News Summary
A tenured professor at the University of Arizona has filed a federal lawsuit alleging retaliation for raising concerns regarding race-based hiring practices linked to diversity initiatives. The case highlights significant issues related to academic freedom and institutional policies in higher education. The professor claims exclusions from key governance committees as a result of his complaints. Meanwhile, the university disputes the claims, labeling the lawsuit as baseless and attributing actions against the professor to unrelated employment matters. The case raises important questions about compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.
Phoenix, AZ — A tenured professor at the University of Arizona has initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging retaliation for expressing concerns about certain hiring practices within the institution. The case, filed recently, highlights an ongoing discussion surrounding academic freedom, institutional policies, and the interpretation of federal anti-discrimination laws in higher education across Arizona.
The lawsuit underscores the importance of transparent and fair processes in university governance and employment, particularly as higher education institutions navigate evolving landscapes concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It brings to the forefront the responsibilities universities have in upholding established principles of academic freedom while ensuring compliance with federal statutes.
Allegations of Retaliation and Protected Activity
Dr. Matthew Abraham, an English professor at the University of Arizona, filed a federal lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents on November 25, 2025. He alleges that he faced retaliation, including exclusion from key faculty governance committees, after raising concerns and seeking information about what he believed were race-based hiring and selection practices tied to DEI initiatives.
The lawsuit outlines that Dr. Abraham engaged in what is termed “protected activity” between 2017 and 2022. This activity included filing internal grievances, submitting public records requests, sending a demand letter through legal counsel in September 2020, pursuing a public-records special action against the Arizona Board of Regents, and filing charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2022.
According to the allegations, university officials became aware of these efforts, and subsequently, Dr. Abraham was removed from the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) and further service on the English Department Academic Program Review Committee (APR). He had previously chaired the CAFT.
University’s Stance and Legal Framework
The University of Arizona disputes the lawsuit’s claims. A university spokesperson indicated that the lawsuit is “baseless,” asserting that it was filed after the university initiated formal proceedings to dismiss Dr. Abraham for alleged outside employment that interfered with his duties as a full-time tenured faculty member.
Dr. Abraham’s attorney from the Liberty Justice Center stated that the case is not against diversity itself, but rather about ensuring that diversity initiatives adhere to federal law and that faculty members are not penalized for questioning whether race is being used unlawfully. The attorney argues that evidence will demonstrate the outside employment rationale was selectively applied and used to obscure the true reasons for the alleged retaliation.
The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and includes protections against retaliation for opposing such practices.
Academic Freedom and University Governance
Academic freedom is a foundational principle at the University of Arizona, recognized as essential for open inquiry, expression by faculty and students, and the advancement of knowledge. This includes the freedom to comment on university or unit governance without fear of retribution. The university’s policies and its endorsement of the Chicago Statement of Freedom of Expression underscore its commitment to free speech and intellectual freedom.
The case raises questions about the balance between institutional autonomy, the implementation of DEI policies, and the protection of academic freedom, especially when faculty members voice dissent regarding institutional practices. Arizona’s public universities, including the University of Arizona, have generally been recognized for upholding free speech, with all three state colleges receiving “green light” ratings from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), indicating no policies that seriously threaten speech.
Internal communications referenced in the lawsuit reportedly show university staff categorizing certain faculty members, including Dr. Abraham, as “problematic” or “not appropriate” for committee roles, with his name allegedly highlighted in red in a slide presentation. These labels, according to the lawsuit, stemmed from his opposition to using race as a factor in hiring or governance.
Role of Federal Agencies and Complaint Processes
Federal employment discrimination laws rely on the willingness of employees to challenge discrimination without fear of retaliation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidance on retaliation, emphasizing that employers should educate their workforce on anti-retaliation policies and train managers and supervisors to avoid actual or perceived retaliation.
Individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination or retaliation can file complaints with the EEOC or the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR investigates complaints alleging violations of civil rights laws in educational institutions that receive federal funding. Complaints typically need to be filed within 180 calendar days of the last act of discrimination, although waivers may be granted under certain circumstances.
Wider Context of DEI Policies in Arizona Higher Education
This lawsuit comes amidst a broader national and state-level conversation regarding DEI initiatives in higher education. In recent months, Arizona’s public universities have responded to federal directives, including an executive order issued in January 2025, which targeted DEI programs at institutions receiving federal funding. As a result, the University of Arizona, among other state universities, has removed diversity and inclusion language from its Land Acknowledgement and job postings, and taken down the website for its Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
These actions have drawn varying responses, with some students and faculty petitioning for the reinstatement of DEI policies, while others view the changes as aligning with principles of merit-based selection and academic neutrality.
