Just a few months into producing my local podcasts, I interviewed Tom Dickey, formerly Community Development Director for the Town and later the City of Fishers, in the summer of 2016. We discussed a number of topics when the origins of Launch Fishers came up.
The city was on the lookout for a place to get Launch Fishers started. At first a small house just off 116th Street looked like the only option. That was only enough space for 2-3 co-working firms to fit.
Then the city looked to the Hamilton East Library in downtown Fishers. The building was built in 1993 but the lower floor had not been utilized yet. As Tom Dickey explains it, Edra Waterman, whom he described as a “forward thinking library director,” offered some library space. It was much larger than the small house under consideration and allowed Launch to grow quickly. Launch Fishers has since moved into a larger building and the library is utilizing that lower level for the Ignite operations, which is very popular. I have used it many times.
It was Library Director Edra Waterman that allowed Launch Fishers to grow quickly in the early years because that library space was offered.
My first exposure to the Hamilton East Library was when I moved to Fishers in 1991. There was no Fishers branch at that time but I made several Noblesville trips to take advantage of the library. Once the Fishers building was open, my wife Jane, and our two daughters, made use of the library regularly. We all consider the library a major community asset.
I do not believe I am the only one concerned about the current state of controversy for the Hamilton East Library. I have covered a couple of library board meetings lately and have seen a level of conflict between the board and many in the community that has risen in recent months.
I am not here to take sides, but I will say this – it is troubling to see this amazing community asset – the Hamilton East Library, serving Noblesville and Fishers – in such turmoil. This is not a good thing for those of us living here and is not the kind of publicity Fishers needs.
I fear it may be too late for this, but is there any way to bridge the gaps? There is clearly conflict between the library board and a segment of our local community. I would hope everyone would take a deep breath, think about how this is impacting our community, then find a way to lower the temperature.
If everyone continues this constant back-and-forth, I do not foresee a good ending to this.
I won’t get into the issues of the debate in this piece. My only hope is that cooler heads will prevail and we can preserve the tremendous public asset, the Hamilton East Library. It is all up to us now.
Larry – the issue being promoted is “inappropriate books in the kid sections”. While many in the community disagree with the books being inappropriate, they have suggested compromises at several board meetings. The predominant one is to move questionsable books to their own section. This aligns with the logic and solution the board initially executed early this year when they split the teen section.
This solution removes the books from the standard the kids section, but more importantly keeps them out of the adult section.
It is the solution of putting books in the adult section that fired up a lot of the parents.
Other solutions offered included things like adding warning labels to books.
The board has refuses to budge on sending kids to the adult section. If you could see all past public comment from the library meetings, including my own, you’ll see many in the community have been trying to find middle ground. Thw board has stood firm in sending kids to the adult section, which ironically goes against the very logic they presented as justification when splitting the teen section.
The community has tried.
“Larry – the issue being promoted is “inappropriate books in the kid sections”.”
No. it isn’t.
IT is about the KKK dictating what people can learn about the world, some of the librariies that have been targeted were private, and had no kids sections, ts is simply republican book burning.
It is a sad day when a few people impose their values on a whole community. I am perplexed on how these people were able to get on the library board in the first place. Censorship has no place in our community.
The failure started with county government. The County Commissioners have stacked the Library Board with reactionary “conservatives” while ignoring applications from over a dozen other applicants. One commissioner was even quoted saying that he believes that the most recent appointee, a self-described religious culture warrior, actually represents the majority of the county, which is completely ridiculous.
The law governing library board appointments is also outdated. The majority of the board is appointed by county officials. I wish someone could explain to me how it makes sense for people in Sheridan, Arcadia, and Cicero to have influence on the board of a library that serves Fishers and Noblesville.
So you are aware, much of the anger from the community is how certain Library Board Members are treating Edra Waterman. Ray Maddalone, has threatened publicly during a meeting to fire her. Many, many people are concerned her job is in imminent jeopardy. Like you, we know what an asset she is to not just our Library but our community overall. She has done exceptional things with our public library. It would be extremely helpful if you would reach out to the Board Members and their appointing bodies to share your kind words. Losing her would be horrible. There are already unfilled leadership positions under her. We lost another valued member of her team last week. People do not want to work for four Board members in particular as they’ve been very difficult and demeaning at best. Our wonderful libraries should not be at the center of an extremist culture war. Thank you again for recognizing Edra, she really is the best.
* First Amendment and Freedom of Speech: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is often the most significant legal argument against book banning. It guarantees the right to freedom of speech and extends to written materials, including books. Banning a book because of its content could be viewed as a violation of this right. The Supreme Court, in various rulings, has upheld that the government (which would include public schools and libraries) cannot censor material merely because it disapproves of the ideas it contains.
* Intellectual Freedom: This is the right of every individual to seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas. The American Library Association (ALA) and other organizations stand firmly against censorship and support intellectual freedom. Libraries and schools are seen as places of learning, where students and patrons should have access to a broad range of ideas. Banning books limits this access.
* Diversity and Inclusivity: Books offer windows into different perspectives, cultures, and experiences, fostering empathy and understanding. If only certain types of books are allowed because they align with a specific set of values or perspectives, this limits exposure to diversity and restricts inclusivity. From a legal standpoint, banning books based on their content might be seen as a form of discrimination, particularly if the content relates to a protected characteristic (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation).
* Parents’ Rights and Children’s Rights: Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which includes what their children read. However, this right does not extend to determining what all children can read. This means one parent should not be able to determine that a book is inappropriate for all students in a school or patrons in a library. On the other hand, students also have rights, including the right to receive information and ideas. This was upheld in the Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982), which ruled that school boards can’t ban books in libraries simply because of their content.
* Education and Critical Thinking: Books — even controversial ones — serve as tools for education. They can stimulate critical thinking and discussion, and banning them would limit these educational opportunities. It can be argued that instead of banning books, schools should encourage thoughtful dialogue about their content.
* Slippery Slope: There’s a legal and ethical concern that allowing some books to be banned might lead to more widespread censorship. If one book can be removed for its content, what’s to stop the removal of others? This potentially puts a wide range of literature at risk.
* Viewpoint Discrimination: The U.S. Supreme Court has held in many cases, including Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), that the government may not discriminate against speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint. This principle applies equally to libraries and schools: the government cannot disfavor speech merely because it disagrees with its message.
* Content Discrimination: Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that content-based regulations are presumptively invalid. For example, in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), the Court held that laws regulating speech based on its communicative content are subject to strict scrutiny, the most rigorous standard of review in constitutional law. This would indicate that bans on books due to their content would be subject to the same level of scrutiny.
* Prior Restraint: In its landmark ruling Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Supreme Court established that government prohibition of speech in advance (prior restraint) is presumptively unconstitutional. This case set a significant precedent for free expression and would likely be invoked in legal arguments against book banning.
Specific cases related to book banning in schools and libraries include:
* Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books. This is considered a key case establishing students’ First Amendment rights in schools.
* Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District (2010): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a teacher’s choices in classroom literature fall under the authority of the school board, which can overrule those choices. Although this ruling allows for some degree of censorship, it’s balanced by the presumption of invalidity for content-based restrictions as mentioned above.
* Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003): In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled that a public school could not require parental permission for students to access a particular book series (in this case, the Harry Potter series). This decision confirmed that even policies that don’t outright ban books but impose additional access barriers may be constitutionally suspect.
* Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): This case dealt with student speech rights but is broadly relevant to the issue of banning books in schools. The Court held that students retain their First Amendment rights in public schools unless school officials can demonstrate that the expression would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.
* Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988): This case, while it dealt with school newspapers and not books per se, held that schools may censor student speech in school-sponsored activities if the censorship is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. However, by contrast, it reinforces the standard that any censorship should be justifiable on educational grounds, not simply because one might disagree with the ideas presented.
* Right to Receive Information and Ideas: First recognized by the Supreme Court in Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) and later reaffirmed in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), this principle upholds citizens’ right to receive information and ideas, no matter their social worth. This applies to schools and libraries, making the case that these institutions shouldn’t ban books because they provide the public (including students) with the constitutionally protected right to receive information.
* Texas v. Johnson (1989) and R.A.V v. City of St. Paul (1992): Both these cases highlight that the government cannot censor particular viewpoints because it disapproves of the ideas they express. This reinforces the idea that book banning based on the disapproval of the ideas or viewpoints expressed within them is likely unconstitutional.
* Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980): This case held that states can provide more expansive free speech rights than the federal Constitution requires, suggesting that states might offer additional protections against book banning under their constitutions.
* Strict Scrutiny and Compelling Government Interest: When it comes to any government restriction on First Amendment rights, courts generally apply the “strict scrutiny” standard. To pass strict scrutiny, the government must show that its restriction is necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest” and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest. The bar for meeting this standard is high, and many book bans likely wouldn’t meet it.
Here is how you respond to people trying to limit things, particularly from the Hitler quoting group Mom’s for Fascism or various anti-Christian groups pretending to be followers of Christ.
Paraphrasing Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery) in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
“The books tell me that maybe goose-stepping morons like yourselves should try READING books instead of banning them.”
https://youtu.be/6QSaJji6kQ8 (YouTube of the scene)
My grandfather, and his brothers, never talked much about World War II. Too much emotional scarring from the violence they witnessed on the battlefields, and what the fascists did in concentration camps. He did say one thing repeatedly over the years, a warning: They learned a couple things during WWII. The first being that you can never trust a fascist because they are all liars who will break any law. Finally, the only thing a fascist is good for is testing rope.
There are lists online that indicate content of books (ie: profanity, sex) and this should be taken into account at the time books are purchased, not after the fact. Moving these books is not banning them, it represents a compromise between the parties. Slow walking the review of the books is insubordination.
And they were initially shelved taking that information about content and the assessment of professional librarians into account. The new content policy is not a “compromise,” it’s a concession to those of you who preach individual responsibility, but apparently don’t want to actually monitor your kid’s library usage or put yourself in a position where you might have to answer difficult, sometimes awkward, but still age-appropriate questions from them.
And the staff is not slow-walking the review. They were up front about what it would take and have performed according to those estimates.
Former Fishers citizen here, now down in the South. Same thing happened to us. Outsiders with political interest including MFL (designated hate group) came in to “fix” our libraries. Oh sure they tried to sound reasonable talking about moving things from one section to another. Fact is they are book burners. Plain and simple. They are just too clever to expose themselves. They’ll do censorship under the guise of “protecting the children”. Their children?
https://www.wbtv.com/2023/07/17/york-county-council-potentially-reduce-size-library-board-following-book-controversy/
Sheesh, it’s not that complicated. Call me old fashioned, but I’m 50 years old and so during my childhood, if my mom wasn’t sure about a book then she couldn’t just look it up to see if other people hated it.
So, *I* wouldn’t leave the library with that book, because *SHE* would check it out first, read it, and either pass it along to me or tell me ‘maybe next year’.
We’d visit the library together every 2 weeks and read just about everything we could, but Mom always checked my book stack before we left to make sure I hadn’t snuck in anything steamy or inappropriate for my age — and that was as complicated as this needs to be. To be fair, sometimes I DID try to sneak stuff in, and most often I got caught because Moms are vigilant things and I was blessed with an amazing one.
It was a fantastic bonding experience, and life being what it is, sometimes we had a lot and sometimes we had to ‘make do’, but we ALWAYS had the library and that meant we could feel like nobility, sitting around the house when chores were done and reading about the whole world and everything around us – and discussing it like we were the ‘topmost intellectuals on the planet’ which we kind WERE, ‘cuz that was ”Planet Home -population: ‘my family’.
My mother, stepfather, and I read something new every 2 weeks and we’d discuss what we read regularly. Dad still had his football, mom painted, and I played video games and goofed on my computer — books are something you make time for, because you enjoy them and they enrich you.
Sometimes, I could even make money reading in addition to chores — a neat parental trick.My parents put a book list on the fridge, along with a list of extra chores beyond what was expected of me, so that:
A. I couldn’t ask for money, I had to do extra work if I wanted extra things
B: They could sneakily get me to read things I would otherwise consider boring and avoid.
If I memorized a poem or read a book my parents wanted me to read, then I had to recite that poem or ‘tell me what the book was about and discuss it like an adult’ then I’d make a few extra dollars or get extra privileges to stay up.
A LOT of times I didn’t get paid because my parents could tell I didn’t read the whole thing, so I learned to read things thoroughly and ensure that I comprehended them — pay was a primitive motivator but it’s one of the most important ones to learn in life.
Now, before anyone says ‘must be nice to be rich’, we’re talking about chores and amounts like ‘you can get 3$ scrubbing the shower with a toothbrush for hours until it’s spotless’ or “5$ to organize the stuff in the backyard shed’, and then there were also things like ‘5-10$ if you read this 300 page book and write a report on it. If cash was short, I could stay up late on certain days, have friends over for longer — you get the idea.
I complained about the cash amounts — kids complain a lot –and they always asked the same thing, ‘how bad do you want that skateboard, video game, etc’ and reminded me that if I really wanted that thing, I already had the ways and means to earn it so I should do so or I could shut up about it. 🙂
I learned a good work ethic from that, and they built on this interesting foundation.
If I wanted a new pet, for instance, my parents insisted that I had to make a report and presentation, during which I had to tell them how long the animal would live in captivity vs the wild, what the cost of building an enclosure would be, food costs per year — then present it like a business idea while my parents sat on the couch and listened to my sales pitch, before they decided if I could have that animal.
