Examining Ohio S.B. 1’s Impact on International Students in U.S. Higher Education: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

The current conservative wave of U.S. policies on higher education lacks the recognition of international students’ various backgrounds and ideologies, economic contributions, and nuanced experiences that would enrich college campuses. This paper provides a critical discourse analysis of anti-DEI rhetoric and legislation with Ohio’s higher education senate bill (S.B. 1 signed March 2025) as an exemplary case and with international students in mind. With this, I explicated some relevant legal issues of the bill (intellectual diversity, DEI programs, American civic literacy course, evaluating faculty’s role in maintaining a bias-free classroom, and partnership with People’s Republic of China) and their implications on freedom of expression and international student admissions, retention, safety, and student services. As a scholar from abroad, I aim to provide a voice, perspective, and analysis for international students in these politically charged times in U.S. higher education.

1. Introduction

The presence and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in Ohio’s public higher education system are under threat. In March 2025, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 1 (2025) (S.B. 1), the Enact Advance Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act, a Republican-sponsored bill that bans DEI training, prohibits financial partnerships with China, mandates intellectual diversity reviews in all courses, and targets what proponents call “woke” ideologies (Moody, 2023, p. 1). The bill was signed into law on March 28, following swift institutional responses such as The Ohio State University’s premature closure of DEI-related offices (Henry, 2025). Senator Cirino, a key proponent, stated he supports “diversity of thought,” but the bill’s framing raises questions about which forms of diversity are being valued and which are being sidelined (Kasler, 2023, p. 1).

The broader context of this study is the intensifying politicization of higher education in the United States. DEI programs have become flashpoints in national debates over academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and cultural identity. Conservative lawmakers increasingly frame universities as sites of ideological indoctrination, prompting legislative efforts to curtail DEI initiatives, restrict faculty speech, and assert state control over curriculum (Curran, 2023). These developments reflect a shift away from inclusive, globally engaged education toward a more insular and regulated model.

While the bill’s language centers on race, gender, and ideological diversity, it remains silent on international student diversity—a critical dimension in higher education (Li, 2022). This omission is particularly concerning given Ohio’s national ranking as eighth in international student enrollment in 2021 (A. Parker, 2024). International students contribute not only to campus diversity but also to the state’s economy, academic excellence, and global engagement (Ghazarian et al., 2023). However, they are uniquely vulnerable to policy shifts due to their visa status, cultural unfamiliarity, and limited institutional power (Ma, 2022). For international students—who often rely on DEI offices, culturally responsive pedagogy, and faculty mentorship—these changes pose significant challenges to their academic success and sense of belonging (Ghazarian et al., 2023). Studying how S.B. 1 affects international students allows us to interrogate how state-level legislation can marginalize global perspectives and reinforce U.S.-centric ideologies in higher education. This inquiry is especially urgent as similar bills are being introduced and implemented across the country, reshaping the sociopolitical landscape and student composition of academia (Schachle-Gordon et al., 2025).

This paper addresses a critical gap in current policy debates by foregrounding the unique needs of international students—an often-overlooked population in discussions surrounding anti-DEI legislation (Li, 2022). I will critically examine S.B. 1 through the lens of international student interests, focusing on how the legislation may affect their legal protections, educational experiences, and inclusion within Ohio’s public universities. Drawing on the American Council on Education’s (American Council on Education, 2021) Model for Comprehensive Internationalization and Li’s (2022) DEI-centered framework, the study defines international student diversity as the presence, support, and equitable treatment of students from outside the U.S. The American Council on Education’s model (2021) emphasizes a student-centered approach to inclusion, integrating DEI principles throughout the lifecycle of the international student’s stay in U.S. institutions. It calls for U.S. campuses to move beyond symbolic diversity and toward substantive equity by embedding global perspectives into all possible educational aspects.

A central contribution of this paper is its use of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to interrogate the language of S.B. 1. As Lester et al. (2016) argue, CDA offers a powerful lens for examining how policy texts construct social realities, reproduce power relations, and shape ideological boundaries in education. This study applies CDA to reveal how policy both omits and constructs minoritized groups such as international students, exposing a paradox in which they are rendered invisible in explicit legislative language while simultaneously being implicated through broader ideological framings and policy consequences (Jones & Briscoe, 2025). This dual mechanism marginalizes international students by excluding them from legislation while also positioning them within narratives that shape institutional priorities and constraints.

The research question guiding this study is:

How does the language of Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (2025) construct, marginalize, or exclude international students within the broader ideological and political discourse of higher education policy, and what are the implications for international student equity, inclusion, and institutional autonomy?

The following sections explore these issues through legislative analysis, theoretical framing, and discourse analysis methodology.

2. Understanding the Anti-DEI Context Nationally and Within the State of Ohio

As of September 2025, 136 anti-DEI bills were introduced across 30 states (Sikes, 2024; DEI Legislation Tracker, 2025). States like Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas were pioneering implementers where sweeping legislation has dismantled DEI offices, banned mandatory diversity training, and prohibited the use of diversity statements in hiring (DEI Legislation Tracker, 2025; Phan & Sperling, 2025). Texas’ Senate Bill 17 (2023), for instance, led to the closure of the Multicultural Engagement Center and the Monarch Program at the University of Texas at Austin—programs that supported undocumented and marginalized students (Sikes, 2024). In Oklahoma, Executive Order 2023-31 (2025) and a series of bills from 2021 to 2024 formed a de facto strategic plan to reshape higher education into an extension of state power, targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ students and faculty through censorship, funding restrictions, and surveillance mechanisms (Phan & Sperling, 2025). Similarly, in Florida and Georgia, Black student leaders have reported heightened racial battle fatigue, institutional erasure, and emotional withdrawal in response to anti-DEI legislation (Beatty et al., 2025). These laws have had chilling effects on campus climate, student support services, and faculty governance (Schachle-Gordon et al., 2025).

These bills align with a broader right-wing legislative strategy often referred to as the “war on woke,” which includes laws that, while not explicitly targeting DEI, still seek to suppress progressive discourses and identities in education (Rajasekar et al., 2025, p. 197; Beatty et al., 2025; Phan & Sperling, 2025). Examples include Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill (Florida H.B. 157 s. 2022), which restricts discussions of gender and sexuality in classrooms; bans on Critical Race Theory in states like Idaho (Idaho H.B. 377 s. 2021) and Tennessee (Tennessee H.B. 580 s. 2021); and efforts to defund gender studies (Florida H.B. 999 s. 2023) and area studies (Project 2025; Burke, 2024) programs in public universities. These laws collectively aim to reshape the ideological boundaries of education by limiting the visibility and legitimacy of marginalized perspectives (Curran, 2023). Given Ohio’s Republican-majority legislature following the 2024 elections, the state has aligned itself with a broader national trend among red-led states in advancing anti-DEI legislation.

