University apologizes to student after accusing him of … “openly reading” a book

posted at 7:33 pm on July 15, 2008 by Allahpundit

Behold the ne plus ultra of campus tolerance, in which the act of reading scholarly material now constitutes an actionable offense. Our culprit? A student-janitor named Keith Sampson. His weapon? “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.” The charge? Racial harassment, for thoughtlessly brandishing this anti-Klan book with an image of Klansmen on the cover where others might see it. The AP story describes what happens next, but to get the full Orwellian flavor you need to read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed. Quote:

Mr. Sampson stood accused of “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers.” The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this “inflammatory topic.”…

Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.

The charge of, ahem, “openly reading” was dropped after FIRE made a stink — but the accusation of “conduct” amounting to racial harassment wasn’t. What was that conduct? Back to Rabinowitz:

What that conduct was, the affirmative action officer did not reveal – but she had delivered the message rewriting the history of the case. Absolutely and for certain there had been no problem about any book he had been reading…

This means, I asked one [school official], that Mr. Sampson could have been reading about the adventures of Jack and Jill and he still would have been charged? Yes. What, then, was the offense? “Harassing behavior.” While reading the book? The question led to careful explanations hopeless in tone – for good reason – and well removed from all semblance of reason. What the behavior was, one learned, could never be revealed.

There was, of course, no other offensive behavior; had there been any it would surely have appeared in the first letter’s gusher of accusation. Like those prosecutors who invent new charges when the first ones fail in court, the administrators threw in the mysterious harassment count.

They were embarrassed at being exposed by FIRE (and the ACLU, believe it or not) so they evidently decided to save face by smearing Sampson with a whispering campaign about other, unspecified instances of “harassment” he’s supposedly guilty of — and as an Orwellian flourish, according to this FIRE post, they won’t even tell Sampson himself what the charges are. I’m honestly speechless, if not surprised. Do note the parallel, though, with the uproar over the New Yorker cover. In both cases, despite the authors’ good faith being clear to all but the most abject imbecile, the “progressive” instinct is to protect the imbecile and punish the author by suppressing his work. It’s a more benign (but not much more) version of the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, except instead of terrorists exercising the heckler’s veto, this time it’s idiots. Exit quotation: “Take that, you broad-minded and humorous rabble!”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

smellthecoffee-

…swiftboat Obama?

I heard Barry is trying to get three Purple Hearts for shooting himself in the foot so often this past week.

Maybe that’s it?

profitsbeard on July 16, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Burn the books.

Johan Klaus on July 16, 2008 at 12:41 AM

But.

Am I the only one who thinks, even if he had the right to do so (which he did), it was a really bad idea to sit in a breakroom, around African-American coworkers (if memory serves me correctly), reading a book with a Klan picture on the front?

cs89 on July 15, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Yes. You fucking idiot.

Since you didn’t read the actual story, let me help you: the book is about a bunch of 1920s Notre Dame students who successfully fought against Indiana KKK members. I can’t believe it’s not required reading at IUPUI.

Jaibones on July 15, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Well, hello to you too!

A. I did read about this, a while back. I attempted to qualify my statements because I didn’t REREAD it before I posted.

B. The part of my comment you chose not to address did point out that he had the right to read this book if he wanted to.

C. My point is… after your, um, aggressive reaction, I think I’ll type real slow to make sure you get it… in my opinion, most semi-cognizant individuals would realize that reading a book with a Klan picture on the cover would have the potential to provoke a different reaction from a book with pictures of say, cute little puppies on the cover. Even if the content is anti-Klan.

Sorry if I was unclear in my point. Feel free to disagree with it if you wish.

I would appreciate not being called a f- i- in the future, if you don’t mind.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM

(Hey, we’re all ignorant of something.)

baldilocks on July 15, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Yes, but trouble is, some are ignorant of all things.

soundingboard on July 16, 2008 at 1:02 AM

You uaed a lot of the words from that AP atory, Allah! Prepare to be sued!

TheBlueSite on July 16, 2008 at 1:04 AM

I take it back…I guess you quoted another piece. I’m out of it- ignore me.

TheBlueSite on July 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM

Of course, White out, White noise, and White lie, all those are OK.

MB4 on July 15, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Only three examples?
Smells of a Whitewash.

.

soundingboard on July 16, 2008 at 1:20 AM

What the fuck exactly, is an “Affirmative Action Officer”?
It’s one of the most absurd constructs I have ever heard of. Gettin pretty sick of the red tide.