It didn’t get me the alligator I wanted, but I still had my fair share of more sensible pets. 😉
You get the idea — parenting is getting involved with your kids. You ALREADY have the choice and means to do so, but if you want to ban ALL the books that you don’t like for EVERYONE, instead of bucking-up and telling your kid ‘NO’ sometimes, it’s pretty arrogant and small-minded to tell the other parents that they’re doing something wrong by letting their kids read material THEY’VE decided is okay. You raise your kids, they raise theirs, the way it’s always been.
If you’re afraid your kid will read something scandalous when you aren’t looking, then you’re not looking hard enough — that’s your job, you know? If you absolutely must insist on a compromise, then you can get what you want without forcing a pre-approved STATE reading list, and it’s not hard to do.
How’s this? Some kids get library cards where they can read ANYTHING in the library and YOUR kids get cards that only let them check things out from certain sections.
That way, the PARENTS are STILL deciding and taking an active part in raising their own children, just the way it’s supposed to be.
If you don’t have the time or inclination to read those books yourself and decide, then that’s okay — you aren’t taking away the rights of other parents who are willing to do the work and guide their child’s education and developing views.
Forcing everyone to learn from the same set of books is something called ‘indoctrination’ — cults use it a LOT, and that’s just something useful I learned from reading and developing my own critical thinking on my own under my mother’s patient tutelage.
If you’re worried about your kids getting ‘tricked’ on your watch, then step up your game when it comes to paying attention to what they’re reading — it’s not easy, but you can’t expect the STATE to do it.
Also, consider this — ‘Kid A’ is allowed to read from a list of 1000 approved books until they’re 18 with no parental supervision required on your part. ‘Kid B’ can read from an unlimited supply of ALL THE KNOWLEDGE OUT THERE, subject to their parent’s approval.
Which kid do YOU think is gonna change the world?
Stop trying to legislate parenting your own kids to someone else — you can say ‘it’s about the children’ all you want, but my parents did the work to regulate my reading and you can do it too if you’re not lazy.
Closing down libraries because they won’t ban things you don’t like just means that people can’t build themselves up ‘from the dirt’ if they’re too poor to have the internet — so stop pushing that. Forced ignorance is NEVER the solution.
So, that’s my long rant, sorry about that but I love libraries and I never thought I’d see the day when book banning became an American thing but I guess that’s life — freedom needs to be defended to be worth anything, so now you’ve heard my defense.
Funny enough, I’m a writer these days… although I had almost a 3-decade career working in data security because I taught myself computers with…. books! 😀
Also, it feels right to close this out with a simple ‘Thanks, Momma’.
It was an uphill battle, but I really appreciate that she took the time with me.
.
This is an excellent comment! I went to a small, private school that didn’t have much of a library. However, we had a public library across the street. I was an advanced reader so my school’s solution was to put me on an academic independent study program where I got to choose what I read and write book reports. There was only one class for each grade. Back then, the public library was separated into adult and juvenile sections. The school would send me to the adult section to choose what I wanted. I absolutely read some inappropriate books because of this free rein. Imagine if there had been a teen zone I could have perused. It would have allowed me to read advanced books within appropriate guidelines.
Thanks Sarah! That’s great that you were allowed to read ‘adult’ books. 🙂 There’s a comedian I liked named Mitch Hedberg who had a funny saying about ‘kid’s books’. He said ‘Every book is a kid’s book, if the kid can read’ hehehe.
I think one of my happiest moments in ‘library nostalgia’ was when I discovered interlibrary loan. A kind librarian told me about it when I’d read all of the fiction books in a small town that we were in and I kept asking about certain authors. Suddenly I could obtain practically ANY BOOK from any other library and the feeling was AMAZING.
Along the way I was also taught if an author impressed me to get the books from their bibliography if I really wanted to learn about something.
‘Sometimes they draw their own conclusions’, my stepfather told me, ‘so it’s best to read some of the same and some of your own sources to see what YOU think’.
It seems obvious to me that more books is always the better option when it comes to knowledge and critical self-thinking – period.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure that ‘knowledge and critical self-thinking’ are the target with all this book-banning stuff. If it wasn’t, they could just ask for a system that limits what THEIR kids can check out so that everyone gets to approve what their kids read on their own.
This ‘book banning’ is just ‘thought policing’, pure and simple, and on a large scale in an attempt to sway the minds of an entire generation and the ones that follow.. :/ History shows us that the bad guys always go after books first, because people who can’t educate themselves or who only have ‘approved’ texts are much easier to shape and control.
How could they know better?