Ohio Court Rules No First Amendment Violation in University DEI Office Closures

Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Ohio University’s DEI Closures

In a recent decision from Rice v. Schell, Judge Matthew McFarland of the Southern District of Ohio ruled that Miami University’s closure of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)-related offices and committees did not violate the First Amendment. The ruling, issued two weeks before the opinion was posted on Westlaw, addresses a lawsuit brought by Darryl Rice, a tenured associate professor of management at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business.

Plaintiff’s Role and DEI Involvement

Professor Rice, a tenured and endowed faculty member, has taught courses such as Diversity and Cross-Cultural Management and participated in DEI programming for over a decade. His service obligations included contributions to DEI-based committees and programs, which he used to fulfill university service requirements under Miami University’s Tenure Track Guidelines. These guidelines define service as activities contributing to the university’s mission, including committee work and continuing education programs.

University’s DEI Closures and Legal Context

In April 2025, Miami University began winding down multiple DEI-related entities, including:

• The Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence
• The Farmer School of Business DEI Service Committee
• The Center for Student Diversity and Inclusion
• Miami Regional’s Center for DEI
• The Department of Management DEI Service Committee
• Miami University’s Across-the-Divide Conference
• The Office of Transformational and Inclusive Excellence Newsletter
• The Inclusive Excellence Faculty Fellows Program
• The DEI Mastermind Program
• The Diversity and Inclusion Networking Event
• DEI Professional Development Day

Miami University attributed these closures to the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act (S.B. 1), a state law restricting DEI initiatives in public universities. Notably, the university initiated the closures before S.B. 1 officially took effect. The law mandates that state institutions prohibit:

1. Orientation or training courses on diversity, equity, and inclusion (with limited exceptions);
2. Existing DEI offices or departments; and
3. The establishment of new DEI offices or departments.

The statute also clarifies that faculty and students may engage in classroom instruction, discussion, or debate on DEI topics, provided intellectual diversity is allowed.

Court’s Ruling on First Amendment Claims

Professor Rice sued, alleging that S.B. 1 violated the First Amendment. The court disagreed, emphasizing what the case did not involve:

• Allegations of compelled speech by the government;
• A university suing to enjoin the law;
• Student constitutional violations;
• Disciplinary action for speech;
• Restrictions on classroom or campus speech.

The court concluded that the closures did not implicate the First Amendment, as they did not target or suppress speech but instead addressed the structure and funding of DEI programs.

"This is not a case involving allegations that the Government is compelling particular speech. This is not a case in which a university itself brings suit to enjoin a law. This is not a case in which students allege constitutional violations. This is not a case in which a plaintiff has been threatened with disciplinary action for certain speech. This is not a case involving allegations of a professor's speech being stymied in the classroom or on the campus green."

Implications for DEI Programs in Ohio

The ruling underscores the legal boundaries of state legislation targeting DEI initiatives in public universities. While faculty and students may still discuss DEI topics in academic settings, the decision permits institutions to restructure or eliminate DEI offices and programs in compliance with state law.