Editor’s Note: GREAT COLUMN ALERT!

I met Thomas Hodson many years ago when he was a professor at the prestigious EW Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. Bright guy, great professor, former judge and university administrator. 

To be candid, Hodson and others at Ohio University, located in Athens, a college town in Southeast Ohio, changed me and my family’s life for the better, forever endowing me with the skills to be a great reporter and thinker. I began my career as a reporter in Athens, with the last chapter being when I served as Region Editor of newspapers in Southeast Ohio — one of the best jobs I ever had. Our family still keeps in touch with people and places in Athens and Ohio.

The values instilled in me at Ohio University – be open to all ideas, evaluate things on their merits and the facts, and be prepared to make a stand. 

I’m republishing Hodson’s column, which originally appeared in the Athens Independent, so that others at North Carolina’s universities may take notice, see what’s happening elsewhere.

In recent weeks since President Trump’s election, Ohio University has taken a turn from standing as a beacon of hope to many, to a place fearful of holding events that may run afoul of the US Department of Education and a proposed Ohio Senate bill on DEI programs. How did we get here?

Though I’m a small town kind of  guy, I can see this is a road we don’t want to travel down when a major university decides to halt the Black Alumni Reunion weekend because it is fearful of running afoul of the Trump administration’s DEI changes.  Whether you are on the left or right, maybe give Hodson’s words some of your time.

Other columns, written from various points of view, come from Keith Throckmorton, Jonathan Tobias and the East Carolinian, the student newspaper at East Carolina University — my alma mater.

Senate Bill 1 guts academic freedom and reshapes Ohio’s public universities

In its continuing war on higher education, Ohio’s GOP-dominated legislature is forcing public universities into ideological submission.

By Thomas Hodson

The 14 public universities and 23 public community colleges in Ohio are facing a double whammy — Trump’s assault on higher education plus the MAGA dominated Ohio General Assembly is about to pass a law (SB 1) which guts academic freedom. It consolidates power in the hands of the state’s Chancellor of Higher Education and the legislature and significantly diminishes the powers of each institution. With sweeping new restrictions on faculty, curriculum, and diversity initiatives, SB 1 is forcing public universities into ideological submission—threatening academic integrity, faculty rights, and student opportunity.

To help everyone understand what is happening, I wrote this column. To read more of Hodson’s columns, click this link.

The Ohio House is expected to pass Senate Bill 1 next week, sending the measure to Gov. Michael DeWine for his signature. And Ohio’s state-supported higher education will never be the same.

The bill, which becomes law 90 days after the governor’s signature, substitutes governmental edicts for academic freedom; eliminates all diversity, equity and inclusion activities on campuses; restricts how faculty teach; bans faculty strikes; and restructures the terms and the mission of each institution’s board of trustees.

It applies to Ohio’s 14 public universities and 23 public community colleges and threatens loss of state funding if violated.

Testimony on the bill in the Senate and the House has been overwhelmingly negative. However, not one president of a state-supported university or college testified against this bill during its tour through the General Assembly.

At a meeting on Jan. 14, the Inter-University Council of Ohio — which comprises the presidents of state college and university presidents — decided to “not take a formal position” and “not actively engage publicly on the bill.”

Representatives of Ohio University, Ohio State University, Bowling Green State University, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Central State University, Kent State University, Cleveland State University, University of Akron, University of Toledo, and Youngstown State University were present at that meeting where the decision was made to stay quiet.

In a statement released on March 6, the IUC said that “each university has the freedom to act independently and to determine its own position on a proposition and thus has been able to respond to this proposed legislation as they deem appropriate.”

The group instead focused on advocating for a 2% increase in higher education funding, Signal Ohio reported. DeWine’s budget proposal, however, contains only a 0.1% increase.

Why Ohio university presidents stayed quiet on controversial bill

What’s in the bill

I will break down some of what the bill says and how it will change academia as we have known it. The bill is too lengthy for me to address every part of it here. So, I will hit the points that are most problematic. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission has a full analysis.

Diversity, equity and inclusion and intellectual diversity

SB 1 mandates each state university to adopt and enforce policies that prohibit any orientation or training courses regarding DEI.

