The Ohio House voted 58-34 along party lines on Wednesday evening to pass legislation that would put the kibosh on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the Buckeye State’s colleges and universities.
Senate Bill 1, the Enact Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, which the Ohio Senate passed last month, would require state institutions of higher education to bar any DEI orientation or training courses unless the institution submits a written request for an exception.
The measure follows another attempt by state lawmakers during the last legislative session. While the Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 83, the Ohio House did not advance it.
In prepared testimony to the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, which advanced the measure earlier on Wednesday, state Sen. Jerry C. Cirino, R-Kirtland, said the measure “is about eliminating what has become institutional discrimination through the establishment and economic support of DEI programs.”
“I view institutional discrimination as being an environment which has evolved over time at an academic institution through specific programming and departmental structures that limits the free expression of ideas, creating a space in which individuals may be treated adversely or silenced because of their race, gender, and/or beliefs,” Cirino said in prepared testimony.
“It is about uninterrupted instruction and the sacred contractual bond that is formed between two parties who enter into a contract for instruction in exchange for payment,” the lawmaker added. “Why should a third party have the right to interrupt that contract from being fulfilled?”
In testimony, Greg R. Lawson, research fellow at The Buckeye Institute, a free-market public policy think tank, said the measure “should help address many of the problems plaguing Ohio’s higher education system.” However, he said, "more remains to be done to further reduce costs, align institutional incentives, and better prepare our students for the future.”
In prepared testimony to the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, Lawson noted: “American higher education has long been the envy of the world.”
He continued: “Unfortunately, rising tuition costs, administrative bloat, speech codes, and a lack of ideological, academic diversity have tarnished higher education’s reputation for adequately preparing the next generation,” Lawson added. “Many of these systemic or cultural problems will not be solved with policy changes overnight, but policy reforms can play a part, and Senate Bill 1 will help.”
Lawson said the bill reinforces support for the First Amendment by modifying university mission statements to reiterate a commitment to free and open intellectual inquiry, independent thought, and viewpoint diversity. It also eliminates mandatory training that “smacks of compelled speech and has proven ineffective and counterproductive,” Lawson said, citing “leading academics in the field,” and added: “These and other reforms have become regrettably necessary as 80 percent of surveyed students report self-censoring, and professors and visiting lecturers are infamously shouted down or administratively punished for their opinions or allegedly violating campus’ speech codes, Such incidents erode taxpayer confidence that their public colleges and universities remain intellectually diverse and open to an honest exchange of ideas.”
Unsurprisingly, the proposal has drawn fierce opposition from many education groups and college and university professors, with dozens submitting testimony opposing the legislation. In testimony, American Historical Association Executive Director James Grossman raised concerns about the bill’s provisions, saying there “are more productive ways for policymakers and university administrators to encourage student learning in history and civics.”
“The AHA applauds many of the bill’s stated goals: free inquiry, true intellectual diversity, and vigorous debate,” Grossman said in prepared testimony.
“Classrooms are and must remain spaces where students can experiment with ideas—new and old—while learning to value curiosity, analytical thinking, and academic integrity,” Grossman added. “We have grave doubts, however, about the utility of SB 1’s heavy-handed interventions in both history education and university administration.”
