logo
More than 700 people submitted opponent testimony against controversial Ohio higher education bill

More than 700 people submitted opponent testimony against controversial Ohio higher education bill

Yahoo12-03-2025

Hundreds of students protested against Senate Bill 1 on Ohio State's campus on March 4, 2025. (Photo by Megan Henry, Ohio Capital Journal).
More than 700 college students, faculty, and staff submitted opponent testimony against a massive Ohio higher education bill that would significantly change colleges and universities.
Fourteen people testified against Ohio Senate Bill 1 for three hours during the Ohio House Higher Education and Workforce Committee meeting Tuesday morning. Committee Chair Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., enforced a hard stop at 12:10 p.m.
'If you pass this bill, you sow the seeds of a mass exodus of university students, leaving the economy, workforce, health, and reputation of the state of Ohio worse off than how you found it,' said Sabrina Estevez, an Ohio State University student.
Senate Bill 1 would ban diversity and inclusion efforts, prevent faculty from striking, set rules around classroom discussion, create post-tenure reviews, put diversity scholarships at risk, shorten university board of trustees terms from nine years down to six years, and require students take an American history course, among other things.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
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 would only affect Ohio's public universities.
State Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, introduced S.B. 1, which passed the Ohio Senate last month.
Those who testified Tuesday talked about the bill's strike ban, tenure review, collective bargaining, classroom discussion regulations, and the diversity and inclusion ban.
'S.B. 1 is a censorship bill,' said David Jackson, president of Bowling Green State University's American Association of University Professors chapter. 'The bill, full of contradictions, will leave stakeholders wondering: What can I say? What can't I say?'
Jackson also talked about how tenure protects academic freedom.
'Professors with academic freedom are the best thing that students have available to them, because it causes universities and faculty to be innovative in terms of teaching and research,' he said. 'The chilling effect that would be caused … would be bad, not just for the faculty members, but for the students whom we serve.'
State Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania, asked many of those who testified about striking on campus.
'Why do you think that faculty at our at our public universities can threaten to hold back students from graduating or earning their degree simply to have it as a bargaining tool in your negotiations?' Williams asked.
University faculty strikes are rare in Ohio. Youngstown State University workers went on strike for a few days in 2020 over pay disputes and faculty at Wright State University went on strike for almost three weeks in January 2019 over pay disputes and health care.
'It is the only power that organized labor has in a bargaining process,' Jackson said. 'While strikes are vanishingly rare … the existence of those nuclear weapons, if you will, makes the parties work together and solve the problems that their campuses face, and that's why strikes rarely happen.'
Among public employees, first responders and corrections officers are not able to strike in Ohio.
'The thing in common that those professions have is public safety,' state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, said while questioning Ohio Education Association Vice President Jeff Wensing.
'I don't believe that faculty members of higher institutions fall into the category of police and fire and protecting public safety,' Wensing said.
S.B. 1 is already affecting Ohio universities.
'Qualified, talented faculty have decided not to put their name in the hat for a search at some of our institutions because of a fear of what kind of environment they will be coming into,' Jackson said.
John Plecnik, an associate professor of law at Cleveland State University, theorized S.B. 1 came from a faculty member or an administrator from the University of Michigan.
'There'd be no greater way to damage Ohio State or Ohio's public universities,' he said.
University of Cincinnati Undergraduate Student President Madison Wesley shared testimonies from concerned students.
'One such student, from Appalachia, fears that the ripple effects of this bill could make it harder for students like her to pursue an education,' she said. 'A pre-med student recently expressed fears that the implications of this bill could negatively affect the accreditation of Ohio medical schools and, by extension, their future career.'
Wesley also talked about how the bill poses a threat to Ohio higher education.
'This will diminish the value of our degrees and make it harder to attract and retain top talent in our state,' she said.
Ohio State Professor Erynn Beaton said S.B. 1 is 'pulled from the Florida playbook.'
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law in 2022 that affects tenured faculty and another bill in 2023 banning the state's public colleges and universities from spending money on diversity and inclusion programs.
'I personally know several faculty who have left Southern states due to the legislative environment,' Beaton said.
Ohio State Associate Professor Ashley Hope Pérez said she used to look forward to her two sons attending public universities in Ohio, but not anymore.
'S.B. 1 undermines every Ohioan's right to an effective and complete education,' she said. 'It also endangers students' competitiveness in a rapidly changing professional landscape.'
S.B. 1 has faced heavy opposition since being introduced in January. Hundreds of students, faculty, staff and alumni protested against the bill last week at Ohio State University. More than 800 people submitted opponent testimony against the bill when it was in the Senate committee. Ohio House Democrats bombarded Cirino with questions about his bill during last week's sponsor testimony.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

