It’s a head-scratching moment: Ohio legislators are preparing to interfere with academic freedom and the freedom of contract at public and private colleges across the state. Such intervention would make conservative Ohio look a lot more like progressive Minnesota.

The issue is online program management (OPM) contracts, which public and private colleges use to serve students and increase innovation. It’s at the heart of the huge appropriations bill known as HB 96.

HB 96, which is currently more than 5,000 pages, includes policies that would require prior approval from Ohio’s chancellor of higher education for every agreement between colleges and OPMs, even for private colleges and regardless of the size and scope of the contract.

Just as outrageously, the policies in the bill hit the core of academic freedom: a college’s ability to decide academic matters for itself. Curriculum development, faculty assessment, admissions requirements, and institutional governance are squarely within the traditional prerogatives of a college, especially private ones. Yet OPM contracts on these matters would be reviewed by the state regulator.

>>> Elite Universities Should Stop Digging Themselves Into a Hole

Furthermore, public colleges can be put on “fiscal caution” status simply for having an OPM contract, no matter the size or scope.

This status is not just an unwelcome black mark. It also subjects the college to a great deal of unnecessary accounting and paperwork, including a “financial recovery plan,” as though the OPM contract is inherently a financial mistake instead of a benefit to the college and its students. Indeed, OPM contracts save colleges money when, for example, it’s cheaper to have a third party run the tech for online courses.

Why is Ohio contemplating provisions that would subject private university contracts to a state regulator’s review? It all started with a now-closed community college, Eastern Gateway Community College. Eastern had contracted with a third-party servicer to set up “free” college courses for union members, but this program died once the U.S. Department of Education declared that it violated provisions governing federal student aid.

Enter the anti-market forces. Having passed the House with little debate, the bill has moved to the Senate, where it is likely to receive more scrutiny in the coming weeks.

If a private college wants to do business in Ohio, some kinds of regulations are legitimate. For example, model legislation from The Heritage Foundation would require private colleges to suspend or expel foreign students who become deportable by supporting terrorism, as defined by federal law.

>>> The Conservative Vision of Education

But interfering with academic freedom and private contracts is not the kind of interference that conservative legislators should pursue. There is no reasonable angle for consumer protection or even transparency, as though a deal with a for-profit entity automatically deserves a warning label and an alarm.

Ohio’s proposed policies here are considerably worse than those passed in Minnesota, an increasingly progressive and oppressive state. In 2024, Minnesota passed HF 4024, which prohibited public universities from contracting with OPMs for tuition sharing, transfer of intellectual property rights, or certain other functions. Any OPM contract with a public college in Minnesota must be approved by that institution’s governing board.

Ohio legislators have used much of the same language, but the proposed policies are worse in three ways. For one, all private and career colleges would be included. Two, it’s not the college’s own board that must review and approve OPM contracts, but the state regulator. Third, the “fiscal caution” status incorrectly and unjustly tags OPM contracts as bad instead of good.

Such policies should be intolerable in a free society. Yet, Minnesota is where Ohio is headed unless the principles of free enterprise return.