While the Black alumni reunion “has always been open to all individuals who have an interest in the event,” read a statement from the university, “based on OCR’s recent guidance related to Title VI compliance, some of the programming historically included in the event may need to be reimagined. The University is obligated to follow OCR’s guidance in order to protect our access to critical federal funding, including students’ continued access to federal financial aid.”
The statement also cited the impact of “proposed State of Ohio legislation,” without specifically mentioning SB 1, a bill the Senate has passed that calls for the elimination of DEI statements, offices and trainings.
“Without question, should this bill pass the House in its current form and be signed into law by the Governor, it will bring changes for all of us,” university president Lori Stewart Gonzalez wrote in an earlier message to the campus community. “However, to define today the specific changes we might make would preempt the legislative process on a bill that is not finalized.”
Still, all signature events planned for Black alumni reunion weekend, which was scheduled for April 10–13 in Athens, were canceled.
“While this is difficult news to share, we remain committed to honoring the legacy and accomplishments of Ohio University’s Black alumni,” said planning committee co-chairs Terry Frazier and Jillian Causey in the statement. “We will continue working with the University to develop a plan that aligns with evolving federal and state guidelines while preserving the significance of this gathering.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The Ohio Senate on Wednesday passed a far-reaching higher education bill that would ban the state’s public institutions from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices or taking positions on “controversial” topics.
The bill, known as SB 1, would also establish post-tenure reviews, ban strikes by full-time faculty, and require colleges to publish a syllabus with the instructor’s professional qualifications and contact information for every class.
Colleges that fail to comply could lose or see reduced state funding.
The state Senate advanced the legislation in a 21-11 vote largely along party lines — all nine Democrats opposed it, as did two Republicans. The vote came just a day after hundreds of critics spoke out against the proposal during an hourslong hearing Tuesday.
The second life of SB 83
Ohio is one of several conservative-controlled states looking to more tightly control their public colleges. But SB 1 is notable for how much it would overhaul the state’s public higher education, including aspects that have traditionally been left to college leaders’ discretion.
For example, colleges would be unable to make institutional statements on any topic the bill deems politically controversial, such as “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”
The bill would create a mandatoryU.S. history college course with prescribed readings, like theU.S. Constitution and at least five essays from the Federalist Papers.
The state Senate advanced a similar 2023 bill, SB 83, from the same lawmaker, Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino. Even though Republicans controlled both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion in Ohio, the legislation never made it to a vote in the House.
But times have changed. Matt Huffman, the previous Senate presidentand a strong supporter of the bill,is now the speaker of the House. Gov. Mike DeWine told local news outlets he was likely to sign the bill, pending a final review, should it make it to his desk.
SB 1 also goes further than its predecessor. The new bill would ban DEI offices and scholarships altogether, while the previous version only sought to prohibit mandatory DEI trainings and offered exemptions. And SB 1 includes a ban on full-time faculty strikes — a provision that was removed from SB 83 in an effort to assuage labor unions and win House approval.
Faculty reactions
Faculty groups and free speech advocates have opposed SB 1 just as they did SB 83. They argue it would chill free speech, hurt recruitment and retention of both students and faculty, and interfere with academic freedom.
The bill calls for colleges to “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity” on campusand cultivate divergent and varied perspectives on public policy issues, including during classroom discussion.
“Nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity,” the bill says.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio lambasted the “intellectual diversity” requirements in a statement Tuesday.
“At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly,” said Gary Daniels, the group’s chief lobbyist. At worst, he said, it will require all sides of every issue to be evenly presented by instructors, “ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.”
Cirino sought to cut off some of those criticisms when he reintroduced the bill as the first measure of Ohio’s new legislative session, which started Jan. 6.
“Senate Bill 1 not only does NOT limit speech or academic freedom, it actually enhances both, but with a requirement that diversity of thought be promoted,” said a Jan. 22 press release from the state Senate.
A representative for the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors spoke out against the proposal in written testimony ahead of the Senate higher education committee’s public hearing Tuesday on the bill. In total, more than 800 people objected to the measure via written testimony.
To grow our economy and keep our system of higher education strong, Ohio must do all it can to attract and retain qualified and committed faculty in all academic disciplines. Senate Bill 1 would instead send an unmistakable message to talented individuals looking to advance their careers in Ohio: go somewhere else.
Jeff Wensing
Vice president of the Ohio Education Association
David Jackson, a professor of Bowling Green State Universityand president of its AAUP faculty chapter,said Ohio-AAUP had submitted a list of suggested amendments — including removing the strike ban — to the committee in early February. He urged lawmakers to work with educators rather than pass the bill wholesale.
