Civic Decline

The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) sets general education requirements for Arizona’s three public universities: Arizona State University (ASU), Northern Arizona University (NAU), and the University of Arizona (UA). According to ABOR policy, the general education requirements of public universities receiving state funding must cover eight knowledge areas. Each of these universities is responsible for developing a general education program that meets ABOR standards.

One of the knowledge areas required by ABOR is the study of American Institutions (AMIT). This knowledge area aligns with ABOR’s goal for general education programs to prepare students to “participate fully as informed citizens in a robust constitutional democracy based in values of individual freedom, self-reliance, and equality under the law.” ABOR lists specific content that AMIT courses must cover:

The study of American Institutions will include at minimum (I) how the history of the United States continues to shape the present; (II) the basic principles of American constitutional democracy and how they are applied under a republican form of government; (III) the United States Constitution and major American constitutional debates and developments; (IV) the essential founding documents and how they have shaped the nature and functions of American Institutions of self-governance; (V) landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped law and society; (VI) the civic actions necessary for effective citizenship and civic participation in a self-governing society – for example civil dialog and civil disagreement; and (VII) basic economic knowledge to critically assess public policy options and to inform professional and personal decisions.

The AMIT requirement thus directs universities to educate students on essential concepts—including constitutional democracy, important Supreme Court cases, and basic principles of economics—that prepare them for thoughtful citizenship in the American republic. [i]

Although ABOR lays out specific content for the AMIT requirement, the universities themselves are charged with implementing AMIT requirements in their general education programs. Unfortunately, all three Arizona public universities, whether through unwillingness or incompetence, have failed to ensure the expected AMIT content is actually delivered to students as part of their general education. This report documents how each university has “implemented” AMIT requirements, clearly demonstrating that all three institutions have failed to comply with ABOR’s directive.

Arizona State University

The ASU general education program requires students to take one course (three credit hours) with the AMIT designation.[ii] Each course with AMIT designation, therefore, should fulfill all of ABOR’s AMIT requirements. A review of ASU’s Spring 2026 offerings intended to fulfill the AMIT requirement reveals many courses that simply cannot cover the AMIT material mandated by ABOR. Among the available courses are:

• Anthropology 294: Anthropology of American Democracy
• Cultural Geography 113: United States and Arizona Social Studies
• Health Care Delivery 294: American Health Institutions
• Justice Studies 445: Surveillance and Society
• Military and Veterans Studies 100: Introduction to Military Studies
• Public Affairs 112: Public Service and American Democracy
• Public Affairs 411: Law in Action
• Philosophy 307: Philosophy of Law
• Political Science 230: Current Issues in National Politics
• Political Science 313: The Congress
• Religious Studies 294 /Political Science 294: Religious Freedom
• Social Work 182: Social Services Perspective of Government
• Social Work 394: Social Welfare, Work, and Justice in the US
• Theatre Performance and Production 394: Theatre and U.S. Democracy

The first course on this list, “Anthropology of American Democracy,” fails to meet AMIT requirements and instead centers on the claim that American society oppresses certain groups. The syllabus states that the course “emphasizes the relationship between personal narratives and broader historical forces, highlighting how belonging, rights, and obligations are experienced differently across diverse social, racial, and cultural contexts.” “Course learning outcomes” include the expectation that students will “critically reflect on positionality—recognizing how their identities, assumptions, and cultural background influence their understanding of U.S. democracy and its .” In the list of required readings for the course, there are only two that could plausibly be considered “founding documents”: the U.S. (which appears in only one section of the course) and the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention. Almost every other reading comes from specialized anthropological studies, including “‘I’m American, not Japanese!: The Struggle for Racial Citizenship among Later-Generation Japanese Americans” and “Replicate, Facilitate, Disseminate: The Micropolitics of U.S. Democracy Promotion in Bolivia.” Revealing the course’s leftist orientation, one module covers “anthropology’s role in American Empire Building,” requiring students to Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World.

