Ohio education bill seeks to overhaul educational content in state universities in the name of ‘Free Speech’

---

In the name of Free Speech, a bill pending in the Ohio state senate tightens restrictions at public universities and colleges by banning mandatory diversity training, “bias” in classrooms, labor strikes, boycotts, disinvestments, and programs with Chinese schools, as well as mandating a U.S. history course for all degrees, “bias” performance reviews for educators, and revisions on all institutional mission statements to emphasize students can reach their “own, informed conclusions.”

Key Players

State Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland) introduced Senate Bill 83, also known as the Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act. The bill is sponsored by seven other Republican members of the state senate and was awaiting further action in the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee as of March 31, 2023. 

Further Details

The bill seeks to “ensure Ohio’s students are educated by means of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth,” the Ohio Capital Journal reported. 

It prohibits a variety of activities at public higher education institutions, including “bias” in the classroom. Mission statements must be modified to include language that affirms public institutions are encouraging students to reach their “own, informed conclusions on matters of social and political importance,” as well as language that emphasizes Free Speech and “equal standards” for faculty, staff, and students.   

The legislation requires institutions to “affirm and guarantee that it will not endorse, oppose, comment, or take action” on controversial political ideologies, principles, concepts, or controversies. However, the bill does include an exception that the institution may support the United States in a “state of armed hostility against a foreign power.” 

Furthermore, the proposal prohibits the use of diversity statements or requirements during hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions. Institutions are prohibited from training instructors to teach that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” or that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.”

If the bill becomes law, institutions would be required to produce an annual report on any violations of “intellectual diversity,” as defined by the bill, and have students assist with tenure evaluations that measure whether an instructor has shown or taught with bias. 

“What we’re talking about here is making sure that our faculty, who we need desperately to deliver good instruction, that they are doing what we expect them to do as a state institution. And that is, teach students to think for themselves, to feel free to voice their opinions on issues and not to make any student feel that their beliefs should be constrained, or made fun of, or restricted in any way,” Cirino stated. 

The bill requires all students seeking a bachelor’s or associate’s degree to complete at least a three-credit course on American government or history. Required reading includes the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Letter from Birmingham Jail, and essays from the Federalist Papers. 

Institutions are prevented from “engaging in or abetting” boycotts, disinvestments, or sanctions under the bill. 

A similar provision prohibits employees of state higher education institutions from participating in labor strikes. “Why should your instruction be used as a pawn in a negotiating process for a union to get a better dental plan or another holiday? Go ahead and negotiate all those things if you want to, but don’t use the threat of a strike or an actual strike to deprive you, the students, with instruction you’ve paid for,” Cirino said.

Finally, the bill bans institutions from entering into or renewing any type of academic relationship with China-based universities or universities in other countries “associated with the People’s Republic of China.”

If passed, the bill would mandate these changes mostly at Ohio public institutions, but it also includes provisions that would require private schools seeking state funds to adhere to the guidelines.

Outcome

Students and advocates decry vagueness, express concern 

Both students and advocates who oppose the bill argue that, despite its claim of enhancing Free Speech and “intellectual diversity,” it might have the opposite effect. 

Cynthia Peeples, founding director of Honesty for Ohio Education, an advocacy coalition, called the bill an “attack on honest education, diversity, equity, and inclusion, worker rights and Asian culture” and “an affront to all who believe in honest, inclusive education and a multiracial democracy,” the Ohio Capital Journal reported. 

Colin Flanagan, a University of Toledo law student, said he fears that lawmakers are attempting to hand-select what they want to have taught at universities. Arianna Kelawala, an Ohio State University sophomore, said she believes that the bill “villainizes educators.” 

Republican activist and Case Western Reserve University senior, Teja Paladugu, sees some positives in the bill, but thinks it is too vague. “Who decides what’s diversity and what’s inherently bad and what we should keep off campus? I don’t want dangerous people on campus, but at the same time, I don’t want people to be shut out because of their political ideology just not agreeing with like 60, 70% of students,” Paladugu told the Ohio Capital Journal. Case Western is a private university.

Deborah Smith, president of the American Association of University Professors at Kent State University, thinks that regulating what expertise teachers can and cannot bring into the classroom will ultimately harm students. “There really isn’t any way to legislate value for diversity of viewpoints, what they call intellectual diversity in the bill, that doesn’t have implications for academic freedom and what experts can do in their expert judgment in the classroom,” Smith said.

Education advocates also raised concerns about how the bill will affect labor relations and teachers’ ability to organize. 

“Any proposal that undermines the freedom of educators to teach and learn or that threatens collective bargaining rights would threaten the ability of these high-quality professionals to effectively do their jobs and fight for the learning conditions their students deserve,” said Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, a labor union that represents over 121,000 educators. 

“We’re concerned about anything that could impact our collective bargaining rights, and the right to strike is a very fundamental right that in some ways undergirds all the other bargaining rights. It’s the credible threat of a strike, or in some cases the actual reality of a strike that gives the union leverage,” Smith said. 

David Niven, an associate professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati, complained that the bill combines multiple aspects of debates in public education that are usually addressed “one piece at a time.” This proposal, however, covers almost “everything in one bill,” he said.

As of April 3, 2023, there were no further developments.