 Thank you very much. That's it. Now, I'm Grace Worcester. I am a former member of the committee of the center of Vermont, Olly. You're very sad to see her go. We still love her. Occasionally they let me come and introduce people that I like. So I imagine that most of you know Ben Koenig or at least have heard of him because he is legendary. He's famous for two things, his music and his knowledge of books. Like many people in central Vermont, Ben was first lured here by Goddard College. You know what that means. Where he attended the adult degree program in the late 60s studying music. He fell in love with the state and soon moved here. He began his use in rare bookstore in 1974. First working out of a trailer in Moortown and then establishing the country bookshop in Plainfield Village. Also known as downtown Plainfield. For many years the store was open seven days a week but now it's only open by appointment. But he just assured me that even if I wasn't looking for something particular or even if I didn't want to ever buy a book again, he would be happy to let me come and browse. So don't be put off by the fact that the door is locked. He's probably upstairs. Don't think it is running out of books though. There were many thousands awaiting you inside. I will let Ben explain his interest in Dorothy Canfield Fisher. An interest that resulted in years of research and reading to come to the conclusions about her that he has made. I was very fortunate to hear Ben do this talk a few months ago. I don't remember exactly when at the labor hall in Barry. And those of you who know what I used to do won't be surprised that I was there. But I thought oh you know there'd be me and like five other people. There was a lot of interest and I am very pleased to see so many of you here. Now there are prizes today. Door prizes, yes. And there are people coming in all the time. Pretty soon it's going to be SRO. So most of you know the snows as well as Ben. And they try to unload. I mean they try to give Ben three of their books by or about Dorothy Canfield Fisher. And of course Ben had them. So we are going to raffle these off. I'm not sure exactly how I will do that or Ben might have a better idea. John Snell thought it might be whoever clapped the loudest when Ben was done. So we have a biography of DCF as we call her affectionately Vermont tradition. And then a book by her seasoned timber. So think about how much you want these. And if you want to give me suggestions on how to award them. I'm always happy to take suggestions. Okay so this is, I grew up with understood Benzie. It was one of my favorite books as a child. Who else read understood Benzie as a child? This side of the room wasn't as good at reading it. But this side, yes. Well Liz Snell told me that she taught it for several years to seventh grade. And I think that's wonderful. If you did read it as a child but have not read it as an adult. I recommend it very highly for a couple of reasons. One because it's a wonderful book. But two, if you read it as a child you certainly wouldn't have known of her connection with Maria Montessori. And the scenes in the school of understood Benzie are totally Montessori based. So it's totally very fascinating to read it as an adult. All right, I know I have lots more to tell you but I think I'll have to turn it over to Ben. Ben Canning! Let me get seasoned. So you can hear me? So it's a pleasure to see so many people here. And I don't know if you read Vermont Digger this morning. But there's a new book out and I actually mentioned it in my talk today. This book is called Vermont for the Vermonters. And it's a history of eugenics in the Green Mountain State. I recommend it. It came out just a few months ago. But it was written up this morning as I'm about to talk about this sort of a tangential subject here. Ben, also the author of that book. Well, you can say. She knows what she's talking about. It's a really fine book. Anyway, several years ago I purchased some volumes by Dorothy Canfield Fisher. And they were signed by her. And that's sort of what got me going. So I spent a lot of time in the last few years looking at Fisher's career and her writing. And I'd like you to join me this afternoon as I kind of rehashed the road that I've been traveling. Many people don't realize that Dorothy Canfield was born in Kansas. And when she married John Fisher, she and her husband spent the rest of their lives living in Vermont. In Arlington, Vermont. It was in Vermont that her career flourished. And when she died in 1958, her name was indelibly linked with the Green Mountain State. But it comes as a bit of a surprise, it was to me anyway, that she was also respected and admired for a life of activism. The New York Times said of her in obituary when she died, they said writing was only one of the facets of her energetic life. She worked in many causes, urging women to use their newfound freedoms, championing the rights of children, promoting new educational ideas and defending humanity wherever she thought it oppressed. Robert Frost, the poet, he added, Dorothy Canfield was the great lady of Vermont. There was nothing she was happier in than storytelling in prose and speech, unless it was doing good to everybody and anybody. In 1957, the Vermont Department of Libraries, as probably many of you know, honored her by creating the Dorothy Canfield Fisher Children's Book Award. Vermont children read five current books and then they voted for their favorite book. When I began my Fisher project here, the only thing I knew about her was that she was a once famous Vermont author. Well, that's not exactly true. There was something else I knew about her. Wasn't she accused of something? Well, in 2017, seven days the alternative Burlington newspaper published an article with this headline that said, Vermont considers dumping Dorothy Canfield Fisher over ties to eugenics movement. Judy Dow, a woman with French Canadian and Abnaki heritage, was quoted as saying that Fisher's writings were hurtful and harmful. The article said that Fisher was a possible supporter of the Vermont eugenics movement and Dow wanted Fisher's name removed from the award. Six months earlier, the Burlington Peace and Justice Center took Judy Dow's accusations at face value. They asked their members to, quote, take action. They wanted you to write to the Vermont Department of Libraries, to the state librarian, using the following words, quote, I support a program that encourages children to read but not one honoring the name of a eugenicist, racist, and elitist. Then came a petition on the website change.org. It was signed by nearly 200 people. It contained a photo of Judy Dow. It called Fisher an avid eugenicist. It accused her of being a white supremacist and also of disdaining immigrants and the poor. In 2019, the Vermont Department of Libraries removed Fisher's name from the award and they renamed it the Vermont Golden Dome Book Award. The department distanced itself from Fisher by saying that