Send An Email to Your State Legislators TODAY!

We need you to speak up and speak out against HB 698, the so-called “SB 1 Compliance Supplemental Appropriations Act.” The sponsor of the bill and chair of the committee, Rep. Tom Young cut off opponent testimony on the bill after only an hour earlier this week and has now given proponents of the bill the floor. The best way to share your concerns with HB 698 is to contact your legislators and tell them to stop HB 698.

Click HERE to Help Stop HB 698.

Working with our partners, we’ve made it easy for you to contact your legislators and tell them to oppose HB 698. Click the link above to be directed to the email campaign where in less than 5 minutes you can send a letter to your state representative and state senator to let them know you oppose HB 698.

Don’t Let Them Silence You!

Supporters of HB 698 are pointing to the “low” amount of opponent testimony on HB 698, 172 submissions compared to 1,700+ on SB 1, as an indication that their constituents aren’t opposed to this new attack on higher education.

What they don’t tell you is all the ways the sponsor and chair of the committee worked to silence faculty: maneuvering the order of hearings; giving opponents less than two business days to submit testimony; and scheduling the bill at the end of the semester when most students and faculty have already left campus or are in the throes of finals and end of semester grades.

HB 698 is Bad for Higher Education, Faculty & Students

• HB 698 is another attack on academic freedom, tenure, and collective bargaining.
• HB 698 further demonizes diversity, equity, and inclusion and those who worked in that space.
• HB 698 creates watch lists of certain employees and creates working conditions that are barriers to employment.
• HB 698 includes tens of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates.
• HB 698 gives policy makers another weapon to cut higher ed funding.
• HB 698 will cause tuition to skyrocket–pricing Ohio families out of higher education.

No Need For HB 698/Overcompliance Of SB 1

· There is no need for HB 698. The ink was barely dry on SB 1 before HB 698 was introduced and there surely wasn’t enough time to evaluate compliance.

· Many of the SB 1-related policies were not required to be adopted by boards of trustees until Dec. 31, 2025. Yet, this bill was introduced on February 12, 2026.

· The SSI Compliance Report, which is the existing mechanism by which the Chancellor of the Board of Higher Education can withhold funds, wasn’t due until Feb. 1, 2026—less than two weeks before HB 698 was introduced.

· Widespread non-compliance is actually a myth. Faculty report that there is strong compliance, more often overcompliance, with SB 1. For example, administrations are using SB 1 to delay contract negotiations, refuse to bargain on permitted subjects, expand retrenchment and erode tenure, and ignore decades of shared governance.

Unfunded Mandates/Increase Cost of Education

· There is no need for millions of dollars to be spent on creating surveillance and compliance systems. The massive red tape and unfunded mandates will drive up tuition costs.

· Playing political games with higher education doesn’t make college more affordable or grow the economy. Investing in it does.

· Administrators already outnumber faculty 3:1. HB 698 should be called the Employ Administrators And Compliance Officers Act.

· HB 698 will lead to further disinvestment in education, like instruction and curriculum, to support the bureaucracy that the legislation requires.

· Investing in education and instruction would be an exponentially better use of taxpayer dollars and help advance the missions of Ohio’s colleges and universities. HB 698 does not improve the quality of education.


Retrenchment & Program Elimination

· HB 698 greatly expands the conditions for retrenchment which historically has only been triggered by financial exigency—or severe financial crisis.

· Programs that have steady enrollment will be eligible for retrenchment under HB 698. Program growth is required. A program can be eliminated even if it continues to have the same number of students as it did in the past.

· The number of students accepted into a program is based on many things—workforce needs, the rigor of the program, and the number of students that can be served within existing resources such as classroom space, lab space, and the number of faculty.

· Not all programs should be growing. HB 698 encourages, actually requires, artificial and unnecessary growth; rather than alignment with market demand or resource allocation.