Fishoutofwater on July 16, 2008 at 1:50 AM

But he’s already on probation. . .

Ok, in that case, he’s on double SECRET probation!

Wind Rider on July 16, 2008 at 2:07 AM

Maybe I’m unclear on the terms of use here, but what’s with all the f- words on this thread?

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 2:10 AM

Ah university fascism. And people wonder why I hate school.

TheUnrepentantGeek on July 16, 2008 at 2:23 AM

Ahhh, higher learning*.

*so long as you only ingest the PC, slanted, liberal propaganda force fed to you by us.

-This message brought to you by the Universities of America.

Sorry, getting in trouble for reading a book is just plain stupid. Even if he was reading a book called ‘Go Klan, Go!’ he shouldn’t have been troubled since it is possible to read what the other side is saying. The whole ‘know your enemy’ thing.

It’s too bad people are more comfortable acting immediately and irrationally than actually engage in a conversation to see what the guy is up to with the book. They might have learned something.

MannyT-vA on July 16, 2008 at 5:25 AM

Just another “Huck Finn” moment. Never mind that Huck Finn was an absolutely brilliant story about how stupid racists are. Ban it because someone who’s never read it might be offended.

Squiggy on July 16, 2008 at 6:10 AM

wow…….just, wow.

Alden Pyle on July 16, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Thus concludes today’s lesson in duckspeaking. Yesterday, we had the cover of The New Yorker. There will be a test on Friday. Be sure to study!

Kafir on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 AM

It makes me wonder why we spend so much money to send our kids to college? Once they get there, they are exposed to PC, Liberal BS and dont forget visits from Imanutjob from Iran.

ugh

becki51758 on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 AM

http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/minutes/Minutes_IFC_4-1-08.htm

Indianapolis Faculty Council (IFC)

Minutes

April 1, 2008 ~ IH 100 ~ 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.

Faculty and Guests Present: William Agbor Baiyee, Hasan Akay, Deborah Allen, Rachel Applegate, Sarah Baker, James Baldwin, Trudy Banta, Charles Bantz, Robert Barrows, Margaret Bauer, Terry Baumer, Anne Belcher, Teri Belecky-Adams, Ed Berbari, Jacqueline Blackwell, Bonnie Blazer-Yost, Ann O’Bryan (for Polly Boruff-Jones), Ben Boukai, Won Kyoo Cho, James Clack, Janice Cox, Andre De Tienne, Marsha Ellett, Scott Evenbeck, Mary L. Fisher, David Ford, Danita Forgey, Sharon Hamilton, John Hassell, Bill Heller, Jay Howard, Shelley Hunter, Marilyn Irwin, Henry Karlson, Kathy Lay (representative), David Lewis, Greg Lindsey, Chris Long, Joyce MacKinnon, Anna McDaniel, Henry Merrill, Mike Moore, Bart Ng, C. Subah Packer, William Potter, Mary Riner, Bob Sandy, Roger Schmenner, William Schneider, Jodi Smith, Martin Spechler, Uday Sukhatme, Susan Sutton, Terri Tarr, Mark Urtel, Rosalie Vermette, Suosheng Wang, Richard Ward, Jeff Watt, Corinne Wheeler, Robert White, Frank Witzmann, Marianne Wokeck, Nancy Young, Weiming Yu, and Oner Yurtseven

Agenda Item IV: Updates/Remarks from the Chancellor

Chancellor Bantz gave the following report:

· Thanked Fisher and Vermette for filling in the roles of Vice President and President as well as thanking Ng for taking on the deanship of the School of Science.

· Affirmative Action: The Chancellor spoke to the recent action by the Affirmative Action Office regarding staff member, Keith Sampson. He stated there was no question there was a mistake in sending the first letter. The second letter sent withdrew the first letter and made clear there was no finding in the case and therefore, nothing placed in the staff member’s file. This is not a matter of litigation. He intended this spring to begin a review of the office procedures. At the end of this month, an external reviewer will look at the office and procedures. He agrees the office needs to be more successful in a number of places. The search continues for the new Director of Equal Opportunity. When the report is received for that office, it will be reviewed by the IFC which will show the number of cases the office reviews each year.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 16, 2008 at 8:28 AM

Because it is important to look at the face of evil, here is Chacellor Bantz:
Bantz

pabarge on July 16, 2008 at 8:29 AM

They were embarrassed at being exposed by FIRE (and the ACLU, believe it or not) so they evidently decided to save face by smearing Sampson with a whispering campaign about other, unspecified instances of “harassment” he’s supposedly guilty of…

The racist criminal Sampson had only to confess his crimes to be spared his continuing public humiliation…

… and as an Orwellian flourish, according to this FIRE post, they won’t even tell Sampson himself what the charges are. I’m honestly speechless, if not surprised.

