An Ohio Republican lawmaker wants to tie compliance to a new higher education law that bans diversity efforts and regulates classroom discussion to state funding for universities.
Ohio state Rep. Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., recently introduced Ohio House Bill 698, which would tie a portion of the State Share of Instruction to compliance with Ohio Senate Bill 1, a new higher education law that bans diversity and inclusion efforts, prohibits faculty strikes, and sets rules around classroom discussion of “controversial” topics.
The law also creates post-tenure reviews, put diversity scholarships at risk, creates a retrenchment provision that blocks unions from negotiating on tenure, shortens university board of trustees terms from nine years down to six years, and requires students take an American history course, among other things.
The law took effect in June 2025 and affects Ohio’s public universities and community colleges.
“Senate Bill 1 established the policy framework,” Young said. “… H.B. 698 strengthens enforcement and clarity. … It’s accountability legislation.”
He was worried last year when the bill passed last year with no enforcement mechanism.
“If the university is not in compliance, as it goes forward, then there will be a decision on how to hold back funds,” Young said. “And once those answers are corrected and those compliance issues are corrected, the funds will flow.”
Young said that professors and students have come to him with concerns about universities not complying with S.B. 1.
“I do believe that these presidents are really working hard on this,” Young said. “One incident does not define them, but it does open the door for questions.”
The new bill would require universities to do an inventory of all employees who performed diversity, equity, and inclusion roles on Jan. 1, 2025 and were reassigned on or before Sept. 25, 2025.
From there, the bill requires universities to come up with a “justification report” explaining the employee’s reassignment, their new responsibilities, salary, and “proof that the employee’s reassignment consists of substantially different duties from diversity, equity, and inclusion functions,” according to the bill’s language.
The chancellor of higher education would determine if a university employee’s new responsibilities are different from their previous diversity and inclusion functions, according to the bill.
Diversity centers across Ohio’s public universities — including LGBTQ+ centers, women’s centers, and multicultural centers — have closed because of the new higher education law.
“Some universities are simply ignoring the law,” claimed Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima. “Something needs to happen to incentivize complying with the law.”
Ohio House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, said S.B. 1 was a bad bill.
“It continues to be a bad law,” he said. “… It was a mistake when we passed it. It would be a mistake to double down on it.”
Rachel Coyle, policy director for Honesty for Ohio Education, said the bill is government overreach.
“This is the legislature trying to force the universities to operate exactly as they want in every capacity,” she said. “It is meddling in a way I have not seen in a very long time.”
The Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors does not think this bill is necessary.
“There’s absolutely not even been enough time since Senate Bill 1 was enacted to make an informed decision about any of this,” said OCAAUP Executive Director Jennifer Price.
“We see nothing from higher ed and the Chancellor that indicates there’s issues with compliance.”
Hundreds of people testified against Senate Bill 1 before it was signed into law last year.
“Instead of paying attention to that, instead of acknowledging it, they are doubling and tripling down so quickly after the bill was passed,” Coyle said.
All Democratic members of the Ohio House Higher Education and Workforce Committee had questions for Young during Tuesday’s sponsor testimony.
“This sounds to me like we’re going down a path of government knows best how to manage what the professionals in the industry have been doing,” said Ohio state Rep. Joe Miller, D-Amherst. “Do you believe that they’re not able to manage it?”
Young replied this is just an enforcement bill.
“All we’re giving is the Chancellor the authority to review aspects that are outlined in S.B. 1,” he said.
Ohio state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, pointed out the bill has only been in effect for less than a year.
“What are you seeing that’s making you feel like this is something that is needed now, rather than waiting to see what the impact of S.B. 1?” she asked.
Young again reiterated this is an enforcement bill.
State Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, — the author of S.B. 1 — said last year he wanted higher education appropriations to be tied to compliance to Senate Bill 1.
Over the summer, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed a provision of the state budget that would have tied some of the State Share of Instruction to compliance with S.B. 1.
The provision would have required each university to submit a report showing compliance to the House and Senate higher education committees.
“This violates the separation of powers that is embedded in the framework of the Ohio Constitution that define the substance and scope of powers granted to the three branches of state government and intrudes upon the constitutional authority of the executive branch to distribute funds that have been appropriated through this budget bill,” DeWine wrote in his June veto message.
Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.