Columbus City Schools quietly dissolves its Equity Department
According to Columbus City Schools chief of staff and interim communications director Mike De Fabbo, the district no longer has an Equity Department. Although the webpage and staffing is still listed under CCS' departments online, De Fabbo said the website is being updated and the services the Equity Department offered have been folded into a new team.
'Our attendance, climate and culture, restorative practices and social emotional learning work is now part of our Whole Child Supports team aligned to our board guardrail to prioritize a whole child focus,' De Fabbo said.
Why South-Western City Schools parents are considering leaving the district
The Whole Child Supports Department works to improve students' social, physical, cognitive and emotional development by facilitating collaborations between public health and education. It is one of four Board of Education guardrails, or strategic operational actions the superintendent must guide the district by.
The Department of Equity was created in 2020 and grew from a one-person department to a team of people working to create culturally responsive and inclusive classrooms. The department was led by Yolanda Stewart, a former CCS Educator of the Year with more than 20 years of experience in education. Stewart received her Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 2015 in educational policy and leadership, and joined the district in 2001.
According to district appropriations data, the district spent $144,550 a month on the Office of Equity, which still received funding in May. The Whole Child Supports team does not have its own fund, but student support services, special education and accountability services have combined funds and receive around $7.5 million.
On April 17, Superintendent Angela Chapman and school board spokesperson Jennifer Adair jointly said the district would comply with a federal mandate to affirm the district's compliance with Title VI by not engaging in 'illegal DEI practices.' At the time, Chapman and the Board of Education affirmed their compliance but said they were not making changes, as 'illegal DEI' was not defined.
Where in Columbus you're most likely to get pulled over for speeding
'At Columbus City Schools, we remain deeply committed to creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment for all students, families, teachers and staff,' Chapman and Adair wrote.
CCS still intends to participate in the Columbus Pride March on June 14, according to its website. The district has reaffirmed its commitment to transgender and gender variant students and the LGBTQ+ community publicly. Most recently, the district affirmed this after it reverted all students' names to their birth names, which parents said 'outed' several students, including some with legal name changes. See previous coverage of this decision in the video player above.
NBC4 asked what would happen to the Equity Department's employees but did not receive a response. Although the Equity page says the department grew to a group of people, only Stewart was still listed as of publication. Stewart's LinkedIn indicates she still works at CCS, but only lists her current and past positions as 'educator' or 'strategist' with no details about a possible change in role.
School board documents and meeting agendas also did not indicate a change for Stewart, and did not exhibit a shuttering of the Equity Department, according to detailed searches of board documents from 2025.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Ordered to Restore Portions of Grants Stripped From UCLA
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump's administration to restore some of the funding it cut from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in July, handing a partial victory to the state's public university system which is facing a $1 billion settlement demand from the White House over accusations of antisemitism on campus. Newsweek has reached out to UCLA via email for comment. Why It Matters The White House has cracked down on pro-Palestinian campus protests across the country since Trump returned to office in January. Much of the initiative has involved withholding or freezing hundreds of millions in federal funds for schools that the administration accuses of not doing enough to prevent antisemitism. UCLA was a site of widespread protests last year against the Israeli government's military actions in the Gaza Strip. The university's response to the demonstrations was sharply criticized, particularly after counterprotesters attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment. People walk on the plaza outside Royce Hall, the site of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, on the UCLA campus on July 30, 2025 in Los Angeles. People walk on the plaza outside Royce Hall, the site of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests, on the UCLA campus on July 30, 2025 in Los To Know Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District Court of California, who issued the order on Tuesday, had in June barred the National Science Foundation (NSF) from terminating grants to University of California researchers. UCLA said in early August that the Trump administration had suspended $584 million in federal grants. In her Tuesday ruling, which Newsweek has reviewed, Lin said in the directive, referring to her earlier order, that the NSF was in violation after cutting off funding to UCLA and she ruled that suspended grants be restored. "NSF's actions violate the preliminary injunction," Lin said in the ruling. "Therefore, pursuant to the preliminary injunction, NSF's suspension of the grants at issue here is VACATED." It was not immediately clear how much funding would be returned to the campus. The Trump administration is also seeking a $1 billion settlement from UCLA after a Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division investigation issued a finding on July 29 that the college violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students." UCLA is one of at least eight elite colleges—all in states or districts that voted blue in 2024—that face having their funding and grants cut after being accused of antisemitism over pro-Palestinian protests or op-eds. Many have also been told to change their practices to fall in line with the Trump administration's stance on diversity initiatives, "wokeism," and transgender-inclusive policies. The University of California said last week it was reviewing the $1 billion settlement offer by the Trump administration. The college's president, James B. Milliken, said the size of the proposed settlement would "devastate" the university. What People Are Saying Politico cited attorney for the plaintiffs Claudia Polsky, saying after the Tuesday ruling: "We are delighted that millions of dollars of grants wrongfully held hostage in the administration's political negotiations with UCLA will now be restored." Attorney General Pam Bondi, referring to the July 29 finding by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, said: "This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system." What Happens Next In her ruling, Lin ordered a joint status report by August 19, 2025, to confirm all steps to comply with the Preliminary Injunction have been completed by NSF.
