Ohio vs. Diversity Statements

     Ohio is joining with many other states in banning colleges and universities from requiring “diversity statements” which preclude actual intellectual diversity. SB 83 says, in part:

“The chancellor of higher education shall not distribute any state funds appropriated for institutional purposes to a private institution of higher education unless the institution submits a statement affirming all of the following:>

(1) The institution is committed to intellectual diversity.

(2) The institution is committed to free speech protection for students, staff, and faculty.

(3) The institution does not require diversity, equity, and inclusion courses or training for students, staff, or faculty.

(4) The institution complies with the syllabus requirements prescribed under section 3345.029 of the Revised Code as if it were a state institution of higher education.

(5) The institution complies with the prohibition of political and ideological litmus tests in hiring or promotion policies in accordance with section 3345.0217 of the Revised Code as if it were a state institution of higher education.”

     They are also requiring that syllabi be posted publicly:

“Each state institution of higher education shall make available on its publicly accessible web site a syllabus for each undergraduate course it offers for college credit. Each syllabus shall be all of the following:

(1) Accessible from the main page of the state institution’s web site by use of not more than three links;

(2) Searchable by keywords and phrases;

(3) Accessible to the public without requiring user registration of any kind.”

     Unlike many other similar bill, this one goes into greater detail to limit wiggle room in its enforcement:

“Not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, the board of trustees of each state institution of higher education shall adopt a policy that requires the institution to do all of the following:

(1) Prohibit any mandatory programs or training courses regarding diversity, equity, or inclusion;

(2) Affirm and guarantee that its primary function is to practice, or support the practice, discovery, improvement, transmission, and dissemination of knowledge by means of research, teaching, discussion, and debate;

(3) Affirm and guarantee that, to fulfill the function described in division (B)(2) of this section, the institution shall ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity;

(4) Affirm and guarantee that faculty and staff shall allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial matters and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view;

(5) Establish and implement intellectual diversity rubrics for course approval, approval of courses to satisfy general education requirements, student course evaluations, common reading programs, annual reviews, strategic goals for each department, and student learning outcomes.

Divisions (B)(2) to (5) of this section do not apply to the exercise of professional judgment about how to accomplish intellectual diversity within an academic discipline, unless that exercise is misused to constrict intellectual diversity.

(6) Affirm and guarantee that it will not endorse, oppose, comment, or take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, or any other ideology, principle,

concept, or formulation that requires commitment to any controversial belief or policy, specified concept, or specified ideology, although it may endorse the congress of the United States when it establishes a state of armed hostility against a foreign power.

This division does not include the recognition of national and state holidays, support for the Constitution and laws of the United States or the state of Ohio, or the display of the

American or Ohio flag.

(7) Affirm and guarantee that the institution will not encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy, nor will the institution require students to do any of those things to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree;

(8) Prohibit the institution from engaging in or abetting activities such as boycotts, disinvestments, or sanctions.

Divisions (B)(6) to (8) of this section do not apply to the exercise of professional judgement about whether to endorse the consensus or foundational beliefs of an academic discipline, unless that exercise is misused to take an action prohibited in division (B)(6) of this section.

(9) Prohibit political and ideological litmus tests in all hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions, including diversity statements and any other requirement that applicants describe their commitment to a specified concept, specified ideology, or any other ideology, principle, concept, or formulation that requires commitment to any controversial belief or policy;

(10) Affirm and guarantee that no hiring, promotion, or admissions process or decision shall encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy;

(11) Affirm and guarantee that the institution will not use a diversity statement or any other assessment of an applicant’s commitment to specified concepts in any hiring, promotions, or admissions process or decision;

(12) Affirm and guarantee that no process or decision regulating conditions of work or study, such as committee assignments, course scheduling, or workload adjustment policies shall encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy;

(13) Affirm and guarantee that the institution will seek out intellectual diversity in invited speakers;

(14) Post prominently on its web site a complete list of all speaker fees, honoraria, and other emoluments in excess of five hundred dollars. That information shall be all of the following:

(a) Accessible from the main page of the institution’s web site by use of not more than three links;

(b) Searchable by keywords and phrases;

(c) Accessible to the public without requiring user registration of any kind.”

     The full bill, as of writing of this post, can be found here or below:

Ohio SB83 (2023) by ThePoliticalHat

     Hat Tip: Christopher Rufo.

This entry was posted in Education, Progressives and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Ohio vs. Diversity Statements

  1. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.22.23 : The Other McCain