DEI Provisions

· HB 698 would require universities to publicly provide the names, job responsibilities, and salaries of certain employees and to produce “justification reports” defending those positions.

· 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 is much worse as it requires the singling out of specific categories of employees for special scrutiny and basically puts them on a watch list which raises serious constitutional questions.

· HB 698 creates intentional barriers to the employment of minorities and people from marginalized communities and creates different working conditions for them.


Attack on Higher Education

· When legislators target higher education — by cutting funding, restricting academic freedom, undermining shared governance, weakening collective bargaining protections, and politicizing what can be taught — it raises a troubling question about motive. The passing of SB 1and the introduction of HB 698 shows a pattern that is difficult to ignore.

· An informed public asks hard questions, challenges those in power, and actively participates in civic life. Weakening education weakens that foundation.


Negative Consequences/Ripple Effect

· Policies like SB 1 and HB 698 don’t just affect campus culture — they affect workforce development, research capacity, and our ability to attract and retain top faculty, students, and employers.

· Public education has long been a proven pathway to economic mobility and opportunity, particularly for working families and first-generation students.

· Strong public colleges and universities strengthen our economy, our workforce, and our democracy. Undermining them weakens us all.

Acton’s support for publicly funded colleges & universities and the faculty and staff who sustain them earns higher ed faculty endorsement

COLUMBUS — The Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors (OCAAUP) has announced that they have endorsed Dr. Amy Acton for Governor, following a vote by the organization’s Board of Trustees. The Ohio Conference represents more than 5,000 faculty in Ohio.

“Institutions of higher education are foundational to the intellectual, cultural, and economic vitality of our state. Professors and academic professionals play a central role in advancing knowledge, educating future generations, and contributing to research and public service. We are proud to endorse Dr. Amy Acton for Governor because of her strong support for publicly funded colleges and universities and the faculty and staff who sustain them,” Dr. Gretchen McNamara, President of the OCAAUP Board of Trustees, said.

“It is such an honor to receive the endorsement of The Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors. My professors at Youngstown State and OSU always had my back, and as governor, I will always have theirs,” said Dr. Amy Acton. “While my opponent would shutter some of Ohio’s treasured colleges and universities, as governor, I will fight to protect teacher’s unions, restore public school funding and make Ohio a national leader in education again.”

McNamara applauded Acton for her support of policies that reduce barriers to student access and success. She also said Acton understands that delivering high quality education requires policies that support academic freedom, shared governance, fair faculty compensation, and research funding.

“Dr. Acton understands the challenges facing Ohio’s working families and has demonstrated her commitment to strengthening public higher education through increased funding, affordability initiatives, and support for faculty and institutional independence.”

“When billionaires make the rules and pass the laws, Ohioans lose. Ohio needs a governor who cares about working families and working students. Dr. Acton doesn’t just understand this, she lived it, working multiple jobs to pay her way through Youngstown State University and then Northeastern Ohio University Colleges of Medicine,” McNamara said.

McNamara pointed to Acton’s gubernatorial opponent’s plans to consolidate colleges and universities as an example of him being out of touch with Ohio families, anti-education, and anti-opportunity.

“We don’t need consolidation, we need investment. Dr. Acton understands that publicly funded colleges and universities depend on sustained and equitable state investment to fulfill their mission of accessible, high-quality education for all Ohioans,” McNamara said. “She knows first-hand that education is the pathway to economic opportunity—not only for Ohio families but also the long-term prosperity of our state.”

According to McNamara, most students who are hit by a college closing will be forced to give up on their education. Studies show that less than half of students will enroll at another school and just over 15% will finish and get their degrees. She explained that nearly 98% of community college students are commuters. That number drops at four-year colleges and universities because most have strict policies that require students to live on campus freshman and sophomore years so they can’t commute until junior year.

“For Ohio’s working families, the most economical way to attend college is to live at home. Next is to work full time and take classes outside of work hours. You can’t do either of those things if your school closes and you now have a two hour drive each way to go to class,” McNamara said.

