The state Senate's Workforce and Higher Education Committee approved a bill that would create two institutions rooted in American constitutional studies at the University of Toledo and Ohio State University amid growing debate.
If approved, the bill would grant $3 million to create the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership housed within UT’s college of law and $10 million to establish the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at OSU’s college of public affairs.
At UT, the institute aims to pursue numerous goals, including enriching the curriculum in American constitutional studies, supporting research, offering university-wide programming, inviting speakers from different viewpoints, expanding intellectual diversity, and more.
UT law professor Lee Strang came up with the idea in 2019 after visiting similar institutions at Georgetown and Princeton universities.
He said the institute’s mission is to enrich the law school and provide opportunities for students by creating a space for civil debate and conversation on legal and policy issues, but some are concerned with the language and intentions behind the bill.
Third-year law student Rashad Daoudi submitted testimony opposing the bill in which he questioned the institute’s purpose of promoting intellectual diversity because Sen. Jerry Cirino (R., Kirkland), one of the bill’s sponsors, has been vocal about his opinion that colleges and universities have become “too far to the left.”
“We can’t trust these lawmakers to do something that is not objective,” Mr. Daoudi said.
He wrote in his testimony that if the institute’s purpose is to fight the idea that “universities are too liberal,” he feels it will be rooted in conservative ideology.
But Rebecca Zietlow, associate dean of academic affairs and a law professor at UT, does not believe the institute will censor political ideologies. Instead, she feels it will provide a space where students and faculty can voice their thoughts and opinions freely.
“Conservative ideas are part of the spectrum of ideas, and I’m someone who’s strongly in favor of creating an atmosphere where people can express their views no matter what they are,” Ms. Zietlow said.
While some are concerned that the institute would provide a polarized atmosphere, others are worried that it might impact faculty relations.
Uncertainties
If approved by state legislators, the university’s board of trustees will appoint a seven-member academic council. One of these members would serve as director and oversee the institute's content. The director would not report to the college's dean like the other faculty members but would report directly to the university’s president and provost.
Professor emeritus Benjamin Davis taught at UT’s law school for 18 years. Because the dean works with faculty to determine the curriculum, he worries that disrupting that relationship would make it more difficult to manage the institute’s content.
“With the president of the university appointing some head of the institute, … it denatures the nature of the dean-faculty governance structure for [the content] at the law school,” Mr. Davis said.
Unlike Mr. Davis, Ms. Zietlow is confident that the director would not upset the college's governance, but instead, augment it. The bill outlines specific qualifications for the director, and the position is termed for five years but is renewable.
“I think it’s really important that however this bill turns out, it is clear that it would be implemented in a way that does not interfere with the faculty governance in the university,” Ms. Zietlow said in an interview Wednesday. “It will be implemented in a way that enhances diversity of viewpoint and not restrict it in any way.”
The bill, approved by the committee Wednesday, is making its way to the Senate floor. Although the language of the bill has been the subject of debate, people on both sides agree that UT’s college of law could use the $3 million.
Need for funding
The bill would grant $1 million from the state in the next fiscal year and $2 million the following year, supporting the institute for its first three years of operation. After it becomes fully operational, personnel costs are expected to be more than $1.5 million a year, according to the bill's fiscal notes. UT will spend $325,000 a year on stipends and $335,000 on other costs. The university also expects a one-time cost of $255,000 on renovations.
After the $3 million runs out, Mr. Strang said the institute would look at other sources for funding. This would include additional state support, tuition from students enrolled in the institute, and fund-raisers. He said he is communicating with potential donors and is working with the University of Toledo Foundation to reach more.
Despite his concern with the institute, Mr. Daoudi agrees that the college needs $3 million. Instead of funding a new academic unit, Mr. Daoudi said he would prefer the money go toward offering more law classes, hiring more faculty, fixing the infrastructure, and granting more scholarships.
“I’m hesitant to do something against getting the money, but a hyper-partisan bill is not the way to go about it,” Mr. Daoudi said.
Mr. Strang agrees that the college could use additional funding to address those problems but said the institution’s goals are separate.
“The institute isn’t saying that the college of law doesn’t need resources for a variety of purposes,” Mr. Strang said in an interview Monday. “This is just the project that I am most passionate about because I’ve seen first-hand the value the institute will bring to UT.”
In addition to Senate Bill 117, two other bills in the Ohio legislature have been met with overwhelming opposition. Ohio Senate Bill 83 and House Bill 151 would limit campus diversity programs to promote intellectual discussions. Because of the timing, some believe Senate Bill 117 is just a variation of these bills.
Other bills
Cynthia Peeples, founding director of Honesty for Ohio Education, said the organization has been watching the progression of Senate Bill 117 because its language is similar to that of Senate Bill 83 and House Bill 151. Honesty for Ohio Education is a nonpartisan coalition that serves as a statewide network for education and advocacy on education topics in the state legislature.
Honesty for Ohio Education is advocating against those bills because the organization believes they would limit academic freedom and harm holistic experiences students need to form their own opinions.
“We encourage every Ohioan ... to make their voices heard,” Mrs. Peeples said in an interview Wednesday. “We encourage every Ohioan to learn about the bill and sit down and write testimony on how they feel about the bill, whether they’re in favor of it or oppose it.”
As it heads to the Senate floor, Mr. Strang encourages those hesitant about the bill to read the legislation and look at the bipartisan support from people who have submitted testimony to the state legislature.
“I think we live in a polarized time … where people have grown to not trust their fellow citizens, and I think the controversy surrounding this institute is a product of this polarized time,” Mr. Strang said. “This polarization and lack of trust is precisely what the institute is trying to address through its embrace of all viewpoints.”
Senate Bill 117 could reach the Senate floor as early as next week, and if approved, would go to the House for consideration.
First Published June 8, 2023, 9:22 p.m.
