Provost Leo shares an academic update regarding the Advance ĢƵ Higher Education Act
ĢƵ University's Executive Vice President and Provost Don Leo shared the following update with faculty on Monday, April 7, 2025.
Dear OHIO faculty colleagues,
, Governor DeWine signed the Advance ĢƵ Higher Education Act into law, and we are in the 90-day implementation period. Earlier today, President Gonzalez addressed many of the questions we have received.
The President has asked me to oversee the required changes to academic policies and processes, so I wanted to share with you our plans for ensuring that the law’s academic affairs provisions, which include requirements for faculty annual evaluations and post-tenure review, development of a workload policy, and publicly posting syllabi, among others, are addressed.
First and foremost, I want to assure you that President Gonzalez and I remain deeply committed to preserving academic freedom.
In discussions with the deans, I learned that faculty members have expressed concerns about their ability to teach certain subjects and the extent to which their academic freedom will be protected. As you know, rests upon the 1940 Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors. It grounds academic freedom in the common good, which “depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It asserts that academic freedom applies to teaching and research, “is fundamental to the advancement of truth,” and protects the freedom of faculty to teach and students to learn. It is important to note that the new law states that nothing “prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity,” which the law defines as “multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.”
While the Advance ĢƵ Higher Education Act contains language in two sections that recognizes the “exercise of professional judgment” related to “the foundational beliefs of an academic discipline,” it does require a process for complaints from students, student groups, and faculty members that stem from the Act's provisions, including complaints of limitations on “intellectual diversity.” The Act states that the mandated complaint process must mirror that of our existing and that is handled by our Office of Civil Rights Compliance. I’ve heard concerns about the new complaint process, so I reviewed our existing Freedom of Expression grievance process. I was encouraged that any Freedom of Expression complaint that results in a formal hearing includes trained faculty members as panelists. As we develop the mandated “intellectual diversity” complaint process, faculty participation on any future panels will be critical.
As stated above, the Advance ĢƵ Higher Education Act has many provisions that will lead to changes in our academic policies and processes. I have asked Deans Council, my senior staff, and Faculty Senate to help me immediately form and charge working groups for each area of academic compliance so we may work together to determine how to meet our legal obligations. These groups will foster shared governance and help inform our campus communication.
While the changes required by this law are far ranging, I am heartened that we work at an institution with a 221-year history. It gives me some comfort to know that we've navigated previous challenges, and I am confident that we can work together to continue to use our disciplinary expertise to fulfill our core mission of teaching, research and service.
Sincerely,
Donald Leo, Ph.D.
Executive Vice President and Provost