[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If a religious group challenges a book because of offensive language, what challenge reason does the ALA record?

Reading their explanation of challenges, most books have received multiple reasons for being banned. On the graph, they have a criteria for "religion" and one for "language," so there is no reason to think they would quantify it as only one thing, rather than doing the more likely and listing it as both.

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.

Not to why you started the thread (I never claimed that), but the majority of specific accusations made in this thread.

The numbers are indeed very relevant. The reasons given in the article fall under the first 4 most common reasons given in the graph. Yet, the primary accusation in this thread has been religion.

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.

Why is it illegitimate to review a book after a complaint? "You don't like the book? I'm sorry, we do not think it's legitimate to examine appropriateness of books after a complaint." ???

They developed criteria in April and applied those to the books. The article does not say anything beyond that, but the implication is that any books incoming will have to pass through the filter of those standards.

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.

Indeed, religion was the reason the book was initially challenged. But it was not the reason the book was removed from the library. I do not know the ALA criteria in this case. However, as I stated, the ALA lists multiple reasons for many books (some books practically have pages of challenge reasons listed), so they can and do count all reasons in a banning.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who started this whole ugly affair... this is why we did it."

In your accusation about ignoring the reason for the challenge, have you been reading this thread? Almost all the discussion focused on religion. That was why I posted the graph.

Religion was the initial challenge, but the reasons for the removal were specifically the 4 most common reasons cited by the ALA. I am not suggesting we don't discuss religion, I am suggesting that we discuss the other 4 reasons which bear more weight than religion.

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.

Let's take this as an example, and apply it to the thread.

As I said, regardless of your belief system, you have had banning perpetrated against your system. The Nazi's are the most famous book burners, and it was an anti-Jewish, and therefore anti-religion.

But, you can say that religion is the same old nefarious reason books were burned in this case; the Nazi's burned books because of religion. But saying it that way is a misdirection. The real reason the Nazi's burned books were because they hated Jews, they were anti-religion. That's an imperative in the discussion, since it is far more accurate than just throwing it under the blanket of "religion."

Similarly, this thread has spent most time accusing religion as the reason for the book banning. But, again, it's a misdirection. The question was raised because of religion, but that was not why they were banned. Indeed, the reasons given for the ban are the 4 most common reasons books are banned! But we have spent hardly any time discussing any of those 4 (some talk of language and age appropriateness). Those 4 reasons are the imperative in this case, and we barely even breach them.

If you are opposed to book banning (as I am), I would think we'd be better served to discusses the real reasons books are banned instead of focusing on a far less common reason.

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.

You have twisted my words beyond recognition. I would never stop discussion. I am pointing out that people went overboard on the religion issue, when in actuality that was not the reason for the banning.

In this thread, the dog may be hunting, but it's hunting the entirely wrong animal.

-Pie