White House breaks ground on Trump projects to pave over Rose Garden grass, add flagpoles to lawns

time26 minutes ago

White House breaks ground on Trump projects to pave over Rose Garden grass, add flagpoles to lawns

WASHINGTON -- The White House broke ground Monday on construction projects ordered by President Donald Trump to pave over the grass in the Rose Garden and install flagpoles on the north and south lawns. The projects are part of a series of personal touches that Trump, a real estate developer turned politician, has added or is adding to the Executive Mansion and its grounds since he opened his second term in January. The projects also include new artwork of himself on walls and gold-toned flourishes in the Oval Office. He also wants to add a ballroom. Reporters on Monday noticed that work had begun in the Rose Garden, just off the Oval Office on the south grounds, when they were taken out to the South Lawn to wait for Trump to return on the Marine One helicopter from an overnight at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. Photos showed that a limestone border that first lady Melania Trump had added during a Rose Garden renovation project in her husband's first term had been removed in some places and the grass had been dug up in others spots. Employees of the National Park Service, which maintains the White House grounds, started the work on Monday, according to a White House official. The project is set to be completed in about two months, or the first half of August, said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on intended changes to the Executive Mansion and spoke on the condition of anonymity. After stepping off the helicopter, Trump walked over to a bulldozer that was on the South Lawn to start digging a foundation for one of two flagpoles he promised in April. One flagpole will be added to the South Lawn, and the second will be installed on the North Lawn, he said. Trump said he was installing two 'beautiful' flagpoles 'paid for by Trump' on the grounds because 'they've needed flagpoles for 200 years.' The American and POW/MIA flags fly on the roof of the White House every day. The Republican president said months ago that he would pave over the Rose Garden because the grass there is always wet and an inconvenience for women in high heels. It was unclear if he planned to pay for this project. Last week, Trump posted on his social media site about the ballroom he promised, 'compliments of a man known as Donald J. Trump.' He wrote on Friday that he had inspected the site for the ballroom, saying it will be a 'wonderful addition' and is an example of the ''fun' projects I do while thinking about the World Economy, the United States, China, Russia, and lots of other Countries, places, and events.'

White House breaks ground on Trump projects to pave over Rose Garden grass, add flagpoles to lawns
White House breaks ground on Trump projects to pave over Rose Garden grass, add flagpoles to lawns

Hamilton Spectator

time27 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

White House breaks ground on Trump projects to pave over Rose Garden grass, add flagpoles to lawns

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House broke ground Monday on construction projects ordered by President Donald Trump to pave over the grass in the Rose Garden and install flagpoles on the north and south lawns. The projects are part of a series of personal touches that Trump, a real estate developer turned politician, has added or is adding to the Executive Mansion and its grounds since he opened his second term in January. The projects also include new artwork of himself on walls and gold-toned flourishes in the Oval Office. He also wants to add a ballroom. Reporters on Monday noticed that work had begun in the Rose Garden, just off the Oval Office on the south grounds, when they were taken out to the South Lawn to wait for Trump to return on the Marine One helicopter from an overnight at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. Photos showed that a limestone border that first lady Melania Trump had added during a Rose Garden renovation project in her husband's first term had been removed in some places and the grass had been dug up in others spots. Employees of the National Park Service, which maintains the White House grounds, started the work on Monday, according to a White House official. The project is set to be completed in about two months, or the first half of August, said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on intended changes to the Executive Mansion and spoke on the condition of anonymity. After stepping off the helicopter, Trump walked over to a bulldozer that was on the South Lawn to start digging a foundation for one of two flagpoles he promised in April. One flagpole will be added to the South Lawn, and the second will be installed on the North Lawn, he said. Trump said he was installing two 'beautiful' flagpoles 'paid for by Trump' on the grounds because 'they've needed flagpoles for 200 years.' The American and POW/MIA flags fly on the roof of the White House every day. The Republican president said months ago that he would pave over the Rose Garden because the grass there is always wet and an inconvenience for women in high heels. It was unclear if he planned to pay for this project. Last week, Trump posted on his social media site about the ballroom he promised, 'compliments of a man known as Donald J. Trump.' He wrote on Friday that he had inspected the site for the ballroom, saying it will be a 'wonderful addition' and is an example of the ''fun' projects I do while thinking about the World Economy, the United States, China, Russia, and lots of other Countries, places, and events.' ___ Follow the AP's coverage of President Donald Trump at . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

