Published on September 20, 2024, 12:44 am

It is quite astonishing how rapidly one’s entire life can change. Reflecting back seven years ago, I found myself in my 14th year as the chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Labouring side by side with several devoted colleagues, we were successful in establishing a strong and highly respected program. Blessedly, my previous three annual assessments featured flawless ratings, accompanied by numerous heartfelt commendations from students and fellow physicians.

In that distinct autumn season, I had been invited to speak at an event focusing on an unambiguous yet critical question: What is the best way to address children diagnosed with gender dysphoria (that is, boys questioning whether they are indeed boys and girls likewise questioning their gender). As a medical practitioner passionate about my patients’ wellbeing, my answer was straightforward yet impactful. We must first understand the origin of a child’s transgender confusion and address any emotional issues before considering other more intrusive or potentially risky treatments.

Indeed, this seemed like a logically deduced response; every scientific study commences with curiosity-driven inquiries – one of the foremost being: Why? In line with our understanding as medical practitioners; if a patient complains about chest discomfort, a cardiologist seeks to investigate what is causing this pain—venturing through numerous probabilities before confirming a diagnosis and launching treatment.

This approach has always represented standard practice for medicines – Medicine 101 if you will. However disturbingly enough following my remarks no one requested further clarification on whether my proposed answer made sense or queried me about my experience dealing with children who suffer from dysphoria. Instead I would soon realize perceptions were shifted based on hasty conclusions drawn regarding my position on transgender issues.

Suddenly within campus corridors emanated murmurs among officials at the LGBT Center arguing vehemently for some form of penalty to be meted out to me due to perceived violations that entirely misconstrued established facts surrounding my previous services as an expert witness in cases that involved access of showers, restrooms and locker rooms based on professed gender identity rather than biological sex.

Even from a professional standpoint, these controversial transgender policies did not sit well with me and I expressed my strong reservations to that effect.

Unfortunately, the backlash came swiftly thereafter with demands for an apology from me regarding my views on transgender issues – even more baffling was the lack of clarity about who these apologies would be directed towards. Tacit acquiescence loomed large among sections of faculty who were attuned to changing cultural trends while others manipulated my predicament to ensure I faced punitive actions for simply fulfilling my duty: objective analysis and clear communication free of bias.

The experience wasn’t unique to me; similar scenarios have occurred within academic institutions like University of Illinois, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and Shawnee State University where professors paid dearly for expressing their views or beliefs contrary to popular sentiments driven by left-wing politics. The ironic consequence is the blatant disregard for the very essence of tolerance preached copiously by these universities but selectively practiced.

In a disconcerting turn of events weeks after my speech at The Heritage Foundation, I found myself stripped off my role as division chief amplified by glaring ostracism: I was denied teaching duties and endured continuous hostility. Within a year from those incidents, the university declined to renew my contract essentially terminating my service.

This decision arrived after an impressive 14-year career guiding our division forward enjoying fruitful years marked by perfect reviews devoid of any conflict or difficulty in recruiting fresh faculty. It’s important to reiterate that I was notably not relieved off duties due to poor management capabilities or unprofessional behavior. My exit culminated from a refusal to align with popular social activism narratives thus landing me on the wrong side of political correctness as per the university’s standards.

Worse still, this action sends detrimental signals deeply embedded within higher education: Suppress any questions or objections against dominant narratives and alienate contrary viewpoints. This will no doubt leave devastating impressions on future leaders of our society.

The silver lining lies in the growing number of court decisions and the body of empirical research echoing the same sentiments I expressed seven years ago. Recent studies from the United Kingdom have raised severe doubts about current practices related to treatment of children with gender dysphoria, while American courts have upheld school privacy policies that I defended earlier in my career.

More importantly, justice is finding a path towards me as court rulings are recognizing the injustice perpetrated against me. Last year, with robust support from Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys especially on issues regarding violation of my constitutional rights and striving for reinstatement of my position coupled with back pay, a federal district court concluded that a jury should hear my appeals. Adding guts to this fight most recently was a pronouncement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit supporting this decision.

By enshrining their judgements they observed “Josephson’s speech was protected and retaliating against Josephson for his speech would violate his First Amendment rights”. This demonstrated an intrinsic understanding that the