For numerous progressive colleges in Ohio, a newly enacted state law restricting transgender women from using female restrooms in educational institutions is provoking deep reflection among students, alumni, and faculty. This law is part of a broader trend across the nation, aimed at safeguarding female students. However, the Ohio legislation uniquely applies to private colleges, granting these institutions the discretion to determine their compliance and enforcement strategies.
The situation is particularly complex for colleges such as Oberlin and Antioch, which have a long-standing legacy of activism and inclusion. For many within these communities, adhering to the law contradicts their foundational principles of gender inclusivity. Moreover, educational institutions nationwide are grappling with the ramifications of the previous administration’s push against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, including potential penalties for schools that do not align with certain interpretations of civil rights laws.
Oberlin has publicly stated its intention to comply with the new law, which takes effect soon, while providing support options such as counseling and allowing students to relocate if necessary. Antioch, in contrast, has not yet disclosed a comprehensive plan in response to the measure.
Ahri Morales-Yoon, a first-year student at Antioch identifying as nonbinary, indicated that the implications of this law extend beyond restroom access. They expressed concerns about the ensuing atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that accompanies such regulations.
Jane Fernandes, who has served as president at Antioch College since 2021, has noted that there have been no complaints regarding restroom usage up until this point. Antioch, situated about an hour from Columbus, was established in 1850 and is known for its progressive values, particularly in terms of LGBTQ+ acceptance—approximately 90% of its student body identifies as LGBTQ+, with roughly one in six identifying as transgender.
Fernandes affirmed the college’s commitment to ensuring a safe and supportive environment for transgender students, consistently voicing her opposition to the recent legislation. Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and an Antioch alum, further argued that this legislation aims to dissuade institutions from supporting their students.
The newly enacted law mandates that multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and showers be designated solely for males or females based on biological sex at birth. Currently, ten states enforce similar bathroom laws, though none impose requirements on private higher education institutions in the same way.
State Representative Beth Lear, a Republican who supported the law, articulated that its intention is to ensure equal treatment for students across Ohio. This bathroom legislation is part of a broader wave of anti-transgender policies, with numerous GOP-led states enacting bans on gender-affirming medical treatment for minors and prohibiting transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
At Oberlin College and Conservatory, renowned for its progressive stance since its inception in 1833, the bathroom law has instigated significant unease among both current students and alumni. Many alumni view the institution’s decision to comply with state law as a divergence from its foundational values of inclusivity. The administration communicated that adherence to the law does not undermine its support for a diverse community, though this stance is contested by others.
Critics like English professor DeSales Harrison argue that complying with the law contradicts Oberlin’s essence of making principled stands on what is morally just. Some alumni, including Kathryn Troup Denney, who wrote a production centered on transgender narratives, have advocated for Oberlin to resist the law even if that entails jeopardizing federal funding, insisting that standing against injustice is vital.
Upon the start of the spring semester, Oberlin introduced new signage designating multi-occupancy bathrooms for either males or females, which contrasts with the previous inclusive practices where users could modify signs to reflect gender inclusivity. While some protest actions led to the removal of these new signs, and the administration has attempted to replace them, uncertainty remains over how restroom use will ultimately be affected.
Oberlin’s student body president, Natalie DuFour, highlighted a key aspect of the law: there is no mandate for monitoring who uses the restrooms. Likewise, Fernandes from Antioch assured the community that monitoring bathroom usage will not be part of their policy. This suggests that, despite the legal framework, actual practices around restroom access at both institutions may not shift significantly.
