COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Ohio students and professors called the state Senate’s actions “undemocratic” after more than 800 testimonies against Senate Bill 1 were not enough to stop the Senate from passing the bill.

“The fact that the legislature is simply ramming this through despite the fact that no one wants this is really alarming to me,” Jill Galvan, a professor of English at Ohio State University, said. “And that they’ve made it the first order of business, too, in the new legislative assembly, that’s just strange to me. I’m really worried about higher education. I’m really worried about higher education in Ohio.”

S.B. 1 would reshape public university education in Ohio by cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programming, changing speech in classrooms and removing some rights of faculty unions. The bill’s sponsors said they introduced the legislation to combat indoctrination in higher education and promote intellectual freedom. See previous coverage of S.B. 1 in the video player above.

“Critics of Senate Bill 1 contend that it will suppress free speech; however, it is important to note that a de facto censorship regime already exists on many campuses,” state Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania Township) said. “The bill aims to dismantle these entrenched restrictions by promoting transparency and accountability.”

“They say it’s in the name of students. They can’t get a single public university student to testify for it. They get so many students testifying against it,” Pranav Jani, English and ethnic studies professor and president of a faculty advocacy chapter at Ohio State, said.

S.B. 1 had two hearings for public comment; between them, 837 people testified against the bill, and just 14 testified in favor. Of those 14 proponent testimonies, only one was a student. The student attends the University of Dayton, a private school that would not be affected by the bill. Nevertheless, S.B.1 still passed in the Senate 21-11 and was sent on to the Ohio House on Feb. 12. All 21 proponents were Republican, as were two of the 11 nays.

Jani, Galvan and OSU history professor Christopher McKnight Nichols all provided testimony against S.B. 1 and said they found it concerning that a bill for students had such minimal student turnout in favor — and such overwhelming student criticism. Nichols said if students had testified against the bill, he’d consider changing his position, but he found the lack of testimony demonstrated a lack of need for its passing. 

“We disrupted their press conferences and hearings, and marched and over 800 of us submitted opponent testimony. They still won’t listen to us,” said Sydney Ball, a senior at Ohio State. “This isn’t just about a bill. It’s about fighting back against an extremist legislature that doesn’t know our campuses and wants to control what we can and can’t learn.”

Jani, Nichols and Galvan all said the bill had a “chilling effect.” Nichols also voiced concerns about the ramifications for higher education if it does become law, especially when it comes to opinions that defy fact, which he said can usually be ruled out.

“This bill seems to suggest we need to rule them in, or even treat them as equally correct,” Nichols said. “In a class about World War II, I don’t think we should be legitimizing Holocaust denial.” 

S.B. 1 opponents said they believe the bill would have the opposite effect of its intention and would limit free speech. State Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Kirkland) sponsored the bill and Senate Bill 83, similar legislation proposed in the last General Assembly, and disagrees. 

“Opponents have accused S.B. 1 of stifling academic freedom,” Cirino said. “This is patently untrue. In actuality, restoring and ensuring academic freedom at our state institutions of higher education is one of the main objectives of this bill.”

All three professors said portions of the bill were unnecessary, such as mandating reviews of tenured professors when reviews are already in place. Other portions of the bill require more clarification, Nichols said, such as defining diversity, equity and inclusion. Education groups and faculty unions have suggested amendments to the bill that would provide clarity, which Jani implored lawmakers to consider implementing.

“We just don’t have enough detail to really figure out how to operate in this new landscape that’s redefining speech on campus,” Nichols said. “I really, really wish they would come to college campuses.”

Nichols, Jani and Galvan said they felt the bill demonstrated a lack of understanding of how universities operate. After getting permission from his students, Jani extended an invitation to politicians and proponents of S.B. 1 to sit in on an Asian American Studies course. Other professors have done the same but reported no one has taken them up on it.

Senate spokespeople did not respond to NBC4’s inquiry about attending a class by the time of publication, but Cirino has said he’s confident the bill will promote underrepresented perspectives by removing diversity, equity and inclusion constraints.

“Our founders treasured diversity of thought so highly they made free speech our very first guaranteed right,” Cirino said. “It’s time to bring that right back to campus.”

A date has not yet been set for the House to hear S.B. 1, but it will head there next for further approval. Jani said he hopes the House listens to their testimonies more than he felt the Senate did. Galvan asked lawmakers to consider how the bill could affect if people choose to work or attend school in Ohio.

“If somebody looks at a job ad and they see one in Ohio, they might skip it,” Galvan said. “They’ll not come here, and that’s already happening … people on hiring committees, they’re getting nervous questions about what’s going on in Ohio.”