COLUMBUS — An Ohio Senate committee on Wednesday voted along party lines to advance a bill creating institutions at the University of Toledo and the Ohio State University that critics argue would be the latest attempt to influence debate on campus.
Senate Bill 117 cleared the Ohio Senate Workforce and Higher Education Committee after it heard solely from opponents of the bill. The measure could reach the Senate floor as early as next week.
Opponents argued the bill must be considered within the context of Senate Bill 83, which passed the Senate solely with Republican votes two weeks ago. Supporters argue that that bill would provide a reset against a “woke” and liberal agenda on college campuses.
“What is intellectual diversity for the sponsors?” asked Maria Vitoria de Rezende Grisi, a Brazilian native studying at Ohio State. “Everybody has been asking this question, and it still goes unanswered. ... We demand a clarification, and this bill needs to specify what intellectual diversity is, and at least show studies that prove that this is missing at the University of Toledo and the Ohio State University.”
Sponsored by Sens. Jerry Cirino (R., Kirtland) and Rob McColley (R., Napoleon), Senate Bill 117 would appropriate $3 million over two years to create the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership within the UT College of Law and $10 million to establish the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society within Ohio State's College of Public Affairs.
The bill states that the UT institute would be created “for the purpose of creating and disseminating knowledge about American constitutional thought and to form future leaders of the legal profession through research, scholarship, teaching, collaboration, and mentorship.”
The bill's backers say the centers would foster debate of diverse viewpoints during a time when such discourse is often acrimonious.
Its opponents counter that it is the next legislative step to bring more conservative views to campus — particularly after their sponsors spoke of liberal bias in classrooms while promoting Senate Bill 83.
“If you don't believe that there isn’t any intellectual diversity problem on campuses, how do you explain Ohio State's board, [which] recently issued an adjustment to their policies reinforcing the need for freedom of speech on campus as well as intellectual diversity?” asked Mr. Cirino, the committee’s chairman.
He was referring to the action of the university’s board of trustees recently to reaffirm its commitment to intellectual diversity. That occurred just after it issued a statement opposing Senate Bill 83.
Under Senate Bill 117, the UT institute would be required to offer instruction in:
• Books and major debates which form the intellectual foundation of free societies, especially the United States;
• The principles, ideals, and institutions of the American constitutional order; and
• The foundations of responsible leadership and informed citizenship.
The UT institute would receive $1 million from the state in the next fiscal year beginning July 1 and $2 million in the second year while the OSU center would receive $5 million each year.
Given these appropriations, there is also a chance that the Senate could slip this into the next two-year state budget that the chamber is now debating and is due on Gov. Mike DeWine's desk by June 30.
According to state legislative staff, the UT institute would cost more than $1.5 million a year when fully operational. It would spend $325,000 on stipends for student fellows, research assistants, and summer fellows, and $335,000 in research support, travel, outreach and marketing, supplies, and equipment.
It expects a one-time cost of $255,000 to renovate, furnish, equip, and recruit faculty for the institute’s space within the law school.
Senate Bill 83 is now pending in the House, but it, too, could also ultimately be rolled into the state budget bill. It would generally prohibit campus programs mandating diversity while requiring professors to foster full intellectual discussion of issues. Professors would have to skirt controversial subjects like climate policy, foreign policy, electoral politics, immigration, marriage, and abortion.
Opponents also argue that the millions to start up and run these centers would be better spent on more pressing needs on college campuses.
First Published June 7, 2023, 5:56 p.m.
