An Ohio House Republican lawmaker is trying to ban public universities from requiring people to commit to a specific belief, ideology or political spectrum. The professor asked what problem it solves, but he liked the protections for academic freedom.
State Representative Adam HolmesR-Nashport, House of Representatives Bill No. 394 was introduced last week — a bill he said would support academic freedom on college campuses.
“It’s a protection against forced or coerced speech,” he said. “And it’s not just about students. It’s about teachers, instructors, job applicants. … There’s no intention to provoke. … We really encourage discussion of all ideas.”
Holmes gave the example of university professors who were required to sign loyalty oaths during the McCarthy era.
“This is another attempt to change the approach to make sure that doesn’t happen,” Holmes said.
Holmes said he spoke with several representatives of Ohio’s public universities while working on the bill. He said universities need to be protected spaces where people feel free to express different ideas — and his constituents are telling him that’s not happening.
“They’re really worried about it,” Holmes said.
Steve Mockabee, an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati, said HB 394 appears to be a solution in search of a problem. He was not speaking on behalf of the Ohio Conference AAUP-American Association of University Professors.
“I think the motivation (for the bill) is that our institutions of higher education are forcing faculty or students to adopt certain political beliefs, and I haven’t seen evidence of that happening,” he said. “But if they want to preemptively address it, then the bill seems to do that.”
Senate Bill No. 83
Holmes said Senate Bill 83, which would have a dramatic impact on Ohio colleges, was a factor in his consideration of HB 394.
SB 83 is a wide-ranging bill that prevent unions from negotiating tenure, allow universities to fire tenured professors for multiple reasons, and ban mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The bill also defines controversial beliefs or policies as “any beliefs or policies that are the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policy, electoral policy, foreign policy, diversity, equality and inclusion agendas, immigration policy, marriage or abortion.”
It would allow students to “draw their own conclusions about any controversial beliefs or principles and would not be intended to indoctrinate any social, political or religious views.”
“INwhen I looked at Senate Bill 83, the scope is really broad,” Holmes said. “We thought (HB 394) was much more specific and laser-focused. I think there’s a little bit of overlap, but I think it’s a little bit more specific in terms of protecting freedom. … I hope it gets broader support and expedited passage.”
The SB 83 bill was introduced by State Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, last year. The bill passed the Senate and was voted positively The Ohio House of Representatives Higher Education Committee in December But was not presented to the House of Representatives.
Holmes said he has not spoken to Cirino about either bill — SB 83 or HB 394.
“I hope this will be an alternative if SB 83 does not pass,” Holmes said.
Mockabee said HB 394 appears to be more balanced than SB 83.
“I think this is a much more reasonable starting point for a discussion about higher education policy than what we see in SB 83.” he said.
Mockabee said he likes the fact that HB 394 will not restrict a faculty member’s academic freedom or the ability to “write on particular beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding political movements, ideologies, or social actions.”
Bill No. 214
Holmes said the bill, HB 394, is almost an exact copy of another bill of his — Bill No. 214Which would require school districts to create policies prohibiting teachers, students and job applicants from holding certain political or ideological beliefs.
“We tried to make those two things really consistent,” Holmes said.
HB 214 was passed by the House of Representatives in November and provided sponsorship testimony to the Senate Education Committee.
Ohio Democrats and Educators claim that HB 214 will cause confusion in Ohio school districts and point out The Ohio Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers regarding licensure already exists and is a policy that teachers and administrators are expected to follow. The licensing code was developed by the Educator Standards Board and the Ohio Department of Education, then adopted by the state board of education in 2008, with updates added in 2019.
Follow OCJ Reporter Megan Henry on X.
