In a time of heightened uncertainty around campus activism and immigration enforcement, understanding your rights is essential. Join the University of Cincinnati-AAUP on Friday, March 6, from 3 – 5 p.m. for a Know Your Rights training focused on faculty activism and interactions, including those involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Gain insights from legal, labor, and community voices on how to navigate activism on campus.

This training is being held in conjunction with AAUP national office and open to all OCAAUP members. The webinar does require pre-registration and chapter leaders are strongly encouraged to participate.

To register in advance for this webinar please click HERE. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

HB 698 Analysis

FUNDING

HB 698 requires the Governor to “ensure” that future executive budgets set aside a portion of the State Share of Instruction (SSI) for institutional compliance. This directive raises separation-of-powers concerns, as the General Assembly is effectively instructing the Governor regarding budget recommendations. While the Ohio Constitution requires the Governor to submit a budget, the General Assembly retains ultimate authority to amend and pass appropriations legislation.

If the legislature wishes to condition SSI funding on compliance requirements, it may do so through the standard operating budget process.

• In FY 2027, $75 million in SSI was set aside in HB 96 for SB 1 compliance.
• HB 698 creates new compliance requirements, outlines a compliance process, and grants the Chancellor investigatory and determination authority.
• Future SSI set-aside amounts would be determined through the biennial budget process.

COMPLIANCE

Institutions must certify compliance within 90 days of enactment and annually by July 1 thereafter. The short timeline raises practical implementation concerns.

• Institutions that fail to certify compliance will have their SSI set-aside funds withheld for the fiscal year, even if compliance is later achieved.
• The Chancellor may audit records, require documentation, and conduct compliance reviews.
• If a compliance report is deemed recklessly false or fraudulent, withheld funds cannot be restored, and civil penalties may apply.
• Even after compliance is confirmed, the Chancellor may investigate subsequent alleged violations and withhold funding beginning with the first disbursement following a finding of non-compliance.

WORKLOAD

HB 698 significantly expands upon SB 1’s workload provisions and increases institutional authority to terminate faculty—including tenured faculty—for failure to meet workload policies.

• Faculty not meeting workload requirements may be censured, required to undergo remediation, or terminated for cause, regardless of tenure status.
• HB 698 removes the Chancellor’s joint authority (under SB 1) to develop instructional workload standards with institutions and grants boards of trustees (BoTs) exclusive authority.
• It eliminates flexibility previously built into standards requiring a “range of acceptable undergraduate teaching” and prohibits minimum workload standards below current levels.
• The Chancellor is prohibited from establishing alternative ranges or standards.

SB 1 required a “special emphasis” on undergraduate learning, allowing flexibility for research and other academic responsibilities. HB 698 instead requires a “primary emphasis” on undergraduate instruction—a phrase that may carry legal implications, potentially suggesting more than 50% of workload time. Unlike prior standards, HB 698 codifies rigidity and removes administrative flexibility to adapt standards without legislative action.

RETRENCHMENT

HB 698 prescribes a detailed retrenchment framework, going beyond SB 1. While SB 1 removed retrenchment from collective bargaining, it did not dictate process. HB 698 does so explicitly and excludes faculty from any defined decision-making role, further eroding shared governance.

• BoTs must adopt retrenchment policies within 90 days, following statutory minimum requirements that function as a model policy.
• The bill explicitly allows BoTs to exceed statutory minimums.
• BoTs have exclusive authority to initiate retrenchment and may delegate implementation to the president or provost. Deans may recommend but not initiate.
• The Chancellor reviews policies for compliance; non-compliant policies must be corrected within 60 days.

Expanded Triggers

HB 698 allows retrenchment for “any lawful academic or operational reason” determined by the BoT, including:

• Enrollment stagnation or decline
• Program reduction or discontinuation
• Organizational restructuring
• Business necessity
• Strategic alignment
• Financial emergency
• Any other lawful reason

These terms are broad and grant significant discretion. “Enrollment stagnation” lowers the threshold from SB 1’s “declining enrollment” standard and may not require multi-year decreases. “Organizational restructuring” could encompass virtually any administrative change.

Retention and Protections

• Seniority, tenure, rank, and length of service (except the 30/35-year provision) confer no retention rights.
• Faculty may not displace or “bump” others.
• Retrenchment is explicitly not performance-based; exceptional performance cannot justify retention.
• Procedural protections must be “substantially similar” to those historically provided, but “historically” is undefined.
• Appeals are limited to whether the institution “materially” complied with its policy and statute—a standard that may allow broad administrative discretion.

