Ohio higher education bill one step closer to law

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — A bill that makes sweeping changes to Ohio’s public higher education system is just one vote away from the governor’s desk after lawmakers promised to fast track it. 

“I think I’ll probably sign it,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said. “I always reserve the right to look at the last rendition of the bill and I will do that and then I’ll make a final decision.”

Senate Bill 1 is a reintroduction of a bill from the last general assembly to “advance” or “destroy” higher education, depending on who you ask.  

When the bill failed to pass last year, the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland) said “all bets are off,” saying he would make sure it got to the governor’s desk fast, making few concessions or compromises.   

The legislation prohibits all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices on college campuses and threatens loss of state funding for noncompliance. DEI practices include scholarships, hiring and admission.  

Before the bill was passed, two amendments to clarify DEI language in the legislation were added to:  

• Clarify that the bill’s DEI prohibitions do not prohibit a state institution from complying with any state or federal law to provide disability services or to limit student organizations including fraternities and sororities.  

• Carve out the opportunity for a university to apply to the chancellor of higher education for an exemption to the DEI ban. The university will need to demonstrate a need for the exemption, like for purposes of accreditation of a specific program. 

“Today I stand at a crossroad between what diversity, equity and inclusion once was and what it has become,” State Rep. Tom Young (R-Washington Township) said. “The original purpose was to break down barriers. For decades it worked, but somewhere along the way, DEI changed.”

“Once we go down that road, we are not just censoring diversity, equity and inclusion, we are censoring everything,” State Rep. Desiree Tims (D-Dayton) said. “Let’s be clear, this is not about fairness, it is certainly not about education, it is about power.” 

The legislation, in one of its most controversial provisions, also prohibits faculty from striking. University professors said the anti-strike provision assumes that they strike for sinister reasons, when in reality it is for issues like classrooms that don’t leak or better salaries.  

Some lawmakers said striking puts students, who are paying thousands of dollars, in danger of losing their education. 

“Our students here at our universities are not tools to be used by faculty,” State Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) said. “I will stand by my students.” 

“Nobody wants to go on strike, workers lose money, they lose their benefits,” State Rep. Erika White (D-Springfield Township) said. “When they do that, that means they’ve reached the point of desperation.” 

Senate Bill 1 also creates a new “American civic literacy” course. It’s described as a three-credit-hour course with a list of seven required readings including the U.S. Constitution, a minimum of five essays from the Federalist papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the letter from Birmingham Jail written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

When the bill was first introduced, that class was mandatory for graduation; now students can get out of it if they have taken three credit hours, or the equivalent, of an American government or history course.  

Other portions of the bill require that professors publicly post syllabi online and prohibit universities from taking stances on “controversial topics.” Controversial topics are defined in the bill as “any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”

“There is so much that is just chilling in terms of free speech at our universities, our public universities and colleges, that it’s hard to see the good because of so much of the bad,” Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) said.  

The bill, over its time in both the House and Senate, brought testimony from nearly 40 people in support and about 1,500 in opposition to the legislation, testifying either in person or via written testimony. 

“Understand that we don’t just make decisions in the general assembly based on who has the ability to show up at the statehouse,” Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman said. “[Testimony] is not the only way that we receive information. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of replies, information we get by way of email, letters, telephone calls, text messages. That’s in addition to people we meet with in our district.”

“That that many people showed up, testified, sent in testimony, definitely says it is out of touch legislation with everyday Ohioans,” Antonio said.    

When asked why he thinks so few proponents showed up to show their support for Senate Bill 1, Huffman said, “I don’t know the answer to that.” 

“Probably there’s a lot of folks who are testifying who believe they have some financial loss, something financially at stake,” he said.  

The Ohio Senate is in session next week, where it could bring the bill up for a concurrence vote; if passed, it would head to DeWine’s desk for signature.