Have you learned nothing… it is not the nature of the evidence, it is the seriousness of the charges…

elgeneralisimo on July 16, 2008 at 8:32 AM

Mr. Orwell, meet Mr. Kafka.

Imagination trumps reality.

Chief affirmative action officer?

Your tax dollars at work, people. What are you going to do about it??

locomotivebreath1901 on July 16, 2008 at 8:49 AM

The search continues for the new Director of Equal Opportunity.

This implies that there is an entire “department” with a “staff” devoted to routing out those who don’t drink the Kool Aide. Does a college campus really need an entire staff devoted to this nonsense? Hah, Jesse Jackson has crfeated an entire industry for race hustlers. Now I know why college is so expensive.

Alden Pyle on July 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM

This was definitely a CYA operation. Look at the timeline I posted in headlines.

Letter sent by Lillian Charleston, November 27, 2007.

During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer, you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your co-workers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.

Racial harassment is very serious and can result in serious consequences for all involved. Please be advised that racial harassment and retaliation against any individual for having participated in the investigation of a complaint of this nature is a violation of University policy and will not be tolerated.

The guy was threatened from Day 1. Of course, nothing has happened to those that filed the accusations.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM

I think they (IUPUI administration) was in trouble after the first letter sent by AA officer.

Check out the second letter she sent on February 7, 2008

FIRE sends a letter to Chancellor Bantz in March 2008.

Then comes the lame response from Chancellor Bantz dated April 17, 2008, after he was contacted by the ACLU of Indiana.

Lillian Charleston retired after 27 years at IUPUI on April 28, 2008.

This is starting to look like CYA to prevent a discrimination and/or free speech lawsuit.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 16, 2008 at 8:55 AM

There is no limit to how stupid educators can be.

Good God, what a statement.

drjohn on July 16, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Sorry if I was unclear in my point. Feel free to disagree with it if you wish.

I would appreciate not being called a f- i- in the future, if you don’t mind.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM

Admittedly, f**ing idiot was a bit strong. How about semi-retarded simpleton?

This. Just stop and think. For a second. How – exactly – do you have a book ABOUT a struggle against the Ku Klux Klan and have no reference to the KKK on the cover?

Example: a friend – who, ironically, happens to be Jewish – teaches a class on 20th century history. The textbook for the first half of the century has a montage of pictures, but one of the most prominent – is a large picture of Adolph Hitler.

Gasp! By your logic, that should be unacceptable. After all, it might bother someone. It matters not a wit that if you’re going to discuss WWII, pictures of Hitler may come up now and then, right?

Just think. Yes, Jailbones was unnecessarily rude – but your point really was that dumb.

We – or those of with working brains – don’t want censorship, even self-censorship, of valid historical texts, just because somebody, somewhere might be bothered. Once you start down that road, the list of items on a book cover you might now want to carry around would become almost endless.

In fact, I’d suggest that by your logic, you better make sure nobody looks at your computer screen when HotAir is up. You’ll find images from Osama bin Laden to Rosie O’Donnell. Mainly because the stories are about, you know, those people.

But some might take offense.

Do you STILL not get this?

Professor Blather on July 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Good ole IUPUI, the “Fighting Palindromes”.

clawjockey on July 16, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Charleston’s “PhD” is in “College Student Personnel.” Anyone who has spent time in grad school knows that these people are the bottom of the barrel (too stupid to do any real research–even pomo crap is too difficult for them–and have a huuuuuuuge chip on their shoulders).

Anytime you see someone with a CSP degree, run away as quickly as you can. Or commence mocking.

PimFortuynsGhost on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 AM

No true story should ever be banned – period!

OldEnglish on July 16, 2008 at 9:28 AM

clear to all but the most abject imbecile

Careful! We AIs are sensitive and litigious.

whitetop on July 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston: `The moral of all this is–Be what you would seem to be–or if you’d like it put more simply–Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.’

`I think I should understand that better,’ Keith Sampson said very politely, `if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.’

`That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,’ Chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston replied, in a pleased tone.

