Senate Passes The Advance Ohio Higher Education Act

Ohio joins the growing anti-DEI sentiment in national public education

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen Kirtland’s own Senator Jerry Cirino start a battle in the war on diversity, equity, and inclusion in Ohio, but it might be the first time he wins one. After Senate Bill 83 fell flat in the house in 2023, Cirino and company are back with a larger, more comprehensive piece of legislature; one they hope will make it to the governor’s mansion this time.

In a press release in January, Senator Cirino laid out the foundations of the bill.

“In sum, Senate Bill 1:
Ensures intellectual diversity in the classroom and among the faculty.
Provides free speech protections for students, faculty, and staff.
Allows an education of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.
Eliminates DEI programming, staff, consultants, titles, and all spending.
Requires full syllabus transparency.
Bans political and ideological litmus tests in all hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions.
Installs a number of other worthwhile provisions including eliminating labor strikes by any university or community college faculty, establishing post-tenure periodic review, and requiring full disclosure of any donations made by any affiliate of the People’s Republic of China.”

The bill generally maintains the planks of SB83, with a few inclusions; most notably banning labor strikes by university faculty. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, spoke out against the bill. Chief lobbyist Gary Daniels makes his objections clear.

“To support SB 1, as is, is an invitation to chaos, confusion, and First Amendment violations on all our campuses. Instad, the ACLU of Ohio urges this committee's rejection of Senate Bill 1.”

Ignoring the fact that Mr. Daniels clearly didn’t proofread his closing sentences before publishing them, the fact is that the ACLU seems to make a compelling argument against this bill, citing free speech concerns and more. Dayton Daily News correspondent Avery Kreemer gathered data from polls and anecdotal evidence from various student governments at many Ohio universities and community colleges in an article published last week.

“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.”

According to the Ohio Capital Journal, more than 200 protestors were present and 800 written testimonies were submitted during the Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee meeting on February 11.

“Justin Robinson, Ohio State’s undergraduate student body vice president, read a letter from student body leaders from Ohio State, Bowling Green State University, John Carroll University, Kent State University, University of Dayton, University of Akron, Denison University, and Case Western Reserve University.

“If passed, this bill would strip institutions of the ability to govern themselves, limit the free exchange of ideas, silence conversations on critical social and historical issues, and impose top-down ideological control over faculty, staff, and students,” Robinson said. “This bill fundamentally undermines the mission of higher education: to create an environment in which students can engage in free thought, challenge perspectives, and grow into informed, engaged citizens.”

Predictably, many of those interviewed offered a broad idealogical scope of the potential consequences of the bill that seemed to be a general political outburst, rather than a targeted, rational criticism of the legislation.

“Many who testified against the bill warned university faculty and college students would leave Ohio if S.B 1 passes.

“Had Senate Bill 1 been in effect when I was choosing the appropriate higher education route for myself, leaving the state of Ohio would have been priority one,” said Sabrina Estevez, a second-year student at Ohio State University. “The merit of a degree from the state of Ohio is significantly eroded if this bill passes.”

Tara Godwin moved to Columbus from Salt Lake City, Utah to continue her education at Ohio State.

“If Senate Bill 1 had passed before I decided to attend OSU, I would not have decided to move my family to Ohio,” Godwin, a Ph.D. history student said. “Senate Bill 1 destroys the ability of faculty to determine how to best teach the content of courses in which they are experts.”

Any reasonable bystander, when presented with the data and testimonies I’ve laid out here, would certainly have a lot of questions for Mr. Cirino; if not an outright objection to his bill entirely. All of this information is freely and easily available with a quick Google search, in fact it’s quite difficult to find a source praising these lawmakers for their ideas. Between the potential free speech violations, risks of government overreach, and the operating costs of executing such a bill, any conservative worth their salt would never even consider adopting such a policy. This all begs the question of why such predictably staunch, MAGA republicans in Columbus are praising this bill?

For his part, Senator Cirino fired back in the previously referenced press release.