The Scholar Who Predicted America's Breakdown Says It's Just Beginning
The Scholar Who Predicted America's Breakdown Says It's Just Beginning

Newsweek

time30 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

The Scholar Who Predicted America's Breakdown Says It's Just Beginning

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Fifteen years ago, smack in the middle of Barack Obama's first term, amid the rapid rise of social media and a slow recovery from the Great Recession, a professor at the University of Connecticut issued a stark warning: the United States was heading into a decade of growing political instability. It sounded somewhat contrarian at the time. The global economy was clawing back from the depths of the financial crisis, and the American political order still seemed anchored in post-Cold War optimism — though cracks were beginning to emerge, as evidenced by the Tea Party uprising. But Peter Turchin, an ecologist-turned-historian, had the data. "Quantitative historical analysis reveals that complex human societies are affected by recurrent—and predictable—waves of political instability," Turchin wrote in the journal Nature in 2010, forecasting a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, "elite overproduction" and rising public debt. A protestor holds up a Mexican flag as burning cars line the street on June 08, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Tensions in the city remain high after the Trump administration called in the National... A protestor holds up a Mexican flag as burning cars line the street on June 08, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Tensions in the city remain high after the Trump administration called in the National Guard against the wishes of city leaders following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids. More Photo byNow, with the nation consumed by polarization in the early months of a second Donald Trump presidency, institutional mistrust at all-time highs, and deepening political conflict, Turchin's prediction appears to have landed with uncanny accuracy. In the wake of escalating protests and the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles under President Trump's immigration crackdown, Turchin spoke with Newsweek about the latest escalation of political turbulence in the United States—and the deeper structural forces he believes have been driving the country toward systemic crisis for more than a decade. Predicting Chaos In his 2010 analysis published by Nature, Turchin identified several warning signs in the domestic electorate: stagnating wages, a growing wealth gap, a surplus of educated elites without corresponding elite jobs, and an accelerating fiscal deficit. All of these phenomena, he argued, had reached a turning point in the 1970s. "These seemingly disparate social indicators are actually related to each other dynamically," he wrote at the time. "Nearly every one of those indicators has intensified," Turchin said in an interview with Newsweek, citing real wage stagnation, the effects of artificial intelligence on the professional class and increasingly unmanageable public finances. Turchin's prediction was based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. These cycles have recurred across empires and republics, from ancient Rome to the Ottoman Empire. Turchin's forecast is based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition, and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. Turchin's forecast is based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition, and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. Courtesy Peter Turchin "Structural-Demographic Theory enables us to analyze historical dynamics and apply that understanding to current trajectories," Turchin said. "It's not prophecy. It's modeling feedback loops that repeat with alarming regularity." He argues that violence in the U.S. tends to repeat about every 50 years— pointing to spasms of unrest around 1870, 1920, 1970 and 2020. He links these periods to how generations tend to forget what came before. "After two generations, memories of upheaval fade, elites begin to reorganize systems in their favor, and the stress returns," he said. One of the clearest historical parallels to now, he notes, is the 1970s. That decade saw radical movements emerge from university campuses and middle-class enclaves not just in the U.S., but across the West. The far-left Weather Underground movement, which started as a campus organization at the University of Michigan, bombed government buildings and banks; the Red Army Faction in West Germany and Italy's Red Brigades carried out kidnappings and assassinations. These weren't movements of the dispossessed, but of the downwardly mobile—overeducated and politically alienated. "There's a real risk of that dynamic resurfacing," Turchin said. A 'Knowledge Class' Critics have sometimes questioned the deterministic tone of Turchin's models. But he emphasizes that he does not predict exact events—only the risk factors and phases