Republican lawmakers in Columbus are turning up the pressure on Ohio's public colleges and universities with a new proposal that would track what happened to former diversity, equity and inclusion staff, and potentially put some state dollars on the line if schools do not play along.
Introduced in February, the proposal would make campuses spell out where ex-DEI employees landed after last year's SB 1 reforms, which restricted certain DEI activities and tied them to state higher-education policy. If institutions fail to turn in the required paperwork, a slice of their state funding could be withheld down the road.
House Bill 698 would require each public institution to prepare an inventory of employees who were performing DEI functions as of Jan. 1, 2025, and who were reassigned on or before Sept. 25, 2025. Schools would have to provide side-by-side job comparisons and documentation that the new roles involve "substantially different duties." Beginning with fiscal year 2028, which starts July 1, 2027, the bill authorizes the chancellor to withhold an institution's share of a set-aside of the State Share of Instruction if the required certification is not filed, and it treats recklessly false or fraudulent certifications as grounds for withholding funds and imposing civil penalties. Those provisions appear in the bill text, Ohio Legislature.
Opponents argue the measure is unnecessary and overly intrusive. Jennifer Tisone Price and other critics told Cleveland.com that SB 1 has been in effect for only one semester, that research duties at R1 campuses are essential to tenure and grant funding, and that singling out former DEI staff could disproportionately affect people of color. Cleveland.com also reported that universities said their DEI offices had been shuttered by July 2025.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom Young and formally filed on Feb. 12; on Feb. 18, the House referred HB 698 to the Workforce and Higher Education Committee, according to the Ohio House.
What The Paperwork Would Show
The proposal leans heavily on a detailed "justification report." Under HB 698, each institution would have to list the names, titles, units and duties of former DEI employees, lay out side-by-side comparisons of their old and new job responsibilities, and supply proof that the reassignments are more than a cosmetic relabeling of DEI work.
The measure also bars institutions from reassigning, reclassifying or otherwise disguising positions in order to continue functions that SB 1 prohibits. It directs boards of trustees to adopt retrenchment policies described in the legislation, tightening the screws on how campuses manage positions that once carried DEI responsibilities. Those requirements are set out in the bill text, Ohio Legislature.
Campus Reaction And Next Steps
Supporters of HB 698 contend that tying a portion of funding to meticulous compliance is the only reliable way to make sure SB 1 is followed. Without a financial stick, they argue, the reforms that took effect in mid-2025 could be quietly sidestepped through title changes and paperwork tricks.
Critics see something very different: a new avenue for political oversight of campus personnel decisions that could make Ohio universities less competitive for faculty hires and major research grants. They warn that the added scrutiny of specific former DEI staff, paired with the threat of lost State Share of Instruction dollars, could chill recruitment and research in an already tough national market.
The measure builds on SB 1, and lawmakers backing HB 698 have framed it as a way to make those earlier reforms stick. At the same time, Rep. Young acknowledged at a news conference that he could not point to any institutions that are currently out of compliance. As reported by Signal Statewide, the bill widens enforcement language that had surfaced in last year's budget debate, turning what was once floated in negotiations into a standalone enforcement tool.
Legal Risks For Institutions
For university attorneys, HB 698 presents more than just extra forms. The legislation makes any recklessly false or fraudulent certification grounds for the chancellor to withhold an institution's entire portion of the SSI set-aside for that fiscal year. It authorizes audits and documentation requests and may expose responsible officers to civil penalties, a combination of financial and legal risk that campuses are unlikely to ignore.
For now, the bill remains in the Workforce and Higher Education Committee as sponsors, university leaders and the governor's office weigh their options. Status updates and documents are posted on the Ohio House website.
Upcoming committee hearings and any amendments will determine whether HB 698 moves out of Columbus and onto the governor's desk. If it passes as written, the bill would give state officials a new fiscal lever, almost certainly prompt additional personnel reviews, and quite possibly set the stage for litigation on multiple campuses across Ohio.
