logo
Students, faculty are asking Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to veto massive higher ed overhaul bill

Students, faculty are asking Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to veto massive higher ed overhaul bill

Yahoo27-03-2025
Hundreds of students protested against Senate Bill 1 on Ohio State's campus on March 4, 2025. (Photo by Megan Henry, Ohio Capital Journal).
Ohio college students, faculty and staff are calling on Gov. Mike DeWine to veto a massive higher education bill that would ban diversity and inclusion on campus and prevent faculty from striking.
Lawmakers concurred with tweaks made to Senate Bill 1 during Wednesday's Senate session, sending the bill to DeWine's desk for his signature. DeWine received the bill Wednesday and has 10 days to sign the bill into law or veto it. If DeWine vetoes the bill, lawmakers would need a 3/5 vote from each chamber to override it.
DeWine, however, has previously said he would sign the bill.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
S.B. 1 would set rules around classroom discussion, create post-tenure reviews, put diversity scholarships at risk, create a retrenchment provision that blocks unions from negotiating on tenure, shorten university board of trustees terms from nine years down to six years, and require students take an American history course, among other things.
For classroom discussion, the bill would set rules around topics involving 'controversial beliefs' such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion, and forbid 'indoctrination,' though that remains undefined. S.B. 1 would only affect Ohio's public universities.
'Republicans showed us they'd rather gamble with our economic future than solve real problems in our state,' Ohio Democratic Party Chair Elizabeth Walters said in a statement. 'Instead of growing our state, Republicans are driving students, young adults, and business away from Ohio. We're urging Governor DeWine to do the right thing and veto this legislation.'
Students say they will leave Ohio if lawmakers go forward with massive higher education overhaul
The Ohio Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to DeWine urging him to veto S.B. 1.
'This legislation is a misguided attempt by overreaching legislators to impose their ideological beliefs on our public universities,' the letter said. 'The bill undermines academic freedom, attacks collective bargaining rights, and jeopardizes the future of higher education in our state.'
The Ohio House Minority Caucus also sent a letter to DeWine asking him to veto the bill.
'You have an opportunity to protect the future of Ohio's institutions of higher education, and your legacy as Ohio's governor, by vetoing this bill and requiring the legislature to negate terms that are more amenable to the will of Ohioans,' the letter read.
The ACLU of Ohio wants DeWine to veto S.B. 1 and protect free speech on campus.
'By dismantling DEI structures, Senate Bill 1 sends a clear, harmful message to students that their unique backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives are not welcome in Ohio,' ACLU of Ohio Policy Director Jocelyn Rosnick said in a statement.
Anticipating S.B. 1 would pass during Wednesday's Senate session, members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus urged DeWine to veto S.B. 1 during a press conference earlier that day.
'This is one of the worst government overhauls that I've seen to date,' said state Rep. Terrence Upchurch, D-Cleveland. 'It will not only limit our First Amendment right to free speech, ban strikes and collective bargaining rights for professors, it threatens opportunities for our students, undermines workforce development and disproportionately harms black and minority communities.'
State Rep. Desiree Tims, D-Dayton, said S.B. 1 is toxic, racist and a threat to free speech and academic freedom.
'Since when is diversity, equity and inclusion a bad thing?' she asked. 'Why is this necessary? The only answer is, so that we can move backwards, pre-civil rights … progress that this country and this nation has stood for. … Senate Bill 1 turns the ugly page back in history, somewhere we do not want to go, where we should not go.'
Ohio University Journalism School Director Eddith Dashiell talked about how the university's journalism school did not give out 12 race-based scholarships totaling $46,000 last year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions in 2023.
More than 800 people submit testimony against Ohio's massive higher education overhaul bill
'The diversity scholarships weren't designed to discriminate against white students,' she said. 'The diversity scholarships were designed to encourage more students of color to come to little old, white Athens, Ohio and get a quality education.'
S.B. 1 will be detrimental to Ohio's higher education, Dashiell said.
'If it hadn't been for an extra effort at Ohio University to diversify the faculty, I would still be in Tennessee,' she said. 'We also urge that Governor DeWine veto this bill because it's going to hurt our students. It's going to hurt those who will benefit from diversity programs and benefit from these diversity scholarships.'
Ohio State University's Chair of the Undergraduate Black Caucus Jessica Asante-Tutu said this bill runs the risk of forcing Ohioans to move out of state.
'Students learn best in environments that encourage exchanges, where ideas flow freely and where differences are respected,' she said. 'This bill stifles all of that.'
As an Olentangy Liberty High School student in Delaware County, Michelle Huang said S.B. 1 hangs over her head as she thinks about applying for colleges this fall.
'The threat of this bill passing is a deterrent from us attending Ohio State in the first place,' she said. 'What DEI is actually doing is actually promoting more discourse and promoting more intellectual diversity.'
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Obama's Russiagate meddling: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 2, 2025
Obama's Russiagate meddling: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 2, 2025

New York Post

time39 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Obama's Russiagate meddling: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 2, 2025

