Ohio's legislature drew attention in May when the Senate passed a bill that would significantly restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training at public universities, prohibit institutions from taking positions on "controversial" topics, and limit collective bargaining rights for employees. Now, Republican lawmakers plan to push a revised version of the bill when the legislature reconvenes this month, which includes some concessions and softened language, but higher education groups remain broadly opposed.

The bill, numbered SB 83, was introduced in March by Republican state Senator Jerry Cirino. When he introduced it, he said the bill aimed to "make an urgent course correction to protect Ohio students and the integrity of our universities and colleges." Cirino recently told Higher Ed Dive that he believes faculty need to start thinking outside the box and become more flexible, especially since "they have failed to reform themselves for years."

Ohio is one of the latest examples of state lawmakers attempting to more strictly control public higher education and take over matters traditionally decided by institutional boards and faculty. The state legislation has drawn widespread opposition from faculty groups and free speech advocates, who argue that if the bill becomes law, it would stifle free speech and harm the recruitment and retention of students and employees.

Cirino argues that lawmakers are not trying to micromanage universities. But Steve Mockabee, chair of the government relations committee for the Ohio chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Ohio AAUP), said lawmakers have not engaged with key higher education stakeholders and instead are convinced that change can only come from outside.

"It is extremely disappointing that Senator Cirino and his allies are unwilling to have conversations with faculty, staff, and students," Mockabee said. "People who are currently active on university campuses have hardly been consulted at all in the development of this legislation."

The Ohio House Higher Education Committee failed to advance the bill before lawmakers' summer recess. As the state legislature reconvenes this month, lawmakers will weigh a version of the bill that includes several rollbacks and softened language, but higher education groups still broadly oppose the measure.

What DEI restrictions does the bill include?

Under the original wording of SB 83, Ohio public universities could offer optional DEI training but could not require it as a condition of employment or promotion. However, many research funding programs, including those from the federal government and independent organizations, require DEI statements in application materials—that is, statements explaining a candidate's experience and commitment to working with diverse groups. The Ohio State University Board of Trustees noted in May that this could become a potential obstacle for students and faculty.

In the new version of the bill, universities could receive exemptions and be allowed to require DEI efforts in these cases. The revised bill would require institutions claiming exemptions to file documentation with the Ohio Chancellor of Higher Education's office.

"I don't want to put Ohio's universities at a disadvantage. So we created a provision that allows these practices in completely reasonable circumstances," Cirino said.

Ohio is far from the only state legislating on DEI in academia. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a law in May banning all DEI spending at public universities in the state. Texas subsequently implemented a similar DEI ban.

"For decades, Ohio seems to have been following in Florida's footsteps," said Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. "I always ask, why? Why do we want to see Florida here?""

Does it restrict free speech?

One part of the Ohio bill that remains unchanged is a requirement to offer a U.S. history course that includes specified readings, such as the Constitution and at least five Federalist Papers essays.

"Unless someone is a history major or political science major, our students graduate knowing very little about the history and foundations of our country's system of government," Cirino said. "We need to do better to ensure students are exposed to the good, the bad, and the ugly."

The bill also prohibits institutions from taking positions on so-called controversial topics, such as climate change, immigration policy, or abortion. This section is particularly concerning to the free speech watchdog Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

"We want faculty to be able to speak freely in the classroom," said John Coleman, FIRE's legislative counsel. "In higher education, it's difficult to avoid faculty members' personal views seeping into their teaching. If this bill becomes law, we will certainly see a chilling effect on faculty."

FIRE calls the bill's language unconstitutional, saying it is "both vague and viewpoint-discriminatory." In November, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of similar Florida legislation after FIRE filed a lawsuit. That law, known as the "Stop WOKE Act," would have prevented public universities from promoting concepts that conservative lawmakers deemed divisive.

"We have our arguments ready because this language is no longer novel," Coleman said.

What impact does it have on employees?

One of the biggest changes in the proposal involves who has the right to strike. The original version of the bill would have prohibited all public university employees from striking. Lawmakers are considering amending the language to apply only to faculty.

"My main concern is keeping universities open. What can truly completely interrupt instructional delivery is faculty."

— Jerry Cirino, Ohio State Senator, author of SB 83

Cirino says he is not opposed to unions, pointing to the revised strike language as proof. He argues that even if faculty do not have the right to threaten or actually strike, there is still ample room for concessions in the bargaining process.

"My main concern is keeping universities open," he said. "What can truly completely interrupt instructional delivery is faculty."

Cirino said that when students pay tuition at the start of the semester, they enter into a contract with the institution. "Nothing should interrupt the fulfillment of that contract," he said. "Certainly not because some faculty want better dental insurance, more days off, or longer sabbaticals."

In Ohio, several universities have seen labor movements in recent years, including Wright State University, where faculty went on strike for about three weeks in 2019 over disagreements on healthcare and pay.

Faculty groups and labor organizations say the possible changes will not alter unions' stance, as unions have strongly opposed the bill. "This is an example of trying to divide and conquer," said Mockabee, who is also a professor at the University of Cincinnati. "Our labor allies are united in thinking this is a bad bill."

Cropper of the Ohio Federation of Teachers agrees. OFT represents more than 20,000 employees in K-12, higher education, and public service. "An attack on one is an attack on all," Cropper said. "I fully expect that the broader labor community will still oppose this bill."

Will there be post-tenure review?

One provision retained in the Ohio bill requires annual performance reviews for faculty, including tenured professors. Post-tenure review procedures are gaining momentum nationwide, including in Florida, where the university system approved such a policy in March.

Mockabee points to Florida's measure as an example of lawmakers misunderstanding academic oversight and shared governance. "For example, they assume faculty performance is not reviewed, and that once we get tenure, we can do whatever we want," he said. "That is completely wrong."

"I have been reviewed every year during my time at the University of Cincinnati," Mockabee said, noting that it is a requirement of his union contract. "The irony is that Senator Cirino wants to take away my collective bargaining rights, and it is through collective bargaining that I secured the policy requiring me to undergo reviews—exactly what he claims he wants to see."

Will the bill pass?

Before lawmakers reconvene this month, Cirino expressed confidence that the bill will pass through the legislature. Both the Ohio Senate and House are controlled by Republicans with overwhelming majorities, and if lawmakers vote along party lines, the bill would easily reach the desk of Republican Governor Mike DeWine.

But Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, does not share Cirino's view. "Senate Bill 83, whether in its current form or revised form, is far from a done deal in the House," he said. "We have allies in both parties who are committed to protecting collective bargaining rights and to preserving the integrity of our higher education system."

Cropper said she would not be surprised if the bill passes the House, but she added that the Ohio Federation of Teachers is committed to fighting it at every step. Cropper said that when educators feel they are not respected as professionals and their autonomy is stripped away, they are more likely to leave the profession, or even the state.

Meanwhile, Mockabee said that even though the bill has not advanced in the House, Ohio faculty are already seeing job applicants withdraw applications or decline job offers. Cropper said the loss of quality teachers will negatively impact the number of students choosing to attend Ohio universities, hurting enrollment across the state.

"We are in an era in education—whether K-12 or higher education—where it is difficult to attract and retain talent," she said. "Bills like this are one of the main reasons for that."