May 9 edition of the New York Post carries a short
article by an Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
student named Keith John Sampson. He tells a story of being charged
with "racial harassment" simply because he was "caught"
reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book. I'm not kidding. Sampson tells his
book was Todd Tucker's 'Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish
Defeated the Ku Klux Klan'; I was reading it on break from my campus
job as a janitor. The same book is in the university library . . . .
But that didn't
stop the Affirmative Action Office of Indiana University-Purdue University
Indianapolis from branding me as a detestable Klansman.
They didn't want
to hear the truth. The office ruled that my 'repeatedly reading the
book . . . constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated
disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers.'
affirmative-action officer – who draws a salary of $106, 000 a
year to perform her crucial role and is obviously a woman of inestimable
intellect – neither examined the book nor spoke with Sampson.
He wasn't guilty before proven innocent. He was just guilty.
make a long story short, the charges were only dropped months later
after the institution of lower learning came under pressure from the
media, the ACLU (hey, even a blind squirrel . . .) and a more noble
entity called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Sampson works as a janitor to, I would assume, help finance his education,
he obviously wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Perhaps he
was assumed to be one of those bigoted working class people of whom
Barack Obama spoke. Anyway, it's good to see he is getting something
for the many thousands of dollars he is paying to attend his illustrious
outrageous as the story is, what is more troubling than the facts Sampson
provided is what he omitted. He failed to identify the cultural forces
responsible for his persecution or even hint at the wider problem. Perhaps
the Post insisted he stick to only uncontroversial facts or maybe the
fault lies with his own political correctness. It's probably both, as
Sampson seems like a somewhat liberal man who is painfully naive about
the power of the thought police (despite being victimized them).
starters, Sampson fails to point out that the affirmative-action officer
is a black woman named Lillian Charleston. Oh, that's not relevant?
Sorry, but this is all about race. Mr. Sampson would never have been
charged with racial harassment for reading a history book relating to
the Klan were he not white; in fact, it's hard to imagine such a charge
being leveled against a black person for any reason, given the double
standards in the academy's politically-correct environment.
case you're considering a career in the vital and growing field of affirmative
action and wonder what credentials one must possess to become one of
its storm troopers, here is Charleston's bio:
Charleston is nationally recognized for her expertise and knowledge
of Affirmative Action and related issues. In addition to serving as
the Affirmative Action Officer for IUPUI for the past 16 years, she
previously worked as a desegregation specialist for the Indianapolis
Public Schools. She has been an officer and board member of the American
Association for Affirmative Action and the Indiana Industry Liaison
Group. She also supports her community through active board service
with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission, the Indianapolis
Urban League, the Indianapolis Chapter of Big Sisters, and the Association
for Loan Free Education. She earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees
from Indiana University in Urban Studies, Counseling and College Student
other words, she specializes in grievance, social engineering, victimology
and in what Rush Limbaugh has labeled get-even-with-'em-ism. To gain
a little more insight into the mindset of this woman, read the letter
she sent to Sampson about the charge:
Upon review of
this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment
in that 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 in their presence. You
contend that you weren't aware of the offensive nature of the topic
and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination.
However 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 co-workers. Furthermore, employing the
legal "reasonable person standard," a majority of adults
are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans,
their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request
that you not read the book in their presence.
During your meeting
with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer [sic]
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
letter reveals something else that should be obvious, which is that
the individual filing the complaint against Sampson was also black.
And this is another example of the relativistic standard applied in
these matters. In other words, in judging the case, the affirmative-action
office didn't analyze the action under the light of objective truth,
but based on the feelings of a politically-favored individual,
in this case an irrational one.
much reminds me of a notorious sexual harassment standard about which
I once read. To wit: If a woman feels as if she has been harassed, it
is sexual harassment. It also brings to mind a quotation by John Stuart
can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject
than to the caprice of a man.”
law (or policy) I can imagine that is so bad is one which subjects us
to the caprice of other citizens. And this is increasingly America’s
practice, as we’re now placing members of politically-incorrect
groups at the mercy of the caprice of members of politically-favored
ones. This does violence to the principle of human rights, as they are
supposed to relate to God’s unchanging Truth, not man’s
mercurial tastes. But in Sampson’s case, that his black co-worker
felt aggrieved was justification enough to send out a lynching party.
course, we’re also subject to the caprice of affirmative-action
storm troopers, as their feelings are used to determine whose feelings
will be the yardstick of racial justice. And it's hard to imagine a
scenario under which their feelings would ever tell them that a white
person's feelings should be thus exalted. This brings me to my next
Sampson, being Catholic and partially of Irish descent, was attracted
to the book in question because it tells a story of people of his heritage
contending with the Klan. Now, since we’ve been enjoined to pay
homage to racial and ethnic pride, since it’s cast as a new virtue,
where was the respect for Sampson’s feelings of it?
course, fairness and leftist ideologues don’t have the same address.
In creating abominations such as affirmative-action officers, diversity
counselors and sensitivity trainers, we have empowered people of low
character, often vile, ignorant, unintelligent individuals (who else
enters such a field?) with degrees in nothing. Some are the epitome
of the mediocre modern inquisitor, a person who holds the fate of far
better men in his soiled hands as he ruins lives with the stroke of
a pen and justifies his wanting existence.
for the last matter, what do you think would happen if the Lillian Charlestons
of the world didn’t bring home a few scalps every month? Well,
like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other racial hustlers, they would
lose their raison d’d’etre. Thus, they just have to find
racism somewhere; they must extract the necessary pounds of flesh. And
it is usually white flesh.
brings me to my last point. For many years now we have heard about data
used to justify charges of racial profiling. It will be determined that
an inordinate percentage of blacks are pulled over by police in a given
area, and that alone is viewed as sufficient cause to change law-enforcement
procedures. Even more to the point, many claim that since blacks constitute
a percentage of the prison population greatly exceeding that of the
general one, it's evidence of systemic "racism."
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
here is a study I'd like to see conducted. Let's ascertain the racial
composition of those who have charges of racial harassment brought against
them – and of those punished for same – on college campuses.
Call me crazy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that virtually all those
targeted are white.
yeah, I overlooked something. Only white people can be racist.
Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester
County, New York. He's a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and
writer whose works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including
Intellectual Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn
has traveled extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as
India, Morocco and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while
playing the international tennis circuit.
As outrageous as
the story is, what is more troubling than the facts Sampson provided is
what he omitted. He failed to identify the cultural forces responsible
for his persecution or even hint at the wider problem.