COLUMBUS — State lawmakers are considering a bill that supporters contend would prevent Ohio's public colleges and universities from engaging in “indoctrination” and “social engineering” while some students and faculty counter that it could restrict free thought and speech on campus.

The debate occurs as the General Assembly considers the next state budget that, as passed by the House, contains modest increases in funding for the Department of Higher Education and more support for student financial aid.

All or part of Senate Bill 83 could be on the table as the Senate makes its imprint on the budget.

“We are dealing with what we believe is a trend toward indoctrination in our universities,” the bill's sponsor, Sen. Jerry Cirino (R., Kirtland), told the Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee. “If you don't believe in the mantra that is being propagated today, you are excluded.”

Similar to measures pushed in some other Republican-controlled states, the proposed “Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act” would require state institutions of higher education to adopt policies prohibiting mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on campus and pledging that schools will not endorse, comment on, or take action on controversial subjects.

The bill specifically defines “controversial belief or policy” as including such subjects as climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, inclusion, immigration, marriage, and abortion.

Colleges and universities could not seek to influence students, faculty, or administrators to accept a specific ideology or political stance. The school's mission statement must include a commitment to “free and open intellectual inquiry, independence of thought, tolerance of different viewpoints, and equality of opportunity.”

Faculty labor strikes would be prohibited.

“Since students pay for their tuition and fees up front, nothing should interrupt the delivery of that instruction to them. Nothing...,” Mr. Cirino said. “I don't believe that the threat of that interruption is something that should be a negotiating chip...Don't use the students as pawns.”

The committee last month held a seven-hour hearing on the bill with most of the testimony in opposition.

Freshman Reps. Josh Williams (R., Sylvania Township) and Steve Demetriou (R., Bainbridge) have introduced companion legislation in the House. House Bill 151 has received no committee hearings to date.

“Instead of a culture of dialogue and debate, I found higher education was primarily concerned with conformity and indoctrination, snuffing out any voice that cuts against the narrative,” Mr. Williams recently told the Senate committee.

Now a criminal defense lawyer and adjunct professor at Adrian University in Michigan, he said he was targeted as a law school student at the University of Toledo because he espoused a view on immigration that was unpopular among classmates and a professor. He said the backlash manifested in attempted sabotage of his classroom performance by some students.

“From that point forward I was aware that there was a price to pay for free expression on college campuses,” he said. “...In reality, there is a de facto censorship regime on college campuses now. This bill reverses these policies and opens new avenues for transparency and accountability.”

Critics lumped the measure under the umbrella of other legislation recently pursued in the General Assembly that includes Senate Bill 1. That bill, which has already passed the Senate and is pending in the House, would strip the State Board of Education of most of its powers governing K-12 schools and give them to a revamped department under the governor.

Steve Mockabee, associate professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and a representative of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said the bill amounts to “political interference” in higher education that “blacklists” certain controversial topics.

“To preserve the integrity of our institutions of higher education, they must not be subject to the political whims of the day,” he said. “In this era of hyperpartisanship, in which seemingly anything and everything can be and is politicized, S.B. 83 would create unsettling classroom environments — that any discussion of what could be deemed controversial might result in accusations of indoctrination. By attempting to legislate intellectual diversity, the bill would likely hinder the free expression of ideas.”

The bill, he said, would weaken tenure that is designed to shield longer-serving faculty from political pressure.

He compared the prohibition against faculty strikes to Senate Bill 5, the much broader crackdown on the collective bargaining clout of public employee unions that was passed in 2011. It was later soundly rejected at the polls that year.

“Strikes in the public sector are rare, but when they happen, they are necessary to bring both sides back to the table to bargain in good faith,” Mr. Mockabee said.

All students seeking two-year associate or four-year bachelor's degrees beginning with 2027 graduates would have to complete a three-hour American government or history course. Readings would include the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Critics argue that the bill speaks of diversity of thought while seeking to dismantle mechanisms within schools designed to seek out diversity.

“Who would want to get their education in a state where education is censored, where diversity, equity, and inclusion are not valued, and are, in fact, not mandated?”” said Rachel Collyer, of the Ohio Student Association, a student-led organization with chapters at nine Ohio campuses.

AMONG THE BILL’S PROVISIONS:

-- Prohibits mandatory programs or training promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion

-- Requires policy guaranteeing full intellectual diversity

-- Requires that diverse intellectual speakers be sought out

-- Prohibits faculty strikes

-- Prohibits schools from endorsing, commenting on, or taking action on current controversies or controversial beliefs or policies

-- Prohibits colleges and universities from partnering with academic institutions in China or in other countries if they are associated with China

-- Prohibits schools from influencing or requiring students, faculty, or administrators to accept certain ideologies, political stances, or social policy views

-- Prohibits schools from aiding or abetting boycotts, disinvestments, or sanctions

-- Prohibits use of political or ideological litmus tests in hiring, promotion, or admission decisions

-- Prohibits policies that discriminate based on race, sex, gender identity, or gender expression

-- Adds a question to student evaluations about whether professors create a classroom free of bias

-- Requires associate and bachelor degree students to take three hours of an American history or government course with specific reading assignments

-- Requires the Department of Higher Education to study the feasibility of three-year bachelor's degree programs

First Published May 6, 2023, 11:00 a.m.