Senate Bill 1 Attacks Academic Independence

Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1) is a direct attack on the academic independence that has long been essential to the success of our state's public higher education system. This bill, which bans diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education, along with curtailing tenure protections and collective bargaining power, sends a chilling message to students, faculty, and businesses that Ohio is not committed to fostering academic and institutional freedom. As a legislator, a proud Ohioan, and a firm believer in higher education and the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion, I strongly oppose S.B. 1 and urge my colleagues and constituents to recognize the profound harm this legislation will inflict on our state.

One of the most glaring issues with S.B. 1 is its direct impact on Ohio’s competitiveness through a complete ban on DEI programs at universities. Our universities are incubators for talent, innovation, and economic growth. Businesses—particularly those in technology, health care, and research—look to our higher education institutions to cultivate a skilled and diverse workforce. If we really want to succeed in becoming the “Silicon Heartland” that legislators across the aisle believe we can be, we need to ensure we have higher education institutions that can train the next generation of Ohio workers. This will only be accomplished by giving Ohio’s universities the resources and independence they need to thrive. Instead, some members of this General Assembly seek to place an unsubstantiated burden on universities by requiring the elimination of programs aimed at increasing diversity and inclusivity, which will only harm Ohio’s ability to find and train the best and brightest workers.

At its core, DEI is about ensuring that everyone—regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic background, or ability—has the opportunity to succeed. It is not about exclusion, as some proponents of S.B. 1 would have you believe. Rather, it is about removing barriers that have historically prevented marginalized groups from accessing the same educational and professional opportunities as others. The supporters of this bill do not just oppose “DEI,” but they oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion individually. Throughout our history, these principles have been the cornerstone of our success. Banning diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education does not level the playing field; it tilts it further in favor of those who already have advantages.

As noted by the ALCU, supporters of this bill like to frame S.B. 1 as a ban on “racial quotas” in university admissions and financial aid. However, the actual impacts of this bill will go far beyond racial quotas, which are already illegal. Many of Ohio’s universities offer scholarships to a variety of different groups and marginalized communities. For example, Ohio State’s Tillman Scholarship provides veterans and their spouses the opportunity to pursue an education at Ohio State through financial and educational support. Similar programs exist at universities for physically disabled students and victims of human trafficking. S.B. 1 might negatively impact and could effectively ban these kinds of critical pathways to education.

Moreover, S.B. 1 undermines the very principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy that should be at the heart of higher education. I agree universities should be places where students and faculty can engage with complex issues. However, forcing professors to teach “both sides of history” will only give a platform for holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, or other absurd denials of truth and fact in the classroom. 

This bill will do nothing to solve the lack of trust or perceived intellectual biases in higher education that seem to be a driver of this legislation. Preventing universities from taking positions on ill-defined “controversial beliefs or policies,” as this bill does, will limit their ability to engage with current events and the challenges facing everyday Ohioans. The best way to help universities build back trust and prove their utility to our state is not to cripple their ability to engage with the most pressing issues of our day but to enhance their ability to respond to the needs of Ohioans.

My colleagues across the aisle claim that S.B. 1 is about eliminating “divisive concepts” in education. But let’s be clear: The real division comes from policies such as these that seek to further divide our state and degrade some of our most valuable institutions.

Ohio stands at a crossroads. We can choose a future where our universities remain competitive, innovative, and the drivers of our future workforce, or we can retreat into an era where educational freedom is a thing of the past and opportunity is only available to the privileged few. I know which future I’m fighting for, and I hope my fellow Ohioans will stand with me in opposing this dangerous legislation as it moves to the Ohio House of Representatives for additional hearings.