MB4 on July 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM

LOL

Winner!

fossten on July 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

Thunder_Run on July 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Had this happened on the flagship campus in Bloomington, it would have been quashed at the very first bad press, not because they’re not moonbatty, but because IUB fears bad press more than anything. And not to steal thunder from FIRE, but I imagine the retraction had more to do with pressure from Bloomington than it did FIRE.

rightwingprof on July 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM

C. My point is… after your, um, aggressive reaction, I think I’ll type real slow to make sure you get it… in my opinion, most semi-cognizant individuals would realize that reading a book with a Klan picture on the cover would have the potential to provoke a different reaction from a book with pictures of say, cute little puppies on the cover. Even if the content is anti-Klan.

Sorry if I was unclear in my point. Feel free to disagree with it if you wish.

I would appreciate not being called a f- i- in the future, if you don’t mind.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM

Professor Blather, you are right on the mark as usual. cs89, did you read the good Profs comment. I don’t have much to add to what he said but I hope you stuck around long enough to read it.

What really struck me about this whole episode was how cowardly and impersonal the “tattle tale” who started this whole thing was. What ever happened to conversation? Polite confrontation? If a coworker of mine was sitting in the office reading a book with a dead US Marine on the cover, my instinct wouldn’t be to quickly run into the President’s office and tattle on that person all the while completely ignorant about the content of the book. My instinct would be to politely and personally ask them what that book was about. Chances are the book is not a gleeful compilation of military deaths. Chances are the book would be history oriented or, for example, a real life tale about the challenges faced by our men and women in the military and how they and their families deal/cope with the consequence of being on the front lines in defense of freedom. Once I was no longer ignorant to the content of the book then hopefully a conversation about the topic would take place between us. If the image on the cover was still distasteful despite the content of the book I might ask that person if they didn’t mind concealing it somehow so as not to unecessarily startle the woman down the hall who has a son fighting overseas as we speak. Simple solutions right?

The sheer cowardace of the tattle tale at this university is what first got me thinking when I read about this. The simplest of conversations could have avoided this whole ordeal. You know, conversations? Human beings are supposed to be pretty good at them.

Zetterson on July 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Admittedly, f**ing idiot was a bit strong. How about semi-retarded simpleton?

Much better. Thanks.

Jerk.

Gasp! By your logic, that should be unacceptable. After all, it might bother someone. It matters not a wit that if you’re going to discuss WWII, pictures of Hitler may come up now and then, right?

If you bothered to read my followup comment- or if you were able to understand it- I specifically stated he had the right to read it if he wanted to. In my earlier comment, I clearly stated the University response was wrong- an overreaction, if I remember the term I used there.

I’m just saying that, while any of us can read whatever we want to, it is appropriate to be aware of the potential reaction from others.

Disagree all you want. If you are really not aware that other people’s reactions are often based on first impressions (e.g., a Klan picture on a book), maybe I’m not the dumb one in this thread.

I think I’m done with this discussion. Have a nice day.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I’m not the dumb one in this thread.

The whole point is simple.
No one should have to think about whether what they do will offend some simple minded minority victim or their handlers.

People who concern themselves with the professional victims feelings are excellent examples of dhimis.

The dumb ones never are aware of their..situation.

DRM on July 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM

There’s a difference between expressing your reaction and calling the Political Correctness Police to come down on you. Unpopular speech is the speech that is most meant to be protected by our Constitution. Provocative imagery is supposed to spark debate. People who were offended should have asked the guy about the book and perhaps everything would have been alright, but instead they run like little wussy Stalinists to the authorities to launch a complaint. How gutless to say the least. This is exactly how political correctness undermines free speech.

foxforce91 on July 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I’m just saying that, while any of us can read whatever we want to, it is appropriate to be aware of the potential reaction from others.

If I were to spend my life pondering the “potential reaction from others” to my every action and consider whether I need to adjust my actions in response to those “potential reactions”, I think I would never get out of bed in the mornings.

Fatal on July 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

No more Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer.

Johan Klaus on July 16, 2008 at 7:06 PM

I guess no Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams either.

Johan Klaus on July 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Reminds me of high school: I was reading the Satanic Verses during my free time (lunch, before rehersals, etc). I made no attempt to hide the cover of the book. A very openly religious student complained to my vice-principal, saying I was studying satanism in school. A quick trip to the office revealed the truth, and luckily I was allowed to go about my merry way. I did invest in a book cover after that, though, I wasn’t waiting for lightening to strike twice. This was 10 years ago… nowadays, I’d probably get suspended for reading anti-Islamic ‘propaganda.’

I have books on all sorts of controversial subjects – I love to read. I have respect for anyone who reads for pleasure. However, I have no respect at all for those who judge a book by it’s title or cover art. Some of the best books I’ve ever read have had strange titles or absurd artwork on them. The accusor in this case needs to be reprimanded.