Fisher's name was not what made the award meaningful. I sent an early draft of my research to the then state librarian, Jason Broughton. He acknowledged that the decision was a difficult one, but he added, quote, I believe your paper is one that should be directed to Miss Judy Dow. In a phone conversation with Nancy Gallagher, an author of another book about eugenics in Vermont, she suggested that I should also call Judy Dow. It became clear that none of this would have occurred without Judy Dow's allegations. Today, the Middlebury College Library adds a note on its website that it says Dorothy Canfield Fisher may have been involved in the eugenics movement in Vermont during the 1920s and 1930s. If you Google Fisher, eugenics or renaming the book award are always near the top of the list. The allegations against her are unavoidable. But are they true? Was Fisher really a eugenicist? Was she as evil as Dow and her followers are portraying her? And that's what I set out to answer. I wanted to know more about that. Now, there are two full-length biographies of Fisher. They describe an incredible woman who appears to be almost too good to be true. Well, I'm a natural skeptic. So I usually question whether anyone is too good to be true. My earliest inclination was to disbelieve the biographies and instead to believe that Judy Dow's allegations were probably valid. But as I kept reading and as new facts kept coming up, Dow's allegations became less and less believable. So who was Dorothy Canfield Fisher? In her day, she was a famous and best-selling author. Today, her literary contemporaries like Willa Cather or Virginia Woolf are certainly rated higher than Fisher. But as a New England writer and sometimes a children's author, she is still highly regarded. And she led a remarkable life. Here are some facts about her life. With Eleanor Roosevelt, she served as one of two white women on the board of Howard University. In 1935, Mrs. Roosevelt said of her, Dorothy Canfield Fisher probably has exerted a greater influence on the average American through her books than any other single individual. For 26 years, she served on the selection committee of the Book of the Month Club. And I'm looking at the average age in here. I'm assuming you all know what the Book of the Month Club was. She was on the selection committee. She furthered the careers of African American author Richard Wright and Nobel Prize winner Pearl Buck and many others. She broke barriers. She was the first woman to receive a PhD from Columbia University. She was the first woman to receive an honorary degree from Dartmouth College and the first woman appointed to the Vermont State Board of Education. She was a scholar. She spoke five languages fluently and received multiple other honorary degrees, including one from the University of Vermont. She served on the original boards of both Goddard College and Bennington College. Today there's a dormitory named for her at Goddard nearby here. In 1911, after visiting Italian educator Maria Montessori, she wrote the first American book and four more books on Montessori's methods. During the First World War, her husband joined the American Ambulance Field Service. She left Vermont with her two children and she accompanied him to Paris. She brought a braille printing press with her and she printed books and a magazine in braille for soldiers who had lost their sight during the war. While she was in Paris, her daughter came down with typhoid fever. So, Fisher took her children and she moved to the warmer south of France and then when Paris was bombed, her friends sent a dozen children for safekeeping down to her. And this led her to open a home to care for 40 war-affected children. She also found a shelter for 200 more. I'll move this over here. Shortly before World War II, some Vermont students hatched a plan to collect pennies to help children in war-torn countries. So, Fisher took that idea. I love this about her. She took this idea and she created the Children's Crusade for Children. Special collection tans were decorated by her friend Norman Rockwell and they were distributed across the country. The children were asked to donate their numerical age in pennies. It was heavily publicized. It was endorsed by the President of the United States and the crusade raised $130,000. It would be nearly $3 million today, but back then, it was 13 million pennies. In an attempt to balance the scale, and I love this also, in an attempt to balance the scale of justice, Fisher convinced the American publishers of Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, to donate $35,000 from its profits in order to finance the administrative costs of the crusade. Every penny donated by the children went to support children overseas and presumably Hitler got less of a profit. After World War II, she chaired the Committee for Amnesty for all Objectors to War and Conscription. She and the group gained pardons and prison releases for conscientious objectors. Now, all of these facts that I've just given you are verifiably true. Fisher emerges as a powerful and a compassionate figure, an active and an energetic woman who used her time, her intellect, and her famous name to do as much good as she possibly could. Now, while I was learning more about Fisher, I was also learning more about Judy Tao. Judy Tao emerges as the source of the Fisher accusations. She is Fisher's foremost critic. So who is Judy Tao? First of all, she's not an ogre. She believes that the Abnaki and French Canadians were targeted by eugenicists and she has helped to educate us about that low point in Vermont's history. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Vermont Natural Resources Council and she's also the Executive Director of Godakana, a multi-tribal indigenous cultural organization. And not long ago, I watched her as she spoke to a group called Standing Trees. It's an organization that works to protect and restore New England's native forests. As I listened to Tao's remarks about our natural history, I remember that Fisher and her husband planted 10,000 trees. It's a forest today. They planted 10,000 trees near their home in Arlington, Vermont. It occurred to me that if Fisher were alive today, Fisher and Tao would probably agree about protecting our planet's natural resources and they would be united in their desire to end all forms of prejudice and discrimination. When I began my journey here about Dorothy Canfield Fisher, I contacted Tao because over the years we have met several times and she has been kind enough to answer some of my requests for information. So although you are about to hear me vigorously criticize her about the Fisher allegations, I'd like you to recognize that like most of us, we cannot be defined by only one set of issues. However, her public accusations took on a life of their own. Reports appeared on radio, TV, in newspapers and online. The Department of Libraries debated them. The State Library Board struggled with them. The charges were