Led by Senator Cirino, Ohio Senate Bill 1 requires Ohio’s public universities and community colleges to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion programs already in place, ban the creation of new programs, put restrictions on subject matter that teachers and professors are able to discuss with students, and stop full time faculty from striking. There are many more stipulations and circumstances to the bill that can be viewed at https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/sb1/02_PS/pdf/
This bill passed in the Ohio Senate in a 21-11 vote. It is important to note that two Republicans joined the Democratic side in opposition on this vote, but the bill was still passed. Now, Senate Bill 1 will head onto the House, and then onto the Governor if it passes through the House.
As previously mentioned, if passed, Senate Bill 1 would restrict Ohio’s public universities and community colleges.Right now, this bill does not have an effect on Kilbourne, but it is important to be aware of what this bill discusses, for most students head to college after high school and it is likely that a similar law will be enacted in a K-12 setting.
Opinions regarding DEI have circulated positively and negatively for years. This bill banning DEI in colleges is controversial and it is important to understand just what DEI is. According to techtarget’s Nick Barney, “Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. It also covers people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, skills and expertise.”
DEI is implemented in many areas that often go unnoticed: They help with University scholarships, hiring and recruitment, admissions policies, curriculum changes to promote diverse learning, pay equity, and so much more. Established in 1964, DEI has grown to play a fundamental role in the world today. However, if this new bill becomes law, DEI would be removed from public Universities and community colleges.
Aside from the removal of DEI, there would be limits placed on conversations about controversial topics if this bill were to become law. According to the bill as passed by the Senate, “‘Controversial belief or policy’ means any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.” This is stated in lines 610-613 of the bill and can be read more in depth online. Clearly, this is a difficult line to walk and only time will tell how these restrictions will play out in communities and schools. It is nearly impossible to decipher what qualifies as controversial speech, and if it is even a beneficial thing to limit topics.
Other ramifications of this bill include banning full time staff from striking, requiring students to take an American History or Civics course, shortening University Board of Trustees terms from nine years to six years, among other complications.
Mr. Strausbaugh, Kilbourne Political Radical Thought Instructor, shares that colleges are seen as more liberal, and he believes the people in support of this bill have the goal of making college campuses more neutral. On the other hand, Strausbaugh shares that opposers say that lawmakers are either taking this issue too far, or trying to create a solution to a problem that simply does not exist. During the Senate vote, many protestors showed up at the State House in opposition to the bill.
Lisa Chaffee, registered Republican and Parent’s Rights advocate, strongly supports Ohio Senate Bill 1. Chaffee is a Kilbourne PolyRad speaker and strong advocate for parents’ rights. She has offered to speak in support of Senate Bill 1. In Chaffee’s opinion, the main goal of Senate BIll 1 is “to put an end to DEI in our Universities: to provide a level playing field and stop professors from teaching their ideology when they should be neutral and helping students learn how to think.”
“The biggest benefit [of SB1] is ending DEI which is racism. Although the intent of DEI was good in its inception, the implementation has resulted in discrimination against white and Asians as well as Christians. If students disagree with what the proponents of DEI say, they are told basically to sit down and shut up, that they are wrong, and it does not matter – that they are racist and homophobic. DEI goes against the very first thing the First Amendment protects – free speech, and the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech we do not want to hear. In this current environment, whites, Christians, and heterosexuals are vilified for just being who they are and have become fearful of speaking up,” Chaffee shares.
In regards to academics, Chaffee feels that “if teachers were to focus on academics and not ideology and help EVERY student feel valued as an individual we will see test scores rise again. Right now 75% of the 8th graders in our country are not proficient in reading / writing / math. That is unacceptable.” To check Chaffee’s claims, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 29% of 8th graders are proficient in reading, 26% in math, and 30% in writing.
On the other hand, Dr. Jani, Ohio State Professor and President of the Ohio State Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is strongly opposed to this bill, especially due to his role on campus and how the bill could change his job and the futures of students. Dr. Jani is also a Kilbourne PolyRad speaker willing to share his opinions on the potential new Ohio legislature. To him, Ohio legislation has been trending in a direction that is both anti-education and just cruel, speaking of the anti-trans bathroom bill and other recent legislation.
According to Dr. Jani, “SB1 is fundamentally about government control of public colleges and universities in Ohio – ending their relative autonomy in making their own informed decisions about what needs to be taught and what students need to learn. SB1 is based on the myth that faculty indoctrinate students in liberal and left-wing thought, and purports that politicians – specifically conservative ones – need to take control.”