Thus, in March 2025, Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (2025) (S.B. 1), the Enact Advance Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act, passed with a 21–11 vote in the Senate and a 59–34 vote in the House. It was signed into law just days later. The bill was authored by Republican Senator Jerry Cirino, who had previously introduced Senate Bill 83 (2023), a similar piece of legislation that ultimately failed to advance. Cirino, chair of the Senate Higher Education and Workforce Committee, claims the bill protects students from ideological indoctrination and promotes diversity of thought (Staver, 2023). However, critics argue that the bill undermines academic freedom and institutional autonomy, while failing to address the full spectrum of diversity in higher education. S.B. 1 fits within the conservative framework by advancing a vision of higher education that prioritizes ideological conformity over pluralism, and state oversight over institutional autonomy (Hollingsworth, 2025).

Ohio’s S.B. 1 goes further by including provisions unrelated to DEI, such as banning financial partnerships with Chinese institutions, mandating American government courses, and requiring faculty evaluations based on “free[dom] from bias” (Staver, 2023, para. 1). While Senator Cirino revised some of the bill’s ambiguous language to address public criticism (Kasler, 2023), the legislation remains expansive and vague in its scope. Notably absent from the bill is any mention of international students, a population that contributes significantly to Ohio’s higher education system and economy.

This omission is troubling. Ohio hosts a number of international students who generated over $44 billion in U.S. export income in 2019 (Ghazarian et al., 2023). Yet, as scholars have noted, international students often face unique bureaucratic, cultural, and linguistic challenges that are exacerbated by restrictive policies and insufficient institutional support (Ma, 2022; Özturgut & Murphy, 2009). These include visa uncertainties, limited access to culturally responsive services, and marginalization in campus discourse—issues that DEI offices have historically helped address. The dismantling of DEI infrastructure, as seen in Florida and Oklahoma, has already led to the closure of multicultural centers and the defunding of student-led initiatives that served both domestic and international marginalized populations (Phan & Sperling, 2025; Beatty et al., 2025).

Curran (2023) warns that anti-DEI legislation risks undermining broader educational goals by narrowing the range of perspectives students are exposed to. He argues that while universities may lean liberal, there is little evidence of systematic indoctrination. Instead, DEI programs often serve to expand, not restrict, students’ intellectual horizons. Similarly, PEN America’s Jeremy Young emphasizes the need for civil discourse and cautions that policies like S.B. 1 may fail to address the real issues of student alienation and peer backlash (Staver, 2023).

The silence of Ohio’s public university leaders in 2025, including The Ohio State University, contrasts sharply with their vocal opposition to S.B. 83 just two years prior. Then, OSU’s trustees, appointed by the governor, joined national academic organizations in denouncing the bill, citing its threat to institutional values and academic integrity (Moody, 2023). Their current reticence raises questions about political pressure, institutional autonomy, and the evolving landscape of higher education governance.

This paper situates S.B. 1 within this broader national and institutional context, with a specific focus on its implications for international students. By examining how the bill intersects with issues of academic freedom, student services, and campus inclusion, this study aims to foreground the often-overlooked experiences and interests of international students in the ongoing debates over DEI and higher education policy.

3. Understanding International Students’ Context in the Current Political Climate

International students play a pivotal role in shaping the academic, cultural, and economic landscape of U.S. higher education (Institute of International Education, 2024). Ohio, with its robust public university system, has historically maintained a strong international presence, hosting tens of thousands of students from abroad in recent years (A. Parker, 2024). Yet, legislative shifts such as S.B. 1 threaten to destabilize the inclusive frameworks that support these students, particularly as DEI initiatives face political backlash.

U.S. institutions actively recruit international students to boost enrollment, enhance global prestige, and offset financial shortfalls. International students are often seen as both cultural assets and economic contributors. McClure (2020) notes that public universities, facing declining domestic enrollment and reduced state funding, increasingly rely on international students to stabilize budgets. This financial dependence is reflected in recruitment strategies that emphasize global outreach, partnerships, and branding. In 2019 alone, international students contributed over $44 billion to the U.S. economy through tuition, housing, and related expenses (Ghazarian et al., 2023). Institutions also benefit from the symbolic capital of international diversity, using it to signal global engagement and academic excellence (Bihn, 2019). However, this instrumental framing often overlooks the complex realities of international student life, reducing students to economic units rather than fully engaged members of campus communities.

Despite their contributions, international students frequently encounter marginalization, microaggressions, and discrimination (Rodriguez et al., 2023). Scholars have documented structural barriers such as visa restrictions, cultural adjustment challenges, and limited access to culturally responsive services (Gopal & Streitwieser, 2016; Ma, 2022). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many international students reported feeling isolated and unsupported, with immigration uncertainty and xenophobia contributing to a sense of chaos and disillusionment (Ghazarian et al., 2023). These experiences are compounded by racialized dynamics on campus. For example, Black students from Africa or the Caribbean may be racialized as African American and subjected to the same prejudices, despite differing cultural backgrounds. Middle Eastern and African students report the highest levels of discrimination on and off campus, including being profiled, insulted, or subjected to biased assumptions (Loo, 2019).

Asian and Asian American students, particularly those from China, face a distinct form of marginalization shaped by geopolitical narratives and racialized tropes. The Education Trust–West report (Gutierrez et al., 2021) documents how Asian students are often excluded from DEI conversations despite experiencing both overt and covert racism. Suspitsyna and Shalka (2019) extend this critique by analyzing U.S. media portrayals of Chinese international students, revealing a persistent East/West binary in which these students are framed as culturally inferior, academically deficient, or politically suspect. Even when celebrated, they are often praised for mimicking Western norms rather than for their own cultural contributions. This duality reflects the “model minority” stereotype—where Asian students are seen as high-achieving but socially alien—and the “perpetual foreigner” trope, which casts them as outsiders regardless of citizenship or assimilation (Suspitsyna & Shalka, 2019, p. 291; Gutierrez et al., 2021).

These narratives not only obscure the diversity within Asian student populations but also legitimize exclusionary policies like those found in S.B. 1. The bill’s anti-China provisions, for instance, risk conflating national identity with political affiliation, fostering suspicion toward Chinese students and faculty. Suspitsyna and Shalka (2019) argue that such discursive constructions are rooted in colonial hierarchies that frame Chinese students as “postcolonial Others”—simultaneously desirable for their tuition dollars and threatening due to their perceived cultural and political difference. This framing reinforces a climate of surveillance and exclusion, undermining the inclusive goals of internationalization and DEI.

Moreover, international students contribute far more than economic value. They bring intellectual diversity, multilingualism, and global perspectives that enrich classroom discussions and research collaborations (Ma, 2022). Their presence challenges ethnocentric assumptions and fosters intercultural competence among domestic students (Özturgut & Murphy, 2009). Many international students also serve as teaching assistants, researchers, and campus leaders, shaping institutional culture in meaningful ways. Yet, their contributions are often overlooked in policy debates, and their needs remain peripheral in institutional planning (Deuchar, 2022).

