Two New Laws Could Stop Professional Censorship in Its Tracks

You don’t have to comply with ideological gatekeeping—here’s how to push back.

Mar 31, 2025

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

The night before Albert was set to leave for the conference, an unexpected email arrived: "Your registration has been canceled." At first, he assumed it was a mistake. Then he saw the message from the organizers: "Due to concerns raised by members of our community regarding your published views, we have determined that your participation would not align with our commitment to an inclusive environment." No debate. Just silence.

Albert had known his critiques of DEI had made him a target, but this wasn’t just pushback—it was erasure. And as he would soon realize, this wasn’t only about him. It was part of a much larger problem, one embedded deep within professional licensing, and the institutions controlling entire industries.

Incidents like this have been happening for years, and while those that happened on college campuses have received lots of YouTube attention and some mention on major news outlets, little has been said about those professionals quietly excluded from events and awards in their field of expertise.

I happened to be privy to this happening to another grassroots organizer late last year. With so much attention focused on what’s happening at university campuses, the role of professional organizations and licensing boards in silencing ideological dissent has mostly flown under the radar.

That is until now.

Recently on Minding The Campus, David Randall– Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars (NAS)– wrote about model legislation written by Civics Alliance to address this problem.

These model bills are basic blueprints to challenge the ideological stranglehold in professional organizations.

Civics Alliance and NAS have drafted multiple bills to curb institutional overreach, but two directly protect professionals facing ideological censure. The Licensure Nondiscrimination Act and the Professional Association Liberty Act.

Each of these model bills provide protection for people in the field like Albert.

The Licensure Nondiscrimination Act would prevent licensure from being contingent on adopting, training in, or affirming belief in discriminatory concepts like systemic racism, gender fluidity, social justice, equity, or any ideology that divides identity groups into oppressor and oppressed. Where passed, professionals would be free to dissent without fear that they would lose their license and therefore their livelihoods.

Share Diogenes In Exile

The Professional Association Liberty Act is written to bolster Free Speech by withholding state funds from professional organizations, like the American Bar Association, that require members to make ideological commitments to things like anti-racism or DEI as a condition to participate in conferences, job fairs, or other services otherwise afforded to members.

To take effect, these measures must be passed at the state level. Once enacted, they will allow professionals to follow best practices in medicine, psychotherapy, and other fields—free from ideological coercion.

While it is difficult to predict if such changes would be enough to prevent professional organizations from targeting dissenting voices like Albert’s, the proposed legislation to safeguard licensure would protect practitioners with diverse viewpoints where it’s passed.

Take this situation for example. The Vermont Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) which issues licenses and regulates professional psychotherapy for that state has issued a new policy requiring counselors to take “cultural competency” training as part of maintaining their license.

Regular readers will know that “cultural competency” is a code word for racist material most often seen in things like Derald Sue’s Multicultural Counseling textbook Counseling the Culturally Diverse. Those unfamiliar with this term may be surprised at how counseling textbooks go on about how people of color are incompetent to achieve high performance without whites adopting an obsequious demeanor. This selection from Sue’s textbook illustrates the tenor of this training:

CHAPTER 7
White Racial Consciousness: Implications for Counseling and Psychotherapy
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
1. Acquire an understanding of what it means to be White. Be able to discern differences between how Whites and People of Color experience “Whiteness.”
2. Understand how Whiteness advantages White European American individuals and disadvantages People of Color.
5. Learn what a White person can do in order to develop a nonracist and antiracist White identity.
6. Learn what White helping professionals can do in order to prevent their Whiteness from negatively impacting clients of color.

This vile material is par for the course in “cultural competency” trainings, making it obvious why professionals like Albert would want to speak out. If Vermont passed the Licensure Nondiscrimination Act, it would no longer be able to require counselors to undergo ideological training like the material above.

The model legislation now offered by Civics Alliance and NAS would stop licensing boards, which often function independently under the umbrella of state government, from making or enforcing such requirements.

While blue states, like Vermont, may be resistant to such changes, red states would be well served to get these measures passed into law.

Many legislators may be unaware that professional organizations influence the composition of state licensing boards, which then set the skill and educational requirements for licensure. As a result, they may be surprised to learn that entire professions under their oversight are already being ideologically homogenized—just as we see happening in Vermont.

With most state legislatures wrapping up for the year, now is the perfect time for interested parties to review the model legislation provided by Civics Alliance and NAS. Over the next two months, lawmakers and advocates can study these proposals and assess how they align with their state’s needs.

By preparing now, citizens can push lawmakers to introduce these bills in the next legislative session—ensuring real change as soon as next year.

The ideological hijacking of professional associations and licensing boards isn’t a future threat—it’s already happening. Albert’s cancellation is just one example of a systemic purge that punishes professionals for questioning the orthodoxy. Whether through DEI loyalty oaths, coerced ideological training, or outright exclusion, the message is clear: conform or be cast out.

But professionals aren’t powerless. The model legislation proposed by Civics Alliance and NAS provides a concrete way to push back. If red states act now, they can ensure licensing boards and professional associations stay focused on competence—not ideology. The choice is simple: either let institutions like Vermont’s OPR dictate what professionals must believe, or pass laws that restore freedom of thought to the professions. The time to act is now.

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.
Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.
Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

You can also find my work at Minding the Campus