The University of Arizona fired tenured professor Matthew Abraham back in September 2025 for the unforgivable sin of publicly criticizing the school's DEI policies — and now he's fighting back with an appeal in Pima County Superior Court, arguing the university trampled his 14th Amendment due process rights to punish him for wrongthink.
Because apparently "academic freedom" only applies if your opinions are pre-approved by the diversity commissars.
Here's where it gets really fun. According to The College Fix, a faculty committee — Abraham's own colleagues — unanimously rejected the recommendation to fire him. Unanimously. Not a close vote. Not a split decision. Every single member said the dismissal was unwarranted. The committee found Abraham had performed his teaching and administrative duties properly and had received exceptional evaluations.
So what did the university do with that unanimous recommendation? Provost Patricia Prelock tossed it in the trash and fired him anyway.
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression director of faculty legal defense Zach Greenberg put it plainly: "Such committees should have substantial weight as the voice of the faculty." You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, the faculty voice says something the administration doesn't want to hear.
The university's official excuse is rich. Spokesperson Mieczyslaw Zak claimed Abraham's outside employment "interfered with his duties as a full-time tenured faculty member." The outside gigs in question? Working for the City of Tucson and the Arizona Attorney General's Office. So a professor who was moonlighting for actual government institutions — not selling timeshares — got the boot. And we're supposed to believe this had nothing to do with his vocal opposition to DEI.
Abraham isn't buying it either. "They wanted to throw a bunch of things at me and then see what they could get to stick," he told The College Fix. He also pointed out that the university "had reason to want to squeeze me on this, because of the public records lawsuit" — a lawsuit that was heard by the Arizona Supreme Court on November 24, 2025, just weeks after his firing.
Funny how that works. Professor files a public records lawsuit against the university, criticizes their sacred DEI apparatus, and suddenly they discover his side job is a fireable offense.
Abraham alleges the Board of Regents had developed an exit plan for him approximately a year before his dismissal. A year. That's not a disciplinary action — that's a premeditated hit job on a tenured professor who wouldn't shut up.
"We're sticking to the notion that tenure is a property right, and it can't be so easily taken away," Abraham said. And he's right. Tenure exists specifically so professors can say unpopular things without getting fired. That was literally the whole point.
"This dispute should have never resulted in a dismissal recommendation," Abraham added. No kidding.
This is the playbook, folks. They told us DEI was just about "inclusion" and "belonging" and all those other buzzwords that make HR departments feel important. But the second someone with tenure and a platform says the emperor has no clothes, the full weight of the institution comes crashing down.
A faculty committee said no. The university said we don't care. And now a court gets to decide whether the First Amendment still means anything on a college campus in Arizona. We already know what side we're on.