The sky isn't falling. Changes at Ohio State, other universities a win for students.
Author’s note: Just one day after this column was filed, popular conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gruesomely assassinated in front of more than 3000 spectators. Mr. Kirk’s murder occurred at Utah Valley University during one of his signature “Prove Me Wrong” debate appearances in which Kirk eagerly and calmly engages with anyone willing to pick up the mic and challenge the always well-informed host.
This column is dedicated to Mr. Kirk’s example that the alternative to not just a tolerance for but a requirement for informed dialogue and debate in our colleges and universities — with no topic off limits — is necessary lest our nation devolve to unchecked political violence.
I often critique our public K-12 and higher education systems because I’m passionate about their importance. Students deserve a great education and taxpayers demand more accountability. It’s the only way to assure continued public support — and our nation’s future success.
Recent reporting highlighted the elimination or merger of numerous low-enrollment academic majors at Ohio University, the University of Toledo, and elsewhere. Ohio State and other Ohio schools will soon follow suit. While it might be nice for students to have virtually unlimited options, it’s neither financially nor administratively tenable to provide them. That’s especially true with the trend of declining enrollment that’s been evident across the state.
These enrollment developments stem from demographic changes, particularly lower birth rates the past few decades, as well as tuition and other campus costs that have risen much faster than inflation.
Ohio’s General Assembly deserves credit for addressing some of those challenges with the recent passage of SB1 —The Advance Ohio Education Act — earlier this year. That legislation became effective at the end of June, with many of its provisions being phased in by this fall and most of the rest by the same time next year.
SB1 is arguably one of the most consequential realignments of Ohio’s higher education system in decades, most of it long overdue. Despite opponents’ claims that it overreaches, the attempt to repeal it fizzled.
Elimination of divisive, expensive, and constitutionally questionable “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs and personnel was one of the first changes. Few policies are more anathema to institutions ostensibly dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth and academic integrity than defining and favoring students and faculty on the basis of their skin color.
While the elimination of DEI garnered much of the early news coverage, SB1’s other changes to university governance, faculty accountability, and required coursework in civic literacy and responsibility are likely to have greater long-term impact.
A look back at some of the political and legacy press commentary about SB1finds it almost uniformly negative. One stood out for its “sky is falling” doomsday predictions that would make even chicken little blush. Published March 21st in the Ohio Capital Journal, David DeWitt’s screed is notable mostly for its hyperbolic and objectively false characterizations of SB1 provisions.
I appreciate that a little hyperbole is the stock-in-trade of opinion columnists. I’m even guilty of the occasional excess of it. But hewing to verifiable evidence — like the actual legislative text of SB1 — should be at least as important.
Controversial topics aren’t a “no go” under SB1, as DeWitt claims. There’s no “cover your eyes and plug your ears approach to human knowledge or prohibitions on aspiring meteorolgists’ discussions of “earth’s changing climate.” Exactly the opposite is true. These topics merely have to be discussed and debated from ideologically diverse perspectives.
Virtually every controversial topic imaginable involves both a search for objective facts as well as policy choices that flow from what we learn. Each of those elements involve uncertainty and value judgments. And each is inexorably shaped by our ideological biases.
I agree with Mr. DeWitt on one point. Those who believe their political opponents are deliberately trying to “destroy America” really do need to “touch grass, get a freaking grip.”
We do a grave disservice to students by force-feeding them only the prevailing view, even one claimed to have consensus support. Objective truth isn’t a popularity contest.
Remember that “settled science” is an oxymoron. Newton’s Laws were settled until Einstein proved they were sometimes relative.
The hubris of academics and “experts” claiming certainty on topics from climate change to sex change has resulted not only in policies lacking broad public support but distrust of science and expertise overall. Depriving students of the knowledge of uncertainties and the benefit of challenging consensus harms all of us.
That doesn’t mean we must give equal — or any — time in an academic setting to those who believe the earth is flat or who reject the objective evidence of our successful moon landings. But most controversial topics are contentious not because they deny objective fact but because they involve uncertainty and value judgments.
Progressive bias, restrictions on free speech, and lack of accountability for student outcomes relative to cost in academia are just as much fact as Ohioan Neil Armstrong taking one small step on the moon.
Unlike most critics, I put my money where my keyboard is, funding programs to promote civil discourse in my local public school and at Ohio State.
SB1 doesn’t crush debate; it demands it. That’s how students win, taxpayers remain willing to pay the bills, and Ohio’s universities reach for the stars.
These new changes aren’t closing minds; they’re opening doors.