Last Updated on July 14, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke
Ohio’s public universities are undergoing a transformative shift as they align with Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a sweeping higher education reform signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine in March 2025. The legislation, which took effect on June 27, 2025, aims to foster intellectual diversity, enhance transparency, and streamline operations across the state’s 37 public colleges and universities. While critics argue the law imposes burdensome restrictions, supporters see it as a bold step toward ensuring academic environments where students can engage with diverse perspectives without institutional bias. As institutions adapt, they face significant financial and operational challenges, with compliance costs estimated to reach millions annually.
A New Vision for Higher Education
SB 1, officially titled the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, introduces a range of mandates designed to reshape the state’s public higher education system. The law requires universities to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, ensure “intellectual diversity” in classrooms, prohibit faculty strikes, and implement new transparency measures such as publicly posting course syllabi and speaker fees. Proponents, including bill sponsor Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), argue that these changes address concerns about ideological bias in academia, particularly what they perceive as liberal “indoctrination” of students.
“SB 1 is about creating an environment where students can think critically and engage with all perspectives,” Cirino said in a recent interview with The Ohio Capital Journal. “Our universities should be places of open dialogue, not echo chambers.” The legislation reflects a broader national trend, with states like Florida and Indiana enacting similar measures to curb DEI initiatives and promote academic freedom.
Financial and Operational Impacts
The transition to SB 1 compliance is proving costly. Kent State University, for example, estimates annual expenses of $1.5 to $2 million to meet the law’s requirements, including the development of new courses and administrative oversight mechanisms. Cleveland State University projects spending nearly $400,000 to implement a mandatory three-credit American civics course, which requires hiring new lecturers and part-time instructors. Across the state, universities are reallocating budgets to fund these changes, diverting resources from other programs.
The closure of DEI offices has been a focal point of contention. Ohio State University announced the dissolution of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and Center for Belonging and Social Change in February 2025, citing both SB 1 and federal directives under the Trump administration. The University of Toledo eliminated nine undergraduate programs, including majors in Women and Gender Studies, Africana Studies, and Disability Studies, to align with the law’s restrictions on DEI-related initiatives. Miami University and Ohio University have also shuttered their DEI offices, with the latter renaming its Office of Institutional Equity to the Office of Civil Rights Compliance to focus on Title IX and disability accommodations.
These closures have sparked debate about their impact on student support services. At Kent State, the LGBTQ+ Center, Women’s Center, and Student Multicultural Center were closed by June 27, 2025, though spaces like the E. Timothy Moore Center and Williamson House remain open for specific support services. “We’re committed to ensuring every student feels supported, but we must comply with the law,” said Kent State President Todd Diacon in a university statement.
Faculty and Student Reactions
The changes have not been without resistance. Faculty and students across Ohio have voiced concerns about the implications of SB 1 for academic freedom and student support. A coalition led by unionized faculty at Youngstown State University collected nearly 195,000 signatures in an attempt to place a referendum on the November 2025 ballot to repeal the law, though they fell short of the required 248,000. “The fight isn’t over,” said Sara Kilpatrick, executive director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). “We’re consulting with attorneys to ensure universities don’t overcomply in ways that harm students or violate other laws.”
Professors worry that the mandate for “intellectual diversity” could force them to give equal weight to discredited theories in classroom discussions, particularly in science courses. “If I’m teaching biology, am I supposed to entertain flat-earth arguments to avoid complaints?” asked Dr. Lauren Squires, an Ohio State professor, during a March 2025 protest at the Statehouse. Students, meanwhile, have expressed frustration over the loss of DEI programs, which provided critical support for marginalized groups. “These centers were safe spaces for us,” said Maria Gonzalez, a junior at Ohio State. “Now we’re left wondering where to turn.”
Transparency and Accountability Measures
SB 1 introduces several transparency requirements aimed at increasing public oversight of university operations. Universities must now post syllabi online, list speaker fees exceeding $500, and create searchable webpages for invited speakers. The University of Toledo has updated its “Report a Concern” website to allow complaints about potential violations of the law, while Bowling Green State University established an Office of State and Federal Compliance and Non-Discrimination to avoid penalties.
The law also mandates a feasibility study for three-year bachelor’s degree programs, due to the General Assembly by June 27, 2026. Kent State has proposed a three-year degree in Insurance Studies, aligning with SB 1’s goal of reducing student debt and accelerating workforce entry. However, Governor DeWine vetoed a budget provision tying state funding to these accelerated programs, citing concerns about unreliable enrollment data.
Broader Implications and National Context
The passage of SB 1 has drawn attention beyond Ohio’s borders. Eastern Michigan University launched a 2025 advertising campaign targeting Ohio students, promising “in-state tuition” and an environment where “all are welcome.” The campaign, which began in May, capitalizes on Ohio’s restrictive policies, with ads stating, “Tired of restrictions? Cross the border to opportunity.” This move highlights the potential for Ohio to lose students to neighboring states with more permissive academic climates.
Nationally, the Trump administration’s anti-DEI executive orders have intensified scrutiny of diversity programs. A February 2025 directive from the U.S. Department of Education barred colleges from using race in decision-making, prompting Ohio State and others to act swiftly to avoid losing federal funding. “Universities are caught between state and federal pressures,” said Dr. Emily Chen, a higher education policy analyst at Ohio University. “Noncompliance could jeopardize millions in grants and aid.”
Economic and Enrollment Challenges
The financial strain of SB 1 comes at a time when Ohio’s public universities are already grappling with enrollment declines. According to the Ohio Department of Higher Education, enrollment at public colleges dropped by 3.2% from 2020 to 2024, with regional universities like Cleveland State facing steeper declines. The elimination of programs like Data Analytics and Spanish at the University of Toledo could further deter prospective students, warned Kilpatrick. “Fewer program choices mean fewer reasons to choose Ohio’s universities,” she said.
The law’s ban on faculty strikes and limitations on collective bargaining have also raised concerns about faculty retention. “Candidates are declining offers and citing SB 1 explicitly,” Kilpatrick noted. A 2024 Gallup survey found that only 67% of Americans have confidence in higher education, down from 80% a decade ago, a trend that SB 1 supporters argue justifies the reforms.
Looking Ahead
As Ohio’s universities navigate SB 1’s mandates, the balance between compliance and maintaining academic integrity remains delicate. Institutions are exploring ways to preserve student support services within the law’s constraints, such as redirecting resources to civil rights compliance offices. Meanwhile, faculty groups are preparing for potential legal challenges, particularly if universities overstep in their compliance efforts.
For students like Gonzalez, the changes feel personal. “I chose Ohio State because it felt inclusive,” she said. “Now I’m not sure what the future holds.” As the state’s higher education landscape evolves, the long-term impact of SB 1 on Ohio’s universities, their students, and their national reputation remains to be seen.