“Critics who claim the bill promotes censorship have it exactly backwards,” said Cirino. “Senate Bill 1 will allow students to exercise their right to free speech without threat of reprisal by professors or administrators. It will permit the marketplace of ideas to flourish, which is the ideal environment for any educational institution.”

Certainly a nice sentiment, but on first glance it falls flat in the face of boisterous activism and outcries from Ohio’s college students. Both proponents and critics of the bill suffer from the same problem: not defining DEI. I’m going to focus the remainder of this piece in deconstructing the ACLU article, as it makes the most comprehensive arguments against the bill, whereas the data and anecdotes are just symptoms of the fallacies committed in Mr. Daniels’s piece.

Daniels’s first claim is certainly his most compelling, and I’ll even concede accurate.

“Like its predecessor, last session’s Senate Bill 83, Senate Bill 1 is an often confusing and contradictory mix of language and provisions that appears to have much less to do with actual policy than it does to inflame culture wars, which for many decades have targeted our colleges and universities.”

I’ll consider this to be his thesis, from there he supports this with two points. First, the “nonsensical ban” of DEI and second, the free speech violations.

I’ve read a lot of state and federal legislation over the years, I can tell you none of it is easy to read. Ohio’s SB1 is no different. Although not uncommon, the fact that the bill lacks any sort of crystal clear definition of its key terms leaves it up to the reader’s interpretation, which the ACLU is certainly happy to do. Mr. Daniels takes it upon himself to also not define DEI, and proceeds to fear-monger about the potential consequences of removing it from publicly funded institutions. Before I commit the sins of my predecessor’s: the best, most accurate definition of DEI (and the one I assume SB1’s sponsors are operating under) is from the American Psychological Association

“Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially populations that have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”

The logic then flows that DEI policies in schools and the workplace would be policies that seek to balance power and influence between the historically oppressed and the historical oppressors. In other words, quotas based on race, sex, and disability status. Despite the flowery phrasing and colorful sentences, the only reasonable practical application of DEI philosophy is to hire, grade, and teach based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc instead of merit. To assign value based on the color of the person’s skin, and not the content of their character. Daniels continues:

“Supporters of SB 1 continue to frame this as merely a ban on racial quotas. But, such quotas are already illegal, have been for a long time, and nowhere in SB 1 is its language limited to this concern. So, what exactly will the General Assembly ban with passage of SB 1? Here is a short, non-exhaustive list:

Some of Ohio’s universities offer scholarships to traditionally and currently marginalized and/or underrepresented people and communities. For example, scholarships exist to exclusively benefit military veterans, physically disabled students, and victims of human trafficking, among many others. But not after passage of SB 1.”

In light of what I’ve discussed previously, Daniels is exactly right when he says laws barring hiring, public access, and admission based on quotas have been outlawed for three quarters of a century. However, the practical effect of executing DEI policies is exactly that; there is no other reasonable expectation. It’s here where Daniels’s inner activist gets the better of him, and he stops reporting with genuine concern, and instead inserts his own application of the definition. The implication that Ohio’s lawmakers are interested in denying applications to military veterans, rape victims, and students in wheelchairs is utterly ridiculous, he may as well have thrown in kids with cancer and terminal puppies.

“The same is true for any and all outreach efforts. One might think it is a positive thing for a university to look around, see the demographics of their students and staff are not reflective of society around them, and then make efforts to diversify. So, they revisit and redouble their recruitment and retention efforts. Again, not quotas. Just a recognition their past and current practices have fallen short.”

His attempt to distinguish DEI policies from racial quotas again falls short, especially given the fact that he also hasn’t defined DEI. Ohio State’s practices have fallen short of what? I fear Mr. Daniels isn’t interested going further in justifying his argument.

“So, using just one example, perhaps they increase recruitment efforts at Ohio high schools with largely black and brown students. Or rural students. Or first-generation college students. Or maybe it is something as simple and effortless as including language on application and employment paperwork reading something like, “All are encouraged to apply, regardless of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, or physical ability.” All of this and much more is diversity, equity, and inclusion in action. All of it is apparently so objectionable and distasteful it must be totally banned, as is required under SB 1.”

