Introduction & Executive Summary
A 2024 Harvard-Harris poll found that two-thirds of Americans “see a problem with what higher learning institutions are teaching students these days,” with the sharpest concern around universities “teaching theories that racially divide us.” [i] At the same time, 68% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling eliminating race-based affirmative action in student admissions.[ii]
Yet despite such an overwhelming consensus in both law and public opinion, colleges across the nation continue to promote racially discriminatory, politically charged tenets of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or “DEI,” in both operations and academics.
Unfortunately, in the commonwealth of Kentucky, this problem is compounded even further by the DEI mandates imposed from above by a small unelected body with the power to shut down the academic expansion of any public higher educational institution failing to satisfactorily comply with its DEI objectives. Indeed, that body, the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, now wields its power to force DEI practices and programming upon state colleges and universities in ways leading to deeply troubling—and in some cases, outright bizarre—outcomes. As documented in this analysis:
Summary:
- The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) misuses its powers of oversight intended to promote “equal educational opportunity” to instead require public postsecondary institutions to engage in racial discrimination and dubious DEI practices.
- As required by CPE, institutions must set yearly quotas for student enrollment by race and ethnicity. They must also set quotas for the racial and ethnic makeup of faculty and staff.
- CPE evaluates institutions annually on whether they meet these “diversity” quotas and other “diversity” goals. Institutions that fail this evaluation process are prohibited from establishing new academic programs to serve students.
- During its 2024 DEI review process, CPE failed just one four-year institution—Kentucky State University (KSU), one of the state’s only two federally recognized historically black colleges and universities—despite the school enrolling an undergraduate student body that was two-thirds African American. In its performance improvement plan following this failure, KSU committed to increasing its enrollment of “Latinx” students.
- The Attorney General of Kentucky has found that CPE’s requirement that institutions discriminate on the basis of race violates the Constitution.
- The Kentucky legislature can put an end to CPE’s “diversity” regime by adopting targeted legislation that prohibits the promotion of DEI and racial discrimination in public higher education and ends all curricular requirements forcing students to take DEI courses in order to graduate.
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education
As in states across the nation, Kentucky’s public universities are governed by legally established boards of regents. As Kentucky State University makes clear, for instance, “The [KSU] Board of Regents is the governing body of Kentucky State University.”[iii]
Yet each of these institutions is subject also to another layer of bureaucratic oversight via the CPE. Established in its current form by the Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997,[iv] the CPE has broad powers to shape policy relating to higher education in the commonwealth. These powers include the following among others, per Kentucky state law:
- Revising and approving the missions of each public university and the Kentucky community college system.
- Approving tuition rates.
- Approving all academic programs that award a degree, certificate, or diploma.[v]
CPE Forces Institutions to Practice Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Kentucky law also gives CPE the power to “postpone the approval of any new program at a state postsecondary educational institution, unless the institution has met its equal educational opportunity goals, as established by the council [CPE].”[vi] Unfortunately, by distorting the definition of “equal educational opportunity,” CPE has compelled public institutions to engage in DEI-aligned racial and ethnic discrimination if they wish to remain eligible to create new academic programs.
Indeed, while state law directs CPE to promulgate regulations on “equal educational opportunity,” CPE has reinterpreted this directive to enshrine racial discrimination in public institutions of higher education under the guise of “diversity.”
The council declares about itself, for example, that “CPE has a statutorily mandated responsibility in the area of diversity and equal opportunities through KRS 164.020(19).”[vii] However, the actual statutory mandate says nothing of “diversity” efforts, and instead solely references equal opportunity. Yet CPE declares further that “in order to continue to meet its statutory obligation and further its commitment to diversity and inclusion,” CPE has set forth a suite of institutional goals for Kentucky’s colleges and universities to abide by. CPE is not only suggesting a “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mandate where none exists, but then uses this framing to push a dramatic reinterpretation of its actual legislatively prescribed purpose away from equal opportunity and instead toward the service of DEI’s ideological objectives.
