Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is an unbelievable story, but it's true. A janitor and part-time student at IUPUI, a college in Indianapolis, was told by the school's affirmative action office that he was guilty of racial harassment for reading a book about the KKK - a book about how Notre Dame defeated the KKK in 1924 - "in the presence of black employees." No, I'm not making this up. Read the letter that he received from that office in November of last year.
Sampson recalls that his AFSCME shop steward told him that reading a book about the Klan was like bringing pornography to work. The shop steward wasn't interested in hearing what the book was actually about. Another time, a coworker who was sitting across the table from Sampson in the break room commented that she found the Klan offensive. Sampson says he tried to tell her about the book, but she wasn't interested in talking about it.A few weeks passed. Then Sampson got a message ordering him to report to Marguerite Watkins at the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office. He was told a coworker had filed a racial harassment complaint against him for reading Notre Dame vs. the Klan in the break room. Sampson says he tried to explain to Watkins what the book was about. He says he tried to show her the book, but that Watkins showed no interest in seeing it.
Then Sampson received a letter, dated Nov. 25, 2007, from Lillian Charleston, also of IUPUI's Affirmative Action Office. The letter begins by saying that the AAO has completed its investigation of a coworker's allegation that Sampson "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." It goes on to say, "You demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your coworkers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence ... 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 coworkers." Charleston went on to say that according to "the legal 'reasonable person standard,' a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African-Americans ..."
Sampson was ordered to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of his coworkers and, when reading the book, to sit apart from them.
Have these people lost their minds? Reading an anti-KKK book in front of black people is racial harassment? It's difficult to imagine a position more idiotic than that. And the sheer chutzpah of Lillian Charleston, the one taking that position, to accuse the employee of showing "extremely poor judgment"....I don't think we have words capable of capturing the depth of such stupidity.
Comments
I'm tempted to say: lol wut?
But really, WHAT can you say? This is insane in every sense of the word.
Posted by: Jeffry White | March 10, 2008 2:18 PM
I emailed Lillian Charleston at lcharles@iupui.edu and let her know how I felt about her stupidity in action.
Posted by: OMM0910 | March 10, 2008 2:22 PM
Even if it was a pro KKK book they have no right to sanction someone for reading it.
Anyone who thinks reading something means you automatically endorse it's contents is a moron.
Posted by: spurge | March 10, 2008 2:25 PM
I used to be an AA officer (I was a Black woman in a large HR department--where else were they going to put me) and some of my most often-used words were: "Grow up and get over yourself."
What I find personally disgusting is how like delicate, night-blooming flowers we've all become...and how lawyers have become the over-protective gardners, tending our delicate feelings. They don't much care about due process or crying "Cutitdafugout" when people have no basis to complain. What they are concerned with is making certain that they keep companys out of court--mostly for the little things. Trouble is, organizations like this where, just a few years ago, Black law students (I believe) were sent written threats directly to their mailboxes, miss the big picture which is: Focus on process issues and mitigate real wrong-doing. Stop being chicken shit about nothing.
Now, repeat after me: "Grow up and get over yourself."
See, that wasn't so hard.
Posted by: Lalita | March 10, 2008 2:48 PM
That may be the comment of the week, Lalita.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 10, 2008 2:50 PM
Man, I'm just imagining what they would've done to me! I was reading books like Can the White Race Survive? and The Negro a Beast in class.
(Well, technically, before class. When the professor started speaking I paid attention.)
Posted by: Skemono | March 10, 2008 3:14 PM
So by that "logic" I guess reading books on World War II would be Anti-Semitic...?
Posted by: WScott | March 10, 2008 3:35 PM
I guess that rules out "Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich" with its big swastika on the cover.
Or a number of Ken Follet novels since the cover art usually has a swastika somewhere.
Maybe even "Gone With the Wind." After all, it has slaves and Confederates in it.
"Lord of the Rings" paints a very unflattering stereotype of orcs and the "men from the East."
Geeze, what can you read without offending somebody?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | March 10, 2008 3:52 PM
The same logic rules out the bible, which is offensive to just about everyone, and to the few it doesn't manage to offend (if anyone), advocates killing them, enslaving them, or both.
