The Ohio General Assembly began 2025 with a frontal assault on higher education. Senate Bill 1 (SB1), introduced and passed by the State Senate in less than a month, frames itself as an effort to “restore free speech” and crack down on bias on college campuses. However, its broad language and anti-labor provisions will chill academic freedom, severely undermine faculty unions, and saddle already-struggling public universities with the potentially massive costs of compliance.
Background
SB1 comes from a long American tradition of fear of left-wing campus indoctrination, from the backlash to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s transcendentalist “Divinity School Address” to Harvard in 1838 to Ronald Reagan’s fulminations over “beatniks, radicals, and filthy speech advocates” on campuses in the 1960s. This is natural—university campuses have long tended to be progressive, diverse, multicultural spaces. College can have a profound impact on the values of students entering adulthood and moving into new surroundings, often for the first time in their lives. College students also tend to be particularly idealistic, radical, and energetic about political causes, making them visible elements of many protest movements. To those who are hostile to such movements, and particularly older conservatives who feel disconnected to their younger, more progressive relatives or youth culture in general, progressive campus culture is not a natural outgrowth of these circumstances, but the result of indoctrination.
The conservative backlash to campus progressivism has deepened in recent years, and even President Trump made “patriotic education” an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. The backlash was particularly bitter toward student protests and encampments in support of the Palestinian cause throughout 2024, which opponents claimed were instigated by radical professors in league with China and Iran. It has also melded with the movement against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in both public and private institutions, which conservatives have argued unfairly privilege women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community and push “radical” antiracist messages.
In Ohio, this recently manifested itself in Senate Bill 83 (SB83), a 2023 bill which would have accomplished much of what SB1 now seeks to do. However, enough moderate Republicans rejected SB83, especially its antiunion provisions, that it was ultimately scrapped.
Now, though, conditions are ripe for another push. Until 2024, the Ohio House of Representatives was led by Jason Stephens, a moderate(ish) Republican who occasionally sided with the Democrats on labor and education. After 2024, however, the conservatives, led by Speaker Matt Huffman, regained control, and promised to shed the veneer of bipartisanship of the Stephens era. Conservatives’ first priority, it turned out, was higher education.
SB1 Summary
In short, the most recent version of SB1 would impose the following new requirements for public institutions of higher education in Ohio:
Prohibit DEI, including DEI or race-conscious staff training and student orientation, DEI staff and departments, and attempts to improve campus diversity through scholarships and outreach.
Prohibit institutions from taking stances on “controversial beliefs or policies.”
Prohibit institutions from “encourag[ing]” or “discourag[ing]” students from adopting or expressing an ideology or political stance.
Prohibit strikes by faculty unions.
Prohibit collective bargaining by faculty unions over evaluation policies, tenure, and workload.
Require institutions to affirm that their “primary function” is the pursuit of knowledge.
Require institutions to “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity,” including in developing course curricula and in inviting speakers to campus.
Require institutions to publish all course syllabi, including professors’ contact information and professional qualifications.
Require institutions to create a mandatory “civic literacy” course for all students, which must “include a study of the American economic system and capitalism.”
Require institutions to investigate all complaints that a student, professor, staff member, or administrator has violated their right to “intellectual diversity.”
Require institutions to create a new course evaluation question asking whether professors create an “atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias.”
Introduce post-tenure reviews of professors, effectively ending faculty tenure in all but name.
Allow the General Assembly to withhold all state funding to institutions if it finds that they did not comply with SB1.
A broad coalition of over 800 opponents submitted testimony against SB1, from students and professors to the American Historical Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on American Islamic Relations, several dozen labor unions, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Many students testified that, if SB1 had been passed before they decided which school to attend, they would have carefully avoided enrolling in any school in Ohio. Notably, CSU Law Professor John Plecnik spoke out against SB1 (as he did against SB83), despite being known as “the most conservative professor in Ohio.” Prof. Plecnik agreed that “liberal bias” is a problem on campuses, but argued that the answer is not to stifle speech, but to hire more conservative professors who can diversify and enliven campus discourse.
By contract, barely a dozen submitted testimony in support of SB1. It is worth noting that, despite horror stories of widespread suppression of conservatism on campuses, not a single student of a public university spoke in favor of SB1 (nor, for that matter, did any speak in favor of SB83). Nevertheless, the State Senate passed the bill on February 12th on a largely party-line vote, with only two Republicans voting no. A companion bill, House Bill 6—a rather sinister name for anyone familiar with the recent history of Ohio politics—is working its way through the House, and Governor DeWine has indicated that he is likely to sign it into law. The following is an examination of what, exactly, that could mean for Ohio’s public institutions of higher learning.
“Intellectual Diversity”
One of the central provisions of SB1 is its requirement that schools foster “intellectual diversity,” defined in the bill as “multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.” This requirement applies to campus speakers, class discussions, campus culture, and development and approval of course curricula. Supporters argue that this simply prevents faculty from stifling debate or attempting to impose a one-sided perspective on class subjects.
