COLUMBUS, Ohio — After a seven-hour hearing on Wednesday for controversial legislation to overhaul the college education system in Ohio, the bill sponsor agreed to make some changes and clarifications.
From 4 p.m. until 11:30 p.m., hundreds of students and educators testified against Senate Bill 83.
This massive college overhaul bill focuses on what Republicans call “free speech,” banning public universities in Ohio from having “bias” in the classroom and limiting what and how “controversial topics” can and should be taught. Listed as controversial beliefs are diversity, politics, climate change and many more.
Fast Facts
The bill bans:
- “bias” in classrooms
- programs with Chinese schools
- mandatory diversity training
- labor strikes
- boycotts or disinvestments
The bill requires:
- American history course
- public syllabuses and teacher information online
- tenure evaluations based on if the educator showed bias or taught with bias — students will also evaluate
- rewrite of mission statements to include that educators teach so students can reach their “own conclusions”
To read more in-depth about those topics, click or tap here.
The hearing
Ohio State University sophomore Clovis Westlund was at the Statehouse for 14 hours on Wednesday.
"I think it would destroy classrooms," Westlund said.
Westlund is a double major in sociology and public management, leadership and policy at OSU. Their college career would be drastically altered if S.B. 83 were to pass, the student added. Careers of professors would also be harmed, too, many educators argued.
One of the hundreds of testimonies came from OSU Public Affairs professor Dr. Erynn Beaton.
"This bill is written in a way that is meant to silence some of those voices, not to make everyone heard," Beaton said. "The bill in particular is written in a way that's pretty ambiguous."
She teaches a course on economic inequality, something that can be seen as a "controversial topic."
"[The bill] would specifically, probably, cancel one of the classes that I teach," the professor said.
Bill sponsor state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland) defended his bill, saying that good professors have nothing to worry about. He has received many emails from professors who are emailing his office about their concern for their jobs, he added.
"Maybe they're not good at what they do, and maybe their job should be in jeopardy," Cirino said.
The bill is about free speech and diversity of thought since some conservatives feel discriminated against, he added.
"Our university campuses, which have always been left of center, but they have gone extremely left of center, and people who feel differently do not feel that they can express themselves," Cirino said.
This was echoed by retired Case Western Reserve University law professor George Dent.
"[Students] typically learn that their country’s history and dominant culture and institutions are evil," Dent said. "How can students learn critical thinking when they are taught only a narrow range of left-wing views and intimidated from expressing contrary opinions?"
Dent gave an example.
"Dominant discourse on our campuses also holds that America is deeply and systemically racist, yet America is the least racist major country in the world today... Black people are freer and more prosperous, have more opportunities, and have achieved more in America than in any other country," the white retired professor said without citing evidence of these claims. "But you would never learn this in our universities."
This kind of rhetoric and the bill itself is insulting to OSU English professor Dr. Pranav Jani.
"[The bill] says it's for free speech, it says it's for diversity of thought — but it also gives us all these bans of things we can't talk about," Jani said.
This bill would ruin his class, he said.
"It's exactly the kind of top-down, 1984-style Big Brother government that I thought Republicans were opposed to," the professor said. "These people haven't even consulted students when making a bill that's supposed to be on behalf of students to protect them from people like me."
Aftermath
The seven-hour hearing probably broke Senate records, Cirino said. While the official number has not been released, 400-500 people planned to testify against it. Only eight testified in favor.
There were 15 people listed as "interested party," meaning they had not taken a position on the legislation.
"For how many people were speaking out against this bill — as the sponsor, what does that tell you about this piece of legislation?" statehouse reporter Morgan Trau asked Cirino.
"Well, I guess some people might be disenchanted by it, but I don't get bullied very easily," the lawmaker responded. "Yes, it needs to have some corrections made to it, certainly."
He was not able to provide any examples of what changes or modifications he would be making but said the bill would be made less vague on who determines what bias is.
"Our universities should be beacons of free speech, should welcome vastly differing opinions and there should be a rigorous debate on all of these issues," Cirino said. "That's the kind of education we owe our students who very often go into debt significantly in order to get this education."
Most opponents argued that the rigorous conversation wouldn't be able to take place under this bill due to guidelines around controversial topics.
"Well, this is an argument that we hear a lot and we are modifying some of the language," Cirino responded.
"Both sides" argument
Jewish community members have continued to reach out about education bills after comments made by a state lawmaker in the previous General Assembly.
Back in March 2022, an exclusive report from WEWS in Cleveland found that state Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur (R-Ashtabula) wanted students to hear about the Holocaust from "both sides," or rather from the perspective of a "German soldier."
RELATED: Comments about the Holocaust from representative sponsoring 'divisive concepts' bill raise concerns
After the exclusive story went international, the original "divisive concepts" bill gained the ignominious monikers, the “both sides bill” or the “both sides of the Holocaust bill.” The bill died after being tainted by that name.
Northeast Ohio Jewish leaders had been reaching out to see if this bill would also require teachings of "both sides" of the Holocaust.
"I don't think there is another side to the Holocaust, quite frankly," Cirino said. "I think anybody who is a Holocaust denier ... is, you know, on the outside of reality."
Cirino wanted to reassure the Jewish community that any professor that did not explain the atrocities of the Holocaust was obviously "not a very good professor."
Can language changes really help?
How big would the changes to the bill be? Just minor ones, the lawmaker said.
"I do not see any major component of this bill coming out, but we will do some clarification work and make sure that that legislation should have clarity to it, because it can't be enforced — if it's unclear what the intent was of the legislature that passed the bill," he added.
Students and educators say it doesn’t matter what changes are made.
"Senate Bill 83 is beyond a doubt, beyond amendment and needs to be cut from the ground up," Westlund said.
They also issued a warning to Cirino and the GOP lawmakers.
"If this passes, we are not going to stay in Ohio and we are not the ones that are going to lose — we will recover, we will go to other institutions outside of the state," the sophomore said.
Who will lose? Ohio, the student said.