taken very seriously. So according to Judy Tao, Fisher was a eugenicist. So what was eugenics? Eugenics purported to be about improving human beings. It was going to accomplish this by either discouraging reproduction by people with undesirable traits or encouraging reproduction by people with desirable traits. But eugenics, at first it seemed like a helpful idea, maybe we can upgrade the human race. Among its early supporters were people like Helen Keller, Alexander Graham Bell, and Clarence Darrow. But eugenics raised some awkward questions. For instance, what constitutes an improved human being? What are the human defects that we want to correct? And who will be empowered to decide about these improvements and also to decide which people need to be improved? A typical example, well let me just say that my major deal here is to find the intersection between eugenics and Dorothy Canfield Fisher. So I've sort of references out in major works on eugenics and I've looked for Fisher in those works. An example is Edwin Black in his book War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. He never mentions Fisher, but he makes several references to Vermont's real eugenicist, a guy named Henry Perkins. Perkins was a University of Vermont zoology professor and while teaching eugenics, he founded an organization which he directed for 11 years and it was called the Eugenics Survey of Vermont. The Eugenics Survey produced geological histories of so-called degenerate families. Its purpose was to find defective bloodlines in families and stop those families from reproducing. In 1931, in order to accomplish its eugenic goals, the Eugenics Survey of Vermont under Perkins' leadership helped to convince Vermonters to pass, quote, and this is the name of the law, a law for human betterment by voluntary sterilization. Today, and I say this, I believe this, no sane person believes that Perkins or his movement improved the lives of the Monters. In 2021, in a rare bipartisan effort, bipartisan, both houses, you might remember this, both houses of the Vermont legislature voted unanimously to apologize for Vermont's sterilization law. State Senator Brian Colomora explained, this is his quote, it was thought that we could study everyone from every walk of life and determine how we could make a better stock. But significant harm was done in the name of human betterment. We did not apply these same principles of delinquency, dependency, and deficiency to everyone. Only the poor, those deemed by others to have defects and those who were clearly of a different ethnicity than those making the determinations. By the way, Colomora is a Republican, and I think it's important to know that Republicans and Democrats will both unanimously agree on this. It can be done, right? It can be done. Currently sterilization still exists as a form of birth control. But during large part of the 20th century, sterilization became a weapon instead of a choice. Now, all of this is to say that Judy Dow and I, and apparently our elected representatives, are all in agreement about the atrociousness of the eugenics movement. But there is still the question of whether Dorothy Canfield Fisher was a eugenicist. And this has become the most publicized charge against Fisher. Well, let's step back for a moment. During the early 20th century, the national country life movement was actively working to improve rural life. Wanting to equalize rural living and city living, it advocated for better schools, better roads, and less isolation in rural America. In 1928, the country life movement reached Vermont. Perkins, as the director of the eugenic survey of Vermont, created a new organization, and it was called the Vermont Commission on Country Life. Many well-known Vermonters were invited to join committees to study Vermont's problems and opportunities. The commission's major product was a book called Rural Vermont. This is Rural Vermont. This book went to every library in the state, as well as to all of our elected officials. So it was called Rural Vermont, a program for the future by 200 Vermonters. It contained the final reports of all of these committees. Now, Judy Dow believes that Fisher's participation in the Vermont Commission on Country Life proves that she was a eugenicist. As it turns out, however, the commission's book contains less about eugenics and more about many other rural topics. For example, there was a committee on rural government and a committee on the topography and climate of Vermont. There were committees on tourism and on various Vermont industries. Now, references to eugenics do make appearances in some of the final reports, but two committees were especially focused on eugenics. One was called the people of Vermont and the other was called the care of the handicapped. Those committees tell us to be aware of our ancestry, choose our mates wisely, and have lots of children to keep up, quote, the good old Vermont stock. Importantly, Dorothy Canfield Fisher contributed nothing and wrote nothing for either of the two eugenics committees. That point is very serious because Dow often uses the phrase two subcommittees as an implication that Fisher was a eugenicist because of the two committees she served on. But the two committees she actually served on were the committee for the conservation of Vermont traditions and ideals and the committee on educational facilities for rural people. One of her committees expressed support for the new immigrant population by suggesting that Vermont libraries should stock more books in French. And the other committee published anthologies of Vermont writings and worked to preserve Vermont's history, architecture, and its culture. The committees that were set up by the Vermont Commission on Country Life encouraged Vermonters to integrate the newcomers into society. Here's one example. This is a quote. It says, folksongs, dances, and other forms of artistic expression are in the blood of these people. If they could but be given a suitable outlet and receive the appreciation they deserve, they could add greatly to the enrichment of our rural life. So that's a quote. I mean, they were trying to get people to integrate into society here. Thou tries to paint Fisher as a eugenicist, but if we analyze the committees that she served on and we compare her to the prominent eugenicists of that era, we can see that Thou's assertion is just not true. So let's look now at how historians treat Fisher. Until recently, let's see where I'm at here. This book, until recently, Nancy Gallagher's book Breeding Better Vermonters, The Eugenics Project in the Green Mountain State. Until recently, it was the only book devoted solely to Vermont eugenics. Gallagher makes two short references to Dorothy Canfield Fisher. She remarks that Fisher was probably the most famous person associated with the book Rural Vermont. And she questions how Fisher, who wrote a book condemning anti-Semitism, could also be a eugenicist. Not notably, Gallagher adds, and this is a