Monkey Business

High school librarian Cora Kunkle never ordered Of Pandas and People for her collection, but 60 copies ended up in her library’s collection anyway. The textbook, promoting intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory, was given anonymously to Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District last year, and placed in the Dover Senior High School media center on the orders of Superintendent Richard Nilsen.

It turns out that William Buckingham, the chair of the school board’s curriculum committee, had solicited donations at his church to help pay for the books and one of the donors happened to be the father of the school board president, Alan Bonsell. This eventually led to the board voting in favor of introducing intelligent design into the ninth-grade biology curriculum—the issue that lies at the heart of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the landmark lawsuit involving 11 Dover parents who are suing their school district for teaching what they say is religious creationism under the guise of scientific theory. The trial is the most significant court challenge to evolution since 1987, when the Supreme Court prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools, ruling that it was not science but religion and violated the separation of church and state.

While the outcome of the Dover case, which is likely to be settled this month, will influence the way science is defined and taught in our nation’s classrooms, librarians are just as concerned with another matter: how to handle the increasing number of donated books on intelligent design theory that have little or no value to our students and come from those with ulterior motives.

Media specialists often defend controversial books. But what if the tables were turned and we were branded as censors for rejecting unworthy books? That’s exactly what happened to us five years ago.

Back in 2000, as high school librarians in Minnesota’s suburban Independent School District 196, we received donated copies of Darwin’s Black Box (Free Press, 1996) by Michael Behe and Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway Press, 1991) by Philip Johnson, both of which champion intelligent design. Although advocates of design theory—the concept that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unidentified intelligent being—don’t specifically mention God, they suggest that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, and mammals with fur and mammary glands.

We want to make one thing clear: both of us are firm supporters of the First Amendment and of students’ rights to access information—but only if that information is credible. Intelligent design lacks scientific validity and has been repudiated by every leading scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, both of which assert that design theory lacks any scientific merit and cannot be supported by scientific research. Teaching it would be tantamount to teaching about the existence of Santa Claus.

At the time, we didn’t realize that the motive behind the parent’s book donations was to include intelligent design in the science curriculum. Free books or not, our district’s gift policy states that all donations intended for instructional use must meet certain selection criteria—they must support the curriculum, receive favorable reviews from professional journals, and be age-appropriate.

Both books struck out on all counts. We found them difficult to comprehend without having an advanced background in biology, and neither was reviewed by a standard review source for high school materials, such as Kliatt magazine. They also received mediocre reviews from Library Journal and Publishers Weekly. Choice, a book review source for academic librarians, said the books were appropriate for advanced academic or graduate school biology students. Even reviews from scientific journals such as Nature, Scientific American, and the Annual Review of Anthropology said the books refuted well-established scientific discoveries involving evolution and were flawed in their scientific analyses, hypotheses, research, and conclusions. Consequently, we rejected the books.

That wasn’t the end of it. The donor brought the matter before the school board, accusing us of censorship and insisting that the decision be reversed. Unexpectedly, the board changed its policy and established a reconsideration process to appeal gift rejections—effectively overruling our decision to refuse the two books. Suddenly, we were caught in a lengthy battle that made us look like censors.

The issue went to a reconsideration committee, made up of teachers, parents, and students. The committee heard arguments from the donor stating we were censoring materials and that we should be required to place both books in the high school libraries. We stated the books did not meet the district’s selection criteria and did not support the curriculum.

In spite of these arguments, the committee apparently accepted the censorship argument and voted to reverse the high school librarians’ decision and allowed Darwin on Trial in the library. Just prior to the vote on the second book, Darwin’s Black Box, a member of the committee abstained, resulting in a tie vote, which upheld our decision to reject the gift offer. Both decisions were appealed to the board of education.

Explaining the difference between popular and scientific literature, as well as the difference between selection and censorship were key elements in our presentations to the board of education. An area scientist explained to the board the difference between popular and scientific literature, stating that since intelligent design is not a scientific theory, the results of an online search only turned up references to products being “intelligently designed.” In fact, a current search of scientific literature today only brings up articles that point out the fallacies of the intelligent design theory.

In a prepared statement to the board, Patricia Sween, president of the Minnesota Coalition for Intellectual Freedom, wrote, “The process of selection means that some items are not selected when they do not meet the criteria as well as other sources do. Decisions to not select items cannot be equated to censorship.” We also argued that students still could obtain information on intelligent design from newspapers, magazines, and professional journals accessible through the library’s databases and book catalog. Local scientists, an ophthalmologist, concerned parents, high school science teachers, and two ministers all spoke to the board on our behalf.

After three long months, our fight to preserve quality science paid off. The board understood that we were not censoring materials, but simply choosing to select credible materials, and they voted to support our decision to keep both books out of the high school libraries.

As religious conservatives continue to gain a stronger voice in our political climate, librarians must be on guard: supporters of this 21st-century version of creationism are making advances. Just this year alone, 18 states have either introduced or are considering anti-evolution bills in their legislature, according to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. Like it or not, librarians are going to be caught in the middle of this battle between science and religion, and we must prepare to defend our collections from the influence of pro-creationist groups.

Here’s what you should do if your library finds itself caught in a predicament like ours.

Understand the controversy. We can’t challenge something that we don’t comprehend. So librarians need to fully understand the definition and implications of intelligent design theory. Don’t just settle for what you read in the newspaper. Study what legitimate scientists and scientific journals have to say about this new generation of creationism.

Know your opposition. The intelligent design movement is led by a small group of calculating, well-organized, and well-financed activists based at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, WA. This think tank is attempting to insert its particular religious perspective into science education—as if it was science. By trying to give the prestigious label of “science” to its controversial theories, the group is misleading children and parents. Librarians and science teachers need to know that the battle against teaching evolution is not just a local issue—it’s happening nationwide.

Contact the NCSE. The National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization, will give you the intellectual and moral support you need to successfully fight your battle. It provides information and materials that explain the intelligent design controversy and offers experienced, professional guidance. The center can also put you in touch with local experts, such as practicing scientists, science professors, and experts in scientific theory.

Plan your strategy. Identify the opposition’s key points. Knowing the opposition’s agenda can help you better respond to their arguments. We learned a lot about the donor’s tactics and arguments by hearing him speak before the reconsideration committee.

Update your district’s gift and selection policy. Following our experience, our district changed its gift policy and updated its selection criteria. Your board’s policies should be periodically reviewed by you and your colleagues to ensure that they’re relevant and up-to-date. If you don’t have a selection or gift policy, ask a nearby district for guidance. Most districts are willing to share their policy statements.

Explain your policies before accepting gifts. To ensure that all donations are evaluated fairly, media specialists and administrators should be aware of their districts’ latest gift policies. Library support staff should refer all donations to the media specialist. Book donors need to know in advance that their gifts will be declined if they fail to meet the school’s selection criteria or needs.

Respond to all charges of censorship. Your district’s selection process will determine if a gift is formally accepted or rejected. Don’t back down or change your mind if your decision reaches a reconsideration committee—this is the time to defend your professional integrity.

Organize wide-ranging support. Media specialists should not take on these monumental battles alone. It’s critical to elicit the support of practicing scientists; experts on scientific theory; parents; teachers; religious leaders; and local, state, or national science organizations. Incorporating pseudo-science into a district’s curriculum will only weaken the program and put students at a disadvantage when they enter college or the workforce.

Confront assaults on quality instruction and library resources. It may be easier for librarians to accept gifts rather than to upset a donor, but librarians should defend the process of selecting quality materials for their students and teachers.