra on considering race, um, in state government. And so our proposed constitutional amendment does away with that loophole. Um, at the sa at the same time. What, the reason I bring this [00:31:00] up is there are, that doesn’t, that piece of, of legislation, if it, if it were passed and, and adopted by the voters, um, that would not prohibit certain things like recruiting.
People to apply to your school that if you want to go and recruit people from certain areas, um, of certain backgrounds, you are free to do so. What you can’t do is then, is then discriminate. When you have a pool of applicants, once you have a pool of applicants, um, you can’t make decisions based on someone’s identity, race, and other factors.
Um, but if, but if you wanna reach out to various groups, um, and, and encourage them to apply that is. That is something you can certainly do. And, and I think that [00:32:00] goes to what you, you’re asking about what, what, if anything, should replace DEII think big picture, what should replace it is a, a renewed commitment to equal protection, uh, to treating all Americans equally regardless of their identity and background, but also.
But, but also there’s, there would be nothing objectionable to, um, uh, to, um, strong recruiting efforts for things like people applying to public universities, recruiting efforts to people who may wanna apply to positions in state government. There’s nothing wrong with that. Um, so I, I, I, I would point to that, that I, I don’t believe that, um, that.
Elimination of discriminatory DEI is going to somehow result in a less inclusive, um, [00:33:00] society. I actually believe the opposite, that once we dispense with discrimination, um, we’re, we’re gonna see people flourishing, um, in our society. Um. And that’s what I’d point to.
Leyla Gulen: Yeah. And this segues into the other question that I wanted to ask you is how can critics of DEI communicate their message effectively without being dismissed as intolerant or reactionary?
Um, but like you say, to promote the idea of. Doing away with this, this notion of DEI while watching society flourish?
Timothy Minella: Yeah, I, I think it’s a great question. Um, so I, I would say that there’s, um, um, I, I, I think one of the, one of the strongest things that, that opponents [00:34:00] of DEI can do is to stand on.
Constitution. Um, and to, and to stand on the idea that it should not matter where people come from in this country. Uh, people should be judged on their merit and their character. Um, and that helps everyone. That helps people from privileged backgrounds, it helps people from unprivileged backgrounds. Um, if we focus on that, um, that is what is gonna.
Help lift up everyone in our society. I think at, at the same time, um, I, I, I would say that it, I don’t think it does anyone good to sort of treat the, the, um, the necessary steps against DEI as somehow, um, this is not about scapegoating. Certain groups, um, you, you know, I’m, I’m sure you’ve heard some of the [00:35:00] things that, that have been said recently about you, you know, are, are we gonna, are we gonna have, uh, competent doctors or competent pilots?
And I don’t think that is something worth focusing on. Um, I think what we wanna focus on is, is the fact that. Eliminating DEI is gonna expand opportunity to everybody in our society that when, when, when the focus is on someone’s merit and qualifications and their potential, that takes the focus off identity categories and distributing.
Benefits or, um, or, or downgrading someone based on his or her identity, um, that, that, that is what leads is gonna lead to, um, a stronger country, in my mind.
Leyla Gulen: Well, I think that’s a great note to end [00:36:00] this interview on. I, I so appreciate. You know, you unpacking all of this and, and really drawing, you know, a very clear outline as to the work that you’re doing at Goldwater and, and the dismantling of this DEI propaganda, you know, if you will.
Now, for people who are listening to this. Just ordinary citizens, how do they get involved and how do they find out more information and track what you’re doing there at Goldwater and beyond? Yeah,
Timothy Minella: so I, I would point to goldwater institute.org, which is our website. Um, along with that, I would encourage your listeners.
That to check out the dismantling DEI podcast that Goldwater has produced. Um, I, I think it’s, it’s, it’s really five or six really excellent long interviews of important people, um, that reveal different aspects of. Of how DEI, [00:37:00] um, is against the American idea. Um, and I would really encourage you to check that out.
Um, you can find me on on X at Tim Manila. At Tim Manila. Um. And I really appreciate you having me on, Layla.
Leyla Gulen: Well, thank you again, Timothy Manila for joining us and uh, we will definitely keep our eye on the work that you’re doing there at Goldwater. Thank you so much.
Timothy Minella: Thank
Leyla Gulen: you.
