The Dorothy Canfield Fisher Book Award will be renamed next year in response to critics who said the author’s legacy is tainted by ties to the Vermont eugenics movement in the 1920s and ’30s.
Vermont State Librarian Jason Broughton made the decision, which was announced Friday at the Dorothy Canfield Fisher Book Award Conference in Barre.
Vermont children will be asked to help choose a new name, Broughton told Seven Days in a telephone interview after the conference. Vermont Public Radio first reported news of the renaming.
Several years of debate preceded the decision. Some questioned whether it is appropriate to judge historical figures by contemporary standards.
Broughton’s answer? In this case, yes.
“We do examine people and we do hold them to a certain esteem at a time, and then we become reflective. It’s what we do,” Broughton said.
Fisher’s fans said her ties to the movement were distant. She was not among the prominent Vermonters who sat on the advisory board of the Vermont Eugenics Survey, a chilling social-science experiment that ran from 1925 to 1936 at the University of Vermont.
But she did serve on a related organization, the Vermont Commission on Country Life, which was charged with revitalizing the state’s Yankee roots. Critics including Vermont Abenaki educator Judy Dow, who led the name-change push, pointed out the connection and also argued that Fisher reinforced negative stereotypes in her writing about French Canadians and Native Americans, populations that were targeted in the eugenics survey.
The Vermont Library Board voted unanimously in January 2018 to recommend the name change. The state librarian at the time, Scott Murphy, did not act on the board’s recommendation.
The debate involved heated discussion at board meetings. Dozens of librarians weighed in, pro and con, in letters and emails.
Broughton, who was appointed state librarian in April after Murphy resigned for personal reasons, said he wants the new name of the award to be inclusive and to reflect the opinions of young readers, their parents, and librarians from all over the state. Details on the naming process will be coming later this year, Broughton said.
“We seek to have tons and tons of conversation to make it successful,” he said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
For the record, and as a member of the library board, while concerns about Mrs. Fishers connections to the eugenics movement precipitated the discussion about changing the name of the award, the board in reccomemding a change did not list that as a cause. Rather we felt that too few people today were reading her books, knew who she was and unfortunately thought the award was connected with the other DCF – the Department of Children and Families which investigates child abuse.
As Chair of the library board, I agree with Josh’s description. We learned in our discussions that, even before the eugenics issue was raised with the board, the book award committee was considering recommending a name change for a variety of reasons. Ultimately, the board felt that it was not the appropriate body to judge DCF in the context of eugenics. It was responding to the concerns expressed by some librarians that Mrs. Fisher’s name was no longer the best way of promoting reading among younger students. That said, the board also spent more time grappling with the issue of eugenics and sterilization than have most Vermonters and certainly much more time than have most other official Vermont organizations.
I have confidence that the Department of Libraries will be setting up a fair and comprehensive process for going forward. It will certainly be an opportunity for Vermonters to demonstrate that we can rise above the polarized finger-pointing (and thumbs-up/thumbs-down) that dominates American society today. And, it will be a chance to have a detailed discussion well beyond the superficial vituperation that pollutes Twitter World.
https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/dor…
Has Baily Howe been renamed? I think this is overkill and not surprising it is done to a woman always a handy scapegoat in touchy issues.
Too funny! If this were the DANIEL Canfield Fisher award and the author had been associated with the eugenics movement, Ms. Luhrs would be the chief organizer of the effort to change the name of the book award and would be protesting in the streets. But since the author is a woman . . .
(For the record, I agree with Ms. Luhrs that this is yet another example of retroactive historical political correctness run amok in Vermont and would not have voted to change the name. However, my opinion would not be affected by the gender of the author.)
I look forward to Vermonters disavowing Planed Parenthood because of its founder’s support for eugenics.
I grew up in one of the strongest library communities, with some of the most important librarians that have been a part of the system in Vermont. The award, both its initial recommendations, the choosing, , as well as (prominent members most importantly the ones reading the works) voting on it maintains a tradition.
If anything let it alone, and look for another way to put your stamp on something. I can agree with talking about the history of the person the award is named about, Systematically paring off important awards will discredit them entirely rather than give understanding, and thats what your are looking for right? Understanding?
What a shame that in a state with very little public recognition of the accomplishments of women some people decided to go after Dorothy Canfield Fisher, a literary figure who was a nationally-known activist for a variety of causes, including reading, libraries, and child welfare. It is true that people rarely read her books today, but her accomplishments went beyond her literary output and deserve recognition. And no, one of those accomplishments was not as a leader in the eugenics movement. No one remembers who she was? Does anyone remember who Caldecott or Newbery were? I doubt it, yet these are two of the mostly highly respected awards in childrens literature today. This is a sad misreading of history.
Any bad action or view means the person is entirely evil.
Everyone knows this.
Even if that action was fairly mainstream and promoted by leading scientists.
This is rational thinking.
Ridiculous! Are we to go back and “correct” every book ever so honored?
I’m sure we could find serious personal character flaws in Twain, Eliot, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Hemingway, etc. Shall we now scorn them, remove their names from literary prizes, stop teaching their books in schools?
This is the self-destructive, circular firing squad idiocy by snowflake leftists that plays right into the hands of the Trumpists.
This is nonsense. Prominent supporters of eugenics, which was primarily a scientific movement to improve society that was widely accepted at the time by many leading academics, included: Winston Churchill, WEB DuBois, Herbert Hoover, JMKeynes, Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendall Holmes and more; far too many accomplished and illustrious figures to list. Shall we judge them all similarly wanting and accordingly besmirch their names and reputations, and stain the historical record of their accomplishments? A famous Vermont author’s (sorry, yes, so last century, a pity that she didn’t pen Harry Potter) name being connected with the Dept of Family and Children, that is a legitimate reason? Give me a break, this garbage is going too far.
Pulitzer prize,Nobel award-time to go. It might be necessary to change the name of our state also because i am sensing some historical problems with genocide and white privilege.
Y’all… who cares? Why are you up in arms about this thing that has zero effect on any of your lives, makes some people feel more respected, and gives the award an opportunity to rebrand and revitalize itself? You feel like the future is leaving you behind, so you cling to the past because that’s when life was okay. Adapt, and maybe read a book instead of complaining about an updated award name on the dust jacket.
Shame on Mr Broughton. And shame on the Library Board, not least because of their attempt (for example in the posts below) to hide their action behind the claim that the reason for the name change was primarily that “too few people today were reading [DCF’s] books”.
Y’all know she was deaf, right? She became deaf at age 14 through undisclosed causes.
Since Dows evidence was a stack of fictional books Fisher wrote should we start removing books from libraries or judging all authors based on having racist characters in their books? If thats enough to judge her by I didnt see Dow also pointing out that Fisher also had anti-racist characters in her books as well. If fictional works are enough to demonize her than surely they are enough to praise her for as well.
Just wanted to emphasize that you’re talking about the very, very first deaf female in world history to achieve a PhD degree. Are you really sure you want to do this change?
See: http://tinyurl.com/deaf-docs
I’m sorry to see the award renamed. I greatly enjoyed reading some of DCF’s books especially Understood Betsy and the Bent Twig. They’re old-fashioned but beautifully written in a way we seldom see any more. Understood Betsy is really a “Bildungsroman” in which a spoiled and over[protected little girl from New York is forced to go to live with her dreaded “Putney cousins” on their farm. Though her relatives are somewhat rough-hewn and unsophisticated, Betsy gradually recognizes and absorbs their kindness, practicality and self-reliance and grows in all healthy ways. It’s still an excellent read, especially for girls.
I understand the seriousness of DCF’s connection to the eugenics movement, but, as many have pointed out, judging people who were products of their time by today’s standards is not always reasonable. Many people evolve in their ideas. We see excellent examples in the many strong supporters of marriage equality, who were strongly opposed to it very recently. The same is true of progress, however incomplete, toward racial equality. I am sure that if DFC were alive today she would disavow some of her earlier views.