The bill was tweaked by the House, which means the Ohio Senate needs to vote to concur with the changes before it heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who last week told reporters, “I think I’ll probably sign it.”
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, despite offering no definition of what actually constitutes a “DEI” initiative;
- 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.
Local Rep. Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., shepherded the bill through the House Education and Workforce Committee, which he chairs. On Wednesday, he told his colleagues on the House floor that S.B. 1, and specifically its DEI prohibition, was vital to the future of Ohio’s higher education institutions.
“Today, (DEI) has strayed from its original mission. Instead of removing barriers, it is creating them. Instead of equal opportunity, we now see forced equity where outcomes are predetermined based upon an identity rather than on effort or ability,” said Young, taking aim at hiring and admission quotas, mandatory training and “ideological litmus tests.”
Democrats, who have stood in staunch opposition to this measure since it was first debated in the Statehouse two years ago, framed the bill as corrosive to higher learning.
“This isn’t about fairness. This certainly is not about education,” said Rep. Desiree Tims, D-Dayton. “It’s about power. It’s about controlling what young people learn.”
While support for S.B. 1 outweighed opposition within Ohio’s legislative chambers, the bill drew immense pushback from college students and administrators throughout the House and Senate’s vetting process, with over 800 individuals submitting opponent testimony in one hearing alone.
Hours before Wednesday’s vote, Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, was asked if passing S.B. 1 ignores the will of the people.
“We don’t just make decisions in the General Assembly based on who has the ability to show up at the Statehouse,” said Huffman. “That’s why legislators are elected from all over the state of Ohio. There’s 11.1 million people, and the expectation is, I think, and the way the constitution works, is we’re making decisions for everybody in the state, not just the people who come and testify.”
Spencer Mandzak, a student at Miami University, testified in support of the bill Wednesday and said he’s talked with faculty in Oxford and students at 10 of the state’s public universities.
“A lot of them have been scared of the backlash and retaliation they may face by supporting this legislation,” Mandzak said.
DEI ban
In the Statehouse, much of the debate has been centered on S.B. 1’s ban on DEI initiatives, and the fact that S.B. 1 does little to direct universities on what actually constitutes DEI.
This week, a letter signed by medical students and physicians raised concerns that, by placing a vague prohibition on DEI initiatives, medical programs might go back to producing inequitable outcomes — either by producing too few minority doctors or through limiting initiatives to promote healthcare standards catered to marginalized communities.
“It is critically important the entirety of our communities are represented in medicine,” said Amber Prater, a fourth-year Wright State University medical student, in a statement. “This should not only be reflected by those providing care, but also in the conversations we have about medical practice and in research to determine what that practice should be. S.B.1 threatens our ability to provide our patients individualized care they know they can trust.”
DEI opponents, like Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., told his colleagues that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have ultimately been ineffective at helping Black Americans and have instead resulted in the lowering of institutional standards.
“DEI has no place on our college campuses,” said Williams. “All we’re doing is removing the mandatory courses, orientation, and instruction from faculty and students. That has been debated at length, ad nauseam, in our committee and the committee believed that (S.B. 1) was required to make sure our universities do not turn away students who don’t want to be indoctrinated in the classroom.”
A slight win for DEI proponents came Wednesday morning, when the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee agreed to amend S.B. 1 to allow universities to apply for express permission from the state to keep certain DEI training sessions or orientations, so long as the universities can demonstrate a need for those programs.
Williams, who himself benefited from a race-based scholarship in his higher education, offered an amendment to allow universities to slowly phase out, instead of instantly eliminate, their own race-based scholarships. The proposal was tabled in committee.
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