Recent scholarship has emphasized the importance of targeted academic and social support for international students, noting that their success depends on more than just enrollment; it requires intentional inclusion (Martirosyan et al., 2019). International students in pathway programs, for example, often navigate discipline-specific coursework while still refining their English skills, making them particularly vulnerable to policy changes that restrict DEI programming (Elturki et al., 2019). Without access to DEI-informed services, international students may struggle to integrate socially, engage academically, and feel a sense of belonging on campus. These experiences are not peripheral—they are central to understanding how policies like S.B. 1 shape institutional climates and student outcomes.

One recurring concern is international students’ hesitancy to speak in class (Penn GSE News, 2020). Zimmerman (2021) observed that some students refrained from sharing opinions due to fears of surveillance or misunderstanding—concerns shaped by sociopolitical contexts and prior educational norms. However, this experience is not universal. Students’ willingness to participate varies based on cultural background, language proficiency, and familiarity with U.S. pedagogical expectations. Still, Warikoo (2016) notes that elite institutions often promote a “diversity bargain,” where students of color and international students are expected to contribute cultural perspectives without challenging dominant norms.

This dynamic reflects what Bell and Hartmann (2007, p. 895) call “happy talk” diversity, an institutional discourse that celebrates difference without confronting power or privilege. Rajasekar et al. (2025) expand on this by showing how DEI language, while gaining traction in job titles and institutional rhetoric, is increasingly politicized and under attack. Their study reveals that even institutions with diverse student bodies are not immune to the rollback of DEI policies, suggesting that inclusive internationalization cannot be taken for granted.

To counter these trends, scholars advocate for DEI-guided international higher education—a framework that integrates diversity, equity, and inclusion into internationalization strategies. Li (2022) emphasizes that such approaches affirm international students’ identities, promote antiracist pedagogies, and position them as co-creators of institutional culture. Stein et al. (2016) further argue that dominant models of internationalization often reproduce colonial hierarchies and global imaginaries that marginalize non-Western perspectives. Their social cartography of internationalization calls for more relational, anti-oppressive, and translocal approaches that challenge the commodification of global education. Deuchar (2022) adds that research must move beyond passive notions of experience and instead foreground international students’ practices—their agentive contributions to classrooms, campuses, and communities. This aligns with Rajasekar et al.’s (2025, p. 195) call for a “critical diversity” perspective that moves beyond the business case for diversity to prioritize justice and structural change. This shift allows for a more dynamic understanding of how international students shape and are shaped by higher education.

Rather than claiming that international student experiences are overlooked, this paper identifies a gap in how current policy debates fail to account for their unique needs. It contributes to the literature by examining how anti-DEI legislation intersects with international student inclusion, academic freedom, and institutional responsibility. In doing so, it foregrounds the voices and interests of international students in the broader discourse on equity and higher education policy.

4. DEI-Centered International Higher Education

This article is grounded in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Lens introduced by the American Council on Education (ACE) in 2021 as part of its updated Model for Comprehensive Internationalization. This framework captures internationalization in higher education by explicitly integrating DEI principles across institutional domains, including international student services, admissions, study abroad, and curriculum design (Cunningham et al., 2023). The model emphasizes a student-centered, lifecycle approach to inclusion, which means institutions must support international students not only at the point of recruitment but throughout their academic journey, from orientation and advising to graduation and alumni engagement.

American Council on Education’s (2021) model identifies six interconnected pillars of comprehensive internationalization: (1) articulated institutional commitment, (2) administrative leadership and structure, (3) curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes, (4) faculty policies and practices, (5) student mobility, and (6) collaboration and partnerships. Within each pillar, the DEI lens encourages institutions to examine how international students are included, supported, and empowered. For example, under curriculum and learning outcomes, ACE recommends embedding global perspectives into general education and major-specific courses, while also ensuring that international students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds are valued in classroom discourse. Under administrative leadership, the model calls for cross-unit collaboration between DEI offices and international student services to dismantle silos and promote holistic inclusion.

Helms and Spreitzer (2021), building on ACE’s framework, argue that real inclusion requires sustained academic, co-curricular, and social opportunities for cross-cultural learning, as well as institutional support that affirms international students’ value and agency throughout their educational journey. They emphasize that inclusion must be proactive and structural, not reactive or symbolic, and that institutions must address the unique vulnerabilities of international students, including visa-related stress, cultural adjustment, and racialization.

Building on American Council on Education’s (2021) framework, Li (2022) proposes a threefold process for operationalizing DEI in international higher education:

• Dismantling exclusionary mindsets such as policy compliance and assimilation—including the policy compliance mentality, assimilation, and acculturation frameworks—that treat international students as passive recipients of institutional norms or geopolitical agendas. These models often dehumanize students by prioritizing conformity over cultural affirmation.
• Weaving international education into campus-wide DEI efforts—recognizing that international students, most of whom are non-white—are often excluded from racial studies and DEI programming. Li (2022) calls for bridging domestic and international student services to dismantle institutional silos and promote holistic inclusion.
• Adopting asset-based, antiracist practices that affirm international students’ cultural wealth, linguistic diversity, and lived experiences. Drawing on Yosso’s (2005) concept of community cultural wealth and antiracist principles (Kendi, 2019), Li (2022) advocates for programming that positions international students as contributors and leaders in diversity discourse, rather than perpetual outsiders.

Together, American Council on Education’s (2021) DEI lens and Li’s (2022) operational model provide a robust framework for analyzing how policy language constructs international students within broader ideological tensions. These perspectives guide the empirical analysis in this study by offering criteria analyses, explained in Section 6 below, through which the discourse of S.B. 1 is interrogated.

This framework is further enriched by Berrey’s (2015) analysis of diversity discourse in U.S. higher education, which critiques how institutions often adopt vague, celebratory language that masks structural inequalities and reinforces neoliberal logics. Warikoo (2016) adds nuance by examining how elite universities institutionalize diversity through practices that reward cultural representation while maintaining dominant norms, often sidelining deeper engagement with racial and social justice. These critiques underscore the need for a critical discourse analysis of policies like Ohio’s S.B. 1, which rhetorically embraces “diversity of thought” while dismantling DEI infrastructure. By applying American Council on Education’s (2021) DEI lens and Li’s (2022) operational model alongside Berrey (2015) and Warikoo’s (2016) insights, this article situates international students at the center of policy analysis, foregrounding their experiences, contributions, and vulnerabilities within the shifting landscape of higher education governance. This study continues to fill the gap of anti-DEI legislation and how it intersects with the international students’ experiences and agency.

5. Theoretical Context: Diversity Policy, Discourse, and the Case for Critical Diversity

To further contextualize the implications of Ohio S.B. 1 for international students with the use of a DEI-centered International Higher Education framework, it is essential to examine the broader trajectory of diversity policy and discourse in U.S. higher education. Recent scholarship has highlighted how diversity initiatives have evolved from equity-driven affirmative action programs to more depoliticized and managerial forms of “diversity management.” This shift has significant consequences for how institutions conceptualize inclusion and whose interests are prioritized.

