(C) Ohio Capital Journal
This story was originally published by Ohio Capital Journal and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Senate Bill 1 guts academic freedom and reshapes Ohio’s public universities • Ohio Capital Journal [1]
['Tom Hodson', 'Marilou Johanek', 'David W. Blight', 'Joan E. Cashin', 'Timothy Messer-Kruse', 'More From Author', 'March', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus']
Date: 2025-03-20
This commentary was originally published by the Athens County Independent.
The Ohio House passed Senate Bill 1 on Wednesday, sending the measure to the Ohio Senate for concurrence to House changes, after which it would go on to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature.
And Ohio’s state-supported higher education will never be the same.
The bill, which becomes law 90 days after the governor’s signature, substitutes governmental edicts for academic freedom; eliminates all diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campuses; restricts how faculty teach; bans faculty strikes; and restructures the terms and the mission of each institution’s board of trustees.
It applies to Ohio’s 14 public universities and 23 public community colleges and threatens loss of state funding if violated.
Testimony on the bill in the Senate and the House has been overwhelmingly negative. However, not one president of a state-supported university or college testified against this bill during its tour through the General Assembly.
At a meeting on Jan. 14, the Inter-University Council of Ohio — which comprises the presidents of state college and university presidents — decided to “not take a formal position” and “not actively engage publicly on the bill.”
Representatives of Ohio University, Ohio State University, Bowling Green State University, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Central State University, Kent State University, Cleveland State University, University of Akron, University of Toledo, and Youngstown State University were present at that meeting where the decision was made to stay quiet.
In a statement released on March 6, the IUC said that “each university has the freedom to act independently and to determine its own position on a proposition and thus has been able to respond to this proposed legislation as they deem appropriate.”
The group instead focused on advocating for a 2% increase in higher education funding, Signal Ohio reported. DeWine’s budget proposal, however, contains only a 0.1% increase.
What’s in the bill
I will break down some of what the bill says and how it will change academia as we have known it. The bill is too lengthy for me to address every part of it here. So, I will hit the points that are most problematic. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission has a full analysis.
Diversity, equity and inclusion and intellectual diversity
SB 1 mandates each state university to adopt and enforce policies that prohibit any orientation or training courses regarding DEI.
The continuation of existing or establishing new DEI offices and departments are prohibited, as is hiring outside consultants to accomplish the same ends.
That means Ohio University’s Office of the Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion will be eliminated along with the Pride Center, the Multicultural Center, and the Women’s Center.
The way the law also reads seems to eliminate university services for veterans and people with disabilities. They are included in the overall DEI initiatives on most campuses.
This part of the law also seems to apply to any student organizations that are funded by the university. This could cover student events or campaigns related to “controversial beliefs or policies” or inclusion of DEI language in student organization bylaws.
No new institutional scholarships using DEI requirements will be allowed under the new law, and existing scholarships need to remove DEI requirements. If that cannot be done, then the university can accept no additional funds to support such a scholarship.
The bill says that a state-supported educational institution must “provide no advantage or disadvantage to faculty, staff or student as individuals, hold every individual to equal standards and provide every individual with equality of opportunity, with regard to those individuals’ race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”
By default, this provision favors the white majority in power at institutions and the predominantly white student body. It disadvantages any minority group and women.
On the academic side, each university must declare that its primary function is the “pursuit of knowledge” and “affirm and declare” that it will ensure full intellectual diversity. It must “demonstrate” intellectual diversity in all course approvals, general education courses, annual reviews, strategic goals for each department and student learning outcomes.
A state institution must establish a system to respond to complaints about any administrator, faculty member, staff or student who interferes with the intellectual diversity of another.
So, in substance, students can file a complaint against a professor for addressing a controversial topic or stating a historic fact that students find infringing upon their intellectual diversity rights.
Also, universities must “seek out” speakers who have diverse ideological and political views and post a complete list of speakers and honoraria of more than $500 “prominently” on its website.
Finally, the new policy of each state university must declare that it will not “endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy, except on matters that directly impact the institution’s funding…”
The bill defines “controversial belief or policy” 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.