Again he muddies the water in an attempt to “own the conservatives.” He knows his application is dishonest, but I’ll take him at his word and rebut the claim anyway. Switch black and brown in that sentence with white and asian, then it starts to sound a little racist; almost as if black and brown students don’t need the cold, administrative hand of government to be able to succeed. Furthermore, what’s the logical conclusion of his claim? In his world, SB1 passes, and now applications and paperwork must not include specific wording of who is encouraged to apply. The implication being that marginalized communities are only applying to college or jobs because the application says they’re allowed to— another ridiculous assertion. Then, if that means they’re only applying and presumably being accepted then that acceptance is based entirely on their race. No matter which way you slice it, he’s either a liar or a racist.

“And, to demonstrate SB 1 seeks to ban any and all DEI efforts no matter how small or big, no matter who may be affected, this bill also makes clear “a state institution shall not replace any orientation, training, office, or position designated for the purpose of diversity, equity, and inclusion that is prohibited under this division with an orientation, training, office, or position under a different designation that serves the same or similar purposes, or that uses the same or similar means.” (Lines #638-643)”

This is a pretty normal policy provision seeking to close potential loopholes, the gravity of the impact which the author intends is not felt because he still hasn’t defined the terms.

“Proponents of SB 1 feign surprise when opponents claim this bill requires widespread bans of each and every diversity, equity, and inclusion effort, proposal, position, and more. They proclaim opponents are reading too much into it. But all we are doing is reading the actual bill language, as cited above.”

His big argument seems to be that “they haven’t defined the term so I will for them.” Which says a lot about the ideology of the activist. They take admittedly vague legislation, (but legislation that assumes the goodwill of both its executors and opponents) stretch the definition to its largest possible extent so as to include ridiculous “potential applications,” and then cry and protest and boycott the consequences which exist only in their head. This is truly a moral battle more than a cultural one. SB1’s proponents are assuming the goodwill of the people receiving and executing these policies, assuming that they will apply it judiciously and reasonably. Just the mere fact that misinformed students have already taken to the statehouse and beyond to protest the perceived effects of legislation that hasn’t even passed, is just further proof that the ACLU and its affiliates are only interested in scoring cheap political points over comprehensive moral policy.

“But, if all these bans and prohibitions are not the goal of SB 1’s supporters, then the answer is simple – amend the bill to make abundantly clear to all involved what is acceptable versus what is illegal. Again, a great place to start would be actually defining “diversity, equity, and inclusion” for the purposes of this bill.”

Daniels commits the exact same fallacy throughout his piece. If he was interested in an honest takedown of the bill, he would argue honestly. The fact that it’s not made abundantly clear, and that most universities are opposed to this bill and have extremely left wing administration and faculty leads me to believe that the actual effects of this bill on Ohio’s public universities will be quite minimal. It’s really a microcosm of the 10th amendment, SB1 is limiting the scope of the interpretation of so that universities can best apply it judiciously based on the needs of each institution. If the bill came down too hard, Daniels would make all the constitutional arguments he’s about to, if it doesn’t come down hard enough then some institution will take it upon itself to abuse the interpretation. Of course, I side with the more constitutionally accepted perspective, giving universities (the states in the the 10th amendment example) prudence over how the law will be executed, limiting the scope of the state. I say all this in preparation for the fact that Daniels is about to claim that this is unconstitutional, however I’ve already proven that the bill is at the very least based on the philosophy of constitutional values.

“At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly. At worst, it is what opponents have claimed all along. That is, SB 1, and SB 83 before it, requiring all sides of every issue being evenly presented by instructors, ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.

This is precisely why opponents point out these mandates will require any and all coursework on, say, the Jewish Holocaust of the 20th century, to include the perspective, opinions, and justifications of those who orchestrated those mass murders.

If the issue is post-Civil War United States, the obliteration of the progress gained during the Reconstruction period, and the ushering in of so-called Jim Crow Laws, the perspective, opinions, and justifications of those who do not believe Black Americans should have been able to vote, hold elected office, serve on juries, own businesses or work various jobs, and more.”