Posted by: blf | March 10, 2008 4:12 PM
Do not think this kind of insanity is exclusive to the United States. I was on a train in Germany, reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by W. L. Shirer, which happens to have a swastika on its cover. Let's say it was not an entirely enjoyable trip. Eventually, I put the book away, after having been told for the 12th time what a hideous Nazi I am. Because I was reading an anti-fascist book written by an anti-fascist author.
Ponder the beauty of that, and despair.
Posted by: PrimaCausa | March 10, 2008 4:18 PM
This doesn't surprise me at all, based on things I saw and experienced while working at an educational institution.
We had an edict handed down at one point warning us that we were not to say or do anything that could be misinterpreted by or be offensive to a random third party who might be walking by and hear or see something out of context. Which, some of us decided, meant that we could not say or do anything, ever, since there is always someone who can manage to get offended by just about anything.
Posted by: Elaine | March 10, 2008 4:21 PM
Lalita said:
I think you meant to say days instead of years. Check out the following news story.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4407734&page=1
Posted by: camanintx | March 10, 2008 4:43 PM
I hold in my hand a publication that discusses Aryan Circle, North East White Pride, the Imperial Klans of America, Hammerskin Nation, Vinlander Social club, and other racist organizations. Would this run afoul of this college's Affirmative Action office?
It's a copy of the Southern Poverty Law Center's periodical Intelligence Report.
Posted by: DaveL | March 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Gee, I once read Colonal General Heinz Guderians' memoir, "Panzer Leader," so I guess that makes me a Nazi.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2008 5:31 PM
"Have these people lost their minds? Reading an anti-KKK book in front of black people is racial harassment?"
In stark contrast to 'losing their minds' it is quite the opposite: they are 'using their minds'--the minds that were given to them by all of those knee jerk, politically correct liberals who insist that *words are the same as violence*, or that Don Imus is somehow more of a purported racist than Howard Stern ( Stern of course is apparently exemp from being a racist because he has one black friend, and is an equal oppotunity racist. Oh, and he's Jewish...).
Fascism, when it takes root, takes root against symbols, and ideas--the mere mention of ideas scares th' fasciss' so much that they enact hate crimes legislation aimed at words and symbols. Its the new book burning for the cyber age, but this time with new fascists/Nat'l SocialistSS.
Germany bans a symbol(swastika) that was used by Navajo Indians, Tibetan Buddhists, and many other tribes for thousands of years before King David co-opted it and made it the political property of Zionism.
Deborah Lipshitz, a Holocaustic scholar from Georgia sues a guy in England(David Irving?) who documented the firebombing of Dresden--and wins a libel judgement for 'holocaust denial,' because the fasciss just can't get enough speech control.But most importantly a historic fact is erased, and then, re-written by those who have an International agenda of truth suppression.
PBS has a show about slavery and its roots in America,and the common ancestry of black Americans, and every Af/Am with 'white blood' is led to believe they are the products of rape ( not so in the case of Quincy Jones, and many others whose ancestors were freed, and inter-racial) but forgets to mention how very integral Ashkenazi Jews were in that slavery, and the concurrent fostering of m'mixed' children--or that the slave trade to the East of Africa overshadowed the trade to the west.
The rise of the so-called indigenous movement of Peru(Chile?)--identity politics styled after the Aryan/Hitler model....
Minneapolis passes 'looking ordinances' that criminalize the human behavior of men looking at women--but not women looking at men. It is all part of the plan, man. The fasciss' need to shut the mind off first, and the food supply second...
And we are surprised by this latest? Ignorance is how the Klan built itself into a national movement, and these latest idiots are just the beginning, I promise you.
It reminds me of one of the early slogans of the movement which was a symbol--you know the style, a circle, with a word in it and that word has a line drawn through it to nullify the meaning of the word. That word was "Discrimination", i.e. "No Discrimination".
