7.11 Competing Interests: The Advance Higher Education Act

The Advance Higher Education Act was signed into law in 2025. By then, it had became one of the most widely discussed issues in state politics. Because it made headlines, sparked protests, and went through two different General Assemblies, it provides a good case study for understanding how public policy is made. This case gives students a chance to examine how competing interests, lawmakers and different advocacy groups, can shape the legislative process and influence what becomes law.

As you recall, a proposed law is called a bill. If it passes both the House and the Senate and is signed by the governor, it becomes a law, often referred to as an act. In this case, you will read about two bills: Senate Bill 83 (SB 83) and Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), which were debated in different legislative sessions. These bills were early versions of what eventually became the Advance Higher Education Act, the law that was officially passed in 2025. Understanding these two bills will help you see how a policy idea can change over time and what it takes to move from a proposal to an actual law.

Senate Bill 83 & the 135 Ohio General Assembly (2023-24)

Senate Bill 83, also known as the “Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act,” was a hotly debated in the 135th Ohio General Assembly (2023-24). This bill proposed reforms to higher education, including restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at state colleges and universities. The bill aimed to prohibit mandatory diversity training, the use of diversity statements in hiring, and would have required universities to demonstrate intellectual diversity for course approval.

The bill also mandated annual performance evaluations for faculty members and would eliminate their right to engage in labor strikes.

Support and Opposition 

Supporters of SB 83, including its sponsor Senator Jerry Cirino and several conservative lawmakers, argued that the bill is necessary to ensure free speech and intellectual diversity on state-owned college campuses. They believed that current DEI programs can stifle diverse viewpoints and create an environment of ideological conformity. Proponents also asserted that the bill would have prevented public funds from being used for what they consider to be biased training and policies.

Opponents, including university faculty, certain student organizations, and civil rights advocates, argued that the bill undermined efforts to create inclusive and equitable educational environments. They contend that DEI programs are essential for addressing historical and systemic inequalities in education. Critics also expressed concerns that the bill’s restrictions could lead to a chilling effect on academic freedom and discourage honest discussions about important social issues.

Legislative Process 

SB 83 passed the Ohio Senate in May 2023 and was subsequently revised and passed by a House committee in December 2023. However, the bill faced opposition in the Ohio House, where numerous lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns about its potential impact on education and labor rights. Then House Speaker Jason Stephens refused to give the bill a floor vote and it died in committee.

Remember, the Speaker of the House has the authority to decide which bills reach the House floor for a vote (and which don’t). This means that he can choose to hold up or advance bills based on various factors, including political strategy and legislative priorities. This demonstrates the Speaker’s power and pivotal role in shaping the legislative process.​

This case highlights the intense debates and competing interests that can arise in the legislative process, particularly around issues of education, free speech, and equity. It demonstrates how legislative proposals can galvanize various constituency groups, each advocating for their vision of what policies best serve the public interest​.

Senate Bill 1 & the 136 Ohio General Assembly (2024-25)

When Ohio’s General Assembly ends its two-year session, any bills that haven’t passed both chambers expire. Because SB 83 (2023) stalled in the House and wasn’t enacted before the session ended in December 2024, it couldn’t carry over as SB 83 into 2025. That’s why the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cirino, had to refile the proposal as a new bill (Senate Bill 1) when the 136th General Assembly convened in early 2025.

The bill was built on the ideas from SB 83 but adds many new mandates. It bans all DEI programs, offices, job titles, trainings, and scholarships; prohibits faculty strikes; requires public posting of course syllabi with instructor credentials; mandates a civic literacy course; demands institutions declare neutrality on controversial topics; and restricts acceptance of donations from China.

The Senate quickly advanced the bill. It was first approved by the Senate’s Higher Education Committee, then passed by the full Senate in a floor vote.

In the House, Representative Tom Young of the Miami Valley in Southwest Ohio introduced identical legislation as House Bill 6. Representative Young, who chairs the Workforce and Higher Education Committee, oversaw the bill’s review and approval by committee.

As you recall when a bill is approved by a committee in the House, the Speaker of the House determines whether it will come to the floor for a vote. In the previous session, the Speaker Jason Stephens blocked a floor vote. The new Speaker of House Matt Huffman supported the bill and advanced it to the floor where it received party-line support.

Governor Mike DeWine also supported the bill and signed it into law on March 28, 2025.

Following its enactment, opponents launched a grassroots veto referendum campaign to try to overturn the new law. A veto referendum is a process in Ohio that allows citizens to collect signatures and place a recently passed law on the statewide ballot for voters to decide whether it should take effect or be repealed.

Their goal was to put the issue on the statewide ballot so Ohio voters could decide whether to keep or reject Senate Bill 1. They collected nearly 195,000 petition signatures but fell short of the required 248,100 valid signatures and did not meet the rule that requires signatures from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.

Under Ohio law, citizens have 90 days after a law is signed to gather enough signatures to pause its implementation and place it on the ballot for a vote. Because the organizers did not meet the required number of signatures by the June 26, 2025 deadline, Senate Bill 1 went into effect without a public vote.

References

https://apnews.com/article/higher-education-ohio-dei-restrictions-faculty-strikes-8b0ab7db08eb712e3350bb241b610f70

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-higher-education-dei-bill-ban-378ca9b2389e182562296872edb5d68e