In this edition:
- SB1 Update
- On Location in Columbus
- Protest Matters
- Political Overwhelm and Strategies for Coping
- AAUP Membership Surges
SB1 Update
by Steve Mockabee
The Ohio House Workforce and Education Committee heard sponsor testimony from Sen. Jerry Cirino on Tuesday, March 4, in support of Senate Bill 1, which passed the Senate by a vote of 21-11 on February 12. On Tuesday, March 11, the committee will hear opponent testimony. Unfortunately, the hearing was not announced until Thursday evening (3/6), leaving only Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for Ohioans to prepare written testimony before the due date of 9:00am Monday – 24 hours before the hearing. To make matters worse, the committee chair, Rep. Tom Young, limited testimony to 3 minutes per witness and the total opponent testimony to just 3 hours. These limitations are ridiculous considering that over 1000 people submitted testimony to the Senate Higher Education Committee, and over 200 people testified in person. Sadly, this continues the pattern of Ohio legislative leaders ignoring the overwhelming public opposition to SB 1 and its predecessor, SB 83.
Leaders in the General Assembly’s Republican majority have also ignored repeated calls by educational organizations and unions to amend SB 1. The Ohio Conference AAUP drafted several amendments that were introduced by Senate Democrats, but these were summarily rejected along party lines with no substantive discussion. On the House side, our labor allies are engaged in a vigorous lobbying effort to persuade Republican members to sign onto amendments that would remove the bill’s prohibitions on collective bargaining over key working conditions such as faculty evaluations, tenure processes, and retrenchment. Despite some promising conversations with Republican House members, it is not clear how many can be counted upon to publicly support amending the bill.
If, as we anticipate, the bill is voted out of committee, it will go to the Ohio House where the leadership has indicated it will quickly receive a floor vote. As of this writing, the date being mentioned for the vote in the House is March 19.
We encourage faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, and community members to continue to contact legislators and the Governor’s office. The OCAAUP has a convenient tool kit to help with this. Please be sure to write and call Governor DeWine to urge him to veto the bill should it pass the House – an outcome that unfortunately appears likely.
On Location in Columbus
by Jessica Graves-Rack
On February 11, hundreds of faculty members, students, future college students, parents, and concerned community members met at the Ohio Senate House to provide testimony against Senate Bill 1 (SB1) – the anti-education, anti-faculty, anti-student, anti-union, brain drain measure currently being passed through the Ohio legislative branch (now House Bill 6/HB6). The outpouring of opposition to the bill was a sight to behold.
During the prior week, a mere 14 people testified in favor. One of the few proponents included the author of the book, “Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education.” Indeed, if SB1/HB6 becomes law, public universities in Ohio have a strong chance of failing.
I teamed up with another member of the UC AAUP Associates Council, Dr. Erynn Casanova, as well as several of the A&S Sociology graduate students. The ride north was enjoyable – we discussed strategy, learned more about each other, sang a little, and even discovered the mom of one of the graduate students was a former teacher of mine. I love seeing education roots run strong through families. That student, Annie McGhee, was one of many who testified at the hearing.
Upon arrival, people were gathering outside of the assembly room where testimony would be heard. When the doors opened, people rushed inside to get seats. We were told over 200 people were scheduled to provide testimony! There were hundreds more there to provide support and show the strength of those opposed to this brain-drain bill. Due to the small capacity of the room, we were instructed to move to an overflow room if we weren’t one of the first 60 people scheduled to testify.
On our way to the overflow room, I ran into some of my peers from the UC School of Communication, Film, and Media Studies. It’s amazing to be surrounded by colleagues who care as much about the future of education as I do. We saw friends from other University of Cincinnati units as well as associates we know from other Ohio institutions. There were also people from many local and national organizations, such as the Ohio AAUP, The Ohio Student Association, Student Governments from many universities, and Honesty for Ohio Education.
