Lawmaker Proposes Funding Cuts as Enforcement for Higher Education Overhaul

Republican State Rep. Tom Young introduces House Bill 698, a measure to withhold state funding from Ohio colleges and universities that fail to comply with the state's 2025 anti-DEI law, Senate Bill 1.

By: AXL Media

Published: Feb 25, 2026, 8:37 AM EST

Source: Information for this report was sourced from WOSU Public Media

Enforcing Compliance Through Financial Penalties

The proposed legislation, House Bill 698, would tie an institution’s access to the State Share of Instruction (SSI) the primary source of state funding for colleges directly to their adherence to SB 1. Representative Young characterized the bill as "accountability legislation" rather than a punitive act, stating that the goal is to ensure institutional certifications are accurate. If a school is found to be out of compliance, funding would be withheld for the entire fiscal year and would only be released once corrections are made, though the bill currently specifies that these funds would not be provided retroactively.

Expanded Tracking of Diversity Initiatives

HB 698 specifically targets what proponents describe as attempts to "disguise" DEI positions. The bill would require universities to submit a "justification report" detailing the reassignment of any employees who previously performed DEI functions. This report would include names, job duties, and a side-by-side comparison of old and new roles to prove that new responsibilities are "substantially different" from their previous DEI-related work. The state chancellor of higher education would be responsible for making the final determination on whether these reassignments meet the law's requirements.

Opposition and Concerns from Academic Groups

Critics and faculty organizations have strongly opposed the measure, arguing that it threatens the financial stability and global reputation of Ohio's higher education system. Jennifer Price, Executive Director of the Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors, stated that there has not been enough time since the 2025 enactment of SB 1 to accurately assess compliance and called the claims of widespread noncompliance "ludicrous". Opponents also expressed concern that placing university funding at the "whim of politicians" would undermine long-term institutional planning and academic independence.