The bill
S.B. 1 is a sweeping piece of legislation that has broadly been marketed by its sponsors as a way to combat perceived anti-conservative bias against students and faculty in Ohio public universities.
Highlights of the bill — which would not impact private universities — include provisions that would:
- Ban diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on campus and force current DEI initiatives to close;
- Allow the state to withhold funds for non-compliance with the bill;
- Require universities to “Affirm and declare that the state institution will not encourage, discourage, require or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy, nor will the institution require students to do any of those things to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree;”
- Require students to take a state-designed American civics or history class before being awarded a bachelor’s degree;
- Automatically eliminate any university degree program that awards fewer than five degrees per year on a three-year rolling average;
- Prohibit full-time university faculty from striking;
- Require state training for university trustees and reduce trustee terms from nine years to six.
Opposition
The hearing room, along with an overflow room, were packed with public university stakeholders, faculty and students.
Bobby McAlpine, the undergraduate student president of Ohio State University, told lawmakers Tuesday that students broadly disagree with S.B. 1’s provisions, according to a survey of more than 1,500 OSU students.
According to McAlpine, 78% of surveyed students said they feel free to express their political ideologies on campus; 81% of students do not feel that OSU faculty or staff seek to impose certain political beliefs, and 86% of respondents felt as though diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives were at least somewhat meaningful, while 46% believed they were extremely meaningful, to their college experience.
“(S.B. 1) has the potential to greatly impact college students' education,” McAlpine said, “so we feel it is important that you have an understanding of what students think about the current state of higher education.”
A letter penned and undersigned by student governments of the University of Dayton, OSU, and six other universities framed S.B. 1 as “legislation that seeks to impose undue restrictions on the academic freedom, diversity, and institutional independence of our state’s higher education system.”
“Universities exist to foster intellectual diversity, not to impose a singular, state-controlled narrative,” the letter reads. “This legislation, rather than strengthening Ohio’s universities, would suffocate them, forcing compliance with rigid, state-imposed guidelines that contradict the principles of academic inquiry and intellectual diversity that our institutions are meant to uphold.”
An attempt to reach the student body government of Wright State University, whose students would be impacted by S.B. 1, was not immediately returned.
Like many opponents, Jared Cutler, of Citizens for a Better Beavercreek, focused his testimony on S.B. 1’s anti-DEI provisions, which he called “racially problematic.”
“DEI education has changed my life. I am a different person — a far better person — because I know more about the perspectives, challenges and stories of people who don’t look like me," Cutler said. “Don’t take the opportunity for this kind of life changing education away from the people of Ohio.”
Other opponents honed in on the fact that S.B. 1 does not define “diversity, equity and inclusion” and, therefore, leaves the ban on such programs up to interpretation.
“One of my greatest objections to this bill is that it lacks even a basic sense of what diversity, equity, and inclusion mean and, therefore, could be used to punish instructors and institutions for meeting their students’ needs and, in many cases, for following the law,” said Heather Johnson-Taylor, an English professor at Sinclair Community College.
Proponents
In late January, University of Dayton student and president of its campus college Republican club Gabe Guidarini was one of 13 individuals to testify in favor of the bill.
Guidarini, a 20-year-old whose X account lists him as a field rep for the conservative Turning Point Action group, said S.B. 1 was necessary to combat the “politicization of higher education,” which he said is a widely-held concern for students his age.
“While the University of Dayton is a private institution not subject to the implementation of this bill, I believe as a matter of principle that students who pay the necessary tuition are entitled to a fair and adequate education without being subject to targeted political influence or indoctrination,” Guidarini said.
What’s next
S.B. 1 is expected to be voted out of committee Wednesday morning. From there, it can be fast-tracked through the GOP-controlled Senate and sent to the Ohio House.
There, it will be shepherded through committee by Montgomery County Rep. Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., who chairs the House Higher Education committee and is the House’s top proponent of the legislation.
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
