Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in the case of Johnson vs. Grant’s Pass, allowing municipalities to arrest or fine homeless individuals for sleeping outside, will not lead Evansville Mayor Stephanie Terry to pursue any policy changes locally.
“Today’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent toward criminalizing homelessness by allowing cities to treat sleeping on the streets as a criminal matter,” Mayor Terry said. “In Evansville, our goal is to help those who are most vulnerable – to offer the programs, services, and opportunities they need to improve their circumstances. Today’s Supreme Court ruling will not change that.”
In her first six months in office, Mayor Terry has made affordable housing a centerpiece of her administration. During her first State of the City address, she committed to adding $250,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, bringing the total allocation to that fund to $750,000 in 2024. She also recently announced the creation of the $500,000 Forward Together Grant Fund, where qualified nonprofits can apply for up to $35,000 each to support programs that help revitalize neighborhoods and lift people out of poverty.
She also has continued to work alongside the Evansville-Vanderburgh Commission on Homelessness, which also expressed disappointment at today’s Supreme Court ruling.
“The Evansville-Vanderburgh Commission on Homelessness is disappointed in the decision by the United States Supreme Court to deny Constitutional protections from arrest for those sleeping outside due to not having other housing options,” said Chris Metz, administrator of the Commission. “This only raises the stakes for local leaders, in Evansville and communities and across the country, to continue developing housing solutions for our most vulnerable community members. Homelessness is not a crime; it is a social problem that requires humane and compassionate solutions.”
In the wake of the ruling, Evansville will continue to work in partnership with the Commission and the numerous local organizations who serve the homeless to further those humane and compassionate solutions. Meanwhile, the Evansville Police Department will continue to do outreach to the unhoused population through its Homeless Liaison Officers, who spend time on the streets every day attempting to work with the unhoused.
“Through our Crime Prevention Unit, we have created the E3 initaitive, which means that we approach the populations we serve through education, encouragement, and then enforcement,” said Officer Mario Reid, homelessness liaison officer for the EPD. “That will continue to be our philosophy and mode of operation for serving our population of individuals who have scarcity of housing.”
Not a novel idea: The lasting narrative of book bans—Part III in a series
By Sydney Byerly, TheStatehouseFile.com
In this multi-part Statehouse File special report, Sydney Byerly examines the history of, the motivation behind and varying reactions to Indiana’s recent embrace of book banning.
4. Dialogue
Legislators: “Protecting the children”
House Enrolled Act 1447 became Indiana code after Gov. Eric Holcomb signed it into effect last legislative session. The measure to ban “harmful” books from school libraries was almost abandoned until a last-minute change to the bill happened behind closed doors in a conference committee, just hours before the end of the 2023 legislative session on April 27. Both chambers voted to approve the library provision added to the bill, which permits communities to request that books be banned from school libraries if they deem them “obscene” or “harmful to minors.”
Proponents of the bill said the law would improve transparency among schools, libraries and the community, protecting children from inappropriate materials. Still, some are concerned about censorship and fear books will be banned because one parent doesn’t want their child to read them.
Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, who authored a similar Senate version of the bill, told lawmakers earlier in the session that parents from his district provided him with several inappropriate books they said where found in their local libraries. Tomes named people from Purple for Parents, which is a far-right Northern Indiana organization that believes schools are teaching LGBTQ identities and sexualizing children, among the constituents who reached out to him.
One of the books he mentioned was “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, a graphic novel that recounts the author’s journey growing up exploring their own gender identity and sexuality. It has topped the most-challenged book lists for the last three years, according to the ALA.
As co-author for the Senate version of the bill, Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said the books brought to Tomes’s attention are “really bad, sickening—no one in this room would show this to their young child and feel it was a good thing to do.”
In WFYI’s documentary “Read or Restrict,” Tomes was asked about people fearing this legislation could have a chilling effect on educators. He said, “Well, maybe they should worry. Maybe educators should worry if they’re doing it. Maybe it should have a chilling effect if it’s going to put these kinds of books in the hands of minors or child.”
Co-author for HEA 1447, Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville, said during the vote, “Parents cannot access the library—except for maybe at an open house. They cannot go to the library every time with their children. They cannot see the books in their children’s desks. It is myopic, short-sighted at best, to say otherwise.”
Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, agreed and said the bill was not intended to ban ideas but that “it’s about one thing—and that is the indecency and obscenity that we already defined in Indiana code, and we say if that is what’s entering into the classroom, we need to have more transparency.
“This is giving parents greater transparency with what’s in their libraries.”
House Democrats argued, saying it’s up to parents to monitor what materials their children and only their children access.
Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, told his fellow lawmakers, “We all know, in this room, there is no pornography in our schools. What it is, is young adult fiction that talks about lesbians and gays and people that are different than some of us, and it’s giving us a realistic portrayal of the challenges and the burdens and the struggles that those minorities face.”
Rep. Renee Pack, D-Indianapolis, spoke to lawmakers about her daughter, Leah Johnson, who is a young adult author and owner of Indianapolis bookstore Loudmouth Books.
Johnson’s debut novel, “You Should See Me In A Crown,” about a Black girl who falls for her competition for prom queen, joined more than 50 other books labeled “obscene” by the Oklahoma attorney general’s office in 2022.
Pack said Johnson told her that she decided to write books because “it was horrible and confusing, growing up and not seeing me and who I was represented in literature. So this is my way of letting young people know you are not alone, no matter what anybody tells you.”
Siding with his party, Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb gave a statement when signing the bill into law, saying that he personally viewed the measure as a way to keep library materials age-appropriate for kids.
“[House Enrolled Act] 1447 improves transparency and supports efforts to provide age-appropriate material in our libraries and I am happy that these decisions will continue to take place at the local level,” Holcomb said.
Photo by Emily: https://www.pexels.com/photo/books-768125/
Authors note: Thoughts from banned book writers
Indiana authors Leah Johnson and John Green say their books are not inherently “obscene” and provide representation for young adults.
Johnson said in the WFYI documentary “Read or Restrict” that “in retrospect, I can identify that not having books that reflected my experience did deeply change the way I thought about myself and my position in the world.”
Her debut novel, “You Should See Me in a Crown,” received critical acclaim with a Stonewall Book honor and was named one of Time’s 100 Best Young Adult Books of All Time.
However, the book also received challenges two years after its release when the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office placed it and more than 50 other books under investigation for “obscenity.” Other books on the list included “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and “Looking for Alaska” by another Hoosier, Green.
Johnson, in an article about the challenge in The Indianapolis Star, wrote, “My book is the most innocent book in the world. … The thing that is indecent that they’re talking about is that it’s queer.”
In the documentary, Johnson added, “I just wanted to tell a true story about queer kids because that’s the kind of thing that I wish that I would have had when I was a teenager.
“There’s no content in the book that could even realistically be viewed as obscene except for the fact that it is queer. And to a lot of people, queerness is inherently obscene.”
