A Bold Bluegrass Initiative

Kentucky’s recent passage of House Bill 4, which eliminates “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs at public universities and colleges, represents a crucial step toward restoring meritocracy, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity to higher education in the Bluegrass State.

The bill was passed in the 2025 legislative session over the veto of Democratic governor Andy Beshear, who predictably claimed that its supporters were motivated by “hate.” In fact, HB 4 provides a necessary corrective to years of institutional overreach that has discriminated against students, stifled open inquiry, and punished dissenting voices on campus.

HB 4 provides a necessary corrective to years of institutional overreach. The case of Dr. Allan Josephson exemplifies this troubling trend in Kentucky. Josephson, a nationally recognized child-and-adolescent psychologist, was fired by the University of Louisville in 2017 after speaking in a personal capacity at a Heritage Foundation panel on treatment approaches for gender dysphoria.

DEI-driven ideological conformity has superseded academic freedom in Kentucky and elsewhere. Josephson sued the university for violating his First Amendment rights, and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ordered the university to pay him $1.6 million in damages.

U of L’s treatment of Josephson reveals the extent to which DEI-driven ideological conformity had superseded academic freedom in Kentucky and elsewhere. Rather than engaging with his arguments on their merits, university administrators chose to silence him through demotion and harassment. This pattern of behavior—punishing faculty for expressing views that challenge prevailing orthodoxies—has become disturbingly common across American higher education.

The ultimate resolution of Josephson’s case provides powerful vindication for the principles underlying HB 4. The Kentucky law is reflective of a nationwide trend, as state legislatures across the country have recognized the need to intervene when universities fail to maintain their commitment to academic freedom and intellectual diversity.

HB 4 prohibits universities from discriminating against or favoring students, faculty, or staff based on religion, race, sex, color, or national origin in scholarships, hiring, and vendor contracts. The law forbids universities from establishing or maintaining DEI offices and programs, forbids colleges from requiring applicants for admission or hiring to make pledges or statements about diversity, and disallows requiring students to complete courses or programs for which the primary purpose is indoctrination in various ideological concepts.

HB 4 also required universities to establish a policy on viewpoint neutrality by June 30, 2025. Finally, the law requires the state’s Council on Postsecondary Education to issue an annual survey of intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity at the state’s colleges and universities.

The response of Kentucky’s public universities to HB 4 has been mixed, reflecting the contentious nature of the legislation. Kentucky public universities are reviewing how to implement anti-DEI law, with some institutions demonstrating greater willingness to comply than others.

Western Kentucky University, for example, has taken a particularly measured approach to the new requirements. Upon the passage of HB 4, WKU president Timothy Caboni issued a statement saying that the bill changes nothing about the university’s commitment to offering a high-quality education to all students:

We also reaffirm our dedication to academic freedom, freedom of expression and the open exchange of ideas. […] Democracy thrives on dialogue, and at WKU, we take seriously our responsibility to foster an environment where differing perspectives are met with respect.

WKU’s response demonstrates how universities can maintain their commitment to serving diverse student populations while also complying with legislation designed to protect academic freedom. By emphasizing viewpoint neutrality and the “open exchange” of diverse viewpoints, the university signals its intention to create an environment where all students and faculty can engage in honest intellectual inquiry without fear of retribution.

Criticism of HB 4 misunderstands both the purpose of the legislation and the nature of genuine diversity. Critics of HB 4 have argued that the legislation will harm students from underrepresented backgrounds and reduce campus diversity. However, this criticism fundamentally misunderstands both the purpose of the legislation and the nature of genuine diversity. True diversity encompasses not just demographic characteristics but also intellectual diversity—the presence of varied perspectives, ideas, and approaches to complex problems.

The DEI programs eliminated by HB 4 often promoted a narrow conception of diversity that prioritized identity categories over intellectual diversity. The DEI programs eliminated by HB 4 often promoted a narrow conception of diversity that prioritized identity categories over intellectual diversity. By mandating particular ideological perspectives and suppressing dissenting voices, these programs actually reduced the diversity of thought on campus. Students were exposed to a limited range of viewpoints and were discouraged from engaging with challenging ideas that might conflict with administrative preferences.

