Proponents press for HB155 to prohibit DEI administrative programs; lawmakers press for definitions, evidence and enforcement details

The House Education Committee’s second hearing on House Bill 155 drew multiple proponent witnesses who argued that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) administrative programs and trainings have drifted into ideological instruction and should be barred in public K–12 schools. Committee members spent significant time questioning witnesses about definitions, evidence and unintended consequences.

Linda Harvey of Mission America and Protect Ohio Children told the committee that anonymous tips compiled on ProtectOhioChildren.net document DEI or CRT materials in dozens of districts: "Based on anonymous evidence provided to Protect Ohio Children, we have information about 69 school districts in Ohio with overt CRT or DEI lessons, programs, or policies since 2020," she said, and cited examples including Bay Village, Fairfield, Bedford and Cleveland.

Several lawmakers pressed Harvey for documentation and asked whether she had personally observed the examples she described; Harvey responded that allegations are posted with links on the Protect Ohio Children website and urged members to review those materials. Representative Miller asked if hate speech is protected by the First Amendment and whether the witness considered some examples to be small outliers; Harvey called some groups "minuscule" but maintained the compiled reports indicated a wider problem.

Troy McIntosh, executive director of the Ohio Christian Education Network, told the committee DEI programs have a philosophical problem when they are elevated above other civic virtues and described current iterations as "balkanizing." He repeatedly said the bill targets administrative training and hiring programs—not classroom instruction—and that enforcement should focus on state actors (public schools) rather than private schools.

Heather Crum, Ohio legislative chair of Moms for Liberty, testified that DEI and broader "whole child" frameworks have shifted focus away from basic academics; she cited proficiency statistics and said parents should control instruction of moral values. In response to questions about empathy and mental‑health services, Crum said schools should prioritize core academics and vocational skills, while also acknowledging some families need support.

Committee members raised multiple concerns: several asked how HB155’s broad language would be interpreted by local school boards, whether the lack of explicit definitions could put teachers and districts at legal risk, and whether the bill would impede IEPs, social‑emotional learning or mental‑health services. Witnesses pointed to linked evidence and said the bill would apply to public K–12 state actors and training programs; they said private nonstate schools are not covered by the measure as written.

No formal action was taken; the committee closed the hearing and reminded members to review written testimony.