Republican Ohio senators have introduced legislation aimed at improving public higher education, particularly by eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Senate Bill 1 — also known as the “Enact Advance Ohio Higher Education Act” — had its first hearing in the Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee on January 29, according to the Ohio Legislature website. In addition to reducing funding for DEI initiatives, the bill prohibits college faculty from going on strike.
SB 1 is the ideological successor to Senate Bill 83, which aims to make changes in the state’s higher education institutions that conservative lawmakers believe will promote “diversity of thought”.
SB 83, which was heavily criticized by Ohio State faculty and students, passed the Ohio Senate but failed in the House of Representatives.
Ohio Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), the new bill’s primary sponsor, confirmed that SB 1 is a reintroduction of SB 83.
“[SB 1] addresses probably 12 or so significant issues in [SB 83], all intended to promote free speech, promote diversity of thought and give some management tools to the president and Board of Trustees,” Cirino told reporters.
Cirino stated that SB 1 would promote free speech, challenging what he and other Republicans consider to be a one-sided campus culture.
“I would emphasize, this is to require the Boards of Trustees to make it a policy at the university that they are promoting and facilitating diversity of thought on their campuses,” Cirino told reporters.
“And that is to counter what I believe, and many believe, has been a monolithic environment on campuses expressing only one point of view, generally speaking, the liberal point of view.”
Pranav Jani, an English professor at Ohio State and president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, believes the new bill is based on the conservative theory that faculty indoctrinate students rather than educate them.
Jani stated that the bill claims to protect free speech while attempting to censor what topics faculty can discuss.
“On the one hand, it says it’s for bringing in intellectual diversity by shutting down these indoctrinating professors,” Jani told me. “But, in fact, it provides a list of controversial topics. So, how do you say you’re for intellectual diversity while also saying, ‘Here are the topics you should be aware of because otherwise you may be suspended or fired.'”
Honesty for Ohio Education is a nonpartisan statewide coalition that advocates for “honest education, the affirmation of all identities, cultures, and lived experiences, as well as the rights and safety of all students, families, and educators,” according to its website.
Rachel Coyle, policy director for Honesty for Ohio Education, said the bill would make it difficult for professors to teach students about controversial topics. These include climate change, abortion, foreign policy, and LGBTQ+ rights.
“It would make it really difficult to teach those subjects because professors would have to let their students, quote, ‘reach their own conclusions about those subjects,'” Coyle went on. “And the language is broad enough that it could be read that if a student gets an answer wrong on a test, you couldn’t correct them.”
One of the most significant aspects of SB 1 is the proposed elimination of DEI programs in Ohio’s public higher education institutions.
Cirino believes the concept of DEI is unconstitutional and has become a form of “institutional discrimination” in Ohio because of the ideas it seeks to teach. He stated that the bill would serve to eliminate such discrimination.
“[DEI] is discrimination under current federal law, so I would define it as, essentially, some categories of people get defined as victims, and others get defined as perpetrators on those victims, and that is not a productive way for our students to go through education,” according to Cirino.
Coyle believes DEI is being judged and disregarded without a proper definition, and DEI programs are in place to ensure equal access to both educational and professional opportunities.
“One of the things we’ve seen is that people just say those three letters without actually discussing what they mean,” Coyle told me. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion mean that everyone has an equal chance at success.
Everyone has access to high-quality, well-funded programs, jobs, and education, and we’ve seen in the past that these programs had to be implemented for a reason.”
SB 1 also contains a no-strike provision, which prohibits faculty strikes at public colleges. The inclusion dates back to the bill’s predecessor, SB 83, which received criticism from faculty when it was introduced in August 2023, according to previous Lantern reporting.
During that time, faculty members claimed the bill portrayed them as “major scapegoats in the country’s latest culture war.”
Cirino stated that the no-strike provision would protect students by ensuring that the education they pay for continues uninterrupted.
“They provide instruction for all the courses you signed up for, and nothing should interrupt that contract from being fulfilled, and when faculty strike or threaten to strike in order to get certain things in their agreements, that is an interruption that should not be allowed,” according to Cirino.
According to Jani, a no-strike provision is clearly anti-union and violates university faculty labor rights.
“It bans strike faculty from striking on campus, and it’s not like faculty go on strike at a drop of a hat,” Jani told me. “Going on strike is a very serious thing, but the right to strike is a basic right for all working people, and it’s something that can actually give you leverage in negotiations for a better contract.”
Jani believes SB 1 is an attempt to exert authoritarian influence over the state’s universities and schools.
“Senate Bill 1 is that kind of authoritarian governmental overreach that we would criticize in any other society, and they’re trying to bring it right here,” Jani told reporters.
Cirino stated that faculty who express concerns about governmental overreach should recognize that they work for state-funded institutions and are thus subject to state government rulings.
“The one that bothers me the most is that so many faculty members have indicated that the legislature, in their opinion, has no business telling them how to do anything at the university, that it’s a government overreach,” said Cirino. “Well, I have news for them: They are state agencies, they are part of the government.”