Voluntary separation agreements and buyouts are permitted but must be deemed cost-effective or in the institution’s financial or operational interest—terms that are undefined and discretionary.

DEI PROVISIONS

HB 698 reflects legislative concern that institutions are continuing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities.

Institutions are prohibited from reassigning or reclassifying positions to continue DEI functions. They must inventory employees who performed DEI functions as of January 1, 2025, and were reassigned by September 25, 2025.

The reporting requirements are extensive and include:

• Employee identifying information
• Prior DEI-related duties
• Reassignment details
• Salary changes
• New duties
• HR and general counsel attestations

Each employee requires a justification report including:

• Narrative explanation of reassignment
• Proof of substantially different duties
• Side-by-side job comparisons
• Compensation breakdown
• Ongoing compliance plan
• Attestation by general counsel

The president and BoT chair must certify the inventory. The Chancellor determines whether new duties are “substantially different” under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

These provisions are administratively burdensome and could discourage reassignment of former DEI employees. Because many former DEI staff come from historically underrepresented groups, the targeting and tracking provisions may raise potential Title VII concerns if they result in differential treatment based on protected characteristics. The public reporting requirement could also expose individuals to harassment.

EMPLOYEE TRACKING

HB 698 adds employees of state institutions of higher education to the searchable state and school employee database (Ohio Checkbook), expanding public access to salary and employment data.

Bill Is Another Attack on Higher Education, Academic Freedom, And Tenure Under the Guise of “Accountability”

Ohio Professors Strongly Oppose HB 698

The American Association of University Professors- Ohio Conference (OCAAUP) strongly opposes HB 698. The bill is an attempt to address a problem that does not exist. In doing so, HB 698 imposes exorbitant unfunded mandates on colleges and universities and further erodes academic freedom and tenure.

“This bill is another attack on higher education; it’s not about accountability.  It’s nonsensical to claim non-compliance when the ink is barely dry on SB 1,” Jennifer Tisone Price, OCAAUP Executive Director, said. “Even the sponsor of SB 1 said HB 698 isn’t necessary.”

Price explained that most SB 1 policies were not required to be adopted by boards of trustees until Dec. 31, 2025. She said the deadline for the SSI compliance report, which is the existing mechanism by which the Chancellor of the Board of Higher Education can withhold funds, is even more notable. That report wasn’t due until Feb. 1, 2026—less than two weeks before HB 698 was introduced.

“This bill is not about accountability. There is a clear pattern of this legislature introducing bills that erode public education rather than strengthen it. Higher education has long been a proven pathway to economic mobility and opportunity, particularly for working families and first-generation students. They should be supporting and investing in it.”

OCAAUP also firmly disputes the sponsor’s claim that HB 698 does not impose new restrictions or prohibitions than what was included in SB 1. Price pointed out that the bill includes numerous provisions that are intended to further erode academic freedom and tenure and to micromanage things like workload policies.

“HB 698 includes nearly five pages of new language around retrenchment,” Price said. “This bill basically gives boards of trustees absolute authority to initiate retrenchment for any reason and use it to destroy tenure protections and further erode academic freedom.”

Price said the retrenchment provisions of the bill make it easy for boards of trustees to sacrifice education to appease powerful special interests, partisan politics, or the influence of large donors. She said the bill goes so far as to specifically prohibit things like positive performance reviews in retrenchment decisions.

“One would think that universities would want to keep top teaching talent and researchers,” Price said. “The focus should be on making sure they retain professors who repeatedly receive outstanding student evaluations and peer reviews; are nationally recognized experts in their fields; enhance the school’s academic reputation, and bring in millions of dollars in research funding.”

In addition to the anti-education provisions of the bill, OCAAUP takes issue with the DEI provisions of the bill and the targeting, tracking, and scrutiny of certain categories of employees. Price noted HB 698 requires universities to publish “justification reports” naming, detailing the responsibilities of, and disclosing the salaries of employees who previously worked on diversity initiatives.

“When lawmakers targeted programs that have historically employed minorities, as they did with SB 1, it raised serious concerns about equity and fairness. HB 698 requires the singling out specific categories of employees for special scrutiny and basically puts them on a watch list which raises serious constitutional questions,” Price said.

