EDITORS' CORNER
Affirms professor does not have right to DEI programming
A federal judge again upheld the legality of Ohio’s anti-DEI law for public universities.
Professor Darryl Rice had challenged the law in the Southern District of Ohio’s federal court, saying that it violated his First Amendment rights.
As a result of Senate Bill 1, Miami University “closed certain committees, entities, and programs related to DEI -both before and after [the law] became effective,” Judge Matthew McFarland wrote in his July 2 opinion. McFarland had previously denied Rice’s request for a temporary restraining order against the law.
The latest ruling strikes down all of Rice’s remaining motions. Although various DEI committees that he sat on were eliminated, the law did not affect his teaching specifically, McFarland wrote.
“As for the limited question presented here, the record does not demonstrate that Plaintiff-an individual professor unimpeded in his classroom teaching, scholarship, research, or publications-can proceed with his claims in federal court,” the judge ruled.
Rice had argued that cuts to various DEI programs at the school had made it harder for him to fulfill his “service” requirements, as mandated by his department.
Almost all his non-teaching experience is diversity related, according to a College Fix review of his curriculum vitae. He is a committee member on one DEI committee and also the vice president of the Miami University Association of Black Faculty and Staff.
Rice failed to convince the judge he had any injury from the university changes.
“Plaintiff still holds his same professorship and job duties” and “has not faced any warnings, investigations, or discipline for his DEI-related activities and speech.”
The business school, in fact, reportedly supports Rice’s diversity related activities.
“To put it succinctly and in Plaintiff’s own words, Defendants have not interfered with Plaintiff’s in-class teaching, scholarship, research, or publication of DEI-related topics,” McFarland wrote in his opinion.
The ruling further affirmed the principle that universities have discretion in how they operate, such as determining what counts for a service requirement. Rice also did not convince the judge that he had suffered any loss of reputation from the changes.
All other claims also failed, and as a result, “this matter is terminated from the court’s docket.”