Last updated in November 2023, CPE’s current regulation on “equal opportunity goals” requires each public university to submit an “Institution Diversity Plan” to CPE. Each institution must also submit an annual report to CPE that documents the institution’s progress in achieving the goals set in that Diversity Plan. CPE scores each institution on its progress toward these goals using a rubric, and if an institution fails to achieve a certain number of points, it is ineligible to create new academic programs. An institution declared ineligible may apply for a waiver from CPE seeking to allow it to start new programs, granted only if “the institution can provide the council with sufficient assurance that offering the new program will not divert resources from its improvement efforts.”[viii]
The Diversity Plan mandated by this CPE regulation requires institutions to abide by the “Kentucky Public Postsecondary Education Policy for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” This policy, which CPE released in 2016, specifies the “diversity” goals that each institution must set. While some of these goals at least focus upon the academic success of students (e.g. including goals for retention and graduation rates among various demographics), others explicitly promote race-based admissions and employment priorities. Indeed, according to the CPE policy, colleges and universities’ institutional goals “shall” include quotas based on race and ethnicity, including the following:
-
- Annual goals for the enrollment of Hispanic students, as a percentage of the overall student population.
- Annual goals for the enrollment of Black or African-American students, as a percentage of the overall student population.
- Annual goals for “increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of faculty and staff.”[ix]
Notably, the CPE policy states that enrollment goal percentages “may include the following … racial categories”: “Two or more races,” “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” and “Asian.”[x] In sum, institutions must set goals for Hispanic and African-American enrollment, but they may set goals for the enrollment of other racial groups. CPE thus compels institutions to prioritize the enrollment of certain racial and ethnic groups while downplaying the importance of enrolling other racial groups. CPE’s policy clearly institutes a system of racial preferences.
A 2023 CPE report provides even more evidence that the council compels institutions to adopt its preferred racial and ethnic quotas. According to the report, “campuses negotiate targets with CPE staff for the percentage of first-year students who are Black/African American and Hispanic.”[xi]
The CPE policy further states that institutions should pursue these student enrollment goals by practicing “race-conscious enrollment and recruitment policies.” While CPE does weakly offer the caveat that such policies should “adhere to any and all applicable constitutional limitations,” the council itself undermines any pretense that it is promoting racially neutral policies. In the very same policy document, CPE notes that allowable strategies “may include…race and ethnicity-neutral policies or actions designed to increase diversity in the student body.” Thus, even those policies it recommends as superficially race neutral should be designed with the intent of altering the demographic makeup of the student body.[xii]
In short, CPE requires public universities in Kentucky to practice racial and ethnic discrimination toward students and staff as a condition of establishing new academic programs.
University of Kentucky Adopts Racial and Ethnic Quotas under CPE Direction
In accordance with CPE requirements, the University of Kentucky (UK) submitted a Diversity Plan to CPE on July 12, 2017. This Diversity Plan provides an example of how CPE has compelled public institutions to adopt racial and ethnic quotas.
As shown in Figure 1, UK set yearly quotas for student enrollment by race and ethnicity, including for “underrepresented minorities” (URM), which CPE defines as students who identify as “a) Hispanic or Latino, b) American Indian or Alaska Native, c) Black or African American, d) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or e) Two or more Races.”
Figure 1
Excerpt from 2017-2022 University of Kentucky Diversity Plan, p. 12: https://cpe.ky.gov/policies/diversityplans/uk.pdf
UK also set quotas for the racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff, as demonstrated in Figure 2:
Figure 2
Excerpt from 2017-2022 University of Kentucky Diversity Plan, p. 36: https://cpe.ky.gov/policies/diversityplans/uk.pdf
CPE Encourages Discriminatory DEI Practices on All Campuses
Beyond forcing Kentucky public institutions to engage in racial and ethnic discrimination in their enrollment and hiring practices, CPE encourages these schools to adopt discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in various other ways.
In July 2023, CPE released a report on “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” which highlighted alleged success stories in DEI at Kentucky institutions. CPE intended for this report to provide models that all Kentucky institutions should be emulating. Several of these “best practices” include programs that have drawn heavy criticism from across the political spectrum for promoting discriminatory practices and ideas. Among these models is the DEI-infused course, “UK 101.”
