Ohio school district reverts to birth names, catching students, parents off guard
Students and teachers were caught off guard on March 19 when attendance was called and they realized preferred names were changed in the district's system, which is called Infinite Campus.
'He found out about the rescinded name change policy at school,' said a parent with a transgender son. 'His fourth-period teacher advised him to go to the office because his preferred name was not listed in Infinite Campus. My son started to go to the office and in a panic ran to the bathroom to call me at work.'
'This should be a welcoming state:' DeWine denies claim of 'anti-LGBTQ+ climate' in Ohio
Izetta Thomas, the lead organizer with the Columbus Education Justice Coalition, said she has been talking to parents and students since the day of the change.
'To have that happen on such a grand scale and to not even see it coming, I don't think that there are any words to describe the feelings that folks had when that happened,' she said.
Thomas added, 'Those names that were in the system were actually there with parent consent and permission because there was a form that parents had to fill out for that change to even be in the system at all.'
She also said she feels uncomfortable sending her son back to class.
'My son has not physically been back to school since March 19,' the parent said. 'For his safety, we unenrolled from his previous school. Now, his educational opportunities have been taken from him.'
There's a new push to put whole milk back in school meals. Here's what you should know
Columbus Schools Superintendent Angela Chapman sent out a letter to students, parents and staff on Friday acknowledging that no warning was given. In the letter, Chapman said in part, 'We did not provide prior notice this was occurring, nor did we ensure support was in place to prioritize the emotional well-being of everyone impacted.'
Chapman also apologized for how the district handled this situation.
The letter cited recent Ohio laws — including a school bathroom bill and the Parents' Bill of Rights — as reasons for the change, but Thomas said that none of those laws require school districts to revert trans students' names.
'A lot of the information that we've been getting from folks at the district is that it was anticipatory,' Thomas said. 'An apology is not enough. An apology is not accountability, and that's what we're looking for, is accountability.'
Ohio 'Given Name Act' proposes strict rules for names, pronouns in schools
The parent did say Chapman called them personally to apologize, but they said she offered little in the way of a solution.
Thomas said a number of people from the Columbus Education Justice Coalition planned to be at the next Columbus Board of Education meeting to show their support for impacted students and families.
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
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The Spectrum: Bipartisanship in Congress; job interview registry
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – This week on The Spectrum: Three Ohio congressmen appear to have cracked the code for bipartisanship. 'I want the tax code to work for people, and this is one example where people need additional help,' Rep. Greg Landsman (D-District 1) said. 'I do not believe that a family should be limited to have a child based on their geography or socioeconomic background,' Rep. Max Miller (R-District 7) said. Learn about the tax credit they're pushing for that could help thousands of couples struggling with infertility. Some lawmakers at the Ohio Statehouse want to create a new registry for people who skip job interviews. 'It just modernizes the hiring process and it holds applicants accountable,' Ohio Rep. Bill Lorenz (R-Powell) said. 'This bill is another answer looking for a question,' Ohio Rep. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) said. Hear from both sides of the issue. Helping members of the LGBTQ+ community tell their stories: why the Human Rights Campaign picked Columbus to kickstart a national effort. President Donald Trump openly called for lawmakers in Texas to redraw congressional districts to favor Republicans. Is it a preview of what we can expect in Ohio's redistricting battle this fall? Democratic strategist Spencir Dirrig and Republican strategist Matt Dole join the roundtable to weigh in. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Boston Globe
7 days ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Clarence Thomas wants to overturn same-sex marriage protections. Kim Davis is leading the charge.
What are substantive due process rights? They are constitutional rights that the court has recognized even though they are not explicitly stated in the wording of the Constitution. Instead, they emanate from its Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government's deprivation of a person's Advertisement Thomas specifically cited three court substantive due process precedents that he'd like to see overturned. The first was All three of these rulings, and many more including Advertisement Given that 'Because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents,' Thomas wrote (citations, all to his own previous concurring opinions, omitted here). That was an open invitation. And Kim Davis, a former clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who gained nationwide attention for refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell was handed down, has answered the call. This Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees in a case brought against her by two Kentucky men who were denied a license to marry in summer 2015, just days after the Obergefell decision. Davis claims that the lawsuit and verdict violated her First Amendment free exercise rights because same-sex marriage goes against her religious beliefs. She could have stopped there with her petition to the court for relief, but she went further, asking the court to Legal experts differ as to the likelihood of the court taking this case up. Some, like Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, say that Advertisement I would have agreed with him years ago, before Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored Obergefell, retired. But with this court, I make no such predictions. While no other justice joined Thomas's call to revisit and reverse all substantive due process precedents, the fact that the current court's majority was willing to cross that rubicon in striking down Roe is a big red flag. Abortion access also enjoys broad public support, but that proved no disincentive to the court. And the Venn diagram of the antiabortion and the anti-LGBTQ movements, I strongly suspect, looks a lot more like one circle than two. Davis didn't come to the Supreme Court all by her lonesome. The Finally, although no one joined Thomas's provocative dissent in Dobbs, none of the court's majority rejected it either. Other single-justice calls for challenges, such as the one by Justice Brett Kavanaugh The stakes are too high to ignore: If Obergefell is overturned, So I will take Thomas's Dobbs challenge literally and seriously. I think you should too: Advertisement '(I)n future cases, we should 'follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away,'' Thomas wrote, quoting the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 'Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.' This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
