Purpose:

Ohio Revised Code 3345.0217 requires each public university in Ohio to adopt a policy on diversity, equity and inclusion and other concepts that is consistent with and adheres to the principles set forth in R.C. 3345.0217.

Miami University protects the rights of its students, student groups, and faculty in accordance with this policy. This Policy has been approved by the Miami University Board of Trustees.

Policy

It shall be the policy of Miami University, and Miami University shall enforce such policy, that requires the following:

1. Miami University will prohibit the following:

   1. Any orientation or training course regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, unless the institution submits a written request for an exception to the chancellor of higher education because the institution determines the orientation or training course is exempt from that prohibition because all aspects of the orientation or course are required to do any of the following: (I) Comply with state and federal laws or regulations; (II) Comply with state or federal professional licensure requirements; or (III) Obtain or retain accreditation. 

   2. The continuation of existing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices or departments;

   3. Establishing new diversity, equity, and inclusion offices or departments;

   4. Using diversity, equity, and inclusion in job descriptions;

   5. Contracting with consultants or third-parties whose role is or would be to promote admissions,   hiring, or promotion on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;

   6. The establishment of any new institutional scholarships that use diversity, equity, and inclusion in any manner. For any institutional scholarships existing on the effective date of this section, Miami shall, to the extent possible, eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements. If Miami is unable to do so because of donor requirements, the institution may continue to offer those institutional scholarships. However, Miami shall not accept any additional funds for the operation of institutional scholarships that have diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements;

   7. The use of political and ideological litmus tests in all hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions, including diversity statements and any other requirement that applicants describe their commitment to any ideology, principle, concept, or formulation that requires commitment to any controversial belief or policy.

2. Miami University affirms and declares following:

   1. that its primary function is to practice, or support the practice, discovery, improvement, transmission, and dissemination of knowledge and citizenship education by means of research, teaching, discussion, and debate;

   2. that it shall ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity;

   3. declare that faculty and staff shall allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to indoctrinate any social, political, or religious point of view;

   4. that it will not encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology, political stance, or view of a social policy, nor will the institution require students to do any of those things to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree;

   5. that no hiring, promotion, or admissions process or decision shall encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology or political stance;

   6. that it will not use a diversity statement or any other assessment of an applicant's political or ideological views in any hiring, promotions, or admissions process or decision;

   7. that no process or decision regulating conditions of work or study, such as committee assignments, course scheduling, or workload adjustment policies, shall encourage, discourage, require, or forbid students, faculty, or administrators to endorse, assent to, or publicly express a given ideology or political stance;

   8. that it will seek out invited speakers who have diverse ideological or political views

3. Miami University declares that it will not endorse or oppose, as an institution, any controversial belief or policy, except on matters that directly impact the institution's funding or mission of discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.

4. Miami University will demonstrate intellectual diversity for course approval, approval of courses to satisfy general education requirements, student course evaluations, common reading programs, annual reviews, strategic goals for each department, and student learning outcomes.

5. Nothing in this policy prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity.

Exceptions

1. It shall be the policy of Miami University that Sections B(i)-(iii) and Section D above do not apply to the exercise of professional judgment about how to accomplish intellectual diversity within an academic discipline, unless that exercise is misused to constrict intellectual diversity.
2. It shall be the policy of Miami University that Section B (iv) and Section C above do not apply to the exercise of professional judgment about whether to endorse the consensus or foundational beliefs of an academic discipline, unless that exercise is misused to take an action prohibited in division (C) of this section.
3. Nothing in this policy prohibits faculty or students from classroom instruction, discussion, or debate, so long as faculty members allow students to express intellectual diversity.
4. Nothing in this policy prohibits a state institution of higher education from complying with any state or federal law to provide disability services or to permit student organizations, including fraternities and sororities.

Definitions

"Controversial belief or policy" means any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.

"Intellectual diversity" means multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.

Procedures

Complaints

Further, the University has established the following Complaint process under which a student, student group, or faculty member may submit a complaint about an alleged violation by an employee of the University for violations of the above policy.

