Updates from Faculty Leaders

Update on University Response to Mutual Academic Defense Compact resolution.

In late May, faculty leaders met with President Carter and Provost Bellamkonda to discuss the resolution, and how university leadership can support collaborative cross-institutional efforts to defend higher education.  They wanted us to convey that they hear faculty concerns, and they shared their views on what they can and cannot do in this space.   

 

In terms of collective public statements defending the mission of higher education, President Carter told us that he had been working with the Council of Competitiveness to draft a joint statement.  This statement was released on May 22, with President Carter joining a number of other university presidents and industry leaders as a signatory.  We will share further updates here as they become available. 

 

The president also spoke about how the university engages with and supports Big Ten colleagues.  This includes formal meetings through the Big Ten Academic Alliance and regular discussions with each other as peers (Big Ten presidents meet regularly; Big Ten provosts meet regularly, etc).  OSU also has a common interest privilege with the other schools in the Big Ten that allows leaders to discuss privileged matters that fall within the scope of our defined common interests without waiving the attorney client privilege.  They assured us that these long-standing forms of cooperation remain important mechanisms for understanding, assessing, and addressing matters that impact us all as higher education institutions. 

 

In terms of the MADC resolution’s request for the university to pool money into a mutual defense fund and to provide legal resources (including university legal personnel) to support other institutions, the university’s general counsel told us that this sort of generalized funding support is not consistent with Ohio law.  More specifically, we were told the following:   

  • State institutions generally cannot indemnify other institutions, and requiring state funds to go to support out-of-state organizations’ legal needs would effectively be a form of indemnification.  See generally Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 22 and Article VII, Section 3; Ohio Revised Code Section 3335.10; and Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 96-060.  In all the contracts we agree to as the university, we are prohibited from agreeing to indemnification of another party; this type of arrangement would cause a similar problem. 
  • Ohio’s Attorney General, Dave Yost, has jurisdiction over Ohio State’s legal affairs, but he is not supportive of OSU undertaking direct legal action to challenge the Trump administration.  More specifically: pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.02, 109.12, 3335.14, and 3345.15, the Ohio Attorney General has the ultimate legal authority over all state entities including public universities, and all formal legal action by OSU must run through the Attorney General’s office.  The university can neither offer OSU attorneys to practice in another state nor accept the legal services of outside attorneys without the Attorney General’s approval. 

 

In sum, the president, provost and general counsel reiterated that they understand the faculty’s desire for a stronger public defense of the mission of higher education (and Ohio State).  The president and provost both stated that they remain committed to publicly defending academic freedom and the important work of universities. However, because of the issues highlighted by the General Counsel's office, they are unable to endorse the MADC. If you have feedback that you would like us to share with university leadership at future meetings, we encourage you to share your thoughts via email—senate@osu.edu. 

 

Buckeye Barriers Survey and Next Steps

We thank everyone who took the time to respond to our Buckeye Barriers survey.  With 713 responses, many of which included multiple examples of burdensome red tape, you provided us with a lot of helpful (granular) data—as indicated in this survey summary.  We have already shared top-line results with Provost Bellamkonda and discussed some of the questions they raise. (How much of the red tape at OSU is required by law or best practice vs how much of it is a technology or policy choice? If it’s a choice, what would be the tradeoffs of choosing differently? Etc.)  We plan to share the results with President Carter later this month and will work with OAA and the President’s cabinet to identify productive next steps.  We plan to provide regular updates on process and progress to Faculty Council in the coming year. 

 

Updates on SB1 Implementation.

The provost recently sent two communications  to university leadership about SB1 implementation.  As you will see, these communication are fairly high-level, so here is a summary with some additional information based on meetings that Senate Faculty Leaders had with various university administrators. 

  • SB1 implementation is being organized by a coordinating committee comprised of members from OAA, Legal, Compliance, and Government Affairs. 
  • They are convening approximately 20 different workstreams, to address various required SB1 deliverables.  Right now, Faculty Leaders are aware of the following workgroups/workstreams:
    • University Statements/Affirmations.  SB1 requires that the university make certain public commitments/affirmations related to intellectual diversity, etc.
    • Syllabi Compliance.  Working on how to meet the requirements for public-facing syllabi with specific information on academic credentials, etc. 
    • Intellectual Diversity Implementation.  Working on guidance for instructors around strategies and resources for providing intellectual diversity in the classroom.
    • Intellectual Diversity Investigation process.  Incorporating intellectual diversity complaints into the Free Speech hearing and investigation process, as required by SB1.
    • Annual Reviews. Updating the Annual Review and Reappointment policy to be compliant with new SB1 requirements that all faculty (tenure-track, CTP, and associated faculty) undergo an annual review, with specific evaluative criteria.
    • Post-Tenure Reviews. Updating the Rules of the University Faculty to be compliant with SB1’s requirement for a post-tenure review policy, which must include provisions for due process to be completed within 6 months.
    • SEIs.  Working on integrating SB1 requirement to include a question on bias in the classroom that must be part of faculty annual reviews.
    • Program Closures.  Working to meet SB1’s requirement that degree programs with fewer than 5 students over a 3-year period be closed.  Our understanding is that OAA is working with deans from the three affected colleges to meet the new requirements without damaging the integrity of the programs.  If you have questions about the program, contact your chair or dean.
    • Civics Literacy. Working on a plan to ensure that OSU meets the requirement that all Ohio undergraduates take a course on American civics prior to graduation, starting with the class of 2030. 

