Sandra Macpherson (front left), associate professor of English at Ohio State, watches the Higher Education Committee’s opposition hearing for Senate Bill 1 in an overflow room Tuesday. The bill passed through the Ohio Senate Wednesday. Credit: Daniel Bush | Lantern Photographer
A version of this story was originally published Feb. 5 but has since been updated in light of Senate Bill 1’s passing.
A bill that proposes banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs at all public Ohio higher education institutions passed through the Ohio Senate Wednesday.
Senate Bill 1 — or the “Enact Advance Ohio Higher Education Act” — was passed in a 21-11 vote, largely along party lines, despite roughly 200 Ohioans testifying against the bill in person at the Statehouse Tuesday, per prior Lantern reporting. The bill still needs approval from both the Ohio House of Representatives, where it will travel next, and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.
SB 1 is the ideological successor of Senate Bill 83, which similarly aimed to make changes conservative lawmakers believe will promote “diversity of thought” in the state’s higher education institutions. SB 83 — which was heavily criticized by faculty and students at Ohio State — passed in the Ohio Senate but failed to do the same in the House.
Though DeWine has not publicly commented on SB 1, he did say he was open to signing a bill that would “dramatically change Ohio college and university campuses” in the context of SB 83, according to an Ohio Capital Journal article from June 2024.
Ohio Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), the new bill’s primary sponsor, confirmed 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 said.
Cirino said SB 1 would promote free speech, challenging what he and other Republicans believe 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 said. “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 Ohio State professor of English and president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors — said he believes the new bill is based on the conservative theory that faculty are indoctrinating students rather than educating them. Jani said the bill claims to protect free speech, yet attempts to censor what topics faculty can speak about.
“On the one hand, it says it’s for bringing in intellectual diversity by shutting down these indoctrinating professors,” Jani said. “But in fact, what it does is it also gives a list of controversial topics. And so, how do you both say that you’re for intellectual diversity and then say, ‘Here are the topics you need to watch out for because otherwise you might get even suspended or even fired.’”
Honesty for Ohio Education is a nonpartisan, statewide coalition that advocates for “honest education, the affirmation of all identities, cultures, and lived experiences, and 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 subjects it deems controversial. 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 said. “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 substantial aspects of SB 1 is its proposed dissolution of DEI programs within Ohio’s public higher education institutions.
Cirino said he believes the concept of DEI itself is unconstitutional and has become a form of “institutional discrimination” in Ohio due to the ideas it aims to teach. He said the bill would serve to eliminate said 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,” Cirino said.
Coyle said she feels DEI is being judged and disregarded without acknowledgement of its proper definition, and DEI programs are put 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 said. “Diversity, equity [and] inclusion means that everyone has the same shot at success. Everyone has access to programs, and jobs and education that [are] high-quality and well-funded, and we’ve seen in the past that there’s a reason why these programs had to come into place.”
SB 1 also includes a no-strike provision, which would ban faculty strikes at public colleges. The inclusion dates back to the bill’s predecessor — SB 83 — which sparked pushback from faculty when it was introduced in August 2023, per prior Lantern reporting. During that time, faculty said the bill painted them as “major scapegoats in the country’s latest culture war.”
Cirino said the no-strike provision would protect students by ensuring the education they pay for is 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,” Cirino said.
Jani said a no-strike provision is strictly anti-union and infringes on the labor rights of university faculty.
“It bans strike faculty from striking on campus, and it’s not like faculty go on strike at a drop of a hat,” Jani said. “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 said he thinks 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 said.
Cirino said faculty voicing concerns about governmental overreach should recognize they work for state-funded institutions and are therefore subject to the state government’s 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,” Cirino said, “Well, I have news for them: They are state agencies, they are part of the government.”