Anna on July 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM

My point is… after your, um, aggressive reaction, I think I’ll type real slow to make sure you get it… in my opinion, most semi-cognizant individuals would realize that reading a book with a Klan picture on the cover would have the potential to provoke a different reaction from a book with pictures of say, cute little puppies on the cover. Even if the content is anti-Klan.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM

Sorry for the assault. As I said to Tony, I have a special and very fresh hell for leftist college administrators that I keep right under my tongue.

Back to your point – I vigorously disagree with your contention, and here’s why: is not the single most overused cliche in all of life “Do not judge a book by its cover”? And yet here we are, with an example of why this is a cliche in the first place that is so Soap Opera Obvious, that I would have sworn you made it up if I hadn’t read about it first.

So, again, to your question – no, I absolutely reject any suggestion that I might choose my reading material on my work break based solely on the social, political, racial, or religious sensitivities to book cover pictures of those around me, so long as the book is not otherwise obscene. Clearly this book was scholarly and wholly appropriate, and the first observation of the subject matter by his coworker should have ended the kerfuffle.

That the race hustlers who make money at IUPUI by fomenting racial unrest let this become what it has is just sinful.

So, cs89, tell us about you. Are you a student or a teacher? Do you have business in or around the universities? Can you place yourself in a situation at one of the colleges where hyper-sensitivity to the Islamists is de rigeur? And would you therefore consciously refrain from carrying or reading your Bible on campus – from Theology 141 – for fear of offending the delicate flower of Islam?

Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Anna on July 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Your blog is unusually literate and readable. I hope you continue to write.

Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Thank you. Just got back from a much-needed internet-siesta, though. It’s on the to-do list. : )

Anna on July 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Jaibones on July 16, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Thanks for the response.

No, I haven’t been on the University scene for some time now, though I do have a couple of degrees. I’ve been thinking about what I wrote, and FWIW I am an evangelical Christian, and where I was coming from was a Pauline expression about having the freedom to do certain things, but realizing that my actions do have the capability to offend others.

I have said more than once, and will repeat here, that the University actions taken here were clearly wrong. I read all the comments about freedom of speech, not allowing others to determine what I can or can’t read, etc. I don’t think we need to allow PC to hamstring us, or expand the list of things you “can’t do.” On the other hand, some of the comments here read like chest-thumping to me: “Nobody’s gonna tell me what I can read, by God!”

My point was simple- some images provoke stronger reactions than others. Context matters. I have the right to read a book about the Crusades in front of a convention center hosting a CAIR convention if I want to. If I do that and am surprised when some of the attendees choose to confront me, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

That’s all I was trying to say.

cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Why am I not surprised?

Ubertards have no tolerance even for themselves.

“Off with their heads” was a phrase once spoken by monarchs.

Now, since long ago it was used against them, the ubertards have picked up the refrain to use against everyone.

To hell with PC.

This guy’s livelihood was threatened, and with all of the black balling done with his reputation, finding the next job would not have been a piece of cake even if a lot of jobs were available. Typical ubertard university asshats; Pay them to f*ck you over and say thank you when you get your piece of paper that affirms you took it.

maverick muse on July 17, 2008 at 7:42 AM

Don’t tell me we don’t have enough money at our schools! An “Affirmative Action Officer”? How many of these people are on staff? How does one qualify for this job? How much jing does one get paid for this job? Does this “Officer” get tenure at some point? Does the Officer wear a uniform? Is there an entire department of these “Officers”? Do they ride around campus in squad cars? WOW!

sabbott on July 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Fair enough, although I am not sure the analogy is apt. A book glorifying the Knights of St. John might reasonably be offensive reading material in the Muslim student lounge, or reading Mein Kampf in the Hillel student association lobby (although there might be very good reasons for those students to read the book themselves, and surely many thousands of Jews have).

But this was different, and I don’t mean in the “I can read whatever I want” sense. I get the point; I just don’t think it works here.

We agree on the astonishing conduct of the race hustlers, I think. I was going to say “failure”, but they didn’t fail; this is what race hustlers do, and this is why a “chief affirmative action officer” is so wrong in the first place.

We disagree on the conduct of the individuals. In my opinion, Sampson was fine, and not just within his free speech rights. His co-worker is a nitwit, and should have had the brains to understand what the book is about, and applaud Sampson for it – if she felt compelled to have an opinion about his reading material in the first place.

Jaibones on July 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM

sabbott on July 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Word.

Jaibones on July 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2