UK 101 Course Instructs Students in “Unconscious Bias” and “Microaggressions”
CPE lavishes praise on UK 101/201, an academic orientation course for first-year and transfer students that is a “key component of UK’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.”[xiii] Many students are required to take this course, and many other students take this course even if not required. In the Fall 2022 semester alone, 2,813 students took UK 101.[xiv]
According to the CPE report, every section of UK 101 includes “unconscious bias (UB) content,” which “introduced concepts and terms like microaggressions, land acknowledgements, ally, accomplice and co-conspirator.”[xv]
These concepts have their origins in identity politics and progressive activism. Far from advancing inclusion and diversity, these ideas promote discrimination and division.
For example, progressive activists use the term “microaggression” to refer to supposedly offensive statements and behaviors directed towards marginalized groups. Although it might seem praiseworthy to minimize offensive language, activists often apply the “microaggression” label to the expression of basic American values. As a prior Goldwater Institute report showed, a reading in a course at Arizona State University indicated that the following statements were microaggressions:
- “America is a melting pot,” a statement that demands that people “assimilate/acculturate to the dominant culture.”
- “There is only one race, the human race,” a statement “denying the individual as a racial/cultural being.”
- “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” a statement communicating that “people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.”
- “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” a statement communicating that “people of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder.”[xvi]
CPE Endorses DEI Litmus Tests in Hiring
In a section on “culturally competent hiring policies and procedures,” CPE advocates for including “diversity and inclusion questions during interviews to assess candidates’ cultural competencies.”[xvii] This call for quizzing candidates on “diversity and inclusion” echoes the common practice of requiring applicants for jobs in higher education to submit “diversity statements” that compel them to endorse DEI ideology and practices. As numerous investigations have shown, “diversity statements” act as ideological screening mechanisms that weed out candidates who decline to endorse the prevailing DEI regime on campus. The use of these statements has exacerbated the already severe imbalance in the ideological mix of faculty and staff on university campuses nationwide, and in some cases have eliminated up to 75% of applicants before even taking into consideration their academic qualifications. [xviii]
Northern Kentucky University Encourages Race-Conscious Hiring Policies
CPE endorses discriminatory hiring practices that go beyond interview questions about diversity. Northern Kentucky University (NKU) receives commendation in CPE’s report for adopting race-conscious hiring policies. According to the report, NKU’s dean of the College of Arts and Sciences “worked with human resources to track whether faculty hiring recommendations matched the diversity of the candidate pools.”[xix] This statement appears to indicate that the dean checked to see whether finalists for a faculty job sufficiently mirrored the demographics of all the candidates that applied for the position. While a generous interpretation of this practice might suggest an effort to ensure that no candidate was actively discriminated against based upon race, under CPE’s broader DEI-driven approach, it suggests faculty job searches being judged not simply by the merit of the finalists but at least partly by their demographics. This practice is antithetical to the basic American principle that people should be judged on their character and merit, not the color of their skin.
CPE’s Review Process Forces Institutions to Adopt DEI
In addition to propping up various troubling DEI-infused approaches as best practices, CPE also wields–via its annual review of Diversity Plans–a direct threat against public institutions who might otherwise fail to adopt discriminatory DEI policies.
Each year, CPE scores each public institution on its “progress” in meeting the objectives of its Diversity Plan. CPE uses two rubrics (one for 4-year institutions and another for community colleges) to calculate an institutional score. 4-year institutions scoring below 24 out of a possible 36 points are declared ineligible to establish new academic programs, while community colleges scoring below 22 out of a possible 34 points are declared ineligible.[xx]
Both rubrics have a “quantitative” and “qualitative” section. The quantitative section awards points based on whether the institution met its “diversity” targets that the institution negotiated with CPE. These targets include quotas for the undergraduate enrollment of African-American, Hispanic, and URM students, as well as for “the percentage of full-time faculty or tenure-track faculty or employees in “managerial or administrative positions” who identify as URM.[xxi]
All public institutions in Kentucky thus have a large incentive under CPE to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity in admissions and hiring decisions. If an institution fails to meet these quotas, it risks being declared ineligible to start new academic programs.[xxii]
The qualitative section of the rubric also incentivizes institutions to adopt discriminatory DEI policies. Along with setting quotas, the diversity report submitted by each institution articulates several strategies for achieving the institution’s “diversity” goals. Institutions must adopt strategies that improve “campus climate, inclusiveness, and cultural competency.” As the rubric explains, “to fully realize the positive impacts of diversity, Kentucky’s public institutions must provide an inclusive and supportive environment for its diverse group of students…[S]tudents must become more culturally competent. Faculty and staff must also become more culturally competent.” In the qualitative section, the review committee awards points based on how well the institution implemented the strategies, in the committee’s judgment.[xxiii]
What strategies should institutions adopt to promote “cultural competency,” according to CPE? As indicated in CPE’s “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” report, institutions should implement the practices described above, including DEI questions that act as litmus tests in hiring. Although the CPE “Best Practices” report does not use the term “cultural competency” in its endorsement of the UK 101 course, the topics covered in this course—unconscious bias, microaggressions, land acknowledgements—clearly align with CPE’s understanding of “cultural competency.” Because CPE awards points based on its qualitative judgment of how well institutions implemented their “diversity” strategies, institutions are again incentivized to adopt discriminatory DEI practices or risk losing the ability to start new academic programs to serve students.