As I’ve already laid out, it’s far from micromanagement. It’s contradictory for Daniels to claim that both the bill is so vague as to be abusive, but also it’s so specific that it infringes on teachers rights to teach. Which is it? I think it is completely reasonable to expect history teachers to present a comprehensive unbiased view of human history. I think diving into this claim is getting further away from the point, but the bill states:

“An affirmation and declaration a state university “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity.” (Lines #668-671). SB 1 defines “intellectual diversity” as “multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.” (Lines #605-607)”

“A requirement “faculty members remain committed to expressing intellectual diversity and allowing intellectual diversity to be expressed” during classroom instruction, discussion, or debate. (Lines #746-749)”

The idea that “expressing intellectual diversity” is somehow micromanaging what professors are and aren’t allowed to teach is ridiculous. At its core Daniels’s second point betrays his first. He claims that the bill is so vague that it will be abused by lawmakers to deny access to homeless, legless veterans, but also that it’s so abusively specific that professors right to free speech is violated. Make it make sense!

“After all, SB 1 requires the fullest degree of intellectual diversity. But, as we believe at least some SB 1 supporters fully intend, the end result will be instructors and classes avoiding any and all subjects where such scenarios may arise. This is compounded by SB 1’s requirement to slash funding for those who violate SB 1’s fuzzy, inexact requirements. As we often see in the world of First Amendment controversies, vagueness results in silence, muzzling, and fear. Keep people guessing what speech Big Government allows or does not allow, and this is what happens.”

His final points are his most muddied. First, he doubles down on his contradiction, and makes a decidedly anti-first amendment argument. It’s bold to claim that fuzzy, inexact arguments lead to free speech violations, when in fact it’s the exact opposite that results in said violations. Free speech violations are always because of compelled speech, when someone is forced to say what they don’t believe against their will, or not allowed to say what they do believe against their will

. This bill includes no such provision. I would like to see the link between “fuzzy, inexact requirements” and “silence, muzzling, and fear.” In fact, it seems to me that the inexact wording leaves it up to the interpretation of the university, which as I’ve already argued, is expressly constitutional. Furthermore, he draws the link between the slashed funding (a consequence of violating the bill) and first amendment violations. However it is illegal for such a circumstance to occur, (the state can’t penalize people for exercising free speech) which I’m sure Daniels is aware of. Therefore, it stands to reason that the funding cuts would be enforced around intentional violations, such as creating a DEI department under a different name, et cetera. The funding cut would be a result of upholding racial quotas, not exercising free speech, unless Daniels wants to make the argument that racism should be protected under the first amendment.

“Certainly, we want our universities to promote, motivate, and accommodate individual thought, expression, and opinion in classroom discussions, examinations, and projects. Except for some isolated allegations, we do not believe SB 1 proponents have sufficiently demonstrated there is any type of widespread or concerning pattern among Ohio’s institutions of higher education necessitating what boils down to a classroom coup orchestrated by this legislation.”

He ends the piece with a completely unrelated argument. The first sentence is certainly what the bill is attempting to achieve, the very ideas that are hindered by racial quotas under DEI policies. If Mr. Daniels doesn’t believe that judging people not on their merit, but their external characteristics constitutes reason enough for change, I don’t know what would be evidence enough for him.

This bill is certainly reactionary to the growing anti DEI sentiment, and is definitely more nuanced than either side would have you believe, however states across the country have already passed similar bills across the country. In 2023, Florida passed SB 266, which restricts DEI programs and certain course content in public colleges and universities. The Texas state legislature passed SB 17 in 2023, which bans DEI offices and programs at public universities. In April 2023, North Dakota passed HB 1503, which prohibits mandatory DEI training and restricts certain DEI initiatives in public higher education institutions. Tennessee passed a law in 2023 that bans the use of state funds for DEI initiatives in public colleges and universities. In May 2023, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed an executive order prohibiting DEI spending at public colleges, universities, and other state agencies. The left started the culture war, and the right intends to end it.