of systemic stress. While many political analysts and historians point to Donald Trump's 2016 election as the inflection point for the modern era of American political turmoil, Turchin had charted the warning signs years earlier — when Trump was known, above all, as the host of a popular NBC reality show. President Donald Trump takes part in a signing ceremony after his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in the President's Room at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump takes part in a signing ceremony after his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in the President's Room at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images "As you know, in 2010, based on historical patterns and quantitative indicators, I predicted a period of political instability in the United States beginning in the 2020s," Turchin said to Newsweek. "The structural drivers behind this prediction were threefold: popular immiseration, elite overproduction, and a weakening state capacity." According to his model, Trump's rise was not the cause of America's political crisis but a symptom—emerging from a society already strained by widening inequality and elite saturation. In Turchin's view, such figures often arise when a growing class of counter-elites—ambitious, credentialed individuals locked out of power—begin to challenge the status quo. "Intraelite competition has increased even more, driven now mostly by the shrinking supply of positions for them," he said. In 2025, he pointed to the impact of AI in the legal profession and recent government downsizing, such as the DOGE eliminating thousands of positions at USAID, as accelerants in this trend. This theory was echoed by Wayne State University sociologist Jukka Savolainen, who argued in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is risking the creation of a radicalized "knowledge class"—overeducated, underemployed, and institutionally excluded. "When societies generate more elite aspirants than there are roles to fill, competition for status intensifies," Savolainen wrote. "Ambitious but frustrated people grow disillusioned and radicalized. Rather than integrate into institutions, they seek to undermine them." Peter Turchin forecasted a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, elite overproduction, and rising public debt. Peter Turchin forecasted a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, elite overproduction, and rising public debt. Courtesy of Peter Turchin Savolainen warned that Trump-era policies—such as the dismantling of D.E.I. and academic research programs and cuts to public institutions—have the potential to accelerate the pattern, echoing the unrest of the 1970s. "President Trump's policies could intensify this dynamic," he noted. "Many are trained in critique, moral reasoning, and systems thinking—the very profile of earlier generations of radicals." Structural Drivers Turchin, who is now an emeritus professor at UConn, believes the American system entered what he calls a "revolutionary situation"—a historical phase in which the destabilizing conditions can no longer be absorbed by institutional buffers. Reflecting on the last few years in a recent post on his Cliodynamica newsletter, he wrote that "history accelerated" after 2020. He and colleague Andrey Korotayev had tracked rising incidents of anti-government demonstrations and violent riots across Western democracies in the lead-up to that year. Their findings predicted a reversal of prior declines in unrest. "And then history accelerated," he wrote. "America was slammed by the pandemic, George Floyd, and a long summer of discontent." A police officer points a hand cannon at protesters who have been detained pending arrest on South Washington Street in Minneapolis, May 31, 2020, as protests continued following the death of George Floyd. A police officer points a hand cannon at protesters who have been detained pending arrest on South Washington Street in Minneapolis, May 31, 2020, as protests continued following the death of George Floyd. AP Photo/John Minchillo, File While many saw Trump's 2020 election loss and the January 6 Capitol riot that followed as its own turning point in that hectic period, Turchin warned that these events did not mark an end to the turbulence. "Many commentators hastily concluded that things would now go back to normal. I disagreed," he wrote. "The structural drivers for instability—the wealth pump, popular immiseration, and elite overproduction/conflict—were still running hot," Turchin continued. "America was in a 'revolutionary situation,' which could be resolved by either developing into a full-blown revolution, or by being defused by skillful actions of the governing elites. Well, now we know which way it went." These stressors, he argues, are not isolated. They are systemwide pressures building for years, playing out in feedback loops. "Unfortunately," he told Newsweek, "all these trends are only gaining power."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store