KY lawmakers censored universities, then shielded their own records

What happens when politicians dislike what a professor teaches, an employee says, or a university prints?

Across 829 pages I obtained from the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, and thousands more from Kentucky universities, I found courses altered and words, missions, programs, and philanthropic initiatives erased or renamed because of perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion under the GOP-sponsored law, 2025 HB4.

I found that State Sen. Gary Boswell sent the Attorney General’s Office photographs of a book assigned in a university course, along with other course information. Identifying himself as a senator, he said that he “wanted the professor fired or worse.”

Or worse.

An elected official invoked his position while contacting the state’s chief law enforcement office about a university classroom.

What did “or worse” mean? Without public records, who would know to ask?

The surveillance began before HB 4 became law. In June 2024, Rep. Jennifer Decker directed Kentucky universities to identify by name, title, office, and salary employees connected to “Diversity,” “Equity,” “Equality,” “Inclusion,” “Inclusive,” or “DEI.” She also requested lists of courses addressing power, privilege, subordination, oppression, colonialism, and socioeconomic status, according to my open records requests from universities. Records that, if an ordinary citizen were to request, would most likely be denied at some universities due to being unreasonably burdensome. 

This massive inventory created a surveillance tool for tracking spending, people, courses, and ideas.

Raw footage I obtained from the Attorney General’s Office showed Accuracy in Media using deceptive undercover tactics to target university employees over DEI. An operative posed as a prospective student, secretly recorded an unsuspecting staff member, and transformed selected footage into an accusatory video.

Journalistic ethics generally reserve undercover tactics for exceptional circumstances when information vital to the public cannot reasonably be obtained through transparent reporting. What open methods did Accuracy in Media attempt?

Republican lawmakers shared the video and accused the University of Kentucky of violating HB 4, even though the law expressly exempts course content and instruction. Rep. Shane Baker confronted UK President Eli Capilouto about it during a hearing on the university’s budget request. Rep. Baker asked, “If a university is found to be in violation of that law, should that university continue to receive taxpayer funds?”

The Attorney General’s Office also said it was reviewing the matter.

The sequence is chilling: An employee is deceived and recorded. Lawmakers amplify selected footage, carry it into budget deliberations, and raise the prospect of withholding public funds before any violation is established.

It continued. In a Feb. 5, 2026 email I obtained, Rep. T.J. Roberts introduced Accuracy in Media to Rep. Jennifer Decker and the Attorney General’s Office, saying legislators were interested in its investigation. Rep. Decker called Accuracy in Media “advocates,” warning that overreach could undermine credibility when seeking enforcement against what she considered “true noncompliance,” and provided guidance on what she would welcome receiving in surveillance videos. 

Were Rep. Decker’s inventories, or the names and courses collected through them, shared with Accuracy in Media or another outside organization? Were private activists serving as political watchdogs?

That is why the public needs lawmakers’ communications.

More alarmingly, in October 2025, the Attorney General’s Office convened university leaders after concluding that none was fully compliant with HB 4. Institutions then submitted supplemental reports with multiple changes with “guardrails” the law did not require, further blurring the boundary between legislative pressure and executive enforcement and raising questions about whether the Attorney General’s Office is legislating from the Executive Branch. 

Another record shows how that pressure produces censorship without a formal order.

In January 2026, a university president directed employees to remove “Points of Pride” from websites, flyers, posters, and banners.

“It sends red flag to members of the General Assembly,” he wrote.

The university president ordered employees to “scrub our website,” replace materials, and review a presentation to the Council on Postsecondary Education.

No court declared the phrase unlawful, and HB 4 did not prohibit it. The reason was fear of legislators’ reactions.

For LGBTQ students and employees, the implications are chilling. “Pride” carries profound meaning for me, as a community repeatedly pulled into political battles, yet even “Points of Pride” could raise a red flag in Frankfort.

Frankfort hides behind its own rules

That is how censorship spreads: through fear, anticipation, and institutional self-surveillance. Websites are scrubbed. Courses change. Employees monitor their speech.

The imbalance is striking. University employees can be named, recorded, and reported to officials. 

Yet Kentucky lawmakers largely shield their own communications from public disclosure. Under KRS 7.119, legislators themselves review certain appeals of those denials, and their decision is “final and unappealable.” No independent judge can review it. They are, in effect, the arbiters of their own decisions. 

Behind every name on an inventory and every face in a covert video is a professor, staff member, or student whose livelihood or community can be threatened before they know they have been targeted.

I appealed to the General Assembly legislative committee and asked to be heard because these records belong to Kentucky and its historical record. It is unknown if the GOP-controlled committee will take up my appeal and allow me to testify. 

Open the records. Hear the appeal. Let Kentuckians see who supplied the names, who conducted the surveillance, who threatened the funding, and what universities erased in fear.

When those in power can watch people from the shadows while concealing their own actions, secrecy hides history, leaves the targeted exposed, and shields the powerful from accountability.