Banning banned ID book from lists of banned books
Some background information is provided in my previous post on this subject: "Unnoticed victory in Dover case: ID book not banned from school library".
There is now an editing war going on over the issue of whether to include the book in Wikipedia's "List of banned books". The book has been removed at least twice from the list.
What I say here should end the argument as to whether the book belongs in Wikipedia's list.
The American Library Association's Banned Books Week list includes "challenged" books as well as books that were actually banned. Challenges and bans against books in curricula as well as books in libraries are included. The books that appear in the ALA's 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000 list are specially denoted in Wikipedia's"List of banned books."
The ALA says,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION -- 1990-2000
Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom --
- - - - - - - -
419 [were challenges to] material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)
- - - - - - - -
Seventy-one percent of the challenges were to material in schools or school libraries.(2) Another twenty-four percent were to material in public libraries (down two percent since 1999). Sixty percent of the challenges were brought by parents, fifteen percent by patrons, and nine percent by administrators, both down one percent since 1999).
2. Sometimes works are challenged in a school and school library.
Since 419 is supposed to be the number of challenges of a specific type in the period 1990 to 2000, I don't know what is meant by "up 22 since 1999."
Anyway, it is probable that at least some of those 419 challenges were establishment clause challenges.
So, was Pandas "challenged"? Here is what the official complaint in the Dover lawsuit said --
b. an injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 prohibiting the defendants from implementing their intelligent design policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, and requiring the removal of Of Pandas and People from the School District’s science classrooms;(emphasis added)
So there it is from the horse's mouth.
As for the nitpicking argument that the ID policy was never really part of the curriculum because the court outlawed it before it could be implemented, the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion notes that the ID statement was read to Dover science classes on two occasions. This argument is not worthy of consideration, but I have an answer for it.
As for the nitpicking argument that the book should not be in the list because mentioning the book is not taboo in the Dover science classrooms, that is not worthy of consideration either.
The Pandas book has met all of the ALA's requirements for classification as a banned book, and then some. The book was banned from being an official part of the curriculum (it was not required reading but was recommended or suggested reading).
The book was BANNED. B-A-N-N-E-D. Try as hard as they might, the Darwinists cannot weasel out of this one.
This issue is also discussed here, here, and here.
If Peter Piper banned a bunch of batches of banned books, how many bunches of batches of banned books did Peter Piper ban?
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (2 of 2)