quote, probably many if not most of the participants in the Rural Survey paid little attention to eugenics and used rural Vermont as a forum to promote their own agendas and an opportunity to renew their commitment to the traditions of their state. In 2023, this year, only a few months ago, and we mentioned before, a second book was published on this subject. And that's this book right here. It's called Vermont for the Vermonters, the history of eugenics in the Green Mountain State. It was written by Mercedes de Guardiola, and once again, Fisher's name appears only two times. First, she is listed along with the other famous people who served on the rural Vermont committees. And then without expressing a for or against opinion, this author reports that Fisher's name was removed from the book award. Neither book accuses Fisher of any inappropriate eugenics activity. In fact, neither book accuses her of anything. Both of these authors treat Fisher as a minor footnote to the history of eugenics in Vermont. So before Judy Dow got involved, no one thought Fisher was a eugenicist and the historians still don't. Search for Fisher's name in relevant books, read her published letters, or peruse her hundreds, as I have done by the way, peruse her hundreds of appearances in the New York Times. Her name is never attached to any eugenics enterprise. And yet the explosive headline in Seven Days proclaimed eugenics as the major reason to remove Fisher's name from the Children's Book Award, and Dow continues to call her a eugenicist. Now let me take a moment to look at the concerns of actual eugenicists. In the early 20th century, so-called defective or feeble-minded people were being portrayed as a major population problem. For one thing, tax money had to be raised to care for them. To prevent these people from reproducing, American eugenicists suggested two solutions. Either segregate them in institutions, basically lock them up, or sterilize them. In 1907, the state of Indiana passed the first law in the world, making sterilization mandatory for, quote, criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles. Although it was surely unconstitutional, this law was thought to be a way to purify the human race. Short of actually killing defective citizens, as Hitler decided to do later, the American eugenics movement had now concocted its cruelest concept. Mercedes de Guardiola, in that recent book, lists some of what are thought to be the signs of being feeble-minded. It's an unusual list. Here are some of the signs. Out of wedlock pregnancy, poor or middling schoolwork, homosexuality, speech impediments, physical, mental, or intellectual disability, rebellious behavior, sexual promiscuity, laziness, shyness, or poor moral judgment. Well, obviously, many people with these traits looked as normal as anyone else. So there was a fear that a feeble-minded person might intermarry with an unsuspecting mate. Dr. Don Grout, who was the superintendent of the Waterbury Hospital, he wrote to then-Governor Mead, and he said, there are hundreds, probably thousands, in Vermont, who are simply breeding like rats and whose progeny are intellectually, morally, and socially worse than rats. He and the governor believed that the state should sterilize these, quote, degenerates. An anti-gallagher, in her book, has sensitively written that sterilization deprived certain volmonters of their humanity. It demanded of them that they sacrifice their parenthood for the presumed benefit of other people's children. So with all of these sterilization ideas swirling around in Vermont, the official or eugenicist, she probably would have been advocating for sterilization of feeble-minded volmonters. Instead, she headed in a different direction. In its fourth annual report, the eugenic survey of Vermont declared, quote, defects do not actually breed out ever, but they may be kept in abeyance indefinitely by favorable mediums. In other words, if you marry the right guy and if you feeble-minded, you might be okay. Your progeny might turn out all right. So only one year after Indiana's sterilization law, Fisher published a relevant short story entitled At the Foot of Henloch Mountain. After first describing her fictional town of Hillsborough as an idyllic Vermont village, Fisher tells us that everything isn't perfect. It seems that a guy named Nels Peddinger is out drinking and his mother wants him to come home and sober up. Nels' late father, we find out, was an alcoholic and Nels seems to be on the same path. A eugenicist might want to sterilize Nels to prevent him from passing his defect onto his kids. Here is Fisher on that very subject in that story. She says, now imagine if you can, for I cannot even faintly indicate to you our excitement when Nels begins to look about him for a wife. It occurs to us that perhaps the handsome fellows of men's good humor and generosity are as good inheritance as someone who never drinks a drop. Perhaps at some future date, all people who are not perfectly worthy to have children will be kept from it by law. In Hillsborough, we think that after such a decree, the human race would last just one generation. Fisher famously advocated for many causes. We find no proof that she ever advocated for sterilization and her words are not those of a eugenicist. Now another Tao accusation concerns French, Canadian immigrants. After rural Vermont was published that book, Fisher and the Vermont Traditions and Ideals Committee produced a series of what they called green mountain pamphlets. The second pamphlet was entitled, Tourists Accommodated. It was attacked in seven days, in that article in seven days that in this way, more unflattering references to French Canadians come in tourist accommodates. The play that Fisher wrote in 1932 to help popularize tourism in Vermont. When a French-speaking man and woman knock at the door of a Vermont home that has just started taking in lodgers, Aunt Nancy, the lady of the house, urges them to go home. So in the 19, that's the quote, in the 1930s during the Great Depression, Vermont has searched for ways to boost the state's economy. It was clear that Vermont was a great place and a beautiful place to visit, so why not attract tourists? One day Fisher and her neighbors decided to concoct a humorous play poking fun at tourists, tourism, and also at the Vermonters themselves. The result was tourists accommodated, a comedic farce. In one scene, some city folk inquire about boiling water to make it pure. Looking for a laugh, the answer is, no, we drink it raw. Or newlyweds, tired of people teasing them when they ask for a bed, they bring a doll and they pretend it's a real baby. Eventually they throw the doll off a bridge and their hosts think that they are murdering the baby. So building on that kind of silly stuff, a French Canadian mother and a son arrive. And just before they enter, there's a monologue and it explains that tourists are asked the same questions and they all talk the same way. Immediately the