College and university consolidation would take the state backward, hurt students and families, harm local businesses, and devastate small and nearby communities, according to McNamara.

Local businesses instantly lose about 80% of their customer base when a nearby college closes and there’s a domino effect of increased unemployment, vacant storefronts, declines in property values, and the loss of resident access to things like libraries, rec centers, and art and cultural centers that were part of the school.

“Perhaps these are things a billionaire wouldn’t care about. But consolidation means closings—closing the door to education, closing the door to opportunity, closing the doors of small businesses. Closing the local college—whether a 2-year or 4-year– will absolutely destroy a community.”
While devastating to local communities, the economic blow from college consolidation would be felt statewide. A 2023 study by the Inter-University Council of Ohio found that colleges and universities have a $68.9 billion economic impact on the state or nearly 9% of the state’s gross state product. Closing colleges and universities would also significantly increase unemployment in Ohio since 1 in 8 jobs are tied to colleges and universities.

-30-

The mission of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors (OCAAUP) is to preserve and advance academic freedom, shared governance, the general welfare of college and university professors, and to promote the greater social good that comes from a dynamic, active professoriat.

You asked, we answered.

We heard from so many of you during our Facebook Retrenchment Race to the Bottom— asking what you can do about these policies, looking for contact information for the various boards of trustees, sharing your experiences with retrenchment…

The information wasn’t the easiest to find. But, you have a right to make your voice heard on this and other issues impacting higher education. 

The final five in the Retrenchment Race to the Bottom were Wright State University, University of Akron, University of Toledo, Youngstown State University, and Central State University.  Contact information for the boards of trustees at these universities can be found below.

Central State University Board of Trustees
Central State’s website directs correspondence and communications for the Board of Trustees be sent to Elizabeth Nash, Assistant Secretary of the Board and Office of the General Counsel
Email: enash@centralstate.edu
Phone: 937.376.6629
Address: 1400 Brush Row Road, P.O. Box 1004, Wilberforce, OH 45384
Website: https://www.centralstate.edu/about-csu-administration/board-trustees

University of Akron Board of Trustees
The University of Akron provides the following contact information for its Board of Trustees.
Email: BoardOffice@uakron.edu
Phone: 330.972.7873
Address: Office of the Board of Trustees, 302 Buchtel Common, Akron, Ohio 44325-4705
Website: https://www.uakron.edu/bot/index.dot

University of Toledo
The University of Toledo provides the following contact information for its Board of Trustees.
Email: BOT@utoledo.edu
Phone: 419.530.5660
Address: 2801 W. Bancroft St. MS 946, Toledo, OH 43606
Website: https://www.utoledo.edu/offices/trustees/

Wright State University Board of Trustees
Wright State’s website directs correspondence and communications for the Board of Trustees to be sent to the attention of Daniel Palmer, Secretary to the Board and Director of Government Affairs.
Email: daniel.palmer@wright.edu
Phone: 937-775-2199
Address: 286 University Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy, Dayton, OH 45435
Website: https://www.wright.edu/board-of-trustees

Youngstown State University Board of Trustees
Youngstown State’s provides very little information as to how to contact the Board of Trustees directly. As this information was not readily available on its website, it may be best to direct your communication to the attention of Anita Hackstedde, Secretary of the Board via the Office of the YSU President.
Email: unavailable
Phone: 330.941.3000 or 330.941.3101
Address: Tod Hall, 1 University Plaza, Youngstown, OH 44555
Website: https://ysu.edu/board-of-trustees/member-profiles

Cutting Faculty Positions Doesn’t Cut Costs; But Retrenchment Does Decrease the Quality of Education

Retrenchment has become so commonplace that it has been accepted as part of a broader shift in the higher education landscape. But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense.

