Announcer: The views and opinions expressed in To The Point are those of the host of the program and its guests.

They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of WGTE public media.

Doni: A bill described as historic and certain to reshape the landscape of higher educatio was passed into law last week.

Senate Bill one, also known as the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, is considere by many to be the most extensive overhaul of higher education in the history of the state.

The law, which takes effect in 90 days, mandates, among other things, the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion programs restricts university from endorsing political or social positions prohibits faculty from striking, and bans universities from accepting donations from certain countries.

This is a complicated issue with strong feelings from both sides of the issue.

Today we are joined by one o the bill's strongest opponents.

State Senator Paula Hicks Hudson.

In the coming weeks, we will speak to supporters of this initiative.

I'm Doni Miller.

And welcome... To The Point.

Connect with us on our social media pages.

Please email me at doni_miller@wgte.org.

And for this episode and other additional extras, go to wgte.org/to the point... we are talking about, I think one of the most controversial bills to hit our state in a very, very long time.

It's a Senate bill, one signe by the governor just last week.

And I am not going to give you a lot of introduction about this bill.

I want you to hear the thoughts of State Senator Paula Hicks.

Hudson, please, though before we begin, understand that Senator Hicks Hudson is a strong opponent of this bill.

We will be speaking in the coming weeks to folks who don't share her point of view.

But at this moment, I'd like to introduce you.

Most of you know who she is.

Our state senator, Paula Hicks Hudson, thank you for being with us today.

Paula: It's my pleasure.

It's my pleasure.

Doni: So in a in a nutshell, because this is a very complicated bill and it's got lots of layers, lots of different intentions in, in the structure of this legislation.

What can you give folks?

In a nutshell, your perceptio of the intention of this bill?

Paula: Well, while it is called to advance higher education, I think it is really to return us back to the 1950 where, you have this whole idea about, freedom of speec being sure, being, suppressed.

You also have the attack on labor rights, and also, most importantly, you have the rolling back of making the universities welcoming and inclusive of all of our our young people.

What what this bill does is it assaults, you know, in terms of of tenured faculty there, the ability for them to organize and to have tenure is being, addressed.

The issue about diversity, equity and inclusion.

Those are no longer available as a mechanism to bring everybody to include everyone, to make sure that everyone has an equal understanding and to make, as we know, our campuses more diverse.

And then lastly, and most importantly, I think it is, just having legislators who are not educators deciding which the curriculum should look like and who makes that decision.

You have the Chancellor but the language that is part of this bill is so vague that what it's going to do, I think, is going to cause faculty to say, I'm not going to touch subjects of climate change.

I'm not going to talk truly about the history of this country.

We're not going to deal wit those issues affecting the Lbgtq plus community.

We're not going to talk abou what climate change really does or what it looks like.

So across the board, not just in social, social sciences, but I'm also concerned about the sciences, whether or not those two will be affected.

So we're dumbing down instead of advancing, in my opinion, higher education in the state of Ohio.

Doni: So as I understand it, the premise of this bill was to allow a diversity of conversation in its initial phases.

To, to allow a diversity of conversation on campuses.

That, the feeling was that campuses were being moved too far to the left and that there was not th opportunity for folks who did, who did not share that point of view to, feel welcome and is.

Paula: Yes.

That was originally Senator Serino in the last General Assembly.

He introduced this bill and was not able to get it over the finish finish line in the house.

And that bill.

But we came back with a vengeance.

The very fact that it's called Senate Bill one that's was the top priority of the majority caucus, was to get this bill through and to the governor's desk.

Doni: That's what the numbers mean.

Paula: That's what the numbers mean.

Usuall you have priority legislation.

The first ten bills are set for whatever the the, legislature i looking to try to get through.

But this year, Senate Bill one was the number one thing.

So rather than looking a how do we, encourage and support our higher, our higher education or public education in general?

We put this bill into place.

And I have to say, we now I voted against it.

I am a part of that legislature.

The governor, over our veto, our caucus, his veto and others signed it into law on Friday.

And to have this as the way to move our state forward.

There were over 1700 letters or pieces of testimony that was a that was submitted in opposition to this legislation.

