The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
Ohio Democrats peppered Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino with questions over his higher education overhaul bill this week. The bill would ban faculty strikes and diversity efforts on campus, as well as set rules around classroom discussion.
One Democratic lawmaker called the bill racist.
Cirino gave sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 1 Tuesday afternoon during the Ohio House Higher Education and Workforce Committee meeting.
“S.B. 1 is about more speech, not less,” he said. “It is about creating an environment of continuous improvement. It is about the core value that students come first; they are the customers of these institutions.”
Senate Bill 1 would ban diversity and inclusion efforts, block faculty from striking, set rules around classroom discussion, put diversity scholarships at risk, shorten university board of trustees terms from nine years to six, and require students take an American history course, among other things.
Regarding classroom discussion, it would set rules around topics involving “controversial beliefs” such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.
S.B. 1, which only applies to public colleges, stipulates classroom discussion allows 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.”
“I think the bill is very racist,” state Rep. Desiree Tims, D-Dayton, said during Tuesday’s committee meeting.
The Ohio Senate passed S.B. 1 last month and hundreds of students, faculty and staff protested S.B.1 at Ohio State University as Cirino gave his sponsor testimony Tuesday afternoon.
Tims asked Cirino why he was interested in getting rid of diversity scholarships and Cirino responded by saying Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost addressed race-based scholarships last year.
“We have guidance from the attorney general that we cannot do those,” Cirino said. “Our institutions may not do those things based on race.”
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment by using race as a factor in applications. The days after the ruling, Yost sent a letter to Ohio colleges and universities saying his office won’t legally protect someone at a college or university who uses race as a factor.
“How is it that you want diversity of thought, but not diversity of people at these public institutions that would bring that diversity?” state Rep. Joe Miller, D-Amherst, asked.
Cirino responded by saying diversity of thought and programs that promote diversity and inclusion are not comparable.
“You cannot discriminate against one group to make up for discrimination of another group,” Cirino said.
Miller also asked about whether limiting speech through legislation, such as this bill, is a slippery slope.
“There’s absolutely not one limitation of what can be talked about in the classroom,” Cirino said in his response. “What we say very specifically and explicitly in the bill is that there has to be an openness to looking at other opinions and welcoming diverse opinions as well.”
State Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, asked about the retrenchment and collective bargaining parts of the bill.
“We need to treat our institutions of higher learning a little bit more like a business,” Cirino said. “If we don’t help (university presidents and boards of trustees) with these management tools, we’re going to find a real disadvantage for the state of Ohio.”
Piccolantonio questioned if this bill is giving lawmakers more control over public universities.
“It is clearly not the legislature trying to step in and operate the college or university,” Cirino said. “It’s about empowering the boards of trustees, the governing board and the presidents.”
Piccolantonio also asked if Cirino would be open to making any changes to the bill and he said no, reminding committee members that this bill went through 11 revisions in the last General Assembly.
“This bill is matured and it’s ready to go,” Cirino said. In the version of the bill passed last month by the Ohio Senate, most of the changes made in the last General Assembly were rolled back.
More than 800 people submitted opponent testimony against the bill — significantly outweighing the amount of supporter testimony the bill has received. Several students have said they would leave Ohio if this bill passed.
When state Rep. Munira Abdullahi, D-Columbus, asked about so many students opposing the bill, Cirino said legislation is not developed based on how many people come to testify.
“If we started doing that, it would be a popularity contest, and we should all take a huge pay cut because we’re getting paid, in my view, to make policies sometimes, whether it’s popular or not, if we think it is the right thing to do and good for the state of Ohio,” Cirino said.
Abdullahi also asked why the bill would ban higher education faculty from striking.
“Simply because higher education, all postsecondary education, is absolutely critical to us in Ohio if we’re going to maintain a strong economy in the future and meet the workforce requirements that we need to meet in order to employ people and to provide the workers that our companies are looking for,” Cirino said.
