‘Walking on eggshells:’ Seven SB1 complaints filed at Kent State in first eight months
By John Engoglia/Kent State NewsLab
When Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 became law, it required universities to create a reporting process to file complaints against those that may be in violation of the bill’s content. That includes its prohibition of DEI-related initiatives and faculty strikes and its creation of intellectual diversity requirements.
The reporting process was very controversial among Ohio legislators, university faculty and students. Now, less than a year later, any student, faculty, staff or university department can be reported due to allegations of not fully complying with SB1.
As of March 9, seven complaints had been filed against Kent State University faculty, staff and university housing, according to documents provided by the university’s general counsel in response to a public records request.
Why and how faculty are responding to SB1
In a campus-wide, confidential survey of 38 faculty members conducted by the Spring 2026 Advanced Magazine Writing class in the School of Media and Journalism, 10 faculty (26% of respondents) said they’ve experienced worry that a student will report them for alleged SB1 violations during class.
One professor interviewed for the survey said, “You never know how someone is going to take something.” Another professor said, “It’s always rolling in the back of my mind, ‘am I going to say something a bit off topic that I don’t mean to?”’
Fourteen (37% of respondents) faculty members said they’ve changed how they teach in order to comply with SB1.
One surveyed professor said they change their wording during lectures to not “say anything that might come across as wrong or offensive to people.” Another said they’re much more “cognizant” of how they word things, and they take long pauses when explaining topics and second guess themselves more often.
Kent State United Faculty Association President Deborah Smith advised members to have confidence in the Office of Equal Opportunity and Compliance, which investigates complaints. The new formal complaint process is similar to existing ones, such as Title IX.
“They’re trained in the law,” Smith said. “They’re very professional and very objective as they approach their work.”
However, Smith understands why faculty are fearful. She said the process can be very stressful for those reported, even if they know they’re in the right.
“You might have a faculty member [reported] just because of the nature of what they teach,” Smith said. “Students don’t like that they’re teaching that and file complaints, even though it falls within their academic freedom and doesn’t violate the law.”
Faculty are also concerned about human error, Smith said. While SB1 didn’t change course content, it did affect how faculty have to frame it. Smith said all it takes is one bad day or mistake to get reported. She thinks investigators should soften discipline for a mistake rather than a purposeful decision.
Some faculty have expressed concerns over covering course content that might seem controversial to students. Fearing the potential risks, they’ve opted to not teach the particular material at all. One professor interviewed in the survey said they no longer use political examples during class. Another said they don’t teach critical theory and take caution when discussing health disparities.
“You have a live audience, and you’re talking largely off the cuff [for] how many hours every semester, and it’s only human to occasionally screw up in some way,” Smith said. “We’re walking on eggshells everyday. It used to be a lot of fun to be in the classroom and to engage with students. I don’t know if a lot of faculty would say they’re having a lot of fun these days.”
Kent State’s first SB1 complaints
In March, the university’s general counsel responded to a public records request for all SB1 complaints filed against faculty, students and student groups. The records provided included the complaints and the names of respondents, but not the names of those who filed the complaints.
Because professors around the country have suffered harm, including doxxing and harassment, over unsubstantiated complaints, this story does not name the professors.
Of the seven SB1 complaints, two didn’t meet the parameters for an SB1 violation. They involved a professor allegedly using artificial intelligence to create course materials and a professor’s previous arrest.
President Todd Diacon was reported for allegedly wearing a rainbow tie on Oct. 6. The complainant alleged he did this to support the LGBTQ+ community and promote DEI. It was closed due to the complainant using a name and banner ID that wasn’t in the Kent State system and altering Todd Diacon’s university headshot to change the color of his tie to that of a rainbow.
Another complaint was filed against a part-time faculty member in the School of Theatre and Dance. The complaint alleged the professor made “inappropriate” and “unethical” comments during his lectures, like saying pro-life individuals are uneducated and Catholic belief is impractical and inaccurate.