Canadians arrive right after that monologue, speaking French. So they're not talking the same way. This leads to some French and English translation problems and Nancy tries to settle the situation. She says, treat them gentle but firm. Don't ever cross crazy folks. And then she tells the Canadians, go home, home. Now it's at this point that Judy Dow seems to have forgotten that the dialogue continues after that. So if you stop at that point you would say, yeah, go home, home. She's telling them to go home. But it hasn't ended. Nancy is quickly corrected by her family and they say, they're not crazy. They're French. And she answers, oh, is that all? So this scene is supposed to support the charge that fishes discriminates against French-speaking Canadian immigrants and wants them to go back to Canada. In reality, it's a punchline in a light evening's entertainment as part of a scene in a witty, rural comedy possibly meant for a Saturday night at the Arlington Town Hall. In my opinion, this play isn't one of Fisher's best efforts, but it's certainly not denigrating French Canadians. A further accusation concerns racism. Multiple times Judy Dow has accused Fisher of being a racist and a white supremacist. One indication that this is incorrect is that in the 1920s Fisher received a special invitation to a Harlem Theater to present an award to a young black artist who was headed for Paris. Fisher told the audience that she had once witnessed a French award ceremony and she pinned the medal on the young woman's dress and she kissed her on both cheeks. The all-black audience is reported to have gasped and then burst into applause. I don't know if Fisher would have described herself this way, but evidence shows that she was a social activist who agitated against race discrimination. In addition to her service on the board of Howard University and her advocacy for black writers, Fisher spoke at meetings of the NAACP alongside black leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois. A racist, a white supremacist? These are false and misleading assertions. Fisher is also accused of disparaging Native Americans. Now there's a Fisher short story entitled In New New England. It has a positive Native American theme. Fisher describes two 18th century sisters traveling to seek a medical cure for the older sister. The destination is, quote, an Indian herb doctor whose specialty was curing girls who had gone into decline. I'm not even sure what that means, but these girls apparently went into decline. Now the older sister describes her feelings about the Indian healer. She says, quote, I like Mastana Cronston. He is a good old man, and I know that he will cure me. He makes me feel very rested when he comes near. Eventually the sisters name a river in honor of the Native American healer. Despite her regard for indigenous culture, the Seven Days article highlights a phrase in Fisher's novel Bonfire. Judy Thou believes that this phrase is an insult to her ancestors. A man who abuses his wife and doesn't provide for his family is described by a character in the book. And this is the quote that the character says, he's earned enough working for me winters in the woods to take care of him if he wanted to. But he's half hound, half hunter, all engine. Engine by the way, I-N-J-U-N. Now in that era of time, a rural Vermont might unfortunately have uttered words like these. However, Judy Thou is claiming that by writing this phrase, Fisher purposely meant to demean all Native Americans. Contending that a fictional phrase represents Fisher's overall belief is simply unsupportable. And Fisher had something to say about interpreting fiction. When Frederick Wakeman's novel The Huxters was chosen as a 1946 Book of the Month Club selection, a young girl's mother complained that the sex scenes might harm her child. Fisher answered her in a long letter as a member of the club selection committee. She said this, the horrible course details are a part of telling truthfully this story. We need these course details even if we disagree with them. Without them, we will be producing very superficial and unreal fiction. Well, when we are looking at a novelist's true beliefs, the overall essence of a story should be considered. Extracting certain words or phrases without taking the entire work into account only gives us a partial window in which to understand or misunderstand an author's thoughts. And if we really want to know what an author believes, we need to look at our whole life, inside and outside her works of fiction. In Fisher's case, her beliefs were not a secret. She led a very public life. She donated time, effort and the use of her name to many humanitarian and educational organizations. In order to clarify Fisher's priorities, here is a list of some of the groups that she supported. Our somewhat lengthy list is taken from articles archived in the New York Times. These are the organizations, the American Association of Adult Education, the American Society for Race Tolerance, the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, the Child Study Association, the Child Welfare Information Service, the Children's Crusade for Children, the Council Against Intolerance in America, the Council for Democracy, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, that's the NAACP, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the National Mental Health Foundation, the National Youth Administration, the New York City Federation of Women's Clubs, the Non-sectarian Foundation for Refugee Children, the Presiding Bishops Fund for World Relief, the Social Legislation Information Service, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Fisher committed herself to all of these organizations, advocating for a world without war, seeking enhanced educational opportunities for all citizens, strengthening our democratic institutions, and speaking out in favor of racial, religious, and gender equality. In 1943, she wrote to author Pearl Buck, this is what she said, about the Jew-hating, Negro-baiting, ignorant mob, I say nothing because they are nativism unqualified by any intelligent thought at all. Such members of the mob with supporters of Hitler exist alas in all nations and are only kept from power by the concerted efforts of more civilized people. That's Fisher. Perhaps you can see why I'm having such a hard time with Judy Dow's accusations. But bear with me as I just spend a little bit more time on this. Because another constant accusation is that Fisher is supposed to be an elitist. In 1935, Eleanor Roosevelt, Fisher, and eight other women contributed essays to the book Why Wars Must Cease. Although she was an anti-war advocate and here she was writing in an anti-war book, Fisher's essay asked us to bring empathy and understanding to poverty-stricken people who join the armed forces. She believes they are enlisting in order to escape their difficult lives. And then she writes this, poverty is not so much a moral crime as a fatally stupid mistake. A nation should call itself disgraced if even one of its citizens is living so poorly, so un-beautifully, and so hopelessly that war, war can even for an hour seem a change for the better. Those are vintage Fisher words. Now here is Judy Dow in her petition to the Vermont Department of Libraries. An avid eugenicist, Fisher stood against the immigrant, the poor and indigenous people. Fisher's writing is permeated by racist and elitist ideas. In 1949, in an article in Holiday magazine, Fisher issued a warning to wealthy tourists. She said, if you assume the manner of those who think the people who make beds and fry eggs are not as good as you, they'll hardly hope you will move on. Everybody in sight is as human as you are. Are those the words of an elitist? Broadening on the subject of wealth, Judy Dow has said this about Fisher, and the reason she did not want bankers to come to Vermont is because they were primarily Jews. It's unclear how Dow came to this conclusion, but her accusation is that Fisher was an anti-Semite. So here are some Jewish facts about Fisher. Fisher's 1939 novel Season Timber portrayed a school administrator defying a wealthy anti-Semite. During World War II, she actively worked to get the American government to ease its immigration restrictions and admit more Jewish refugees trying to escape the Holocaust. Fisher was the honorary chairperson of the Women's Advisory Council for the National Conference of Christians and Jews. The organization had been founded in 1927 to counter the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. The New York Times quoted Fisher in July of 1934. It says, we will cooperate in all local efforts to further justice, amity, and understanding among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and all others of our richly diversified American family of citizens. She certainly was not an anti-Semite. In 1936, she wrote to her literary agent, and she said, I hope I've made myself clear on the Jewish question. I think race prejudice is creeping in insidiously to American life. For instance, I bet you are nickel that the country club of your own town of Skarsdale is closed to Jews. I'm ashamed of it, she said. If we ask why Fisher has been singled out as the recipient of all these accusations, I must confess that I can't find a plausible answer. Consider these other Vermonters who served on the same committees as Fisher. Helen Hartness Flanders, Vermont's premier folk song and ballad collector. Walter John Coates, who was a friend of H.P. Lovecraft and the editor of Driftwind, a Vermont literary journal. Sarah Clegghorn, the noted Vermont poet. Vermont historian Walter H. Crockett. Arthur Wallace Peach, a Norwich University professor and a former director of the Vermont Historical Society. And Mary Jean Simpson, for whom an annual University of Vermont Award is named. To my knowledge, none of these committee members have ever been similarly accused. Well, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, my thesis is that Judy Dow has totally misrepresented Dorothy Canfield Fisher's actual beliefs. So what do we make of all this research of mine? First of all, true facts matter. Today in the United States, librarians, authors, teachers, and elected officials are being threatened because of the contents of books. History, ideas, and the books themselves are not only being revised, but they are actually being banned. It has changed the way we interact with each other. For instance, if I don't advocate for one side of an argument, I'll be accused of being on the other side. There seems to be no comfortable places between extreme points of view. Civil discussion is becoming more and more elusive, as openness, empathy, and understanding have been put on a back burner. Also, political correctness, political correctness can prevent frank discussion. Judy Dow's assertions are a good example. Why aren't they challenged more often? Could it be that because of her indigenous heritage, a question of my fear being labeled as anti-Abonaki? When Judy Dow decided to condemn Dorothy Canfield Fisher, she had choices. She could have simply disagreed with some of Fisher's words. Instead, she began calling Fisher ugly names and using derogatory labels. Now, Fisher herself once wrote this. No matter how mixed up the human problem we are trying to understand, we can clap down on it one or another of these ready-made labels, good, bad, schizophrenic, introverted, and we pretend that we have the answer. But eventually, we are baffled by a page in an account book, which no matter how you figure it, never jibes with the cash on hand. I love the way she writes, but... And that's how I feel about the accusations against Fisher. Although they don't add up, they are being hardened through repetition. They will continue to exist, especially online. Judy Dow has proven that in today's media world, one person can almost single-handedly ruin another person's reputation by exerting public pressure to change a name. And what about the actual need to change historic names? Today, many Americans are involved in the Me Too movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, and indigenous transgender and gay rights movements. Some of these groups are asking us to remove statues or change the titles of schools named in honor of a person with a questionable past. Because we have often neglected to welcome these marginalized citizens into our communities, they believe that the removal of divisive names and symbols may help to gain them more equal and positive recognition. Well, I think their actions are understandable. Frankly, if my town decided to display a flag with a swastika on it, I'd be shouting in the streets. The swastika is a symbol of violence and anti-semitic hate. And if you'd like to change the name of, let's say, Adolf Hitler Jr. High School, I'd be out there shouting as well. You've got my vote for that one. But Dorothy can't feel Fisher. It's most unfortunate that the Vermont Department of Libraries chose to become a fellow traveler with Judy Dow. By removing Fisher's name from the Children's Book Award, the department permanently damaged her reputation. Especially ironic to me is that the Burlington Peace and Justice Center accepted Judy Dow's assertions without question. Stated on its website, the Center's admirable purpose is to quote, work on the interconnected issues of peace, human rights, and economic, social, and racial justice. Well, Fisher spent the bulk of her life advocating for those very issues. Instead of peace and justice, this group amplified Dow's malicious accusations. By the way, before I go on, I want to clarify something. When I began speaking here today, I told you that I was skeptical of people who were said to be too good to be true. Well, Dorothy can't feel Fisher was not too good to be true. There were several moments in her fictional writings where the N word appears. There was a letter she wrote in which she used some words that are usually reserved to derive