The Issue: Reports that ex-President Barack Obama advanced the Russian collusion narrative in 2016. Kudos for Martin Gurri's piece on 'Obamagate' ('From Russia with nothing to speak of,' July 29) It's ironic that the framing of President Trump as a 'threat to democracy' was a red herring for the actual harm being done to us by President Barack Obama and his acolytes. His abuse of his high office was even more egregious than President Richard Nixon's, and similarly has greatly discredited our nation. It's irrelevant that this treachery didn't rise to the crime of treason. The defamation is every bit as damaging and wrongful. And to top it off, the legacy media remained complicit throughout. 'Democracy dies in darkness,' indeed! James Evans Worcester, Mass. We, the 'democracy-threatening,' 'stupid,' 'racist' MAGA citizens, are finally breathing the rarefied air of truth. Thank you, Martin Gurri, for your detailed and revealing piece on the Russiagate hoax. From ancient times to the present, the lust for power has destroyed many cultures. Now, may free speech, strong advocates and honor protect us as we unravel a historic example of hubris run amok. The waxed wings of Icarus melted, and he died, but our democracy will survive. Abby Rudnick Farmingdale, NJ In 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Marco Rubio, stated that the committee unequivocally found absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 election. However, it did conclude that there was irrefutable evidence of Russian attempts at meddling. And that is exactly what President Obama went on television and told the American public. This new obfuscation is just another sophomoric Trump administration attempt at deflection from what he is doing to this country, and what he is hiding. Lou Maione Manhattan Mainstream media were enamored with Obama through all eight years of his presidency, without ever questioning his performance. This was a love affair, pure and simple. And it remains so to this day, even as we now know that Obama directed a false operation to discredit his successor's victory. History is written by the victors, except when a paper trail exposes their betrayals, as Trump is now revealing about Obama. Paul Bloustein Cincinnati, Ohio Now that we know more about what happened, it's not really surprising to learn of Obama's involvement in Russiagate. After all, he rose out of the corrupt Chicago machine, and then callously lied to millions of people about their health insurance and access to doctors, and now we learn about this. Michelle Obama told us that her mother didn't trust anyone who took more than they needed. Look at the harm Barack has done, and now he has a huge net worth, owning mansions in Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. Michelle's mom was right after all, wasn't she? Gary Mottola Brooklyn So the legacy media now want the public to move on from the Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by them. They were even given awards for this scam. I say: No! Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel should now investigate what the Obama administration did in that meeting on Dec. 9, 2016 at the White House. Republicans can never forget what was done to their elected president. Andrew Franza Dallas, Pa. No one should be shocked about the recent revelations that Obama was the mastermind behind the Russia collusion hoax. In February 2017, Paul Sperry wrote a column for The Post ('Bam-lined lie,' Feb. 19, 2017) in which he revealed the existence of Obama's 'Organizing For Action' (OFA), which included the recruitment of thousands of footsoldiers to sabotage the Trump presidency. It is doubtful whether any American today has learned anything new. J. J. Crovatto Ramsey, NJ Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.

80 years ago, the A-bomb saved countless lives — but now we must defend against nukes
80 years ago, the A-bomb saved countless lives — but now we must defend against nukes

New York Post

time39 minutes ago

  • New York Post

80 years ago, the A-bomb saved countless lives — but now we must defend against nukes

Eighty years ago, in one of the most consequential understatements of all time, Emperor Hirohito told the people of Japan that 'the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.' He was originally going to say that 'the war situation has deteriorated day by day,' but that was considered too strong — even after the United States had dropped the atom bomb on two Japanese cities. Whether it was justified to use the bomb constitutes one of the most controversial historical questions in American history, but it was clearly the right call. Advertisement It's nice to think that Imperial Japan would have decided to surrender on the same timeline without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there is no evidence of it. The Japanese had a strong strategic commitment to defeating or inflicting a severe blow against a prospective American invasion. Advertisement Then, they'd have the leverage for a negotiated peace on favorable terms. The A-bomb scuppered these plans. Critics of President Harry Truman's decision have suggested it was the start of a Soviet invasion at the end that convinced Imperial Japan to capitulate. Or, if only we'd offered more temperate terms rather than demanding unconditional surrender, Tokyo would have been much more reasonable. Advertisement In his definitive account, 'Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire,' Richard Frank dismantles these notions, noting that nothing in the record supports them. 'Not only has no relevant document been recovered from the wartime period, but none of them,' he writes of Japan's top leaders, 'even as they faced potential death sentences in war-crimes trials, testified that Japan would have surrendered earlier upon an offer of modified terms, coupled to Soviet intervention or some other combination of events, excluding the use of atomic bombs.' In his message, Hirohito said that 'the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation.' The Japanese prime minister at the end of the war, Kantarō Suzuki, recalled in December 1945 that the war cabinet didn't believe the Americans could win the war based on air power alone. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Then, the atomic bomb demonstrated that, to the contrary, the United States 'need not land,' and 'so at that point they decided that it would be best to sue for peace.' Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were divisions in the war cabinet about surrender, which is why the intervention of the emperor was necessary. There was still resistance after he made his decision and a coup attempt. The end of the war made unnecessary a US invasion that could have meant hundreds of thousands of American casualties; saved millions of Japanese lives that would have been lost in combat on the home islands and to starvation; cut short the brief Soviet invasion (that alone accounted for hundreds of thousands of Japanese deaths); and ended the agony that Imperial Japan brought to the region, especially a China that suffered perhaps 20 million casualties. Bequeathed with untold power by the new weapon, it is telling that we used the bomb to bring an end to a terrible war and didn't use it to dominate Europe, or for other cynical purposes. Instead, our nuclear umbrella became part of a security arrangement that endured for decades, defending the free world from the Soviets and preventing the re-occurrence of world war. Now, with further nuclear proliferation in prospect (although thankfully delayed in Iran) and the chances of great power conflict rising, it is becoming more likely that nuclear weapons will be used again. Advertisement This is why President Donald Trump's vision of a Golden Dome to protect the U.S. from missile attack is so important, and why we need a robust nuclear force to deter our enemies. Eighty years ago, the atom bomb was the peacemaker in a horrific conflict that killed millions. Next time, it could be an instrument in the hands of an irrational regime, or rival nation bent on the destruction of American power. Advertisement Beware. Twitter: @RichLowry

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store