Historically Black University Embraces “Latinx” in Appeal to CPE
In addition to outright discrimination, CPE’s “diversity” review process leads to a profound misalignment of priorities, redirecting limited institutional resources away from academic improvement toward race-based hiring and admission initiatives.
The 2024 review of Kentucky State University’s (KSU) diversity plan provides a clear example. KSU is one of Kentucky’s only two historically black colleges or universities (HBCU). In keeping with its history, two-thirds of KSU’s undergraduate student body is Black or African American. Over 70% of undergraduates are classified as URM.[xxiv]
Despite literally being a “majority-minority” institution made up primarily of Black and URM students, KSU still failed under CPE’s diversity rubric. In the 2024 review, CPE gave KSU a score of 16 out of a possible 36 points.[xxv] Because KSU scored below the minimum of 24, KSU was declared ineligible to establish new academic programs to serve its students. KSU, one of the commonwealth’s only HBCUs, was the only four-year institution to be declared ineligible in the 2024 review.[xxvi]
It is worth noting that KSU received 7 out of a possible 18 points in the quantitative section of the rubric, and 9 out of a possible 18 in the qualitative section. KSU could have passed the minimum score of 24 if the review committee had awarded 17 points in the qualitative section. Thus, if the review committee had exercised different judgment in the qualitative section, KSU could have passed even if its quantitative scores had remained the same.[xxvii]
Following CPE’s penalty, the school applied for a waiver from CPE to remain eligible to start new academic programs. As part of the waiver process, CPE required KSU to submit a “performance improvement plan” that indicated “specific strategies and resources dedicated to addressing deficiencies.”[xxviii] While KSU submitted this improvement plan, and CPE approved the waiver request on June 21, 2024, the resulting priorities further indict the entire process. [xxix]
As part of its commitment to improve its performance under CPE’s diversity plan, KSU committed to increasing its numbers of “Latinx” students. Despite KSU’s already high number of URM students, the performance improvement plan noted, “We also recognize Hispanic/Latinx students as the fastest growing demographic. To that end, we have recently hired a Latinx Retention Specialist and [are] finalizing the pool for a Latinx admissions specialist.”[xxx]
Certainly there is nothing wrong with recruiting Hispanic or Latino students, or any other category of student. But the fact that KSU highlighted “Latinx” recruitment in an improvement plan seeking special dispensation from CPE raises doubts about the priorities of the entire “diversity” review process. First, it is difficult to see how merely raising the number of Latino students at KSU will improve outcomes for all students—both Latino and non-Latino. Why, when KSU already serves a student body that is classified as majority URM, does the school need to spend time and resources on increasing its numbers with a particular demographic, rather than maximizing supplemental academic enrichment? Second, KSU embraced the academically trendy term “Latinx,” a label that Latinos almost universally reject, with many finding it offensive.[xxxi] KSU’s use of “Latinx” shows how the CPE review process induces institutions to name-check faddish academic theories to please the “diversity” regime at CPE, rather than focusing exclusively on addressing any underlying concerns about academic performance among students. Exercises like this one do little or nothing to improve outcomes for Kentucky students from all backgrounds.
