Time to make some phone calls!
At 2pm today, February 11, the Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee will consider SB1, a terrible bill that would destroy the independence of Ohio’s public universities. You can listen in at the Ohio Channel (Ohiochannel.org)
SB 1 could pass the Senate as soon as TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12!
We’ve got no time to waste. Start making some phone calls.
Learn how to TAKE ACTION against SB1!
Read/Listen to Ohioans Against Extremism’s opposition testimony
This afternoon, we only get 3 minutes to go over our objections to this 75 page monstrosity of a bill. That’s not going to stop us from helping the public understand why this bill is so bad. Read or watch our FULL comments against Ohio SB1, then tune in to the hearing to listen to a lottttt more people share their reasons for being against SB1.
OAE’s OPPONENT TESTIMONY on SB1:
Chair Roegner, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Higher Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 1. I’m Maria Bruno, the Executive Director of a new 501(c)4 organization, Ohioans Against Extremism.
I’ve been in front of most of you before, but this is my first time testifying here in my new role, so I will say a few words about Ohioans Against Extremism. The short version is, a few Ohio organizers started our organization last year in response to the rise in extremism in our state, and the rise of legislation targeting already marginalized communities. After several hate group protests here in the state and the growing normalization of Nazi ideology, even in the Ohio Statehouse, we knew it was time for a more organized opposition to hate in Ohio.
We work with a long list of community organizations from different parts of the state, each focused on their own unique issues and working with their own unique constituencies. We focus on finding common ground, and finding practical solutions to tough problems. Rather than tell people what to believe, we give people the information and tools to decide for themselves what they want Ohio’s future to look like.
We also insist that policy “solutions” are grounded in reality and actually help Ohioans.
And whether it’s trying to make planting a flag on a football field a felony, or legally prohibiting saying their ideas are bad in a college classroom, Ohio politicians have got to stop trying to pass a law every time someone hurts their feelings.
SB 1, formerly SB83, is a bill we’ve been keeping tabs on since our launch. This bill is a perfect example of harmful legislation that would make our state worse off. It’s the exact kind of bait and switch that raises red flags.
In preparation for this hearing, I rewatched the testimony and examined the rationales used to endorse this legislation. It didn’t take long, there weren’t that many proponents and most of them were from the same organization. Of the people that testified, every single one raised concerns about “DEI”, which is the abbreviation for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. They raised concerns about the rise in “self censorship” “woke conformity” and advocated for “true diversity of thought”.
Not a single anecdote highlighted as justification for this bill, however, included someone being formally reprimanded for sharing an opinion or giving a certain answer. Their anecdotes were filled with stories of typical discussions at universities in which they felt a classmate or peer was mean to them, or cited their own speculation that they would have had more professional success had they not shared their politics in class or in a publication.
Proponents went on, insisting that universities must be bastions of “intellectual diversity”, and this legislature must protect the “marketplace of ideas”. They said DEI is nothing more than “The Red Scare”, “closeted quotas”, and a “shadow curriculum” that “seeks to subvert American markets, values, and existence.” They argued that DEI is a “tool of racial and political discrimination” that “indoctrinates” students into “believing everyone is entitled to equal results”.
But nothing protects fragile egos at the expense of actual academic standards more than this bill, which mandates that professors take bad ideas seriously and treat them with weight not warranted based on merits. Proponents essentially argue that everyone is entitled to feel right, even if they aren’t.
Proponents of SB 1 argued students should not have to worry about “the social implications of what they say.” They argued that students should feel “safe to reflect their views” and that universities could improve trust in higher education institutions if they just started fostering intellectual diversity.
Every single proponent’s testimony’s primary focus was around amorphously defined “DEI program”, class curriculums, and diversity pledges. One proponent even argued that diversity efforts make universities less inclusive and equitable.
They also say that diversity pledges are coercive. But they are thrilled that this bill includes a mandatory pledge to intellectual diversity. Irony continues to be dead.
So what does SB1 do, to solve all the horrors they outlined?
