Bill professors fear might erode tenure at Kentucky universities passes House
Rep. James Tipton, R-Taylorsville, speaks on the House floor about a bill that would give universities and colleges the ability to remove faculty members and presidents for not meeting 'performance and productivity requirements." (Kentucky Lantern photo by McKenna Horsley)
FRANKFORT — A bill that some Kentucky academics argue could erode faculty tenure in the state's public universities passed the House Tuesday.
House Bill 424 from Rep. James Tipton, R-Taylorsville, would give universities and colleges the ability to remove faculty members and presidents for not meeting 'performance and productivity requirements' set by the institutions' boards. The bill would require faculty and presidents to be evaluated at least once every four years.
House members voted 78-17 on the bill mostly on party lines. Rep. Scott Lewis, of Hartford, was the only Republican to join most of the chambers' Democrats in voting against the measure.
The House also passed in a voice vote a floor amendment to the bill from Tipton that removed the limit on universities' employment contracts.
'This is so we have a more efficient, more effective system of public education for students across the commonwealth,' Tipton said.
Tipton repeated past comments he's made about the bill on the floor, again saying the bill was 'not about tenure.'
While presenting the bill in the House Committee on Postsecondary Education last week, Tipton said the bill was 'about employment contracts' and not tenure in higher education. Tipton is the chair of that committee and had introduced similar legislation last session.
During the committee, a few professors expressed opposition to the bill. Julie Cyzewski, an associate professor at Murray State University, told the committee Tipton's bill 'would deeply complicate and confuse the process of teaching and running the university' and the process laid out in the bill was 'very arbitrary,' which could jeopardize student learning.
Michael Frazier, the executive director of the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition, was the only public citizen to support the bill in the committee. He said the coalition supports the bill because it 'does closely protect academic freedom' while ensuring that the 'status quo of higher education does not remain' in the state.
On the House floor, Rep. Rachel Roarx, D-Louisville, said she was voting against the bill because it would add 'extra burden to our universities and professors.' She had previously passed her vote in the committee last week.
The bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration this session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
LA Riots: Multiple Police Cars Attacked By Protesters
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two videos posted to social media showed multiple damaged California Highway Patrol vehicles stationary beneath a bridge in Los Angeles as protestors hurled objects down below, including bikes and street signs. No cops were visible in the videos. There was large-scale rioting in LA over the weekend, violence that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement in the Californian city. President Donald Trump is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to quell the violence, against the wishes of the state's Gov. Gavin Newsom and the city's Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. ❌ BREAKING: 🚨 Rioters have destroyed multiple California Highway Patrol vehicles and are now MOVING TOWARD the city. Via @ExxAlerts — {Matt} $XRPatriot (@matttttt187) June 9, 2025 Police cruisers continue to be pelted by large rocks as officers take shelter in the underpass. There is no intervention. California is a failed state. — Cam Higby | America First 🇺🇸 (@camhigby) June 9, 2025 This is a developing article. Updates to follow.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Says 'Bring in the Troops' as LA Riots Escalate
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump called for troops to enter Los Angeles amid rioting in the Californian city that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement. The Republican president is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to L.A. to quell the intense violence, despite opposition from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!" Trump posted to his Truth Social platform in the early hours of Monday morning. This is a developing story. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.