Attorney General has Found CPE Practices Unconstitutional
In addition to the many objections to the CPE “diversity” review process, the Attorney General of Kentucky has found that CPE “diversity” practices are unconstitutional. In an opinion released March 14, 2024, Attorney General Russell Coleman noted that CPE defined “underrepresented minority” (URM) in “race-exclusive terms” and required institutions to negotiate targets for URM enrollment. Citing the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the use of race in college admissions as incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment, Attorney General Coleman found that CPE’s requirement for institutions to set race-based targets violates the Constitution. As Attorney General Coleman concluded, “Equality will not arise out of inequality. Kentucky postsecondary institutions will not achieve equality by being forced to treat students of different races differently. The CPE must no longer define ‘underrepresented minority’ in race-exclusive terms.”[xxxii]
Recommendations
CPE has abused its statutory powers and overstepped its mandate to ensure equal educational opportunity at Kentucky public institutions. In place of this worthy goal, CPE has substituted racial discrimination and dubious DEI policies that accomplish little or nothing for Kentucky’s students from all backgrounds. The Kentucky legislature has the responsibility to reform CPE and end this intrusive and discriminatory “diversity” regime.
There are two critical steps the legislature can take.
First, the legislature should revisit CPE’s oversight over “equal educational opportunity,” ensuring CPE adhere exclusively to promoting policies that are not intended to manipulate the racial makeup of students or staff . The legislature should prohibit any requirement or suggestion from CPE that an institution set “diversity” quotas for enrollment and employment.
To accomplish this, the legislature should follow the lead of states such as Texas, Iowa, and Utah in adopting the model policy of the Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes to “Abolish DEI Bureaucracies”.[xxxiii] This legislation outlaws any attempt to promote differential treatment on account of race in public institutions of higher education.
Second, the legislature should adopt the Freedom from Indoctrination Act model policy released by the Goldwater Institute and Speech First. As shown in this report, CPE strongly encourages institutions to create academic courses that teach discriminatory DEI concepts. The UK 101 course promotes DEI doctrines to a captive audience of students—many of whom are required to take this course. The Freedom from Indoctrination Act prohibits requiring students to take DEI courses like this one as a condition of graduation or advancement. The legislature should pass legislation on this model, making sure that its provisions apply to CPE as well as public postsecondary institutions.[xxxiv]
CPE is charged with promoting equal opportunity for all Kentucky students, but its reinterpretation of its statutory mandate leaves it instead standing directly in the way. It is imperative that the legislature reins in this body and prohibits discrimination in every part of the commonwealth’s system of higher education.
End Notes
[i] Harvard Center for American Political Studies – Harris Poll, April 24-25, 2024, https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HHP_Apr2024_KeyResults.pdf#page=69.
[ii] Matt Berg, “Most Americans support Supreme Court’s Ending of Affirmative Action, Poll Finds, Politico, January 16, 2024, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/16/supreme-court-affirmative-action-00135787.
[iii] Board of Regents. Kentucky State University. https://www.kysu.edu/board-of-regents/index.php.
[iv] Who We Are, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, February 7, 2022, accessed June 27, 2024, https://cpe.ky.gov/aboutus/who_we_are.html.
[v] KRS 164.020, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53677.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Kentucky Public Postsecondary Education Policy for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. September 23, 2016, https://cpe.ky.gov/policies/academicaffairs/diversitypolicy.pdf
[viii] 13 KAR 2:060, https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/013/002/060/.
[ix] “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: A Review of Progress Made by Kentucky Public Postsecondary Institutions,” Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, July 2023, https://cpe.ky.gov/data/reports/2023DEIAssessment.pdf, pp. 49, 51-55.
[x] Ibid., p. 51 (emphasis in original).
[xi] Ibid., p. 26 (emphasis added).
[xii] Ibid., p. 52.
[xiii] Ibid., p. 36.
[xiv] Ibid., p. 36. Diversity Plan Report, University of Kentucky, 2024, p.17 (document obtained through public records request).
[xv] “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” p. 37.