In its opposition testimony, the ACLU countered that the language is exceptionally broad. If “intellectual diversity” means teaching multiple viewpoints on every subject, might a history professor have to present the Nazi perspective on the Holocaust, or the white supremacist perspective on slavery and Jim Crow? Might an environmental science professor have to teach students about climate change denial, or a pediatrics professor teach students about the claim that vaccines cause autism? Ultimately, the most likely result will be a chilling effect on faculty, who would rather simply avoid touching on difficult subjects than attempt to comply with SB1’s vague mandates. As Prof. Plecnik put it, rather than fostering free speech, SB1 “threatens to incinerate free speech” and could be found unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
This overbroad language is particularly concerning because, as will be discussed further below, the bill also allows the General Assembly to withhold all state funds from public institutions that it determines have not complied with SB1. Thus, the state legislature—both houses of which are controlled by a Republican supermajority—has the power to police the vague boundaries of “intellectual diversity,” and inflict massive damage on institutions that it determines overstep these boundaries. This places enormous pressure on university administrators and faculty to assiduously avoid any “controversy” that could wreak havoc on their budgets.
Funding is not the only enforcement mechanism, either. SB1 introduces a new required question for course evaluations that asks: “Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias?” This is a powerful tool for students, either on their own initiative or at the urging of off-campus activists, to threaten the livelihoods of professors for creating an “atmosphere” of “bias”—a vague offense which professors are often powerless to control. This is especially threatening since, as will be discussed below, SB1 also largely does away with faculty tenure, making it easier to terminate even tenured faculty for “bias.” SB1 also requires universities to investigate all complaints about an “administrator, faculty member, staff, or student who interferes with the intellectual diversity rights . . . of another[.]” Not only does this create another mechanism for policing professors—it also applies to students. Thus, a student could be hauled before a disciplinary committee for sharing a controversial opinion in class, or for participating in a campus demonstration that makes some students uncomfortable.
Banning DEI
Another centerpiece of SB1 is banning DEI. Supporters argue that DEI indoctrinates students and staff with “radical” ideas, including teaching white students to feel “guilt” for structural racism and calling the United States an inherently racist country, and that diversity initiatives are essentially discriminatory racial quotas.
However, as every Constitutional Law student knows, racial quotas have been illegal for nearly fifty years. What SB1 gets rid of, instead, are the assorted means by which universities, which continue to be disproportionately white (especially in graduate programs like law school), foster diversity, from recruiting staff committed to diversity, to targeted outreach in underrepresented areas, to scholarships meant to recruit a diverse student body. Indeed, as the ACLU pointed out, the term “DEI” is broad and undefined by the bill. Thus, it could prohibit even such practices as including non-discrimination statements in applications and providing university funding for affinity groups.
Additionally, while much of the public backlash to DEI focuses on sensitivity trainings, DEI staff and departments do a great deal more than that. A survey of students at the Ohio State University showed that 96% of students felt that the DEI program at their school was meaningful to their college experience. DEI departments create safe and welcoming spaces for minority students and help students exercise their legal rights—for example, the Office of Institutional Equity at CSU has helped parenting students get scheduling accommodations from their professors. They also often play a key role in preventing harassment and discrimination and giving students and staff a mechanism for investigating or resolving allegations of misconduct. Abolishing “DEI” would not only tear away a vital resource for students at public universities, but could also open up public universities to costly litigation over problems of discrimination, harassment, and sexual violence that, without so-called “DEI” staff, they could struggle to address.
“A Union-Busting Bill”
One of the reasons that SB83 failed in 2023 was the inclusion of antiunion provisions. According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the largest union representing faculty in Ohio (including CSU Law), Republican state representatives wondered “Why is there antiunion language in an antiwoke college bill?” While Ohio Republicans are generally happy to crack down on “wokeness,” many are less willing to openly attack labor.
However, SB1’s sponsors refused to remove the antiunion language to make SB1 more palatable than SB83. SB1 forbids faculty strikes, restricts collective bargaining, and introduces post-tenure review policies, effectively ending faculty tenure. It would be the most drastic restriction of labor rights in Ohio since the failed Senate Bill 5 in 2011 (which was overwhelmingly defeated by the voters in a referendum). AAUP representative David Jackson testified that SB1 was “a union-busting bill” and argued that SB1 could drive faculty away from Ohio, undermining the quality of Ohio university education.
Prof. Plecnik warned that these provisions could also have the effect of further stifling conservative voices. By strengthening administrators’ discretion to discipline and fire professors, SB1 would allow liberal deans to target conservative professors. It would pressure even tenured conservatives to avoid alienating students whose course evaluations could threaten their jobs—and, for that matter, would lead to “grade inflation” from cautious professors of all ideologies.