My understanding, only 50, pieces of evidence or testimony was put forward in support of this piece of legislation.

The students from Ohio State marched from their campus up High Street, all the way down to the, statehouse on the day that it was voted out of the House.

They were.

And, they sat on the lawn in protest to this.

These are the consumers of our education saying that what you're telling us isn't true because we are on campus.

We are part of that fabric and we know what's happening.

So this idea that it i making a bastion of liberalism or far left or whatever isn't true, and that's and that's the most important thing is these, these things that are done.

The author of this bill believes that he's doing the right thing, and I applaud him for doing that, because there are parts of it that maybe we should look at, such as the tenure.

How long?

Not tenure for faculty but how long a person can be on the board of directors.

Maybe you shouldn't be able to be on for 12, 15 years.

Maybe there should be some type of term limit.

That is not a bad thing.

Let's look at what we can do to help move and advance the education opportunities for our young people in this, in this state.

And this bill does not do that, in my opinion, at all.

Doni: So as I read, all of the, the information that I could find about, supporting the bil and those who oppose the bill, the question that I continued to wrestle with is, what is the benefit?

What was the intention of this at this time?

Paula: I believe the the intention if I'm going to give it in the best light, was for those for those students who they believe felt intimidated on on campus or who felt that they were not being heard on campus to be allowed to be heard.

Doni: And isn't that a fair?

Paula: I think that a fair approach that tha that would be a fair approach.

But you can't tell me that they are students, that the masses of students are not being given that opportunity.

That, if anything, that it's more so like that, you know, Bowling Green, for example.

I don't kno if they still had that process, but they had it where you had a certain area that was for free speech and anyone who had the, you know, was able to b in that area, whether it was pro or con, whatever the issue was, were able to do that.

What has changed since then?

I don't know.

This to me is, another one of those, pieces of legislatio that is in search of a problem because I don't believe the problem exists.

When you look at 1700 versus 50, when you hear this idea about the Dei and that, you know, some people feel that it's only based on race.

Diversity is not just race.

It is.

It is, veterans.

It is women.

It is folks of different religious backgrounds.

That's diversity.

Equity.

Equity is that we are lookin to have people where they where.

And that's one of the things about it.

Higher educatio or education in general, to me, is that we are to take people from where they are and get them to where they need to be.

So you may need more work in math.

I may need more work in English, but whatever it is, we get that work.

I'm not so sure that that' going to be there in the future.

And then inclusion.

That means that you have people that are coming to a campus and there are effort to, you know, intentional effort to make sure that they're included.

This bill takes all that away.

And so when and unfortunately, I think the author and others thought that it was onl about the inequality that you're giving someon a, a leg up over someone else.

But don't we do that anyway?

When you think about you have legacy of folks that are, their applications, they fall into a bucket of legacy or alums as well as these others.

So what has happened other than, I think this fear that pervades us and points away from what we should be doing at the state House.

Doni: So the the bill has so many pieces to it.

There's a whole segment in there that speaks to disallowing faculty to strike.

Yes.

Can you explain to us how that became included in this process and what the intention of that is?

Paula: I can't explain it, other than to know that this was one of the things that the author wanted.

I was baffled by it.

Other.

The only way I can clearly look at it is that i is one way that they can erode the idea about labor.

You know, back in the day when Senate Bill five came and there was this massive, overthro of that particular initiative.

So rather than doing this great big let's go after everyone in terms of making this a right to work state, let's nibble at the edges.

To me, that's what this does.

You know, everyone thinks tha if you're a college professor, you're probably living the good life that you don't.

You know, you're not like the you're not like me on the front lines at the auto plant, but the working condition for each of us may be different.

What this bill, in my opinion, does.

It's Let's begin to nibble at that.

So again, we divide ourselves as opposed to be united.

So that's kind of where I'm thinking about it.

You know, I read too many mysteries and other kinds of things to just look at it on the surface level.

But that's the only way this makes sense.

Doni: Hold that thought.

Okay, we're going to go away, but we're going to be right back.

There's so much more to talk about.

We'll be right back in just a moment.

Please stay with us.

Doni: Connect with us on our social media pages.

Email me at doni_miller@wgte.org.