Imagine that: if you didn't discriminate, every single day. You would be indiscriminate--an indiscriminate murderer, lier, or worse, but for Joe Layperson, you would just be an idiot, with indiscriminately senseless sensibilities--just like the ppl in this case.
Posted by: the real cmf | March 10, 2008 5:42 PM
At least nobody said niggardly.
Posted by: BaldApe | March 10, 2008 6:29 PM
And that's when I stopped caring about the rest of "the real cmf"'s bullshit comment.
Posted by: Skemono | March 10, 2008 6:36 PM
I wrote it on the Volokh Conspiracy and I'll write it here - This just confirms that at least half of all personnel complaints are appropriately resolved by telling one or both parties to grow up.
Posted by: AnneS | March 10, 2008 6:57 PM
the real cmf | March 10, 2008 5:42 PM wrote:
"Deborah Lipshitz, a Holocaustic scholar from Georgia sues a guy in England(David Irving?) who documented the firebombing of Dresden--and wins a libel judgement for 'holocaust denial,' because the fasciss just can't get enough speech control.But most importantly a historic fact is erased, and then, re-written by those who have an International agenda of truth suppression."
I LOVE right wing morons who can't spell of even take a minute to look things up! You got this exactly backwards, idiot. Holocaust denier David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt (not Lipshitz) in a UK court for libel because she criticized his poor scholarship in print. She did in fact win.
Posted by: Dean Austin | March 10, 2008 6:59 PM
This sort of problem is only going to get worse. Young people seem to be even more anal about issues like this, particularly when it involves race or gender, and for some reason they think it is unreasonable to demand a consideration of the deeper context (like what the book is actually about, for instance). It's really quite sad.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | March 10, 2008 7:50 PM
Ska-mono: All I had to do was read its douchedactyllian name, click over to its blog, and notice its outdated PC rhetorical threat/challenge/invitation to violence, and murderers everywhere "Dead....society" blah blah blah.
You are the face of the new racism dud-ie; you will be the collaborator at the door of the next Sobibor, stuffin' guys like me in ,and just happpy to keep your job--but you will never take a personal stand against fascism.
You are another stupid "white person" flooding blogspace with white guilt--another fascist aching for their place in the Fourth Reich.
Hey Ska-Mono: I was on Hollywood Blvd fighting for your now sold out anti racist rights before you were born. I don't recall your one trick ponyin up arse bein' there at Tommies Number Five, or at the Flamingo.
And Dean, I wish I had the time to remember all of the juicy details of that proto-fascist crap that went down in the eighties-90's, and the time losers like you have to *smoke a fatty* and blog all day, but I don't. But thanks for the correction, Fascio.
You see, after awhile, those of us with real stuff to do everyday push the detritus from that era--unpaid propaganda leaflets from the pseudo left-- out of our minds and go 'Zen', leaving the details to you wise souls who live in every moment of that jaded past( while yer smokin' another fatty), while the rest of us work, every day, to combat the fascist perspective that rubbish like you leave behind( refer to the article above for the fruits of your thought-seed)
Posted by: the real cmf | March 10, 2008 8:03 PM
Yeah, somebody help Skemono out. I was just over there at it's racist blog, and I was like, the third person who ever commented there--like, ever....somebody give that t@rd some blog PR....
Posted by: the real cmf | March 10, 2008 8:17 PM
...
Is that it?
I mean really, cmf, usually when you intentionally misspell someone's name or nick, you do so in a way that transforms it into an insult or obscenity. Is even that tiny bit of wit and originality beyond you?
Because my blog is titled "Dead Racists Society", I am endorsing violence and murder? You flunked out of English class, didn't you?
Ah, yes. Being opposed to racism is itself racist! What marvelous double-speak.
Of course, as one of the defining points of fascism is also racism, being opposed to racism would tend to make me opposed to fascism as well. Then again, since you think that liberals who oppose racism are themselves fascist, you may be using a different definition than... well, than the real one.
Yawn. More tired "people who oppose racism are fascists!!!11eleventy-one" newsspeak. Can't you come up with anything new?
Really? When was I born, then? I'm curious.