The continuation of existing or establishing new DEI offices and departments are prohibited, as is hiring outside consultants to accomplish the same ends.

That means Ohio University’s Office of the Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion will be eliminated along with the Pride Center, the Multicultural Center and the Women’s Center.

The way the law also reads seems to eliminate university services for veterans and people with disabilities. They are included in the overall DEI initiatives on most campuses.

This part of the law also seems to apply to any student organizations that are funded by the university. This could cover student events or campaigns related to “controversial beliefs or policies” or inclusion of DEI language in student organization bylaws.

No new institutional scholarships using DEI requirements will be allowed under the new law, and existing scholarships need to remove DEI requirements. If that cannot be done, then the university can accept no additional funds to support such a scholarship.

The bill says that a state-supported educational institution must “provide no advantage or disadvantage to faculty, staff or student as individuals, hold every individual to equal standards and provide every individual with equality of opportunity, with regard to those individuals’ race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” By default, this provision favors the white majority in power at institutions and the predominantly white student body. It disadvantages any minority group and women.

On the academic side, each university must declare that its primary function is the “pursuit of knowledge” and “affirm and declare” that it will ensure full intellectual diversity. It must “demonstrate” intellectual diversity in all course approvals, general education courses, annual reviews, strategic goals for each department and student learning outcomes.

A state institution must establish a system to respond to complaints about any administrator, faculty member, staff or student who interferes with the intellectual diversity of another.

So, in substance, students can file a complaint against a professor for addressing a controversial topic or stating a historic fact that students find infringing upon their intellectual diversity rights.

Also, universities must “seek out” speakers who have diverse ideological and political views and post a complete list of speakers and honoraria of more than $500 “prominently” on its website.

Finally, the new policy of each state university must declare that it will not “endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy, except on matters that directly impact the institution’s funding…”

The bill defines “controversial belief or policy” as “any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.

Does this mean that if a professor talks about any of these topics or is the subject of a news interview on these matters that the university would somehow be seen as endorsing that professor’s viewpoint and, therefore, be engaging in a controversial belief or policy?

Academic requirements

Public posting of course syllabus. Starting in the 2026–27 academic year, a syllabus for each course taught at the institution must be posted on the university’s website for all to review. The syllabus must contain:

• Name of the course instructor
• Calendar for the course outlining what materials will be covered on certain dates.
• A list of all required and recommended readings for the course
• The instructor’s professional credentials

Previously, a syllabus was between the instructor and the students. Now, each syllabus will be subject to public scrutiny and review.

Mandatory American civic literacy course. Starting with the class of 2030, students must have taken a 3-credit hour course in American civic literacy in order to graduate. Each institution must develop its own course and have it approved by the state Chancellor of Higher Education.

SB 1 requires that each course include ALL of the following:

• a study of the American economic system and capitalism,
• the entire U.S. Constitution,
• the Declaration of Independence,
• at least five essays from the Federalist Papers,
• the Emancipation Proclamation,
• the Gettysburg Address,
• Martin Luther King, Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and
• the writings of Adam Smith, including a study of the principles in “The Wealth of Nations.”

Each student must pass a comprehensive final examination at the end of the course to qualify for graduation.

Elimination of small undergraduate degree programs. If an undergraduate degree program confers an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period, it must be eliminated. The first year of a program is not counted in the three-year averages.

Faculty matters

Faculty evaluations. Each college or university must create a standard, formalized questionnaire for students to fill out evaluating faculty members. It must include questions designated by the chancellor, including a question asking, “Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political racial, gender, and religious bias?”

Faculty members must also be evaluated annually by their peers and by the institution. Those evaluations must be submitted to the chancellor for review.

Post-tenure review. Each institution must develop a post-tenure review policy that is submitted to the chancellor for approval. The review must assess whether the tenured faculty member meets “performance expectations.”

If a faculty member fails to meet performance standards, the member may be subject to censure, remedial training, or for-cause termination by the institution.

Faculty evaluation policies, tenure, post-tenure review policies and retrenchment policies are not subject to collective bargaining, according to SB 1.