Italians. She wanted Vermont to build a highway across the beautiful Green Mountains, and she voted for Calvin Coolidge. She was not perfect, but those are the exceptions. If Fisher's life is viewed as a whole, there's no way she can be defined by the slanderous names that she is now being called. I don't deny that there are instances in which past actions deserve to be revised, but it can't be a knee-jerk reaction to pressure of certain interest groups. It needs to be a thorough and thoughtful process. I have a few suggestions. First, don't make up your mind before doing the research. And be willing to accept the facts that your research reveals. Then, take enough time to properly evaluate your findings. If possible, solicit some honest feedback from someone you trust. And finally, develop enough fortitude to stand up to those who might gather against you. It took me quite a bit of time for my Fisher project to evolve, but finding the facts wasn't all that difficult. Fisher's life is in plain sight. By considering her entire life, I came to understand more about her by looking at some snippets of her fictional writings that are made public by someone else. The decent thing would be for the Department of Libraries to restore Fisher's name to the award. However, if it can't bring itself to make such a change, it should at least apologize for its past actions and rehabilitate her reputation. I even heard for Judy Dow to do the same. Given Fisher's unquestionably positive qualities, I think that Vermont should highlight and celebrate her life. Young people, especially young women, would benefit from studying and learning from her example. What an incredible life she led. Dorothy Cantfield Fisher published 22 works of fiction, 18 works of nonfiction and numerous articles and book reviews. She also appeared on public stages, vocally advocating for the many humanitarian causes that she supported. She worked to eradicate racism, end the cycles of war, broaden educational opportunities, and strengthen the state of Vermont. She is also labored to improve the lives of the poor, the immigrant, and the unjustly disadvantaged. If she is to be judged, let her be judged on that. Thank you. Well, I'm here and if somebody has a... Can't answer some questions, Beth. Yes. Beth, that was a beautiful presentation. It sounds like this Judy Dow has a personal grievance, but she's on its mission to discredit Cantfield. Do you have any idea why that might be? Or do you agree with that? Do you have any idea why that might be? Well, I can't speak for Judy Dow. However, I can say this. I heard her accusations. I believed them. And when I had her accusations in my head, and I didn't know much about Fisher at that time, I began to read Fisher. And I had, with those accusations in my head, when I began to read, I began to think that her accusations were correct. In other words, once I had something in there, and I have a feeling, as I say, I can't speak for Judy Dow, but she had this idea, and then everything she read added up to that idea. I mean, she found more and more quote-proof that it was so. I don't know how it began, and I don't know why she picked Fisher. As I say, there were 200 people that were involved in Rural Vuant in the book. Then, I mean, some of them were eugenicists. I mean, Perkins deserves to be called out as a eugenicist. But not Fisher. And I don't understand how that happened. Have you spoken to her about your research to Judy? I mean, you said that you've encountered her several times, and if you have, what's her reaction to what you are discovering? When I first started, and I first sort of got into this, I wrote to her, and I told her that I was finding that I was disagreeing with her point of view. And I reminded her that we had met. I have a son with Down syndrome, and so somehow she remembered that, and that we had talked about that, because eugenics, you know, they were trying to weed out everybody, and they would have weeded me out probably. So anyway, she reminded me that she knew about that, and she sent me some information, especially about the Brandon School. Brandon School in Vermont was a school for developmentally handicapped people, and there are some, there are these waiting lists of people who wanted to get into Brandon, and she sent me one page, and she said it was the only page she had in her computer, which was part of this waiting list. And the waiting list listed the names of young people wanting to get in, and it named the people who were recommending them to get in, and Fisher actually recommended a number of people for admittance to Brandon, and I don't know exactly why she did that, but Dow believed that it was because she said something about almost like she was picking up people on the street and sending them off to this jail somewhere, or this prison camp or something. So I looked at that list, and I then sent her another letter, which I didn't get an answer to, and I said, look, we don't know why. She could have been using her name to help some neighbors. I mean, the people were in Arlington, who she was recommending. And a year before she had recommended that state of Vermont said that every lister in the state had to also send the names of all people who were sort of identified as either, you know, as a need of help of one kind or another. And so I don't know. So she first did answer me, and then the second time I wrote to her about it, and I didn't hear back from her. So I'm not, you know, I would talk to anybody about this. I think it's just, you can't put together the life of this woman and all she did and say, I mean, there are other famous people who you would say, well, they were famous, but they also were this. In this case, I don't find that at all. She was famous and she was not this, and she's being accused of this. Yes? No, the name, the Bailey Howe Library, which was at UVM, is now just the Howe Library. Bailey, what? I think she's talking about that. I'm sorry. Ellen Day Arts Center, the Ellen Day Library. Did they take her name off? Yes. But I don't know why. Yeah, I don't know either. I'm not sure. But Guy Bailey was the president of UVM when Perkins was at UVM and teaching eugenics. And so he encouraged Perkins in this and so UVM has removed his name from the Bailey Howe Library. Yeah? I probably just missed it. When did the head of the Waterbury State hospital write to the governor those horrible things that he did? And when did that happen? What was the governor's reaction? So the governor, if you read, if you read Mercedes' book, it starts with this, the governor, Mead. In fact, there's a big problem in Middlebury right now about the name of the Mead Chapel there. And so there's a lot of stuff going on about changing names. But Mead was a governor and when he was leaving the governorship in 1912, he, you know, vasectomy was a new idea. It was a new operation that was developed in the early part of the 20th century. And so that sort of helped people who wanted to think about sterilization