GOP bill to ban DEI, faculty strikes in public higher ed headed to governor
The 20-to-11 vote, marked by strong Republican support and unanimous Democratic dissent, sends Senate Bill 1 to the desk of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a conservative who has indicated to reporters that he'll likely sign the bill into law, though he wants to review it first.
DeWine has 10 business days to make his decision.
If enacted, S.B. 1 would: — Ban diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on public college and university campuses and force current DEI initiatives to close, despite offering no definition of what actually constitutes a "DEI" initiative; — Allow the state to withhold funds for non-compliance with the bill; — Require universities to "Affirm and declare that the state institution will not encourage, discourage, require or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy, nor will the institution require students to do any of those things to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree"; — Require students to take a state-designed American civics or history class before being awarded a bachelor's degree; — Automatically eliminate any university degree program that awards fewer than five degrees per year on a three-year rolling average; — Prohibit full-time university faculty from striking; — Require state training for university trustees and reduce trustee terms from nine years to six.
Democrats, who have long known S.B. 1 would eventually be confirmed by the legislature, spent much of Wednesday urging DeWine to veto the bill.
At a press conference organized by the Democrat-only Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, Columbus-area high school student Michele Huang said the idea of DEI has been "misconstrued beyond comprehension."
"What DEI is actually doing, as a student and as a student of color, is facilitating the conversations that need to be had in our public school system," she said. She said her high school's DEI efforts have helped students learn from diverse viewpoints and perspectives.
Under S.B. 1, schools would be blocked from establishing any new DEI scholarships and be required to close down their DEI offices and discontinue mandatory DEI training or orientations.
"They're helping us have conversations that we need to be having because we can't have them otherwise," Huang said. "In current society, our political issues have become much more social and much more vitriolic, and it's hard to have these conversations in normal spaces."
Dayton Unit NAACP President Derrick Foward, who also spoke at the Democratic press conference, told this outlet that he expects the dismantling of DEI initiatives in Ohio to take away opportunities for Black youth and push diverse Ohioans to seek higher education in other states.
Republicans, on the other hand, continued to frame S.B. 1 as a much-needed shift for higher ed. Clark County Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, called it a "quantum leap" forward.
"Parents and students will now have a more comfortable feeling that their public institution of higher learning will foster an environment of open and free expression for everyone," Koehler said.
He rebuffed a Democratic argument that S.B. 1 promotes the opposite of diversity, equity and inclusion and noted that he merely believes in a different path to achieve those standards on public college campuses.
Sen. Michelle Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, spoke on the Senate floor specifically to address Ohioans who are concerned that ending DEI will turn back the clock on racial progress.
"It's not about exclusion. It's about inclusion that transcends labels, because DEI has become a system that sorts us. It sorts us by race, by gender and by identity, creating a culture where we are defined by our categories instead of our characters," Reynolds said. "That's not real inclusion. That's division with good intentions."
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine
President Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. boots would not be on the ground to defend the Ukraine-Russia border as part of any security assurances for Kyiv to end the war. 'What kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward, and past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?' 'Fox & Friends' co-host Charles Hurt asked Trump during a phone interview. 'Well, you have my assurance — and I'm president. I'm just trying to stop people from being killed,' Trump responded. The president earlier in the interview had indicated European nations may put boots on the ground. It's unclear if Russia would agree to that as part of any peace agreement. 'We've got the European nations, and they'll front load it, and they'll have, some of them…they want to have, you know, boots on the ground,' Trump said. 'I don't think it's going to be a problem to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired, I think they're all tired of it. But, you never know.' Trump called into 'Fox & Friends' the day after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and top European leaders at the White House for talks on how to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging since Russian forces invaded in 2022. Trump and European officials discussed potential security assurances for Ukraine as part of a peace deal that would prevent future Russian aggression, though the specifics remain murky. Zelensky said he hoped those details would be ironed out in the next 10 days. Trump has definitively ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as part of any peace deal.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Rep. staying in House chamber after rejecting DPS monitoring
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Texas House is adjourned until Wednesday morning. But one State Rep. is staying in the chamber, staging a protest that's gaining attention. Before the House adjourned Monday, House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, ordered the doors to the chamber to be locked. He said that members needed written permission to leave the chamber. But he added an extra step for Democrats who broke quorum and had arrest warrants issued. The Speaker said those members would be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated Department of Public Safety officer who will ensure they return to the House on Wednesday at 10 a.m. State Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, refused and was not allowed to leave. 'I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts,' Collier stated in a news release. Texas Democrats highlighted her protest, sending out a news release stating that Collier was locked in the chamber, 'detained as political prisoner.' The Texas House Democratic Caucus set up a live stream of Collier remaining on the House floor and offered reporters live interviews with the representative. At one point, supporters gathered outside the chamber chanting, 'Let her go!' A social media post by the Texas House Democrats showed video a group of activists appearing to be arrested outside the House chamber. Other Texas Democrats have taken to social media, posting pictures and videos with Collier to show support. Late Monday, NBC News reporter Ryan Chandler reported that Collier had been told she can leave the House floor to go to her office, which is located in another part of the Capitol. She reportedly cannot leave the building without a DPS escort. Early into Collier's protest, the Texas House committee on redistricting voted out of committee a new version of a bill with proposed new congressional maps. The committee vote sets the stage for the full House to consider the redistricting legislation, where it is expected to pass. The maps are designed to boost Republican representation in the Texas congressional delegation. The push for the redistricting legislation comes after President Donald Trump called on Texas leaders to redraw voting lines to gain five Republican seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. State Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, defended the plan to boost Republican representation. 'The U.S. Supreme Court … says that jurisdictions may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, recognizing that politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment,' Hunter said before Monday's committee vote. 2024 Election Coverage The maps will likely push out Congressman Marc Veasey, a Democrat who represents the area that includes much of Collier's state house district. Collier believes the maps will have a negative impact on her constituents. 'My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents,' Collier stated in a news release. 'My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights,' Collier added.