But you have time to comment on blog posts all day, bloviating about how much time you don't have in the day? Right.
Yes, I'm sure emptying your mind is something you're quite adept at.
What is your obsession with drugs? Is it that you need your next fix?
Oooh, please do!
Posted by: Skemono | March 10, 2008 9:03 PM
Skemono, I think "ska-mono" insinuates that you like ska music that's not recorded in stereo. Perhaps in some parts of the world that's a stinging put-down.
Posted by: Mister DNA | March 10, 2008 9:25 PM
Getting back to this post's original topic (and indeed the story is outrageous if confirmed), I do hope that if anyone does email Lilian Charleston, they extend to her the courtesy which - according to the report - was not extended to Sampson, ie hearing both sides of the story before making a judgment.
Posted by: John Monfries | March 10, 2008 9:37 PM
real cmf, do you mean to say you are just so busy, you are unable to use a search engine in order to make sure you have your facts straight? And than you attempt to chew Dean Austin a new asshole because he dares to correct you? If you are uncertain of the facts, look it up. I do it all the time and I am sure that more of the other intelligent people who post online does the same.
But somehow I doubt that the truth of the case means nothing to you. You would rather believe that a "Holocaustic scholar" is attempting to silence a truthful white man like David Irving. It feeds into your paranoia of good white folks like yourself being herded up.
Funny how you are accusing a person who run an anti-racist blog of being a willing collaborator of running a death camp. All I can say is you are either seriously dumb or your ideology prevents you for seeing facts. Either way, FUCK YOU! And take Lalita's advice: "Grow up and get over yourself."
Posted by: Janine | March 10, 2008 9:59 PM
"All I can say is you are either seriously dumb or your ideology prevents you for seeing facts."
I don't think he's dumb, but as they say, when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Ideologies are ways to understand ourselves and the world, but ideologues never appreciate the inadequacies of their ideologies. If they did, they wouldn't be ideologues. The sense of certainty about so many things is reassuring, but it means that new data is the enemy and that different points of view are a threat. That those who merely offer contrary, verifiable evidence on a point are scorned and demonized is an indication of just how deep the need to protect the ideology runs.
CMF may has a much deeper kinship with the AA staff at IU Purdue than he could ever imagine. It looks as if ideology might trumps facts for all of them.
Posted by: Dr X | March 10, 2008 11:17 PM
Evidently the publicity that the AAO got for this has caused them to send a semi-retraction letter: http://nuvo.net/images/articles/022708/letter020708.pdf
Posted by: Alan B. | March 11, 2008 5:35 AM
It's frivolous action like this (resulting in serious loss of liberty) that plays right into the hands of right-wing loonies and racists (as we have seen), who can then denigrate complaints of genuine racism.
Posted by: debbyo | March 11, 2008 6:43 AM
I've seen this stuff a lot. There is no need to think to hard about it, it is not caused by political ideology, left or right.
It is a side effect of the types of unimaginative, fearful, and hypersensitive twits who get drawn into administrative jobs like this.
I've had enough encounters with college administrators like this to know, it isn't a matter of politics, it's just brain cells.
Posted by: MarkH | March 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Oh and CMF. David Irving is a confirmed holocaust denier who spends his time praising Hitler, a real fascist in case you want to look one up to see what they actually look like. I can't remember the exact quote, but he's famous for saying something along the lines of, "Hitler was the Jews' best friend in the Third Reich." Lipstadt pointed this out in her book, and Irving sued her in British court to silence her free speech due to Britains very strict libel laws.
Get your facts straight, then do us all a favor and go see a shrink.
Posted by: MarkH | March 11, 2008 8:12 AM
MarkH - It is a side effect of the types of unimaginative, fearful, and hypersensitive twits who get drawn into administrative jobs like this.
I spent almost 20 years on the administrative side of academia. This situation is no surprise, but the blame should not be placed on only the administrators. It was the academics that spawned this and over time, administrators have had to deal with the barrage of complaints to the point where they had to protect themselves and the institution to the point of absurdity. In addition, the unions are also to blame for allowing this pattern to continue.
