Legislative Hearing Summary
On Tuesday, October 15, Prof. David Jackson, president of the Bowling Green State University chapter of the AAUP, delivered opponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio Conference AAUP to the Ohio Senate Education Committee on Senate Bill 40.

Senate Bill 40, dubbed the “Forming Open and Robust University Minds (FORUM) Act,” also has been called the “campus free speech” bill. However, the bill has very little to do with free speech, and instead wants to impose rules on public institutions of higher education that would force them to host any speaker on campus and would create new mandates that likely would lead to more bureaucracy.

In his testimony, which you can watch below, Dr. Jackson relayed the AAUP’s 1992 statement On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes, which states, “On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.”

“However,” Jackson said, “there is a substantial difference between banning an idea and disallowing a controversial speaker that would cause massive disruption and create crowds that campus police could not control.”

Sen. Andrew Brenner (R-Powell), one of the primary sponsors of the bill, said a recent poll showed more than 70% of students who identify as Republicans are afraid to disclose their political leanings for fear that it will negatively affect their grades.

In response, Prof. Jackson said that there is a difference between perception and reality, and that polls measure perceptions. He later said that students are not graded on their beliefs, but on their knowledge of the material being taught.

The committee adopted a substitute version of the bill during the hearing, which Sen. Brenner described as being more in line with the companion bill (HB 88) in the House.

Thank you to Dr. Jackson for testifying on behalf of OCAAUP!

To learn more about “campus free speech” legislation, read this report by National AAUP.

TAKE ACTION!
We encourage our members to contact members of the Ohio Senate Education Committee to tell them you are opposed to the FORUM Act/”Campus Free Speech” bill.

To e-mail all members of the committee, use the following e-mail addresses:
brenner@ohiosenate.gov; coley@ohiosenate.gov; fedor@ohiosenate.gov;gavarone@ohiosenate.gov; mhuffman@ohiosenate.gov; shuffman@ohiosenate.gov; lehner@ohiosenate.gov; maharath@ohiosenate.gov; manning@ohiosenate.gov; sykes@ohiosenate.gov

Here is a sample message:
Subject: Reject SB 40, the so-called “Campus Free Speech” bill

Senator,

As a professor at [insert your institution here], I can tell you that there is no problem with free speech on campuses. Ohio’s institutions of higher education are bastions of the free exchange of ideas. Colleges and universities have done well balancing free speech and the safety of our campus communities. SB 40, the so-called FORUM Act or “Campus Free Speech” bill, very simply, is unnecessary.

Please reject SB 40 and allow our institutions to continue operating without new, needless state mandates.

Thank you for your time,

[Your Name]

Last week, the Ohio Conference signed onto a letter opposing the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System’s (OPERS) plan to create a new tier of pension benefits for future hires known as “Group D.”

The letter also was signed by the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT), Ohio Education Association (OEA), Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The difference between the proposed Group D benefits and current Group C benefits are substantial. Group D beneficiaries would face increased age and service requirements, reduced calculation of pension benefits, double the years to calculate the final average salary, and a reduced cost of living adjustment (COLA).

We believe the proposed reduction in benefits for future hires is unnecessary, unfair, and also may dissuade people from choosing public service careers. We continue to fight for quality pensions for our members in OPERS, as well as the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS).

Background
During the 132nd General Assembly (2017-2018), Rep. Ron Young (R-Leroy Twp.) had introduced House Bill 66, a bill that would have required a minimum undergraduate teaching load for university tenured faculty. The underlying assumption was that tenured faculty are not in the classroom enough, especially with undergraduates.

In testimony that the Ohio Conference AAUP delivered to the House Higher Education Committee, we explained that the problem is not that tenured/tenure-track faculty are not teaching enough, but that institutions do not have enough tenured/tenure-track faculty and full-time faculty in general. We also provided data on how little it would cost universities to convert adjunct positions to full-time positions.

Virtually all interested parties were opposed to HB 66, and the bill’s sponsor agreed to change the legislation to a study committee on Ohio’s public universities’ commitment to their undergraduate missions.

Formation and Work of the Committee
The “Undergraduate Mission Study Committee” (UMSC) was formed at the end of the summer, met twice in September, and submitted its final report to legislative leaders on October 7.