This 75 page bill, supposedly designed to solve the epidemic of bruised egos in class, covers a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with anything that any proponent talked about last week. That’s another big red flag.
This bill does everything from shred worker’s rights to changing rules around university trustee terms to banning working with (specifically and solely) China to creating new rules around speakers’ fees, budgets, and other university processes.
The bill mandates a new civics class, even specifying which specific texts must be included in that new class’s curriculum.
And at any time, if the general assembly independently “determines” the institution has “failed to comply” with their vague rules around “discussing controversial topics,” then they can simply withhold or reduce the entire University’s funding.
If state lawmakers want to dictate what specific books college students should read, then perhaps they should consider a career change. I’d warn, though, that the prerequisites for being a University Professor are much, much more difficult than those required to join the General Assembly.
That higher threshold of qualification is just one reason why we shouldn’t let politicians put their sticky fingers on every course offered by a public university in Ohio, especially when their rationale appears to be nearly entirely to protect bubble-wrapped students from the consequences of their unpopular opinions.
The bill prohibits statements of diversity, then mandates several different pledges to, in their own words, protect “diversity of thought”. One wonders what “diversity of thought” really means, when it is placed directly at odds with DEI, which by definition, prioritizes the recruitment of “diversity of perspectives”. That would be expressly prohibited.
Diversity is bad, they say. Intellectual diversity is necessary, they say.
One can only be left to surmise that the premise of “diversity of thought” really means shielding some individuals, already at the table, from facing any friction for expressing their ideas, no matter how unpopular.
To ensure no “DEI” slips through the cracks, the bill prescribes a mandatory, onerous, unfunded bureaucratic process to ensure everyone with hurt feelings has the ability to retaliate against the professor that allowed it to happen under their watch. I fear the proponents of this bill will quickly find, forcing artificial neutrality in the classroom on all issues of importance will not help students with unpopular views get invited to parties.
There are also extensive new disclosure requirements. What could go wrong, requiring every public university and community college professor’s class schedule and every curriculum they’ve ever created to be put on the internet with mandatory word search functions, with a special prohibition on asking for any identifiable information of the people accessing said information? Should we also hand deliver it to foreign adversaries that openly target thought leaders in areas including history, democracy, and core workforce skills?
The attacks to workers’ rights and demonization of professors included in the bill make it nearly guaranteed that any academic considering coming to Ohio in the future would decline that opportunity. Any logical professor would instead pick going to a state where they could, you know, actually have rights in their workplace, talk candidly in class, and didn’t have to hand every internet troll in the country their personal class schedule – which yes, this bill really would do.
Protecting the supposed “right” to anonymously stalk and troll professors will do nothing to better our state. It will, however, repel any talented academics from wanting to work in this state.
SB1 is a gift to trolls, people with bad ideas, and individuals too sensitive and delicate to thrive in a rigorous academic environment.
The cherry on top is that these vague and conflicting new rules come with quite the consequence for defying. This bill gives unprecedented power to the State legislature to micromanage our public universities, and dangle funding whenever they dislike what a university professor says.
Because ultimately, that is what this bill is all about. Nothing else makes sense.
It’s unclear how banning professors from striking preserves open discussion in class.
I’m not seeing the causal connection between removing disability resources for students – provided through DEI programs – and enhancing student life on campus.
I don’t see how it’s helpful to give the wildly underqualified General Assembly the right to veto anything in a college class that offends them.
I’m sure it hurts the sponsor and supporters of this bill’s feelings that their favorite political theories are unpopular on college campuses and in classrooms that actually rely on academic principles. Unlike fringe internet forums and bot laden social media apps, which accept vibes as a citation.
Perhaps instead of passing a law to make it illegal to hurt their feelings, they should consider getting better ideas, or getting better at defending their supposedly good ideas. If they’re losing classroom debates regularly, perhaps it isn’t a conspiracy against them but rather a skill issue.
We ask this committee to vote NO on SB 1.
Maria Bruno, Executive Director
Ohioans Against Extremism
Share this post