Although some of ASU’s courses intended to teach about American Institutions might very well provide valuable learning experiences, it is impossible to suggest that these courses meet ABOR’s AMIT requirements. A “Theatre and U.S. Democracy” course, for example, delve into “major American constitutional debates and developments.” Even courses that probably cover some of the AMIT content—“Philosophy of Law” and “Law in Action,” for example—. While a course on “American Health Institutions” may discuss specific features of the Constitution relevant to that very particular subject, it fails to provide a broad-based understanding of how the Constitution shapes American institutions. In the course “Social Services Perspective of Government,” only four of eleven units focus on federalism, state constitutionalism, and the like.  Similarly, a class on “Congress” helps students understand the American system but focuses solely on one specific institution. on “Religious Freedom” has minimal discussion of federalism or the separation of powers. Over half of the available student seats in ASU’s courses on American Institutions for Spring 2026 are allocated to courses that are not designed to meet all of the AMIT requirements (59%). That means that more than half of ASU students will check the “AMIT” box without ever sufficiently covering the concepts required by the AMIT policy.

Further, ASU is using the AMIT requirement to smuggle “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) into its general education program. In a 2022 memorandum to ABOR, ASU stated that ABOR’s AMIT knowledge area would be covered by not one but two requirements in ASU’s general education program: AMIT (which we have discussed above) and “Governance and Civic Engagement” (known as CIVI).[iii] Like the , students must take three credit hours in CIVI. According to ASU, in CIVI courses, “students have the opportunity to explore dynamics between governance and civic engagement, which can include perceived inequality or marginalization related to a variety of factors including race, class, citizenship, gender and disability.”[iv] Although ABOR policy stipulates that general education programs should enable students “to comprehend change, cultures, and diverse experiences,” the policy does not mandate that students be schooled in “marginalization” related to “race, class, citizenship, gender and disability.”[v]

Prior to the 2024-25 academic year, ASU mandated that students take a course satisfying a “Cultural Diversity in the United States” requirement.[vi] When ASU updated its general education program in 2024, the university removed this “Cultural Diversity” requirement, but it then included “diversity” content within the new CIVI designation. In this way, ASU could claim to be removing DEI requirements from general education while hiding DEI in other categories. Thus, not only is ASU failing to cover the required AMIT topics in its AMIT courses, but the university is also appending politicized DEI content—which distorts students’ understanding of American institutions like the Constitution and federalism—onto its general education program under the guise of covering AMIT material.

Northern Arizona University

Similar to ASU, NAU offers many dubious courses, which it treats as fulfilling ABOR’s AMIT requirements. These courses include:[vii]

• Accounting 205: Introduction to Business Law
• Applied Indigenous Studies 202: Roots of Federal American Indian Policy
• Applied Indigenous Studies 232: Indigenizing Museums and the Art World
• Applied Indigenous Studies 304: Indigenous-State Relations: Comparative Global Contexts
• Applied Indigenous Studies 335: Indigenous Peoples and International Borders in North America
• Criminology & Criminal Justice 210: Courts and Justice
• Criminology & Criminal Justice 278: History of Crime, Punishment and Policing in the United States
• Criminology & Criminal Justice 340: Crimes of the Powerful
• Educational Foundations 301W: School and Society
• Ethnic Studies 307: Sociology of Chicanx and Latinx Communities
• History 303: History of American Education
• History 371: Work and Workers in America, 1600-Present
• History 372: The United States in the World
• Humanities 180: Environment, Culture, and American Institutions
• Journalism 105: Introduction to Journalism
• Management 201: American Environmental Business
• Religious Studies 285: Church and State
• Sociology 339: Crime, Law and Society
• Sustainability 330: Community Engagement in American Democracy

Once again, it is simply impossible that “Sociology of Chicanx and Latinx Communities” and “Indigenizing Museums and the Art World” cover the AMIT requirements. An “Introduction to Business Law” course, although certainly valuable for many students, surely does not address AMIT content in sufficient .

University of Arizona

Despite the fraudulent implementation of AMIT at ASU and NAU, these two universities have at least pretended to meet ABOR’s AMIT requirements in general education. The same cannot be said for UA, Arizona’s flagship public university.

As of the date of this report, UA has failed to implement anything resembling the AMIT requirement. According to UA’s course catalog, the university will finally begin requiring students to take three credit hours in “Civic Institutions” (UA’s label for AMIT) in the 2026-27 academic year.[viii]

Unfortunately, UA’s belated “compliance” with the AMIT requirement appears to be chaotic and inadequate, leaving no assurance that students will actually learn about the Constitution, basic economics, or citizenship in a republic.

Mark Stegeman, associate professor of economics at UA, called attention to the “car-crash in the making” as the university purported to implement AMIT.[ix] Stegeman, who has served on general education committees at UA for many years, reported that UA’s proposed AMIT implementation “ignores most of the Regents’ requirements.”