[xvi] Timothy Minella, “Do Journalism Students Need a Course on Nonbinary Pop Stars?” Goldwater Institute, March 18, 2024, https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/do-journalism-students-need-a-course-on-nonbinary-pop-stars/. “Examples of Racial Microaggressions,” University of Minnesota School of Public Health, accessed February 19, 2024, https://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf.
[xvii] “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” p. 44.
[xviii] “The New Loyalty Oaths,” Goldwater Institute, January 17, 2023, https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loyalty-oaths/. Randall L. Kennedy, “Mandatory DEI Statements Are Ideological Pledges of Allegiance. Time to Abandon Them,” Harvard Crimson, April 2, 2024, https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/4/2/kennedy-abandon-dei-statements/. Timothy K. Minella, “Yet Another Victory Over DEI: MIT Abolishes ‘Diversity Statements,’” Goldwater Institute, May 7, 2024, https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/yet-another-victory-over-dei-mit-abolishes-diversity-statements/.
[xix] “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” p. 45.
[xx] Agenda for Committee on Equal Opportunities, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, April 22, 2024, https://cpe.ky.gov/aboutus/records/ceo/agenda-2024-04-22-ceo.pdf, p. 6.
[xxi] Diversity Plan Rubric: Universities, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, September 23, 2016, https://cpe.ky.gov/policies/academicaffairs/diversityplanrubric-universities.pdf. Diversity Plan Rubric: KCTCS, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, September 23, 2016, https://cpe.ky.gov/policies/academicaffairs/diversityplanrubric-kctcs.pdf. “Best Practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” p. 9.
[xxii] As an additional complication, the diversity plan rubric makes the following note about student enrollment targets: “For enrollment, the institution shall demonstrate that the diversity of its student body provides its students with the opportunity to receive the educational benefits of diversity as described in the Policy. This may be substantiated by providing evidence that goals outlined in an institution’s plan were generally attained or significant progress was made toward those goals, that students have been provided the opportunity to interact with diverse peers both inside and outside the classroom, and through other means identified by the institution as supported by valid research. Progress toward any one goal shall not determine whether or not expectations have been met; an institution shall be evaluated based on the entirety of its report in this area.” It therefore appears that an institution could receive the maximum number of points in this category without meeting all of its student enrollment targets based on race and ethnicity.
[xxiii] Diversity Plan Rubric: Universities.
[xxiv] Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan Metrics, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, accessed July 11, 2024, https://reports.ky.gov/t/CPE/views/Diversity/Diversity?%3Adisplay_count=n&%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3AshowVizHome=n.
[xxv] Agenda, Committee on Equal Opportunities, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, April 22, 2024, https://cpe.ky.gov/aboutus/records/ceo/agenda-2024-04-22-ceo.pdf, p. 16.
[xxvi] Minutes, Committee on Equal Opportunities, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, April 22, 2024, https://cpe.ky.gov/aboutus/records/ceo/minutes-2024-04-22-ceo.pdf.
[xxviii] Email from Dawn Offutt to Stephanie Mayberry, RE: Request for waiver, May 17, 2024 (obtained through public records request).
[xxix] Email from Travis Powell to Timothy Minella, RE: Information on Committee on Equal Opportunities, July 8, 2024.
[xxx] Agenda, Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education Business Meeting, June 21, 2024, https://cpe.ky.gov/aboutus/records/cpe_meetings/agenda-2024-06-21.pdf, p. 38.
[xxxi] Frank Newport, “Controversy Over the Term ‘Latinx’: Public Opinion Context,” Gallup, January 7, 2022, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/388532/controversy-term-latinx-public-opinion-context.aspx.
[xxxii] Opinion of the Attorney General, OAG 24-1, March 14, 2024, https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/Opinion%20of%20the%20Attorney%20General%20%2024-1.pdf.
[xxxiii] Abolish DEI Bureaucracies, Manhattan Institute, January 2023, https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/model_dei_legislation013023.pdf. Timothy Minella, “Three more States Drop DEI Programs at their Public Universities,” Goldwater Institute, May 14, 2024, https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/three-more-states-drop-dei-programs-at-their-public-universities/.
[xxxiv] Freedom From Indoctrination Act, Goldwater Institute, https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Freedom_From_Indoctrination_Act_Model_Policy_2023_3_3161.pdf.
