logo
Ohio bill would require a state-approved historical document in every classroom

Ohio bill would require a state-approved historical document in every classroom

Yahoo12-03-2025

Mar. 12—In what's framed as a bid to expand students' grasp on history, the Ohio Senate Education Committee is considering a bill that would mandate the display of at least one state-approved historical document in every classroom in the state.
The proposed list of documents within Senate Bill 34 includes: The Mayflower Compact; the Declaration of Independence; the Northwest Ordinance; the mottoes of the United States and of Ohio; the Magna Carta; the Bill of Rights; the United States Constitution; or the Articles of Confederation; and, controversially, the Ten Commandments.
A school district would get to choose whichever document it wants, however, S.B. 34 would require a written explanation of the document's historical importance to accompany each display.
"The reason for this bill is to expose our students to the documents which have, in America, served as the backbone of our legal and moral tradition, as a people," bill sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, told the committee in February, framing each of the documents as foundational to American government.
The bill sponsor called it "inexcusable" that public schools haven't placed more focus on these documents and argued that it has denied students "the vital legal and moral essence that our children need to thrive as good American citizens."
On Tuesday, opponents to the bill offered a different perspective, including ACLU of Ohio Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels, who said S.B. 34's inclusion of the Ten Commandments made the bill a "plainly obvious attempt to impose explicit religious beliefs and practices on young, captive audiences in our public schools."
"There is no way to secularize or dilute this language to strip it of its religious significance," said Daniels, who told the committee that the ACLU of Ohio would not oppose the bill if the Ten Commandments were taken off the list.
Andrea Pagoda, a Jewish resident of Delaware County who testified in opposition to the bill, raised the question of which Ten Commandments school boards could pick, given that there are slight variations in Catholic, Protestant and Jewish renditions.
"Posting the Ten Commandments favors one particular religious tradition as a source of inspiration and guidance in violation of the separation of church and state," she argued.
Proponents of the bill — of which all have so far been religious — argued that the Ten Commandments are indeed central to the founding fathers.
"The Ten Commandments are important to our religious and legal systems because they serve as a moral and ethical foundation," said Monty Lobb, executive director of the Christian Business Partnership, a division of the Center for Christian Virtue.
"Obviously, they guide millions who practice Judaism and Christianity in their relationship with God and others. But let's not lose sight of or downplay the Ten Commandments' significant role in influencing a moral framework that has established fundamental principles of virtue like honesty, respect, and justice that appeal to many cultures."
Monuments
Outside of the display requirement, S.B. 34 would also grant schools the authority to erect a monument inscribed with "one or more of the documents on any school ground or premises," according to a nonpartisan analysis.
Logistically, some of these documents would be easier to inscribe than others.
Shortest on the list is America's and Ohio's mottoes — "In God We Trust" and "With God, All Things Are Possible," respectively. The Ten Commandments and the Mayflower Compact have about 200 words apiece, while the Bill of Rights has about 460 words. All other listed documents have more than 1,000 words.
Who pays for it?
Both the in-class displays and the monuments could be paid for under S.B. 34 by community organizations willing to donate funds. Those same organizations could donate the displays or monuments themselves, which Daniels argued would open the door widest for churches.
"You see, passage of S.B. 34 is only the first step for many S.B. 34 supporters. Pass this bill, and they will focus their energy and resources on school districts across Ohio, demanding they choose the Ten Commandments as one of the documents for display, or perhaps the only one," Daniels said.
Johnson, meanwhile, told the committee that the bill was written that way because "it is essential that the displays are funded and promoted by the communities themselves, having a say in what gets displayed in their schools."
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Is Using the National Guard as Bait
Trump Is Using the National Guard as Bait

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Is Using the National Guard as Bait

