Unpacking Ohio’s Senate Bill 83: A Clash of Ideals in Higher Education Reform

By Izzy Aparicio 

In the spring and summer of 2023, Senate Bill 83 was a hot-button issue—and it’s not over yet. Introduced by Ohio Senator Jerry C. Cirino (R-Kirtland), the bill seeks to ensure intellectual diversity in the classroom and among the faculty, promote free speech for all students and staff at higher public institutions, ban political litmus tests for all hiring and admissions decisions, and eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) training on all campuses. The potential impact of SB 83 on Ohio’s public universities is far-reaching and monumental.

Support and Backlash for SB 83

There have been multiple revisions of SB 83. However, much of the bill has not changed. While SB 83 has many policies and ideas there are a couple of key aspects that have stolen the attention.

The first of these is that SB 83 mandates that “faculty and staff shall allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to indoctrinate any social, political, or religious point of view.” These controversial beliefs may be anything from abortion to climate change.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio (ACLU Ohio) has criticized the “intellectual diversity” provisions. The bill defines intellectual diversity as including multiple perspectives on public policy issues with a requirement that universities declare their commitment to ensuring the fullest degree of intellectual diversity. The bill intends to promote open dialogue. Opponents of this bill express concern about how professors will cover controversial topics if they are required to present both sides of the issue including the positives and negatives. They worry that discussing multiple perspectives such as those on slavery, same-sex marriage, gun control, and more could potentially harm marginalized communities. However, Sen. Cirino is hopeful that this provision “will permit the marketplace of ideas to flourish, which is the ideal environment for any educational institution.”

Furthermore, SB 83 includes provisions that would ban most required DEI programs and staff training. “DEI is the problem and SB 83 is the cure,” said Senator Cirino. ACLU Ohio opposes this, saying while SB 83 claims to protect speech and ideas, it hinders open dialogue on topics crucial for fostering inclusive environments, leaving universities unable to tailor solutions to their specific needs and challenges. Though colleges could apply for waivers for certain DEI programs, there is no guarantee they would be granted.

Finally, organizations such as Honesty for Ohio Education criticize SB 83 for its anti-worker rights stance. The bill introduces retrenchment language that may allow colleges and universities to terminate classes and programs, potentially jeopardizing students’ access to essential courses and leaving educators without job security. It also has measures against collective bargaining. The bill also mandates the easy accessibility of instructor contact information and course schedules on university websites which critics say would intimidate faculty and expose them to harassment from online bullies. Furthermore, SB 83 imposes post-tenure reviews at any time, undermining professors’ tenure status in Ohio which may risk the loss of top-quality educators to states with more robust job protections. On the other hand, it holds professors accountable if they do not meet performance expectations. These expectations are yet to be announced.

HB 394

On Feb. 1, Ohio House Republican lawmaker Adam Holmes introduced House Bill 394, which took inspiration from SB 83.

HB 394 aims to prohibit state institutions of higher education from compelling individuals to commit to specific beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles related to political movements or ideologies. Within ninety days of the bill’s effective date, the board of trustees of each state institution is required to adopt a policy prohibiting several actions. These include soliciting or mandating employees, applicants for employment, or academic admission to adhere to specific beliefs, etc. However, the bill outlines exceptions clarifying that it does not restrict compliance with federal or state laws, academic freedom, research or writing on political beliefs, or a state institution’s authority to consider an applicant’s expertise. This is almost identical to what SB 83 wants to implement, and that is the point.

“I would hope this is an alternative if SB 83 is not going to happen,” Holmes said during an interview with Ohio Capital Journal.

The Future of SB 83

Currently, the House has not brought SB 83 to the floor even though the Senate passed the bill and the Ohio House Higher Education Committee voted favorably on it in December. Sen. Cirino has been quiet since December about the bill, and the timeline for its passage is uncertain.

The future of these bills also begs the question of why lawmakers believe Ohio’s higher education institutions need these laws in the first place. Are universities actually indoctrinating students? Or do lawmakers want to have a say in how universities teach, similar to how they control K-12 education? Whatever the reason, it is clear that the higher education landscape in Ohio may undergo significant changes with the introduction of bills like SB 83 and HB 394. While proponents argue for the protection of academic freedom and intellectual diversity, critics voice concerns about potential limitations on free expression and the unintended consequences of these legislative measures. As these bills progress through the legislative process, Ohio’s higher education community should remain on the minds of Ohio voters during this upcoming election.

You can read the bill here: SB 83.

References:
SB 83: What You Need to Know – Honesty for Ohio Education
Opponent Testimony on Substitute Senate Bill 83 – ACLU Ohio
My Bill to Reform Higher Education is One Big Step Closer to Becoming Law – Ohio Senate