Other Provisions
SB1 contains many other concerning elements. By requiring schools to publicize course syllabi (including professors’ contact information and background), SB1 could open the door to harassment of professors who teach controversial subjects. This is especially dangerous for professors who teach anything regarding Israel and Palestine—radical Zionist groups have a long history of monitoring and even stalking pro-Palestine activists, students, and professors, including at CSU.
SB1 also creates a new “civic literacy” course required for all students starting with the class of 2030. The course is required to teach “the American economic system and capitalism,” and the bill text even contains a list of required readings, including, bafflingly, the writings of Scottish political economist Adam Smith. There is nothing inherently wrong with enhancing students’ civics education; Americans generally have a well-documented and embarrassing lack of knowledge about how their government works. However, SB1 represents a significant and unprecedented intrusion of the General Assembly into the development of curriculum. The emphasis on “capitalism” also suggests that the course must not only teach American government and history—in other words, civics—but also serve as a partisan mouthpiece for right-wing economic ideology.
Finally, as mentioned, SB1 contains a powerful enforcement mechanism. If an institution is found to be non-compliant, the General Assembly has the sole discretion to withhold all state funding to that institution. This is an existential threat to Ohio’s public universities. CSU, for example, relies on state funds for nearly a third of its revenue. Public institutions of higher education are already struggling, both in Ohio and across the country, due to rising costs and declining enrollment. The looming danger of losing some or all state funding because of SB1’s vague rules will force public universities to devote much of their scarce resources to compliance (as the Ohio Education Association pointed out, the bill would add 105 instances of the word “shall” to the Revised Code), to say nothing of the cost of lawsuits that could arise from the loss of DEI services and anti-harassment resources. Ultimately, students will pay the price in higher tuition and fewer services. Furthermore, because the General Assembly has the ultimate discretion to determine “compliance,” universities will likely have to interpret broad terms like “intellectual diversity” and “DEI” according to how the conservative-dominated state legislature would understand them—essentially, a “reasonable Matt Huffman” test. The resulting chilling effect will amount to an academic Ice Age.
Conclusion
SB1 is not yet guaranteed to pass. It still has to get through the House and be signed by Governor DeWine, both of whom could be swayed by pressure from students, faculty, labor, and the general public. Concerned readers should consider submitting their own testimony when the bill is considered by the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, and should contact their state representatives to urge them to vote against the bill (find your representative at ohiohouse.gov). Even if it does pass, it can still be fought in the courts and via referendum.
However, if it passes and survives these challenges, it will be a disaster for Ohio’s higher education system. Professors will lose much of the academic freedom and job security on which they depend. With their unions weakened, their pay, benefits, and governance rights could be in jeopardy. Students will suffer from curricula that tiptoe around any controversial issues, and from the loss of the essential resources that DEI staff and departments provide. Universities will suffer from the loss of talented faculty who will prefer to work in states that value their profession. Rather than fostering a lively culture of debate and learning, SB1 will stifle debate, dull learning, and make our campuses far less safe and welcoming.
SOURCES:
Sara Kilpatrick, A Provisional Victory in Ohio, AAUP (2023), https://www.aaup.org/article/provisional-victory-ohio.
Laura Spitalniak, Ohio Senate passes bill to ban DEI and faculty strikes at public colleges, Higher Ed Dive (Feb. 13, 2025), https://www.highereddive.com/news/ohio-senate-sb1-bill-ban-dei-faculty-strikes-tenure-review/740139/.
Senate Bill 1, Ohio Legislature, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb1/documents.
Jerry C. Cirino, National Association of Scholars Enthusiastically Endorses Senate Bill 1, Ohio Senate On The Record (Feb. 7, 2025), https://ohiosenate.gov/news/on-the-record/national-association-of-scholars-enthusiastically-endorses-senate-bill-1.
Gary Daniels, Senate Bill 1 - Opponent Testimony, ACLU Ohio (Feb. 11, 2025), https://www.acluohio.org/en/news/senate-bill-1-opponent-testimony.
Budget Book Fiscal Year 2025, Cleveland State University, retrieved from https://www.csuohio.edu/budget-financial-analysis.
Hearing of the Senate Higher Education Committee on Senate Bill 1, 136th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2025) (testimony of John T. Plecnik, J.D., LL.M.), retrieved from https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb1/committee.
Hearing of the Senate Higher Education Committee on Senate Bill 1, 136th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2025) (testimony of Dr. Chris Crews), retrieved from https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb1/committee.
Megan Henry, More than 800 people submit testimony against Ohio’s massive higher education overhaul bill, Ohio Capital Journal (Feb. 11, 2025), https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/02/11/more-than-800-people-submit-testimony-against-ohios-massive-higher-education-overhaul-bill/.
Ohio’s Education Unions Call for Amendments to SB 1, Ohio Education Association, https://ohea.org/amendments-to-sb1/.
Comentarios