And for this episode and other additional extras, please go to wgte.org/to the point.

We're talking to State Senator Paula Hicks Hudson about her opinion regarding Senate Bill one.

Identified as one of the most revolutionary bills ever to hit.

The discussion aroun higher education in this state.

You obviously think this passing and signing this bill was a mistake.

Paula: Absolutely.

There's no question mama, in my mind.

So oftentimes we see folks mayb with thinking good intentions.

But I don't believe that the ultimate goa is what we need in this state.

One of our my colleagues got u and he said, using the acronym die doing everything instead of and that's what we're doing.

I talked to you.

We talked a little bit earlier about the priorities of the state of Ohio.

You know, how are young people feeling welcome here.

How do they feel that they're going to get the very best educatio when we have these constraints where faculty can't even figure out what they can and can't do, because the the language in the bill is so vague.

Doni: But, Senator, the, the the, the proponents of this bill felt as though they were expanding the opportunity for education for an equal and unfettered approac to education by what they think, is removing some of the barriers to that education.

It sounds as though you disagree that, faculty striking is a is a barrier or, refusing to allow conversation around.

And I you yo you disagree with them on that?

Paula: Absolutely, absolutely.

Because if if the working conditions if well, let's just take that off the top.

Working conditions are not conducive to get the best instructors.

Then we're we're making a problem there where again you have maybe the the university administration is is proposing proposing larger classes which will allow for less attention to our students.

Is that a good thing?

I don't think so.

If we're looking at for the actual content of the curriculum who best to make that decision?

Is it the legislature, or is it the association that certifies and gives credentials to the to the students that are going to graduate?

That was one of the things that they had to fix in the house.

And we at, in the, in the, in the Senate, we offered an amendment to say that some of the that you should allow for such like social workers or psychologists or others who have to have a a cultural and cultural diversity aspect of their training.

That's part of the national certification for these, for these, individuals.

That was going to be possibly.

Well, there was thought that that would have prevented those departments from being able to teach that section of the, of their curriculum.

And then you'd have students graduating graduates who couldn't pass and get their license.

Sure.

The House did fix it.

But how do you fix something that is so egregious?

You know, in my press release, I said, even putting lipstick on a pig, you still have a pig, no matter what you do to kind of dress it up.

Because the fundamental basis of this legislation, I believe, is wrong.

I just simply believe that it's wrong.

And the truth is that our students, our children are, going to be hurt by it.

You know, our education, when you and I were young, in Ohio, we were in the top 10% of whatever.

We're now, you know, another race to the bottom.

And I think this is another example of it.

Doni: I read a statement, that, that you made around it sounded as though the bill was still in, in discussion and you said it, you that you found it interesting that this is where your colleagues decided to focus when there were so many other things that, yes, tha the state should be focusing on.

What other things do you think are more important than, expanding the.

Yes, the educationa this educational initiative in.

Paula: This realm of education or realm of education.

We are behind the eight ball.

We are bringing children that are not ready for preschool.

That's along being ready for pre for kindergarten.

We I should say that be ready for kindergarten.

I've being to to dramatic with that.

I proposed that we work on how do we create universal pre-K.

There are a number of of avenues to get there.

But we're not talking about that.

We're talking about this, on the other side of it.

We need to figure out a way to provide post high school secondary education to our young people.

Again, we do have the Pell Grant.

We do have these other things.

But are we really focusing on how to help a young person who graduates from high school, maybe not ready, quite ready yet for college or for training or whatever?

Kind of doing like a gap year, so to speak.

You know, we need to figure out ways to help these young people as they're going through our schools t at the time when they graduate.

Be thoughtful about what do they want to do with their lives.

We are graduating high school students that mayb go to college, maybe work, maybe go to the Army or the military.

But there.

But there's nothing We just let them out the door.

You get your high school diploma.

Have a nice day.

I think we need to do more.

We have to do more.

We are living in a in a global, no matter how folks want to tal about in a global environment.

And I don't think we we're taking the necessary steps for our young people to be there, nor are we providing a place for them to say, you know, Ohio is the heart of it all.

Stay here and and work and grow.

