One of the popular ways politicians stoke moral panic is by choosing a topic that’s been in the media, giving it a spin with all of the popular catch phrases at the moment, and then using the attention it draws to deliver their radical suggestions for change. This is why word is spreading throughout Ohio that the state budget line for public library funding.
Ohio’s Public Library Fund (PLF) is unique in the nation, as the state provides significant funds for public libraries. This ensures that in a predominantly rural state like Ohio, small towns that may not have as large a tax base still have a strong library. In some communities, the PLF comprises the entire budget, while in others, some of the budget is supplemented locally.
It is that PLF that has helped Ohio earn a reputation for having one of the best public library systems in the country.
Over the last week, several posts on social media have stated that legislators in Ohio are considering cutting funds to public libraries. While these posts have ample evidence as to why such cuts would be devastating for Ohioans–including documents that highlight the communities whose libraries are operating on budgets comprised of more than 50% PLF–none have pointed to a specific proposal or act that shows these potential cuts to be on the docket.
Indeed, the operating budget as introduced into the House has the percentage of the general fund being allocated to public libraries in the state increasing, not disappearing. This is thanks to strong, effective advocacy on the part of libraries and their patrons. Ohio libraries have not seen an increase in their PLF in over 25 years, and advocates have championed for more money to continue serving the needs of their communities. Every dollar invested in public libraries sees somewhere between a $5 and $9 return on investment.
So what’s the story?
First, in an era of rising authoritarianism, it is essential to have things down on paper. If they aren’t documented, then they didn’t happen. The posts spreading on social media about the potential wholesale cut to PLF are emerging from conversations heard at the statehouse. Those conversations being heard are attributed to a single library director in the post.
While these conversations and rumors may have basis in reality, they are not what’s documented right now. Could the increase in PLF be debated when the budget hits the House floor in March and April? Absolutely. The same could be said for when it hits the Senate floor afterwards. But as of right now, the budget does not cut public library funds. It increases them.
It is likely that the behavior and stoking of the so-called “culture wars” has had a significant hand in the conversation, though.
On February 14, State Representative Rodney Creech from the 40th district posted this on his Facebook page:
Creech began to rampage about the availability of period products in the men’s bathroom at a single library branch in the Dayton Metro Library. New Lebanon, the library’s service community, has under 4,000 residents. It is a small, rural community with a single Dollar General on the town’s far east side serving as its primary place to purchase general goods.
Continuing on his Facebook page, Creech posted over and over about seeking a meeting with the Dayton Metro Library over the placement of these products in the men’s room. He was angry that taxpayer dollars were being used in such a way and believed the library needed to remove them at once and promise not to spend money on them again. Library leadership welcomed Creech and his fellow moral panic crusader State Senator Steve Huffman to a meeting–but to a meeting on real issues about libraries, not about the tampon machines.
Because those tampon machines were not paid for by taxpayer dollars. They were part of a marketing campaign from Aunt Flow. Dayton Metro Library and Aunt Flow’s partnership was to ensure wide access to menstrual products for people of all genders who may find themselves in need. The New Lebanon branch of the library was the right fight for such a program.
By creating a panic over the potential of trans people existing in a public space, Creech gained a lot of attention. While much of it was pushback–the comments on the initial post primarily ask why Creech and similarly-minded politicians are so obsessed with genitals–those who are eager to attach queer and trans people had found more “proof” of the ways libraries are “indoctrinating” people.
Thus, Creech and similarly-aligned politicians in the state of Ohio had an opportunity to talk about how to make libraries bend to their bigotry.
It is also likely the story of Ohio PLF cuts gained traction because there have been several bills in Ohio that directly target libraries. In the 2023-2024 legislative session, lawmakers attempted to criminalize librarians–the bill died in committee–and demand libraries have a policy related to “harmful material” for minors–which also died in committee. Ohio libraries have been under the eye of certain legislators who believe same false narratives pandered throughout the far-right over the last several years.
In an era of heightened tension, stress, anxiety, and fear–all of which are rightly justified–it is crucial to have documentation of evidence. It is really great how quickly library advocates moved to call their representatives in support of libraries thanks to these posts and that shouldn’t go unnoticed.
But the more we rely on fear-based tactics, even unintentionally, the more quickly we burn people out and are ourselves guilty of spreading misinformation.
Many of the original social media posts about cuts to PLF have been updated in the last several days to note that while the information presented is not incorrect–it’s not–there is no material evidence yet of the cuts. This kind of editing and updating is important. It showcases an understanding of what’s at stake when we share information. This goes doubly so for information professionals like library workers who are tasked with the responsibility of sharing documented, verifiable fact. It is a big responsibility and mistakes happen. Over the next several years, these skills will be put to the test.
None of this means that Ohio residents should not be reaching out to their legislators and advocating on behalf of a PLF increase. None of this means that budget debates might lead to discussions of cuts. What it means is that right now there is no evidence to suggest that funds for Ohio libraries will be cut. The proposal on the table increases those budgets.
The single most valuable thing that library advocates can do in Ohio and elsewhere in the US right now is to tell your legislators to protect public libraries. This protection should be in the way of ensuring budgets are secured, as well as that library workers are not subject to criminalization based on the unfounded claims that there is obscenity in the library. There are numerous ways to be an advocate for your library and libraries more broadly.