Portocarrero and Carter (2022) trace the historical transformation of diversity initiatives, showing how affirmative action’s original focus on racial equity was gradually reframed as a business strategy during the Reagan era. This rebranding, driven by personnel experts and institutional actors, led to the rise in diversity rhetoric that often obscures structural inequality. Their review reveals that many contemporary diversity programs lack accountability and fail to address the needs of marginalized groups, including international students. The authors call for a renewed focus on equity and justice, arguing that diversity must be reconnected to its civil rights roots to be effective.

Warikoo (2025) complements this analysis by examining the cultural framing of affirmative action in college admissions. She identifies three dominant frames: racial equity, diversity, and reverse discrimination, and argues that the ascendancy of the diversity frame weakened the moral and legal foundation of race-conscious policies. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action reflects this shift, as diversity was deemed insufficient justification for race-conscious admissions. Warikoo’s (2025) work underscores how diversity discourse has been strategically narrowed to appeal to white interests, sidelining the equity concerns of underrepresented and international students.

Building on these critiques, Wilcox (2025, p. 94) introduces the concept of “conforming critical diversity,” which describes how individuals navigate institutional constraints by blending critical and uncritical diversity frames. In her study of a U.S.-based tech company, Wilcox (2025) shows how employees strategically define diversity broadly while centering inequality, justify diversity through both equity and business outcomes, and use individualistic language to discuss structural issues. This discursive negotiation reflects the pressures faced by international students and faculty in politically charged environments like Ohio, where DEI language is increasingly suppressed.

Jones and Briscoe (2025, p. 1) argue that anti-CRT and anti-DEI legislation reflect a “legal logic of whiteness,” where race neutrality and emotional appeals are used to protect white interests and suppress race-conscious education. Their CDA of 66 legislative documents across 42 states reveals how policymakers invoke terms like “objectivity,” “impartiality,” and “historical accuracy” to legitimize exclusionary practices. These discursive strategies align with whiteness as property (Harris, 1993 in Jones & Briscoe, 2025), reinforcing the right to exclude and the protection of white emotionality. This framing complements Wilcox’s (2025) concept of conforming critical diversity and underscores the ideological work of policy language in maintaining racial hierarchies.

Together, these studies illuminate the ideological tensions embedded in diversity discourse and policy. They reveal how institutions often adopt symbolic diversity language while resisting substantive equity reforms. For international students, this means that their inclusion is frequently rhetorical rather than structural, and their experiences are shaped by policies that prioritize compliance over justice. The concept of “critical diversity,” as advocated by Wilcox (2025, p. 94) and Portocarrero and Carter (2022), offers a more robust framework for understanding and addressing these challenges. It calls for diversity initiatives that confront power, affirm marginalized identities, and promote systemic change.

In the context of Ohio S.B. 1, these insights are particularly salient. The bill’s emphasis on “intellectual diversity” and its rejection of DEI programming reflect a broader trend of depoliticizing diversity while reinforcing dominant ideologies. By excluding international students from its discourse and dismantling the infrastructure that supports their inclusion, S.B. 1 exemplifies the limitations of uncritical diversity frameworks. A shift toward critical diversity is necessary to ensure that international students are not only present but equitably supported and empowered within U.S. higher education.

6. Explication and Critical Discourse Analysis

To analyze Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (2025) (S.B. 1), I employed a two-stage methodological approach: first, the explication method, followed by Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Explication, as defined by Akin (1998), is a linguistic method that deconstructs and reconstructs a text by examining its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. It involves close reading of explicit textual elements to uncover implicit meanings, particularly useful for technical or legal documents where conceptual ambiguity is common. Akin (1998) recommends a tri-level procedure: (1) examining overt structures such as definitions and problem statements, (2) backward chaining to trace cognitive trails and identify misinterpretations, and (3) interpreting latent meanings embedded in the text. In this study, I applied these steps to S.B. 1 by identifying and memoing key definitional shifts, tracing ideological assumptions across clauses, and interpreting the bill’s implications for international students. For example, I analyzed how terms like “intellectual diversity” and “foreign influence” were framed to signal ideological positions while omitting global student perspectives. This stage led me to identify five specific items from S.B. 1 which are relevant to the international students’ situation. These five items organized into emerging themes are discussed in detail in Section 7 and Section 8 below.

To deepen the analysis, I incorporated a comparative framework by revisiting S.B. 83, introduced in 2023, by the same senator sponsor. While S.B. 83 was ultimately not enacted, it served as a precursor to S.B. 1 and shared almost entirely similar ideological and structural features. By comparing the language, scope, and framing of both bills, I was able to identify key continuities and divergences, particularly in how international students are positioned (or omitted), how DEI programming is prohibited, and how institutional autonomy is constrained. This comparative lens allowed me to trace the evolution of legislative discourse and highlight how certain exclusions in S.B. 1 were foreshadowed or intensified from S.B. 83. My methodology for this study thus includes memoing and coding of relevant sections from both bills to support this comparative analysis.

Following explication, I conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine how the language of S.B. 1, specifically in the five explicated policy sections, constructs and reinforces power relations and social inequities. CDA is particularly suited to this inquiry because it interrogates how discourse reflects, sustains, and challenges social structures (Fairclough, 1995). Drawing on Fairclough’s (1995, 2020) three-dimensional model, I analyzed the bill at three levels: (1) textual analysis, focusing on vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical devices; (2) discursive practice, examining how the bill was produced, circulated, and interpreted within political and institutional contexts; and (3) social practice, situating the bill within broader ideological formations, including nationalist and anti-DEI movements. Fairclough (2020) conceptualizes institutions like the State of Ohio as sites of discursive power, where language is used to construct dominant ideologies and marginalize dissenting voices.

In addition to Fairclough’s model, this study draws on van Dijk’s (2015) sociocognitive approach to CDA, which emphasizes the interplay between discourse, cognition, and society. Van Dijk argues that discourse is not only shaped by social structures but also functions as a tool for reproducing power and inequality through control of both text and context. This framework highlights how dominant groups influence public discourse to manage the minds of others, what van Dijk (2015, p. 472) calls “mind control,” by shaping knowledge, ideologies, and attitudes. In the context of S.B. 1, this means examining how legislative language constructs ideological boundaries and legitimizes exclusionary practices. The analysis considers how semantic macrostructures (e.g., topics), lexical choices, and rhetorical devices contribute to the reproduction of dominant ideologies, particularly those that marginalize international students. By integrating van Dijk’s (2015) triangulated model—linking discourse, cognition, and society—this study interrogates how policy discourse enacts symbolic power and reinforces institutional dominance.

With this, I wrote memos for each of the levels in the five sections and used these to complete my analysis of S.B. 1 as I relate it to international students.

