Amid debates and protests, Ohio’s public colleges and universities are grappling with significant changes due to the enactment of Senate Bill 1, a comprehensive higher education law supported by Republican legislators. This legislation, which was signed by Governor Mike DeWine in March, took effect in late June and has sparked widespread concern among faculty and students.
The law mandates the cessation of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, prohibits faculty strikes, and imposes restrictions on collective bargaining at all public universities and community colleges in Ohio. It also introduces requirements for faculty to be assessed on promoting “intellectual diversity” and necessitates post-tenure evaluations.
In addition to restructuring academic programs, SB 1 introduces an American civic literacy course, mandates online posting of course syllabi, and calls for the termination of undergraduate degree programs averaging fewer than five graduates annually over a three-year span.
Proponents argue these changes are crucial to counteract perceived liberal influence on campuses and address declining enrollment rates. However, critics warn that the law could undermine academic freedom, shared governance, and union strength, potentially prompting an exodus of students and faculty from the state.
According to reports, a similar bill had been introduced in 2023 but did not pass the legislature. State Sen. Jerry Cirino, a Republican from Lake County and sponsor of SB 1, reflected on the legislative process, stating, “I have to say, it was definitely well-worth all of the efforts and aggravation that it took to get that done.”
Cirino expressed satisfaction with the implementation progress across Ohio’s institutions, stating that predictions of negative impacts, such as stifled free speech and mass departures, have not come to fruition. He attributes enrollment declines to demographic shifts and policies from the Trump administration affecting international students.
Contrarily, Jennifer Tisone Price, executive director of the Ohio conference of the American Association of University Professors, contends that classroom discussions have become constrained as professors are cautious about infringing on intellectual diversity rights protected under SB 1. This has led to unease when addressing contentious topics.
Ohio State University (OSU) responded to SB 1 by instituting a policy banning “chalking” on campus grounds. Furthermore, in forming a committee to ensure compliance with SB 1, OSU did not include faculty representation, a departure from traditional shared governance practices.
Program Changes and Eliminations
Several colleges have already announced program cuts or suspensions to align with SB 1. Cuyahoga Community College plans to eliminate 30 associate degree programs, including 15 apprenticeship programs, due to low graduation rates. Current students will be able to complete their degrees, though new enrollments are halted.
The University of Akron and Kent State University have also declared cuts, affecting 11 and 19 programs respectively (source). Other colleges are merging or realigning their programs in response to the law.
Cirino justified these reviews by citing demographic trends and a shift away from college education. He stated, “Like a business would, they’ve got to be able to move around quickly to satisfy the needs of the marketplace, i.e. the students and the employers.”
Sara Kilpatrick, formerly with the Ohio Conference of AAUP, expressed concern that institutions may be prioritizing enrollment figures over program quality. “I think there is this general sense that they’re putting a value on numbers over the quality of programs,” she remarked.
Impacts on DEI and Institutional Policies
Beyond program adjustments, compliance with SB 1 has led to substantial financial and structural changes. Kent State estimates compliance costs between $1.5 million and $2 million annually, largely due to the new civic literacy course. Institutions have also dismantled or repurposed DEI offices, reallocating staff and resources.
Cirino emphasized vigilance to ensure DEI offices are not just rebranded. He stated, “We want to make sure the DEI offices are not just changing their name and doing the same thing they were doing before.”
The law also calls for policies on “intellectual diversity” and prohibits institutional positions on “controversial issues” like climate change and same-sex marriage, leading to apprehension among faculty regarding classroom discussions. During legislative hearings, faculty expressed concerns that this could disrupt education, particularly in scientific fields.
Michael Koop, a professor at Ohio University, warned that SB 1 might allow any student to demand their opinions be discussed, potentially derailing classes. “A core principle of scientific critical thinking is that not all claims are equal,” he noted.
Wider Implications
SB 1 also restricts faculty strikes and narrows collective bargaining to wage discussions, excluding issues like workload and tenure. Labor leaders believe this is part of a broader effort to weaken public-sector unions. State Rep. Joe Miller, a Democrat, remarked, “It just happens to be the turn of higher ed to absorb this attack.”
In a response to the law, professors from Youngstown State University initiated a campaign to repeal SB 1 via a statewide referendum but fell short of the required signatures. Meanwhile, out-of-state universities are capitalizing on the situation, with institutions like Eastern Michigan University and Point Park University in Pittsburgh offering incentives to attract Ohio students.
As the debate over SB 1 continues, faculty unions and critics warn of potential long-term consequences for academic freedom and access, while supporters argue the law will streamline Ohio’s higher education system.
Original Story at www.cleveland.com