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office went on to drop the investigation after a couple of months. But that hasn’t stopped Johnson from speaking out against these challenges.
Since releasing her novel, Johnson has put out two other books and opened her bookstore.
Loudmouth Books, Johnson’s independent bookstore in Indianapolis, was her response to “ongoing book-banning attacks that target BIPOC and queer books and authors.” The bookstore’s website reads, “At Loudmouth, we’ll always loudly and proudly proclaim our passion for stories by, for, and about marginalized people.”
Also making national news for book censorship last year, the Hamilton East Public Library Board in Noblesville elected a new policy to have library staff remove books with sexually explicit content from the children’s and teens’ sections and to reshelve them in the adults’ collection.
The decision meant nearly 2,000 young adult books were moved, among them classics like “Forever” by Judy Blume, “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson and two of Green’s best-selling novels—“Looking for Alaska” and “The Fault in Our Stars.”
According to the policy, “age-appropriate” materials could not contain sexual content or descriptions of sexual content. Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” follows the story of a teenage girl receiving cancer treatment who meets another teenage cancer survivor and the pair fall in love, losing their virginity to one another.
Green spoke out publicly against the library board’s decision, taking to X to respond, posting, “This is ludicrous. It is about teenagers, and I wrote it for teenagers. Teenagers are not harmed by reading TFIOS. This is such an embarrassment.”
Outraged responses flooded in to his post. Some cited the cost of having the libraries make this change didn’t make sense for taxpayers. Others suggested that considering the “sexual content” in “The Fault In Our Stars” not appropriate for young adults, was absurd because that portion of the book is minor and young adults often have or know about intercourse before they are 18 years old.
These arguments weren’t unfounded, as the library reported that the review process would come with a cost upwards of $300,000 because the library would need to hire more staff to read the books looking for any mention of sexual content. Also, a report by the CDC says that “an estimated 55% of male and female teens have had sexual intercourse by age 18.”
Green went on to tweet, “Authors often get most of the attention when it comes to issues around book banning and intellectual freedom, but those who really deserve the plaudits and attention are teachers and librarians and community members doing the work every day to keep books available.
“They often take far greater risks than any author in defense of intellectual freedom. So the next time you see a teacher or librarian, please thank them on behalf of authors, readers and the communities they serve.”
On Aug. 9, the same day as his initial reactions posted on X, Green shared a letter he emailed to the library board members of Fishers and Noblesville, which reads:
“I am your neighbor. And I am horrified by the decision of some members of your board to override a huge body of expertise and deem hundreds of books–including mine–inappropriate to be shelved as Young Adult Literature…It’s political theater of the lowest and most embarrassing order, and it’s an awful way to have Fishers and Noblesville make national news.
“As a business owner, I’m infuriated by your third-rate vice signaling that complicates efforts to bring business and talent here. As a parent, I’m disgusted by your disregard for the professionalism and expertise of teachers and librarians. As a Hoosier author, I am deeply offended by your inaccurate and harmful portrayal of my work. And as a citizen, I am so disappointed that you would use public time and public resources to engage in work that actively harms the public through censorship, defacto, and otherwise…I implore you to walk this awful policy back and allow the real experts to decide where to shelve my books and those of my colleagues.”
After receiving backlash for the Collection Development Policy, the Noblesville School Board voted to replace the library’s Board President Laura Alerding on Aug. 15.
Just a couple of months later, the board voted to remove the specific controversial langauge from its Collection Development Policy and halt the movement of young adult books to the adults’ collection.
While the fight in the Hamilton East Public Library seems won, Green and other authors argue the fight’s not over until it’s over—amd book censorship continues to be a problem nationwide.
The dedication: Educators, librarians, and parents on the subject
EDUCATORS
After teaching for more than seven decades combined, three Indiana educators agree on one thing: Censoring or outright banning books isn’t the way to go.
Marla Jane Adams, a retired teacher who taught for 25 years and served on her district’s school board for 12, said she doesn’t believe in book bans because “many people have not even read the books they want banned.”
“They have heard that the books mention things they don’t believe in, so they must be banned,” Adams said. “I think book banning can cause problems for teachers and students, particularly if a teacher wants students to research all sides of an issue—those students would only see one side. Also, tell a student that a book is banned, and that student is most likely going to find the book and read it out of spite.”
First-year elementary school Assistant Principal Katie Nacrelli, taught for 15 years before moving up the ladder.
Nacrelli said she agrees that “it’s important to monitor what students are exposed to in terms of violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.” However, she said, “What makes that difficult, even more so recently, is that everyone’s opinion of what ‘appropriate’ means is not the same. Schools have to navigate this issue carefully.”
She also said that she fears society has taken a step backward in recent years when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of minority groups because most of the book banning she’s seen in the news is related to LGBTQ+ issues or racial inequalities.
“Personally, in 18 years, I have only had two parents out of hundreds of families who I’ve worked with reach out about the LGBTQ+ issue, and none about race issues. The two concerns were last year at a predominantly white, rural, upper-middle-class school,” she said.
“I’m not sure why this issue is on the rise—maybe because of the speed at which information and misinformation like [critical race theory], for example, can travel from person to person now through social media,” Nacrelli said. “Divisive topics seem to get more traction much faster than they used to. I also think educators have become a target for the far right.”
Nacrelli said this is why “teachers and staff need to feel supported by the public and must feel safe to foster the love of literature with their students.
“The public needs to trust educators to make reasonable decisions about the books that are in their classrooms and libraries. Students must see diverse representation in books, as well as be exposed to the often unpleasant parts of our history in an age-appropriate manner.”
Nacrelli said she also feels the public should elect school board members who will prioritize creating and implementing policies to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
“If a parent has a concern about a book that is being read/taught in his or her child’s class, that parent has the right to learn more about the book/activities and request for their child to have access to a different book,” she said. “This policy has been in place at [her school corporation] for years. That parent should not have the right to make that decision for other students.”
With her passion for educating young people and after teaching in the classroom for 32 years, Joy Lohmeyer has continued to work as an instructional coach and curriculum developer for the last 10 years.
Lohmeyer said that she believes books and other resource materials should be content appropriate for the students’ ages but also their reading and comprehension levels.
She gave an example of when she was teaching middle school students part of a high-ability program, saying while she chose texts based on her students’ age-level, she also tried to challenge them to analyze plots, characters and literary devices in the books because they could.
“Many, if not all of my students could read and understand text far above their chronological age. If they wanted to read books that were written for teens and adults, I asked that parents give their consent for those independent reading titles,” Lohmeyer said. “That said, I also firmly believe that students should read a variety of genres and texts that reveal, examine and educate regarding diverse cultures, historical periods and global perspectives.”
Lohmeyer echoed Nacrelli’s opinions on why book bans are a burning topic across the country.
“I believe individuals and groups that believe in banning content and books do not wish to or feel threatened about living in a country that is culturally, racially and gender diverse,” she said. “Book banning historically has been born of or at least associated with the fear of differences between people. When people become afraid, they look for something or someone to blame. They try to exert more control, and one of the ways to do that is to make people believe that those who think, act, believe or look differently from you are a threat.”
Lohmeyer feels many school and library employees feel unsafe due to social media attacks and exhausted from suddenly being required to defend materials that have been recognized as quality and appropriate for years.
She also said educators and administrators have lost their jobs over book censorship—a factor that is going to continue to affect the number of college students choosing education for their careers. According to the Indiana State Teachers Association, this is something the state cannot afford: “Indiana is experiencing historic teacher shortages across the state. As of December 2022, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) job bank has more than 1,500 teacher vacancies.”
“Educators are exhausted from all of the politically fueled issues in education, and many are leaving the profession as a result,” Lohmeyer said.
Lohmeyer also said she’s frustrated by the attacks on public schools and libraries because they “are just that—public. They are supported by tax dollars and are to be a resource for all citizens.
“They are to provide resources for all citizens, which in our country means a diverse group of races, cultures and beliefs,” she said. “Our founders, while they had many flaws, wrote a constitution that protected free speech, not the speech of some.”
LIBRARIANS
Gabrielson, the student learning and research librarian at Franklin College, said that after acquiring her master’s degree in library and information science to become a librarian, she was shocked to find that even amongst other librarians in the field, there were varying viewpoints on the topic.
“In the past, I’ve worked in public libraries where there was more of a breadth of opinion that I wasn’t expecting, who would say, ‘Well if we move this book that’s clearly written for children to the young adult or the adult section, oh, it’s not censorship, because it’s still there.’”
Gabrielson said while she could see their argument, she’s uncomfortable with those suggestions.
“The whole point of librarianship is making information accessible to all. And public libraries are public, they’re there to serve everyone,” Gabrielson pointed out.
She admitted that things can get trickier when it comes to school libraries because the role of a school media specialist is different. The demographic is exclusively children and their parents aren’t with them when choosing what books to check out.
Gabrielson said despite these considerations she’s strongly against book banning and any kind of censorship but can see why some librarians suggest acting in the interest of serving their communities by listening to what they want to see (or don’t see) on the shelves.
Former public librarian and school librarian Kay Walker said her public library had good policies in place, but “challenges to books was always stressful.”
“I only had two [challenges] that I remember that actually ended up being formally filed. In both cases, the books that were challenged were left on the shelves,” she said. “Quite often, the challenge was dropped after the key question, ‘Have you read the entire book?’ was asked.”
Walker said having support from administrators and the board was essential, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for when she was working as a school librarian. She also said that the new wave of book bans causes her concern.
“If you look back through history, you see that banning books was often one of the first things that oppressive governments used to control the people and to control what they thought or believed,” Walker said.
Erin Cataldi, adult and teen service librarian at the Clark Pleasant Branch of the Johnson County Public Library, echoed Walker’s sentiments, saying, “Politics have gotten more polarizing and people like to be mad at something or try to find something to blame. Book banning is an easy and effective way to shove opinions and policies down people’s throats.”
Cataldi said that whether in a school or public library, book banning should only ever be viewed as negative.
“Book banning is censorship and takes away people’s right to choose what is right for them,” she said.
Amy Hamilton, access services coordinator at Franklin College’s Hamilton Library, said that as a librarian she doesn’t want to be in charge of censoring other people’s children.
Hamilton, who also used to serve as the adult/teen librarian at the Johnson County Public Library, shared a memory she thinks all parents could learn from.
Two young girls had come into the library with their father, and they would take books to him to get his approval before they checked out. Hamilton said she liked that he never tried to influence anyone else or tell other kids they couldn’t read those books—he just didn’t want his kids to.
“We can’t censor for parents. That’s their job,” she said. “People who want to complain will always complain.”
PARENTS
Mark Kerr, an east Indianapolis Baptist pastor and father of five, said he supports more transparency on what kids have access to, especially because tax dollars go towards public schools and libraries.
“I think everyone could agree there’s probably certain materials that third graders don’t have a whole lot of business reading,” he said. “I don’t think that’s awkward to say, especially as a pastor, that we have to be cautious of what we put in our mind and what we read.
“I send my kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, I don’t send my children to school to learn where to get their morals and ethics from. That’s my job at home,” he said.
Kerr said he’s not in support of “an outright ban” but he thinks “all adults could realize that some of these books probably don’t have the best place.” He also suggested that books use a rating system similar to the one commonly used for movies so that the content warning is right up front for parents.
Flipping the page, southern Indiana mother of two Amanda Chevalier said she wants her kids “to read everything.”
“You can’t just pretend things didn’t happen or people haven’t spoken the way they did or thought things were OK in the past. They need to know history to understand how not to repeat the mistakes. You can’t learn unless you’re exposed.”
Chevalier also said that she feels like teachers need to be allowed to encourage reading to give students exposure to the world and other viewpoints, so students can learn how to have good discussions and learn from one another.
Outraged by the thought of book bans sweeping the nation, Chevalier argued it’s all political.
“Heaven forbid we touch on subjects that are unbecoming or show how our ancestors were because it’s embarrassing. Politicians who can’t actually accomplish things think that banning a book is a success,” she said. “You can do it quickly, just erase the memory. It gets them votes in the Bible Belt and from people who are just prudes. Some people want the world to be like Stepford and that’s not reality.”
Mollie Einhaus, a mother in Johnson County, said she was fortunate to have parents who made sure that their kids had books and didn’t join other people in her small hometown in Kentucky who believed in banning and even burning books.
“My parents, even though we lived in a very small town, they went against the grain and they allowed us to have books—not only that, but books we didn’t agree with. They made it a point to make sure that we read books we didn’t agree with,” she said.
“As a young person it did make me feel like I was doing something bad, like hiding contraband growing up, now that I look back on it.”
Einhaus said the book burning in her hometown wasn’t a thing of the far past. In her adulthood, when her 14-year-old was only 2 or 3, she returned home to visit her sister who still lives there, and the “Harry Potter” book series was actively being burned on the town square.
“I think that it can impact, for the students, their growth, their experience of the world. No matter where they’re sitting is at the fingertips of a book, and to have that prohibited or not at their fingertips—it impacts who they could be as an adult, how they can impact the world and who they become.”
She also said she cannot imagine the frustration educators must feel.
“Teaching is a calling. It’s not just a profession,” Einhaus said. “I can’t imagine the heartbreak that they have. They are the lifeline in helping us grow and develop our children to be good citizens.”
Her daughter, Trinity, who is currently in eighth grade, said her school made the decision over the summer to not let teachers include “The Hunger Games” in their classroom collections because of its level of violence.
However, “The Hunger Games” book series is rated by Scholastic as being for ages 11-13. The movie franchise is rated PG-13, but the average 8th grader is 13 or 14 years old.
Einhaus stressed that she thinks book censorship, banning and burning like what she saw in her hometown is concerning, saying, “The public really needs to understand the impact of banning books and putting those limitations on kids and teachers.”
To be continued …
Former Statehouse File reporter Sydney Byerly graduated in May from Franklin College. This series comprised her senior project and tied for the top honor within the Pulliam School of Journalism. You can see her full project website here. Byerly is now regional editor for The Corydon Democrat and Clarion News.
By Sydney Byerly, TheStatehouseFile.com
In this multi-part Statehouse File special report, Sydney Byerly examines the history of, the motivation behind and varying reactions to Indiana’s recent embrace of book banning.
4. Dialogue
Legislators: “Protecting the children”
House Enrolled Act 1447 became Indiana code after Gov. Eric Holcomb signed it into effect last legislative session. The measure to ban “harmful” books from school libraries was almost abandoned until a last-minute change to the bill happened behind closed doors in a conference committee, just hours before the end of the 2023 legislative session on April 27. Both chambers voted to approve the library provision added to the bill, which permits communities to request that books be banned from school libraries if they deem them “obscene” or “harmful to minors.”
In this multi-part Statehouse File special report, Sydney Byerly examines the history of, motivation behind and varying reactions to Indiana’s recent embrace of book banning.
Proponents of the bill said the law will improve transparency among schools, libraries and the community, protecting children from inappropriate materials, but some are concerned about censorship and fear books will be banned because one parent doesn’t want their child to read it.
Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, who authored a similar Senate version of the bill, told lawmakers earlier in the session that parents from his district provided him with several inappropriate books they said where found in their local libraries. Tomes named people from Purple for Parents, which is a far-right Northern Indiana organization that believes schools are teaching LGBTQ identitites and sexualizing children, among the constituents who reached out to him.
One of the books he mentioned was “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, a graphic novel that recounts the author’s journey growing up exploring their own gender identity and sexuality. It has topped the most-challenged book lists for the last three years, according to the ALA.
As co-author for the Senate version of the bill, Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said the books brought to Tomes attention are “really bad, sickening—no one in this room would show this to their young child and feel it was a good thing to do.”
In WFYI’s documentary “Read or Restrict,” Tomes was asked about people fearing this legislation could have a chilling effect on educators. He said, “Well, maybe they should worry. Maybe educators should worry if they’re doing it. Maybe it should have a chilling effect if it’s going to put these kinds of books in the hands of minor or child.”
Co-author for HEA 1447, Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville, said during the vote, “Parents cannot access the library—except for maybe at an open house. They do not have the ability to go to the library every time with their children. They cannot see the books in their children’s desks. It is myopic, short-sighted at best, to say otherwise.”
Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, agreed and said the bill was not intended to ban ideas but that “it’s about one thing—and that is the indecency and obscenity that we already defined in Indiana code, and we say if that is what’s entering into the classroom, we need to have more transparency.
“This is giving parents greater transparency with what’s in their libraries.”
House Democrats argued, saying it’s up to parents to monitor what materials their children and only their children access.
Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, told his fellow lawmakers, “We all know, in this room, there is no pornography in our schools. What it is, is young adult fiction that talks about lesbians and gays and people that are different than some of us, and it’s giving us a realistic portrayal of the challenges and the burdens and the struggles that those minorities face.”
Rep. Renee Pack, D-Indianapolis, spoke to lawmakers about her daughter, Leah Johnson, who is a young adult author and owner of Indianapolis bookstore Loudmouth Books.
Johnson’s debut novel, “You Should See Me In A Crown,” about a Black girl who falls for her competition for prom queen, joined more than 50 other books labeled “obscene” by the Oklahoma attorney general’s office in 2022.
Pack said Johnson told her that she decided to write books because “it was horrible and confusing, growing up and not seeing me and who I was represented in literature. So this is my way of letting young people know you are not alone, no matter what anybody tells you.”
Siding with his party, Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb gave a statement when signing the bill into law, saying that he personally viewed the measure as a way to keep library materials age appropriate for kids.
“[House Enrolled Act] 1447 improves transparency and supports efforts to provide age-appropriate material in our libraries and I am happy that these decisions will continue to take place at the local level,” Holcomb said.
Photo by Emily: https://www.pexels.com/photo/books-768125/
Authors note: Thoughts from banned book writers
Indiana authors Leah Johnson and John Green say their books are not inherently “obscene” and provide representation for young adults.
Johnson said in the WFYI documentary “Read or Restrict” that “in retrospect, I can identify that not having books that reflected my experience did deeply change the way I thought about myself and my position in the world.”
Her debut novel, “You Should See Me in a Crown,” received critical acclaim with a Stonewall Book honor and was named one of Time’s 100 Best Young Adult Books of All Time.
However, the book also received challenges two years after its release when the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office placed it and more than 50 other books under investigation for “obscenity.” Other books on the list included “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and “Looking for Alaska” by another Hoosier, Green.
Johnson, in an article about the challenge in The Indianapolis Star, wrote, “My book is the most innocent book in the world. … The thing that is indecent that they’re talking about is that it’s queer.”
In the documentary, Johnson added, “I just wanted to tell a true story about queer kids because that’s the kind of thing that I wish that I would have had when I was a teenager.
“There’s no content in the book that could even realistically be viewed as obscene except for the fact that it is queer. And to a lot of people, queerness is inherently obscene.”
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office went on to drop the investigation after a couple of months. But that hasn’t stopped Johnson from speaking out against these challenges.
Since releasing her novel, Johnson has put out two other books and opened her own bookstore.
Loudmouth Books, Johnson’s independent bookstore in Indianapolis, was her response to “ongoing book-banning attacks that target BIPOC and queer books and authors.” The bookstore’s website reads, “At Loudmouth, we’ll always loudly and proudly proclaim our passion for stories by, for, and about marginalized people.”
Also making national news for book censorship last year, the Hamilton East Public Library Board in Noblesville elected a new policy to have library staff remove books with sexually explicit content from the children’s and teens’ sections and to reshelve them in the adults’ collection.
The decision meant nearly 2,000 young adult books were moved, among them classics like “Forever” by Judy Blume, “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson and two of Green’s best-selling novels—“Looking for Alaska” and “The Fault in Our Stars.”
According to the policy, “age-appropriate” materials could not contain sexual content or descriptions of sexual content. Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” follows the story of a teenage girl receiving cancer treatment who meets another teenage cancer survivor and the pair fall in love, losing their virginity to one another.
Green spoke out publicly against the library board’s decision, taking to X to respond, posting, “This is ludicrous. It is about teenagers, and I wrote it for teenagers. Teenagers are not harmed by reading TFIOS. This is such an embarrassment.”
Outraged responses flooded in to his post. Some cited the cost of having the libraries make this change didn’t make sense for taxpayers. Others suggested that considering the “sexual content” in “The Fault In Our Stars” not appropriate for young adults, was absurd because that portion of the book is minor and young adults often have or know about intercourse before they are 18-years-old.
These arguments weren’t unfounded, as the library reported that the review process would come with a cost upwards of $300,000 because the library would need to hire more staff to read the books looking for any mention of sexual content. Also, a report by the CDC says that “an estimated 55% of male and female teens have had sexual intercourse by age 18.”
Green went on to tweet, “Authors often get most of the attention when it comes to issues around book banning and intellectual freedom, but those who really deserve the plaudits and attention are teachers and librarians and community members doing the work every day to keep books available.
“They often take far greater risks than any author in defense of intellectual freedom. So the next time you see a teacher or librarian, please thank them on behalf of authors, readers and the communities they serve.”
On Aug. 9, the same day as his initial reactions posted on X, Green shared a letter he emailed to the library board members of Fishers and Noblesville, which reads:
“I am your neighbor. And I am absolutely horrified by the decision of some members of your board to override a huge body of expertise and deem hundreds of books–including mine–inappropriate to be shelved as Young Adult Literature…It’s political theater of the lowest and most embarrassing order, and it’s an awful way to have Fishers and Noblesville make national news.
“As a business owner, I’m infuriated by your third-rate vice signalling that complicates efforts to bring business and talent here. As a parent, I’m disgusted by your disregard for the professionalism and expertise of teachers and librarians. As a Hoosier author, I am deeply offended by your inaccurate and harmful portrayal of my work. And as a citizen, I am so disappointed that you would use public time and public resources to engage in work that actively harms the public through censorship, defacto and otherwise…I implore you to walk this awful policy back and allow the real experts to decide where to shelve my books and those of my colleagues.”
After receiving backlash for the Collection Development Policy, the Noblesville School Board voted to replace the library’s Board President Laura Alerding on Aug. 15.
Just a couple months later, the board voted to remove the specific controversial langauge from its Collection Development Policy and halt the movement of young adult books to the adults’ collection.
While the fight in the Hamilton East Public Library seems won, Green and other authors argue the fight’s not over until it’s over—amd book censorship continues to be a problem nationwide.
The dedication: Educators, librarians, and parents on the subject
EDUCATORS
After teaching for more than seven decades combined, three Indiana educators agree on one thing: Censoring or outright banning books isn’t the way to go.
Marla Jane Adams, a retired teacher who taught for 25 years and served on her district’s school board for 12, said she doesn’t believe in book bans because “many people have not even read the books they want banned.”
“They have heard that the books mention things they don’t believe in, so they must be banned,” Adams said. “I think book banning can cause problems for teachers and students, particularly if a teacher wants students to research all sides of an issue—those students would only see one side. Also, tell a student that a book is banned, and that student is most likely going to find the book and read it out of spite.”
First-year elementary school Assistant Principal Katie Nacrelli taught for 15 years before moving up the ladder.
Nacrelli said she agrees that “it’s important to monitor what students are exposed to in terms of violence, sexual content, language, drug use, etc.” However, she said, “What makes that difficult, even more so recently, is that everyone’s opinion of what ‘appropriate’ means is not the same. Schools have to navigate this issue carefully.”
She also said that she fears society has taken a step backward in recent years when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of minority groups because most of the book bans she’s seen in the news is related to LGBTQ+ issues or racial inequalities.
“Personally, in 18 years, I have only had two parents out of hundreds of families who I’ve worked with reach out about the LGBTQ+ issue, and none about race issues. The two concerns were last year at a predominantly white, rural, upper-middle-class school,” she said.
“I’m not sure why this issue is on the rise—maybe because of the speed at which information and misinformation like [critical race theory], for example, can travel from person to person now through social media,” Nacrelli said. “Divisive topics seem to get more traction much faster than they used to. I also think educators have become a target for the far right.”
Nacrelli said this is why “teachers and staff need to feel supported by the public and must feel safe to foster the love of literature with their students.
“The public needs to trust educators to make reasonable decisions about the books that are in their classroom and libraries. It is crucial for students to see diverse representation in books, as well as be exposed to the often unpleasant parts of our history in an age-appropriate manner.”
Nacrelli said she also feels the public should elect school board members who will prioritize creating and implementing policies to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
“If a parent has a concern about a book that is being read/taught in his or her child’s class, that parent has the right to learn more about the book/activities and request for their child to have access to a different book,” she said. “This policy has been in place at [her school corporation] for years. That parent should not have the right to make that decision for other students.”
With her passion for educating young people and after teaching in the classroom for 32 years, Joy Lohmeyer has continued to work as an instructional coach and curriculum developer for the last 10 years.
Lohmeyer said that she believes books and other resource materials should be content appropriate for the students’ ages but also their reading and comprehension levels.
She gave an example of when she was teaching middle school students part of a high-ability program, saying while she chose texts based on her students’ age-level, she also tried to challenge them to analyze plots, characters and literary devices in the books because they could.
“Many, if not all of my students could read and understand text far above their chronological age. If they wanted to read books that were written for teens and adults, I asked that parents give their consent for those independent reading titles,” Lohmeyer said. “That said, I also firmly believe that students should read a variety of genres and texts that reveal, examine and educate regarding diverse cultures, historical periods and global perspectives.”
Lohmeyer echoed Nacrelli’s opinions on why book bans are a burning topic across the country.
“I believe individuals and groups that believe in banning content and books do not wish to or feel threatened about living in a country that is culturally, racially and gender diverse,” she said. “Book banning historically has been born of or at least associated with the fear of differences between people. When people become afraid, they look for something or someone to blame. They try to exert more control, and one of the ways to do that is to make people believe that those who think, act, believe or look differently from you are a threat.”
Lohmeyer feels many school and library employees feel unsafe due to social media attacks and exhausted from suddenly being required to defend materials that have been recognized as quality and appropriate for years.
She also said educators and administrators have lost their jobs over book censorship—a factor that is going to continue to affect the number of college students choosing education for their careers. According to the Indiana State Teachers Association, this is something the state cannot afford: “Indiana is experiencing historic teacher shortages across the state. As of December 2022, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) job bank has more than 1,500 teacher vacancies.”
“Educators are exhausted from all of the politically fueled issues in education, and many are leaving the profession as a result,” Lohmeyer said.
Lohmeyer also said she’s frustrated by the attacks on public schools and libraries because they “are just that—public. They are supported by tax dollars and are to be a resource for all citizens.
“They are to provide resources for all citizens, which in our country means a diverse group of races, cultures and beliefs,” she said. “Our founders, while they had many flaws, wrote a constitution that protected free speech, not the speech of some.”
LIBRARIANS
Gabrielson, the student learning and research librarian at Franklin College, said that after acquiring her master’s degree in library and information science to become a librarian, she was shocked to find that even amongst other librarians in the field, there were varying viewpoints on the topic.
“In the past, I’ve worked in public libraries where there was more of a breadth of opinion that I wasn’t expecting, who would say, ‘Well if we move this book that’s clearly written for children to the young adult or the adult section, oh, it’s not censorship, because it’s still there.’”
Gabrielson said while she could see their argument, she was uncomfortable with those suggestions.
“The whole point of librarianship is making information accessible to all. And public libraries are public, they’re there to serve everyone,” Gabrielson pointed out.
She admitted that things can get trickier when it comes to school libraries because the role of a school media specialist is different. The demographic is exclusively children and their parents aren’t with them when choosing what books to check out.
Gabrielson said despite these considerations she’s strongly against book banning and any kind of censorship but can see why some librarians suggest acting in the interest of serving their communities by listening to what they want to see (or don’t see) on the shelves.
Former public librarian and school librarian Kay Walker said her public library had good policies in place, but “challenges to books was always stressful.”
“I only had two [challenges] that I remember that actually ended up being formally filed. In both cases, the books that were challenged were left on the shelves,” she said. “Quite often, the challenge was dropped after the key question, ‘Have you read the entire book?’ was asked.”
Walker said having support from administrators and the board was essential, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for when she was working as a school librarian. She also said that the new wave of book bans causes her concern.
“If you look back through history, you see that banning books was often one of the first things that oppressive governments used to control the people and to control what they thought or believed,” Walker said.
Erin Cataldi, adult and teen service librarian at the Clark Pleasant Branch of the Johnson County Public Library, echoed Walker’s sentiments, saying, “Politics have gotten more polarizing and people like to be mad at something or try to find something to blame. Book banning is an easy and effective way to shove opinions and policies down people’s throats.”
Cataldi said that whether in a school or public library, book banning should only ever be viewed as negative.
“Book banning is censorship and takes away people’s right to choose what is right for them,” she said.
Amy Hamilton, access services coordinator at Franklin College’s Hamilton Library, said that as a librarian she doesn’t want to be in charge of censoring other people’s children.
Hamilton, who also used to serve as the adult/teen librarian at the Johnson County Public Library, shared a memory she thinks all parents could learn from.
Two young girls had come into the library with their father, and they would take books to him to get his approval before they checked out. Hamilton said she liked that he never tried to influence anyone else or tell other kids they couldn’t read those books—he just didn’t want his kids to.
“We can’t censor for parents. That’s their job,” she said. “People who want to complain will always complain.”
PARENTS
Mark Kerr, an east Indianapolis Baptist pastor and father of five, said he supports more transparency on what kids have access to, especially because tax dollars go towards public schools and libraries.
“I think everyone could agree there’s probably certain materials that third graders don’t have a whole lot of business reading,” he said. “I don’t think that’s awkward to say, especially as a pastor, that we have to be cautious of what we put in our mind and what we read.
“I send my kids to school to learn reading, writing and arithmetic, I don’t send my children to school to learn where to get their morals and ethics from. That’s my job at home,” he said.
Kerr said he’s not in support of “an outright ban” but he thinks “all adults could come to the realization that some of these books probably don’t have the best place.” He also suggested that books use a rating system similar to the one commonly used for movies so that the content warning is right up front for parents.
Flipping the page, southern Indiana mother of two Amanda Chevalier said she wants her kids “to read everything.”
“You can’t just pretend things didn’t happen or people haven’t spoken the way they did or thought things were OK in the past. They need to know history to understand how not to repeat the mistakes. You can’t learn unless you’re exposed.”
Chevalier also said that she feels like teachers need to be allowed to encourage reading to give students exposure to the world and other viewpoints, so students can learn how to have good discussions and learn from one another.
Outraged by the thought of book bans sweeping the nation, Chevalier argued it’s all political.
“Heaven forbid we touch on subjects that are unbecoming or show how our ancestors were because it’s embarrassing. Politicians who can’t actually accomplish things think that banning a book is a success,” she said. “You can do it quickly, just erase the memory. It gets them votes in the Bible Belt and from people who are just prudes. Some people want the world to be like Stepford and that’s not reality.”
Mollie Einhaus, a mother in Johnson County, said she was fortunate to have parents who made sure that their kids had books and didn’t join other people in her small hometown in Kentucky who believed in banning and even burning books.
“My parents, even though we lived in a very small town, they went against the grain and they allowed us to have books—not only that, but books we didn’t agree with. They made it a point to make sure that we read books we didn’t agree with,” she said.
“As a young person it did make me feel like I was doing something bad, like hiding contraband growing up, now that I look back on it.”
Einhaus said the book burning in her hometown wasn’t a thing of the far past. In her adulthood, when her 14-year-old was only 2 or 3, she returned home to visit her sister who still lives there, and the “Harry Potter” book series was actively being burned on the town square.
“I think that it can impact, for the students, their growth, their experience of the world. No matter where they’re sitting is at the fingertips of a book, and to have that prohibited or not at their fingertips—it impacts who they could be as an adult, how they can impact the world and who they become.”
She also said she cannot imagine the frustration educators must feel.
“Teaching is a calling. It’s not just a profession,” Einhaus said. “I can’t imagine the heartbreak that they have. They are the lifeline in helping us grow and develop our children to be good citizens.”
Her daughter, Trinity, who is currently in eighth grade, said her school made the decision over the summer to not let teachers include “The Hunger Games” in their classroom collections because of its level of violence.
However, “The Hunger Games” book series is rated by Scholastic as being for ages 11-13. The movie franchise is rated PG-13, but the average 8th grader is 13 or 14 years old.
Einhaus stressed that she thinks book censorship, banning and burning like what she saw in her hometown is concerning, saying, “The public really needs to understand the impact of banning books and putting those limitations on kids and teachers.”
To be continued …
FOOTNOTE:
Former Statehouse File reporter Sydney Byerly graduated in May from Franklin College. This series comprised her senior project and tied for the top honor within the Pulliam School of Journalism. You can see her full project website here. Byerly is now regional editor for The Corydon Democrat and Clarion News.
Freedom, Indiana – AuthorAndrew Horning is the Libertarian Party of Indiana’s candidate for Indiana’s US Senate seat in 2024.
George Washington’s Farewell Address was, far more than any recent US President has proven capable, wise counsel. Besides his warnings against political parties, he said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign.” Thomas Jefferson’s first Inaugural Address further promoted that sound policy as, “…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Many US Presidents, and all the wisest people, said much the same…until a few decided that global domination under USA rule seemed like a good idea.
Setting aside, for the moment, the tragic, ongoing mistakes in creating, empowering and submitting to the destructively corrupt FBI and CIA, our nation’s worst mistakes in foreign, as well as domestic policy, have been in seeking, and maintaining, military-monetary global hegemony at the cost of…well…everything.