Dr. Jani asserts, “SB1 would ban all training, initiatives, and programs organized around increasing diversity and including and supporting students of all backgrounds – falsely claiming that these are discriminatory, despite the fact that they emerged after the 1960s and 1970s in order to challenge historic discrimination in admissions, hiring, and curricula.”
Also according to Dr. Jani’s position, Senate Bill 1 claims to support intellectual diversity, but it actually creates a chilling effect that limits education and weakens collective bargaining power. This chilling effect includes “banning diversity initiatives, naming ‘controversial topics’ that educators need to be careful about, setting up surveillance systems that opens faculty to political harassment, suspension, and even firing, opening up the door for universities to easily shut down departments, and banning faculty strikes – and thus taking an anti-union position that weakens collective bargaining power.” In this view, this would destroy higher education in Ohio, making faculty unable to prepare students for their jobs and lives beyond college. It is certainly difficult to navigate a world with many differing opinions without the ability to practice navigating these opinions during school. Ultimately, high school sets students up for college and college sets students up for life. The question is then on how this preparation is best approached.
In Chaffee’s words, “opponents of SB1 are narrow minded and want anyone who does not agree with them to be silenced. They think they have the moral high ground. Truth is we have to learn to agree to disagree. When college students are writing papers to capitulate to what the professor wants to hear for fear of receiving a failing grade, that is a problem. Not presenting both sides of a situation is a problem. Universities should be a place to learn, explore, and express thoughts and ideas without being punished for having them.”
In the mindset of supporters of the bill, college campuses are becoming too focused on activism and agendas, yet instead should be places where education is the focus. If the focus is on education yet still allowing for students to have differing opinions, the question then becomes on how students will be able to grow and develop if they are not able to discuss their opinions. In society, people are always going to have differing opinions, and it is a matter of how people choose to go about that.
As mentioned, supporters of Senate Bill 1 are concerned with the presence of activism in schools and instead increasing the focus on education. In response to this, Dr. Jani shares, “This bill is the prime example of radical activism – but right-wing radical activism. Upending systems rather than working within them for a particular political goal: that’s what the bill is. For example: there’s lots of places in the University where there’s an imbalance but SB1 does not care about those that don’t fit its agenda. There are no anti-capitalist classes in the business school at Ohio State; all teach one version of capitalism or another. Are SB1’s supporters calling for more Marxist economists?”
Though this is only one example of imbalance within schools, it is unpredictable whether or not SB1 is the solution to fighting this imbalance.
Considering the practicalities of what this bill would accomplish in Chaffee’s mind, she offers, “I believe if this bill passes, the changes will not happen overnight, but ultimately we will see Universities and communities getting back to treating each other will respect, agreeing to disagree, maybe even taking an interest in learning about other cultures, fundamentally accepting that we are all different and that is okay. No one group can force their culture on another. We can get back to the idea that one person’s feelings do not take precedence over another person’s rights.”
For Dr. Jani, “[SB1] is already impacting us. Graduate students in various fields, from climate science to ethnic studies, don’t know if they will find jobs. Undergraduates are dropping majors that might be seen as ‘controversial.’ Finalists for jobs in Ohio are refusing to come. High school students are thinking of going to college in places where the government and political ideology does not impact their scope of education.” Looking at the bigger picture, “Multiply this and it will drive people out of the state – to the detriment of the Ohio economy, not to speak of students’ education.”
Though there is not firm evidence that these changes are already happening, Dr. Jani works daily at the Ohio State University and witnesses their student body and faculty firsthand.
To conclude, Chaffee also shares, “SB1 is a great start but there is much more work to be done. We need a change in the curriculum in K-12 and in college. Academically as a nation we are failing and part of fixing that will occur at the university level.”
Instead of Senate Bill 1, Dr. Jani suggests, “one that includes students and faculty, about the real problems in higher ed: high costs, student loans, corporate interests, administrative bloat, massive salaries of upper admin, and unequal access. Rather than seeing the humanities as a distraction from education, let’s emphasize the importance of reading, writing, and critical thinking to our workplaces and communities.”
If looking to hear more from Dr. Jani, his guest Dispatch article can be seen at https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2025/02/05/senate-bill-1-ohio-state-university-jerry-cirino/78208193007/
Based on both Chaffee’s and Dr. Jani’s comments, it is clear that both parties are seeking to improve education, no matter what the specific approaches are going to be. It is important to note that Senate Bill 1 is not yet law, and still has to pass through the Senate and Governor. Although, it is necessary to pay attention to Ohio’s laws and their potential implications.