Faculty strikes. This law prohibits full-time faculty at a state institution of higher learning from striking over unfair practices. Any grievances must be submitted to a formal settlement procedure.

Boards of Trustees

Starting with people appointed after July 1, 2025, trustee terms will be six years instead of nine, but trustees may be reappointed for an additional six-year term. Currently, trustees cannot be immediately reappointed.

SB 1 also initiates training requirements for board members. The training will be provided by the chancellor.

Finally, trustees are given more power and influence over faculty/personnel matters, university spending, curriculum oversight and general management of each institution.

Interactions with China

State institutions are prohibited from accepting gifts, donations, or contributions from the People’s Republic of China or any group operating on behalf of the Chinese government.

Each university or college also must notify the chancellor of any new academic or research partnerships with an institution located in China.

Litigation expected

Litigation is expected from various groups that testified against the bill, such as the Ohio Counseling Association, Ohio Federation of Teachers, National Association of Social Workers, Ohio Student Association, Ohio Faculty Council, CAIR, Undergraduate Student Governments of Ohio, the Ohio Education Association, the AFL-CIO and others.

I expect that potential plaintiffs will raise constitutional issues under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, plus argue that the new law also violates the Ohio Constitution. Some may argue that SB 1 threatens the accreditation standards for some academic programs. Plaintiffs probably will ask a judge for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to prohibit the new law from taking effect until the new law is fully litigated.

Litigation probably will be lodged in federal court instead of state courts since after this past election, the Ohio Supreme Court is now 6-to-1 Republican, and this bill is the result of an overwhelmingly Republican General Assembly.

Conclusion

If state colleges and universities fail to comply with the many requirements of this new law, they run the risk of losing state financial support for both instruction and for capital projects.

Power is being taken away from individual institutions and consolidated in the hands of the chancellor and the legislature, which is dominated by MAGA supporters and ultra-conservatives.

This column was originally published in the Athens County Independent on March 12. Pictures are from Freepik, except for the one related to Signal Ohio. I drew the illustration.

Thanks for reading The 5 W’s and H of Law, Politics, and Journalism! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Who is Honorable, Who is Not, Who is Woke?

By Keith Throckmorton

Police Officers take oaths to defend their communities, even if it means paying the ultimate sacrifice. Like anyone else, they are human and want to go home alive at the end of their shifts. They make mistakes due to their human nature. The only difference between them, prosecutors, lawyers, and us is the quick decisions they make regarding losing their lives and those under their protection.

Today, they also face the threat of being assassinated during the performance of their duties. That is tremendous additional stress, causing the potential for mistakes, not of the heart but of the mind.

In addition, they realize today that they may not only be in the gun sight of a murderer but under a microscope of pandering and unfit prosecutors or cowardly police chiefs with no loyalties to their officers. Many police chiefs are appointed with no qualifications, only to satisfy political correctness and ethnic diversity. Our President recently signed an executive order declaring English to be America’s official language. One Chief of Police has allowed and supported official documents to be signed in an unrecognizable foreign language by a senior department executive.

This practice has continued to be permitted after protests from a dedicated and respected Chief of Police. This particular Chief of Police was called a racist by this Woke Chief for wanting documents signed in English. There is just no room for “Wokeism” such as this anywhere! Sadly, a protesting Chief of Police and state-wide positions have been placed on administrative leave for protesting this particular issue. We live in America, not somewhere else on the planet, period! There is no room for Woke or any other entities in law enforcement or America today, anywhere!

Back in the day, decades ago, I required all reports and communications to be submitted grammatically and correctly in English. Foreign language was never accepted under any circumstances. We were in America! My superior’s accountability reflected on me. Where have we gone astray?

There was a time when the prosecutor’s office and the police were a team, but no more. Then, complete investigations of their actions were considered, including if mistakes were intentional or accidental due to job stresses before any publicity was provided. Today, police officers are immediately guilty, kicked under the bus, and publicly proclaimed guilty before any “real” investigation is completed. I have been made aware of prosecutors requiring open internal investigations where the officer has been previously officially exonerated. These investigations are nothing but “witch hunts.”