This isn't likely to change anytime soon either. I am not seeing faculty, unions or administrators voluntarily standing up and fighting against these policies for fear of being dubbed ignorant or a bigot. Just look at previous threads on this site, I have seen entire groups of people being dubbed as misogynists and bigots when their ideas aren't perfectly aligned with what some consider to be "right".
As long as the "offended" feel that they have the support, this is not going to change and situations as ridiculous as this will continue. It also won't change until those inside academia (not just administrators) that think this type of crap should be changed actually speak up and do something about it.
Posted by: JoH | March 11, 2008 10:14 AM
It is impossible to study History, Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Criminal Justice, Psychology, Psychiatry, Literature or any subject that analyzes or documents human behavior without dealing with inflammatory and offensive topics. They are an ever present part of the human condition. In a world where even the TeleTubbies can be deemed controversial, there is no way an educational institution can function if students and faculty are denied the right to explore any subject that some might find offensive.
The janitor should be rewarded and praised for spending his free time reading something more intellectually challenging that the latest news of Britney Spears---but soon that may be all that is allowed on campus
Posted by: Kevin | March 11, 2008 12:55 PM
xyz, you asked if he found the book entertaining. Here is a thought that might shock you----Not everything can be measured by its entertainment value. Some people go to a university to be educated!!!
Posted by: Kevin | March 11, 2008 1:13 PM
debbyo wrote: ....who can then denigrate complaints of genuine racism.
Augh! You used a word derived from the Latin root for "black" in a negative way! I feel harassed! Even though I'm white! It's the feelings that count, and you hurt mine! I'll complain to Ed! I'll complain to the AA office of ScienceBlogs!! I'll complain to....whoever will listen! Even if they don't!
On second thought: I'll just grow up and get over myself. At my age, it's about time.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 11, 2008 1:26 PM
Even if it was a pro KKK book they have no right to sanction someone for reading it.
Anyone who thinks reading something means you automatically endorse it's contents is a moron.
Employers every right to prohibit whatever they like on their property and this guy had no business bringing the book into work after he was told it was offending his fellow employees.
He can read whatever he likes on his own time, on his own property.
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2008 1:35 PM
I am currently an instructor for the school of science and an alumnus of IUPUI. I will not be emailing Lillian Charleston anytime soon. There is little point in doing so. She has the full support of the university administration in her "multi-cultural" pogrom, ...ah I mean program.
Oddly I haven't heard anything about this story here at the university. A google search returns only blog references. Are we sure this story is legit?
Posted by: Lance | March 11, 2008 1:39 PM
Ed,
Good find. Thanks for posting it.
I really think, though, that you should post the semi-retraction-letter link supplied by Alan B (a few comments prior to this) as an update to your article. It provides a more measured response from the AA office---as well as some hints that events may not have been as simple as previously presented.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that the considerations outlined in the AlanB link were not raised during the first action by the AA office on this matter.
Posted by: Anonymoustache | March 11, 2008 1:40 PM
JoH wrote:
I don't want to start a thing, but for the record the reason isn't because I don't think their opinions are "right", it's because I consider them bigoted. I gave many reasons why, not one of which was "because they're wrong" or "because I'm offended". Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread or argue with you about it, it just seemed ironic that you used a simplistic mischaracterization of an opposing position in order to criticize someone else's (apparent) simplistic mischaracterization of a situation.
That said, just because the guy was reading the book for school doesn't mean he wasn't being antagonistic. Maybe it's not as simple as it seems. Maybe it is, but I would feel like a jerk if I just assumed they were being hyper-sensitive and it turned out the guy was really complaining about what an injustice to the KKK it was or something.
Posted by: Leni | March 11, 2008 1:55 PM
Well I just looked at the letter linked to in above post. It looks legit alright. That is IUPUI letterhead and the letter looks real enough.
I like the comment by leftwing censorship advocate Mark Hoofnagle, of DenialismBlog, that says,
Yeah right. Leftist "multi-cultural" PC ideology has nothing to do with a run amok "diversity" officer conducting an "investigation" into a person on a university campus for reading a book with "offensive" letters in the title in the presence of a protected class and then issuing a threatening verdict restricting that persons right to read that book . No, nothing at all.
Mark, it is clear that you aren't "thinking very hard about it" uh maybe like not at all? Of course this kind of behavior is right up your alley. Maybe you can get the University to de-vowel his book title. Or maybe de-consonant would be better in this case.
Posted by: Lance | March 11, 2008 2:14 PM
She has the full support of the university administration in her "multi-cultural" pogrom, ...ah I mean program.
Sounds like somebody doesn't agree with the policies at their place of employment.
I have a feeling this guy reacted like many of the posters here, indignant that he would have to adjust his behavior because some people were being "hyper-sensitive" and unwilling to listen to his side. After all, his personal rights are the most important thing here.
Given the injustices caused by racism thoughout the history of the United States, and the injustices that continue today, I would think that a little thing like being sensitive to what your actions may mean to someone else is a small price to pay.
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2008 2:44 PM
Joel wrote:
IUPUI is a public university and is thus constrained by the first amendment. They have no authority to do so.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 2:45 PM
Joel wrote:
Good, that's the way he should have reacted. On top of that he should have reacted with indignity at the sheer stupidity of the claim that reading a book AGAINST the KKK could possibly constitute racial harassment.
What a syllogism this will make:
1. Racism has caused great injustice throughout the history of the United States.
2. Reading a book that documents that racial injustice and tells the story of a victory against those who foment racial injustice is offensive.
3. Therefore reading such a book should be banned.
Mr. Orwell, call your office. Yes, the janitor's right to read a book trumps the absurdly illogical offense some idiot might take to his reading a book with "KKK" in the title. In any sane universe.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 2:49 PM
Let me add that the second letter that a commenter linked to above actually makes that stupid affirmative action officer look even worse. Basically, she reversed her position completely under (quite due) pressure, but she pretended that she was just "clarifying" her earlier letter. In her first letter she says bluntly "we have concluded that your conduct constitutes racial harassment." In the second letter, she claims that she is "unable to draw any final conclusion." Apparently she just can't bring herself to say "I was wrong."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 2:52 PM
Ed,
Are you really in a position to be able to make the judgement that the offended employees offense to the janitors reading the book were illogical, and they are in fact idiots?
What a syllogism this will make:
1. Racism has caused great injustice throughout the history of the United States.
2. Someone reading a book whose title contains the name of a group that waged a horrible, bloody and merciless campaign against a group of people for no good reason, may cause fear and anxiety among members of that same group of people.
3. Therefore, a little thought and consideration should be exercised when reading such a book. Especially when these feeling are communicated to you.
Maybe your offense to this action by the university is illogical?
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2008 3:07 PM
And while the university may be constrained by the first admendment, I doubt that means that any reading material protected by the first admendment would be acceptable to bring to work.
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2008 3:10 PM
Agreed. Notre Dame is an offensive topic.
More seriously, though, if taken literally, the AA officer's claim is that the defeat of the Klan is an offensive topic. She sounds like a racist to me. ;)
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2008 3:12 PM
Joel wrote:
Yes. You tell me how it could possibly be reasonable to be offended, due to racial injustice, by someone reading a book against racial injustice. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 3:19 PM
If the school has a chapter of Hillel they need to sponsor a showing of Triumph of the Will. Or an exhibition of some of the more revolting Nazi propaganda posters. Heads will explode.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 11, 2008 3:28 PM
Yes. You tell me how it could possibly be reasonable to be offended, due to racial injustice, by someone reading a book against racial injustice. Good luck with that.
Ed,
That is very easy because I have an experience that would be similar in my mind.
When I was 11 years old, I was raped repeatedly by a peodophile. I am 49 years old now and to this day a news report about a child being raped, a program about peophiles, anything related stirs very intense emotions within me.
None of these stories are promoting peodophilia. Yet, I cannot watch or read them.
It is not difficult for me to imagine that growing up black in the United States, being subjected to the subtle and not so subtle racism here, the image of a white man reading a book with Klan in the title would stir similar intense emotions.
