UK legal counsel defends anti-political technology policy

The University of Kentucky’s top attorney pushed back Thursday on claims that its potential new technology policy encroaches on First Amendment and privacy rights.

William “Bill” Thro, the university’s general counsel, also denied accusations that this proposed policy was drafted in response to a professor’s ongoing legal actions against UK, accusing the university of violating his freedom of speech.

The policy, which is not yet official, would prohibit people from using UK technology, including university internet, for any political activity. It would also ban people from posting on non-university social media accounts “or engaging in substantial personal communications” using university technology resources, the draft administrative regulation said.

In an interview with the Herald-Leader Thursday, Thro argued this policy offers clarity to UK’s existing technology security policy and said the new version ensures academic freedom is protected. But opponents including faculty, staff and First Amendment advocacy groups have said its ambiguous language actually does the opposite.

“The current regulations (related to information technology) are not as crystal clear, perhaps, as the new proposed regulations, and that doesn’t mean that the new proposed regulations can’t be made better …,” Thro said. “But in terms of people using the university’s IT infrastructure to run their own business, or to launch their own political campaigns, or to pursue political campaigns, that’s always been prohibited, discouraged, even under the existing policy.”

However, the existing policy does not prohibit or mention politics in the university’s restricted technology uses. The proposed one does.

“Users may not use University technology resources for political activity of any types, soliciting contributions, promoting a commercial product, operating a personal or private business, posting to non-University social media or engaging in substantial personal communications,” the proposed policy says. It does not say how it would define politics.

Thro said that pertains to “advocating for the cause, advocating for the election of a particular individual, advocating for the rejection of a particular referendum.”

The existing regulation says: “The University generally does not monitor or restrict the use of technology resources, but may limit access to or review and monitor technology resources and the use of technology resources when there has been a violation or alleged violation of University regulations, policies, procedures, directives, or state or federal laws.”

Faculty expressed concerns during a faculty senate meeting Monday that the proposed policy, which aims to bolster cybersecurity, would compromise sensitive information and violate contracts such as nondisclosure agreements. Savio Poovathingal, a faculty senator and professor of aerospace engineering, said the policy could risk violating contracts that some university employees may have with companies or the government to keep certain information from being shared.

“There are certainly people who are working on things where they get classified materials from various government things. Okay, if it is on the university’s email servers, then it’s obviously property of the university,” Thro said. “But we are not going to allow somebody to access something that is protected, classified by the federal government, or you know something that is protected health information within our healthcare system.”

UK’s current regulations give UK access to users’ data if both the user and a senior university official approve. If the user doesn’t give the university permission to access their data, then UK must get permission from its legal counsel, according to the existing policy.

The proposed policy changes that.

“The University may access the content or copy the content of such a computer at any time for any reason. The University may also demand the return of the University-owned computer and software at any time for any reason,” the draft says. “Failure to cooperate with the University’s directives concerning access or equipment may result in termination of access to technology resources and/or disciplinary action.”

UK Provost Robert DiPaola and Thro emphasized the changes aren’t unusual, and also said they aren’t related to lawsuits against UK.

UK law professor Ramsi Woodcock sued UK after it barred him from teaching in July 2025 because he called for the invasion of Israel. A judge has allowed UK to continue its investigation of Woodcock, and a hearing to discuss whether federal intervention is needed is set for Thursday.

Tech policy change is another piece of governance overhaul

The institution has been slowly revising its administrative regulations since its Board of Trustees overhauled UK’s governance structure in 2024, according to Thro.

At the request of UK President Eli Capilouto’s office, the board agreed to dissolve the policy-setting university senate and replace it with the faculty senate, which can only give advice to administrators rather than make material decisions. The board also authorized Capilouto to revise the university’s administrative regulations to align with Kentucky’s needs.

“So we were, in effect, scrapping the old constitution and bringing in, creating a new constitution …,” Thro said.

Capilouto at the time said these changes would make UK’s decision-making process more “nimble” and streamlined.

“That process has gone on for the last two and a half years, and it continues to go on, and we have gotten around to doing the IT regulations,” Thro said.

Neal Hutchens, an education policy professor at UK, said it seems workers have lost trust in its administration since the consolidation of its governance.

“This is also an example of how the erosion of shared governance mechanisms probably already has employees suspicious of new admin rules,” Hutchens said.

A few months before the institution’s governance restructuring, Kentucky tried to pass the Republican-led Senate Bill 6, which targeted politics and diversity in higher education. While it failed to become law, a different piece of legislation, House Bill 4, was enacted in March 2025. That bill took on a similar goal, but was more severe in both scope and enforcement.

These consolidated governances and restrictions on political speech are not unique to Kentucky.

“Some states, notably, Florida and Texas, have asserted the right to control faculty speech, even in the classroom on issues connected to teaching, which is definitely different in terms of how academic freedom has been traditionally defined,” Hutchens said.

Michael Frazier, a conservative and founder of the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition – which advocates for free speech, due process and education access in higher education – said he believes UK has increasingly restricted students, faculty, staff and others from sharing political facts and opinions.

“UK’s record makes their words hollow, why the flagship is losing credibility academically, and declining in public trust,” Frazier said. “In the least, UK’s reputation and repeated actions incites greater need for stronger statutory protections.”

The United Campus Workers of Kentucky union has rejected the technology policy, according to an email from organizers Emily Jackson and Dan Moon.

“The University’s proposed changes to (Administrative Regulation) 10:1 are unnecessary, punitive, and would strip away user privacy protections,” they said in the email Wednesday. “Tell UK to respect its employees and protect user privacy!”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression told the Herald-Leader it plans to send a statement to UK about the policy.

The policy is still a proposal, rather than a finalized rule. UK is soliciting input from community members, and those wanting to weigh in have until Monday to leave feedback on the regulation.