Understanding the Context: Senate Bill 1 and Ohio's Higher Education Reforms
In March 2025, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 1 into law, marking a significant shift in the state's approach to public higher education. This comprehensive legislation, often referred to as the Higher Education Enhancement Act, introduced sweeping changes aimed at promoting free speech, reducing perceived ideological biases, and eliminating what proponents described as divisive practices. Among its most contentious provisions was a outright ban on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public colleges and universities.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, which emerged prominently in higher education over the past decade, typically involve offices dedicated to fostering diverse campus environments, providing equity training, and supporting inclusion efforts for underrepresented groups. SB 1 prohibited the maintenance or creation of DEI offices or departments, banned mandatory DEI trainings or orientations, eliminated DEI-based scholarships, and restricted the inclusion of DEI criteria in hiring or job descriptions. The law also defined 'controversial concepts'—topics like climate policies, electoral politics, immigration, and DEI itself—limiting how they could be taught to avoid indoctrination.
Public universities across Ohio, including major institutions like Ohio State University, Ohio University, and the University of Cincinnati, were required to comply by late summer 2025. Many preemptively began winding down DEI operations even before the effective date. For instance, Ohio State University announced the elimination of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion in February 2025, reassigning staff to other roles while discontinuing DEI-specific programming. Similarly, Ohio University shuttered all DEI offices by April 2025, and the University of Cincinnati closed its Equity and Inclusion Office along with four identity-based cultural centers in June 2025, repurposing spaces like the African American Cultural and Resource Center into a more general 'Cultural Center' open to all students.
These changes sparked debates about access to support services for minority students, faculty development, and campus climate. Supporters argued that SB 1 restored focus on merit-based academics and viewpoint diversity, while critics contended it dismantled vital resources for marginalized communities without clear definitions of what constitutes DEI.
📋 House Bill 698: Strengthening Enforcement Against DEI Evasion
Fast forward to February 12, 2026, when State Representative Tom Young (R-Upper Sandusky), a cosponsor of SB 1, introduced House Bill 698, dubbed the 'S.B. 1 Compliance Supplemental Appropriation Act.' Currently under review in the Ohio House Workforce and Higher Education Committee following its first hearing on February 25, 2026, HB 698 addresses what lawmakers see as loopholes in the original law. Without teeth for enforcement, some feared universities might skirt prohibitions through subtle maneuvers like renaming offices or reassigning personnel.
The bill mandates that public institutions submit detailed compliance certifications to the Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education. Key among its provisions is a strict prohibition on 'reassigning, reclassifying, or otherwise disguising any position to continue diversity, equity, and inclusion functions' banned under SB 1. Universities must compile an inventory of all employees performing DEI-related duties as of January 1, 2025, including their names, prior roles, salaries, and new assignments made by September 25, 2025. For each reassignment, a 'justification report' is required, demonstrating that the new duties are 'substantially different' from DEI work, verified by a preponderance of evidence standard.
Non-compliance triggers severe penalties: withholding of the entire fiscal year's State Share of Instruction (SSI) funding, with no possibility of retroactive release even if compliance is later achieved. Enforcement ramps up for fiscal year 2028, but preparatory reporting begins immediately. HB 698 also enhances transparency by designating salary data, compliance reports, and retrenchment plans as public records, while requiring standardized faculty workload policies and tenure reviews prioritizing student outcomes.
- Certification of full SB 1 adherence, including no disguised DEI activities.
- Employee inventory and justification for any role changes.
- Chancellor audits with funding clawbacks for violations.
- Public disclosure of compliance documents.
- Updated retrenchment policies for financial or enrollment challenges.
Rep. Young emphasized, 'This bill reinforces that state law is not optional. It ensures consistent enforcement, protects students, and restores confidence in Ohio's higher education system.' For the full text, refer to the official Ohio Legislature page.
