Keith John Sampson, in his early 50s, does janitorial work at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), where he has been accumulating credits toward a degree in communications studies. IUPUI, however, apparently has a rather narrow view of the sort of communication that is provided by books. Recently Sampson got into a good deal of trouble by reading — on his own time and in the employee break room — a book that some of his co-workers didn’t like, or rather a word in whose title they didn’t like, Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan .
Last November Sampson received a letter from Lillian Charleston of the IUPUi Affirmative Action Office.
The letter begins by saying that the AAO has completed its investigation of a coworker’s allegation that Sampson “racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees.” It goes on to say, “You demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your coworkers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence … you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black coworkers.” Charleston went on to say that according to “the legal ‘reasonable person standard,’ a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African-Americans …”
Sampson was ordered to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of his coworkers and, when reading the book, to sit apart from them.
But wait. There’s more.
Last week, Sampson received a second letter, dated Feb. 7, 2008, and postmarked Feb. 21, 2008, from Charleston in which the AAO says they were unable to draw any final conclusions as to whether or not Sampson’s choice to read the book was intentionally hostile, and therefore no adverse disciplinary action will be taken at this time.
The matter does not seem to be resolved, however, as Sampson has recently learned that the incident is now being investigated by IUPUI Human Resources. Todd Tucker, author of the book, has recently become involved in defending Sampson’s right to read the book, which is available at the IUPUI library as well as the Indianapolis Marion County Public Library.
I’m sure it would be helpful not only to Mr. Sampson but to concerned readers worldwide if the Affirmative Action Office of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis would make public the criteria it uses to determine when choices of reading material are “intentionally hostile.” And as an added benefit, if librarians could be educated on how to spot these “intentionally hostile” book readers they could report them directly to the nearest affirmative action office, which would save the potential victims of this hostile reading from having to undergo the trauma of observing someone reading a book whose title or cover they find offensive.
UPDATE [6 March]
Turns out I was late to this party. The Volokhers already nailed this one.
UPDATE II [7 March]
Protein Wisdom has some interesting observations about this affair, including a pointer to a remarkable document on the IUPUI Affirmative Action web site, Myths and Facts About Affirmative Action, that is a good example of what passes for analytical thought in the affirmative action industry these days. (HatTip to reader Fred Ray.) Presumably this document reflects the wisdom of Lillian Charleston, IUPUI’s affirmative action director for 16 years and, according to this bio, a “nationally recognized” expert on affirmative action.
A couple of examples:
- It is a MYTH that affirmative action involves discrimination against whites or Asians. It can’t, because blacks are incapable of discrimination.
The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination.
- It is a MYTH that affirmative action involves preferential treatment of any individuals or groups based on race or ethnicity. Why? Because “race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions. Thus, there is no such thing as preferential treatment.”
- It is a MYTH that affirmative action harms whites and Asians. “Though affirmative action is believed to have harmed white men, this contradicts the reality that white men hold structural power in society today.”
So, there is no preferential treatment unless race is the only factor considered in admission or hiring. No whites or Asians are harmed by affirmative action so long as other whites continue to hold “structural power.” Etc.
Even though she propagates views such as the above, I don’t know that I would fire Ms. Charleston. But I do believe I would put her in Mr. Sampson’s position and him in hers.
UPDATE III [1 May 2008]
Thanks to F.I.R.E., Mr. Sampson has been cleared of all charges. Reading in public, apparently, is no longer regarded as racial harassment at Indiana University – Purdue University.
Heck, they should do the larger a community a favor and remove the books whose titles alone so cause offense.
Even better, they should destroy the books in some kind of complete way, because you don’t want the smallest bit contaminating society. It’s their duty as educators.
My guess–just a guess, here–is that the affirmative action office wouldn’t bother itself if a Jewish employee complained that a co-worker was reading a rabidly anti-Israel book.
“affirmative action office wouldn’t bother itself if a Jewish employee complained that a co-worker was reading a rabidly anti-Israel book”
As opposed to a fairly obviously anti-KKK book.
If wanted to do some science on the minds of AA officers, as well as IUPUI employees, we could see what the response to “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, with the swastika on the cover, would be.
I read a review of the book at Amazon.
Judging from the reviews of the book, the author is anti-Klan.
The book studies actual events that involve the KKK and its battle with Notre Dame.
How is reading a book about a real historical event harassment?
So what was the beef? Were the black employees offended that Notre Dame defeated the KKK, or that anyone would be interested in how the KKK was defeated? I would think they’d celebrate someone interested in the topic!
“How is reading a book about a real historical event harassment?”
Ahh, ST, let me count the ways…….
You need to take some time off from the music (I’m gonna order your cd, BTW) and go back to academia, which is one part nuthouse, one part circus funhouse, and three parts “Alice through the looking glass”:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’”
As with many sensational items picked from the media, there’s usually MORE to the story than what’s initially presented.
This item is no exception.
