On Thursday, Judge Matthew McFarland of the Southern District of Ohio weighed in on Rice v. Schell, offering an interpretation that largely tracks the following reasoning.
[The Advance Ohio Higher Education Act (often referred to as “S.B. 1”)] addresses, among other things, the elimination of offices and orientation programs tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) at public universities. Miami University stands as a public institution that has shut down certain DEI-related committees, bodies, and programs both before and after S.B. 1 took effect.
A tenured professor has moved for judicial relief to restore these bodies and programs on constitutional and statutory grounds. This posture raises foundational questions, including who ultimately decides which committees, bodies, and programs a public university should maintain. Regarding the narrow issue before the court, the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff—an individual professor who remains fully capable in classroom instruction, scholarship, and publication—may pursue his federal-law claims in federal court….
The Court begins by clarifying the scope of what is at stake—and, perhaps as importantly, what is not. This is not a case alleging that the government is compelling particular speech. It is not a suit by a university seeking to enjoin a law on autonomy grounds. It does not involve students asserting constitutional violations. It does not concern a professor facing disciplinary action for his speech. It does not revolve around the restriction of a professor’s discourse in the classroom or on campus. Rather, the dispute centers on a professor seeking a court order to compel a university to reestablish certain committees, programming, and events.
Two core, interrelated questions frame the inquiry. First, whose speech is actually at issue here? Second, and in keeping with how many areas of law are organized, who has the authority to decide which units and programs a public university should maintain?
[This case] does not present a scenario in which a university is restraining a professor’s speech within one of its programs or units. The defendants, as admitted by the plaintiff, have not interfered with the plaintiff’s in-class teaching, his scholarly work, his research, or the publication of DEI-related topics.
Instead, the plaintiff seeks a judicial order that would dictate which programs and entities the university must preserve. While a line of precedent confirms that the government cannot compel—under penalty of punishment—the exact speech of professors performing their core academic duties… [Nevertheless], the plaintiff does not cite authority supporting the proposition that his First Amendment rights extend to dictating how Miami University ought to determine which programs and entities to maintain as a university.
Miami University’s decision to discontinue the relevant programs and entities constitutes the university’s own expression, used to shape the content of the education it provides in order to advance its policies and mission. “[W]hen the government speaks, … it ultimately answers to the electorate and to the political process for its advocacy.” In other words, the Constitution primarily relies on the ballot box—not on rules that bar viewpoint discrimination—in such circumstances….
Here’s a summary of the relevant provisions of S.B. 1:
[S.B. 1] directs that “the board of trustees of each state institution of higher education shall adopt and the institution shall enforce a policy” that, among other things, forbids the following:
- Any orientation or training program related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, unless an exception applies;
- The ongoing operation of existing DEI offices or departments; and
- The establishment of new DEI offices or departments.
The statute further requires each state university to declare, among other things, that:
- Its primary function is to practice and support the discovery, improvement, transmission, and dissemination of knowledge and citizenship education through research, teaching, discussion, and debate;
- To carry out this function, the institution shall strive for the broadest possible intellectual diversity;
- Faculty and staff should allow students to reach their own conclusions about controversial beliefs or policies and shall refrain from indoctrinating any social, political, or religious viewpoint;
- The institution will not endorse or oppose any controversial belief or policy as an academic entity, except where such matters directly affect the institution’s funding or mission of discovery and knowledge;
- The university will not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit students, faculty, or administrators from endorsing, agreeing with, or publicly expressing any given ideology, political stance, or social policy in order to obtain an undergraduate or graduate degree; and
- No process or decision affecting conditions of work or study—such as committee assignments, course scheduling, or workload adjustments—shall encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit students, faculty, or administrators from endorsing, agreeing with, or publicly expressing any particular ideology or political stance.
Additionally, the statute states: “Nothing in this section prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members permit intellectual diversity.” State universities that fail to comply with S.B. 1 may face reductions or loss of funding.
In another section, the statute provides that “[n]o state institution of higher education shall provide or require training for any administrator, teacher, staff member, or employee that advocates or promotes any of the following concepts:”
- That one race or sex is inherently superior to another;
- That an individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
- That individuals should be treated less favorably solely or partly because of their race;
- That members of one race cannot or should not interact with others without regard to race;
- That an individual’s moral worth is determined by race or sex;
- That a person should be blamed for actions committed in the past by others of the same race or sex;
- That one should feel discomfort, guilt, shame, or distress on account of race or sex;
- That meritocracy or traits like hard work are themselves racist or sexist, or were created to oppress others;
- That blame or bias should be ascribed to a race or sex, or to members of that race or sex.
Here’s the plaintiff’s connection to the case:
Plaintiff Darryl Rice holds tenured and endowed status as an associate professor of management in the Farmer School of Business at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. For more than ten years, Rice has taught courses such as Diversity and Cross-Cultural Management, participated in DEI programming, and contributed to DEI-focused committees at the university.
In April 2025, Miami University began winding down certain DEI-related programs and entities. Specifically, entities that were slated for discontinuation include: (1) the Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence, (2) the Farmer School of Business DEI Service Committee, (3) the Center for Student Diversity and Inclusion, (4) Miami Regional’s Center for DEI, (5) the Department of Management DEI Service Committee, (6) Miami University’s Across-the-Divide Conference, (7) the Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence Newsletter, (8) the Inclusive Excellence Faculty Fellows Program, (9) the DEI Mastermind Program, (10) the Diversity and Inclusion Networking Event, (11) DEI Professional Development Day, and other activities that Rice had relied upon to fulfill his service obligations. Under Miami University’s Tenure Track Guidelines, “service” obligations cover activities that contribute to the university’s and campus’s mission, serving on committees, and providing continuing education programs if they are not already part of the teaching category. In particular, Rice is expected to perform service for his department and division….
The court likewise dismissed Rice’s equal protection and due process claims, as well as a range of statutory and common-law claims.
Ann Yackshaw of the Ohio Attorney General’s office represents the defendants.
