logo
Ohio University's diversity and inclusion centers could close if higher ed overhaul bill passes

Ohio University's diversity and inclusion centers could close if higher ed overhaul bill passes

Yahoo11-02-2025

Alumni Gateway at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. (Stock photo from Getty Images.)
Audrey Ansel is afraid Ohio University's Pride Center might shut down if a controversial bill that would ban diversity and inclusion efforts from Ohio's public universities passes.
State Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, introduced Senate Bill 1 which touches on many aspects of higher education.
In addition to the diversity and inclusion ban, the bill would prevent faculty from striking, set rules around classroom discussion, put diversity scholarships at risk, shorten university board of trustees terms from nine years down to six years, and require students take an American history course, among other things.
'The Pride Center means the world to me,' Ansel, a 21-year-old junior at Ohio University, said. 'The Pride Center definitely serves as a hub for queer people in Athens. … Not only is it a hub for university students, but it's really a hub for the community.'
The Pride Center's future isn't the only one potentially in jeopardy. The university's Women's Center and Multicultural Center also fall under OU's Division of Diversity and Inclusion. Combined, the three centers have eight full-time staffers, according to their websites.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Ohio Capital Journal reached out to the directors of all three centers, but none of them responded.
Ohio University Spokesperson Dan Pittman said the university does not typically comment on pending legislation.
'We will continue to monitor this proposed bill as it evolves and progresses through the state's established legislative process,' Pittman said in an email.
John O'Keefe, president of Ohio University's American Association of University Professors chapter, said he would expect the Pride Center, Women's Center, and Multicultural Center to shut down if the bill passes.
'This bill definitely targets university positions where administrators and employees are working to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, which is a really broad range,' O'Keefe said. 'It's crucial to have an educational system that gives everyone equal footing and an equal opportunity. … If you feel you're not within the larger majority of the student body you can have a very isolating experience, and that makes it less likely for you to complete your degree.'
Ansel has worked at the Pride Center since her freshman year, but it's more than a job to her.
'Not only is this my stable source of income, it's what I want to do for the rest of my life,' she said. 'I want to advocate and be an advocate. It is so meaningful to have a place where I can be myself fully and completely and not have to compromise any part of my identity.'
A major driving force of her choosing the university was knowing the Pride Center was on campus.
'The Pride Center is so intertwined with my college career, and the thought of no longer being able to work there or even go there, is really devastating,' Ansel said.
There were more than 360 'unique student visits' to the Pride Center in January, Ansel said.
'All of those students that don't know where else to go when they come to the Pride Center, where are they going to go?' Ansel said.
Queer people wouldn't stop existing on college campuses if SB 1 passes, Ansel said.
'I get this sense among people that there's just a lot of fear right now, and I certainly feel a lot of fear right now,' Ansel said.
SB 1 has had one hearing so far and has more testimony scheduled for Tuesday. The bill is up for a possible committee vote Wednesday morning. If SB 1 passes out of committee, it could go to the full Senate Wednesday afternoon.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

President Donald Trump called for the military to be deployed against anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, California. The protests, which began in response to ICE raids at various workplaces on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops into the city over the objections of Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Trump wrote early Monday morning on Truth Social. In another post, the president called for law enforcement to 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' U.S. Northern Command issued a statement on Sunday indicating that 'approximately 500 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, are in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the DoD's protection of federal property and personnel efforts.' The call from the president to deploy the military against U.S. citizens — a power that hasn't been invoked by a president since the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles — would be a serious escalation of federal involvement in what local authorities say remains a manageable, if in sporadic instances violent, outbreak of public protest. Some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have indicated their support for the deployment of military personnel to California. On Sunday night, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared a screenshot of a controversial opinion piece he wrote in 2020 calling for the military to be deployed against Black Lives Matter protests. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media Sunday night that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' The president and his administration have targeted Los Angeles and several other so-called 'sanctuary cities' — cities and other state or local jurisdictions that limit its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — as sites to conduct highly publicized ICE raids on immigrant communities. While the administration claims that they are focusing enforcement actions on criminals, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan admitted on Monday that ICE has been sweeping up migrants who just so happened to be at the location of one of their targets, including mothers, high school students, and migrants arriving to immigration court for scheduled hearings. As the administration's enforcement actions grow in intensity, and stray from the bounds of legality, Trump and his allies have claimed protests against their increasingly authoritarian tactics are effectively an illegal impediment to federal operations. 'A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals. Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations,' Trump wrote on Sunday in a post that bears little resemblance to what is actually happening in the city. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' In a Sunday press conference, Mayor Bass said that 'what we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that has been provoked by the administration.' 'When you're at Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans to our streets you cause fear and you cause panic and deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation,' Bass said. 'We need to be real about this, this is about another agenda, it's not about public safety.' Bass added that the city remained committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters, but that those legal protections 'do not give you the right to be violent to create chaos are to be violent to create chaos are to vandalize property.' Governor Newsom formally requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' Newsom added. More from Rolling Stone Finneas Says He Was Tear-Gassed During 'Very Peaceful' ICE Protest in L.A. ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

NATO chief calls for ‘quantum leap' in defense and says Russia could attack in 5 years
NATO chief calls for ‘quantum leap' in defense and says Russia could attack in 5 years

Hamilton Spectator

time38 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

NATO chief calls for ‘quantum leap' in defense and says Russia could attack in 5 years

LONDON (AP) — NATO members need to increase their air and missile defenses by 400% to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance said Monday, warning that Moscow could be ready to attack it within five years. Secretary-General Mark Rutte said during a visit to London that he expects the 32 NATO members to agree to a big hike in military spending at a summit in the Netherlands this month. Speaking at the Chatham House think tank, Rutte said Russia is outpacing the far bigger NATO in producing ammunition, and the alliance must take a 'quantum leap' in collective defense. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,' Rutte said. 'We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5% of economic output on military spending and another 1.5% on 'defense-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. At the moment, 22 of the 32 members meet or exceed NATO's current 2% target, which was set in 2014. Rutte said he expects all to reach 2% by the end of this year. The new target would meet a demand by U.S. President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte said he agreed that 'America has carried too much of the burden for too long.' Rutte said NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense. 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he said. 'Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years,' Rutte added. 'We are all on the eastern flank now.' Rutte also held talks Monday with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and praised the U.K.'s commitment to increase defense spending as 'very good stuff.' Starmer has pledged to boost military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3% by 2034. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy , seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defenses since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

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