A complaint can be submitted through Ethicspoint

Under this process, which complies with standards adopted by the Ohio Chancellor of Higher Education, the University will investigate the alleged violation and conduct a fair and impartial hearing regarding the alleged violation. If the hearing determines the state institution of higher education’s policy was violated, the University shall determine a resolution to address the violation and prevent any further violation of the University policy.

Complaint and Investigation Procedures

1. Any student, student group or faculty member[1] may submit a complaint alleging that their rights under this policy have been violated by an employee of the University under the this policy by submitting an EthicsPoint complaint via the link within 30 days of the alleged violation. The Complaint must include the following information:

   1. The Name and Contact Information of the complaining student, faculty member, or student group (“Complaining Party”);

   2. The Name and/or Title of the University Employee alleged to have violated this Policy. For purposes of this policy, a University Employee may include Residence Life staff (e.g. RA or RD) and Graduate  Students acting in their capacity as an agent of the University in their role;

   3. A recitation of the facts, location and circumstances of the alleged violation;

   4. The names of any witnesses to the alleged violation;

While EthicsPoint permits the filing of anonymous complaints, anonymous complaints cannot be investigated under this policy.

2. Upon receipt of the Complaint submitted via the EthicsPoint portal, the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) will review to confirm that the complaint contains enough information to discern that a bona fide allegation of a violation of this policy has occurred within the time frame required under this process.

3. Either via EthicsPoint or direct written communication with the Complaining Party, the Complaint will be acknowledged and the Complaining Party notified that an investigation will be conducted, or that the Complaint does not allege a bona fide violation of a protected right under this policy and the matter will be closed with no further action.

4. OGC will notify the Hearing Committee Administrator that a Complaint has been filed, the names of the Parties to the complaint, and advise that an Investigator needs to be appointed and Hearing Panel convened. The Hearing Committee Administrator is a person designated by the Provost to serve as the liaison between the Parties and the Hearing Committee and administer the investigation and prehearing process under this policy.

5. The Hearing Committee Administrator will notify the Complaining Party that the Complaint will be investigated, and the Party against whom the Complaint is alleged (Respondent) will be notified of the Complaint along with a recitation of the allegations in the Complaint.

6. An appointed investigator will contact both the Complaining Party and the Respondent to gather the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged violation from the Parties and any information regarding witnesses to the alleged violation. The investigator will also inquire with the Complaining Party what remedy they are seeking to remediate the alleged violation. The investigator will prepare a summary briefing detailing the information gathered in the investigation. This briefing will be provided to the Parties and the Hearing Committee Administrator.

7. Upon receipt of the investigation report, the Hearing Committee Administrator will contact the Parties to schedule a hearing on the alleged violation. The Hearing Committee Administrator will also ask the parties whether there is any interest in resolving the alleged violation through alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution under this policy would likely take the form of a mediated dialogue in lieu of a hearing, based upon the interest of the parties and the proposed resolution to the Complaint. If there is no interest in alternative dispute resolution by both parties, or if an effort at alternative dispute resolution does not resolve the Complaint, then a hearing date and time will be set.

Hearing Process

The University shall maintain a standing Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee shall be constituted of six total members: three (3) persons holding Faculty-rank and three (3) Unclassified Staff members appointed by the Provost and Executive Vice President of the University to serve a three-year term. Individual hearings shall be conducted by a panel of three (3) members of the Hearing Committee (“Hearing Panel”) as appointed by the Hearing Committee Administrator. The Hearing Panel must contain at least one member of the same employee classification as the Respondent. An appointed Hearing Officer shall sit with the Hearing Panel to conduct the hearing and provide guidance during deliberations on applicable Constitutional and Ohio law.

Hearing Guidelines:

The hearing will be conducted according to the following guidelines: 

1. The investigation report shall be shared with the Hearing Panel prior to the hearing.

2. The hearing shall normally be conducted in private. Admission of any person to the hearing shall be at the discretion of the Hearing Panel.