WHY? I have even heard that retirees had been contacted in these “witch hunt” re-investigations!

While police officers are making life and death decisions, without the necessary time to think, these radical, “woke” prosecutors must only decide what cocktail to order at the golf course or country clubhouse. They share no concerns or responsibility regarding their communities’ safety from the criminals they readily release. It is about votes for office, the means to justify the votes for a political party.

My question is this. Who is honorable, and who is not? Indeed, there are not enough dedicated prosecutors or qualified police chiefs today. Where are the Cops, Cop Chiefs? While police officers arrest violent criminals, many far-left progressive “woke” radical prosecutors fail to prosecute them, letting them back out into our communities and supporting not cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies in apprehending criminal illegal aliens for deportation, thus causing our communities to be violently unsafe.

These unfit prosecutors are more of a threat to public safety than the criminals they release because they are empowering them instead of making criminals afraid of justice. Are these prosecutors entitled to be called the “Honorable” when they fail to protect the safety of their communities? The answer is NO! They continue to be elected along political party lines rather than being the best and most dedicated to protecting citizens’ rights.

Many prosecutors are disgracing their offices and are publicly criticized, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, to name a few. One such example is in Manhattan, New York.

One of the most unfit and notorious is woke Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. He disgraces the criminal justice system as he serves and protects criminals before law-abiding citizens and victims. Sixty-five assistant district attorneys, or approximately 12 percent of his staff, have resigned thus far this year. In 2021, ninety-seven assistant district attorneys left. A former top prosecutor called this woke criminal justice reform insanity.

The exoduses of assistant district attorneys from Bragg’s office started two weeks into his tenure. First, he issued a “Day One” memorandum instructing his assistants to downgrade certain felonies to misdemeanors and to decline to seek prison sentences for many criminals. That same day, nine assistant district attorneys resigned and headed to the door.

Reforms adopted by the state in 2019 mandate that district attorneys hand over to the defense “realms of material” under strict time constraints. A former Manhattan assistant district attorney and trial division chief said: “You become a file clerk rather than a trial lawyer.”

Another example of the evidentiary burden involving a crime at a protest is that prosecutors can be forced to produce the bodycam footage of every police officer at the protest. One former assistant district attorney said, “It’s insanity.” “Most of it is completely irrelevant and not germane in any way to the case issues. And if you take too long to produce it, you might see your entire case tossed from the system. There are tons of cases getting dismissed, ” the lawyer stated.

The good old days of elected officials, the police, and prosecutors working together are an absolute must if communities are to be protected as sworn to for their oaths of office. The “Woke” philosophy is the enemy of a safe society. Who are your elected prosecutors, and do they not care about the safety of our communities or protecting criminals?

Who is suffering the most? Law-abiding citizens and victims of crimes. Today, a real crisis exists in many communities.

Who is honorable, and who is not? Being “Honorable” is like being respected.

This distinction should be earned and not designated. Vote wisely in future elections.

The Wages of Lost Empathy

By Jonathan Tobias

At the State of the Union address, the President hailed the DOGE guy who was beaming in the gallery: “I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, perhaps you’ve heard of it, which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.” This was after weeks of the Administration denying that Musk led the slashing and cutting agency. 

This is a day when we now have to worry about DOGE, which is slashing benefits for vets and seniors and cutting programs for the disabled and the poor.  The main cutter and slasher himself calls people like us “NPC’s,” that is “non-player characters,” a videogaming term for a character that follows a scripted path and cannot think or act on its own, and is there only to populate the world of the game for the actual players.

This is part of a de-humanizing tactic deployed to anesthetize oneself from troubling pangs of conscience. If one wants to be a robber baron like Mr Henry F Potter, who wants to turn charming Bedford Falls into a hellscape like Potterville, then recognizing another human being as one’s neighbor becomes a serious obstacle to progress. All wannabe Potter’s will surely want to dismiss the pain that they are afflicting.

Indeed, empathy itself becomes something very much to be avoided. In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, while complaining about immigrants (and forgetting that he is one), Musk uttered these infamous words about empathy:

“The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The empathy exploit – they’re exploiting a bug in western civilization, which is the empathy response.”

