Home » Intelligent Design » ID book banning

ID book banning

A colleague of mine added Of Pandas and People to the Wikipedia’s list of Banned Books at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books. It clearly qualifies under the American Library Association’s definition of a successfully challenged book:

A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.

Source: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wdcb.

If any of you want to monitor the page to see if they keep it, go for it.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to ID book banning

  1. They move quick:
    (This book was listed on Wikipedia by a colleague of William Dembski[42] after advocates of “intelligent design” claimed that Pandas was a banned book due to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision.[43] However, this view has been challenged[44] [45] on the grounds that the Kitzmiller lawsuit did not challenge the book’s placement in the school library, and this precise point was explicitly clarified by the Court in a pretrial ruling in March 2005, which stated, “It is therefore clear to the Court that Plaintiffs only seek to remove the book Of Pandas and People from the Dover Area School District’s science classrooms, and not from its school libraries.”[46])

  2. Still seems to be listed though

  3. “It is therefore clear to the Court that Plaintiffs only seek to remove the book Of Pandas and People from the Dover Area School District’s science classrooms, and not from its school libraries.”

    Doesn’t that mean the book is being “removed from the curriculum” ?

  4. Either it’s been removed, or it’s not listed under O or P. I can’t find it.

  5. Was Pandas ever in the curriculum? I don’t recall ever seeing that it was: I thought the most the pro-ID people got to do was to read a statment pointing out that Pandas was in the library.

    Bob

  6. Bob OH said (comment #5) –
    “Was Pandas ever in the curriculum? I don’t recall ever seeing that it was: I thought the most the pro-ID people got to do was to read a statment pointing out that Pandas was in the library.”

    The book’s mention was an official part of the curriculum, even though that mention was only a very small part of the curriculum. Why are people trying to come up with all these reasons why the book wasn’t banned? The book was BANNED. It was so completely banned from Dover science classrooms that its mere mention was prohibited there.

    The banning of the book is discussed on my blog at –
    http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....id_26.html

  7. 60 copies donated to be placed in the school library was the plan, and having the statement read. The books were funded by a church, which established “religious motivation” under constitutional law. Unfortunately, ID was implicated, though not complicit in any way.

    If a new law passes the Senate, the ACLU won’t be albe to intimidate by suing schoolboards, and I predict that in the near future the Dover scenario will be repeated, but this time done in a manner that will not imply religion, per se.

  8. Wiki link checked on Wednesday, 27th of Sept, @ 14:48 CET – book not listed anymore…

  9. Alas the page has been edited to remove the book, with the following reason given…

    removed “of Pandas and People” as the book is not banned, only unable to be used in lesson’s. In fact, it is still present in the libarary of the Dover school in question therefore not banned at all.

  10. So a book that was never really incorporated as part of the curriculum in the first place, but which remains available in the library, has been removed from the list of banned books?

    The injustice is not difficult to see.

  11. It’s leftists who pontificate on book banning–they screech any time patriots want a say in which books should be purchased by, say, a school library, yet at the same time they rise in defense of a cruel dictator who imprisions librarians– http://www.villagevoice.com/ne.....491,6.html.

  12. Rude, did you actually read that article? No where does it so much as insinutate, contrary to your assertion in (11), that “leftists” are rising in defense of Castro.

    In fact, the article contains the precise opposite of what you say — according to this article, it’s the leftists (Chomsky, Zinn, Said, West) who are condemning Castro’s imprisonment of the librarians. (Unless “condemning” and “rising in defense of” mean the same thing.)

    The article is critical of the American Library Association, not “leftists” — and in American politics today it’s impossible to find anyone of national stature further left that Chomsky, Zinn, or West.

    On the other hand, one might wonder whether it is the responsibility of the ALA to speak out against censorship in other countries. Perhaps it is, but if so, they’d be very busy.

  13. What I say here should end the argument as to whether the book belongs in Wikipedia’s list.

    The Wikipedia list of banned books is partly based on the American Library Association’s list. The ALA’S Banned Books Week event lists “challenged” books as well as books that were actually banned. Also, challenges and bans against books in curricula as well as books in libraries are included.
    See http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ban.....banned.htm

    The above webpage 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)

    Since this was supposed to be the number of challenges 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 book was BANNED. B-A-N-N-E-D. Try as hard as they might, the Darwinists cannot weasel out of this one.

    I hope this ends the discussion as to whether the book belongs on the ALA’s list and — by extension — the Wikipedia list.

    Here is the entry I propose for the Wikipedia “List of banned books” –

    * ”[[Of Pandas and People]]” by [[Percival Davis]] and [[Dean Kenyon]] (banned from public-school science classrooms by a judge who ruled it to be an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion)

    I tried to insert this entry myself but was blocked by Wikipedia because I have the same IP address as someone who was banned there (IP address banning sucks). I tried using anonymous proxies, but the four-option anonymous proxies were also blocked by Wikipedia and the eleven-option anonymous proxies inserted extraneous slashes (/). So would someone please insert the above entry or some other suitable entry? Thank you.

  14. I’ve added it to the list, but I have a feeling that it won’t stay there very long. ID is so thoughorly censored it’s not even allowed on banned book lists. :)

  15. 15
    EndScientificCensors

    The moderators of the page have locked it citing “adolescent vandalism” (they have since changed it to just say “vandalism”) . The vandalism webpage says “Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism”. I have posted the following message on Wikipedia’s discussion page explaining why this was a “good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia”. Please support ending scientific censorship–express your views on the page:

    Let’s see if StephenA is correct that “ID is so thoughorly censored it’s not even allowed on banned book lists”:

    From the user that added the book: I am amazed that so much namecalling has gone on here against the change to put Of Pandas and People as a Banned Book, calling this “adolescent vandalism.” Of course users are correct that “Of Pandas and People” was not removed from the library in Dover. But while looking at this page, I could not find any definition that limited books on the list to those which were removed from the library. I therefore felt it was appropriate to use the definition of a “banned book” from American Library Association (ALA) — see http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ban.....d.htm#wdcb

    Clearly the American Libraries Association defines a “banning” as something which was challenged and later removed from the curriculum:

    :”A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.” (from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ban.....d.htm#wdcb emphasis added)

    The Dover plaintiffs challenged Of Pandas and People to attempt to have it removed from usage in the Dover biology curriculum. They won their challenge. Ergo, under the ALA definition, it is banned book. There are legitimate reasons for including this book, so please stop the tactic namecalling this change “adolescent vandalism” and realize that there are serious reasons for this addition: the Dover plaintiffs successfully removed the textbook from the Dover curriculum. I request that namecallers regarding this change against me need to either two things: (a) calm down; (b) put a clear definition of what you mean by a banned book and define. If you define a banned book as mere removal from a library, then you need to justify why you contravene the ALA definition. If you accept the ALA definition, then you need to uncensor the addition of Of Pandas and People to the list. Either way, I encourage users to stop calling names. Censorship and namecalling is always bad. [[User:EndScientificCensorship|EndScientificCensorship]] 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    P.s. to Carl Sachs: this was clearly a matter of removing a book from the curriculum. Judge Jones says over-and-over again in the ruling that this is a “biology curriculum controversy” (his words). If the book was ” never really incorporated as part of the curriculum” (Carl’s words) then why did the Judge call ththis a “curriculum change”?

  16. 16
    EndScientificCensors

    Carl Sachs said that “[A] book that was never really incorporated as part of the curriculum in the first place, but which remains available in the library, has been removed from the list of banned books? ” It’s worth pointing out that Judge Jones consistently called adoption the Dover-ID oral disclaimer a “curriculum change” or called the whole ordeal the “curriculum controversy” and that the mention of the book in the disclaimer therefore constitutes inclusion of the book into the curriculum.

    Also, whether it is still in the library is irrelevant according to the American Library Association (AL). The ALA definition of challenging and banning in the quote provided by Mr. Dembski says it unambiguously that “Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library.” So removing a book from the curriculum clearly counts as a banning. So whether the book is still in the library is irrelevant to a banning if the book was banned from the curriculum.

  17. 17

    I badly need help for my campaign to persuade the American Library Association to officially recognize “Of Pandas and People” as a “banned book.” A spokesperson for the ALA is still insisting that the ALA does not recognize the book as “banned” because there was no court order expressly banning the book! That’s ridiculous — the mere mention of the book was banned from the Dover science curriculum. And there is no way that Dover science teachers would ever be allowed to mention the book on their own as part of a regular lecture.

    Necessary and helpful info and ideas — email addresses and suggested email texts and subject lines — are at:

    http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....s-and.html

    Some other blogsites dealing with this issue are:

    http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....sting.html

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1652

    http://scienceblogs.com/author.....a_fina.php

Leave a Reply