Ohio Statehouse-Canva
Written by Avantika Pai
The Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee held its first hearing on Jan. 29 to hear testimony in favor of Senate Bill 1, the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, introduced by State Senator Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland). Building on elements from the previously unsuccessful SB 83, the bill seeks to ensure intellectual diversity in higher education institutions by eliminating DEI programming and initiatives, preventing faculty and staff from striking, and prohibiting universities from taking a stance on controversial beliefs or policies.
Thirteen proponents for the bill spoke at the meeting, including Ohioan academics, students, and state officials. Several young dissidents sat in the audience wearing shirts that said “Cirino= Death to Higher Ed.”
Drawing from their academic and professional experiences, the proponents focused their arguments on how higher education institutions “indoctrinate” students with liberal and “woke” ideologies, causing students who have differing opinions to feel ostracized and restricted from expressing their beliefs.
In his initial arguments, Cirino said that “woke” is “jumping on the bandwagon and agreeing with everybody, and just conforming to what the current thinking is, without necessarily a rational justification for taking that position.”
SB 1 would prevent universities from taking positions on “controversial beliefs or policies,” such as politics, foreign policy, climate policy, immigration, marriage, or abortion. Cirino argued that the “diversity of thought” is being challenged in higher institutions by faculty and staff “who will not tolerate or encourage alternative views” to their own.
State Senator Casey Weinstein (D-Hudson) challenged this concept, specifically with how the legislation would address controversial beliefs in the classroom. Referring to Cirino’s previous remarks, Weinstein reiterated that Cirino claimed institutions should be required to “accept” conspiracies such as Holocaust denial.
“In light of the growing prevalence of Holocaust denial, and the rise of hate groups in our state, and this topic being fair game– in your words– how does this bill protect students from encountering and having to be taught Holocaust denial in the classroom?” Weinstein said.
In response, Cirino said that he is not sympathetic to Holocaust denial and other conspiracies, but that he believes universities should express neutrality when encountering such beliefs and offer evidence, prioritizing truth and evidence over hostility.
According to Cirino, professors should “try to explain that the preponderance of evidence out there suggests that they’re wrong in their position.”
State Senator Catherine Ingram (D-Cincinnati) further questioned Cirino’s remarks on students becoming indoctrinated in the classroom with “woke” ideologies.
“What you’re telling me is that our students are not intelligent enough to be able to seek for themselves additional evidence of what they’re being told, especially in light of technology, availability of information, whether it be good or bad,” Ingram said.
Cirino stated that “professors are authority figures,” and that he had spoken to university students who felt they couldn’t express their political views on assignments in fear of getting a bad grade.
Echoing these concerns, proponent Gabe Guidarini provided testimony on his perspective as a Republican student and Political Science major at the University of Dayton.
“I think that in many cases when you have a professor that apparently holds a particular set of views, students tend to be more courteous towards that professor’s political views when creating their own opinions and actually putting their own opinions of their own expertise into writing for class projects,” Guidarini said.
“I think that this is something that limits the expression that students have on their campuses and I think this is something that students have been concerned about increasing, not only in terms of their own social life, but also their grades and their academic performances,” he added.
However, as Ingram questioned, Guidarini’s views weren’t based on his personal experiences.
“I think that me, personally, I’ve had a good experience with professors who have respected my views and have respected my political beliefs when I’ve put it [in] writing,” Guidarini said. “But I think a lot of students are still concerned about this, they’re concerned as to whether their beliefs, their views, and their work is going to be graded and judged accurately, even alongside students whose work is in line with the professor’s political beliefs.”
Beyond DEI’s impact on the classroom, several speakers argued that DEI programs and initiatives prioritize quotas over merit and qualifications in hiring processes. Supporting SB 1, State Representative Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Twp.) shared his personal journey, describing how he overcame academic setbacks and a disability through hard work. However, he said that he believed DEI programs caused others to perceive him as a “DEI hire,” selected for his race rather than his qualifications.
“It adds a stain to my resume because when people look at that room I’m in, they believe the only reason that I’m present is because of the quotas,” Williams said.
SB 1 was introduced in the Ohio Senate just days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning DEI programming across federal government offices and as an increasing number of American adults have little to no confidence in higher education. SB 1 will continue to move forward in the legislative process, with further hearings expected in the coming weeks.