Amid spirited debate and vocal opposition, Kentucky’s HB 424 has now become law. Much of the criticism, especially from some faculty at public universities, frames the bill as an attack on tenure, academic freedom, or even as legislative “micromanagement.”

Some of these perspectives were voiced by Western Kentucky University faculty members in a recent Daily News article. But these criticisms miss the mark – both legally and philosophically.

To begin with, HB 424 does not touch the issue of tenure. The law does not eliminate tenure, nor does it undermine its core protections. Rather, the bill simply mandates a regular post-tenure review process to evaluate faculty performance.

Contrary to what some opponents claim, this is not a radical or intrusive policy. In fact, WKU already has a post-tenure review mechanism in place. As such, the new law has no functional impact on WKU. Still, HB 424 affirms an important principle: that publicly funded institutions must answer to the public.

It is not “micromanagement” for the Kentucky General Assembly to set broad expectations for accountability and performance at state-funded universities. Taxpayers foot the bill for faculty salaries, campus infrastructure, and academic programs. Legislators, elected to represent those taxpayers, have every right – and indeed duty – to ensure public institutions are serving the common good.

To suggest otherwise is to forget that public universities exist by legislative charter and continue to operate through annual appropriations. These are not private enclaves; they are arms of the state.

Conservatives, often skeptical of tenure, have good reason to be. Tenure can, in some cases, shield faculty members who have grown unproductive, disengaged, or hostile to the mission of teaching and service. No profession should offer a lifetime guarantee of employment without accountability.

But a truly conservative approach recognizes that tenure also serves a vital institutional purpose: it protects faculty from political interference, fosters long-term investment in scholarship, and helps attract top academic talent.

Tenure is not the problem. The failure to maintain standards post-tenure is.

That’s where HB 424 comes in. It serves as a reminder that tenure is not a license for disengagement. Faculty members at public universities are not independent contractors with unfettered autonomy. They are public servants entrusted with the formation of future citizens and the stewardship of public funds.

When some faculty react to even modest oversight with outrage, they risk reinforcing the perception that the academy is out of touch with the broader society it is supposed to serve.

If faculty members wish to preserve the protections and privileges of tenure, they must demonstrate a shared commitment to accountability, excellence and responsiveness to the public interest.

HB 424 does not threaten tenure – it reminds us what tenure is for.

At its best, tenure supports a flourishing academic culture marked by rigorous teaching, honest inquiry, and faithful service to the Commonwealth. At its worst, tenure becomes a refuge for indifference. It is up to universities to ensure the former prevails.

Gary Houchens, PhD, is director of the educational leadership doctoral program at Western Kentucky University.