The ongoing legal proceedings at the University of Arizona emphasize the critical role of maintaining a fair and equitable environment for all members of the academic community, reinforcing principles of personal responsibility and the protection of academic freedom. This case encourages closer examination of university policies and practices, fostering a commitment to institutional excellence and the robust exchange of ideas. Readers are encouraged to stay informed about developments in Phoenix AZ college news and Arizona AZ higher education. The resolution of such cases shapes not only university policies but also the broader understanding of civil rights and academic integrity across the nation.
Frequently Asked Questions about University of Arizona Lawsuit
What are the primary allegations in the lawsuit filed against the University of Arizona?
The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Matthew Abraham, a professor at the University of Arizona, faced retaliation, including exclusion from faculty governance committees, for raising concerns about what he believed were race-based hiring practices tied to DEI initiatives.
What federal law is central to the professor’s lawsuit?
The lawsuit alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination and protects individuals from retaliation for opposing unlawful practices.
What actions did Dr. Matthew Abraham take that are considered “protected activity” in the lawsuit?
Dr. Abraham’s “protected activity” included filing internal grievances, submitting public records requests, sending a demand letter through legal counsel, pursuing a public-records special action against the Arizona Board of Regents, and filing charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between 2017 and 2022.
How has the University of Arizona responded to the allegations?
The University of Arizona disputes the lawsuit, stating that it is “baseless” and was filed after the university initiated dismissal proceedings against Dr. Abraham for alleged outside employment interfering with his duties.
What is the significance of “academic freedom” in this context?
Academic freedom is a core value at the University of Arizona, promoting open inquiry and expression by faculty and students, and allowing faculty to comment on university governance without fear of retribution. The lawsuit raises questions about whether these protections were upheld.
Which federal agencies are involved in addressing discrimination and retaliation complaints in educational institutions?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) are key federal agencies that address discrimination and retaliation complaints in educational settings.
What is the typical timeframe for filing a discrimination complaint with OCR?
Discrimination complaints with OCR typically need to be filed within 180 calendar days of the last act of discrimination, though waivers may be granted under certain limited circumstances.
Summary of Key Aspects in University of Arizona Lawsuit
| Aspect | Details | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dr. Matthew Abraham, English Professor | University of Arizona |
| Defendant | Arizona Board of Regents | State-level |
| Date Filed | November 25, 2025 | Specific Event |
| Primary Allegation | Retaliation for opposing DEI hiring practices | University-specific |
| Federal Law Cited | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | Nationwide |
| Protected Activity Timeline | 2017-2022 | University-specific |
| Alleged Retaliatory Actions | Exclusion from CAFT and APR committees | University-specific |
| University Response | Lawsuit is “baseless,” claims dismissal proceedings initiated for outside employment interference | University-specific |
| Attorney’s Argument | Case is about federal law compliance in diversity initiatives, not opposing diversity | University-specific |
| Academic Freedom Principle | Core value at University of Arizona, protecting open inquiry and expression | University-specific |
| Federal Agencies for Complaints | EEOC, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) | Nationwide |
| OCR Complaint Filing Deadline | 180 calendar days from last discriminatory act | Nationwide |
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
HERE Resources
Phoenix: Celebrating Culture and Addressing Healthcare Integrity
Large Fires Erupt Across Phoenix
Phoenix’s GCU Reclaims Nonprofit Status After Six-Year Battle
Responsible Business: A Global Standard Phoenix Can Embrace
Lawsuit Alleges ASU Retaliation Over Sexual Harassment Report
University of Arizona Highlights Progress in Accountability Presentation
Arizona Attorney General Sues Temu Over Data Collection Practices
University of Arizona Professor Sues Over DEI Hiring Practices
ASML Opens U.S. Technical Training Center in Phoenix, AZ
Grossenbach v. University of Arizona: Lawsuit Advances
Author: STAFF HERE PHOENIX WRITER
The PHOENIX STAFF WRITER represents the experienced team at HEREPhoenix.com, your go-to source for actionable local news and information in Phoenix, Maricopa County, and beyond. Specializing in "news you can use," we cover essential topics like product reviews for personal and business needs, local business directories, politics, real estate trends, neighborhood insights, and state news affecting the area—with deep expertise drawn from years of dedicated reporting and strong community input, including local press releases and business updates. We deliver top reporting on high-value events such as the Waste Management Phoenix Open, Cactus League Spring Training, and Arizona State Fair. Our coverage extends to key organizations like the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and Visit Phoenix, plus leading businesses in technology and healthcare that power the local economy such as Intel and Banner Health. As part of the broader HERE network, including HERETucson.com, we provide comprehensive, credible insights into Arizona's dynamic landscape.
