Faculty, students and unions urge Ohio committee to reject SB 1, warning of threats to tenure, bargaining and scholarships

Hundreds of faculty, students and union representatives told the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee during an extended hearing that Senate Bill 1 would undermine academic freedom, strip collective bargaining rights and end tenure at public colleges and universities in the state.

"SB 1 is a censorship bill," David Jackson, a professor at Bowling Green State University testifying for the Ohio Conference of the AAUP, told the committee, arguing the measure would ban bargaining over post‑tenure review, faculty evaluations and retrenchment and leave professors vulnerable to retaliation. Student leaders, faculty from community colleges and representatives of educator unions said the bill's scholarship and "intellectual diversity" provisions would inject uncertainty that could drive students and faculty away from Ohio institutions.

The testimony focused on three recurring themes: how the bill would change faculty working conditions and bargaining rights, whether a ban on strikes is fair to students and how restrictions on curriculum or scholarship eligibility might affect accreditation and access for underrepresented students. John Plecnik, an associate professor of law at Cleveland State University and a Lake County commissioner, said the measure is marketed as an anti‑DEI bill but in practice targets unions and institutional bargaining power. Madison Wesley, undergraduate student body president at the University of Cincinnati, told lawmakers she had compiled written testimony from students who fear lost scholarships and narrowed degree programs.

Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on the practical effects of strikes and retrenchment. Several legislators asked whether it would be fair for faculty to use strikes that might delay a student's graduation; witnesses responded that strikes are rare and that bargaining and the possible strike option are final‑resort tools that help preserve negotiated processes that benefit students and institutions. Jeff Wensing of the Ohio Education Association told the committee that strikes at public higher education institutions are "very rare" and that the right to strike functions as a dispute‑resolution safeguard under Ohio law.

Speakers from community colleges and workforce programs warned of consequences for recruiting and retaining instructors in high‑demand fields. Heidi Campbell, an associate professor of chemistry at Cuyahoga Community College, said SB 1 would weaken workforce development by reducing long‑term faculty commitment and by complicating relationships between colleges and local employers that provide apprenticeships and training pipelines.

Multiple witnesses raised empirical concerns about the bill's likely effect on Ohio's higher‑education economy. Erin Beaton, an associate professor at Ohio State University, cited data and peer‑state experience to warn that similar measures have led to faculty departures and reputational damage; she told the committee Ohio's public universities contribute more than $68 billion annually to the state economy and warned that policy‑driven faculty turnover could prompt a "brain drain." Witnesses representing accreditation‑reliant programs, including social work and certain health fields, asked for explicit carve‑outs or clarifications so accreditation standards would not be jeopardized.

Lawmakers defending parts of the bill pressed for specificity about harms, pointing to bill language that states "nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussions, or debate, so long as the faculty member allows students to express intellectual diversity." Representative Williams and others repeatedly asked witnesses to explain whether classroom instruction would actually be curtailed. Witnesses replied that—even if language appears to preserve classroom debate—complaint and review procedures in the bill could have a chilling effect that still alters classroom practice.

No formal committee vote on SB 1 was recorded during the hearing. Chair Young brought the panel to a stated hard stop and adjourned the committee after extended testimony and questioning.

The committee record shows lengthy public opposition from academic and student groups and highlights a continuing policy dispute over the balance between protections for academic freedom and the sponsors' stated goal of promoting intellectual diversity and preventing institutional endorsement of controversial beliefs. The committee has not scheduled a final vote in this hearing record.