Supporters of a sweeping bill aiming to overhaul Ohio’s higher education system spent hours Wednesday detailing why they think the state’s colleges should do away with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

More than a dozen supporters publicly shared their backing during the first public hearing of Senate Bill 1.

This hearing was strictly for proponents of the legislation. Those include State Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, who also testified about the bill he wrote. SB 1, officially called the “Advance Ohio Higher Education Act,” is largely based on a previous bill he authored. That legislation made it out of the Ohio Senate last year but never got a House vote.   

Here are three takeaways from the testimony of professors, students, lawmakers and others who want to see the bill passed.

One retired professor calls DEI ‘a cynical bait and switch’

Lots of things are tucked into the bill’s 75 pages, including things such as making a three-credit course on civics mandatory for students to graduate. Plus, faculty would need to publicly share their class syllabi, and some of their collective bargaining power would be lost.

But nearly all of Wednesday’s testimonies centered on DEI work. If passed, this legislation would get rid of all related programming, staff, consultants, titles and spending at state colleges and universities.  

“DEI is a cynical bait and switch operation,” George Dent, a professor of law emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law and a director of the National Association of Scholars, told the crowd. 

Another person who testified mentioned an audit claiming Ohio State University spent more than $13 million on 200 DEI administrators, citing a 2024 story from a conservative website.  

But officials at Ohio State, which has a budget of about $10 billion, pushed back at that figure. A spokesperson told Signal Ohio that the amount was “produced without the university’s input or guidance,” adding that the number also includes salaries for employees working in  positions outside of DEI. 

One Ohio college student says he’s worried about the ‘politicization of academia’ 

A grassroots student organizing group opposing the bill asked for its members to “silently protest” the hearing. It was an effort to show students are “watching, engaged, and ready to fight for our education,” they said in a press release before the hearing. Some students were in the hearing room wearing what appeared to be pieces of tape across their mouths.  

But Gabe Guidarini, who currently attends the University of Dayton, told the crowd he’s concerned about the “politicization of academia.” He added that those concerns are “widely held among those in my age group.” 

He went on to say that students can be “worried about the social implications of what they say” as well as demurring to a professor’s views instead of forming their own. 

His comments were met with a question from State Sen. Catherine Ingram (D-Cincinnati). She asked Guidarini to clarify that there’s never an opportunity for him to “speak your Republican mind” in a class without fear of a classmate or instructor interfering.     

Guidarini said his college does “very well at this,” but pointed out it might be harder for others to share opposing views at colleges with more liberal campuses. 

Some cite ‘controversial issues’ as major concern in SB 1 

Cirino responded to concerns over so-called “controversial issues” a few times during the hearings. 

The bill defines those as a “belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including

issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.” 

The legislation calls for faculty members encouraging students to come to their own conclusions on those topics, stopping them from “indoctorinating” students. If passed, professors would also have to show “intellectual diversity” to get their courses approved. 

Maintaining academic freedom is one of faculty members’ biggest concerns about the bill. The leader of the state’s faculty union previously told Signal Ohio the current language left professors feeling confused about how they would have to teach in their classrooms.

But Cirino doubled down, saying these topics can and should be discussed in an open environment. 

“But they have to be discussed within the confines of pure intellectual diversity and diversity of thought. I just want to make that very, very clear,” he said. “These topics are not off limits for discussion, but just one side of those issues is off-limits for discussion.”  

A date for a second hearing hasn’t been set.