For example, just after WWII, our nation embarked on a mission to maintain separation between the USSR and China; and NATO was meant to keep the USSR as troubled and weak as possible. After the negotiated collapse of the USSR, we added Iran and a few other nations to our basket of deplorables, to ensure that none of these nations could challenge the USA’s empire. We very specifically violated multiple agreements of neutrality and buffer zones, and overthrew governments in Yugoslavia and Ukraine, to expand NATO, and US forces, right onto Russia’s national doorstep.
Our incessant covert and overt operations worldwide to overthrow, assassinate, destabilize regions, and wage undeclared forever wars, as well as using the US Dollar and trade sanctions to oppress and control other nations, have pushed many former enemies and uneasy allies much closer together, such that the BRICS alliance has grown into a bloc of nations now economically and militarily powerful enough to threaten our military/monetary empire after all…and maybe win.
Even before June 23, after USA-supplied and directed cluster munitions killed beachgoing citizens in Sevastopol, Crimea, our own government has pushed the world far closer to WWIII than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I’ll be blunt. Our government is today, the worst, most existential threat to our Republic, and We The People. It’s robbing us blind and endangering us all for the benefit of a few Malthusian eugenicist psychopaths, global puppet masters and cronies bent on power and money. They don’t care a whit about the rest of us.
The bad news and simultaneous good news in all this, is that it’s all by our own choices and actions. We submit. We pay for it in taxes, both overt and hidden (inflation’s another topic). We pay for it with our lives. And we have continuously re-elected it when it’s always been in our right, duty and power to “…abolish the forms to which we are accustomed.”
What I’m offering with my candidacy is proven to work better than anything else anybody, any nation, has ever tried…peace, prosperity, security, justice and freedom. THAT is quite the opposite of what the other candidates represent.
But electing me would not be about me. And if elected, I would not be just one contrarian voice in the US Senate.
Election Day is citizens’ power of peaceful revolution. Electing me would unmistakably represent a change of heart, spirit, mind and action in our whole populace. It would represent a cultural epiphany and call to arms such that it would truly be, a revolutionary shot heard ‘round the world.
God Knows we need that.Liberty or Bust!
Andy Horning
FOOTNOTE: The City-County Observer posted this article without editing, bias or opinion
As I write this column the Weather App on my cell phone says the actual temperature is 98 degrees Fahrenheit with a heat index making it feel like 108 degrees. There is no breeze but that’s okay. If there were, it would simply baste our skin as though we were a slow-crusting brisket. I ask you, Gentle Reader, “Why July Fourth?” Does not each of the twelve months have a Fourth? For example, the merry month of May or the crisp, invigorating month of October each has a perfectly good Fourth. And neither has a heat index of 108 degrees! Were our Founding Fathers so fond of their wool frock coats they were impervious to July’s guarantee of a reprise of Joan of Arc’s demise? What was Thomas Jefferson thinking as his Sons of Liberty compatriots dumped the tea into Boston’s Harbor on December 16, 1773? Why not fire off his written volleys against King George III then, when it was cool?
Our rhetorical path today is an examination of the date of our country’s birthday and how we might celebrate it each year without getting suntan lotion and sweaty grit mixed into our barbeque. To me the solution is as simple as the whole country ignoring the gamesmanship of celebrating George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s birthdays not on February 22 and February 12 as we did all of my school years. Why, with the stroke of a Congressional pen, voila, we now have President’s Day every year on the third Monday in February! I say, hooray! Now how about the Fourth of …?
Many people throughout the world have celebrated the presumed birthday of Jesus. Yet, no one truly knows for sure when Jesus was born. We do know over the past 2,000 years more than one date has been chosen for Christ’s date of birth. For example, many people in Europe celebrate Christmas on January 07 because they follow the Julian calendar set by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C.
However, in 1582 Pope Gregory developed his calendar. The Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar each gave a different day for Christmas. One was on the 24th or 25th of December and the other gave January 07. Does it matter? Apparently not. I say if the world can pick an arbitrary date for the birth of Jesus, we can re-set the birth of America to a friendlier clime. I respectfully suggest October 04 every year starting in 2025.
On a personal topic, one of my earlier Gavel Gamut columns drew the thoughtful attention of a reader, Mr. Jerry Butterbaugh. Mr. Butterbaugh, thank you for taking the time to read the column and thank you for your interesting perspective. You respectfully presented a different point of view without casting aspersions. Would that our beloved country as a whole could discuss our many serious issues in the same manner. Your points were clear and helpful. I appreciate them.
Also, since my wife Peg is about the only reader I can consistently rely upon, and that only because she has to type and post them, your response was most welcome.
FOOTNOTE: EPD DAILY ACTIVITY REPORT information was provided by the EPD and posted by the City-County-County Observer without opinion, bias, or editing.
EVANSVILLE, Ind. – The Evansville Otters played in their third doubleheader of the year on Thursday against the Joliet Slammers at Bosse Field. The Otters (17-25) dropped the opener 4-0, but salvaged the series with a win in the nightcap, taking down the Slammers (19-23) 6-1.
Game 1 – Joliet 4, Evansville 0
The Otters were shut out for the first time this season in the early contest. Geno Encina (1-1) earned the win on the hill, pitching in all seven frames as the starter. Taking the loss was Parker Brahms (2-5). All three runs he allowed came on a walk, an error and a hit-by-pitch.
Joliet opened the scoring in the third inning with two runs. They added another in the fourth frame and finalized the scoring in the seventh.
Offensively, the Otters strung together three hits from David Mendham, Jake Green and Logan Brown. They were held to their least amount of knocks in a single game this season.
Game 2 – Evansville 6, Joliet 1
Evansville rebounded in the nightcap, jumping ahead early and never looking back.
Braden Scott (1-6) was tabbed with his first win of the 2024 season after pitching a gem. He went the distance, striking out 11 in his seven innings as the starter. Zach Grace (0-1) took the loss.
Alec Olund homered to left field for two runs in the first inning to put the Otters on the board. It was his fifth jack of the year, but his first in an Evansville uniform. Also in the frame, Randy Bednar came into score on the second error of the inning from the Joliet defense, making it a 3-0 game.
The Otters added another trio to finalize their scoring in the fourth frame. Justin Felix launched his second home run of the season to right field, plating two runs. Then, Delvin Zinn singled and later scored on a sacrifice RBI from Olund for his third run driven in of the night.
Joliet scored their lone run in the sixth inning.
Closing out their nine-game home stand tonight, the Otters finished 4-5 in three series. Now, they will hit the road for six contests, beginning Friday against the Windy City ThunderBolts. The first pitch tomorrow is scheduled for 6:35 p.m. CT in Crestwood,IL. Coverage is available on the Otters Digital Network and FloBaseball.
