We are delighted that Governor Mike DeWine has signed into law Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act. SB 1 will do an extraordinary amount to depoliticize Ohio’s public higher education system, strengthen intellectual diversity, and restore its accountability to Ohio policymakers and citizens. This bill will invigorate higher education in Ohio and serve as a model of educational reform for the whole nation.
SB 1 was championed in the Ohio Senate by Senator Jerry Cirino and in the Ohio House by Representative Tom Young. Governor DeWine, Senator Cirino, Representative Young, and every Ohio state legislator who supported SB 1 have acted as exemplary policymakers by their dedication to higher education reform. They have demonstrated idealism, practicality, and grit.
We enthusiastically endorsed SB 1 when it was a bill. We endorse it just as enthusiastically now that it has become law.
We have endorsed SB 1 not least because it takes some of its language and its concerns from different bills in the Civics Alliance’s Model Higher Education Code, drafted by the National Association of Scholars. We intended for these bills to inspire state legislators to craft their own legislation, adapted to meet their political circumstances.
It is an honor that Senator Cirino has considered our model language useful for Ohio. His adaptations to our model language have turned our suggestions into practicable legislation. We will be delighted to publicize his adaptations throughout the nation. Senator Cirino also has added further reforms, which were not in the Model Higher Education Code—but soon may be, because they too are models for legislators in other states.
We believe our model bills have informed most strongly these portions of SB 1:
- Requirements that colleges and universities receiving state funds commit themselves to free speech and intellectual diversity. (Mission Statement Act)
- Detailed budgetary transparency for each state institution of higher education. (College Finances Act)
- Syllabus transparency requirements for state institutions of higher education. (Syllabus Transparency Act)
- Requirements that colleges and universities receiving state funds commit prohibit both “diversity statements” and the inculcation of discriminatory concepts such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). (Campus Intellectual Diversity Act)
- Requirements of nondiscrimination by race, sex, or other group identity at state institutions of higher education. (Universities Nondiscrimination Act)
- Establishment at state institutions of higher education of an undergraduate General Education Requirement in American government or American history. (American History Act, as well as the North Carolina REACH Act)
SB 1’s prohibition on accepting financial contributions from China does not draw on one of our model bills. It was informed, however, by our long-term campaign to inform Americans about the deleterious effects of Chinese influence operations on American higher education, and by our support of the federal DETERRENT Act. We certainly will add a model act for state policy that is informed by SB 1’s provisions to prohibit Chinese support for public universities.
We crafted these model bills to support general principles of accountability, nondiscrimination, and civic mission. The Mission Statement Act is meant to prevent unaccountable accreditation bureaucracies from using university mission statements to impose ideologically extreme policies and programs. The College Finances Act is meant to make universities financially accountably by requiring them to inform the public and policymakers in detail about what they spend their money on. In particular, it requires universities to reveal what “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) expenditures they finance. The Syllabus Transparency Act makes universities academically accountable by requiring them to tell what precisely they teach to the public, policymakers, and students about to sign up for a class. The Campus Intellectual Diversity Act and the Universities Nondiscrimination Act require nondiscrimination, whether on political grounds or on grounds of race, sex, or other group identity. The American History Act strengthens universities’ civic mission by adding a course in American history and government to their general education requirements. Prohibiting Chinese funding of universities likewise strengthens universities’ civic mission by preventing undue influence from America’s leading global competitor.
SB 1 includes other provisions, such as post-tenure review and reforms of university boards of trustees. We endorse Senator Cirino’s good judgment in incorporating these measures. Since they were not informed by our model legislation, we have less to say about them. SB 1 also includes enforcement provisions, to ensure that universities comply with this legislation. These enforcement measures are appropriate, effective, and well-tailored. We applaud Senator Cirino for how he crafted them. We hope Ohio’s public universities will not attempt inventive methods to sidestep enforcement. Such recalcitrance would give Ohio policymakers cause to return with further measures to ensure that Ohio’s public universities comply with policymaker intent.
We know that too many Ohio public university administrators and faculty will attempt to neutralize SB 1. They will attempt evasions and half-measures in the hopes that they can lull Ohio citizens and policymakers into losing interest in university affairs—and then attempt to return to business as usual. Perhaps DEI programs will be disguised as “Belonging” or “Student Success.” We urge Ohio citizens and policymakers to examine Ohio public universities to ensure that all their personnel comply with the spirit as well as the letter of SB 1. Such continued scrutiny is necessary because too many members of the education establishment are committed to massive resistance against education reform.
Yet SB 1 has a good chance of success, because there are indeed members of the education establishment who are willing to comply with education reform laws. Ohio SB 117, which established independent academic centers at five of Ohio's public universities, received knee-jerk opposition from the academic establishment. Yet the bill passed and now Ohio’s centers are up and running. They have joined their colleagues doing similar work around the country. Ohio’s universities are settling down to help these new establishments do the best possible work.
The opposition to Ohio SB 1 also is a fuss that will die down now that the bill is passed into law. Ohio’s public colleges and universities are perfectly capable of implementing SB 1’s provisions strengthening accountability, nondiscrimination, and civic mission. The effects of SB 1 are not trivial—thank heavens! But it is not only good reform, tailored reform, and necessary reform but also practicable reform.
We are delighted that Senator Cirino’s dedicated, thoughtful, and broadly popular work to champion SB 1 has been rewarded by its passage into law. Ohio’s challenge now is to ensure that Ohio’s public universities comply with both the spirit and the letter of its provisions. Determined, careful, and continuing oversight by Ohio’s policymakers will make sure that Ohio’s public universities conscientiously enforce SB 1.
Photo by Parker Sturdivant on Unsplash