 

  • The workgroups are operating on different timelines. 
    • Some parts of SB1 require that OSU be in compliance within three months of the law passing (ie, by 27 June 2025).  For these areas, the goal is to get the university in immediate compliance—and then to continue to engage in conversation with campus constituents and make policy adjustments as necessary.  [Examples: annual review and post-tenure review policies, etc.]
    • Other pieces of SB1 are not set to go into effect until the fall of 2026, so the workgroups have a little more time to work through the issues.  [Examples: civics literacy, syllabus sharing, etc.] 

 

 

  • SB1 Consultation.  The Board and President have directed the SB1 coordinating committee to consult widely about SB1 implementation.  Although they obviously cannot consult all 100,000 members of the university community, they tell us they are soliciting feedback from all colleges and from shared governance bodies.     
  • Faculty leaders can confirm that faculty senators are serving on the following workstreams: syllabi, annual reviews, post-tenure review, and SEIs.  (There may be faculty/shared governance representation on the other workstreams; faculty leaders only have line of sight into some of these.)   
  • In addition to including relevant stakeholders on each workgroup, the SB1 compliance coordinating committee is also consulting with other campus constituents—including graduate student leaders (CGS, IPC), the university policy review committee, associate deans of curriculum, and faculty leaders, among others.
  • The one area where consultation is not taking place are the parts of SB1 requiring the university to make certain affirmations.  Because all of this is dictated by law, and there is no scope for discretion, compliance in this area will be achieved through a Board Policy. 

 

Ohio State Legislation

State Biennial Budget Updates.  The Ohio Senate recently released its version of the state budget.  Overall, state lawmakers are allocating less to higher education than was requested because they want to use this budget bill to deliver tax cuts.  Nevertheless, there were some bright spots in the Senate version of the proposed budget.  The House version had contained some concerning State Share of Instruction provisions which would have negatively affected Ohio State, but the Senate version removed this language and returned to the traditional SSI funding formula.  The Senate bill also included a softening of some of the language from the House version around Board approval of curricula, which would have weakened shared governance oversight. 

An analysis from the Legislative Services Commission, comparing the Senate version of the bill to both the House and Governor’s version, is available here.  Provisions related to Higher Ed start on page 400. 

 

HB1/SB88.  Several of you have contacted us about another Ohio bill which could negatively affect some of our international faculty.  HB1/SB88 would prohibit “foreign adversaries” from purchasing property within 25 miles of “critical infrastructure,” which could include things like cellphone towers.  In practice, this means that some of our international faculty would be unable to buy a home anywhere in the Columbus area- and current homeowners could have their property taken.  We spoke with the Office of Government Affairs, and they assured us that they are working to document the potential negative impacts of this bill on the university community, and are engaging in conversation with lawmakers to educate them.  We will keep you updated as we learn more. 

 

Federal Legislation/Actions

Federal funding: The Administration’s fiscal year 2026 federal budget request includes steep cuts for science across federal agencies. On May 31st, federal agencies began unveiling details of their proposed budget numbers, which include drastic cuts in many areas—some higher than anticipated.  This is in addition to the caps on indirect costs for the NIH and NSF.  For those interested, the AAAS has a useful dashboard summarizing budget proposals for science and technology programs in FY 2026.   

 

The implications for research are potentially devastating.  On May 30, American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) CEO Sudip Parikh issued a statement on the proposed FY26 federal science budgets, declaring that it would end America's global scientific leadership if enacted.  Similarly, the Ohio State chapter of Stand Up For Science recently issued a statement declaring Academic Distress as a result of grant cancellations at the university.   

 

Federal Financial Aid.  Additionally, the House recently passed a budget reconciliation bill which could have fiscal implications for higher education in the areas of financial aid.  Among these are changes to the federal Pell program (substantial cuts to maximum grants and requirements that students be enrolled full-time, raising access concerns) and to the federal student loan program (eliminating the graduate PLUS loan program and restricting parent PLUS loans, both of which would particularly affect professional students).  

 

Finally, visa revocations for international students continue to be a concern.  About two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the administration was pausing new student visa interviews to prepare for additional social media vetting.  This could impede the ability of students admitted to Ohio State and other universities to enter the country in time to begin their course of studies in the fall.  Then, two days later, Secretary Rubio announced a plan to revoke visas for students from China and Hong Kong.   

 

OSU is a member of several higher education organizations, including the American Council on Education (ACE), Association of American Universities (AAU) and the American Public Land Grant Universities (APLU).  All three organizations have signed onto a public letter to Secretary Rubio expressing deep concern over pauses of student visa interviews and asking for more information on the new policy revoking visas for Chinese students. 

 

Resources for International Students at OSU.  If Ohio State faculty hear that a student’s visa is revoked or their status terminated, they should encourage the student to immediately call Student Legal Services (SLS).  SLS is a non-profit law firm that contracts to serve Ohio State students.  All interactions with SLS fall under attorney-client privilege—even the act of making an appointment with them is confidential.    

  • The SLS website may say that they don’t have any appointments for a few weeks.  That is for “regular” cases.  But for international students facing a visa problem, SLS will get them a same-day or next-day appointment.  They recognize the urgency. 
  • SLS has a recently updated FAQ on their website: https://studentlegal.osu.edu/legal-issues/immigration 

 

Other resources for international students: