Columbus City Council hosts Black History month celebration, Poindexter Awards
Columbus City Council hosted its annual Black History Month celebration Tuesday evening, honoring African Americans in labor.
Council members presented this year's Poindexter Awards to five leaders of the Black community in Columbus, two business owners and three union leaders.
The awards are named after the Rev. James Preston Poindexter, who became the first Black member of Columbus City Council when he was elected in 1879.
'This event was a celebration of our past and our present moment, a recognition of how far we've come and how far we have to go,' said Council President Shannon Hardin.
The celebration comes as President Donald Trump's administration takes aim at diversity, equity and inclusion policies and as the Ohio Senate heard testimony Tuesday on a sweeping higher education bill that would dismantle DEI programs at public universities.
Elon Simms, chief of staff for Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, acknowledged the moment's significance.
'At a time where rancor and division dominate the national discourse, now perhaps more than ever before, we refuse to be swayed by cynicism or bitterness,' Simms said. 'The fight for equity and justice continues, and we must remain steadfast in our commitment to progress. We owe it to those who came before us to carry that torch forward.'
Council President Pro Tempore Rob Dorans put it more bluntly.
'I got to tell you, there is a lot of nonsense going on over at the Statehouse right now and coming out of Washington, D.C. That's about as polite as I can put it," Dorans said. "But, man, is there some energy in this room tonight.'
Related news:Diversity discussion banned at Columbus VA MLK lunch, Franklin County commissioner said
The ceremony included the singing of 'Lift Every Voice and Sing,' a hymn often referred to as 'The Black National Anthem.'
Keynote speaker Rita Fuller-Yates, local historian and author, talked about the history of Columbus' earliest free Black residents and how the community grew and built the foundation for future generations.
Council members presented the Poindexter Awards to the following:
Curtis J. Moody , the founder of Moody Nolan, the largest minority-owned architecture firm in the U.S. Moody died in October. His work includes the Ohio Union at Ohio State University, the Columbus Metropolitan Library's Martin Luther King branch and an athletics facility at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.
, the founder of Moody Nolan, the largest minority-owned architecture firm in the U.S. Moody died in October. His work includes the Ohio Union at Ohio State University, the Columbus Metropolitan Library's Martin Luther King branch and an athletics facility at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago. Brian Brooks , president and co-owner of E.E. Ward Moving & Storage since 2011, leads the oldest African-American-owned businesses in the U.S. The business was founded in 1881. (Read more about this historic business on the "Our History" page in Sunday, Feb. 23.)
, president and co-owner of E.E. Ward Moving & Storage since 2011, leads the oldest African-American-owned businesses in the U.S. The business was founded in 1881. (Read more about this historic business on the "Our History" page in Sunday, Feb. 23.) Lois Carson , state president of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, worked as a Columbus City Schools secretary for 37 years. Carson is also an Ohio AFL-CIO vice president.
, state president of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, worked as a Columbus City Schools secretary for 37 years. Carson is also an Ohio AFL-CIO vice president. Louella Day-Jeter , president of the Columbus Chapter of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, has led the chapter since 2015.
, president of the Columbus Chapter of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, has led the chapter since 2015. Rhonda Johnson, a member of the State Board of Education, worked for 36 years as a teacher at Columbus City Schools and five years as education director for the City of Columbus. She was the first African American or woman president of the Columbus Education Association.
jlaird@dispatch.com
@LairdWrites
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Review: ‘I Want to Burn This Place Down' confronts the myths of the American Dream
With a title like 'I Want to Burn This Place Down,' you'd think that Lit Hubcolumnist Maris Kreizman's book of 10 essays would be a scathing takedown of American capitalism run amok and skewering of a country that prizes greed, power and getting ahead over decent values and being kind to others. Add a nearly empty matchbook to the cover — the middle match projected defiantly upward — and you might also presume that the tone of the collection would fall somewhere between cunningly pithy and downright incendiary. On the whole, the book is a meandering yet honest depiction of Kreizman's evolution from being an earnest, if naïve rule-follower enamored with working hard and embracing the American Dream to a disillusioned 40-something who's realized that meritocracy and 'playing by the rules can be futile and demeaning if the game itself has always been rigged.' Kreizman is at her strongest when she's discussing topics close to home — which, coincidentally, are the same ones that may resonate with people of all stripes. As a person with Type I diabetes, the essays in which she deconstructs her fear of living with a chronic disease and someday losing her health insurance or access to insulin at no fault of her own feel equally raw and representative of America's broken healthcare system. (Her methodical cataloging of all the poking, levels-checking, and diet-watching she's endured in 'She's Lost Control Again' provide a convincing backdrop.) In tandem, the pieces that hint at the myriad ways she's felt hoodwinked by the '80s promise of a bright, accessible-to-all future — equal access to a job that brings stability and fulfillment, affordable housing, a dependable income — echo much of the zeitgeist in America these days, no matter which side you're on. 'The American Dream of my parents, and of boomers more broadly, has become less and less attainable for the next generation, and especially for the people who were never intended to dream such dreams in the first place: Black and Brown people, poor people, differently abled people, genderqueer people,' she writes. But Kreizman's essays aren't all home runs. While the points in 'A Series of Unfortunate Salaries' — an essay that reads like a blend of nostalgic remembrances of paying dues in publishing circa the early 2000s (ah, all that faxing and those happy hour vodka sodas) and a laundry list of complaints about the notoriously cheap and elitist publishing world — are all valid (and spot on), there's nothing that revelatory about illuminating the industry's oft-documented shoddy business practices and culture. Other essays, like 'My Dumb Obsessions,' in which Kreizman rehashes old dating strategies, or 'I Found My Life Partner (and My Health Insurance) Because I Got Lucky,' an otherwise charming love letter to her husband, feel either a little light or underdeveloped compared to the rest of the offerings. (I wanted to hear more from Kreizman in 'Having It All Without Kids,' for example.) Still, what unites these thought-provoking, heartfelt essays is Kreizman's clear commitment to dissecting and openly sharing all the ways she's felt let down by the institutions she once trusted — something we can all relate to.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: The federal government once stood up for what was right. What's changed?
As a Black teenager growing up in Detroit in the 1960s, I was horrified after seeing news coverage of the peaceful demonstrators, marchers and children being attacked and brutalized. The demonstrators, mostly Black Americans, were simply asking for the same rights that were afforded to the majority of Americans. Today's demonstrations against the Trump administration's immigration roundups in Los Angeles and elsewhere remind me of the Civil Rights Movement. The National Guard is deployed in Los Angeles, purportedly to protect federal property. The last time the guard was used in a disputed manner was 1957. Nine Black high school students attempted to enroll at the all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. The Democratic Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus called in the National Guard to prevent it. In response, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the Army to protect the students. The irony is self-evident. The cause of the peaceful demonstrators in Los Angeles and beyond is righteous. It is a shame that the federal government under President Donald Trump no longer protects the disenfranchised and marginalized. Clarence Boyd, Oakland Maintain health care I was relieved when Sen. John McCain voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. As a breast cancer survivor with two pre-existing conditions, the thought of losing my health care was terrifying. I recently overcame another bout of breast cancer, and I'm grateful a second mastectomy was avoided. Medicare's follow-up care has been superb. Now we're facing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which threatens the health care coverage of 16 million Americans by 2034. The proposed bill includes substantial cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act that will affect low-income individuals and families. What kind of society are we if we fail to support our sick, elderly and disabled? We need to pressure Congress to refuse a huge deficit increase while simultaneously denying health care to vulnerable populations. It's not crazy You might think that I am a Republican. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I support a balanced federal budget. I support a strong immigration policy. I support a strong national defense. I support a rational and fair tariff policy. I believe in fair and honest elections. But I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. And just because I have empathy for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, that also does not make me 'a radical left lunatic.' Bill Schrupp, Lafayette
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Trump Is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship. History Proves It.