to do this because they found that it didn't really harm men, in that case, too badly, I guess. And so they, I don't know, I've had a vasectomy, I'm still alive. So I guess it works. So that had been developed and Mead was very interested in that. So they were both the superintendent of the Waterbury Hospital and Mead were kind of connected about that and it's described in her book in much more detail. Yes. What evidence did the library board put forth to remove her name from that prize? They must, the librarians, you would think, would understand research in context. What did they put forth? This is talking to me, so I have my take on this. So first of all, Julie Dow went and testified in front of the library and she gave her proof. Her proof, you can catch things on YouTube of places where she spoke. And so she quotes this letter, for instance, in which I'm quoting a letter, but she uses words like wops and stuff like that. Well, it turns out, so I wanted to find out if that letter, it's the only letter that she ever wrote that had anything like that. So I was trying to figure out why they had that letter. Why would she write that? And it turns out that she was, first of all, she was in, you know, and she went to, during World War I, she went to Europe. And she saw some horrible things. In one of her book, Rough, Rough Youn, it's called, I think that's the one, the book of hers. She writes about her experiences, I mean it's fiction, but she's describing some horrible things that she saw during World War I, in terms of people dying inside. So she was very affected by that. Her husband was sent to the front, and she was there in the thick of it. During that period of time, she wrote this particular letter. And so I don't know why she wrote the letter. I couldn't find the person she wrote it to, so I don't know the letter that she was responding to. And also when the person writes a private letter, not for publication. I don't know, you can't quote that exactly as the person's ideas. I mean, it's sort of, if she had written something in, something she'd published, and she said something like that, well then you've got, but this was just a private letter that somebody has anyway. So there, so these are the kinds of things that Dao quotes and uses as examples. And some of the things she said are actually just wrong. She claims that Fisher was involved in, much more involved with the commission on country life than she was. So the question was asked why she decided to do this. And the Department of Libraries, my take, I've been on a board, I don't know if you've ever been on a board, but suddenly there's this thing happening and people are arriving in front of you and they start talking to you about stuff and they're getting angry and they're yelling at you and they're putting it in the newspaper and your name is around. Pretty soon you decide, I'd like to get rid of this somehow. Is there a new obligation to research this stuff on their part? I would say, you got me. Let's just do one more and then people can talk to him on the side after. One more question. Yes. Having worked for the Department of Libraries for many years, although not having been there when I'm going to act to be up here anyhow so I might as well take the mic, right? If you want to. I am not defending their choice to take Dorothy Cantor Fisher's name off the book award. I was not working for them then. I chose not to get involved. I did hear Judy Dow and she was one angry woman. But yes, the Department of Libraries did have a lot of research. They were librarians who had done research. Everybody who'd done any research totally agreed with Ben about the fact that she was not a eugenicist. Now, I don't remember exactly what they said but they did not mention eugenics. They did not say they were taking her name off of the book award because she was a eugenicist. I can't remember. And they took like two years to make that decision. It wasn't something that they decided right off the top of their heads. The only thing that I can defend them about was that Ben didn't mention this because it has nothing to do with Dorothy Cantor Fisher herself. But we always called the book award the DCF Award. DCF is also the abbreviation for Department of Children and Families. And it is true that that is upsetting to a lot of children to hear DCF because they've had it as a threat or they've had it be the cause of total changes in their life. I would get... I ran the DCF Book Award. This is so upsetting to me I can't even tell you. But I would get mail at my office DCF and it would be actually for the Department of Children and Families. So that was the only thing that I could agree with as a reason to change it because that was disturbing. The whole bit about eugenics was absolutely not true. I got the final word, I guess. So I can't resist this. As Ben said, the award was changed. The name of the award was changed. It was done through children voting and they came up with the Golden Dome Book Award. Well, I don't know if you all realize that the abbreviation is the G.D. Book Award. But I have been told by librarians that there are parents in their communities who will not let their children read the books because it's on the G.D. Book Award. So I don't think anybody... I don't think that's all I have to say. I really want to thank Ben. It's a wonderful presentation. It's incredible research and we have all benefited from it. Thank you very much. It's plain where it came from or it's a beautiful... Wait, I could explain. Why don't you explain? Thank you, I will. Thank you for asking me this thinking. Gee, I wonder if people understand why this painting is up here and what the painting is. The painting is a portrait of Dorothy Canfield Fisher that was painted by my Aunt Hannah Shadroy Acker. My name is Joseph Shadroy. It was given when the estate was being settled to the Aldrich Public Library because we didn't know anything about all these accusations and, gee, it seemed the appropriate place for a portrait of a really highly respected author to go to a library. So I take it, they say thank you, that's very nice. Two weeks later I went back to the library. Gee, we've got lots of nice artwork in here. Do you know what happened to my Aunt Hannah's painting? Oh, well, there's all this controversy about Dorothy Canfield Fisher. The Library Association has taken her name off the Children's Book Award and we don't feel we can put it up because of who it is. Well, that's your choice. It was a gift, I've given it to you. Well, the family had given it to them and I thought, gee, could they not put it up and use it as a point of education of this is a controversy going around. This woman is a really important and respected author. Maybe you should read this and there is some controversy about this, but when I heard about your talk, I thought, gee, maybe the library would let me loan it to me so that it could be up here. That's why that painting is up here. It is Dorothy Canfield Fisher.