Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the change leaders: F. Willis Johnson

F. Willis Johnson

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

A third-generation educator, the Rev. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, senior minister of Christ Church - Columbus and adjunct faculty at Methodist Theological School of Ohio. Johnson earned national prominence as a civic leader and senior minister of Wellspring Church in Ferguson, Mo.

Johnson is respected for his leadership and strategies on social and racial justice issues. Recognized as a scholar-practitioner, Johnson authored “Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community” and is a sought-after thought leader who empowers individuals and communities to respond prophetically — through healing, justice and reconciliation.


His leadership roles are as diverse as his skills. With a wealth of experience spanning more than 20 years and multiple states, Johnson’s expertise extends far beyond the pulpit. His training in education and nonprofit management has seen him serve in volunteer and paid leadership positions for numerous nonprofit organizations.

(Johnson is also the diversity and leadership program director for the Bridge Alliance, which publishes The Fulcrum.)

He counsels bishops, annual conferences and local churches nationwide. In 2017, Johnson was the Vosburgh visiting professor of ministry and social engagement at Drew University’s Theological School.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Johnson’s commitment to social and racial justice is unwavering and highly relevant to our nation’s current upheaval. His work continues to prepare prophetic leaders and promote healing, justice and transformation through his leadership of diverse organizations and initiatives.

A perfect example is the dialogue policing project Jonshon is leading. Dialogue policing is a method of law enforcement that focuses on communication and engagement with the public to manage social conflicts and maintain order effectively. It emphasizes building trust between police and community members by creating open communication channels, fostering collaboration and promoting understanding. The approach aims to reduce tension, prevent escalation of conflicts and ultimately improve the relationship between law enforcement and the public.

Johnson is facilitating the collaborative work of community stakeholders and a select group of Columbus Police Department dialogue officers as it is scaled and amplified through an intensive cohort-style community engagement initiative that is now underway and will continue for the next six months. The crux of dialogue policing promotes communication, mutual respect and trust between protesting groups and law enforcement officers.

The initiative uses an approach for interfacing activists, the community, the police, and other socio-democratic groups during First Amendment activities. It includes:

  • Establishing open lines of communication: Policing officials need to prioritize open channels of communication between themselves and protest organizers to keep interactions honest, purposeful and proactive.
  • A humanizing approach: Officers should avoid militaristic or overpowering tactics. Instead they should embrace a more compassionate posture that humanizes law enforcement officers and protesters.
  • Contingency planning: Police should collaborate with event organizers to identify potential risks or hazards while developing appropriate response plans that respect participants' rights.
  • Empathy training for law enforcement: Empathy training should be a fundamental component of police education programs in order to strengthen understanding and rapport between officers and protesters.
  • Proactive engagement: Regular meetings or forums between law enforcement, community members and activists to address concerns or emerging issues are essential in promoting dialogue, establishing relationships, deterring miscommunication and allowing for greater oversight.

Dialogue policing dares to better protect the rights enshrined in the First Amendment while fostering positive engagement between diverse groups. It also represents an opportunity to rethink conventional law enforcement strategies and proactively support citizens in expressing their democratic rights safely and peacefully.

I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Johnson in late July for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his democracy reform work:

The Fulcrum interviews Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, Senior Minister of Living Tree Churchwww.youtube.com

Read More

An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
Getty Images, wildpixel

The Next Hundred Days: America's Latest Test of Democracy

For decades, we have watched America wrestle with its demons. Sometimes, she has successfully pinned them down. Other times, the demons have slipped beyond her grasp. Yet, America has always remained in the ring. There is no difference right now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Across America, from small-town council meetings to state legislatures, there's a coordinated effort to roll back the clock on civil rights, geopolitical relations, and the global economy. It's not subtle, and it's not accidental. The targeting of immigrants and citizens of color has become so normalized that we risk becoming numb to it. For example, what happened in Springfield, Ohio, late last year? When national politicians started pushing rhetoric against Haitian immigrants, it wasn't just local politics at play. It was a test balloon, a preview of talking points soon echoed in halls of government and media outlets nationwide. Thus, this is how discrimination, intolerance, and blatant hate go mainstream or viral—it starts small, tests the waters, and spreads like a virus through our body politic and social system.

Keep ReadingShow less
Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States

Credit: National Museum of the American Latino

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.

Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

People running.

Getty Images, Pavel1964

Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.

Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

The transgender flag on a military uniform.

Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, purportedly rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

Keep ReadingShow less