In this multi-part Statehouse File special report, Sydney Byerly examines the history of, the motivation behind and varying reactions to Indiana’s recent embrace of book banning.
3. Next chapter:
The new genre of book censorship
Dr. Jason Aukerman, the director of the Center for Ray Bradbury Studies and clinical assistant professor in English at Indiana University Indianapolis, said book bans are different now, not necessarily in the subject matter but in the rate and level at which they’re being banned.
In this multi-part Statehouse File special report, Sydney Byerly examines the history of, the motivation behind and varying reactions to Indiana’s recent embrace of book banning.
He’s right. According to the ALA’s latest press release, the number of titles targeted for censorship surged 65% in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest levels ever documented by the association. And titles representing LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47% of those targeted in censorship attempts.
Over the last two years, the trending challenges have increasingly been directed against multiple titles at a time, oftentimes because of conservative groups like Moms for Liberty organizing banning efforts nationwide.
Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, told the Associated Press, “There used to be a roughly one-to-one ratio, where a parent would complain about an individual book, like in the days when many were objecting to Harry Potter,” Caldwell-Stone said. “Now you have people turning up at meetings and asking that 100 titles be removed.
“I think this trend is going to continue, at least for as long as these groups want to go after whole categories of books.”
Aukerman suggested that while censorship and book banning has historically been cyclical, the recent trend sweeping the nation could be due to a rise in Christian nationalism and that rhetoric during former president Donald Trump’s administration invigorated people in a way the country had never seen before.
“There is a segment of the population that holds their beliefs very dearly. Their faith brings a lot of meaning into their life. And I think certain religious groups have enjoyed a considerable privilege for many, many years, and there are trends that are alarming,” said Aukerman. “Younger people are turning out to be less religious, fewer and fewer are going to church. In 2015, the Supreme Court made it legal for same-sex couples to marry each other.”+4
Throughout history, a long (and growing) list of books has been moved or removed from the shelves of libraries for one reason or another. Look…
Aukerman said it seems these people feel empowered now to vocalize their beliefs through legislation that has led to mass book banning.
“I think that’s reflected in the types of books that we are seeing challenged and banned right now,” he said. “Anything dealing with LGBTQ+ issues. There is an attempt to whitewash history.”
Aukerman said he was quick to pick up on these cues having grown up in it.
“I know what the mentality is like because I had an inside perspective,” he said. “I held those beliefs at one time in my life.
“There’s this lack of understanding that just because you hold the conviction, the belief does not mean you are allowed to impose that belief on other people. And when people lose privilege—the loss of unmerited and even unconstitutional privilege—for some people, if they’re not able to take a step back, it feels like persecution having to give other people the exact same rights you’ve enjoyed for so long.”
“I think we’ve got a minority population in the country that thinks that it should be the majority population, and they’re having a hard time dealing with the fact that they are becoming an ever increasingly smaller minority in the country.
“I feel like on some level they understand this culture war they’ve waged is something they’ve lost, especially with people in younger generations. They’re coming up more tolerant, they’re more accepting, they’re more accommodating. They’re willing to stand up for the rights of people who have been bullied and marginalized for a long time.”
Aukerman suggested that rather than being introspective and considering why this is the case, people who hold these beliefs are quick to find something to blame—concluding they’re being indoctrinated.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “But they’re looking for answers and explanations, and once they think they’ve found something, they attack it. And that’s what we’re seeing with the book bans and the censorship of history.”
Aukerman said that, from his perspective, “We’re living in a cultural moment that’s really really interesting. I’ll throw the cliche out there: Tell me a single point in history where the people who censored and banned books were the good guys.
“By and large, history does not look kindly on the people who banned books and censor information. The people who make those attempts might prevail for a while, but usually democracy wins out. Choice wins out. Individual freedom wins out.”
Aukerman reflected on how it can be hard to separate that there are people you may love and care about who hold these beliefs and breaking them from this ideology can be difficult. However, he said, “The idea of book banning doesn’t scare me. But what it’s communicating to our young people absolutely terrifies me and infuriates me, and that’s why I’m so active and engaged in opposing this.”
Aukerman argued that every kid should be able to grab a book in their school or public library and see themselves represented or reflected because “we read to learn, we read to escape, we read to imagine other possibilities.
“Kids have cell phones. If they want to get the information, they’ve got Google right at their fingertips. So, it’s not like any of this legislation is going to make any difference in preventing certain types of knowledge from getting into students’ hands.
“What it is communicating especially to our LGBTQ+ youth is, ‘You’re not welcome here, we don’t like you.’ And it further marginalizes them when they’re already facing challenges most of us don’t have to face. Taking their books away from them—that’s just a bully move,” Aukerman continued. “It’s absolutely disgusting. There is nothing loving in that, there is nothing kind in that. I find that it’s a form of bullying, it’s a form of aggression and it cannot be tolerated.”
Erin Gabrielson, student learning and research librarian at Franklin College, had her own suggestions for why book bans have resurfaced in recent years—one of them being “the filter bubble.”
“The algorithms that we’re all subjected to, how any social media we consume, even internet searches, Google, are creating a bubble for us where we maybe aren’t seeing the same variety of thought, we aren’t getting the same exposure of ideas that are different than our own anymore,” she said. “And so there’s this expectation of comfort because that’s the information world we’ve been all getting accustomed to.”
Gabrielson said this can be problematic because parents can have the misconception that letting their child wander in the library can be as safe as letting them on an app with parental controls.
She worries that with the filter bubble, people might be losing their ability to have civil discourse.
“When you’re only seeing things that you agree with, you’re not being challenged, you don’t really know what to do then, so it’s a very defensive reaction from parents who are engaging in this with challenges and wanting books moved or removed completely,” Gabrielson said. “So, I think there’s a lot of moving parts politically, it’s a political issue. It’s also an issue of plurality and people not really knowing how to exist anymore.”
Aukerman agrees. “It’s really unfortunate, and I think that’s a broader cultural trend, and expertise is just not valued anymore,” he said.
“People are constantly getting educated at YouTube University. They’re Google scholars, but not in a good sense. They look for information that affirms their biases, that affirms what they want to think. The lack of information literacy is another large contributing factor.”
Aukerman said that not only are filter bubbles impacting how certain populations feel about the material they’re trying to challenge, but the elected officials creating these types of legislation are incapable of finding peer-reviewed research or letting research guide their beliefs.
“It’s the inverse,” he said. “They allow their belief to guide what they research instead of looking for the truth. It’s just this constant circle of confirmation bias that is really troubling and could be detrimental to our democracy if it continues.”
FOOTNOTE:
To be continued …Series 3 will be published on JULY 1. 2024 by the City-County Observer.
Former Statehouse File reporter Sydney Byerly graduated in May from Franklin College. This series comprised her senior project and tied for the top honor within the Pulliam School of Journalism. You can see her full project website here. Byerly is now regional editor for The Corydon Democrat and Clarion News.