The Book’s History:
>>>”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.”
http://www.nuvo.net/articles/21st_century_catch22/
Indiana’s History:
>>>The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s attained its greatest strength in Indiana, but the state was relatively free of the violence that sometimes accompanied the rise of the Invisible Empire elsewhere. The rowdy confrontation that took place between robed Klansmen attending a tristate gathering in South Bend and aroused Notre Dame students was an exception.
The skirmishes that occurred on May 17 and 19, 1924, resulted in a few minor injuries and arrests but a large number of bruised egos on both sides….
”As a Catholic convert, (author)Tucker is sympathetic towards the Notre Dame students’ outrage at the Klan’s virulent anti-Catholicism, but acknowledges that these skirmishes appeared at the time to confirm the ruffian Irish Catholic stereotype and brought some embarrassment to Father Walsh, Notre Dame, and South Bend’s sizable Catholic community.
Indeed, the book’s subtitle is something of a misnomer, since the riot constituted an immediate propaganda coup for the Klan, and made little contribution to the Indiana Klan’s precipitous decline over the next few years.”
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/imh/101.3/br_3.html
Notre Dame’s non-glamorous History regarding race:
>>>”In 1947, Frazier Thompson became the first black student to graduate from Notre Dame. A member of the Navy, Thompson was encouraged by vice president of Academic Affairs Father Kenna to return to the University to get his degree after completing his service in World War II, said Hesburgh.
Having worked in civil rights previously, upon becoming the executive vice president of Notre Dame in 1949, Hesburgh continued to push to integrate the University.
“We talked and said it was a shame that we hadn’t had many black students, professors, or even maintenance people at the University,” said Hesburgh. “I wanted to see blacks as well as whites at the University.”
With Hesburgh and others’ urging, the University opened up completely to blacks. Still, with options such as predominantly black colleges available to black students, few chose to attend Notre Dame.
“Everything opened up at once, including the athletic teams,” said Hesburgh.
“Yet I can understand that blacks may not have felt welcome here because they saw it was pretty much all white and that may have affected the number who chose to attend the University. I can see how it would have been kind of a lonely path and it would require a lot of courage.”
http://www.nd.edu/~observer/02232001/News/0.html
Indiana racism today:
>>>”The most common example of this is a sundown town, or a town where black people were explicitly not allowed in public after dark, and implicitly not allowed in the town at all, he (“Sundown Town” author James Loewen) said.
“Sundown towns were all-white on purpose,” he said. “If you didn’t have black people in your town, you passed an ordinance to make sure you didn’t get any.”
Some sundown towns had whistles or sirens that sounded at 6 p.m. to let black people know it was time to go inside their houses, Loewen said.
There are 501 sundown towns in Illinois with implicit racism, according to his research, he said. He estimated that the same amount, or more, are in Indiana.
Sundown towns no longer have laws restricting access, but the prejudice remains, he said.
“There are sundown towns all over Indiana,” he said. “This is not a southern phenomenon.”
http://www.bsudailynews.com/news/2007/11/14/News/Racism.Still.In.Indiana.Writer.Says-3099810.shtml
Given this environment, are any of you really “shocked” that when all of these elements mixed together in that janitor’s breakroom, a conflict might arise? Now, I’ll grant you that most parties involved probably didn’t get as deep into this topic as I just did, but the point remains that the African-Americans who reported what they saw were acting within the law.
–Cobra
Given this environment, are any of you really “shocked” that when all of these elements mixed together in that janitor’s breakroom, a conflict might arise?
Yes. Extremely shocked.
Now, I’ll grant you that most parties involved probably didn’t get as deep into this topic as I just did, but the point remains that the African-Americans who reported what they saw were acting within the law.
Unfortunately, you did not get anywhere near deep or even close to the topic at hand. The African-Americans in question MIGHT well have acted within the letter of a poorly written Indiana “law,” but this case merely goes to show how these particular individuals, misguided laws such as these, and proponents of such legislation and witch-hunting, have long ago left the realm of rationality, common sense, fairness, equality and reasonable behavior. They have become instead agents of unjust, despicable, inhumane, knee-jerk reactionary vilification and race-baiting.
In any case, the individuals and/or the legislation clearly violated this janitor’s civil liberties.
On a side note, many African Americans in the workplace today would not even know there was a Ku Klux Klan to be offended about without some form of historical media like this book.
“Now, I’ll grant you that most parties involved probably didn’t get as deep into this topic as I just did…” – Cobra
Funny. One can only surmise he means “avoided the topic” given that his criticism of the book consists of the sole fact that the attack on the Klan wasn’t ultimately successful. If ultimate success were the criteria logic would dictate that he cease his ranting.
The remainder is just changing the subject. Apparently reading a book about Notre Dame should be considered racially offensive because Notre Dame has a “non-glamorous” history regarding race”.
What a joke.
Cobra,
What law were the African-
American co-workers following. I do not remember the freedom to be offended in the Constitution. This seems to fit into the picnic, noose, etc form of thought control. Anything that blacks do not lock if forbidden to anybody. However blacks interpret a word, phrase, or action, that is what everyone else has to worry about it.
I guess the janitor is lucky. In Jena, they could have stomp him in the head and you would then be depending the attackers.
James Loewen? You mean the prof. who believes a “fair” SAT question for blacks is
Saturday Ajax got an LD:
a) He had smoked too much grass
b) He tripped out on drugs
c) He brought her to his apartment
d) He showed it off to his fox
e) He became wised up
That guy?? LOL!!
“Given this environment…”
It would help if the commenter had a clue as to what he was commenting on. IUPUI is in downtown Indy. Not in the countryside. The workers would all be from Indy. The breathtakingly goofy anecdotal argument from a century ago has nothing to do with anything in the original post. This comment tops even the most risible, inane babble that we have come to expect from this source.
Let’s see: A survey of prejudice in rural America a century ago, check; the idiotic claims of some obscure, agenda driven pseudo-author about present day Indiana, check (Oh, I forgot, colleges are known for never inviting vacuous collectivist idiots like Ward Churchill to speak….well, never mind); frightening rhetoric using scary terms, like sundown town, check; irrelevant references to the fact that black Americans were not welcome on many university campuses twenty years before the successes of the civil rights movement (more than a half century in the past), check; and finally, the ridiculous summary of this collected garbage: “…are any of you really “shocked” that when all of these elements mixed together in that janitor’s breakroom…”; check please!!!
Finally: “…I’ll grant you that most parties involved probably didn’t get as deep into this topic as I just did…” “…deep…”???!!! WTF?!?! Nothing lights up the night sky like pastels on black velvet like hubris and ignorance in a loving embrace.
This stuff is enough to make me pine for Freeman.
Brad writes:
>>>”It would help if the commenter had a clue as to what he was commenting on. IUPUI is in downtown Indy. Not in the countryside. The workers would all be from Indy.”
First of all, where is your EVIDENCE that “the workers would all be from Indy”? And if even if they all WERE, (and apparently since birth, given your argument), what great racial harmony wonderland is Indy anyway?
>>>”With the influx of Asians and Hispanics into the city in recent years, the 2000 census will no doubt reflect an increase in the percentage of “other non-white,” but Indianapolis has been and continues to be composed primarily of a white majority and a significant black minority.
This clear demarcation has tended to cast race relations in Indianapolis in stark terms, unmediated by the complex mix of cultures typical of other cities. The Ku Klux Klan was notoriously active here in the 1920s, wielding open political influence of a sort that it never achieved elsewhere, including the Deep South. Historically, the city has been racially segregated; even today the public schools operate under a long-standing requirement of court-ordered busing.
As part of the Project on Religion and Urban Culture, The Polis Center has been examining the intersections and divergences of race and religion in Indianapolis. In response to a survey, Indianapolis pastors most often identified racism as the civic problem the religious community needed to confront. Most faiths promote the equality and fraternity of all believers as a central tenet. Yet in practice religious congregations are among the most segregated of institutions.”
http://www.polis.iupui.edu/RUC/Newsletters/Religion/vol4no2.htm
Oh…that’s precious, ain’t it? But I’m not NEARLY done…
>>>”As the Indiana University Hospital and IUPUI undergraduate campus expanded after the early 1960s, the near-Westside’s residents moved to a variety of places. This migration left no clearly defined community in space, and the vibrant living community was often replaced by allusions to stale caricatures. In 2001, for instance, Indiana State Senator Lawrence Borst told the IUPUI student newspaper that he could not understand why IUPUI originally had been placed “in the middle of a black ghetto” (Sagamore 2001). Borst’s missive came in support of a bill he introduces each year to either abolish the University or separate it from its mother campuses. The effort to depreciate the now-disbanded community borrows from centuries of similar campaigns to demean neighborhoods and their residents through racial stereotypes used in the service of “slum clearance” programs (Mayne and Murray 2001:1; Solari 2001:35). Apparently Borst believed that stigmatizing the campus as an impoverished Black space would fuel support for his long-unsuccessful legislation….”
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HQKcThSbDBnysgLrnJLkXkt4cBywTHNT1TJdhBWbYqnJjQphMTWx!-996730584?docId=5002037330
Hey, Brad in those “Sundown Towns”, the Blacks forced to leave were only there temporarily to start with. Indianapolis stepped up to the next level of Black displacement, anti-black derision and comtempt when it came to the VERY campus we’re discussing.
Fascinating, huh? Like I said in the outset–there’s usually more to the story than what’s initially presented.
Brad writes:
>>>”The breathtakingly goofy anecdotal argument from a century ago has nothing to do with anything in the original post. This comment tops even the most risible, inane babble that we have come to expect from this source.”
You still don’t get it, do you Brad? After all these years…all these posts?
A white janitor working at a school deep in an inner-city with a history of racial segregation, displacement and conflict, takes it upon himself to openly read a book entitled ” Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan”, in the presence of his African-American co-workers, and PERSISTED upon reading it in front of his Black co-workers, after apparently being asked on multiple occasions not to.
Come on, Brad. It’s the geriatric version of an Affirmative Action bake sale or a black face party. IMHO, It’s about shock value and 15 minutes of fame on the blogosphere. I’m sure a Fox News appearance is imminent, if it didn’t happen already.
I would bet good money that this incident wasn’t the FIRST provocative act in Mr. Sampson’s custodial career.
jsingood writes:
>>>”The African-Americans in question MIGHT well have acted within the letter of a poorly written Indiana “law,” but this case merely goes to show how these particular individuals, misguided laws such as these, and proponents of such legislation and witch-hunting, have long ago left the realm of rationality, common sense, fairness, equality and reasonable behavior.”
IMHO, “common sense” doesn’t include a white person whipping out a book, with ‘KKK’ on the jacket in a room full of Black people. That’s needlessly spoiling for a conflict.
IMHO, “reasonable behavior”, would include actually respecting the sensitivities of those sharing the break room with you who have voiced offense about your actions.
MJ writes:
>>>”Apparently reading a book about Notre Dame should be considered racially offensive because Notre Dame has a “non-glamorous” history regarding race”.
Depends upon which Notre Dame era. They didn’t have a Black graduate until 1947.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”This seems to fit into the picnic, noose, etc form of thought control.”
“Nooses?” Now we’re back on “nooses?” What is this fascination with the KKK and nooses lately?
Hmmmm….
This blog never ceases to amaze me.
–Cobra
Cobra, that’s fair; you never cease to amaze me either. The only relevant fact here is that some black people tried to railroad someone because they were so ignorant that they didn’t know the difference between a book criticizing the Klan and a book supporting it. Somehow you think that googling events that have nothing whatsoever to do with this incident proves something, and then you call a guy a racist because some loons claimed to be offended by a book he was reading.
Cobra, I’ve decided to play by your rules.
Since every white person who ever existed is guilty of every sin ever committed by any white person anywhere on this earth, every black person is likewise guilty of every sin committed by any black person.
Therefore, I blame you for the epidemic of black crime. I blame you for genocide and tribal hatred in black Africa. I blame you for slavery and war in the Sudan.
And since every white person is suspected of Klan membership, every black person must be suspected of gang membership. What gang are you in? Crips? Bloods? Black Panthers? A lot of blacks are in gangs. So, you must be too.
You must be censured publicly for your involvement in these black crimes. As I said before, you are guilty because of the color of your skin.
You weren’t directly involved? That’s no excuse. You are guilty as charged. We must find a way to punish you financially to deter your kind from continuing to commit these heinous crimes.
IMHO, “common sense” doesn’t include a white person whipping out a book, with ‘KKK’ on the jacket in a room full of Black people. That’s needlessly spoiling for a conflict.
IMHO, sitting and reading a book is not equivalent to “whipping out a book” with the intent to offend, nor is, given the content of said book, at all “spoiling for a conflict.” The only people “spoiling for a conflict” were those “offended” without a rational reason. No reasonable person with an ounce of intelligence would be offended by a book with “the Klan” in the title, because no reasonable person would assume that a book with “the Klan” is pro-KKK as opposed to a book about the historical evils of the KKK. You, and the unreasonable African Americans in this case, are mistaking subject matter and historical facts for some sort of opinion or personal attack. They were looking for a conflict, simply because they get too much mileage out of playing the victim, and enjoy asserting power over non-African Americans on this basis. They are the true bigots here, and the ones truly behaving in a racist, offensive manner. They were even unwilling to listen to an explanation, give the benefit of the doubt, or even provide any sort of logical reasoning for offense.
IMHO, “reasonable behavior”, would include actually respecting the sensitivities of those sharing the break room with you who have voiced offense about your actions.
This does not go both ways? The janitor in this case was shown nothing but disrespect, and was treated in a manner which was both prejudicial and oppressive. He was never given a fair hearing by either the people with whom he shared the breakroom nor by the institution by which he is employed. If we are to legislate “respect”, it must be a two-way street, and the accused has a right to explain himself and not be assumed guilty before any intent to offend has or has not been proven.
jsingood writes:
>>>”IMHO, sitting and reading a book is not equivalent to “whipping out a book” with the intent to offend, nor is, given the content of said book, at all “spoiling for a conflict.” The only people “spoiling for a conflict” were those “offended” without a rational reason. No reasonable person with an ounce of intelligence would be offended by a book with “the Klan” in the title, because no reasonable person would assume that a book with “the Klan” is pro-KKK as opposed to a book about the historical evils of the KKK.”
Stop it. This is the book jacket of the item in question–
http://books.google.com/images/cleardot.gif
Note the imagery—the white hooded throngs gathering in mass beneath the Golden Dome of Notre Dame, with two crosses blazing in the darkness.
C’mon, Jsingood. This Sampson is a middle aged guy studying for a degree in communications, for pete’s sake. You’re going to sit here and tell me that he DIDN’T know the provocative effect of walking into a break room full of black people with a book depicting the Ku Klux Klan and burning crosses?
Sampson doth protest too much, methinks.
jsingood writes:
>>>”The janitor in this case was shown nothing but disrespect, and was treated in a manner which was both prejudicial and oppressive. He was never given a fair hearing by either the people with whom he shared the breakroom nor by the institution by which he is employed.”
Are you kidding me? Do a google search on “Keith John Sampson”, and the right winged blogosphere is propping him up like a modern day Rosa Parks. I’d be shocked if he hasn’t secured a publicist and an agent yet.
IMHO, Sampson knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he chose to bring a book on the KKK to that breakroom.
–Cobra
FTA: Then Sampson got a message ordering him to report to Marguerite Watkins at the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office. He was told a coworker had filed a racial harassment complaint against him for reading Notre Dame vs. the Klan in the break room. Sampson says he tried to explain to Watkins what the book was about. He says he tried to show her the book, but that Watkins showed no interest in seeing it. So “affirmative action” means the black folks’ viewpoint is automatically adopted without any investigation whatsoever.
Cobra, suppose that you brought a book to your workplace about, let’s say, the history of busing. On the cover is a picture of some angry black people. Your white coworkers tell you they don’t want to see that and you have to put it away and not bring it out anymore. You’d apologize and comply immediately, wouldn’t you? Like hell you would.
>>>”The janitor in this case was shown nothing but disrespect, and was treated in a manner which was both prejudicial and oppressive. He was never given a fair hearing by either the people with whom he shared the breakroom nor by the institution by which he is employed.”
Are you kidding me? Do a google search on “Keith John Sampson”, and the right winged blogosphere is propping him up like a modern day Rosa Parks. I’d be shocked if he hasn’t secured a publicist and an agent yet.
The right winged blogosphere is neither “the people with whom he shared the breakroom” nor “the institution by which he is employed”. You have a complete non-sequitur here, which pretty well characterizes all of your communications on this post. The fact is that what was done to this man was indefensible and there’s no logical or coherent point you can make otherwise.
The guy is told not to read his book where people might glance over and see the cover. They don’t care that it’s not what they think, they just want to force him not to read his book. Do you not know bullying when you see it?
This is the cover of the book in question:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0829417710.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Be realistic people, Keith Sampson is probably neither a martyr nor a racist looking to pick a fight. He is probably a guy who wanted to do some reading on a break. Some coworkers took offense to his reading material. I think the relevant question is who’s the idiosyncratic one here–the person who took offense and acted on it or the person reading the book I’d say the person who took offense and then told Lillian Charleston about it because:
- reading a book is not an act targeted at anyone except for the reader
- being offended by the subject matter of a book is in no way alleviated by telling someone to stop reading that book.
That first letter seems so oddly worded to me because of these two points.
Laura writes:
>>>”Cobra, suppose that you brought a book to your workplace about, let’s say, the history of busing. On the cover is a picture of some angry black people. Your white coworkers tell you they don’t want to see that and you have to put it away and not bring it out anymore. You’d apologize and comply immediately, wouldn’t you? Like hell you would.”
Well…you’re right about one thing, Laura–I’m not a person known for backing down when challenged.
But think about what you said–YES, my gut feeling of defiance and sense of Constitutional freedom might flare up.
However, that reaction would reflect more about MYSELF and my own motivations than anything having to do with freedom to read a book about bussing in a work place breakroom, especially if I CONTINUE to do what more than one of my co-workers have voiced offense about.
Laura writes:
>>>”The right winged blogosphere is neither “the people with whom he shared the breakroom” nor “the institution by which he is employed”. You have a complete non-sequitur here, which pretty well characterizes all of your communications on this post.”
The fact that we HAVEN’T heard DIRECTLY from Sampson’s co-workers is indicative of coverage bias. I for one, would love to know what Sampson’s relationship with his black co-workers REALLY is, and if this is the FIRST controversial incident they recall.
Second, were the actions of Keith John Sampson faithful in keeping with the IUPIU Staff Handbook (which is handed out to every employee of the campus?)
>>>”We often speak of IUPUI as being a family. Like members of a family, we have
dedicated ourselves to creating an environment where individuals can succeed
because each person is important. When any one of our members is prevented
from doing her or his best, the entire community is diminished.
Our institutional
ethic compels us to foster the best possible environment for doing our work as
educators, learners, and supporters of the educational process.
Periodically, we
must reaffirm these fundamental ethics and values that form the framework for
our university family.
Among those values is fostering a climate of civility and mutual respect
regardless of race, gender, age, disability or status in the institution. IUPUI has
achieved much of its promise as an urban university because we work together
toward common ends. Because the university is so complex and diverse,
however, we will not always agree with one another. When we disagree it must
be done with civility. We encourage everyone to speak and act judiciously and
with respect for one another.
Also among our values is academic freedom and an open exchange of ideas and
opinions. However, when there are messages displayed that promote
divisiveness in our academic community, we have an obligation to condemn
those messages as being antithetical to our university ideals and sense of shared
responsibility for each other’s welfare. If we are to be true to our commitment to
diversity and be welcoming to all, everyone must do his or her part. We know
the terrible legacy of unopposed statements of racial divisiveness and diatribe. If
we don’t discourage such statements, they become insidiously acceptable and
poison the climate of trust and respect we strive to maintain. When apathy leads
us to permit discrimination or harassment because we ourselves are not objects
of such behavior, we have failed our community.”
http://www.hra.iupui.edu/forms/guides/StaffHandbook.pdf
anon writes:
>>>”I think the relevant question is who’s the idiosyncratic one here–the person who took offense and acted on it or the person reading the book I’d say the person who took offense and then told Lillian Charleston about it because:
- reading a book is not an act targeted at anyone except for the reader
- being offended by the subject matter of a book is in no way alleviated by telling someone to stop reading that book.”
Would you apply that rule to ALL books, magazines, pamphlets, flyers or reading material?
–Cobra
So you would quit reading that hypothetical book about busing because your white coworkers told you to?
I don’t think you would. I don’t think you should. I also don’t think Sampson should have. Is it a free country, or not?
God help us all on the day our sense of Constitutional freedom stops flaring up.
This is what happens when an academic-kook lands herself a real job. You see these kinds of silly antics from the left as from the right. This one, well, it’s not so good on the ears. This lady almost had her cover blown. Nice back-pedalling, though. She got her face back…this time.
You’re going to sit here and tell me that he DIDN’T know the provocative effect of walking into a break room full of black people with a book depicting the Ku Klux Klan and burning crosses?
You are both mis-characterizing his actions and the effect of a book cover. There was no reason for him, or anyone, to assume that a historical book after “evil” or controversial figures in any promotes or endorses said individuals, nor would be “provocative” or intentionally offensive. The African Americans chose to feign offense, or are simply irrational. If anything, it is most usually African Americans that remind us that we should actively engage in building awareness (such as Black History Month) about crimes perpetuated against people of their ethnicity.
Sampson doth protest too much, methinks.
I think it’s obvious it was the African Americans and the AAO that were protesting far too much about absolutely nothing.
jsingood writes:
Are you kidding me? Do a google search on “Keith John Sampson”, and the right winged blogosphere is propping him up like a modern day Rosa Parks. I’d be shocked if he hasn’t secured a publicist and an agent yet.
How does mention of the blogosphere’s interest in this case counter my point that the “janitor in this case was shown nothing but disrespect, and was treated in a manner which was both prejudicial and oppressive. He was never given a fair hearing by either the people with whom he shared the breakroom nor by the institution by which he is employed.”?
Sampson knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he chose to bring a book on the KKK to that breakroom.
You have absolutely nothing rational nor factual upon which to basis this humble opinion.
Laura writes:
>>>”So you would quit reading that hypothetical book about busing because your white coworkers told you to?
I don’t think you would. I don’t think you should. I also don’t think Sampson should have. Is it a free country, or not?”
It is INDEED a free country. You have a First Amendment right to free speech. I also understand that there are many things I’m allowed to say or do that I choose NOT to based upon the situation or environment.
This also apples to jsingood’s claim:
>>>”Cobra:Sampson knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he chose to bring a book on the KKK to that breakroom.”
jsingood: You have absolutely nothing rational nor factual upon which to basis this humble opinion.”
I certainly do. Read the narrative again:
>>>”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.
A few weeks passed…”
http://www.nuvo.net/articles/21st_century_catch22
So on MULTIPLE occasions at the outset, it was made perfectly clear to Sampson that what he was doing was considered objectionable by his co-workers. This was even brought to his attention by the shop steward of his union.
Apparently, based upon the narrative, Sampson continued openly reading this book about KKK day after day for “a few weeks”, despite the voiced discomfort of his co-workers.
By the narrative, Sampson KNEW he had a controversy the moment his shop steward said so, yet he continued his behavior anyway. IMHO, Sampson was the one who disrespected the sensivities of his co-workers, and not vice-versa.
jsingood writes:
>>>”You are both mis-characterizing his actions and the effect of a book cover. There was no reason for him, or anyone, to assume that a historical book after “evil” or controversial figures in any promotes or endorses said individuals, nor would be “provocative” or intentionally offensive.”
You’re not paying attention to current events if you believe that. This is Bushamerica. Patriot Act and stuff?