Importantly, CDA is increasingly recognized as a powerful methodology in education policy studies. As Lester et al. (2016, p. 5) emphasize:

CDA offers a comprehensive toolkit with a wide range of possibilities related to education policy research that have, at their core, an understanding that language is both the content and conduit of policy. Thus, studies of language can illuminate not only the substance or impact of education policy, but also the processes by which such substance and impact come to be, and come to be understood.

This insight guided my approach to analyzing S.B. 1 not only as a legislative artifact but as a discursive mechanism that shapes public understanding, institutional response, and student experience—particularly in relation to international students whose inclusion is notably absent from the bill’s language. By applying the DEI-centered international higher education framework introduced by the American Council of Education (American Council on Education, 2021) and operationalized through Li’s (2022) threefold process, I examined whether the five explication policy sections of S.B. 1 (1) equitably included international students, (2) supported campus internationalization efforts, (3) recognized international students as institutional assets, (4) acknowledged their diverse presence, and (5) provided clarity to ensure their safety and security. These criteria served as analytical lenses through which I interrogated the bill’s discourse, revealing how language functions not only to define policy but to legitimize exclusion and obscure global diversity concerns. Therefore, this study seeks to illuminate how the legislative language, particularly anti-DEI contexts, fails to account for the distinct challenges faced by international students.

As an international scholar with a background in higher education internationalization, I bring background knowledge (BGK) shaped by my lived experience at an Ohio public institution. While my positionality informs my perspective, I engaged in reflexive practices—including peer debriefing and advisor consultation—to ensure analytical rigor and balance. The explication method served as a foundational layer that allowed me to engage deeply in the text before applying CDA, ensuring that my analysis was both linguistically grounded and critically attuned to the sociopolitical stakes of the legislation.

7. Analysis of Findings

I explicated five (5) specific items from S.B. 1 that I find relevant to the international students’ situation in higher education institutions in Ohio. I provided a critical stance as part of my discourse analysis in the explication, identifying findings that underscore how S.B. 1 exemplifies the broader trend in which international students are excluded from policy protections. This reveals a persistent gap in how their needs are addressed within anti-DEI legislative frameworks. After performing a critical discourse analysis, five themes emerged which ultimately describe the policy’s impact to international students in the State of Ohio: epistemological control in enforcing intellectual diversity, emotionality rhetoric in dismantling DEI infrastructure in institutions, the curricular burden in civic literacy, questioning integrity through faculty evaluations and a surveilled classroom climate, and the China ban and its geopolitical framing.

7.1. Intellectual Diversity and Epistemological Control

Portions of Sec 3345.0216 and 3345.0217 of S.B. 1 read: “The institution declares that it will educate students by means of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.” The bill used the phrase “intellectual diversity” to refer to “multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues” and requires institutions “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity” and to demonstrate it in course approvals, general education requirements, course evaluations, common reading programs, annual reviews, strategic goals, for departments, and student learning outcomes.

This section of S.B. 1 mandates that Ohio public institutions of higher education adopt a formal “statement of commitment” to principles of “free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry” in pursuit of “truth.” It also requires institutions to affirm their neutrality regarding speech and assembly, uphold equal treatment across identity categories, and publicly display this commitment alongside their mission statements.

While this language appears to champion academic freedom and civil discourse, a closer critical discourse analysis (CDA) reveals a more complex ideological function. The bill’s invocation of “truth” as a singular, objective endpoint, rather than a contested, evolving construct, positions the state as arbiter of epistemological legitimacy. This framing risks marginalizing non-Western, Indigenous, or collectivist knowledge systems that many international students bring with them. As Li (2022) argues, inclusive internationalization requires recognition of diverse epistemologies, not their subsumption under a dominant truth regime.

Moreover, the bill’s emphasis on neutrality and non-indoctrination paradoxically imposes a normative framework that delegitimizes certain forms of advocacy, particularly those aligned with social justice or DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) principles. The requirement that institutions “not require, favor, disfavor, or prohibit speech or lawful assembly” may appear even-handed, but in practice it could chill institutional responses to hate speech or culturally insensitive incidents—issues that disproportionately affect international and minoritized students.

From a CDA perspective (Fairclough, 1995; Lester et al., 2016), the bill’s language functions as a recontextualization of academic freedom: it appropriates the rhetoric of open inquiry while simultaneously narrowing the scope of acceptable discourse. The repeated use of declarative statements (“The institution declares…”) constructs a performative identity for universities that aligns with state-defined values, not necessarily those of the academic community or its diverse constituents.

The omission of international students from this section is particularly telling. There is no recognition of the unique cultural, linguistic, or pedagogical challenges they face, nor any mention of how institutions might support their integration into this newly defined intellectual environment. This absence reflects what Ahmed (2012) calls “non-performativity”—the strategic use of inclusive language that fails to produce inclusive outcomes. By mandating a universalist conception of truth and neutrality, the bill erases the pluralism that internationalization efforts are meant to foster.

Furthermore, the requirement that institutions include this statement in all admissions and employment materials transforms a philosophical stance into a bureaucratic mandate. This move risks instrumentalizing academic values for political ends, particularly when viewed in the broader context of anti-DEI legislation sweeping across U.S. states (American Council on Education, 2021). It also raises questions about institutional autonomy: are universities still free to define their own missions, or must they conform to a state-sanctioned ideological template?

While this section in the bill purports to protect intellectual diversity and freedom, its operationalization reveals a deeper ideological project—one that privileges a narrow conception of truth, marginalizes global perspectives, and reconfigures institutional identity through state-imposed declarations. This framing appears less about fostering genuine pluralism and more about legitimizing conservative viewpoints in response to the perception that higher education leans liberal (K. Parker, 2019). In doing so, the policy risks narrowing the very intellectual openness it claims to protect. For international students, this creates a paradoxical environment as they are welcomed as part of global higher education, yet their ways of knowing may be rendered invisible or invalid under the guise of neutrality.

7.2. DEI Infrastructure and Emotionality Rhetoric

Sec 3345.0217 (B) “requires institution[s] to prohibit all of the following: any orientation or training course regarding [DEI], the continuation of existing [DEI] offices or departments, establishing new [DEI] offices or departments, using [DEI] in job descriptions, contracting with consultants or third-parties [on DEI], and establish[ing] new institutional scholarships that use [DEI] in any manner.” The next statements in this bill’s section included that research grants must also comply with the policy regarding DEI non-requirements and must request an exception to explain circumstances in case DEI is a substantial component to the research.

Furthermore, this section of S.B. 1 includes DEI as a controversial topic. S.B. 1 defines “controversial beliefs or policies” as topics of political debate, including climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, DEI programs, immigration, marriage, and abortion. It mandates that faculty and staff encourage students to form their own conclusions on these issues without promoting any specific social, political, or religious viewpoint.