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump is about to launch yet another assault on democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions of civil-military relations, this time in Los Angeles. Under a dubious legal rationale, he is activating 2,000 members of the National Guard to confront protests against actions by ICE, the immigration police who have used thuggish tactics against citizens and foreigners alike in the United States. By militarizing the situation in L.A., Trump is goading Americans more generally to take him on in the streets of their own cities, thus enabling his attacks on their constitutional freedoms. As I've listened to him and his advisers over the past several days, they seem almost eager for public violence that would justify the use of armed force against Americans. The president and the men and women around him are acting with great ambition in this moment, and they are likely hoping to achieve three goals in one dramatic action. First, they will turn America's attention away from Trump's many failures and inane feuds, and reestablish his campaign persona as a strongman who will brush aside the law if that's what it takes to keep order in the streets. Perhaps nothing would please Trump more than to replace weird stories about Elon Musk with video of masked protesters burning cars as lines of helmeted police and soldiers march over them and impose draconian silence in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. Second, as my colleague David Frum warned this morning, Trump is establishing that he is willing to use the military any way he pleases, perhaps as a proof of concept for suppressing free elections in 2026 or 2028. Trump sees the U.S. military as his personal honor guard and his private muscle. Those are his toy soldiers, and he's going to get a show from his honor guard in a birthday parade next weekend. In the meantime, he's going to flex that muscle, and prove that the officers and service members who will do whatever he orders are the real military. The rest are suckers and losers. During the George Floyd protests in 2020, Trump was furious at what he saw as the fecklessness of military leaders determined to thwart his attempts to use deadly force against protesters. He's learned his lesson: This time, he has installed a hapless sycophant at the Pentagon who is itching to execute the boss's orders. Third, Trump may be hoping to radicalize the citizen-soldiers drawn from the community who serve in the National Guard. (Seizing the California Guard is also a convenient way to humiliate California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, with the president's often-used narrative that liberals can't control their own cities.) Trump has the right to 'federalize' Guard forces, which is how they were deployed overseas in America's various conflicts. He has never respected the traditions of American civil-military relations, which regard the domestic deployment of the military as an extreme measure to be avoided whenever possible. Using the Guard could be a devious tactic: He may be hoping to set neighbor against neighbor, so that the people called to duty return to their home and workplace with stories of violence and injuries. In the longer run, Trump may be trying to create a national emergency that will enable him to exercise authoritarian control. (Such an emergency was a rationalization, for example, for the tariffs that he has mostly had to abandon.) He has for years been trying to desensitize the citizens of the United States to un-American ideas and unconstitutional actions. The American system of government was never meant to cope with a rogue president. Yet Trump is not unstoppable. Thwarting his authoritarianism will require restraint on the part of the public, some steely nerves on the part of state and local authorities, and vigilant action from national elected representatives, who should be stepping in to raise the alarm and to demand explanations about the president's misuse of the military. As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities. ICE is on a rampage, but physically assaulting or obstructing its agents—and thus causing a confrontation with the cops who have to protect them, whether those police officers like it or not—will provide precisely the pretext that some of the people in Trump's White House are trying to create. The president and his coterie want people walking around taking selfies in gas clouds, waving Mexican flags, holding up traffic, and burning cars. Judging by reactions on social media and interviews on television, a lot of people seem to think such performances are heroic—which means they're poised to give Trump's enforcers what they're hoping for. Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext. [Conor Friedersdorf: Averting the worst-case scenario in Los Angeles] Instead, the most dramatic public action the residents of Southern California could take right now would be to ensure that Trump's forces arrive on calm streets. Imagine the reactions of the Guard members as they look around and wonder what, exactly, the commander in chief was thinking. Why are they carrying their rifles in the streets of downtown America? What does anyone expect them to do? Put another way: What if the president throws a crackdown and nobody comes? This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate. He is resorting to the grand theater of militarism because he is losing on multiple fronts in the courts—and he knows it. The law, for most people, is dreary to hear about, but one of the most important stories of Trump's second term is that lawyers and judges are so far holding a vital line against the administration, sometimes at great personal risk. Trump is also losing public support, which is another reason he's zeroing in on California. He is resolutely ignorant in many ways, but he has an excellent instinct for picking the right fights. The fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans believe that almost everything about immigration in the United States has long been deeply dysfunctional. (I'm one of them.) If he sends the military into L.A. and Guard members end up clashing in high-definition video with wannabe resistance gladiators in balaclavas, many people who have not been paying attention to his other ghastly antics will support him. (For the record, I am not one of them.) So far, even the Los Angeles Police Department—not exactly a bastion of squishy suburban book-club liberals—has emphasized that the protests have been mostly peaceful. Trump is apparently trying to change that. Sending in the National Guard is meant to provoke, not pacify, and his power will only grow if he succeeds in tempting Americans to intemperate reactions that give him the authoritarian opening he's seeking. Article originally published at The Atlantic

LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard
LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard

Donald Trump's deployment of California's National Guard marks the first time in decades that a US president openly defied a state governor and sent troops to an emergency zone. By ordering 2,000 guardsmen to Los Angeles to help quell protests against raids by US immigration agents, Trump essentially mounted a takeover of the state's military regiments to address "lawlessness" on the city's streets. The National Guard is a reserve military rooted in the 17th century local militias created in the American colonies before the country's founding. Since then the guard has had multiple responsibilities: domestic disaster relief and security, homeland defense and prevention of civil unrest; and acting as reserve forces for US military deployments overseas. Presidential orders to deploy guardsmen domestically are not uncommon. But clashes between a president and governor over deployments -- or the lack thereof, such as during the US Capitol riot by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021 while he was still in office -- have been rare. - Los Angeles, 2025 - The White House said Trump relied on a seldom used law, known as Title 10, that permits National Guard federalization in times of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." California Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision "purposefully inflammatory." But Trump's order proceeded, and the guard troops were on LA streets Sunday. "This is the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed the National Guard without a request by a state governor," Kenneth Roth, a longtime former Human Rights Watch executive director, posted on X. "Then it was (president Lyndon) Johnson protecting civil rights protesters. Now it's Trump creating a spectacle so he can continue his immigration raids." Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice warned of a "shocking abuse of power" by Trump, whose memorandum authorizes federalization of National Guard troops "at locations where protests against (federal immigration) functions are occurring or are likely to occur." "Trump has authorized the deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity might occur," Goitein posted on X. "That is a huge red flag." - Alabama, 1965 - A landmark civil rights moment led to a National Guard clash between a president and a segregationist governor. With demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr on a five-day march from Selma to Alabama's capital Montgomery, governor George Wallace pledged National Guard security -- but then reneged. The U-turn incensed Johnson who, in defiance of Wallace, called up the guard. The march was protected by thousands of Army soldiers and federalized guard members. - Arkansas, 1957 - When the Little Rock school system was ordered desegregated, Arkansas' pro-segregationist governor Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to surround a high school and prevent nine Black students from entering. President Dwight Eisenhower bristled at the standoff and told Faubus the guard must maintain order so the Black students could attend. Instead, Faubus pulled the guardsmen, leaving security to local forces. Eisenhower issued an executive order federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered 1,000 US Army troops to join them. - Kent State, 1970 - Perhaps no anti-Vietnam war protest was more pivotal than at Ohio's Kent State University, where students slammed Richard Nixon's war expansion. As unrest swelled, the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others. The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reforms regarding how the guard handles civil unrest and use of force. - Hurricane Katrina, 2005 - The massive hurricane left much of New Orleans underwater, leading to the largest-ever peacetime deployment of the National Guard. But critics accused then-president George W Bush of favoring a militaristic response over humanitarian relief. Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, warned that many among the thousands of National Guard and federal troops were battle-tested Iraq war veterans. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," she reportedly said. - Outside White House, 2020 - June 1, 2020 saw a brutal crackdown on demonstrators following the police murder of African-American George Floyd. With people aggressively protesting near the White House, the National Guard joined police to maintain order. Flash grenades and tear gas were deployed. Unlike in the nation's 50 states, the DC National Guard is under direct command of the US president, who at the time was Trump. mlm/st

How civil rights investigations against schools have changed under Trump admin
How civil rights investigations against schools have changed under Trump admin

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How civil rights investigations against schools have changed under Trump admin