Case in point:
>>>”Sections Affecting Libraries
Title II: Advanced Surveillance Procedures
Section 215: Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the FBI to obtain court order without probable cause from a secret court for the production of “any tangible things (including books, record, papers, documents, and other items) for an authorized investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” “Any tangible thing” can include the books you check out in the library and such information can be obtained without your knowledge. Section 215 also forbids persons producing such “tangible things from disclosing to anyone that the FBI ever came calling.”
http://www.libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis748/Studentwebguides/fall02/USAPatriotActConroy.html
The Senate only put expiration limits on it in 2006, but the library provision (and book stores) remains in effect today.
In other words, Big Brother is tracking what you read, and if THEY find the material “objectionable”, you won’t just have African-American custodians and janitors to contend with.
You don’t TRULY have “free speech” in 2008 America, people. You’re one “trigger word” keyed into this blog post or email from….
–Cobra
1 – If somebody is researching how to make a particular type of bomb, and then that particular bomb goes off and kills a bunch of people, I want the feds to be able to track that person.
2 – Why are you, Cobra, not interested in the fact that Sampson’s coworkers would not let him explain that the book was about the KKK being defeated?
3 – They did not have the right to tell him he could not read that book on his break. Even the feds tracking what you read at the library isn’t them telling you that you can’t read what you want.
Can you admit that you’re wrong? The man wanted to read a freaking book. It was nobody’s business. Even the AA person who wrote the first letter backtracked on it. It was wrong and stupid of them to try to make him stop. Furthermore, this may be an example of the kind of bullying behavior HE is accustomed to from THEM.
The fact that black people want a white person to do something, or to stop doing something, does not in and of itself obligate that white person, Cobra. If he’s doing something illegal or harmful, sure. Reading a book? Please.
And one more thing.
This is the kind of thing that causes us white people who really do abhor racism to get more than a bit tired and jaded about hearing about it. Especially when apparently smart people like you, Cobra, defend the indefensible. Your credibility suffers.
anon writes:
>>>”I think the relevant question is who’s the idiosyncratic one here–the person who took offense and acted on it or the person reading the book I’d say the person who took offense and then told Lillian Charleston about it because:
- reading a book is not an act targeted at anyone except for the reader
- being offended by the subject matter of a book is in no way alleviated by telling someone to stop reading that book.”
Cobra:
Would you apply that rule to ALL books, magazines, pamphlets, flyers or reading material?
Yes, I would. Even someone reading Mein Kampf at a public meeting for holocaust survivors is not reading “at” anyone. And if one is offended at the subject matter of a book, one could attempt to censor this subject matter by telling people not to read the book. But the history of the KKK does not cease to exist just because people stop reading books about it.
I am not even considering the infringement of personal liberty or freedom of thought involved in a public school official requiring an employee to stop reading a book around certain people.
Also from Cobra:
“Apparently, based upon the narrative, Sampson continued openly reading this book about KKK day after day for “a few weeks”, despite the voiced discomfort of his co-workers.”
Actually if you read the article again, the article only shows one instance when Sampson read the book at work. “A few weeks” passed between the incident when his AFSCME shop steward and another coworker expressed concern that he was bringing the book to work, and when Sampson got a message from the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office.
Basically, you’re making up the fact that he constantly brought the book to work, even when he knew it was offending people. There’s nothing in the article to suggest that he read the book at work after he found out it offended people.
Maybe you should read the article before correcting someone else about its contents?
You’re not paying attention to current events if you believe that. This is Bushamerica. Patriot Act and stuff?
How on Earth do your perceptions of GW Bush or the Patriot Act have anything to do with the injustice in this particular case? Why do you at all assume that understanding that a book about the Klan is not necessarily the same as a book promoting the Klan be any indication that I am not informed about other current events, including the President and legislation passed?
In other words, Big Brother is tracking what you read, and if THEY find the material “objectionable”, you won’t just have African-American custodians and janitors to contend with.
And, even if one agrees with your assessment of this particular act, then one injustice justifies a completely different one? I don’t understand this “logic” one bit. You’re merely avoiding the subject at hand by going off on a tangent about something else.
You don’t TRULY have “free speech” in 2008 America, people.
Yet all this criticism of the Patriot Act and Bush continues unabated. It doesn’t really seem like free speech is being stifled by “Bushamerica” one iota.
Cobra,
When in a hole, stop digging.
anon writes:
>>>”Basically, you’re making up the fact that he constantly brought the book to work, even when he knew it was offending people. There’s nothing in the article to suggest that he read the book at work after he found out it offended people.”
I’m not making up any FACTS. That’s why I said “Apparently, based upon the narrative.” All the details of this account are coming from one JOURNALIST,(David Hoppe of the Nuvo http://www.nuvo.net/profiles/hoppe/ ) and the copies of the letters from Lillian Charleston at the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office.
Like I said before, I would LIKE to hear from the other principals in the storyline before taking David Hobbes of the Indy Nuvo as the inerrant word of God.
anon writes:
>>>”Yes, I would. Even someone reading Mein Kampf at a public meeting for holocaust survivors is not reading “at” anyone.”
Of course it is, anon. Who are you kidding here? When you consciously CHOOSE to do something that you KNOW will upset, inflame or incite discomfort for others around you, the CONSEQUENCES of said action reflects back on YOU, not the aggreived.
Laura writes:
>>>”The fact that black people want a white person to do something, or to stop doing something, does not in and of itself obligate that white person, Cobra. If he’s doing something illegal or harmful, sure. Reading a book? Please.”
Where do you draw the line, Laura?
Note to readers: on the website where the article in question is printed, there is a letter to the editor from an individual named “Keith John Sampson” dated March 6, 2008. I have no idea if this letter is authentic, but if it is…perhaps it lends a little insight as to how “innocuous” this janitor’s breakroom reading habits are:
>>>”The A.A.O. knew where I was coming from when I told them Martin Luther King was killed in a conspiracy and that I had read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” three times for inspiration. My attempt to show them Mr. Tucker’s anti-Klan history book was spurned. But I will not let the A.A.O. define me. In 1968, five months after MLK’s murder, I did vandalize a headquarters of the racist presidential candidate, George Wallace. I painted Hitler mustaches on his posters and swastikas all over the building. In “69″ I made the “trip” to “Woodstock”. In the 70′s I faced five years in prison for draft resistance and became a Yippie! In 1999 I wrote in the IUPUI Sagamore that the confederate flag stood for, “racism and slavery”. In 2003,I spent two days in “solitary” after being arrested, on the circle, for peacefully protesting Bush boy’s immoral invasion of Iraq. Yes, I have flaws in my character. I’ve been working on the same degree for twenty years. I can be crude, indomitable, sarcastic and so shy at times that I lose my voice if I meet a woman I’m truly attracted to. And No, Jesus is not my personal savior! Yet, I do not prey on children, stalk women, or “preach hate”.”
http://www.nuvo.net/articles/21st_century_catch22
If this letter is authentic, which I don’t have anyway of knowing…but if it IS, this Sampson guy fits nicely into the picture I painted upthread:
Cobra writes:
>>>”I would bet good money that this incident wasn’t the FIRST provocative act in Mr. Sampson’s custodial career.”
–Cobra
It looks to me like the man is painting a picture of himself as a non-racist.
I’m not sure what your point is, Cobra. Because you disapprove of him as a person, you want him to not be allowed to read his book? Everybody isn’t as gentle and nonprovocative and quick to back down as you apparently are. If they were, there’d have been no civil rights movement.
Laura writes:
>>>”It looks to me like the man is painting a picture of himself as a non-racist.
I’m not sure what your point is, Cobra. Because you disapprove of him as a person, you want him to not be allowed to read his book?”
My point on this thread has NEVER been that a janitor should be prevented from reading a book.
My point on this thread has been that this janitor has been made into Joan of Arc for trying to get a rise out of his co-workers and draw attention to himself.
My point on the Patriot Act, particularly Title II Section 215 is that it’s FALSE to assume you can simply check out or buy ANY book you want without repercussions.
So when you write:
>>>”They did not have the right to tell him he could not read that book on his break. Even the feds tracking what you read at the library isn’t them telling you that you can’t read what you want.”
It’s not exactly true on two counts.
1- They didn’t ask him to stop reading the book.
>>>”Sampson was ordered to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of his coworkers and, when reading the book, to sit apart from them.”
There is a distinction.
2- You’re doggone right that by “tracking” me, and registering me on some “watch list” the Federal government IS INDEED telling me what I can and cannot read. Ask the 2nd Amendment-o-philes on this blog what they believe “registration” leads to.
And Laura, don’t get me wrong. You know from what I post here that I can hardly be described as “gentle” and “nonprovocative”, but the difference is that I don’t actually have to DEAL with anybody here in the 3-D world.
Could you imagine if Stephen, E and myself were janitors in a breakroom and constantly evoked our first amendment rights, without any apparent PERSONAL DISCRETION or DECORUM, and without regard to our fellow janitors just trying to enjoy a peaceful lunch?
I would bet the shop steward would be called in a whole lot more than once in that scenario.
–Cobra
“trying to get a rise out of his co-workers and draw attention to himself.”
That’s his coworker’s POV. Read the second letter – he disagrees. Why do you assume they’re right and he’s in the wrong?
You know, most grownups know what to do when they think somebody’s trying to get a rise out of them. You know what to do. It’s the same way you treat a toddler who’s throwing a temper tantrum. You turn your back. I’ve squelched more provocative behavior than I can tell you about, simply by not responding to it. It’s not fun if it’s not responded to. So since we’re parsing Sampson’s motives and attitude here, and spelling out exactly how he should act for perfect harmony with his fellow men, how about sparing a thought for his coworkers who if they didn’t like the dust jacket on his book, could have averted their eyes? Is all of the burden for correct behavior on him?