Full Breakdown
Ohio Bill Targets Public Universities Over DEI Initiatives
2/25/2026, 6:01:33 AM
Legislative Overview and Objectives
A new bill in the Ohio House, known as H.B. 698, aims to penalize public universities by withholding funding if they do not comply with the state's anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This legislation follows the passage of Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1) last summer, which overhauled higher education curricula to eliminate what proponents describe as "liberal bias." State Representative Tom Young (R-Washington Township), a key figure behind both bills, has consistently stated that DEI initiatives are no longer acceptable in Ohio's public universities.
Compliance Requirements and Consequences
Under H.B. 698, universities must undergo additional certification processes to demonstrate compliance with the anti-DEI measures. This includes providing a list of former DEI faculty members and justifying their continued employment, effectively creating a registry of individuals involved in diversity-related topics. Failure to comply could lead to funding cuts, as Young emphasized that universities must not "disguise" DEI programs to retain state support. The bill also introduces provisions for retrenchment based on enrollment figures, which critics argue could lead to job losses among faculty.
Diverging Perspectives on the Bill
While Young advocates for the bill as a necessary step to ensure accountability and fiscal responsibility, there is notable dissent within the legislature. Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), who sponsored S.B. 1, expressed concerns about the timing and necessity of H.B. 698. He suggested that it may be premature to impose additional penalties before assessing the impact of S.B. 1, which has a compliance deadline of March 1, 2026. Cirino's stance indicates a lack of consensus among Ohio lawmakers regarding the need for further punitive measures against universities.
Criticism from Academic Leaders
Opposition to H.B. 698 has been vocal among academic leaders. Jennifer Price, executive director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the bill as detrimental to higher education in Ohio. She argued that it undermines academic freedom and could lead to a brain drain, with professors and students opting to leave the state for institutions with more supportive environments. Price described the legislation as a political maneuver that ultimately harms Ohioans by stifling educational opportunities.
Conflicting Reports and Legislative Dynamics
The debate surrounding H.B. 698 highlights a broader conflict within Ohio's political landscape regarding education policy. Young maintains that the bill is not punitive, while Cirino explicitly labeled it as such. This discrepancy reflects differing priorities among lawmakers about how to address perceived biases in higher education. As the legislative process unfolds, the future of H.B. 698 remains uncertain, with potential implications for the state's public universities and their funding.
Verbatim Quotes
- “D-E-I is D-E-A-D,” — Tom Young, State Representative
- “It's a huge disappointment to see them coming out with another bill that just further undermines and erodes higher education in Ohio,” — Jennifer Price, Executive Director, Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors
- “I think it's premature,” — Jerry Cirino, Senate Finance Chair
- “It's very much stifling free speech; It's very much eroding academic freedom as well as tenure,” — Jennifer Price, Executive Director, Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors
