According to an analysis from the nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission, S.B. 113 would:
- Prohibit any orientation or training course regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion;
- Prohibit “using DEI” in job descriptions;
- Prohibit contracting with third parties to promote admissions or hiring based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression;
- Prohibit DEI offices or departments and block schools from restructuring those departments while still performing similar purposes;
- Require each public school to establish a process through which people can allege violations of the bill’s prohibitions.
Speaking to this outlet, Brenner framed DEI initiatives as policies meant to push political philosophies in schools. He argued the premise of DEI is centered around the redistribution of wealth and trying to create an equality of outcome rather than promoting the equal access of opportunity.
Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are not not currently defined in S.B. 113 and therefore its potential impact is hard to gauge.
“The difficulty here is that the bill does not define it so it puts us in a space of having a vague proposed bill,” said Jocelyn Rhynard, Dayton Public Schools boardmember, in an interview with this outlet. “We don’t know what it means... Does this mean we can’t have certain job titles? Does this mean we have to change curriculum?”
Senate Education Ranking Member Catherine Ingram, D-Cincinnati, took issue with Brenner’s characterization of DEI. She argued that equity initiatives are meant to ensure disadvantaged students are not further disadvantaged while trying to get ahead.
“I think that you’ve taken DEI to mean something that was never intended,” Ingram said.
The Senate already passed a bill this year banning DEI on state college campuses. That bill did not define DEI either.
“This is a work in progress, so we may have to come up with a definition,” Brenner told this outlet. “In which case, it may narrow it down substantially, and maybe the ranking member won’t be as concerned about it if we make those changes. Right now, it is written based on what I believe is the issue around (DEI).”
To this outlet, Brenner said he’s had talks with students, parents, and even some superintendents who have raised concerns with the mark DEI has made on public schools. And, while Brenner highlighted concerns with DEI in decisions around hiring and discipline, he told this outlet that he couldn’t point to specific school policies in Ohio that he took issue with off the top of his head.
Rhynard said she’s unsure if S.B. 113 would actually impact any initiatives at DPS, but noted that she’d like the district to continue with culturally diverse events like Black history Month; holidays of Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths; and even St. Patrick’s Day.
S.B. 113 still has proponent and opponent testimony ahead. If voted out of Senate Education Committee and out of the Senate chamber, it would head to the Ohio House for further review. Both chambers are dominated by a Republican supermajority.
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It’s free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
About the Author