3. The Complaining Party and the Respondent shall have the right to be assisted by an advisor of their choice. The role of the advisor is only to be present; they will not be provided documentation or permitted to speak on behalf of any Party during the hearing. If an advisor is determined by the Hearing Officer to be unreasonably interfering with the proceeding, they may be asked to leave.

4. The Complaining Party and the Respondent shall have the right to present testimony and witnesses, subject to the right of cross examination by the other party and the Hearing Panel members.

5. The Hearing Panel may request testimony from witnesses which it believes may be relevant to its decision on the merits. Witnesses who are subject matter experts may be called by either party, or called upon by a member of the hearing panel, to provide expertise in a given academic discipline at any stage of deliberation.

6. Pertinent records, exhibits, and written statements may be accepted as evidence for consideration by the Hearing Panel, but any such records must be exchanged between the Parties prior to the Hearing, in accordance with the directions established during the pre-hearing scheduling conference.

7. All procedural questions are subject to the final decision of the Hearing Officer, in consultation with the Hearing Panel, if appropriate in the judgment of the Hearing Officer.

8. After the hearing, the Hearing Panel shall deliberate and, with the assistance of the Hearing Officer, timely issue its findings of fact and decision on the merits as to whether or not a violation occurred, along with a suggested remediation and/or disciplinary sanction, if appropriate, to the Parties and the Provost.

Appeals Process

An appeal of the Hearing Panel’s Findings and Decision will follow the following guidelines:

1. Appeals may be filed for the following reasons:

   1. A procedural error in the hearing of the case occurred that is determined to be substantial enough to have changed the outcome of the hearing.

   2. New evidence exists that was not reasonably available at the time the determination was made that is determined to be substantial enough to have changed the outcome of the hearing.

   3. The proposed remediation is not aligned with the hearing panel’s findings and decision.

2. Within 10 business days of the issuance of the Hearing Panel’s Findings and Decision, either Party may submit a written appeal of the Hearing Panel’s decision to the Office of the Provost.

3. If a Party appeals the decision, then the non-appealing party will have 10 business days to submit a written response to the appeal.

4. Based upon a review of the record, the Provost may accept, reject, or modify the Hearing Panel’s decision and will notify the Parties of their decision within 15 business days of the submission date of the response. The Provost’s decision will be final and reported to the President and Board of Trustees.

5. The Provost may adjust the timelines set forth here to facilitate a fair process for the Parties.

6. If neither Party appeals the decision of the Hearing Panel within the timeframe provided for appeals (see 10(b)), the Provost will accept the decision of the Hearing Panel and, if a violation was found, the Provost will issue a directive on remediation or disciplinary sanction in consultation with the Respondent’s Vice President or Designee, or supervisor. For purposes of this policy, “disciplinary sanction” means any directive that results in a suspension, termination, or change in job status of an employee.

7. In cases where the disciplinary sanction results in suspension or termination of the Respondent, the Respondent employee will be afforded the processes for appeal of the appropriateness of the sanction only, as described in the applicable disciplinary policy or collective bargaining agreement.

   • An appeal of the underlying Hearing Panel’s Decision, or that of the Provost, as reflected in the findings of fact and decision on the merits as to whether or not a violation occurred, will not be subject to further review.

8. Once all options for appeal have been applied, the decision will be final and reported to the President and Board of Trustees.

Non-Retaliation

Retaliation against any person(s) who in good faith reports a violation of this policy, participates in an investigation or is a witness in any investigation or proceeding is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Those who engage in retaliation will face University disciplinary action up to and including suspension or dismissal.

---

Related Form(s)

Not Applicable.

---

Additional Resources and Procedures

Campus Free Speech Policy

Statement of Essential Teaching Practices

Interim Disciplinary Procedures

---

 

FAQ

Not Applicable.

---

Policy Administration

Next Review Date

7/1/2027

Responsible Officer

General Counsel, Executive Vice President and Provost

Legal Authority

O.R.C. 3345.0217 (136^the Senate Bill 1); Ohio Department of Higher Education, Miami University Board of Trustees  

Compliance Policy

Yes

Revision History

 New August 2025

Reference ID

N/A

Reviewing Bodies

General Counsel