The members of the committee were:
–          Rep. Rick Carfagna (co-chair)
–          Sen. Stephanie Kunze (co-chair)
–          Rep. Candice Keller
–          Rep. Catherine Ingram
–          Sen. Theresa Gavarone
–          Sen. Vernon Sykes
–          Chancellor Randy Gardner
–          Bruce Johnson (President, IUC)
–          Dan Krane (Chair, Ohio Faculty Council)
–          Dr. Lauren McMills (Professor, Ohio University)
–          Dr. Bruce McPheron (Provost, The Ohio State University)
–          Daniel Palmer (Student, University of Toledo)
–          Dr. Ben Givens (Professor, The Ohio State University)
–          Dr. Joe Whitehead (Provost, Bowling Green State University)
–          Adrian Williams (Student, Wright State University)

In addition to the three House members, Dr. McMills, Dr. McPheron and Mr. Palmer were appointed by the Speaker of the House. In addition to the three Senators, Dr. Givens, Dr. Whitehead, and Mr. Williams were appointed by the Senate President. All other members were mandated by HB 66.

The committee was charged with summarizing how universities currently are committed to the undergraduate missions of their institutions, as well as determining how universities could further enhance contributions by faculty to the undergraduate missions.

The final report of the UMSC was generally very positive for faculty. The 70-page document is mostly comprised of appendix documentation. For better or worse, the committee strictly adhered to its six (6) statutory mandates, and did not deviate with much extraneous commentary.

Our Amendment
“Requirement 6” — “Review of the faculty composition at each institution based on employment status, including tenured faculty, full-time tenure track faculty, full-time non-tenure track faculty, and part-time faculty” was an amendment that we had worked on with committee members to ensure that the influx of non-tenure-eligible faculty was studied.

The report noted: “Per the IUC survey (Appendix A); most Ohio public universities had an increase in non-tenure-eligible faculty, while full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty numbers remained relatively stagnant. The committee recognizes that both tenured and non-tenured faculty play an integral role in fulfilling the undergraduate mission at our state universities, and supports efforts to ensure that faculty, regardless of classification, are provided with the support and tools required to operate effectively.”

We appreciate the work of the UMSC, and hope that the committee’s report will help Members of the General Assembly better understand how universities serve undergraduates, and consider how they can provide more support to all faculty.

In accordance with our Code of Regulations (what we call our constitution and by-laws), this will serve as notice to our members of the proposed changes to the Code of Regulations to be approved at our upcoming Annual Meeting.

The changes that we are proposing are to reflect the restructuring changes made over the summer at the National AAUP Annual Meeting.
For instance, the National AAUP now will have a biennial — not annual — meeting, so all references to the “annual” meeting are being changed to “biennial.”

In addition, the Assembly of State Conferences (ASC) will be dissolved, so all references to the ASC will be removed.

The proposed changes also will remove references to the National Council representatives for Ohio, as those positions no longer will exist.

You may view the proposed changes as track changes in Microsoft Word by clicking here. The “clean” version can be viewed here.

At our September 7, 2019 meeting, the Ohio Conference AAUP Board unanimously endorsed the firearm background check ballot initiative spearheaded by Ohioans for Gun Safety.

The initiative would close the background check loopholes on gun sales, which is supported by 90% of Ohioans.

Experts agree background checks are among the most effective steps available to impact gun violence. In the 20 states that have acted to strengthen background checks, gun violence is significantly reduced.

Why is a faculty association getting involved in a gun safety issue? A few reasons:

1. During the 131st Ohio General Assembly, legislators passed House Bill 48, allowing for “campus carry;” in other words, allowing conceal/carry permit holders to carry their guns on campus. If firearms are going to be permitted on our campuses, we want to ensure that the weapons are carried by people who passed a background check. Gun-related incidents on campuses nationwide have been on the rise. We should do our part to make sure the trend doesn’t hit Ohio colleges and universities.
   
2. The National AAUP has long held a position that the presence of firearms on campus is a threat to academic freedom and the general welfare of campus communities. The Ohio Conference passed a resolution to that effect, too, as well as voicing opposition to the aforementioned HB 48, at our 2015 Annual Meeting.
   
3. The recent mass shooting in Dayton, a city home to both Wright State University and the University of Dayton. Campus shootings and mass shootings are not distinct phenomena; our campus communities are all linked inextricably to the broader communities in which we are located and which we serve–a connection to community that is centrally emphasized in the mission statements of a number of our institutions.

We know that not all of our members may agree with the decision to endorse this ballot initiative, but hope that everyone can respect that this was a thoughtful process, one based on AAUP precedent and genuine concern for our places of work, and the teaching, learning, and research that occur there.

Currently, Ohioans for Gun Safety has a volunteer effort to collect signatures to: first, put the proposal in front of the legislature to choose to act on; and if they fail to act, second, put it in front of Ohio voters either on the 2020 or 2021 statewide ballot.

To learn more about the ballot initiative, help collect signatures, donate to the effort, and more, visit http://ohioansforgunsafety.com/.