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.
SB 1, the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, makes broad changes to the governance, academic policies, faculty oversight, and reporting obligations of Ohio’s state institutions of higher education. It shortens the standard term length for trustees appointed on or after July 1, 2025, from nine years to six years across Ohio’s public universities, and it requires new trustee training from the Chancellor of Higher Education on topics such as fiduciary duties, public records, ethics, budgeting, student welfare, and anti-discrimination obligations. The bill also requires public posting of undergraduate syllabi, creates a statewide American civic literacy course requirement for bachelor’s degree students, and directs the Department of Higher Education to study the feasibility of three-year bachelor’s degree programs.
The bill also imposes extensive new rules on institutional governance and faculty management. It requires each institution to adopt policies on faculty workload, annual performance evaluation, post-tenure review, and retrenchment, and it makes those policies non-bargainable and controlling over conflicting collective bargaining agreements in future contracts. It also bars full-time faculty at state institutions from striking under the state public employee labor law. In addition, the bill requires institutions to adopt statements of commitment to free inquiry and equal treatment, restricts diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, trainings, and certain hiring and admissions practices, and mandates reporting on speaker fees, DEI spending, student qualifications, and compliance issues.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it rewrites multiple sections of the Revised Code governing each public university’s board structure and labor relations, while adding new statewide mandates for academic content, transparency, and institutional conduct. It would affect trustees, university administrators, faculty, students, and collective bargaining units at Ohio’s public universities and community colleges. It also adds restrictions on gifts and partnerships involving the People’s Republic of China, requires cost reporting for state funding decisions, and creates new compliance and reporting channels through the Chancellor of Higher Education.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill advanced with majority support but also significant opposition. It passed the Senate and House on party-line or near party-line margins, indicating strong support from proponents and substantial resistance from opponents. The lack of committee transcript snippets limits direct insight into debate, but the vote totals show the measure was controversial and closely divided in both chambers.
The main points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on DEI programs, its limits on academic and institutional speech, its new faculty evaluation and tenure rules, and its removal of faculty strike rights. Supporters appear to view the bill as a reform package focused on transparency, accountability, intellectual diversity, and workforce alignment. Opponents are likely to object that it intrudes on university autonomy, academic freedom, collective bargaining, and faculty governance, while also imposing detailed state control over curriculum, hiring, and campus programming.
SB 1 would significantly alter Ohio law governing public higher education by imposing new statewide standards on trustee training, board terms, syllabus disclosure, faculty workload and evaluation, tenure review, retrenchment, and institutional reporting. It would also amend public-sector labor law to prohibit strikes by full-time faculty at state institutions of higher education and to make the bill’s faculty-policy requirements non-bargainable in future collective bargaining agreements. The bill would affect the governance and operations of all state universities and community colleges, as well as faculty, students, and administrators subject to the new compliance, transparency, and anti-DEI provisions.
The voting history indicates the bill was politically divisive but ultimately advanced through both chambers with majority support. The Senate and House votes were not unanimous and show meaningful opposition, suggesting the bill was supported by a governing majority but contested by a substantial minority. In the absence of committee transcript excerpts, the overall sentiment can be characterized as strongly supportive among proponents of higher-education reform and strongly skeptical or opposed among critics concerned about academic freedom, labor rights, and institutional autonomy.
The most notable points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; its requirements that institutions avoid endorsing controversial beliefs and maintain intellectual diversity; and its limits on hiring, admissions, and training practices. Faculty workload, annual evaluation, post-tenure review, retrenchment, and the prohibition on faculty strikes are also likely to be major flashpoints because they directly affect employment conditions and collective bargaining. Supporters likely emphasize accountability, transparency, and viewpoint neutrality, while opponents are likely to argue the bill is overly prescriptive, politicizes university governance, and undermines academic freedom and labor protections.