Kent State Faculty Raise Concerns as SB1 Reporting System Takes Effect
KENT — Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 is only a few months into effect, but students and professors at Kent State say they’re already noticing changes in the classroom. The law requires public universities to create reporting websites where students or employees can flag concerns about how a lesson aligns with official course objectives. Kent State launched its reporting portal earlier this semester, describing it as a way to keep instruction focused on official course goals.
Provost Melody Tankersley said the university doesn’t see SB1 changing what professors are allowed to teach. “Our academic freedom to deliver our degrees exactly as we did before is still there,” she said, adding that any complaint would go through several layers of review before discipline would be considered.
However, the Kent State chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which represents more than 900 faculty members, sees things differently. Faculty Senate President Dr. Deb Smith said the new reporting rules have created a “radical chilling of academic freedom,” with some professors worrying they could be investigated even when teaching material that’s important to their field. She said some faculty are already cutting units or avoiding discussions they worry could lead to a report.
National free-speech groups have raised similar concerns. Michael Hurley, Government Affairs Counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said SB1’s wording leaves many professors unsure of where the boundaries are. “I don’t think it’s surprising faculty would read some of these provisions and say they’re not exactly sure if they can continue to teach the way they’ve taught,” he said.
State Sen. Jerry Cirino, the bill’s sponsor, said SB1 is meant to stop “one-sided indoctrination” and encourage a wider range of viewpoints in class. He said he’s open to adjusting the law if issues come up.
As campuses across Ohio continue adjusting, the debate over SB1’s impact on academic freedom and faculty speech is still far from settled.