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' That's the opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment. The vast majority of legal scholars have long understood the clause to confer citizenship on immigrant children born in the United States. But not President Donald Trump. 'This had to do with the babies of slaves,' the president asserted yesterday, at a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partially clears the way for the administration to end the practice of birthright citizenship, though the attempt will face further legal hurdles. (The court has not ruled on the challenge to birthright citizenship itself, only the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against it.) According to Trump and his supporters, Congress never intended the amendment to grant citizenship to immigrant children — only to formerly enslaved people and their children. As legal experts have explained, the text of the amendment itself disproves Trump's claim, which the court's conservatives — who so often extoll the virtues of originalism, interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was written — should well know. So does the historical record. We do not have to guess what members of Congress intended with the Fourteenth Amendment and the children of immigrants. We know, because they told us themselves. And Trump won't like what they had to say. The president is correct on one point: The Fourteenth Amendment's framers intended its primary beneficiaries to be formerly enslaved Black people. In the months immediately following the Civil War, ex-Confederate states began forming new governments and passing laws that sharply curtailed the rights of freedmen who had been liberated under the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment. The so-called Black Codes varied by state but shared common features. In Mississippi, for example, Black people were required to sign annual labor contracts, and those who left their jobs could be arrested for vagrancy. In South Carolina, African Americans were barred from any occupation other than farming or domestic work unless they paid a special tax. Many codes also limited Black people's rights to own property, bear arms, serve on juries or testify against white people in court. These laws effectively criminalized Black life and sought to reimpose slavery in all but name. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, conferring rights and citizenship on Black Southerners. Recognizing that they might not enjoy congressional supermajorities in perpetuity, they also sought to enshrine these rights permanently in the Constitution, via the Fourteenth Amendment. But today, Trump contends that the amendment does not apply to immigrants. His argument rests on two conceits: First, that the text of the amendment specifically limits birthright citizenship to 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which, conservatives argue, does not include immigrant children, as they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not fully subject to U.S. sovereign authority. Second, as the president explained on Friday, he believes the framers intended only to confer citizenship on freedmen (retroactively) and their children (prospectively). In effect, they were attempting a constitutional repudiation of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which the Court in 1857 denied that Black persons could be citizens. We know both of these arguments are shambolic, because the framers told us so. Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, drafted the birthright citizenship language and was clear in his intent. 'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,' he explained. But Howard qualified his explanation. 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.' At first blush, it would seem that meant to exclude the children of foreign-born immigrants from enjoying birthright citizenship. But the Senate debate makes clear he and his colleagues meant only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and officials in the United States on business. In a key exchange, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania fretted that the amendment would expose the United States to mass demographic upheaval, specifically by making immigrant children citizens. He worried particularly about 'Gypsie' (or Roma) immigrants in his home state and a small but growing population of Chinese immigrants in California. In response, John Conness, a senator from California, who supported the bill, agreed with Howard that the citizenship clause applied to immigrants, affirming that the amendment 'relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.' Setting aside their crude racial determinism, the exchange makes clear that Howard and other Republicans intended the amendment to apply to all persons born in the U.S., not just freedmen. Cowan was the only Republican senator to vote against the amendment, specifically because of his concerns over birthright citizenship and immigration. In other words, even the amendment's opponents understood its meaning and intent. In debating who was subject to the 'jurisdiction' of the amendment, the Senate focused almost entirely on the question of whether Native Americans, who had treaty rights and sovereignty, enjoyed its provisions. Most Republican supporters believed at the time they did not. But there was essentially no disagreement about the children of immigrants, who were understood to qualify for citizenship. And the Supreme Court agreed in a landmark 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip abroad, he was denied re-entry to the U.S., prompting a legal battle over whether he was a citizen. In a 6–2 decision, the court ruled that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status — establishing a foundational precedent for birthright citizenship that remains in place today In last week's decision, the court didn't specifically uphold Trump's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it significantly limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide (or 'universal') injunctions blocking policy implementation, including Trump's executive order denying passports and Social Security cards to immigrant children. The court signaled it would likely take up the more specific question of birthright citizenship down the line. For the time being, the decision opens the door to a patchwork legal landscape, where birthright citizenship protections can vary dramatically depending on which states or judges are involved, leaving families in some jurisdictions shielded while others face the executive order's full force. Legal experts warn that curtailing nationwide injunctions could let parts of Trump's order go into effect unevenly — forcing challenges through slower and more localized litigation — and thereby sow confusion, fear and unequal citizenship rights across the country. Trump's argument about the Fourteenth Amendment also calls into question the process by which tens of millions of American families of European descent became citizens. At the time of the amendment's adoption, its framers worried primarily about whether it would make citizens of Asian immigrants. European immigrants — Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews and, later, Eastern and Southern Europeans — were broadly understood to fall under the protections of the original 1790 Naturalization Act, which made all 'free white persons' of 'good character' eligible for citizenship. Many of those 'free white persons' never bothered to become citizens, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a large number of immigrants were 'birds of flight' who immigrated and re-emigrated multiple times, mostly to work seasonally and bring wages back home. Many ultimately remained in the United States, but if Trump's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment were in effect, many of their American-born children would not have been citizens if their parents were unnaturalized at the time of their births. Since 1868, birthright citizenship has been central to our understanding of who is legally an American. Take it away, and that understanding gets murky. All eight of my great grandparents were foreign-born Jews from Eastern Europe. A few naturalized. Others didn't. Their children — my grandparents — were born on American soil, well before their parents became citizens. By Trump's reading, my grandparents and parents would not have been entitled to birthright citizenship. Neither, for that matter, would I. The same logic applies to tens of millions of Americans. Lucky for me, the history is clear on this point. If the Supreme Court's conservative majority actually believes in originalism, that means the legality of birthright citizenship is a matter of history — and the history is undeniable. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