The complaint was filed Oct. 20. A hearing was held on April 23 that was closed to the public. That professor declined to comment on the complaint or their case.
A School of Art professor was also reported. The complaint alleges that the professor brought up Charlie Kirk’s murder during a lecture the day after it occurred. The professor allegedly allowed students to share controversial and aggressive comments that made the complainant feel uncomfortable.
The complaint was filed Sept. 17 and was closed with a finding of no violation. The professor didn’t respond to a request for comment.
University housing also received a complaint. The complainant alleged that they were unable to fly a Palestinian flag in their dorm due to resident assistant and housing supervisor biases. The complaint was filed Oct. 27, and it was closed due to the action not violating SB1’s free speech policy.
University housing declined to comment on the complaint itself, but did reiterate its facility policy that “hanging objects from the inside or outside of a residence hall window” is prohibited due to fire safety concerns.
The final complaint was made against a professor of American history at the Geauga Regional Campus. The complainant alleges that they lost points on a paper because of a reference they made to Charlie Kirk, briefly comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr. The complainant alleges professor bias influenced their grade.
The complaint was filed Dec. 17, and it remains in the investigation stage. The professor didn’t respond to a request for comment.
How the investigative process works
In an interview, Betsy McCafferty, the associate vice president of the Division of People, Culture and Belonging, and Pam Fitzgerald, the director of Equal Opportunity and Compliance, explained how the SB1 complaint process works.
Once a complaint is submitted, investigators and a support staffer at EOC review it to assess if the form has been filled out correctly. Then, they determine whether EOC has jurisdiction over the allegations. If it does, an investigator is assigned the case and a support staffer meets with the complainant to discuss the allegations.
Following the meeting, the support staffer sends notes to the investigator. The staffer and complainant can meet again if necessary.
Then, the respondent — the person the complaint has been filed against — is notified that a complaint has been filed against them. They have the choice to respond to the allegations. If they do, their response is reviewed by the assigned investigator and the complainant.
Both parties are asked to provide firsthand witnesses of the incident in question for interviews.
If the information gathered doesn’t rise to a policy violation, then the complaint is dismissed and the case is closed. If it does, then a hearing is held. Standard university employee hearings are handled under EOC while faculty are handled under Academic Affairs. Similarly to Office of Student Conduct hearings, these are not open to the public.
For respondents who are found responsible, disciplinary actions could include training, suspension or termination. Other variables, like whether the incident was a first-time offense, are also considered when infractions are decided.
“This is all new right now, so we don’t have [multiple instances],” McCafferty said. “Going forward, there might be more cases for progressive sanctions or disciplines.”
The complaint process can take up to 90 business days to complete. Fitzgerald said most cases take a long time due to delays in receiving documentation, investigators busy with other responsibilities or difficulty scheduling interviews. Extensions can also be granted if needed.
The state of Ohio is not involved in the process, according to Fitzgerald. As part of standard compliance, however, the university must report all annual SB1 data to the Ohio Chancellor of Higher Education. This includes how many complaints the university received and how many were investigated, but not the names of respondents.
This process flows the same way regardless of the respondent, according to Fitzgerald. She said investigations into individuals, student organizations and university departments are identical.
Currently, information on how the reporting process works isn’t available online. McCafferty and Fitzgerald said they hope to make that information available soon. They added it’s been difficult to create and implement the reporting process, as there were no previous templates available.
“It’s kind of challenging,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s ever-evolving. Every day is something new.”
In a message to alleviate faculty worries, McCafferty and Fitzgerald said the university and EOC handles investigations with all due process necessary. McCafferty said she doesn’t want to be the “classroom police.”
“As long as faculty members are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, then they should be fine,” she said. “I don’t have the time or bandwidth to police what’s being taught in the classroom.”
This story was originally published by the Kent State NewsLab, a collaborative news outlet publishing journalism by Kent State students.