Photo by Olivia Anne Snyder on Unsplash
🎓 How Ohio Universities Have Responded to SB 1 So Far
Ohio's 14 public universities and numerous community colleges have largely complied with SB 1 by disbanding dedicated DEI structures. Ohio State University, the state's flagship institution with over 60,000 students, dissolved its central DEI office and integrated remaining functions into broader student success units, though specifics on staff reassignments remain under scrutiny.
At Ohio University in Athens, all DEI offices closed outright, with programs like bias response teams discontinued. The University of Cincinnati took a hybrid approach, closing the Equity Institute but transitioning cultural centers to neutral names and missions to serve all students, raising questions about whether this constitutes 'disguising' under HB 698. Smaller campuses like Bowling Green State University and Kent State University repurposed staff into academic advising or retention roles, often with vague public announcements to avoid backlash.
These moves reflect a cautious strategy amid budget dependencies—state funding constitutes 10-20% of operating budgets for many institutions. However, faculty unions like the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-O) warn that rushed changes have led to morale dips and service gaps, particularly for first-generation and low-income students who relied on DEI outreach.
⚖️ Arguments For and Against the Rebranding Ban
Proponents of HB 698, primarily Republican lawmakers, argue it closes evasion loopholes. They point to national trends where institutions in states like Florida and Texas renamed DEI offices to 'Community Engagement' or 'Belonging' while retaining functions, potentially wasting taxpayer dollars on prohibited activities. By mandating inventories and justifications, the bill ensures accountability, they say, freeing resources for core academics like STEM programs or research positions.
Opponents, including Democratic Rep. Desiree Tims and higher ed advocates, decry it as 'unreasonable government overreach.' They argue the administrative burden—tracking thousands of employees—diverts time from teaching, especially since SB 1 lacks a clear DEI definition. Critics fear chilled speech, as staff fear reprisal for equity discussions, and potential lawsuits over vague 'disguising' standards. Civil rights groups highlight risks to campus safety nets amid rising hate incidents.
Photo by Olivia Anne Snyder on Unsplash
| Perspective | Key Arguments |
|---|---|
| Supporters | Prevents loopholes; protects merit; taxpayer accountability |
| Critics | Overreach; burdens staff; harms inclusion |
💼 Potential Impacts on Faculty, Staff, and Careers
For higher education professionals, HB 698 could reshape career paths. DEI directors and coordinators—roles averaging $80,000-$120,000 annually—face retrenchment or reassignment scrutiny. Faculty in related fields might pivot to academic advising or compliance roles. Students lose targeted scholarships, pushing exploration of merit-based aid via platforms like AcademicJobs.com scholarships.
Amid changes, opportunities arise in growing areas like online education and workforce training. Ohio universities anticipate hiring for university jobs in administration and research, emphasizing neutral competencies. Professionals navigating this should document role evolutions meticulously and consider faculty positions at compliant privates or out-of-state publics.
The Ohio Department of Higher Education's role expands, potentially creating oversight jobs. For rate-your-professor enthusiasts, evolving classroom policies under SB 1 invite feedback on Rate My Professor to share experiences.
🔮 Looking Ahead: What HB 698 Means for Ohio Higher Ed
If passed, HB 698 could set a precedent for other states like Texas and Florida tightening DEI enforcement. Ohio's public system, educating over 400,000 students annually, faces audits starting 2028, with SSI funds—hundreds of millions— at stake. Universities might accelerate neutral rebranding, invest in legal reviews, or lobby for amendments.
For the ecosystem, expect more focus on transferable skills: data analytics for retention, universal design for learning. Amid national debates, Ohio balances fiscal conservatism with educational equity. Stay informed via Ohio Department of Higher Education updates.
In summary, as Ohio tackles DEI rebranding, professionals can thrive by adapting—explore higher ed jobs, share professor insights on Rate My Professor, and access career tips at Higher Ed Career Advice. What are your thoughts? Use the comments to discuss impacts on your campus.