Many many of the students said that they're going to have to leave.

They're not going to look at you.

Doni: Know, that's a that's an interesting point.

I want to ask you this question, though.

What what would you deny that there are voices in higher education that whose intention it is to push opinion to their point of view?

Paula I think this bill clearly shows that absolutely, they are people and therefore they can't.

They feel that they need the help of the state legislature to be able to do that.

Doni: So how would you how would you then address those people who are on both sides of who are maybe, to the left or maybe to the right, and education as as I've always thought of, that higher education was a place where people are encouraged to be creative and full and courageous and and dig deeper.

Absolutely.

And there really is no place I would posture.

There really is no place for a professor who pushes his point of view.

Do you think this bill addresses that?

Paula: I think that this bill looks at saying that that professo doesn't have a right to be able to teach the curriculum, tha that professor wants to teach.

And it's only now again, this only applies to public.

Institutions.

It's not across the board.

That's true.

So that so but I also think that if we have students being able to look and say, I want to take this class or I don't, or I don't have to take this class because are we talking abou teaching that two plus two or, you know, a much higher level o that has some type of cultural or or some type of liberal or or, conservative bent?

No, I.

So where actually is this happening?

Is it in freshman, chemistry?

Is it in English?

And it could be, because what they're saying now is that we don't necessarily think that you should, read Angela.

And, What?

I am losing my my brain, but, Or Nikki Giovanni.

We shouldn't read her.

Or we definitely shouldn't read Malcolm X or Maya Angelou.

Maya Angelou.

Thank you.

But I was having one of those moments, or or, or any of the other, ethnic or cultural writers.

This country is the fabric of this country is interwoven with all those voices.

So is it wrong or is it right?

You know, the ide that slavery existed was wrong.

Can we build from that?

Absolutely.

But to say that we're going t make it milk toast or something.

I have a problem.

And so to answer your question, I think that within the marketplace of education, looking at that, still looking at that curriculum, students can pick and choose, like we all know, that regardless, regardless of the professor, that maybe was one way or the other.

If we knew tha that professor was unreasonable, didn't sign up for that person, if we knew that that that that teacher wasn't easy and we needed to monitor or balance our workload.

We might have taken that course.

So to say that there's no place for, someone either voice a one of my colleague said.

And I'll, I'll let you ask another question.

One of my colleagues said they went to Ohio State.

They were a part of the Democratic Young Dem or whatever, had a good friend that was part of the that also went to Ohio State, became a member of the Republican college, party, you know, group.

They hung out together at football games.

They had political discussions.

He didn't change.

They didn't change either one of their positions.

So to say that this and that's where, you know, we're going to lose that ability for those discussions because the, you know, everyone's going to be afraid to talk about it because if you do, you might get a bad evaluation.

Doni: You know, one of the things is I was.

Paula: Part of this bill.

Yeah.

Doni: One of the things that that I noticed, when I was reading the work around this bill, was that apart from the need to comply with the 90 day timeframe.

And I think that's important for everybody to know that all of this has to happen within 90 days.

Apart from being at risk of losing, the the state subsidy for the institutions, there didn't appear to be a strong enforcement mechanism in the bill.

Did I miss that?

Paula: It'll be up to th it'll be up to the, Chancellor., to put to put forward whatever those will be.

You have to remember that when the attorney general took the, the Supreme Court's ruling that said to eliminate, the idea of of diversity, equity and inclusion and administration in admissions decisions, he took it so far as to say you can't use it at all across the board.

So you've got tha that, decision or opinion that's chilling.

The, the ability for those two as well.

So while it may not b in the bill, it is still there.

It's still there.

Doni: Yeah.

Thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedule and your commute to Columbus and back to be with me this today, a lot more to talk about.

So you'll come back and support this course?

I'd really appreciate that.

And all of you.

Thank you so much for joining us today, and I'll see you next time.

On... To The Point.

Announcer: The views and opinions expressed in To The Point are those of the host of the program and its guests.

They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of WGTE public media.

To The Point is supporte in part by American Rescue Plan Act fund allocated by the City of Toledo and the Lucas County Commissioners and administered by the Arts Commission.

And viewers like you.

Thank you.