While this appears to support intellectual autonomy, it paradoxically undermines the development of informed perspectives by discouraging faculty engagement with precisely the kinds of complex, real-world issues that require guided exploration. This contradiction is particularly consequential for international students, who often rely on faculty to help them navigate unfamiliar sociopolitical contexts and academic norms.

The bill’s language further exemplifies emotionality rhetoric through its repeated references to “psychological distress,” “discomfort,” “guilt,” and “divisive concepts” (Sec. 3345.88). For instance, it prohibits any training that causes “an individual to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” This framing constructs race-conscious education as a form of emotional harm, recentering white emotionality as the primary concern. As Jones and Briscoe (2025, p. 6) argue, such language reflects the “affective logic of whiteness,” where emotional appeals are used to justify censorship and suppress critical discourse. By invoking emotional harm, the bill legitimizes the dismantling of DEI infrastructure while obscuring the actual psychological toll of exclusion and racism on marginalized students, including international students. This rhetorical move reinforces ideological boundaries and protects dominant norms under the guise of neutrality and mental health.

The policy’s chilling effect on classroom discourse is especially problematic for international students, whose educational experiences are shaped by cultural, linguistic, and epistemological differences. As Li (2022) and the American Council on Education (American Council on Education, 2021) argue, a DEI-centered international higher education framework requires institutions to affirm and integrate international students’ diverse perspectives into campus life. However, by framing DEI as a “controversial belief” and banning mandatory DEI training (Sec. B.1), the bill delegitimizes the very programs that support international students’ inclusion and success. These programs often provide critical resources for navigating racial, linguistic, and cultural marginalization—challenges well-documented in the literature on international student adjustment (Gopal & Streitwieser, 2016; Li, 2022).

The irony is stark: while the bill claims to promote “intellectual diversity,” it simultaneously prohibits institutional efforts to foster the kind of inclusive environment that intellectual diversity requires. The removal of DEI training and programming sends a message that diversity-related concerns—including those related to race, nationality, and immigration—are politically suspect. This is particularly troubling given that international students are often racialized in U.S. contexts and may already feel peripheral to campus life. The exclusion of international students from the bill’s discourse, coupled with the erasure of DEI infrastructure, reinforces their marginal status and contradicts the integrative vision outlined in American Council on Education’s (2021) model for comprehensive internationalization.

Moreover, the bill’s omission of the five caveats previously included in S.B. 83—such as exemptions for accreditation, licensure, and grant compliance—further narrows institutional flexibility. While S.B. 1 retains a limited exception for research grants (with approval from the chancellor), this exception appears financially motivated rather than equity-driven. The implication is that DEI is acceptable only when it serves economic interests, not when it supports student well-being or institutional justice.

In practice, institutions like the University of Cincinnati and The Ohio State University had already begun dismantling DEI programs in anticipation of the bill’s passage in early 2025, citing federal directives such as the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague Letter” (Hancock, 2025; Hodson, 2025). These preemptive actions illustrate how policy discourse, regardless of legal finality, can shape institutional behavior and climate. For international students, the loss of DEI programming means fewer culturally responsive services, diminished peer integration, and reduced visibility in campus-wide inclusion efforts. This contradicts the integrative goals of DEI-guided internationalization and signals a retreat from the inclusive values that many institutions claim to uphold.

7.3. Civic Literacy and Curricular Burden

Sec 3345.382.B states: “Each state institution shall develop a course with not fewer than three credit hours in the subject area of American civic literacy.” In the previous Senate Bill 83 (2023), the mandated course was titled “American government and American history.” In S.B. 1, it has been rebranded as “American civic literacy,” requiring all students to complete a three-unit course covering American government, history, and economic systems, with a specific emphasis on capitalism. The course mandates engagement with foundational texts such as the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, selected Federalist Papers, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Students must pass a cumulative final exam to demonstrate proficiency.

While the policy aims to strengthen civic knowledge, its implications for international students are significant and underexamined. The repeated use of terms like “require” and “comply” signals a rigid curricular imposition that may disadvantage students unfamiliar with U.S. sociopolitical history. International students, who often arrive with limited exposure to American civic frameworks, face additional academic burdens in mastering this content—especially when it is framed as measurable proficiency. The bill does not specify accommodations for students who fail the exam or for non-U.S. citizens, leaving international students vulnerable to academic penalties or delays in progression.

From a DEI-centered international higher education perspective (American Council on Education, 2021; Li, 2022), this mandate contradicts efforts to create inclusive and equitable learning environments. The course adds logistical and financial strain, requiring international students to pay for an additional class that may not align with their academic specialization. This is especially burdensome given that international students already pay higher tuition rates and face restrictions on employment and financial aid. The emotional toll of navigating unfamiliar civic content, coupled with the pressure to perform on a high-stakes exam, compounds the stress of cultural and academic adjustment. Socially, the course may isolate international students by reinforcing a U.S.-centric narrative that does not acknowledge their diverse backgrounds or global perspectives.

Moreover, the bill’s silence on curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary education raises concerns about redundancy and accessibility. For domestic students, prior exposure to American government in high school may ease the transition. For international students, however, the lack of scaffolding or differentiated instruction exacerbates inequities. The state’s curricular control, evident in this mandate, reflects a broader trend of centralizing ideological content while sidelining the needs of marginalized student populations.

In sum, while the civic literacy course may serve a legitimate educational purpose, its implementation—without consideration for international students’ unique circumstances—risks undermining the inclusive goals of comprehensive internationalization. As Li (2022) argues, international students must be seen not as outsiders to be assimilated, but as integral members of the academic community whose diverse perspectives enrich civic discourse. S.B. 1’s failure to acknowledge this reality reflects a narrow vision of civic education that is misaligned with the principles of equity, inclusion, and global engagement.

7.4. Questioning Integrity and Faculty Evaluations

Sec 3345.451.B dictates that “[t]he chancellor of higher education shall develop a minimum set of standard questions for use by state institutions of higher education in student evaluations of faculty members. The questions shall include the following: ‘Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias?’” The specified question asks whether the faculty member adheres to the bill’s advancement of intellectual diversity. While this appears to promote neutrality and protects students from proselytizing, its inclusion in formal evaluations raises serious concerns about academic freedom and pedagogical integrity. Faculty who openly share their political or social viewpoints, even in the context of facilitating critical discussion, may receive lower evaluations, which could negatively affect tenure, promotion, and job security. Additionally, the emotionality rhetoric embedded in this policy is apparent when considering the phrasing of the mandated evaluation question as this implicitly appeals to student perceptions of discomfort or offense which are inherently subjective and often shaped by dominant norms. Such discourse structures can be used to control cognition by framing certain pedagogical approaches as emotionally unsafe or ideologically threatening, policing faculty speech and curriculum.

