To Chairman Brenner, Vice Chair Blessing, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Senate Education Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Senate Bill 113.
While there are numerous reasons to oppose SB 113, perhaps the top one is SB 113’s most glaring omission. That is, like Senate Bill 1 before it, SB 113 contains zero definition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Of course, this is crucial, since SB 113 bans any and all “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts, trainings, support, or staff positions that have anything to do with, that sound like, or appear to be, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Judging from previous testimony, it is clear many believe “DEI” secretly disguises, and results in, recruiting and hiring unqualified black and brown people in our schools.
Others believe striving for the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion is “divisive,” “unconstitutional, ” and “damaging.”
Still others before this committee have referred to “DEI” as “indoctrination,” “anti-American,” “radical, secular activism,” “socialist,” and “Marxism.”
Imagine a school district with ten schools discovers one or two of those schools has female student academic performance falling noticeably behind their fellow female students in the districts’ other schools. Or, that the number of female students graduating from their high school(s) is far less than those of neighboring, or similarly situated, schools in Ohio.
Concerned about this development, school administrators huddle to discuss what may be possible to reverse this trend. One conclusion is to prioritize various efforts targeting all female students, to provide additional support.
Arguably, Senate Bill 113 makes all of that illegal. Because, after all, it is “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
How about an AP high school English course where the instructor concludes assigned readings are not relevant to her school and community’s diverse population and the curriculum is amended to include more women, black, and foreign-born authors?
Or classroom exercises where students are encouraged to present on topics specific to, or reflecting their families’ country or countries of origin, in order to foster a better understanding of who lives in the local community, their successes, their challenges?
What about schools displaying positive but vague signage or classroom messages with such expressions as “all are welcome here,” “you belong,” or “this is a hate free zone?” Should be noncontroversial, right?
Or deliberately targeting military veterans to inform them of job openings in local school districts?
Again, Senate Bill 113 makes all of that illegal. Because, after all, it is “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” And not just that, according to SB 113 supporters. All of the above, and far more, is anti-American, unconstitutional, Marxism in action, they cry.
Further, the ACLU of Ohio does not believe the complete absence of any definition for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in SB 113, SB 1 before it, or numerous other bills of this type across the country is a mere accident or oversight.
Indeed, it is deliberate. Because when school administrators, school staff, parents, stakeholders, and the state legislature all get to define for themselves (and others) what is “diversity, equity, and inclusion” then everything is diversity, equity, and inclusion and subject to banning.
Schools and staff then play it safe, eliminating everything that someone somewhere may try to pin on the scarlet letters “DEI,” no matter how ridiculous or attenuated the examples or allegations. We need to look no further than the impact of SB 1 on our state universities and colleges to witness this.
If you are a fan of politicians micromanaging public school classrooms and using entirely undefined terms and language to accomplish the goal of less diverse, less equal, and less inclusive schools and staff, SB 113 is the bill for you.
However, for all the reasons voiced here and far more not, the ACLU of Ohio encourages this committee’s rejection of Senate Bill 113.