Capital Journey: New Ohio higher education law banning diversity efforts and faculty strikes takes effect this week – Wright State University

Report on Ohio Senate Bill 1 and Its Implications for Higher Education

Introduction

A new and controversial higher education law in Ohio, Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), has come into effect this week. This legislation bans diversity efforts, prohibits faculty strikes, and regulates classroom discussions across Ohio’s public universities and community colleges.

Overview of Ohio Senate Bill 1

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed S.B. 1 into law on March 28, following rapid approval by both the Ohio House and Senate. The law officially took effect on Friday.

Key Provisions of S.B. 1

1. Implementation of post-tenure reviews for faculty members.
2. Risk to diversity scholarships and related initiatives.
3. Regulations governing classroom discussions.
4. Introduction of a retrenchment provision that prevents unions from negotiating tenure-related issues.

Impact on Higher Education Institutions

• Faculty and administrators are experiencing increased challenges in complying with the new state mandates.
• Focus is shifting away from core academic activities such as research and teaching towards administrative compliance.

Stephen Mockabee, President of the University of Cincinnati American Association of University Professors, highlighted these difficulties, stating, “We’re spending time figuring out how to comply with all these state mandates, rather than focusing on research and teaching.”

Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The implications of S.B. 1 intersect significantly with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including:

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The law’s restrictions on diversity efforts and classroom discussions may undermine inclusive and equitable quality education, a core target of SDG 4.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – By putting diversity scholarships at risk, the legislation potentially hampers efforts to reduce inequalities within higher education.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The prohibition of faculty strikes and limitations on union negotiations may affect institutional governance and the promotion of just and inclusive decision-making processes.

Conclusion

Ohio Senate Bill 1 represents a significant shift in the governance of higher education institutions in the state. While aiming to regulate various aspects of academic administration, the law raises concerns regarding its alignment with Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on quality education, equality, and institutional integrity. Ongoing monitoring of the law’s impact on faculty, students, and educational outcomes is essential to ensure progress towards these global goals.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article discusses changes in higher education laws affecting faculty, diversity scholarships, and classroom discussions, directly relating to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The banning of diversity efforts and risks to diversity scholarships relate to reducing inequalities within educational institutions.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The regulation of faculty strikes and union negotiations touches upon the promotion of inclusive decision-making and strong institutional frameworks.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including education for sustainable development and human rights.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. For SDG 4 Targets
   • Indicator 4.3.1: Participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months.
   • Indicator 4.7.1: Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in national education policies, curricula, teacher education and student assessment.
2. For SDG 10 Target
   • Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilities.
   • Implied indicator: Availability and accessibility of diversity scholarships and programs promoting inclusion.
3. For SDG 16 Targets
   • Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
   • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive.
   • Implied indicator: Degree of faculty participation in institutional governance and freedom to engage in strikes or collective bargaining.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wright.edu