Musk is not alone in attacking empathy. Last year, a book came out called Toxic Empathy, which accuses some Christians (like yours truly) for appealing to people’s compassion to guide their moral and political decisions rather than appealing to what she claims is “Truth.” Others, particularly on one extreme end of the political spectrum, complain that people like me had sold out to the progressive false gospel of “kindness” – as if kindness were subversive approach that undermined the Truth and the well-being of our nation.

There are too many voices out there in politics and social media who are going further than this. There are more than a few preachers, who I would have called my co-religionists, who have lately been calling empathy a “sin.” Some have categorically and without qualification defined empathy as a sinful act. Despite the fact that there is no real lexical difference between the terms, it has become vogue in some quarters to differentiate “empathy” (bad) from “sympathy” (good). In the history of usage of both terms, there is no real difference.

This is a gentle, cautionary warning: listening to that hard stuff on TV and social media will harden your heart and shrivel your soul.

How can empathy be a sin when Jesus actually commands empathy, when the second highest commandment (after loving God) is to love your neighbor as yourself, and that no one is not your neighbor, and the whole world is your neighborhood? How can empathy be a weakness when the Bible calls it a strength, a virtue?

Here is just one example, from Micah 6.8: 

He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

In the two greatest commandments — to love God with our whole self and to love our neighbors as ourselves — we have a “vertical morality” and a “horizontal morality” respectively. 

Much of the hot button agenda of the so-called Culture Wars focus, supposedly, on “vertical morality,” but disregard the horizontal. But the horizontal is all about loving one’s neighbor. It is all about remembering that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it also until Me” (Matthew 25.40). It values the well-being of ourselves and others as the highest aim, and it’s rooted in the real world. If something produces tangible harm, we stand against it. If something produces tangible good, we stand for it— for ourselves, for our neighbors, and for society at large.

To embrace a Horizontal Morality, you must embrace empathy. You must be willing to listen and learn from the experiences of others. You must be kind.

Musk said that “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.” He couldn’t be more wrong. The fundamental strength of civilization is empathy. How can community exist at all unless at least a few people try to walk in the other man’s shoes?

The German Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt knew a thing or two about the rise of authoritarianism and its program of eradicating empathy. She had fled the Nazi takeover of France, settling in New York in 1941. 

She contradicts Elon Musk: “The death of human empathy,” she wrote, “is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.”

In Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, the trains were said to have run on time. Indeed, the Fascists might have been organized.

But they were barbarians. 

Empathy is the enemy of devils and civilizes the beast.

A Presidency Defined by Transparency

Opinion from the staff at the East Carolinian, the student newspaper of East Carolina University.

We, the editorial staff of The East Carolinian, believe that one month into President Donald Trump’s second term, one thing is clear: he is not avoiding public scrutiny. Whether addressing the press, responding to critics, or defending his policies, Trump has been a constant presence, making sure Americans know where he stands.

This is a big shift from the previous administration. Former President Joe Biden was often criticized for not engaging much with the media. Reports showed that Biden held fewer press conferences and interviews than any president in decades. At one point in 2023, he went 150 days without a formal press briefing, raising concerns about transparency.

Trump’s direct approach has been praised by supporters who see him as someone willing to take on challenges head-on. Commentator David Marcus even described him as a “foreman,” actively leading the country through his decisions. But being open with the media isn’t the only thing that defines transparency. If Trump really wants to prove he’s committed to openness, his administration needs to do more like speeding up responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Under Biden, the backlog of FOIA requests piled up, reaching over 222,000 by late 2024. Making government records easier to access would go a long way in proving Trump’s dedication to transparency.

Beyond that, real openness means giving the press real answers, not just talking more often. Holding more press conferences is important, but those briefings should allow for tough questions and honest discussions, not just political messaging. Americans deserve more than just frequent updates; they deserve real accountability.

Facing the media is a good start, but true transparency requires action. If Trump wants to set a new standard, his administration must ensure not only that he’s visible, but that the government is truly open and accessible to the public. Being present in front of the cameras is one thing. Backing it up with real accountability is what will truly make a difference.