ACADEMIA'S POISONOUS ATMOSPHERE

In yesterday's blog, "Colleges Now and Then." I wrote about today's poisonous campus atmosphere of political correctness, identity politics, radical feminism, militant marxism and thought control. I also mentioned that students who do not agree with the radical left are intimidated and even disciplined for expressing opposing viewpoints. This lunacy has also spread to include the prohibition of reading books on campus in front of anyone who might be offended by the subject matter. Here is a case in point.

Keith Sampson is a janitor and part-time student at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). He is in his early 50s and has been gradually accumulating credits at IUPUI for a degree in communications studies. He has 10 credit hours to go. Last year, while on a break from his janitorial duties, Sampson was reading "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the KuKluxKlan," a book he had checked out from the public library.

Nakea Vincent, a black janitor, spotted Sampson reading and happened to get a glimpse of the book's title. She went ballistic and filed a racial harrassment complaint against Sampson with the IUPUI administration. Her complaint led to an inquiry of major proportions and caused an innocent Sampson considerable grief. In an initial letter, dated Nov. 25, 2007, Sampson was told by Lillian Charleston of the university's Affirmative Action Office that he "racially harassed" black coworkers by reading the book in their presence. Here is what the letter said:

"The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent's allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees. In conducting this investigation, we interviewed you, Nakea Vincent, and other employees with information relevant to the mailer.

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 you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your coworkers 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.

This concludes this matter with the Affirmative Action Office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us."

Of course, it did not take long for Sampson's predicament to become public. After the university was battered by a blistering barrage of well-deserved outrage, Sampson received a second letter, dated Feb. 7, 2008. Here is what Charleston's second letter said:

"This letter will replace my prior letter to you dated November 25, 2007.

I wish to clarify that my prior letter was not meant to imply that it is impermissible for you or to limit your ability to read scholarly books or other such literature during break times. There is no University policy that prohibits reading such materials on break time. As was previously stated, you are permitted to read such materials during appropriate times.

I also wish to clarify that my prior letter to you was meant only to address conduct on your part that raised concern on the part of your co-workers. It was the perception of your co-workers that you were engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism. Your perception was that you were reading a scholarly work during break time, and should be permitted to do so whether or not the subject matter is of concern to your coworkers.

I am unable to draw any final conclusion concerning what was intended by the conduct. Of course, if the conduct was intended to cause disruption to the work environment, such behavior would be subject to action by the University. However, because I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance, no such adverse disciplinary action has been or will be taken in connection with the circumstances at hand."

"........ I cannot draw any final conclusion in this instance ........" What an absolutely absurd statement! All that Sampson did was to read a book during a break from work. A scholarly book at that. He cannot be blamed for the fact that some nosy black female, afflicted with a severe case of victimitis, took a glimpse at what he was reading and was offended by the book's title.

I don't know who is more ignorant - Lillian Charleston, the ubernut affirmative action officer, or Sampson's black co-worker, Nakea Vincent? Vincent should have been disciplined for making a false racial harassment accusation and for causing disruption to the work environment by "creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism." But instead of disciplining Vincent, the university left Sampson dangling under a cloud of suspicion. And so it goes on today's college campus.