One overflow room wasn’t enough to hold the sizable crowd that had arrived at the Senate House – we required at least 3 more. Each room was equipped with a television broadcasting the testimony. Those in the testimony room were not permitted to react verbally to any testimony, but in the overflow rooms, we were welcome to cheer as loudly as we wanted. Our room was directly down the hall from Ohio Governor DeWine’s office. I hope he heard us championing for hours for the testimony against this dangerous bill.
As we listened to the testimonies, I was not surprised at how heartfelt they were – I know how strongly people feel about protecting students, faculty, and the institution of education. What did surprise me was how varied the testifiers were and how diverse their issues with the bill were. With a bill so sweeping in its nature, there are many positions with which to take issue.
Some spoke about how the bill will attack the academic freedom of professors by undermining the right to collectively bargain issues such as employment, annual performance reviews, tenure, post-tenure review, and retrenchment. The best and the brightest of faculty will leave and seek employment in states where their contributions to academic discourse are valued. Entire units could be slashed, leaving faculty with no jobs and leaving students with no way to finish the degree they might already be well into earning.
Some spoke about how posting searchable syllabi online is a threat to the safety of faculty members. If there is public access to syllabi, reading materials, the faculty member’s contact information and course schedule, anyone who disagrees with what is being taught or assigned could readily find and potentially harass (or worse) the faculty member.
Some spoke about how unclear it is to say that universities and faculty cannot take positions on ‘controversial beliefs or policies,’ – such as climate change, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, marriage, the US political system, American history, etc. With no clarity of definition, nearly any topic could be considered a controversial belief. Faculty will be required to entertain all possible beliefs on such issues, without ‘indoctrinating’ students about a particular position. Do we expect faculty to stand by silently while another advocates ‘the earth is flat,’ ‘fossil fuels don’t damage the environment,’ ‘Hitler might have been right about the master race,’ and other ridiculous, anti-scientific, blatantly false conspiracy theories? Those disproven and harmful beliefs of course may be expressed, but the job of the faculty is to teach students to think critically about truth that is supported by quality research. This bill will make that task nearly impossible.
Some people spoke about how this bill will make public higher education in Ohio less valuable. Students won’t attend public universities here if they know the quality of their education and preparation for career success is in question. Tuition is a big cost, and students want to know they are obtaining a quality education with their tuition dollars. Large, multi-national corporations will not want to recruit on our campuses. Money will pour out of our state as qualified, outstanding students choose to spend their tuition dollars in other states.
Some spoke about how the bill will ban all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at universities. This will limit the ability of schools to attract and support students who historically have not had the same access to higher education as those with greater privilege. The bill claims it will “level the playing field,” but in reality, it just returns to a system that opens doors for those who are already more advantaged than others. Students will not want to attend universities where their unique identities are not valued or schools that do not provide the necessary resources for all types of students to be successful.
Those testifying were given only 3 minutes to voice their concerns. For most, it allowed them only to speak about one issue that was troubling about the bill. I want to express gratitude to Ranking Member Senator Ingram and Senator Liston. During testimony, both senators regularly used their time for questioning to encourage the opponents testifying against the bill to further discuss their positions or to drive home especially critical concerns.
As the hours of testimony continued, the folks from Honesty for Ohio Education were generous enough to provide pizza to those of us who remained. Groups that care about the quality of education in Ohio take care of each other, and this was appreciated as we had spent many consecutive hours in the Senate House. In all, oral testimonies lasted 8 and a half hours.
In addition to the 998 people (a new record!) who provided written and oral testimony opposing the bill, there were also dozens of labor unions, numerous newspapers and editorials, and many institutions that support education who spoke out vehemently against the bill. It seems abundantly clear that the majority of people in Ohio do not support this draconian attack on education. In the final vote, many senators ignored the will of their constituents and voted yes to move this bill to the Ohio House (HB6) for consideration.
