On Wednesday, October 30, OCAAUP President John McNay testified on behalf of the Ohio Conference as an interested party on Senate Bill 181.

SB 181 would require the Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education to establish a workforce-education template for Ohio’s colleges and universities to use, should they so choose.

A workforce-education program is one that connects students to job opportunities, where the employer would assist the students with tuition costs.

The idea is that — between the employer and institution financial aid — the students who participate will graduate debt-free.

In his testimony, Dr. McNay told the Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee that the Conference supports the intent of the legislation, but relayed concerns that faculty have about the financial arrangement. He recommended that the legislation should be changed so that responsibility of costs is clarified.

McNay stated, “The bill does not specify that the employer must cover a certain amount of costs. Additionally, the legislation merely says that the institution of higher education and employer must seek out additional funding sources for any costs of attendance not covered by the employer or financial aid.”

The Senate committee favorably reported the bill without amendment. We intend to keep working with legislators to encourage more specificity in the enabling legislation for this program.

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.