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Washington Post
Helping undocumented students afford college isn't discrimination
College is already expensive, but the Trump administration is doing its best to ensure that undocumented students cannot afford it. Last month, the Education Department opened investigations into five universities for providing scholarships to undocumented students, including 'dreamers' who came to the United States as young children and have since been granted special status to defer their removal from the country. The government claims these scholarships constitute discrimination on 'the basis of national origin' under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The argument is as absurd as it is cruel.
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Even if they settle with Trump, universities have their work cut out for them
Last month, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University cut deals with the Trump administration to resolve accusations related to antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and transgender rights. The administration believes it now has a template for forcing universities to accede to its policy preferences: Make vague but sweeping allegations of discrimination; freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding; overwhelm administrators with civil rights investigations and document requests; and threaten consequences ranging from stripping universities of their right to enroll international students to revoking their tax exemptions. The means used to secure these deals amount to extortion. Over $400 million in research funding was frozen at Columbia with no due process and in violation of the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard University, which chose to litigate but is reported to be negotiating a deal, had over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts frozen and faces half a dozen civil rights investigations and threats to its international student population, tax exempt status and accreditation. Trump's tactics work because his targets cannot survive as modern research universities if they are at war with government agencies prepared to ignore legal constraints and social norms. There are ample reasons to question the sincerity of the Trump administration's commitment to combatting antisemitism, and throttling scientific research makes little sense as a response. Many of the policies agreed to in the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown and Penn are damaging and dangerous. But some of the concerns on which they are based are legitimate. American institutions of higher education should act as well as react to this crisis. The anti-Israel protests that engulfed some campuses last year brought with them a surge in antisemitism. Task force reports at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA and other elite institutions acknowledge failures to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff. At UCLA, for example, pro-Palestinian protesters barred Jewish students from crossing parts of campus, prompting a lawsuit UCLA recently settled for over $6 million and a Justice Department finding that UCLA violated civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In its settlement agreement, Columbia pledged to review its Middle East programs to ensure their educational offerings are 'comprehensive and balanced,' appoint new faculty members in related fields who 'will contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment' and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison to students on antisemitism issues. We believe the imposition of these requirements poses a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy. That said, the Trump administration's draconian demands provided at least part of the impetus for institutions to revise their policies. Harvard, for example, announced a series of initiatives to encourage respectful discourse and support research on antisemitism. Other colleges and universities are also making efforts — generally commendable, sometimes problematic — to maintain their commitments to free speech while tightening time, place and manner restrictions on protests. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration also insisted that Harvard hire an 'external party' to audit 'the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity,' and then hire faculty and admit students to achieve balance in every department, faculty and teaching unit. This demand is ill-defined, absurd and unconstitutional. But as Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has acknowledged, the university needs to do more to ensure 'a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity and academic exploration.' According to a 2023 survey, over 77 percent of Harvard's faculty identify as 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 3 percent who identify as 'conservative' or 'very conservative.' Similar if less extreme disparities exist on most elite campuses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. And as the Heterodox Academy has observed, a too-uniform political culture can give rise to 'closed-minded orthodoxies within scholarly communities.' The devil, of course, is in the details. Departments can easily rule out hiring a creationist to teach biology or a climate change denier to teach environmental studies. But what is the right mix of expertise in a history or chemistry department? And how should that be achieved without employing affirmative action, given the dearth of conservatives pursuing a Ph.D. in many fields? One thing, at least, should be clear: The answers to such questions should come from internal deliberations rather than external mandates. The most controversial aspect of the Trump administration's effort to remake higher education has been its attack on DEI programs. The Columbia settlement insists not only that the university maintain 'merit-based admission policies' and refrain from racial preferences, but also that it 'may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination,' even though the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action permits universities to consider 'an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' Universities must decide how to square this circle. Similar language forbidding racial preferences appears in the Brown settlement. That agreement also requires Brown to 'provide female student-athletes with intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms strictly separated on the basis of sex,' offer women the option of 'female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities' and 'ensure students have access to single-sex floors in on-campus housing,' with male and female defined in accordance with a Trump executive order insisting that sex is binary and immutable. These provisions go well beyond existing law and may make campuses less welcoming places for many students. That said, some DEI policies should be reconsidered. Requiring job applicants to submit diversity statements, for example, risks the imposition of ideological filters. And although concerns about transgender athletes participating in college sports have been vastly overstated, there is room for fine-tuning participation policies. Critics of the Trump administration rightly decry the bullying that is forcing universities to accept unprecedented government intrusion into university affairs. Most of that intrusion will do far more harm than good. But colleges and universities should seize the moment to preserve and promote core values while implementing reforms that are reasonable, feasible and just. Doing so may not keep the wolf away, but it might help win over a skeptical public.