We were disappointed, certainly, but not surprised. It was predicted that SB1 would easily pass in the Ohio Senate. The fight is not over. The AAUP and others are working tirelessly to garner opposition in the House, to fight for amendments, and to encourage Gov. DeWine to veto, or at least line-veto, some of the most damaging elements of the bill. Faculty, students, and community supporters will continue to strategize, protest, and work to make our voices heard. This will take all of us, working together. We still need to reach out to our House legislators. We need to build community. We need to bolster our participation in the UC AAUP. We need to explain to the people in our communities that this bill isn’t about “indoctrination” or “freedom of speech.” The outcome of this bill will greatly reduce the quality of education in our state.
Quality public schools and universities are necessary to ensure the young adults, who will soon be leaders, politicians, educators, innovators, doctors, and community members have the necessary critical thinking skills, understanding of diverse experiences, and career skills to ensure the future of our country. As a mom of a bright and hard-working Junior at Cincinnati Public School’s Walnut Hills High School, I have long been awaiting the day my son would become both a second-generation college student and a second-generation Bearcat. I hoped he would love the university, the diversity, and the excitement of being surrounded by so many amazing ideas. But, as these repressive laws take shape and dismantle the quality of education in Ohio’s public universities, I have now encouraged him to start looking into schools in states where they value truth and protect the academic freedom needed to find it.
Nevertheless, I’m still looking for the bright side and working to build my community. We didn’t win this time, but I know we will not give up. Senator Cirino has previously claimed that a “strong silent majority” of Ohioans support this bill, but our record-breaking testimony proves otherwise. The large turnout at the UC protest against anticipatory compliance on SB1 and similar federal executive orders shows otherwise. We are a community: large, vocal, and determined.
On Sunday, February 23, I watched one of my personal heroes, Jane Fonda – longtime activist for causes like: civil rights, LGBTQ+ support, Native Americans, Feminism, the environment and the climate crisis, and unions – speak about the Lifetime Achievement Award she was granted at the SAG-AFTRA Awards. The words she spoke are relevant to our current fight.
“I’m a big believer in unions. They have our backs, they bring us into community, and they give us power. Community means power. This is really important right now when workers’ power is being attacked and community is being weakened. . .
Have you ever watched a documentary of one of the great social movements . . . ask yourself, would you have been brave enough to walk the bridge, take the hoses and the batons and the dogs? We don’t have to wonder anymore because we are in our documentary moment. . . [W]e mustn’t for a moment kid ourselves about what is happening. This is big time serious, folks, so let’s be brave. . . We must not isolate. We must stay in community. We must help the vulnerable.”
It would be easy to recede into despair, to disconnect, and to fear and distrust those around us. The current climate of education can feel overwhelming and hopeless. I refuse to give into the easy out. Instead, I am choosing to be brave and to maintain optimism. I will continue to build my network and community. I will write to my legislators, I will protest, and I will continue to seek out ways that I can make a difference. I ask that you do the same. I know the UC AAUP will support us and all the others who are brave enough to stay in this moment and continue to advocate for truth, freedom, diversity, inclusion, and justice.
Protest Matters
by Chris Campagna
Witnessing the unprecedented onslaught of federal and state action aimed at dismantling our country’s renowned system of higher education, the UC community can’t help but feel shock, dread, and perhaps worst of all, powerlessness.
Programming note: We are not powerless!
The might of the collective can provide a significant buttress to the radical measures being taken to undermine our universities, and, indeed, our democracy itself.
This is not just wishful thinking. Note the influence of the protests of the past few weeks at town halls and congressional offices around the country:
- As reported by the Washington Post, on February 20 Republican U.S. Rep. Richard McCormick held a town hall in his Georgia district and was met with hundreds of angry constituents protesting his lack of response to the slashing of federal workers’ jobs. Apparently moved by this showing, McCormick later told the Post that he would be asking the Trump administration for more coordination with Congress and for them to show “compassion” for the people losing their jobs.
