To amend sections 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 and to enact section 3313.475 of the Revised Code to prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in public schools.
HB155 would require Ohio school boards to adopt and enforce policies prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, DEI offices or departments, DEI language in job descriptions, and contracts with outside consultants that promote admissions, hiring, or promotion based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. It also bars schools from simply renaming a DEI function while keeping the same or similar purpose. The bill applies to city, local, exempted village, and joint vocational school districts, and it creates a complaint process for students, parents, and employees, with investigation and hearing procedures to be set under standards adopted by the director of education and workforce.
In addition to the new DEI prohibition, the bill amends existing law governing community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools so those entities must comply with the new section 3313.475. For community schools, the bill also updates the list of required contract provisions to expressly include compliance with the DEI ban, alongside the many existing operational, financial, attendance, and accountability requirements already imposed on those schools. The bill does not otherwise rewrite the broader framework for school sponsorship, audits, academic reporting, or closure procedures, but it incorporates the DEI restriction into those existing compliance structures.
The bill’s legal impact would be to add a new statewide restriction on public-school district policies and on certain charter-like and specialized public schools that are already subject to Revised Code compliance lists. It would affect school boards, administrators, employees, outside consultants, and potentially students and parents who use the complaint process. Because the bill is introduced as a new policy mandate, it would likely require districts and schools to review training materials, staffing structures, contracts, and job descriptions to ensure they do not fall within the prohibited DEI categories.
The available legislative history shows no recorded votes and no committee transcript excerpts, so there is no formal record here of debate or amendments. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a restriction on DEI-related practices in public education, which typically draws support from sponsors who favor limiting identity-based programming and opposition from those who view DEI efforts as important to school climate, equal opportunity, and staff training. Because the bill was only introduced and had not advanced beyond the House Education Committee at the time provided, the overall sentiment in the official record is best characterized as unresolved and politically likely to be divided.
HB155 would create a new section of the Revised Code, section 3313.475, and require affected school districts to adopt anti-DEI policies within 90 days of the law’s effective date. It would also amend sections 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 to make community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools comply with the new prohibition. The bill would therefore expand state-level regulation of school governance, staffing, training, and contracting practices, while adding a complaint and enforcement process overseen through district procedures and standards set by the director of education and workforce.
No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no direct record of support or opposition in the materials supplied. From the bill’s text and caption, the measure is clearly intended to restrict DEI-related activity in public education, suggesting a policy direction that would likely be supported by proponents of limiting DEI programs and opposed by those who favor such programs. As introduced and not yet acted upon, the bill’s formal legislative sentiment remains unsettled.
The main point of contention is the bill’s prohibition on DEI training, offices, job descriptions, and consultant contracts, especially the ban on practices tied to race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Supporters would likely view the measure as preventing ideological or discriminatory preferences in schools, while critics would likely argue it suppresses diversity initiatives and staff training aimed at inclusion and equal opportunity. A secondary issue is the complaint-and-hearing process, which could create disputes over what counts as DEI-related activity or as an impermissible workaround through renamed programs.