“The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.”

— President George Bush

•••

Keith Sampson is a 58-year-old white janitor and part-time student studying communications at IUPUI. He is, by his own admission, an avid reader of history and that is what got him into trouble.

Keith was reading a book about the KKK, a scholarly review of the history of the Ku Klux Klan. He read it in the break room, during his scheduled breaks while performing his job as a janitor for Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. His troubles began when one of his co-workers saw him reading the book “Notre Dame Vs. The Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan.” The book recounts a 1924 riot between the students of Notre Dame and members of the Klan, in which the students prevailed.

The co-worker filed a racial harassment complaint with the IUPUI Office of Affirmative Action. The OAA ordered Sampson to refrain from reading the book in the presence of his coworkers and to sit apart from them whenever reading it. More importantly, the OAA concluded its investigation of the matter without giving Sampson an opportunity to defend himself or face his accusers.

Sampson has said in interviews, “I have an interest in American history. I was trying to educate myself.”

In November, the school's affirmative action officer told Sampson his conduct constituted racial harassment. “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,” wrote Lillian Charlestown, an IUPUI OAA officer, in her letter to Sampson. She also wrote, “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. Please be advised any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.”

The book which caused the controversy is carried in the university library.

American Civil Liberties Union, an organization with which I frequently find myself in total disagreement, called it right this time, stating in a letter to the university: “I am sure you see the absurdity of a university threatening an employee with discipline for reading a scholarly work that deals with the efforts of Notre Dame students in the 1920's to fight the KKK.”

Sampson's plight was quickly championed not only by the Civil Liberties Union, but by countless bloggers who monitored the ongoing controversy.

Responding to the controversy, Lillian Charlestown, who has retired since this incident, wrote Sampson a second letter stating, “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.”

After an article appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the firestorm of controversy was reignited which prompted an apology from Chancellor Charles Bantz. “I can candidly say that we regret this situation took place,” Chancellor Bantz finally wrote to Sampson. IU says it now considers the matter resolved, but is looking into its current affirmative action policies.

I for one am not sure that “regretting the situation took place,” is a real apology, but public apologies in the rarified air of academia are, as my momma would have said, “more scare than hen's teeth.”

It disturbs me that Sampson was never given an opportunity to face his accusers. It disturbs me that none of the OAA officers involved reviewed the book in question. It disturbs me that the book in question is one that is carried in the university library! Have we come to such a low point on the scale of political correctness that the mere reading of a book on ones break time can be construed as racial harassment?

If you work for a university, a government office, or a public company, should you reconsider reading your Bible on your break, as it might offend the sensibilities of someone of another faith? Should your coworker stop reading the Koran because it is not what you believe? Should we refrain from reading a book on Malcolm X? What about a Spike Lee biography? Was Mr. Sampson's real crime being white and reading about the KKK?

One quote from the letter written by Ms. Charlestown disturbs me more than any other, “ ... it was the perception of your coworkers that you were engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism.”

The word “perception” is the tricky one in that sentence. Perception is in the eye of the beholder. In Mr. Sampson's case, the perception was motivated by reading a book. How can you or I, or any of us be responsible for someone else's “perception” of our actions?

In the end, I don't believe any of us, whites, or people of color want to empower or embolden a regime of 'thought police', authorized by vague and arbitrary policies, and sanctioned by multi-cultural-mantra zealots. If our founding fathers had been this sensitive, the Union would have crumbled in a month!



“Thoughts from the Hungry Side of Daybreak” are written by Peggy DeKay, a business and freelance writer who lives in Clark County. She can be reached at DKcommunications@insightbb.com.