To amend sections 3335.02, 3335.09, 3337.01, 3339.01, 3341.02, 3343.02, 3344.01, 3345.45, 3350.10, 3352.01, 3356.01, 3359.01, 3361.01, 3362.01, 3364.01, 4117.14, and 4117.15; to enact new section 3333.045 and sections 3345.029, 3345.0216, 3345.0217, 3345.0218, 3345.0219, 3345.382, 3345.451, 3345.452, 3345.453, 3345.454, 3345.455, 3345.456, 3345.591, 3345.80, and 3345.88; and to repeal section 3333.045 of the Revised Code to enact the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act regarding the operation of state institutions of higher education.
HB6, the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, is a broad higher-education governance and policy bill affecting Ohio’s public universities and community colleges. It changes the structure and terms of board of trustee appointments for multiple state institutions, generally shortening trustee terms for appointments made on or after July 1, 2025 from nine years to six years, while preserving student trustee positions and, in one case, allowing Ohio State student trustees to gain voting power if the board so resolves. It also creates a new mandatory trustee education program administered by the chancellor of higher education covering fiduciary duties, public records, ethics, budgeting, student welfare, and anti-discrimination obligations.
The bill also imposes a series of new institutional requirements on state institutions of higher education. These include public posting of undergraduate syllabi, a formal statement of institutional commitment to open inquiry and equal treatment, and policies restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, trainings, scholarships, and related hiring or contracting practices. It further requires institutions to promote intellectual diversity, prohibit ideological litmus tests, disclose speaker fees, adopt standardized faculty workload and annual evaluation systems, conduct post-tenure review, and eliminate low-enrollment undergraduate programs under certain conditions. The bill also requires a new American civic literacy course for bachelor’s degree students beginning with the 2029-2030 graduating class, mandates reporting on institutional costs and DEI spending, and bars state institutions from accepting gifts or contributions from the People’s Republic of China or entities acting on its behalf, while allowing certain tuition payments and alumni donations.
HB6 would substantially amend Ohio’s higher-education statutes and related labor law provisions. It revises sections governing the boards of trustees for Ohio State, Ohio University, Miami, Bowling Green State, Kent State, Central State, Cleveland State, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Wright State, Youngstown State, the University of Akron, the University of Cincinnati, Shawnee State, and the University of Toledo, and it also amends public-employee labor statutes to make full-time faculty at state institutions ineligible to strike. The bill directs the Department of Higher Education to study the feasibility of three-year bachelor’s degree programs and report back to the General Assembly.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly reform-oriented and prescriptive, with an emphasis on oversight, accountability, ideological neutrality, and cost control in public higher education. Because the bill was only introduced and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s content itself. The structure and breadth of the proposal suggest a major policy shift rather than a narrow technical update.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s restrictions on DEI-related programs and training, its requirements around intellectual diversity and speech, its limits on faculty labor rights, and its authority to eliminate low-enrollment programs and reshape tenure and post-tenure review. Supporters would likely view these provisions as promoting viewpoint neutrality, fiscal discipline, and academic accountability, while opponents would likely argue they intrude on university autonomy, academic freedom, shared governance, and collective bargaining rights. The China-related gift and partnership restrictions, as well as the mandatory civic literacy course, are also likely to draw scrutiny from institutions concerned about compliance burdens and academic independence.
HB6 would significantly expand state control over public higher education governance, operations, curriculum, faculty evaluation, and institutional reporting. It amends trustee appointment and term provisions across Ohio’s public universities, creates new chancellor-led training and reporting duties, imposes mandatory syllabus transparency and civic-literacy requirements, restricts DEI-related activities and certain ideological practices, and changes labor-law treatment of faculty by removing strike rights for full-time faculty at state institutions. It also adds reporting and compliance mechanisms that could affect funding, program offerings, and institutional partnerships, including with China-related entities.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no measurable legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. Based on the bill’s text alone, the proposal appears to be driven by a reform-minded, conservative approach to higher education that emphasizes accountability, transparency, and ideological restrictions. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied context means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed from proceedings, only inferred from the bill’s policy direction.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s bans and limits on diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, trainings, scholarships, and related hiring practices; its intellectual-diversity and speech-related mandates; and its prohibition on full-time faculty strikes. Universities and faculty groups would likely object to the bill as an intrusion on academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and collective bargaining, while supporters would likely argue it prevents ideological bias and improves accountability. Additional controversy may arise over the required elimination of low-enrollment degree programs, the new civic literacy graduation requirement, and the restrictions on gifts and partnerships involving China.