If a religious group challenges a book because of offensive language, what challenge reason does the ALA record?
Funny... I find the numbers, the history and the graph largely irrelevant to this thread I started. I wasn't accusing any particular religious group (although I still think religion played more of a part than the school board is willing to admit here). I started the thread because I think it's completely ridiculous that anybody would have a problem with anyone over the age of thirteen reading Slaughterhouse 5. I still think that.
I was accusing the school board of kowtowing to a vocal minority (in its reason for re-examining the book in the first place). Do they only re-examine the appropriate-ness of books
after complaints are made? That hardly feels like a legitimate review system based solely on quantifiable criteria to me.
With regards to your graph, how do we define the "challenger/challenge" elements in this particular case? If the challenger is deemed to be the initial complainant, then religion is certainly one of the reasons it was "challenged"... regardless of what reason was given for its "removal." Or should we simply ignore the fact that the challenge was issued in this particular case by someone who had clear religious differences with the book and allow the challenge reason to be tailor-fitted after the fact? Being able to pick and choose what the challenge reason was in each case sort of negates any trends that your graph might happen to show.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who started this whole ugly affair... this is why we did it."
No, the book may have been
removed for all the correct-sounding, politically sanitized, legal reasons that this schoolboard can came up with to be able to sleep better at night, but--make no mistake--it was
challenged for all the same old nefarious reasons that books have been burned for in the past.
Plus, I'll never understand the attitude that just because it's determined that someone is within their legal rights to do something, that all discussion on said subject should simply cease. "Hey, it's legal and doesn't fit the strict definition of 'banning' or 'censorship' so everyone should just pipe down!" That dog won't hunt.