“While we disagree with many of the premises that underlie SB 1, we can still be partners to ensure that the foundational principles of our association are not undermined and that Ohio’s public system of higher education can thrive in the years ahead,” Jackson wrote in his testimony.
Other opponents included the Ohio Education Association, Undergraduate Student Governments of Ohio and the American Historical Association, as well as students and faculty in the state.
“To grow our economy and keep our system of higher education strong, Ohio must do all it can to attract and retain qualified and committed faculty in all academic disciplines,” Jeff Wensing, vice president of the Ohio Education Association, said in written testimony.“Senate Bill 1 would instead send an unmistakable message to talented individuals looking to advance their careers in Ohio: go somewhere else.”
Fourteen witnesses from groups like the National Association of Scholars, a conservative education advocacy group, submitted testimony supporting the bill in late January. They praised provisions such as eliminating DEI and requiring the history course.
DEI at Ohio State
Wednesday’s Senate vote on the bill came quickly — the same day it was advanced by the chamber’s higher education committee.
Ohio State University is also undergoing an evaluation of its roles and DEI work, according to a joint statement from university leadership issued the day of the Senate vote.
The review is intended to allow the institution to “make changes if state or federal law requires it or if we decide a different approach is in the university’s best interests.”
“We believe it’s appropriate to be proactive given the policy discussions happening around us,” the statement said. “Changes are almost certainly on the horizon, and the best way to manage change is to be prepared. The proactive steps we are taking now will best position us to continue our work uninterrupted in ensuring that students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds can be successful at Ohio State.”
Following Professor Scott Gerber’s vocal opposition to his school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Ohio Northern University ordered campus police to yank him out of class and march him to the dean, who demanded Gerber’s immediate resignation. A judge decried the school’s apparent “callous disregard for due process,” but because Gerber had the courage to fight back in court, ONU took things even further — filing a federal lawsuit to shut him up.
But Gerber is not having it. A longtime critic of ONU’s initiatives around DEI, Gerber’s objections made him a target of administrators, who launched an investigation into him in January 2023. From then until his sudden termination, ONU outright refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When the school finally told Gerber he lacked “collegiality,” FIRE explained to ONU that this charge looked a lot like retaliation for his views on DEI, which would be a stark violation of the university’s commitment to academic freedom. We called on ONU in March, and again in May, to provide Gerber with the specifics of its collegiality concerns, to no avail.
Out of work and still wondering what he did wrong, Gerber took ONU to court. His complaint centered on the university’s failure to provide him with the specific grounds for dismissal. This fundamental principle of due process protects the right of the accused to defend themselves. After all, if you don’t know what you’re accused of doing, it’s impossible to prove your innocence. Universities provide due process to ensure accurate disciplinary determinations, especially when a tenured professor’s livelihood hangs in the balance. That’s why an Ohio state court allowed Gerber’s breach of contract claim to proceed, criticizing ONU’s “troubling . . . lack of any detailed determination” of how its allegations “affected his fitness as a faculty member.”
That case is now headed to trial.
Professor suspended for reasons unknown — even to him
News
Why did Ohio Northern University suspend professor Scott Gerber? We have no idea, and neither does he.
But for defending his rights in state court, ONU sued Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, claiming Gerber’s “perverted” lawsuit is apparently an “attempt to accomplish . . . personal vendettas” and “unleashing political retribution” against ONU — notwithstanding the state court holding Gerber’s claims warranted proceeding to a jury. ONU’s suit claims Gerber’s “true goal is to manufacture outrage, to influence political retribution, and to extract vengeance against” ONU. According to the lawsuit, Gerber’s attempt to hold the university to its own policies is an unlawful “abuse of process.”
Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.
The irony of ONU refusing to provide Gerber with the bare minimum of process before summarily terminating him, then launching a whole federal lawsuit instead to get him to stop fighting, is palpable.
ONU’s suit is a classic example of abusing the legal system to silence your critics. Such a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, is a tactic that seeks solely to impose punishing litigation costs on their targets. The lawsuit is the punishment. Gerber must now bear the burden of defending this meritless suit while he prepares for trial in state court.
Why ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits chill free speech and threaten the First Amendment
Issue Pages
You can’t use the legal system to punish people for speech you don’t like.
On a larger note, if nonprofits like FIRE cannot convey truthful information about the cases we litigate without incurring a separate lawsuit, that will imperil a wide array of civil rights advocacy. Defending against an onerous SLAPP puts further strain on the already limited resources dedicated to protecting civil liberties.
Terminated professors must turn to courts to vindicate their rights as the option of last resort, and the First Amendment protects their right to do so. When universities seek in turn to use courts to bully professors into submission, judges must firmly reject these thinly veiled attempts to achieve censorship by lawsuit.
We’ll keep our readers updated.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
