<p>Colleges routinely violate the first, fifth, and sixth Amendments to the Constitution. I’m sure they would violate the third, too, if they could. (That is, they would be violating these portions of the Bill of Rights if they were government entities).</p>
<p>Were it not for the fear of being publicly sanctioned and humiliated by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) does anyone have the slightest doubt that the intimidating tactics of the Office of Affirmative Action at IU/Purdue would have had their way with Mr. Sampson?</p>
<p>A 50 year old janitor trying to better himself and perhaps his station in life (his personal ambition to better himself may have caused some of the obvious resentment exhibited by his easily peeved co-workers in janitorial services).</p>
<p>It seems to me that there is a political mindset to many of these chesty administrators of public morality. In fact, they seem to be little different than their forebears amongst the clergy; acting less as public servants than as deacons of the church. </p>
<p>This, it seems to me, is the most apt analogy: Deacons.</p>
<p>I still can’t get over the insanity of this case. Those letters from Lillian Charleston are indefensible. The charge itself is idiotic, and if anyone has been “harrassed”, it is Mr. Sampson himself. I say this as a 51 yr. old black woman who has seen racism and discrimination up close and in person. The alleged incidents of this case don’t even come close:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Yes. I do. One dumb OAA does not a mandate make. You have a thread full of both conservative and liberal types agreeing here that this was a ridiculous action, so I’m figuring that the school was not bereft of someone with a brain who also would have responded had this not been dealt with. Failing that, the ACLU was also on the case (as FIRE itself documents.) I have faith in most folks having some common sense, when push comes to shove.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t get how anyone can feel harassed by someone reading this book. It is not only African-Americans that have been discriminated against. I was an immigrant and didn’t speak English when I came from a then-Communist country during the Cold War. A lot of the kids thought I was a commie spy, and was called all kinds of names. My food was different, my traditions, were different and my clothes and hair were different.If I saw someone reading a book about how someone had fought and overcome the persecution of my people, I would have been thrilled! Those are stories to be remembered, and repeated. The fighters should be heroes, not subject of derision. But apparently common sense prevailed here. Thank heaven! But look at what they janitor had to go through before he was vindicated.</p>
<p>Bay, what is the relevance of this information to the case?</p>
<p>Is there any suggestion anywhere that Sampson approved of the KKK? that the book he was reading celebrated the KKK?</p>
<p>From what I read, no one in this case but Mr. Sampson read what was in the book. They refused. The mere mention of the KKK on the book cover was enough to set them off. In the name of not feeling offended, they proposed to curtail his freedom to read, which is protected by the US Constitution (not feeling offended is not a right under any law).</p>
<p>AAOs have the job of protecting the rights of minorities, not trampling on others’ right. Charleston’s behavior was a real disgrace. Good thing she retired. She caused enough damage to the institution she served.</p>
<p>Here is IUPUI’s Statement of Values. It seems that Charleston put collegiality above “open enquiry.” </p>
<p>I think it is important to put incidents such as this one in context. As you yourself just stated, “the mere mention of the KKK on the book cover was enough to set them off.” Perhaps I am naive, but I like to think that most people would not go to the lengths that Sampson’s co-workers and supervisors did over a book cover, for absolutely no reason. The fact that an active KKK organization exists close to home for these people, certainly provides me with more understanding for their reactions.</p>
<p>Additionally, a mural on the Indiana University campus depicts the KKK in Indiana history. You can see it here: [“Parks</a>, the Circus, the Klan, the Press” in Its Contexts](<a href=“http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/benton/]"Parks”>http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/benton/) It has also been a source of controversy for Black students at the university.</p>
<p>I can imagine a scenerio in which a black co-worker said, “I can’t stand looking at that picture of Klansmen and burning crosses; could you please put that book away?” If the guy then responded rudely, or refused to put a paper cover on the book, or something, there might be a case. I can imagine a Jewish co-worker not wanting to look daily at the cover of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” because of the large swastika on the cover, for example. But the letters written here don’t suggest that anything like this happened. So either the claims were ridiculous (most likely), or a more valid complaint was handled incompetently.</p>
<p>To the contrary. If the facts recited in the letter are credible, this is what transpired:</p>
<p>“…You demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic. You contend that you weren’t aware of the offensive nature of the topic…”</p>
<p>Bay, did you even READ the ADL article? They speak of Klan rallies, but the marchers number only 50 people. (I guess Thanksgiving dinner in many families should be called a rally.)
Did you see the picture of a pathetic group of in-bred, potbellied men in ridiculous costumes? The KKK is virtually universally reviled in the US. You are trying desperately to paint a picture of black janitors fearing for their lives as they leave the Purdue campus – Klansmen hiding behind every bush. Fact is, the ND vs. KKK confrontation dealt a major blow to a large & powerful hate group decades ago. That’s why a Klan rally is lucky to have 50 members marching today. Americans hate them. Our courts & law enforecment agents will protect their victims. What a shame that the janitors & the administrators weren’t interested in the history,</p>
<p>The letters refer only to the topic of the book that he was reading; not to the picture on the cover, and not to any behavior or statement of his except for actually reading the book. If there was anything else to the incident, the letters were very incompetently drafted. It seems more likely that they were based on a wrongheaded belief that just reading a book on a topic that somebody else didn’t like could be considered harassing behavior, and that’s pretty much what the second letter admits, while seeming to threaten the reader with action if he does some other acts in the future that he isn’t accused of doing.</p>
<p>“most people would not go to the lengths that Sampson’s co-workers and supervisors did over a book cover, for absolutely no reason”</p>
<p>I think the reason is the mistaken belief that learning about evil is the same as condoning or tolerating evil. This is an extremely common mistake made by people all over the political spectrum.</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt that if a co-worker had asked the janitor to cover the image with paper, it would have been unreasonable for him to refuse. But we haven’t seen anything supporting the idea that that happened.</p>