By Ayla Goktan
This opinion piece is a collaboration between me and several of my colleagues. We are all affiliated with U of L, training to be psychotherapists, and are concerned about the negative impacts of Kentucky state legislation on the mental health care provided to U of L students at the U of L Counseling Center.
Although I do not work at the UCC, other contributors do. We all believe the U of L community deserves to know about recent changes in the mental health care at the UCC.
We, as U of L students and mental health professionals in training, know that quality mental healthcare for college students is more crucial than ever. A 2024 survey reveals that about 70% of students in the U.S. have struggled with mental health since starting college.
In fact, rates of mental health issues on college campuses have never been higher and are roughly equivalent across racial groups.
However, students with marginalized identities, such as students of color and those from rural backgrounds, access mental health services at lower rates than students with more privileged identities. This is partly because of mental health stigma or feeling like therapy is ineffective and not tailored to them.
For these and other reasons, we have been alarmed by the impact of Kentucky state legislation KRS 164.2895, formerly known as House Bill 4, on the quality of mental health services provided to U of L students at the U of L Counseling Center.
This legislation, in effect since May 2025, states that Kentucky public postsecondary institutions may not treat individuals differently or give them special benefits based on religion, race, sex, color or national origin. It prohibits these institutions from using resources to support or maintain offices, programs or initiatives whose primary purpose is “diversity, equity and inclusion,” if those initiatives result in differential treatment based on the categories above.
While the legislation states that it should not “apply to or affect… mental or physical health services provided by certified or licensed professionals,” the culture of overcompliance at U of L has nonetheless affected U of L UCC services.
With therapy and assessment clients, UCC staff and trainees are provided a statement to read at the beginning of the first session explaining why questions about identity are beneficial to clients’ therapy.
UCC staff were instructed to extend KRS 164.2895 mandates to identity categories not named in the legislation, such as sexual orientation. Additionally, identity-specific therapy groups such as the LGBTQ+ Prisms Group and a proposed group for Black women, as well as outreach activities such as workshops supporting students with ADHD and social media posts supporting Black History Month have been discontinued or prevented.
It was also stressed to UCC staff that they could not pursue or imply pursuit of “work-arounds” for these prohibitions.
Although some UCC staff made multiple attempts to resist these demands that cited empirical research and professional ethics codes supporting the importance of targeted support for marginalized communities, university administrators insisted on overcompliance.
Overcompliance, in this case, means institutions like U of L act out of fear of potential legal repercussions by preemptively restricting or eliminating programs and practices that are not actually prohibited by law but are considered “too risky.”
At the UCC, the KRS 164.2895-related removal of targeted mental health support for marginalized communities contradicts the statement in KRS 164.2895 that this legislation should not apply to mental or physical health services. It also contradicts the professional and ethical responsibility that providers have to deliver competent and culturally-responsive care.
As mentioned above, mental health care is less accessible to and less utilized by college students with marginalized identities. This warrants targeted support for these students through group therapy and outreach services. The removal of this support represents a gross injustice at any time, but especially now amid what has widely been recognized as a “mental health crisis” on college campuses.
In writing this opinion piece, we aim to reaffirm the importance of identity-specific therapy groups and mental health outreach, which have been erased from U of L due to the effects of KRS 164.2895.
More broadly, we aim to promote transparency and disrupt overcompliance at U of L and beyond. All members of the U of L community have both the right and responsibility to speak up. If you have been negatively affected by KRS 164.2895, please consider speaking up about this impact, whether in your social circles or more broadly such as in your own opinion piece.
Everyone at U of L has the power to create change by bringing attention to these concerns. Together, we can build strength through collective effort.
Ayla Goktan is a fifth-year counseling psychology doctoral candidate at the University of Louisville.
File photo / The Louisville Cardinal