Based on the law it passed in 2025, the statehouse seems to believe that college professors have the power to indoctrinate students, and so SB 1 limits what college professors can teach. The reality is, students’ views are shaped largely by peers and broader experiences.

Our guest today is Pranav Jani, an Ohio State University Associate Professor of English and the producer of the podcast “Together We Rise: Solidarity Stories from Central Ohio.” Jani disagrees with the view espoused by the law’s sponsors. As Jani sees it, students seldom adopt wholesale what they hear from their professors. If anything, students are more inclined to challenge whatever they are told.

Jani tries to create a democratic, collaborative classroom to education, and while he discloses his views to his students, his grading is based on how they argue their positions and the research they use to support those positions. Contrary to what Ohio Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, and the other supporters of SB 1 may think, the goal of professors is not to indoctrinate students but to promote critical thinking.

Jani discusses with his students, among other things, controversies around activism, Palestine, and shifting definitions of “controversial.” In contrast, SB1 promotes an agenda-driven syllabus that restricts academic freedom.

Free speech, Jani explains, differs from academic freedom. Free speech is the right to say anything. Academic freedom is the idea that professors have the right to follow the research wherever it may lead, meaning professors should be allowed to teach the truth, even if it’s unpopular.

Health care systems can tie up their physicians for years though noncompete agreements which preclude them from moving to a competitor. For rural health care systems where there are not enough physicians to begin with, this is a big recruiting problem.

Our guest today is Paul Westbrook, Vice President and General Legal Counsel for Memorial Health System.

Paul explains that physicians who sign noncompete agreements and want to relocate—for whatever reason—are stuck. A noncompete agreement will generally preclude them from working for another system for a year or two and within a certain radius of their current employer. So, it’s either stay put, stop practicing medicine or hire an attorney and challenge the noncompete agreement in court.

In Paul’s view, there’s no justification for any of this. Trade secrets or intellectual property are seldom at risk, even though health care systems might argue otherwise. The reality is, health care systems—most of which are non-profits—want to control their physicians.

Memorial Health System is unique in Ohio for not utilizing noncompete agreements. Years back, Paul reviewed the physician employment contracts MHS used and questioned whether the noncompete provisions should be retained. Paul was concerned about the fact that rural healthcare systems like MHS struggle to retain primary care physicians and that noncompete agreements disproportionately impact these systems0.

MHS’s CEO at the time agreed. MHS stopped using noncompete agreements and focused, instead, on treating its physicians as true partners and with professional courtesy. The result: MHS physicians rarely leave for competitors.

But physicians seeking employment with MHS are often unable because of noncompete agreements, and so MHS has challenged those agreements in court. One of those lawsuits involves OhioHealth.

Perhaps the legislature will take note. Other states have already prohibited noncompete agreements. MHS just might help change the legal landscape for physicians.

Listen to the conversation.

How did the phrase, “diversity, equity and inclusion”—DEI—which sounds like a positive thing, get such a bad rap? The answer lies in how the concept has often been introduced.

Our guest, Dr. Melissa Crum, explains that most people aren’t reacting to the actual idea of DEI; they’re reacting to how the idea was introduced. Instead of hearing, “Let’s look at systems that create problems,” people hear, “Oh, I’m the problem?!” And once that happens, people shut down.

Dr. Crum helps people separate themselves as individuals from the systems they live in. She’s not telling her listeners they’re bad people. She tells them there are larger patterns in which we all operate. When people hear that distinction, meaningful conversation happens.

Dr. Crum reflects on power in everyday moments. Even something as simple as how you talk to server in a restaurant can reflect a power dynamic. It’s about being aware that not everyone you deal with has the same ability, or relative power, to respond or push back in those moments.

Context matters. A word or phrase that feels harmless—or even friendly—to one person might carry a completely different meaning for someone else based on their experiences. Instead of assuming everyone hears things the same way, Dr. Crum encourages us to be a little more curious and flexible in how we communicate.

Promoting inclusion doesn’t come with one training session. This is a marathon, not a sprint. You can’t expect people to completely rethink years—or decades—of assumptions in a couple hours. That’s part of why some of those past trainings backfired. People were overwhelmed, and nothing really stuck.

Promoting DEI means examining how an organization actually functions. Just saying, “We value inclusion,” does nothing, but defining what inclusion means in real situations—like hiring, promotions, meetings, decision-making—brings meaningful change.

And what does a business get in return? Employees who feel valued are engaged in their work. Turnover decreases, and productivity increases. DEI is good for business.