Furthermore, the legislation does not prevent universities from supporting students from all backgrounds. Western Kentucky University’s official policy, adopted in response to HB 4, affirms its commitment to access and quality services for all students.

Institutions can still provide academic support services, mentorship programs, and other resources that help students succeed. What they cannot do is use taxpayer funds to promote particular political ideologies or to require faculty and students to affirm specific viewpoints about controversial social issues.

Of course, there is the distinct risk that Kentucky’s universities may try to continue to promote DEI causes while repackaging them in different language, as Ryan Ruffaner has documented at the Fair for All Substack. Accordingly, HB 4 represents an important first step toward restoring academic freedom in Kentucky’s public universities, but it is not a complete solution. Universities must now demonstrate their commitment to genuine intellectual diversity by creating environments where faculty and students can engage in open inquiry without fear of professional or social consequences. And policymakers must make sure that they do so.

Ultimately, HB 4 opens the door to restoring merit as a fundamental value in higher education. The principle of meritocracy allows student enrollment and academic advancement to be based upon achievement, focusing on students’ competency (e.g., test scores and grade point averages) and not their race or ethnicity as the rubric for success.

Harvard economist Roland Fryer advocates for nudging DEI away from elevating race above all other qualifications and toward focusing on leveraging talent. From admissions to graduation, leveraging talent considers each person’s context, creates equal opportunity over equal outcomes, and provides roadmaps to success while upholding uncompromising standards of excellence. Fryer contends that organizations that optimize talent actually weed out bias. Erasing racial bias maximizes talent and opportunity, while meritocracy replaces discriminatory practices.

The University of Austin (UATX) provides an example of how to uphold student meritocracy. Founded in 2021 as an independent private college, UATX started its first academic year in fall 2024. UATX came about in response to the illiberalism practiced empirically on America’s college and university campuses and focuses its curriculum on pursuing truth.

To that end, UATX has a meritocratic admissions policy limited to standardized test scores and Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate scores. UATX eliminates racial preferences and co-curricular activities from consideration for admission. Rather, it returns to the fundamentals of focusing on student achievement. University dean Ben Crocker remarked, “We’re not trying to radically reinvent everything, but we are trying to take what’s best about education in the United States: meritocracy, excellence, the sense that you need to build something for the good of the country.” As UATX has proven, this strategy works.

Faculty members should be evaluated based on their teaching effectiveness and research contributions. This means not only eliminating DEI programs but also cultivating a culture that values rigorous debate and scholarly disagreement. Faculty members should be evaluated based on their teaching effectiveness and research contributions, not their adherence to particular ideological positions. Students should be exposed to diverse perspectives and encouraged to develop their own views through careful consideration of evidence and argument.

As Kentucky’s public universities implement the new requirements, they have an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to genuine diversity. As Kentucky’s public universities implement the new requirements, they have an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to genuine diversity—not just demographic diversity but intellectual diversity. By creating environments where faculty and students can engage in honest inquiry without fear of retribution, these institutions can fulfill their proper educational mission while serving students from all backgrounds.

The ultimate test of HB 4’s success will not be whether it eliminates particular programs or offices but whether it helps restore a culture of intellectual freedom and open debate to Kentucky’s public universities. If the law achieves this goal, it will have rendered an invaluable service not only to the state of Kentucky but to the broader cause of higher-education reform nationwide.

The legislation recognizes a fundamental truth: Universities serve their students best when they provide exposure to diverse perspectives and encourage rigorous intellectual engagement. By eliminating programs that constrain such engagement, HB 4 takes an important step toward restoring Kentucky’s public universities to their proper educational mission. The substantial settlement paid to Dr. Josephson serves as a costly reminder of what happens when institutions prioritize ideological conformity over academic freedom—a mistake that Kentucky’s universities can now avoid thanks to this necessary legislative intervention.

Gary W. Houchens, PhD, is director of the educational-leadership doctoral program and professor in the School of Leadership and Professional Studies at Western Kentucky University. Aaron Roberts is a doctoral student in higher-education administration and works at the University of Louisville.