Be careful what you read and where...

Nuvo (Indian) ^ | 27 Feb, 208 | David Hoppe

[Larry R. Johnson]

Keith John Sampson never thought he could get in trouble for reading a book, especially not on a college campus. But that’s what happened. Sampson is a man in his early 50s. He does janitorial work for the campus facility services at IUPUI, where he’s been gradually accumulating credits for a degree in communications studies. He has 10 credit hours to go. .... The book is about how for two days in May 1924, a group of Notre Dame students got into a street fight with members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was meeting in South Bend for the express purpose of sticking a collective thumb in the eye of the country’s most famous Catholic university. Notre Dame vs. the Klan was a Notre Dame Magazine “Pick of the Week” and garnered an average customer review of 4.5 stars on Amazon.com. In its review, The Indiana Magazine of History noted that Tucker “succeeds in placing the event in a broad framework that includes the origins and development of both the Klan and Notre Dame.”

[Larry R. Johnson]

This guy got into trouble for reading (reading on a college campus, of all places) an historical account of a fight between Ku Klux Klan members and Notre Dame Students that happend 84 years ago. Some folks decided to made trouble for this guy. How far is political corrction going? Would the animals in a zoo be offended if I read a cookbook?

[Jet Jaguar]

Interesting.

[Right Wing Assault]

If they are going to MAKE anyone do anything, they should make all the morons that work with him read the book and write a report on it. And apologize to Mr. Sampson for being such idiots by interfering with his freedom to read in their presence.

[jimtorr]

I think it might be best for all if Mr. Sampson filed a harassment lawsuit against all concerned.

[Free State Four]

How far is political correction going?

I don't know if it was a Freudian slip or a typo, but it is a very succinct way of describing the true nature of PC, as observed in this incident. It's not about political correctness, it's about political correction. That's what I'm calling it from now on. Thanks!

[TalBlack]

“How far is political corrction going?”

PC, fundamentally, is the compartmentalization of the mind. It goes as far as it can the FIRST time it is used. This is why we are (or once were) taught to fear lies. You KNOW where PC is going if you know History.

[stayathomemom]

One guy’s comment had it right: “Liberal Fascism”.

[Amos the Prophet]

All fascism emanates from liberal doctrine.

[BufordP]

This sounds like a job for Mike Adams. I just sent him an email.

[knarf]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

It's a continueing attack on all things American .. especially knowledge.

Pol Pot had his gory killing fields, we have have a more sanitized version.

[martin gibson]

Mr. Sampson is NOT being harassed for reading a book dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, Mr. Sampson is being harassed because he is reading ANY book and there-by “acting white”.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

From the article:

Sampson recalls that his AFSCME shop steward told him that reading a book about the Klan was like bringing pornography to work. The shop steward wasn’t interested in hearing what the book was actually about. Another time, a coworker who was sitting across the table from Sampson in the break room commented that she found the Klan offensive. Sampson says he tried to tell her about the book, but she wasn’t interested in talking about it.

Hard to believe that the people who had a problem with him reading that book did not want to hear any explanation. Their minds were totally closed on the subject.

Almost like some kind of automatic knee jerk reaction where any reference to the KKK (even a historical account of fighting back against the KKK) was to be forbidden.

I can only imagine that it's a victim mindset hard at work on the part of those offended by him reading the book in their presence.

[Gondring]

I hope everyone read the whole story and looked at the letters before knee-jerking. While I don't support the shop steward's approach, there does seem to be more to the story. From what I gather, Mr. Sampson was not forbidden from reading the book--he was asked to read the book apart from other employees who found the title disturbing.

I imagine books that I wouldn't want to see a co-worker reading when I'm trying to take a break. "How to Defeat Brain-Sucking Baby-Killers" might be something I'd ask my co-worker to read with discretion, for example.

But that's a common courtesy thing, not something for the university administration (though the policy is in place). Note, however, that the Affirmative Action office did not take action against Mr. Sampson, as it couldn't determine that he was trying to create a sisruption to the work environment. Sounds like they did the right thing.

I imagine this might have been a personnel issue that got out of hand, but that's mere speculation.

FIRE or The Rutherford Institute might be able to help, if there's reason.

[Gondring]

Hard to believe that the people who had a problem with him reading that book did not want to hear any explanation. Their minds were totally closed on the subject.

Almost like some kind of automatic knee jerk reaction where any reference to the KKK (even a historical account of fighting back against the KKK) was to be forbidden.

Or, the shop steward believed that Mr. Sampson was reading the book in a way to intentionally irritate the other employees, and didn't care about content. The content wasn't at issue, if you read the letters. The issue was whether he was intentionally disrupting the work environment, and I can see that a person might not want to think about the KKK on his break.

That being said, of course the other employees could keep their eyes to themselves, and that's it's good that the focus was on whether or not he was intending to be disruptive--not on the book content.

[an amused spectator]

While I don't support the shop steward's approach, there does seem to be more to the story. From what I gather, Mr. Sampson was not forbidden from reading the book--he was asked to read the book apart from other employees who found the title disturbing.

Look - you're wrong, and I don't want to discuss it with you or debate any of the facts.

[bmwcyle]

Let the liberal book burning begin! /SARCASM.

[CodeToad]

I’d sue the school for academic fraud. When Churchill can say what he said without consequence but a book gets a guy into trouble, there isn’t much else needed to know that colleges are about money and not education.

[an amused spectator]

So, this is great!

If a co-worker that I hate is reading a book about computer networking entitled "Network Link - Lan Interactions", then I can point to the fact that he's reading a book with the word "k - Lan" in the title and have him gigged on it!

Brilliant!

[AppyPappy]

WHOA! It sounds like someone got spanked. I suspect another letter is forthcoming.

[thinking]

Yes, I have to agree,...this PC thing is a disguise for fascism....next it will be burning the books that “offend” the liberal fanatics....

[LachlanMinnesota]

I absolutely agree...political correction from now on!

[thinking]

pardon me if I upchuck....this person is a typical liberal, lash-out, without a second of reflective thought....liberalism is a mental deficiency....the right brain hemisphere, is over developed....

[bmwcyle]

Drive the stakes into the ground and pile up the fire wood. The Liberal think they own the world now.

[woollyone]

good insight!

following along in using that phrase

[Lucky Dog]

Sounds like they did the right thing.

It would seem that the original complaint is about the title of a book with no one but the accused, in this instance, interested in the contents. Using such a triviality as the basis of a complaint could (and, perhaps, should) be deemed as harassment of the individual against whom the complaint is leveled.

If the facts, in their entirety, are as presented in this article and the letters you posted, this case is an illustration of political correctness running to its natural, asinine conclusion. This situation also illustrates the idiocy of granting petty, bureaucratic ideologues unchecked power over people’s livelihoods, or, if you will, their pursuits of happiness.

Should a complaint be investigated? Absolutely! Should the investigation, in this case, have been summarily terminated upon the initial examination of the facts? Absolutely!

The first real question in this situation is should a complaint have been filed in the first place? Absolutely NOT!!!

Someone filing a complaining for offense at the title of a book being read by a coworker is absurd. Such a complaint over a title that has no obscenities, vulgarities, or curses in it is ridiculous in the extreme.

At the time, Sampson was reading a book he had checked out from the public library. Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, published in 2004, features a photograph of the University of Notre Dame’s famous golden dome on the cover.

Given that the first complaint appeared, would common sense have demanded that it be immediately resolved and/or dismissed (based upon the facts in this post) by the first person of any authority or influence who looked into it? Absolutely!!!

Sampson recalls that his AFSCME shop steward told him that reading a book about the Klan was like bringing pornography to work. The shop steward wasn’t interested in hearing what the book was actually about. [emphasis added]

Given that the complaint was not dismissed by the first supervisor who examined it, should any consideration of the complaint and the facts have justified leveling an accusation that the reader had engaged in racial harassment? Absolutely NOT!!!

Sampson says he tried to explain to Watkins [at the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office] what the book was about. He says he tried to show her the book, but that Watkins showed no interest in seeing it. [emphasis added] …

From the Affirmative Action Office letter you posted: …we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment.

Should it have taken from November to February of the following year to officially tell the individual against whom the complaint had been leveled that he was absolved and no longer in any jeopardy? Absolutely NOT!!!

Did the educational institution and its “affirmative action office” and/or officer “do the right thing?” Absolutely NOT!!! In fact, this case is a damning indictment of these types policies and their related enforcement mechanism. To say your assessment to the contrary is questionable is an understatement in the extreme.

[Dead Corpse]

What a weaselly little scumbag. That "letter" is attempting to create an issue where none exists. The guy was just reading a book and the nattering ninnies only saw the "KKK" and just stopped thinking at that point.

Idiocy. Sheer stupid, deplorable, PC-run-amok, moronic malfeasance.

If you are that d*mn "sensitive", how the heck do you make it through a work day without breaking down into tears every five minutes or having someone hold your hand all day. These people need to grow up...

[Free State Four]

Thanks. I liked it. Very descriptive.

[From One - Many]

no...this could not happen....what are you thinking?

At least that is what the majority think (and 911 came), but yes reading a book can now be trouble. Though I have to file my comment under the for-what-it-is-worth department. I do snicker to myself sometimes though...lol

[caver]

I believe this story. Try reading that book or have it in your possesion at most any large corporation in the US. At minimum, you will be hauled in to HR.

[From One - Many]

well maybe the second one will come up now.

[Sloth]

Note, however, that the Affirmative Action office did not take action against Mr. Sampson

They flatly state inn the first letter that the conduct is racial harassment. If they won't take action against that, what's the point of having an AA office?

[Arrowhead1952]

This article reminds me of the Born Loser cartoon this Sunday.

[From One - Many]

see my second one is not coming up....forums....another avenue for truth? or non-truth? It depends on who one asks, or who has the stick.

Yours was a great point .... Thanks.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

Thanks for putting everything into better perspective by posting the letters. Does indeed look like he could read the book apart from his other co-workers, just not around them where they might be “offended”.

Just wondering, does the same rule apply to people who play loud rap music?

Of course I don’t know the whole situation. It seems to me that either he’s a pain to be around for a lot of other reasons, or his co-workers have some other issue with him and are trying to find ways to get him in trouble.

However, unless the book cover had a picture of a burning cross or lynched black person on it, I still think the people he works with are apparently quick to jump on the “I’m a victim” argument.

What if someone was upset if someone was reading the Bible in their presence? What about the Koran? It seems this could get interesting...

What is probably closest to the root cause here (in my opinion) is that people are quick to claim victim status and go running to Mommy/Daddy (authority) to get someone shut down.

[Dead Corpse]

Liberals offend me. I don't want them around me when I'm taking my break.

Do I have standing for my complaint now?

[From One - Many]

btw...my second post didn’t come up...guess that one was filed as well, only not on the forum. sometimes all I can do is shake my head.

[Dead Corpse]

This whole thing just reminds me of the dust up over the word "niggardly".

Idiotic bed-wetting non-sense.

[From One - Many]

I have to go now....hope I will be allowed (as I realize many here hope the same) to continue my quest for the truth....(shaking head)

[From One - Many]

man oh man oh man....our country is in trouble and the bed-wetters have control of the helm. (shaking head)

[From One - Many]

since my post was reviewed and does not look to be coming up, I must be considered a threat...never thought I would live to see the day....lol

yep, things (once held dear) are now well gone. I wanted to find out if I was allowed to be concerned for my country, and now I find it difficult to post. I must be under investigation. Thanks, guys and girls in black, you've wasted more time. now while I know this will not be posted, or maybe it will, but I see the truth now, and Mr. Robinson this may not be your fault. I understand, how difficult some people can make Free Speech. Prayers for us all, Sir.

[From One - Many]

Thanks....

[From One - Many]

Sir, I will attempt to live up to your expectations. Thank You.

[ThomasThomas]

And now for “The rest of the story” Unions

[Dead Corpse]

FR doesn't filter posts on the fly. If a Mod pulls a post, it still shows as being posted, but it'll say "removed buy moderator".

Having two accounts is a Big No-no.

Good luck...

[Hatteras]

I thought you said you were leaving?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Geez, what does it pay to be an "Affirmative Action Officer?"

Do they wear spiffy black uniforms with leather trenchcoats?

[TexanToTheCore]

This guy is going to be rich. This is a huge lawsuit waiting to happen. Actually, several lawsuits.

[Gondring]

Look - you're wrong, and I don't want to discuss it with you or debate any of the facts.

LOL!

[an amused spectator]

:-)