The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal first published this piece.

Ohio colleges and universities should prepare students for their roles as good citizens, promote diverse academic thought on campus, and give graduates the basic skills they need to succeed at a price they can afford.

Regrettably, many of the state’s schools have failed to meet these rudimentary goals.

Despite paying lip service to the seemingly relevant notions of “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” university campuses breed contempt for dissenting views that stray from liberal orthodoxies, with 80 percent of college students recently saying that they self-censor their views for fear of retaliation. This is the case despite universities investing huge resources on diversity staff and programming. For example, the flagship Ohio State University spent $20.38 million on a DEI staff that swelled to nearly 200 positions in 2023 alone. Such bloat epitomizes the rise in non-instructional spending that, according to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, has outpaced classroom spending three-to-one for years.

Fortunately, Ohio’s General Assembly has recognized the dire need for reform and has taken promising steps to address some glaring concerns. Legislators have acknowledged, for example, the state’s commitment to integrating civic instruction into higher education and have therefore established civic centers such as the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at Ohio State to help bridge the gap between academia and public life. Such centers will better prepare students to be active, well-informed citizens who focus on our commonalities rather than our differences.

More recently, State Senator Jerry Cirino introduced Ohio Senate Bill 1, the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, to recommit public universities to the First Amendment, to ensure that campuses expose students to diverse intellectual perspectives, to teach critical—not ideological—thinking, and to eliminate counter-productive DEI offices. Backed by The Buckeye Institute, the newly passed law also wisely requires the Ohio Department of Higher Education to explore how to produce three-year college degrees; eliminates underperforming degree programs; encourages post-tenure review to ensure that faculty meet expectations; requires transparent, public access to course syllabi; and amends public-sector collective-bargaining laws related to faculty strikes.

Some have raised understandable objections to the bill’s tenure and collective-bargaining reforms, but those concerns are misguided. Tenure significantly benefits faculty and students insofar as it secures rigorous academic debate, intellectual inquiry, and independent research. But tenure also protects those who stifle academic inquiry and discussion, and it contributes to oversized payrolls by failing to align financial incentives with job performance. To improve tenure policies, Senate Bill 1 requires a post-tenure review for tenured faculty who receive a “does not meet performance expectations” evaluation within the same evaluated category for two out of three consecutive years. If done carefully and without infringing on academic freedom, such reviews will help keep faculty accountable and spur productivity.

The legislation’s collective-bargaining reforms prevent faculty strikes during an academic semester or quarter, which could harm students by delaying graduation or forcing them to graduate without completing the requisite courses. Preventing such strikes puts student (and taxpayer) interests ahead of those of the faculty, which is why the bill provides for arbitration and fact-finding to guarantee that university management still hears the voices of critical staff loud and clear.

In addition to Senate Bill 1, the Governor Mike DeWine administration and the General Assembly are working to overhaul how the state subsidizes public universities, pushing them to focus more on equipping their graduates with relevant skillsets for the workforce without saddling them with exorbitant student-loan debt. For example, the General Assembly is considering budget legislation that will improve how “State Share of Instruction” funding is allocated by considering post-graduate employment in its appropriation formula.

The Buckeye Institute has long recommended tying public university funding to post-graduate outcomes such as job placement, student-loan-debt-to-earnings ratios, and real-world readiness. Although Ohio primarily subsidizes higher-education institutions based on their graduation rates, whether graduates will likely earn enough to pay back their student debt is not even considered by the state’s appropriators. This has misaligned incentives in a changing education environment. By giving state subsidies as rewards for measurable post-graduate outcomes, legislators will provide colleges and universities with a financial incentive to do more than check boxes for their own internal bureaucracies.

The General Assembly was right to abandon higher education’s status quo. With declining student enrollments, the state’s colleges face serious long-term challenges that can no longer be ignored. Lower birthrates have reduced the pool of future enrollees, and new workforce-credentialing options have curbed enrollment. To attract students, colleges and universities must provide a quality education—not political indoctrination—that yields employable skills without shackling students with a lifetime of debt.

Recent reforms have placed Ohio on an upward trajectory, but much remains to be done. Additional legislative improvements could include tighter fiscal guardrails and administrative cost caps that would reduce state funding for schools that exceed them. 

Another recommendation, offered by Ohio University’s Dr. Richard Vedder, would make tenure an optional component of faculty compensation, allowing universities to pay more to those who voluntarily choose not to accept tenure protections. Ohio should also ensure that accrediting entities do not mandate DEI policies as part of the accreditation process for state-funded universities. Although accrediting bodies such as the Higher Learning Commission perform valuable functions in overseeing the quality and standards of higher-education institutions, they should not be allowed to circumvent statutory reforms and should be sanctioned if they do so.

Ohio students deserve educational institutions—especially those of higher learning—committed to their long-term success. Students should not be pawns in ideological gamesmanship on campuses, nor should taxpayers be made to underwrite bloated bureaucracies that propagate divisive political agendas. Gov. DeWine and the General Assembly have met the moment and taken strong strides to better deliver what our students deserve. More work remains to be done, but, in the fight for the future of higher education, Ohio seems poised to finally put its students first.

Greg R. Lawson is a research fellow with The Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio.