<p>People are entitled to do a lot of things in this country that are offensive to others. It is up to each individual to decide how far to take his/her case when s/he feels s/he has been denied the opportunity to do so.</p>
<p>In this case, the reader’s decision to enforce his right to read an offensive book (and yes, it was offensive to his co-workers) would most certainly result in ill-will at his work place. If he intends to keep his job, then he will have to face these same co-workers and supervisors every day. Is living with the ensuing ill-will worth it to him, so that he can read this book in the break room? If it is, then by all means, he should go for it. But not every little wrong in life is worth fighting for.</p>
<p>Now, I’ve seen it all! I’m really afraid for the future of our country when something this ludicrous achieves as much traction as this case has.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly! With the exception of the student who brought the book to work, everyone involved in the case—from the brain dead accuser, to the supervisors in charge, to the dumb as a hair sandwich Affirmative Action Officer should be completely disassociated from this place of higher learning.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>What we do know is that one, he is a student. Two, he is studying a book which manifestly does not support the KKK. Why would we even speculate that he himself does?</p>
<p>Well, everyone here seems to think it is obvious that the book is NOT offensive, so there must be some reason why the co-workers found it offensive. I was just throwing out ideas for why that might be so.</p>
<p>As on the other thread, I post for your consideration a link to the cover of the book in question:
[Amazon</a> Online Reader : Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0829417710/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link]Amazon”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0829417710/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link)
I can imagine a scenario in which a co-worker objected to seeing that image. If the reader responded in a dismissisve way, I suppose there might be a slender reed on which to found a harassment case, but the initial letter to the guy only mentioned reading the book itself, so that’s pretty doubtful.</p>
<p>No, Bay. This is one of your several posts suggesting that the student was in the wrong. You did more than throw hypotheses as to why the co-workers should feel offended. At no time did you defend his right to read his book, nor did you even bother, as some of us did, to find out what the book was about.</p>
<p>I, for one, cannot imagine why anyone would object to that image. Next, the very word 'slavery" will need to be banned because it might cause African-Americans pain.
And what about Japanese Internment or the Rape of Nanjing, or the Holocaust? Are these topics out of bound?</p>
<p>Honestly, either we have free speach in this society or we don’t.
This is what happens when we start down the path of equivocating on basic constitutional rights.</p>
<p>Oh please, marite, for some reason you are trying to make me into the bad guy over this controversy. I said this way back in post #7:
And how do you know I didn’t “bother” to find out what the book is about? The title of the book itself describes its content. </p>
<p>I could similarly accuse you of taking a biased view of the situation by failing to fathom that there might be two sides to this story, or that Black residents of Indiana might very well have reason to be offended or threatened by images of the KKK. Perhaps I’m just simply more sensitive than you are to the feelings of racism by others - I cannot imagine continuing to offend people, when I can easily avoid it.</p>
<p>I’m not an employment lawyer, but I know that employees do NOT have the same free speech rights as citizens in general. You can be fired on insubordination grounds for things that you say on the job, or for divulging company secrets, or for slandering your company, and for verbally harassing fellow employees. The rules are different in the work place.</p>
<p>* not an employment lawyer, but I know that employees do NOT have the same free speech rights as citizens in general. You can be fired on insubordination grounds for things that you say on the job, or for divulging company secrets, or for slandering your company, and for verbally harassing fellow employees. The rules are different in the work place.*</p>
<p>You can even be fired for legal things you do in your free time if they are a private employer.</p>
<p>So? It is still active. No one has ever said it was dead. It is a heinous organization. But only by learning about it can we combat it. However, considering the African-American leaders want more education in order to help the situation, shutting this down will do more harm than good. It brings to mind Marion Anderson, who, even though she was a once-in-100-years contralto voice, and the most well-known African-American in the world, traveled the world, sang in opera houses all over, when she was denied the right to sing in Constitution Hall, even though the White House was behind her, and thousands of supporters, both black and white, she opted not to fight the decision. Instead, she calmly scheduled a free concert at the Lincoln Memorial, and when she came to the mike, instead of making a statement, she sang “America the Beautiful.” That story still lives, and said more about the situation than any words could." It brought about more unity, not division. And this is what this action does. It divides. Instead of looking for understanding and talking about it, we now probably have another young person who thinks political correctness is ridiculous. A case of taking a good thing, going overboard with it and ruining it.</p>
<p>Lillian Charleston, the chief affirmative action officer, apparently rethought the wording of the initial letter in which Mr. Sampson had been accused of continuing, despite complaints “to read a book on this inflammatory topic.”</p>
<p>In February, there was a second “clarifying” letter sent to Sampson and signed once more by Charleston. From the WSJ article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ I tend to agree that if there had been much more to this in terms of harrassment, that the initial letter would have stated it. It is clear is that the university backtracked on the main point of the initial accusation. Now they are left making mysterious accusations about Sampson’s behavior, trying to move the focus of the story away from their indefensible first position. As to whether there was more to the story as far as Sampson’s motivations- anything is possible, although no evidence to that effect has come to light. However, there was no excuse for the school’s handling of the matter.</p>
<p>ejr1, you asked “where is the ACLU?” I believe that if you reread the article you will note that they got involved and defended the young man.</p>
<p>Re the Marian Anderson story, also note that Eleanor Roosevelt resigned from the DAR, which was the organization that would not let Anderson sing, and she was also, if I’m not mistaken, the person who arranged for the Lincoln Memorial to be used instead. (I think this what you alluded to in saying that the White House was behind her.) Which does not take away from Anderson’s actions, but emphasizes that public leadership in a positive, inclusive direction is also important. Something we are sorely lacking at the moment…</p>
<p>Here is a copy of the original letter that went out to Mr. Sampson who, by the way, is not a typical student at Indiana U. He is a janitorial employee in his 50s, who has been taking course part time at the university.</p>