- NBC reports that also on February 20 Republican Rep. Scott Fitzgerald faced angry questioning over Elon Musk’s rampage through the federal bureaucracy. Later he told reporters that Musk needed to be more transparent with Congress: “We don’t know what they’re looking at…I’m learning about this when I see a broadcast as much as anyone else right now because we haven’t been briefed on it.”
And right here at UC in the past few weeks we had a clear example of collective protest forcing leaders to take actions or speak out in situations where they’d clearly rather not. President Pinto posted a memo on February 21 that was quickly distributed throughout social media and mocked as a leading example of anticipatory obedience to threats by state and federal government. In this note he told the UC community that in light of President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, the “Dear Colleague” letter of Feb 14, and Senate Bill 1’s consideration in the Ohio legislature, that “Ohio public and federally supported institutions like ours have little choice but to follow the laws that govern us.”
Since Senate Bill 1 has still yet to be passed, and the federal executive orders and advisements have still yet to be tested in court, many at our university were concerned enough about the administration “folding like deck chairs” (as AAUP national president Todd Wolfson describes this kind of premature capitulation) that on February 24 and 25 they came out in force to protest. Hundreds of students, staff and faculty gathered on West Campus on those two days and loudly expressed their dissatisfaction with UC’s meek response to these threats to its core mission. Students rightfully (and righteously!) took the lead on both days, demanding answers to questions that the community had been asking for weeks with no answer.
After the protests it finally received a response. In contrast to his earlier hesitance to speak in support of UC’s long-standing commitment to creating a welcome, supportive environment for all, President Pinto told local news after the Board of Trustees meeting on February 25 that “Right now, all of the programs that we have in DEI continue….SB1 has not been passed yet. At this point, they are continuing as they have in the past.” He even managed to articulate a principle upon which UC would stand, when he claimed, “while laws may change, the school’s values will not,” and then, later, in an official statement, said:
“I believe there is great goodness in every member of our university community, and together we will successfully emerge from this time of immense change. Know that you have a place here, you belong here, and we will do everything in our power to provide you with an opportunity to meet your full potential as a member of the Bearcats community.”
These remarks, in addition to his retraction of the “biological” male and female bathroom signs that he claimed were posted as a mistake and, also, to faculty reports of behind the scenes administrative instruction to throttle back the anti-DEI-fication of UC’s campus, surely indicate that we have the ability to drive change through social action.
We may not always win complete victories, and we may have to push back over a long period, but, in these challenging times, we can be heartened by the notion that if people come together to speak truth to power we can make a difference. We just have to keep it up.
Political Overwhelm and Strategies for Coping
by Amber Peplow
Do you feel afraid to check your phone in the morning? Do you feel like you exist in an alternate universe? Do you feel paralyzed and numb by the rapid-fire policy changes and executive orders? Please know that you are not alone! Since taking office a little over a month ago, Trump has issued 81 executive orders – more in the first 100 days of any president in more than 40 years. * At the same time, Jerry Cirino has launched SB 1, a nearly 70-page piece of legislation that touches over 24 different aspects of higher education in Ohio. In addition, to the changes and proposed changes to DEI in higher education, the cutting of workers and funding across the government under DOGE led by Elon Musk threatens not just higher education but the services that we, our families, our friends, our colleagues, and our students depend on. We have also seen changes in policy that has led to the deportation of illegal immigrants and an escalating trade war. Anyone of these changes would be frightening, but taken all together, they threaten to sweep us away into a state of overwhelm and paralysis.
In episode 90 “Political Burnout is Real: How to Change the World Without Breaking Yourself” of The Scenic Route podcast, sociologist Jennifer Walter explains that your feelings of overwhelm are not only natural, but the intended goal of releasing so many changes at one time. Walter references Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine to explain that political actors use the chaos created by releasing so many policy changes at once to push through radical neoliberal economic policy changes such as deregulation and privatization. The chaos created by the sheer number of policy changes at one time creates chaos and people are too disoriented to resist because people’s cognitive limits have been strategically exploited.
