Why Is ASU’s New College Requiring Confessional Rituals?

At Arizona State University’s New College (where I serve as a tenured full professor of philosophy and religion) the faculty recently voted to make a Native American Land Acknowledgment the official college policy.

Until now, these statements were read at the beginning of faculty meetings. At times, faculty were even asked to bow their heads and close their eyes during the reading. What was once a practice has now become policy.

That should raise an obvious question: Why is a state university (supposedly committed to political neutrality) requiring what looks very much like a public confession?

What Is Actually Being Claimed?

The justification provided by the college reads:

“Therefore, be it resolved, the New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences adopts the official land acknowledgment of Arizona State University in support of the university’s particular mission to provide access, opportunity, and inclusion, especially to Arizona’s native communities that have historically been denied access to higher education and the benefits thereof.”

Let’s pause and think critically, something universities are supposed to encourage.

This statement confesses wrongdoing. These faculty are publicly admitting that Native Americans were denied access to higher education at New College. It then implies that this ritualized reading is a meaningful response to that injustice.

But this raises several questions:

Who, exactly, is responsible for this “denied access”?

What specific actions are being confessed?

Is this a symbolic statement, or an admission of institutional guilt?

If it is the latter, what are the legal and moral implications?

I’m not a lawyer, but if an institution publicly affirms past wrongdoing, one has to wonder: Does that open the door to legal claims for further restitution? If harm is acknowledged, why would a ceremonial reading be sufficient? Can the tribes of Arizona take New College and these professors to court to seek financial settlements?

Why Should Parents and Students Care?

If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you might be tempted to shrug this off. “So what? It’s just a statement. Maybe a bit awkward but harmless.”

But is it? Not if you look at the broader intellectual movement behind it.

The Ideology Behind the Ritual

Land acknowledgments don’t arise in a vacuum. They are part of a larger academic framework often described as “decolonization.”

This framework is not merely about studying history. It is about reinterpreting the moral legitimacy of Western civilization itself and using DEI to “right the wrongs of the past.” These self-professed decolonizers wish to undermine Western influence, including its legal systems, its conception of property, and yes, its Christian foundations. The hub of their intersectionality wheel is Christianity.

Many of the scholars advocating for these practices openly argue that:

Western nations lack legitimate claims to their land.

Existing political and legal structures should be dismantled or radically transformed.

Cultural and intellectual “decolonization” is necessary to achieve justice.

If this sounds like Billie Eilish at the Grammys now you know where she got it.

In that context, the land acknowledgment is a ritual of moral formation. It teaches participants to adopt a particular view of history, guilt, and authority.

And when participation is expected, or required, it begins to look less like education and more like indoctrination.

A Question of Power

Let’s be candid. When individuals are asked to bow their heads and participate in a scripted moral confession, something deeper is happening than “raising awareness.”

It’s about who defines reality. It’s about who determines what must be confessed, affirmed, and repeated. And ultimately, it’s about power. They don’t just want symbolic power, they want institutional power to shape how people think about truth, justice, and even their own moral standing.

A Biblical Perspective

From a Christian standpoint, this raises an even deeper issue. The Bible is clear that true guilt is personal and moral, not something that can be resolved through public ritual apart from truth and repentance before God in Christ. Scripture teaches that:

We are accountable for our own sins (Ezekiel 18:20).

Justice requires truth, not vague collective confession (Psalm 51:16-17).

Reconciliation comes through Christ and not vague institutional statements that are anti-Christian (Acts 4:12).

Those who are publicly confessing to have denied access to Native Americans should be held personally responsible in court (Deuteronomy 19:14-16)

Marxism and DEI can never give justice. They only promulgate hate. So, when a secular institution begins requiring what looks like a form of confession, Christians should ask: Is this pointing people toward truth or replacing it with a counterfeit?

The Bottom Line

Arizona State University’s New College is not alone. Universities across the country are adopting similar policies. But the real question isn’t how widespread this practice is. The real question is this: Will you support institutions that require participation in ideological rituals that go far beyond education?

Parents, students, and taxpayers need to decide. Because if higher education is no longer neutral (if it is instead committed to advancing a particular moral and political vision) then it’s only fair to ask: Is this what you’re paying for?

If ASU New College faculty denied access to Native Americans as they confess then they should be held personally and legally accountable in court.

Pro-Land Acknowledgment Resources

Below are articles from the pro-land acknowledgment perspective that will help you understand their stated goals.

“Rethinking Land Acknowledgments” by Lambert, Sobo, & Lambert, at: https://anthropology.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1302/2024/03/9-AN-Article-Rethinking-Land-Acknowledgments.pdf

Comments: Lambert, Sobo, and Lambert argue that while land acknowledgements are intended to recognize Indigenous dispossession, they frequently become performative, historically misleading, and politically counterproductive. Rather than advancing Indigenous sovereignty, they can obscure present realities, distort actual history, and substitute symbolic recognition for substantive action. Their critique proves these are meant to be calls to political action thus in violation of ACD 205-1

“Beyond Words: An Exploration of Research and Writing for Indigenous Land Acknowledgements” by Flores, at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=mapw_chatgpt.com

Comments: The Aim is to reclaim Indigenous voices and narratives within institutions. Land acknowledgements are explicitly described as “decolonizing practices” Land acknowledgements are not neutral; they are part of a larger decolonizing project. This is a master’s thesis with a “works cited” for more resources.

“Decolonization is not a metaphor” by Tuck and Yang, at: https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf

Comments: Tuck and Yang argue that true decolonization is inherently unsettling because it demands the end of settler sovereignty and the return of stolen land. They critique how universities and social-justice frameworks use the term “decolonization” metaphorically (to describe inclusion, diversity, or consciousness-raising) without addressing material restitution. Such metaphorization, they contend, allows “settler moves to innocence”: rhetorical strategies that ease settler guilt while leaving colonial structures intact.

“Coloniality of Power, Eurocentricism, and Latin America” by Anibal Quijano, at: https://www.decolonialtranslation.com/english/quijano-coloniality-of-power.pdf

Comments: Marx explained class domination. Quijano adds that race and colonial hierarchy are equally foundational. Modern decolonial thinkers (e.g., Mignolo, Tuck, Coulthard) build directly on Quijano. Land acknowledgements are a soft institutional expression of Quijano’s framework. This demonstrates that “decolonizing” (with its theories of “indigeneity”) is a political movement and New College violates ACD 205-1 to adopt it as its own ideological framework.

“Marx and the Indigenous” by Foster, Clark, and Holleman, at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338978967Marx_indigenous

Comments: Decolonization discourse often inherits Marx’s critique of land expropriation and capitalism. It is a political movement.

Recommended Resources:

Legislating Morality ( mp4 download ), ( DVD Set ), ( MP3 Set ), ( PowerPoint download ), and ( PowerPoint CD ) by Frank Turek

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek ( Book , MP4 , )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek ( Book , 10-Part DVD Set , STUDENT Study Guide , TEACHER Study Guide )

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek ( Book , DVD , Mp3 , Mp4 , PowerPoint download , PowerPoint CD )

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

A version of this article was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4tuZqer