Stegeman also revealed that UA’s AMIT implementation was mired in bureaucratic delays and incompetence. Stegeman wrote that “thousands of students . . . will face a graduation requirement comprising courses that do not exist, for which the development and approval process has not begun, and for which UA apparently has no seat-capacity Shockingly, it appears that the faculty general education committee that will approve AMIT courses is controlled by a history professor who lives outside of Arizona and teaches almost entirely online. Stegeman expressed serious concerns that this committee has neither the expertise nor the capacity to vet course proposals for the AMIT designation.

In the weeks before the release of this report, the UA faculty general education committee finally began approving courses for the AMIT requirement. Goldwater obtained the syllabi for these approved AMIT courses.

Several of the approved syllabi indicate that faculty members are attempting to smuggle DEI material into AMIT courses. In a previous report, Goldwater revealed that UA was planning to require students to take two courses with the “Diversity and Equity” as part of the general education curriculum. The “required student learning outcome” for courses with this Attribute stated:

Students will demonstrate knowledge of how historical and contemporary populations* have experienced inequality, considering diversity, power, and equity through disciplinary perspectives to reflect upon how various communities experience privilege and/or oppression/marginalization and theorize how to create a more equitable society.

*populations including, but not limited to: people from racial/ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people, people from marginalized communities and societies, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities and/or people from colonized societies.[x]

The “Diversity and Equity” Attribute was an obvious DEI mandate that forced students to receive indoctrination in “privilege,” “oppression/marginalization,” and theories about creating “a more equitable society.” Following this report, UA quietly eliminated the “Diversity and Equity” Attribute.[xi] Documents on UA’s website, however, indicate that faculty have merely renamed the “Diversity and Equity” Attribute to the “Understand and Value Differences” Attribute while keeping many of the same DEI themes of the previous Attribute. According to a report issued by UA’s general education committee, the “Understand and Value Differences” Attribute has the following learning outcome:

Students will explore complex problems through both personal reflection and analysis of (often hierarchical) dynamics between and within groups, constructing arguments informed by different human experiences and cultural or disciplinary viewpoints, and connecting systemic issues to group- and individual-level behaviors.[xii]

Although written in more sanitized academic language than the previous “Diversity and Equity” Attribute, this learning outcome clearly indicates a focus on politicized DEI concepts. The emphasis on “hierarchical” relations between groups and the reference to “systemic issues” reflect the assumption in DEI ideology that American society is a rigged system in which the “oppressors” continually subjugate the “oppressed.” As an example of how the inoffensive goal of “understanding differences” may be politicized, consider the University of Virginia’s “Engaging Differences” course requirement. As shown in a previous Goldwater report, a course meeting this requirement was titled “Hateinanny: Fascism, Antifascism, and the Global Far Right.” It examined “ring-wing populists,” listing Donald Trump as among these.[xiii]

Notably, although a report from UA’s general education committee refers to the approval of the new “Understand and Value Differences” Attribute, a description of this Attribute does not appear in the online course catalog for the university. By keeping this DEI Attribute out of clear view, faculty appear to be attempting to maintain DEI in general education while avoiding public criticism.

In reviewing the approved syllabi for UA courses intended to satisfy the AMIT requirement, Goldwater found that at least three of the approved courses contained the learning outcome for the new “Understand and Value Differences” Attribute. By including this DEI-inspired learning outcome, faculty are attempting once again to smuggle DEI content into courses that are supposed to focus on fundamental principles of American citizenship.

Furthermore, none of the approved courses make a credible attempt to teach “basic economic knowledge to critically assess public policy options,” as required by ABOR’s AMIT standards. This lack of coverage of economics continues a pervasive pattern of failure to teach the specific content in ABOR’s standards.

Arizona’s three public universities have shown themselves unwilling or unable to implement rigorous instruction in American Institutions in general education programs. The Arizona Legislature must provide for stronger oversight to ensure that students receive this crucial preparation for citizenship in the American republic. Lawmakers should consider restricting a portion of university appropriations until the universities’ AMIT courses are brought into alignment with the ABOR requirements. Furthermore, to eliminate DEI course requirements in general education once and for all, legislators should pass the proposed state constitutional amendment to prohibit mandatory DEI coursework.[xiv]