Walter points out that media theorist Marshall McLuhan predicted that humans would become passive and disengaged. The large number of political changes prevent citizens and the media from being able to sufficiently analyze any single policy and to see the collective impact of the policies together. Walter uses agenda setting theory to explain that the simultaneous competition of multiple policies for attention fragments discourse and prevents the media from having enough resources to cover each issue which leads to superficial and shallow coverage of these issues.
The breakdown of discourse is extremely problematic because democratic systems are built upon the deliberative and thoughtful consideration of changes. When these changes are coming so rapidly on such short timelines, the checks and balances in the system start to fail. As a result, the radical shifts in policy can be pushed through with minimal resistance because those in power are executing well thought out plans while the rest of us are still in shock.
Walter offers the following 3 strategies to help you cope and more effectively resist during these trying times:
- The Power of Two: Walters suggests that you pick the two most important issues to you and follow just those two issues so that you can maintain your stamina.
- Build Your Squad: With a group of friends, divvy up issues to follow. Devise a system to share notes and insights with each other on your assigned issues. This divided workload will help reduce your cognitive load while allowing you to keep up with the various issues in meaningful ways.
- The 48-Hour Rule: Except in the case of extreme emergencies, wait 48 hours before responding to breaking news so you can do so thoughtfully instead of reactively.
*For a full list of executive orders and links to their text, go to https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/advanced-search?field-keywords=&field-keywords2=&field-keywords3=&from%5Bdate%5D=&to%5Bdate%5D=&person2=375125&category2%5B%5D=58&items_per_page=50
AAUP Membership Surges
by Phoebe Reeves, CAPE Chair
It’s already been a year, hasn’t it? 2025 is shaping up to a defining moment for our country, for our state, for unions, for higher education. It isn’t all bad news, though. In difficult moments, we are often given the gift of solidarity—of coming together more strongly, and with a clarity of vision that can carry us through the challenges we face.
Since January, almost 100 faculty from our bargaining unit have stepped up to join us as members of the AAUP. Others are also starting to show up, ask questions, and think about the power collective bargaining can give them. This is a wonderful time for all of us to have conversations with new hires, people who came to the University during the chaos of the COVID years, and even those who have been non-members for many years.
Organizers think about these conversations not as a win/lose situation (Win = new member, lose = no new member), but as a chance to find out where a colleague stands on key issues, what they are proud of, worried about, and where we might engage them further in the future. Generally, organizers rate conversations with non-members on a scale of 1-5. A “1” is someone who signs up for membership enthusiastically, or who is already a member and wants to get more involved. A “5” is someone who is openly and flatly hostile toward the union. Our goal when engaging in conversation depends on where someone falls on this scale. For a “5,” we politely disengage and make a note to try again in a year or so. For a “1,” we make sure we connect them with opportunities to get more involved.
The really fun work, however, is with everyone in the middle. Let’s say you talk with a new hire and they are hesitant to join because they fear administrative retaliation. Or they had a bad experience with the union at their last place of employment. They might be a 2 or a 3. You aren’t going to get them to sign a membership form today. But you can keep engaging with them, building community, inviting them to events, and earing their trust. Good organizing is the work that moves someone from a 3 to a 2, and then from a 2 to a 1, and then asks them to help with the leadership work of the organization.
There is no better time than right now for all of us to be engaging in this work. You don’t need permission from anyone, but you can certainly work with your Associate or with other AAUP colleagues. Talk with people, especially new hires. Find out what they care about, what they are worried about, and connect that with the work the AAUP is doing right now to protect their academic freedom, their bargaining rights, and in some cases, even the very existence of their majors and programs. Invite them to join us.
Let’s end 2025 with well over 50% membership. If we all stand together, we can accomplish incredible things.