Does this mean that if a professor talks about any of these topics or is the subject of a news interview on these matters that the university would somehow be seen as endorsing that professor’s viewpoint and, therefore, be engaging in a controversial belief or policy?
Academic requirements
Public posting of course syllabus. Starting in the 2026–27 academic year, a syllabus for each course taught at the institution must be posted on the university’s website for all to review. The syllabus must contain:
Name of the course instructor
Calendar for the course outlining what materials will be covered on certain dates.
A list of all required and recommended readings for the course
The instructor’s professional credentials
Previously, a syllabus was between the instructor and the students. Now, each syllabus will be subject to public scrutiny and review.
Mandatory American civic literacy course. Starting with the class of 2030, students must have taken a 3-credit hour course in American civic literacy in order to graduate. Each institution must develop its own course and have it approved by the state Chancellor of Higher Education.
SB 1 requires that each course include ALL of the following:
a study of the American economic system and capitalism,
the entire U.S. Constitution,
the Declaration of Independence,
at least five essays from the Federalist Papers,
the Emancipation Proclamation,
the Gettysburg Address,
Martin Luther King, Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and
the writings of Adam Smith, including a study of the principles in “The Wealth of Nations.”
Each student must pass a comprehensive final examination at the end of the course to qualify for graduation.
Elimination of small undergraduate degree programs. If an undergraduate degree program confers an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period, it must be eliminated. The first year of a program is not counted in the three-year averages.
Faculty matters
Faculty evaluations. Each college or university must create a standard, formalized questionnaire for students to fill out evaluating faculty members. It must include questions designated by the chancellor, including a question asking, “Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political racial, gender, and religious bias?”
Faculty members must also be evaluated annually by their peers and by the institution. Those evaluations must be submitted to the chancellor for review.
Post-tenure review. Each institution must develop a post-tenure review policy that is submitted to the chancellor for approval. The review must assess whether the tenured faculty member meets “performance expectations.”
If a faculty member fails to meet performance standards, the member may be subject to censure, remedial training, or for-cause termination by the institution.
Faculty evaluation policies, tenure, post-tenure review policies and retrenchment policies are not subject to collective bargaining, according to SB 1.
Faculty strikes. This law prohibits full-time faculty at a state institution of higher learning from striking over unfair practices. Any grievances must be submitted to a formal settlement procedure
Boards of Trustees
Starting with people appointed after July 1, 2025, trustee terms will be six years instead of nine, but trustees may be reappointed for an additional six-year term. Currently, trustees cannot be immediately reappointed.
SB 1 also initiates training requirements for board members. The training will be provided by the chancellor.
Finally, trustees are given more power and influence over faculty/personnel matters, university spending, curriculum oversight and general management of each institution.
Interactions with China
State institutions are prohibited from accepting gifts, donations, or contributions from the People’s Republic of China or any group operating on behalf of the Chinese government.
Each university or college also must notify the chancellor of any new academic or research partnerships with an institution located in China.
Litigation expected
Litigation is expected from various groups that testified against the bill, such as the Ohio Counseling Association, Ohio Federation of Teachers, National Association of Social Workers, Ohio Student Association, Ohio Faculty Council, CAIR, Undergraduate Student Governments of Ohio, the Ohio Education Association, the AFL-CIO and others.
I expect that potential plaintiffs will raise constitutional issues under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus argue that the new law also violates the Ohio Constitution. Some may argue that SB 1 threatens the accreditation standards for some academic programs. Plaintiffs probably will ask a judge for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to prohibit the new law from taking effect until the new law is fully litigated.
Litigation probably will be lodged in federal court instead of state courts since after this past election, the Ohio Supreme Court is now 6-to-1 Republican, and this bill is the result of an overwhelmingly Republican General Assembly.
Conclusion
If state colleges and universities fail to comply with the many requirements of this new law, they run the risk of losing state financial support for both instruction and for capital projects.
Power is being taken away from individual institutions and consolidated in the hands of the chancellor and the legislature, which is dominated by MAGA supporters and ultra-conservatives.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/03/20/senate-bill-1-guts-academic-freedom-and-reshapes-ohios-public-universities/
Published and (C) by Ohio Capital Journal
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/ohiocapitaljournal/
