<p>Can reading a book on racism be racist?</p>
<p>From todays WSJ
By, DOROTHY RABINOWITZ</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hypersensitivity of other kind</p>
<p>Claim: Kids who say ‘yuck’ may be racist</p>
<p>LONDON, July 7 (UPI) – Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.</p>
<p>The London-based National Children’s Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday.</p>
<p>The guide, titled Young Children and Racial Justice, warns adults that babies must also be included in the effort to eliminate racism because they have the ability to “recognize different people in their lives.”</p>
<p>The bureau says to be aware of children who “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuck’.”</p>
<p>[Claim:</a> Kids who say ‘yuck’ may be racist](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20080707-122008-1071&show_article=1]Claim:”>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20080707-122008-1071&show_article=1)</p>
<p>Seems that some klan members might be on the schools payroll of some sort.</p>
<p>This nursery school guide also advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for children calling names such as “blackie" and “Packie.” How ridiculous to lump in a real ugly action, like the name calling, with something as innocent as not liking the taste of a particular food. (Shocking that toddlers would turn their noses up at food! LOL!) So instead of focusing on a real problem that might be encountered by the teachers, the report is a monstrously long waste of paper that will likely be tossed in the trash.</p>
<p>The KKK vs. Notre Dame story is a fascinating & inspiring one. The Klan was very powerful in Indianna, and in fact, tried to purchase Valparaiso University. The idea of an affirmative action officer banning the reading of books at Purdue is frightening. And how ironic that the book in question was a celebration of righteous young men fighting the KKK!</p>
<p>Woodwork:</p>
<p>The story absolutely boggles the mind! That Affirmative Action officer should be fired.</p>
<p>Harassment has been defined by the courts to include a “hostile work environment.” Obviously, co-workers felt offended and uncomfortable enough around the book at work that they reported it to their supervisors, who may have erroneously (or not) concluded that it created a “hostile” environment for others. </p>
<p>The sad part is that the offending employee didn’t have the consideration to understand this and just not read it at work, or cover it, thus avoiding making it into a bigger ordeal.</p>
<p>Using your logic, Bay, an employee reading Martin Luther KIng Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail would be creating a hostile work environment. As Cut theCrapola states, only a Klansman would be uncomfortble around the book in question.</p>
<p>According to the linked article, the co-workers who were offended were Black. Apparently, the Ku Klux Klan is still alive and well in Indiana, so the book was likely a daily reminder to them of that fact.</p>
<p>MLK’s writings would also be a daily reminder of civil rights violations. And I could go on and on with examples of books that would offend others for thousands of reasons. That is no reason to ban books. And it certainly is foolish to claim that a co-worker reading a book quietly on his break is creating a “hostile” environment. I can’t believe you don’t see the irony in this situation!</p>
<p>You are right, I don’t see the irony. I see workers offended by a book with the title of “Ku Klux Klan” on it. Is this different from a poster with a picture of the Ku Klux Klan on it? How about a T-shirt that says “Ku Klux Klan?” Those items displayed at work could certainly be deemed to create a hostile environment. At the same time, I recognize peoples’ rights to read whatever they want. My point is that the entire issue could have been avoided if the reader had had the courtesy to respect his co-workers feelings by simply not reading it in front of them. I don’t think that is too much to expect from a fellow co-worker.</p>
<p>If you cannot distinguish between a book that apparently celebrates triumph over the Ku Klux Klan from a T-shirt that would proclaim allegiance to or at least admiration for the KKK, then there is no hope. Everything that has ever been written about the Civil Rights movement is off-limit.
If his co-workers were offended, they needed to be made to understand what the content of the book is about.
So much for free speech. So much for truth and knowledge. A student. At a top university. Is fired for reading a scholarly book. What were we celebrating on July 4 again?</p>
<p>And how about Ann Frank’s diary offending jewish people???</p>
<p>Bay - you are totally off on this one.</p>
<p>Youre loosing me here, Bay.</p>
<p>As you would seem to have it, reading William Shires Decline and Fall of the Third Reich would be offensive behavior on a university campus (because it refers to the Third Reich) if Jews were present.</p>
<p>Runcimans books on the Crusades would be a woeful reminder of a troubled past to Muslims.</p>
<p>Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, would upset some highly sensitive Native American.</p>
<p>A book on Mao would be too much to take for a potentially unstable Chinese employee on campus.</p>
<p>A book with Stalins picture on the cover would ruin the work environment of a touchy Russian co-ed.</p>
<p>How about Darwin unnerving a fundamentalist Christian?
Ok, or no?</p>
<p>In the end all books would have to be covered with grocery bags to prevent those loaded with resentment from having their feelings hurt in a learning environment.</p>
<p>If you are easily offended, pick your employment appropriate to your emotional constitution. </p>
<p>Universities are what they are…and they do what they do.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>According to the article, there has actually been no long-lasting “triumph” over the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana. Using your logic, how about a T-shirt worn by a supervisor that says “Ku Klux Klan” in all caps on the front, and in tiny 10-point letters on the back says “may they burn in h*ll.” Would that be okay? How about a poster in the break room with a picture of a noose and burning cross, surrounded by the KKK in robes, with a tiny caption in red that says “thank God they are history!” Would that be okay?</p>
<p>The determination of what constitutes “hostile” is made using subjective, not objective standards. The fact that co-workers apparently voiced their objections to the book is prima facie evidence that it was offensive.</p>
<p>Yes, it is different from a T-shirt with the words “Ku Klux Klan” on it. Obviously so. Such a t-shirt, with no other explanation, could easily be considered to be supportive. A book about the fight against the Klan is obviously not.
What is unclear about this?</p>
<p>Maybe a complaint using the word “racism” should be considered offensive, too. AFter all, racism is bad, right? So using the word, in any context, must be wrong.</p>
<p>It is not unclear to ME, what the content of the offending book was. But what I think is irrelevant to the feelings of the Black janitorial staff at Indiana University. Determinations of harassment are made in context. I’m also not saying that a court would NECESSARILY deem the existence of the book in the break room to be hostile. I’m merely pointing out that a case could be made for it, and that the entire controversy could have easily been avoided if the reader had put the book away. It is difficult for me to believe that he would have been harmed in any significant way by doing this.</p>
<p>If I’m a student working full time, break may be my time to study. Just putting the book away might not be so simple. (I know my full time working students have a severe shortage of study time, many do so at work when they can.)</p>
<p>If they didn’t know what the book was about, it might have been instructive to ask, rather than assuming–wrongly.</p>
<p>In large part racism is fueled by ignorance and the perpetuation of stereotypes. Education and understanding go a long way toward breaking down racial barriers and promoting true tolerance. I find this episode to be a giant step backward in that process. How many people will say, “why bother?”</p>
<p>The case being made by complainant is based upon ignorance. The union representative was all too glad to take the side of ignorance. Likewise, the assistant affirmative action officer backed up that ignorance. Finally, the chief affirmative action officer ruled in favor of ignorance by demanding that Mr. Sampson stop educating himself in front of Ms. Williams so that she can remain ignorant rather than overcoming her feelings of racial hostility through education. When ignorance wins, we all lose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you. There are often other factors at play in these types of cases, that are not reported in newspaper articles. For example, the co-workers may have disliked this particular employee, and unjustly complained about him. Or, the reader of the book may have, in fact, said things or displayed other indications of his support for the KKK. We will probably never know.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But why should he? Yes, controversy could have been avoided. But isn’t he entitled to read his book? What about his freedom of speech, which includes freedom to read? Why assume a priori that the workers were right to complain about a book on the basis of a title that said nothing about the perspectives of the author or of the reader?</p>
<p>The book, from the reviews I’ve glanced at, describes an incident that took place between ND students and members of the KKK in 1924. Since, at the time, the KKK was against Catholics as well as against African-Americans and Jews, there are plenty of constituencies who could be offended. Why stop at African-Americans?</p>