Campus Reform Covers AIM Investigation Showing DEI Continues at Arizona State University
March 4, 2026
Arizona State University is under fire after a new undercover video shows administrators admitting that DEI programs remain active despite claims they had been scaled back.
The hidden camera video, released by watchdog group Accuracy in Media (AIM), captures ASU Undergraduate Services Enrollment Coach Megan Neumann telling an undercover investigator, “We’re not like straying away from it. We have to be cautious about the DEI, but we just have to be cautious in communicating with students…”
Neumann also highlighted that ASU offers a specialization in justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, which students can obtain by taking particular elective courses.
She also bragged that out of “all of Arizona, ASU is the biggest, like, inclusive and making initiatives towards [DEI].”
Campus Reform previously reported on other revelations uncovered by AIM at the school, including ASU Associate Dean Chandra Crudup’s admission that “It’s just not called DEI anymore, but the work continues.”
Protect the Public’s Trust, a government watchdog agency, filed two separate federal civil rights complaints in response, alleging that ASU may be violating civil rights law by giving preference based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
ASU maintains that it complies with federal and state laws, asserting that comments from individual faculty or staff members do not necessarily reflect official policy.
Arizona State University told Campus Reform, “Arizona State University complies fully with federal law and does not discriminate in admissions or scholarship selections.”
“Not only would doing so violate Arizona Board of Regents and ASU policy, but ASU has since 2010, operated under a state constitutional provision that prohibits preferential treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education,” the school continued. “ASU has no comment on the video itself, as ASU does not comment on secret video recordings of its employees who are not authorized to speak on behalf of the university.”