This policy places faculty in a precarious position, discouraging them from engaging with complex sociopolitical issues that are central to many disciplines. Ironically, while the bill champions “intellectual diversity,” it simultaneously restricts the very discourse that fosters diverse perspectives. This contradiction is particularly problematic for international students, who often rely on faculty to help them navigate unfamiliar cultural, political, and racial contexts in the U.S. Without guided discussion, these students may struggle to understand the nuances of American society, leaving them more isolated and less equipped to participate meaningfully in civic and academic life.

From a DEI-centered international higher education perspective (American Council on Education, 2021; Li, 2022), faculty play a critical role in creating inclusive learning environments that affirm students’ diverse identities and experiences. For international students, who may be unfamiliar with U.S. norms around race, gender, and religion, classroom discussions are essential for developing cultural literacy and critical thinking. If faculty are discouraged from addressing these topics, international students lose a vital source of support and guidance. This undermines the integrative goals of comprehensive internationalization and contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that DEI frameworks promote.

Moreover, the emotional and social impact of this policy on international students cannot be overlooked. Instructors’ hesitancy to engage with sensitive topics may lead to classrooms that feel sterile or unwelcoming, especially for students who are already navigating cultural and linguistic barriers. The lack of open dialog may also reinforce feelings of alienation, as international students may perceive that their questions or perspectives are unwelcome or too controversial to be addressed. Financially, the broader implications of faculty evaluations tied to perceived bias may affect course offerings and instructional quality, indirectly impacting international students who depend on well-supported faculty for academic success.

Definitively, this policy not only corners faculty into self-censorship but also creates a confusing and potentially alienating environment for international students. The contradiction between promoting “intellectual diversity” and restricting faculty speech reveals a deeper ideological tension in S.B. 1—one that undermines the inclusive and dialogic principles essential to higher education internationalization.

7.5. China Ban and Geopolitical Framing

Sec 3345.591.B clearly states that “[n]o state institution of higher education shall accept gifts, donations, or contributions from the People’s Republic of China or any organization the institution reasonably suspects is acting on behalf of the People’s Republic of China.” S.B. 1 prohibits Ohio public institutions from accepting possible commensuration from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or any entity reasonably suspected of acting on its behalf. The policy explicitly identifies the PRC as including the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, the People’s Liberation Army, and affiliated organizations. While the bill includes exceptions for instructional fees, alumni donations, and philanthropic grants from individual Chinese citizens—provided institutions implement structural safeguards—the overall framing of the section emphasizes national security and institutional protection.

The framing of China as a national security threat in S.B. 1 reflects a broader pattern in Republican-led rhetoric that casts China as a symbolic adversary in U.S. political discourse (Yang, 2024). This narrative intensified during the Trump administration, where terms like “China virus” and punitive tariffs were used to mobilize nationalist sentiment and justify exclusionary policies (Saltzman, 2023). Such rhetoric has contributed to a surge in anti-Asian hate crimes and xenophobia, disproportionately affecting Chinese and other Asian communities in the U.S. (Gutierrez et al., 2021; Han et al., 2022). The bill’s language, particularly its emphasis on suspicion and surveillance, mirrors this ideological framing, positioning Chinese institutions and, by extension, Chinese individuals as potential threats to American values and security.

This policy is particularly consequential for Chinese international students, who represent the largest international student population at institutions like Ohio State University (The Ohio State University Strategic Enrollment Management, 2024). Although the bill attempts to distinguish between the PRC and individual Chinese students, the discursive framing risks conflating national identity with political affiliation. As Li (2022) argues, international students must be affirmed as individuals with diverse cultural and political backgrounds—not reduced to geopolitical proxies. The policy’s emphasis on security, without clear justification for the ban, may inadvertently stigmatize Chinese students and faculty, fostering a climate of suspicion and exclusion.

From a DEI-centered international higher education perspective (American Council on Education, 2021; Li, 2022), this policy undermines efforts to create inclusive and globally engaged campuses. The American Council on Education (2021) model encourages institutions to weave international education into DEI initiatives, recognizing the value of cross-cultural exchange and global diversity. By targeting a specific country and its affiliates, S.B. 1 disrupts this integrative vision and signals a retreat from international collaboration. Chinese students may feel alienated or unwelcome, and prospective students may be discouraged from applying to Ohio institutions, potentially impacting enrollment and the state’s economic and academic vitality.

Highlighting CDA, the bill’s anti-China provisions do more than regulate institutional partnerships, they construct a discursive boundary between “us” and “them,” reinforcing nationalist ideologies and legitimizing exclusion (Suspitsyna & Shalka, 2019). By invoking terms like “reasonably suspects” and listing political entities, the bill creates a climate of fear and suspicion that extends beyond policy into social perception. This framing aligns with the “perpetual foreigner” stereotype, which casts Asian Americans and international students as outsiders regardless of their citizenship or contributions. It also intersects with the “model minority” myth, which superficially celebrates Asian academic success while ignoring the racialized barriers they face (Gutierrez et al., 2021).

Moreover, the emotional and social toll on Chinese students must be acknowledged. The policy may lead to feelings of isolation, fear of being associated with political controversy, and uncertainty about their place in the campus community. These impacts extend beyond Chinese students, as the bill sets a precedent for future restrictions on partnerships with other countries. International students from diverse backgrounds may begin to question whether their home nations will be next, creating a climate of anxiety and instability.

To avoid reinforcing homogenizing discourses, it is essential to recognize that Chinese students’ experiences are not representative of all international students. However, the implications of this policy—its U.S.-centric framing, its emphasis on control over collaboration, and its disregard for global interconnectedness—affect the broader international student population. S.B. 1 reflects a narrowing of institutional vision that contradicts the inclusive, globally oriented principles of DEI-guided internationalization. Institutions must critically assess how such policies shape not only their external partnerships but also their internal climate and commitment to equity.

8. Discussion

This study contributes to the growing body of scholarship on educational policy analysis by demonstrating how explication and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) can be used in tandem to interrogate the language and ideological framing of legislation. Methodologically, the paper advances the use of literary explication as a foundational tool for CDA, offering a structured approach to unpacking legal and policy texts. Theoretically, it draws on the DEI-centered international higher education framework proposed by the American Council on Education (American Council on Education, 2021) and operationalized by Li (2022), which emphasizes the integration of international education into campus-wide equity efforts.

Empirically, the analysis reveals five (5) key findings:

• Exclusion through omission: S.B. 1 fails to mention international students explicitly, signaling their marginal status in state-level policy discourse despite their significant contributions to Ohio’s higher education system;
• Contradictory framing of diversity: The bill promotes “intellectual diversity” while simultaneously dismantling DEI infrastructure, creating a paradox that undermines genuine pluralism and inclusive pedagogy;
• Increased state control over academic discourse: Provisions such as mandated civic literacy courses and faculty evaluations based on perceived bias reflect a broader effort to centralize ideological authority and suppress dissent;
• Racialized and geopolitical targeting: The ban on partnerships with Chinese institutions and the framing of foreign influence raise concerns about racial profiling and the stigmatization of international students, particularly those from China; and
• Neglect of student-centered inclusion: The bill’s mandates ignore the developmental, cultural, and academic needs of international students, reinforcing outdated assimilation and acculturation models that have long been critiqued in the literature (i.e., Berry, 1997; Gopal & Streitwieser, 2016).