Amid a flurry of civil rights and Title IX investigations, the Trump administration has reopened K-12 schools and universities, signaling a complete 180-degree shift in the interpretation of the mandates. The Trump administration is fighting schools over transgender athletes, bans on Native American mascots and Chicago's 'Black Students Success Plans.' The switch from the previous administration has caused whiplash for schools, with advocates warning students some complaints may not be worth pursuing. 'The Trump Administration has created dumpsters for so-called civil rights violations that are distractingly unresponsive to actual acts of violence, harassment, discrimination and abuse in our nation's educational institutions,' says Shaun Harper, a professor of education, public policy and business at the University of Southern California. 'It is painfully apparent that destructive politicized attacks on DEI are far more important to them than are efforts to ensure the actual civil rights of American students, families and educators,' he added, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The most drastic change has been in the handling of cases involving transgender athletes. The Biden administration notably moved to add protections for LGBTQ individuals to Title IX, a civil rights law that protects students against sex-based discrimination. Former President Biden also proposed protections for transgender students, such as forbidding overarching bans on transgender women in girls' sports, but withdrew the proposal before President Trump took office, so the new president could not take the provision and alter it. Under the Trump administration, dozens of schools have come under fire with alleged Title IX violations over transgender athletes. The biggest threat occurred against California after the Trump administration said it would pull federal funding from the state following a transgender high school track and field athlete qualifying to compete in the state championship. 'It's definitely been tough to have students come to us who are considering filing an Office of Civil Rights [OCR] complaint because they've experienced discrimination at their school, and have to sort of say, 'I'm not even sure if it's a good idea at this moment,' given the way that the Trump administration is enforcing Title IX,' said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at the Title IX advocacy project Know Your IX. 'Having OCR suddenly stop being an option for many students because of the discriminatory way that the Trump administration is operating … really does limit mechanisms for accountability to ensure that schools are handling Title IX cases and preventing sex-based harassment,' she added. In a statement to The Hill, Department of Education spokesperson Julie Hartman said the Trump administration is 'restoring civil rights law and reversing the damage inflicted by the Biden Administration, which stretched the scope of federal anti-discrimination law beyond its statutory purview.' Hartman added, 'By enforcing the law as it is written, the Trump Administration's OCR is using its personnel and resources responsibly to protect all Americans and eliminating wasteful and unfounded investigations.' While the Trump administration has been vague in its definition of what DEI initiatives are at schools, the civil rights investigations the Education Department is opening give a glimpse at its meaning. Chicago Public Schools is currently under investigation over 'Black Students Success Plans' the district made, without making similar plans for students of other ethnicities. The Education Department launched a probe against New York's Education Department after it threatened to strip funding from a school for having a Native American mascot. 'Forcing them to change the name, after all of these years, is ridiculous and, in actuality, an affront to our great Indian population. The School Board, and virtually everyone in the area, are demanding the name be kept,' Trump said about the incident. Supporters of the president are encouraged by the rapid switch in gears in what investigations are brought to schools, pointing out some families have been waiting four years for this. 'The [Biden] administration had a pretty clear stance in favor of what they called equity, but I argue was really racial favoritism and an ideology in favor of identity politics,' said Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'The Trump administration is, I believe, appropriately viewing the Civil Rights Act in terms of colorblindness and meritocracy and trying to preserve, or at least restore those things to American public life and in public law,' he added. 'It should be a relief to local educators and families who are concerned that the transgender movement has taken over our view of what it means to be male and female.' The relief by some parents — and fear by others — of what cases will be prioritized highlights the struggle with the political whiplash that can occur when the Education Department switches hands. 'Even with the pingponging, it doesn't mean that the Trump administration is accurate, and they're putting forward an unlawful and wrong interpretation of the law by distorting the law and using it as a way to require discrimination against students, and especially students from vulnerable communities,' said Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools. There are concerns about how the Trump administration is using the Office of Civil Rights, but also if it will even exist by the end of his presidency. Many employees in the office were fired during the Education Department's reduction in force, and Trump has floated moving OCR to the Department of Justice. Some advocates have said the Department of Education will be unable to uphold its legal obligations, especially as OCR cases were already backlogged before the layoffs. 'They're prioritizing weaponizing these laws to require harm against students, against vulnerable groups of students, with the few resources that they have, because now we're now dealing with an OCR that is at almost half of what it used to be because of all the cuts and the layoffs that the Trump administration has engaged in,' Patel said. The North Star for both sides is passing laws either in Congress or on the state level to fight against the executive changes that happen to these investigations every four years. 'I think the states have adopted laws that have prohibited boys in girls' sports,' Butcher said. 'All of these things that states are doing are codifying what the Trump administration is now supporting.' 'At the federal level, it'll definitely be up to Congress, of course, when it comes to putting something into law. And I think that federal lawmakers would do well to be mindful not only of what the Civil Rights statutes say on this issue, but also what voters are feeling like,' he added. 'Voters, I think, have made it clear through surveys that these positions on, again, boys getting access to girls' private spaces and sports, are unpopular.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store