First, faculty compensation –salaries and benefits—constitutes just 18%-25% of the budgets of Ohio’s public universities. When universities calculate the instructional costs, they typically report them as 55%-65% of the institutional budget. But faculty salaries amount to just a third to half of those reported costs.

At most of our universities, administrative compensation—salaries and benefits—constitute as much or more of the institutional budget as faculty compensation. The salaries of mid-level administrators are generally in the same range as those of faculty with higher ranks and seniority. Upper-level administrators receive salaries much higher than those received by anyone else in our universities—with the possible exception of some football and basketball coaches.

Retrenchment seldom involves upper-level administrators. When administrative cuts are made, it is almost always lower-level support staff whose positions are eliminated. Ironically, in many cases, those lower-salaried positions have actually been reported under the heading of instructional costs.

The major problem with retrenching faculty as a means of addressing budget problems is not only that faculty compensation is a relatively small part of university budgets but also that faculty teaching and research produces almost all of the revenue at our universities.

Just about everything else is supported by instruction and research.

It is a common misperception that intercollegiate athletics produce a great deal of revenue. But in Ohio, Ohio State University is the only public university at which intercollegiate athletics are self-supporting. At the other universities that field football teams, the athletics programs are supported by subsidies from the universities of $20 and $40 million per year.

In the mid-2010s, a study conducted at Ohio University revealed that students at Ohio’s public universities are, in effect, subsidizing intercollegiate athletics with at least $1,000 to $2,000 of their tuition per year.

Retrenchment means that students are getting even less for their tuition dollars that are actually supporting instruction. For full-time faculty are generally replaced by multiple part-time or adjunct instructors. Without undervaluing the efforts of these adjunct instructors, they generally do not have the credentials that full-time faculty have.

Because adjunct faculty either have other full-time employment or teach, by necessity, at several institutions, they are not generally on campus outside of class time and specific office hours. This limited availability means that students do not receive the mentoring that is often a very key component of their educations, particularly if courses in their majors are not being taught by full-time faculty.

Likewise, because adjunct faculty either have other full-time employment or teach, by necessity, at several institutions, they generally do not have the time or the resources to sustain active research and scholarship. And because a university’s academic reputation is largely defined by the research and scholarship that its faculty members produce, the value of the degrees that students earn is eroded when full-time faculty positions are cut and replaced with part-time positions.

Full-time faculty are annually evaluated on the quality of their teaching, their research and scholarship, and their service. Without undervaluing the efforts of administrators and support staff, most of the service to community groups and professional organizations is conducted by full-time faculty. This service establishes professional relationships of value to the universities as institutions and, more importantly, of value to the students who will reside in and contribute to those communities and engage with other professionals in their fields.

In sum, retrenching full-time faculty to compensate for overspending in other areas is the equivalent of a corporation investing in stock buybacks instead of in its core products and services—and then pegging executive salaries and bonuses to the stock price. This sort of practice may account, at least in part, for the fact that the average lifespan of the corporations on the S&P 500 has been between 15 and 20 years over the past decade compared to 67 years in 1960. The common political talking point has been that our universities need to be run like businesses. But our universities are not businesses. They are, instead, public institutions, and no one would want to replace or even reconfigure them every 15-20 years.

Another side of retrenchment is the elimination of programs with few recent graduates. On the surface, this seems like a commonsensical approach, but it actually reflects a simplistic notion of curricula.

If one examines in detail the recent reductions in majors at several Ohio universities, one finds that the elimination of a large number of majors results in surprisingly small numbers of faculty positions and course offerings being eliminated. This seeming incongruity is actually quite easily explained. The faculty members teach the courses for other higher-enrolled majors, but the low-enrolled majors reconfigure requirements to give students a broader variety of majors (and minors) from which to choose. So, despite the appearance of smart business management, eliminating most of the majors was not actually saving the universities much money, but they were, instead, simply eliminating options available to students. Many of the faculty retrenched ostensibly in conjunction with these large reductions in majors have actually had nothing to do with the eliminated majors.