These findings echo Jones and Briscoe’s (2025) sociocognitive CDA, which highlights how policymakers use emotionality and race-neutral rhetoric to protect whiteness and suppress race-conscious discourse. Their analysis shows how terms like “divisive concepts” and “psychological distress” are weaponized to reframe white discomfort as a justification for censorship. This aligns with van Dijk’s (2015) model of discourse, cognition, and society, where dominant groups manage public perception to uphold ideological control. In the context of S.B. 1, such tactics legitimize the exclusion of international students and racialized perspectives under the guise of neutrality and academic freedom.

The analysis also surfaces a deeper issue: the erosion of institutional autonomy and the growing distrust of higher education institutions, particularly faculty and staff, in fostering ideological freedom. While S.B.1 claims to protect students from indoctrination, its language and structure suggest a shift toward state-imposed conformity, which disproportionately affects international students navigating unfamiliar sociopolitical contexts.

The study also reinforces the need to move beyond basic symbolic diversity and toward critical diversity—a framework that confronts power, affirms marginalized identities, and promotes systemic change. By applying asset-based approaches and antiracist pedagogies, institutions can better support international students as co-creators of campus culture rather than passive recipients of policy.

In sum, this paper offers a multidimensional critique of S.B. 1, revealing how legislative language functions as a tool of exclusion, control, and ideological redefinition. It calls for renewed attention to the voices and experiences of international students and urges higher education stakeholders to resist reductive narratives that undermine equity and global engagement.

9. Implications

Future studies should expand the use of explication and CDA in educational policy analysis, especially in examining how legislative language affects marginalized student populations. Researchers should also explore how international students interpret and respond to policy changes, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their agency and resilience.

Faculty and staff must continue to support international students despite the constraints imposed by S.B. 1. As Bihn (2019) notes, critical areas of support include housing, academic advising, placement policies, and cultural integration. Professional development in multicultural and global competencies remains essential, even if DEI language must be adapted to comply with state mandates.

Ohio institutions—public and private—must organize to advocate for inclusive policy reform. The lack of response from the Inter-University Council of Ohio (Hodson, 2025) highlights the need for stronger institutional leadership. Engaging legislators in dialog using a “glocal” lens (Luthra, 2022) may help reframe DEI in terms that resonate locally while preserving its global significance. Additionally, reaffirming the 1940 principles of academic freedom as outlined by the AAUP (1970) is crucial to protecting faculty autonomy and ensuring that students—especially international students—retain the freedom to learn in diverse and open environments.

10. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While this study offers a critical analysis of Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (2025) through the lens of international student inclusion, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the analysis focuses primarily on the textual and discursive dimensions of S.B. 1 and does not include empirical data from international students themselves. Future research could incorporate interviews, surveys, or focus groups to capture students’ lived experiences and responses to anti-DEI legislation, thereby enriching the discourse analysis with grounded perspectives.

Second, the study centers on a single state-level policy, which limits generalizability across different institutional and legislative contexts. Although S.B. 1 reflects broader national trends, comparative studies across multiple states, especially those with varying political climates, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how anti-DEI legislation affects international students in diverse settings.

Third, while the paper draws on a robust theoretical framework, including ACE’s DEI model and Li’s operational approach, it does not fully explore how institutional actors (e.g., faculty, administrators, DEI officers) interpret and implement such policies. Future research could examine how these actors navigate the tension between compliance and inclusion, particularly in politically charged environments.

Finally, this study focuses on international students as a distinct population, but future work should explore intersectional experiences—how race, gender, sexuality, disability, and nationality interact to shape students’ vulnerability to exclusionary policies. Such research would contribute to a more nuanced and justice-oriented understanding of diversity in higher education.

By addressing these limitations, future scholarship can build on this study’s findings to deepen our understanding of policy impacts and strengthen the case for critical diversity in higher education governance.

11. Conclusions

This paper examines Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (2025) through a critical lens, focusing on its implications for international students in public higher education. Using explication and CDA, the study revealed how the bill’s language marginalizes global perspectives, reinforces U.S.-centric ideologies, and undermines institutional autonomy. While not all sections of the bill were analyzed, the selected mandates on intellectual diversity, controversial beliefs, civic literacy, faculty evaluations, and PRC partnerships demonstrate a pattern of exclusion and control that contradicts the principles of inclusive internationalization.

The findings underscore the importance of scrutinizing policy language to uncover hidden agendas and ideological assumptions. As Lester et al. (2016) argue, language is both the content and conduit of policy, and analyzing it critically allows us to understand not only what a policy says but how it shapes institutional behavior and student experience. In the case of S.B. 1, the bill’s framing risks alienating international students, eroding academic freedom, and narrowing the scope of intellectual diversity to fit a singular political narrative.

The results also demonstrate what Jones and Briscoe (2025) discovered in current conservative policies that target CRT and DEI in higher education. Such legislation embeds emotional logic as a broader strategy to protect whiteness as property and therefore othering international students in the discourse. Furthermore, this legitimization underscores U.S. higher education’s obscurity to systemic inequities and the need to challenge race-neutral legal and social frameworks. In this light, S.B. 1 is not just a state-level policy but part of a national discourse that redefines education as a “white good” (Jones & Briscoe, 2025), privileging dominant narratives while silencing marginalized international student voices.

However, the implications of this legislation extend far beyond international students. S.B. 1 is part of a broader wave of anti-DEI and “war-on-woke” policies sweeping across the country, with profound consequences for higher education as a whole. These policies disproportionately affect students who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), women, queer, disabled, and other marginalized groups whether domestic or international. By dismantling DEI infrastructure and reframing diversity as ideological bias, such legislation threatens the foundational values of equity, inclusion, and academic freedom in U.S. colleges and universities.

This study advances current scholarship by highlighting a critical oversight in education policy discourse: the persistent neglect of international students’ distinct needs within the broader context of anti-DEI legislation, especially since they are not mentioned nor regarded in the policy in the first place. To respond to these challenges, higher education must not only defend existing DEI initiatives but also strengthen them through a critical diversity perspective, one that moves beyond symbolic representation to address structural inequities and power dynamics. Scholars have shown that diversity discourse often masks deeper injustices unless critically examined and reimagined, but policies that just outright degrade diversity initiatives are blatantly moving for an unjust treatment of minorities to favor white normativity and supremacy.

Ultimately, this paper calls for a renewed commitment to inclusive internationalization and critical diversity in higher education policy. As institutions navigate increasingly politicized landscapes, they must center the voices and experiences of all marginalized students, domestic and international alike, and resist efforts to reduce diversity to a rhetorical gesture. Only then can the country, through higher education, fulfill its democratic promise and global mission of peace and prosperity.