Rep. Ryan Lauer
Pending legislation about curriculum and criminal liability for reading material available at public and school libraries were discussed at a virtual Third House on education Saturday.
Co-hosted by the Columbus Educators’ Association (CEA) and the Bartholomew Consolidated School Corp., Rep. Ryan Lauer, R-Columbus) and Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, fielded questions about bills concerning these matters, as well as others related to adjunct teachers and special education.
According to Dakota Hudelson with the CEA, a recording of the session will be shared on YouTube.
The session began with opening remarks from the two legislators, followed by a number of questions from submissions from the public. The two lawmakers then gave closing statements. CEA representative Alan Birkemeier and BCSC Director of Operations Brett Boezeman served as moderators.
One major topic of discussion was House Bill 1134, which pertains to curriculum transparency.
The Senate’s education committee recently adopted significant changes to the bill, which could advance to the full Senate this coming week.
Republican bill sponsor Sen. Linda Rogers of Granger offered an amendment that removes provisions requiring classroom materials to be posted online and vetted by parent review committees.
The bill’s current form gives parents access to their school’s learning management system and allows them to review any other learning materials used in their child’s classroom upon request. While parents could request that their school board create a parent committee to review curriculum, this would not be a requirement.
Legislators have also removed language about lawsuits for violating the bill. The new version allows parents to appeal to the Indiana Department of Education if they are unsatisfied after going through the school’s grievance process.
Other provisions that restricted teaching about racism and politics were also removed.
Prior to these amendments, a group of local leaders — including Columbus Mayor Jim Lienhoop, BCSC Superintendent Jim Roberts and a number of representatives from community organizations — wrote in an open letter to legislators that they opposed the bill because they felt it would prevent and even punish “meaningful discussion about systemic inequity.”
They added that the bill’s requirements in regards to sharing education materials would create “unnecessary busywork” for teachers.
Birkemeier began the time for questions by asking Lauer about this legislation.
“You voted for HB 1134, which we would know would place restrictions on what can be said or explored in classrooms,” he said. “Educators that have explored the bill have reached out, very confused about what topics they are and are not allowed to talk about or even condemn.”
For instance, he said, would teachers be allowed to speak out against fascism, genocide or segregation? He added that while the bill has been amended in committee, it is still unclear to educators what they would or would not be allowed to say if it were passed.
Lauer replied that part of the bill’s intent is to empower parental involvement with curriculum in an “advisory” capacity. He added that all of the incidents referenced by Birkemeier “absolutely” can and should be discussed.
“The bill even goes further and says you can take a position on them, if it’s not in conflict with our Constitution,” he said.
He said that ideologies that conflict with the Constitution would be those that pit ethnicities or sexes against each other and take “a wrong or immoral position that because of your race, because of your immutable characteristics … that somehow reflects on your character and who you are.”
Separating students based on these characteristics would be wrong, said Lauer, though he added that this doesn’t seem to be a problem in Columbus.
“But testimony during the House proceedings had some shocking examples, in other parts of our state, where schools are bringing these divisive concepts,” he said. “…It is actually explicit that you can and should teach our history and all the ills and historic injustices as well and take a position on it.”
Lauer added that he expects additional changes to the bill.
When asked if he still opposes the legislation following its amendment, Walker noted that its current version says that individuals or schools cannot “promote one group to be treated preferentially or adversely.”
He expressed some confusion and concern over whether this would bar discussions on subjects such as reparations for slavery or “preferential college admissions” for students of color or those with economic disadvantages.
“I do believe there are concepts that we can all agree are divisive, but I don’t understand why we can’t come to that resolution at the local level,” he said.
Another piece of legislation that has sparked controversy is Senate Bill 17.
“Under current Indiana law, if a school or library is accused of disseminating materials harmful to minors, there exists a legal defense if the material could be used for an educational purpose,” said Birkemeier. “SB 17 would remove that legal defense and even goes so far as to allow the jailing of librarians over the contents of their library.”
Disseminating material or conducting performances deemed harmful to a minor is a Level 6 felony in Indiana, according to Indiana Code. Violators face six months to 2.5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Bartholomew County Public Library Director Jason Hatton has voiced concerns about the bill, and the library recently hosted a read-in in opposition to the legislation.
Birkemeier asked Walker, who voted in favor of the bill, if he still supports it.
The state senator replied that he realized, following his vote, that there were aspects of the bill he hadn’t considered. As a result, he no longer supports it moving forward “in its current form.”
Walker said that there are two parts to the legislation and that he had “made the mistake of trusting some colleagues on all the content.”
There is clear language about an exemption for materials that are obscene, and it would be difficult to show that a librarian is “intentionally disseminating obscene material to minors,” he said.
However, he realized after voting “yes” on the bill that people may have different perspectives on what counts as harmful.
While it would still take a prosecuting attorney to bring charges, Walker said that the bill’s language is unclear, and he doesn’t want to see anyone “prosecuted under a vague statute.” He added that if the bill doesn’t move forward, legislators should consider looking at the language regarding “what is harmful to a minor” in any situation.
“If it’s vague for a librarian, who knows literary and materials a lot better than I do, then maybe I have confusion too if I’m wanting to share something,” said Walker. “…I think that bill would need further work before it should move forward. My understanding is that there’s not a lot of appetite for it right now.”
He added that he’s apologized to educators and librarians for not being more educated on the entire content of the bill.
“I was only listening to part of the conversation,” he said. “So no, I don’t support it moving forward in its current form.”
In discussing SB 17, Lauer said that he’s talked to his peers in the House and doesn’t expect it to move forward.
“There certainly is some concern from parents in other parts of the state and their libraries that have been in the news,” he said. “And I’m confident — very confident — in our officials and our librarians and the staff and our administrations in our schools that there is a robust process for putting together the materials that come into the library, and also a complaint process.”
He added that he had a good discussion with Hatton on this.
“The language of the bills don’t change the standards of what’s harmful to minors,” Lauer added. “I think everybody can understand there’s a line there — obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit materials you can’t hand a 5-year-old and with a specific intent and an evil intent. And that is illegal.”
However, he believes current statutes would be equipped to handle such a situation, even if it occurred in a library.
At the session’s end, both legislators encouraged educators and other constituents to reach out to them about issues they wish to discuss.
“This is like the classroom,” said Walker. “… Put your hand up.”