OCAAUP is concerned about the costs associated with the unfunded mandates and compliance measures. Price said SB 1 compliance is costing colleges and universities tens of millions of dollars and HB 698 will significantly increase them.

“Investing in education and instruction would be an exponentially better use of taxpayer dollars than ideologically driven unfunded mandates. Supporters of HB 698 are pricing working families out of a college education. Why are legislators trying to make it even harder for parents to send their kids to college?”

-30-

Ohio’s Legislators Must Stop Attacking Higher Education!

Ohio’s public colleges and universities are under attack–AGAIN– and the people who will pay the price are students, workers, and communities across the state. House Bill 698 doubles down on a troubling pattern of legislation designed to politicize higher education, single out employees, and erode the academic freedom that makes our institutions worth attending. If you believe Ohio’s future depends on strong, independent public universities—free from political interference—we urge you to add your name to this petition and call on the Ohio General Assembly to reject HB 698.

Click HERE to sign the petition.

One of the most misunderstood concepts in higher education is tenure. No, it’s not a job for life. Yes, it is fundamental to safeguarding academic freedom.

Does tenure guarantee a job for life?
Tenure is not a guarantee of lifetime employment but rather a protection of academic freedom and a guarantee of due process. In terms of tenure, it means a professor cannot be dismissed for arbitrary reasons, such as departmental politics or disagreement with an administrator. Just like in other professions, termination can occur due to just cause such as misconduct or incompetence as well as a severe financial crisis at the college or university, or program elimination.

Tenure is also not a one and done achievement; there is continuous evaluation. Tenured professors receive performance reviews to support continued professional development, maintain high standards, and identify areas for improvement or remedial steps if performance is lacking.

Why is tenure important?
The principal purpose of tenure is safeguarding academic freedom, the foundation upon which the pursuit and transfer of knowledge is built and the common good is advanced. Tenure protects academic freedom by insulating faculty from the whims and biases of administrators, legislators, and donors, which allows them to contribute to the common good through teaching, research, and service activities. In short, this freedom is the right to teach, research, and publish ideas—even controversial ones—without the fear of institutional retaliation or job loss.

Tenure helps create an environment where scholars can, in good faith, pursue cutting edge research, exchange and challenge ideas, and reach evidence-based conclusions unimpeded by the threat of arbitrary dismissal. At its best, the tenure system is a big tent, designed to unite a diverse faculty within a system of common professional values, standards, rights, and responsibilities.

Do all professors have tenure?
No, there are fewer tenured professors today than at nearly any other time in history. Only about 32 percent of faculty members in the U.S. hold full time tenure or tenure track appointments. Colleges and universities have moved to using contingent or adjunct faculty which means they are not eligible for tenure.

Some argue this is for cost cutting purposes as non-tenure positions traditionally have lower salaries but that argument quickly falls flat since the hiring of administrators with bloated salaries skyrocketed during this same time period. There are now three times as many administrators and other professionals, basically non-teaching positions, as there are professors according to Forbes.

How does a professor earn tenure?
First, a professor must be hired for a position that offers tenure as most faculty positions are non-tenured. Professors must go through a rigorous multi-year process—typically 6-7 years—to be eligible to earn tenure. There are slight differences in timeframe by university. But all tenure track professors will be continuously reviewed during this time and ultimately must be able to demonstrate excellence in teaching, research and scholarship, and service. Basically, a tenure track professor spends the first part of their career in a very long probationary period.

• Research and Scholarship: Publishing original work in peer-reviewed journals or books and securing external research grants.
• Teaching: Demonstrating excellence in the classroom through student evaluations, peer reviews, and innovative curriculum development.
• Service: Contributing to the university and the broader academic community via committee work, advising students, and reviewing for journals.

Toward the end of the multi-year probationary period, the university will solicit independent evaluations from recognized experts in the person’s field at other universities. The dossier or body of work that they have compiled, will then be reviewed and voted upon within the university through a multi-level approval process which usually includes the department, the dean, the provost and ultimately the board of trustees as it is a binding long-term contract between the university and the professor.

Tenure is very much an “up or out” process. If a professor does not earn tenure within their multi-year “probationary” period, they are terminated. Clearly, tenure is not easily earned and it is worthy of protection.