Good news and bad news for higher education in Ohio. The good news is that SB 1 passed into law on March 28. It promises an end to “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” indoctrination, and political litmus tests at public universities; it increases curriculum transparency, it mandates civic education, and much more. The bad news is that tucked into HB 96, a 4,063-page behemoth, are oppressive and unnecessary provisions that overregulate private and public universities alike.
HB 96 even interferes with the curriculum of private universities when they contract with an online program manager, permitting the state chancellor of higher education to effectively shut down a private college if the chancellor disapproves of the curriculum.
This part of HB 96 is really that bad. Let’s see how.
First, some context. The pandemic era has supercharged online education. Online learning, once merely a supplement, has become essential for many students nationwide. This shift is particularly evident in Ohio. For example, Ohio University reported a 14 percent increase in online undergraduate enrollment from 2023 to 2024—three and a half times its 4 percent increase in enrollment overall—while “new student enrollment in Ohio’s non-nursing online undergraduate programs grew more than 53 percent.”
Other universities, including Baldwin Wallace University, the University of Dayton, and Case Western Reserve University, have vital partnerships with online program managers (OPMs). OPMs provide critical technological and logistical support for online programs, especially for institutions that cannot easily bring such capabilities in-house due to rapid technological improvements. Many colleges need OPMs because of the substantial upfront costs associated with building a technical infrastructure.
HB 96 requires not just disclosure but also prior approval from Ohio’s chancellor of higher education for every agreement between colleges and OPMs, whether the college is public or private, and regardless of how small the contract is. Approval would be a requirement for the basic authorization to operate in Ohio.
Although the bill does not define an OPM, it includes contracts where such a third-party servicer gains “input on or authority over” a variety of functions, including “curriculum development, design, or maintenance.” Then HB 96 incorporates the provisions of section 3333.04 of state law, governing the state’s “academic program approval” regarding public institutions, into the chancellor’s approval process for private institutions that contract with OPMs.
That’s an unprecedented, probably unconstitutional, intrusion into the course content of private universities in Ohio simply because they contracted with an OPM.
HB 96 gets worse: If the chancellor disapproves of the contract because he decides it’s out of compliance “with the standards and procedures for academic program approval” determined by the state, he can invalidate the contract with the OPM. In that case, the college “shall not enroll new students,” effectively killing the institution.
To repeat: Under Ohio HB 96, the chancellor of higher education gains enormous power to effectively close down a private college because he disapproves of a contract with an OPM, including the state’s judgment of the institution’s curriculum, even if he had previously pre-approved the contract.
[RELATED: This Ohio Superintendent Proves Local Leadership Trumps Federal Bureaucracy]
This bill, as currently written, doesn’t just stifle innovation and limit student opportunities by restricting colleges’ work with OPMs. It scares any reasonable college into giving up its OPM contracts altogether.
The transparency part is not bad, considering the closure of Eastern Gateway Community College in 2024. Eastern Gateway Community College had contracted with a third-party servicer called the Student Resource Center to set up “free” college courses for union members. The program died after the U.S. Department of Education (ED) declared this program violated Title IV provisions governing federal student aid.
Unlike most OPMs, which focus on providing courses under a college’s authority, the Student Resource Center was involved in administering financial aid, even providing financial aid counselors. The college apparently wasn’t doing a good job of overseeing such functions. Although it’s not clear that the Student Resource Center was the ultimate problem at the college, Eastern Gateway Community College died soon thereafter.
One result is the wild overreaction in HB 96 described above. HB 96 overregulates, threatens, and scares witless all authorized colleges, private and public, across the state of Ohio. The smallest OPM contract at the largest colleges will trigger possible disaster and closure.
Simply for seeking and having partnerships aimed at enhancing their educational offerings—making programs cheaper, more accessible, and often better—Ohio colleges will get the message that they are safe from the law and the chancellor only if they bring all of their functions in-house.
If legislators want to avoid disasters like the financial mismanagement of a community college, going after every kind of OPM at every college in the state uses a nuclear bomb where a scalpel is more appropriate. The law should instead merely focus on third-party entities involved in financial aid administration and should focus only on contracts that are large relative to a college’s budget.
And not in a million years should the state have the authority to interfere in private colleges’ curriculum in the absence of extremely narrow standards that protect an extremely compelling state interest, such as protecting against invidious discrimination.
At the least, significant further drafting is needed, and in the meantime, this massive bill should leave out the anti-OPM provisions. Legislators should leave this topic for another day.
We cannot let one bad actor ruin opportunities for students statewide. Colleges usually follow state rules effectively. Financially healthy schools should be free to enter into contracts that allow them to serve students according to their best judgment.
Ohio’s academic institutions must be left free to meet the growing demand for flexible learning options without incurring unreasonable costs. Instead, HB 96 goes farther than even California’s and Minnesota’s interventions against successful OPM partnerships.
Such anti-OPM efforts are what we might expect in progressive states and President Biden’s ED, which have been allergic to anything that makes education less of an entitlement or involves potential profit by anyone. It’s amazing that the state of Ohio might follow in their anti-capitalist footsteps.
Follow Adam Kissel on X.
Image: Ohio General Assembly. (2025, January 11). Ohio General Assembly. Wikipedia; Screenshot of HB 96: Current Version as Introduced.
” invalidate the contract with the OPM. In that case, the college “shall not enroll new students,” effectively killing the institution.”
I don’t see that — I read it as enroll new students in the programs related to the OPM contract, not the larger college as a whole. This is what makes logical sense — you are going to let the students already in the closed program to continue, but not let any more in.
““curriculum development, design, or maintenance.”
If I were setting up Ed’s College, from scratch, wouldn’t I have to get state approval to issue my degrees? And wouldn’t that include this?
As accreditation is the key to Federal Funds, that’s usually more visible, but isn’t state accreditation or something also required?