As it turns out, I didn't need any luck at all, only empathy.
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2008 3:34 PM
Joel:
I'm sorry to hear of your experience. The answer is a simple one: don't watch or read the stories that make you uncomfortable. That does not, however, mean that others shouldn't watch or read them (whether in your presence or not), or that your experience gives you the right to censor what others can watch or read. In fact, to do so would run counter to the outcome (empathy) you claim to want: how do you expect others to empathize with your situation unless they are allowed to watch or read stories about experiences like yours?
Posted by: Dan | March 11, 2008 4:01 PM
Bullshit.
No "excuse" is needed to study a topic, however uncomfortable the subject may be. Nor is any classroom needed to legitimize learning. The atrocities of the past are especially important to learn about and the impulse to do so is entirely laudable.
Posted by: Morgan | March 11, 2008 4:06 PM
"Agreed. Notre Dame is an offensive topic."
Damn, wish I'd said that. (hehe)
I have met Lillian Charleston. She seems like a nice lady. She is just a midlevel bureaucrat trying to justify her salary. The bigger problem is that the university has jumped on the multi-cultural, gender/racial identity bandwagon.
Also, not coincidentally, this action comes after the release of a list of "grievences" by a group calling itself The Black Student Initiative critical of the universities commitment to black students. Its one material complaint seems to be something about a $1600 funding of a group called the "Swing Cats" to attend a dance competition.
They also make rambling complaints about the lack of an African American Studies program, keep in mind that this is a commuter campus for Indiana University and Purdue University, and demand annual funding for black student activities to the tune of $78,000.
To be honest the statement is so poorly written that I'm not sure what the hell they are complaining about or what the $78,000 dollars would be funding.
I do know that they issued an ultimatum that their demands must be met by "Black Thursday" Nov. 2nd 2006. I never did hear what came of the whole issue other than a bunch of conciliatory press releases announcing meetings and of course extolling the universities commitment to "diversity".
IUPUI is not some hotbed of racial tensions. I'm sure the guy was just reading a book and the offended coworkers felt "empowered" to speak out about their bruised "sensitivities". Most people here, of various shades and colors, just roll our eyes at this nonsense.
Posted by: Lance | March 11, 2008 4:56 PM
Joel wrote:
Then you certainly should not read such books. But that doesn't mean you get to tell other people what they should and shouldn't read. One of my best friends was also raped, and also at 11 years old. I spent several weeks reading a whole series of books on the subject of juvenile sexual assault so I could understand what happened to her and how it affected her. Though I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to read such books, it would seem to me that you'd be glad that there are people who do study those issues and seek to understand them better. At the very least, it would be absurd to claim that my reading those books means I'm harassing you.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 5:31 PM
Ed,
Don't you understand that "perception is reality" and that if someone perceives a book against the KKK as being a "symbol" of oppression it is harassment to read it in their presence.
Sadly this is the kind of "argument" that is put forth to defend such nonsense. "Sensitivity" is the cornerstone of the new academic reality.
Posted by: Lance | March 11, 2008 6:23 PM
I re-read both of Ms. Charleston's letters and this is what I'm struck by: the "reasonable person standard" just ain't reasonable any more.
Intended to help investigators look through the prism of another group's experience rather than their own (notably for male investigators who had trouble seeing how a woman could be offended by, say, having her ass grabbed or being leered at), it has morphed into an "unreasonable person standard" whereby complainants are never asked to consider a more measured take on events. They just mutter "j'accuse" and the metal stud-filled snowball starts rolling.
In one case, I was called in to talk with a Black employee. Her complaint? Her white supervisor offered her a carton of chocolate milk. I waited while she marshalled her emotions, dabbing her eyes and choking back another onslaught for her to fill me in with the details I needed to be able to see what else happened that could cause her to feel so abused.
There was nothing else. A white chick in authority offered a Black chick a carton of chocolate milk. Did she offer choco milk to anyone else? Yeah, a couple, "but she made sure that she offered me the chocolate milk." Like a good AA/EEO wonk, I went out on the shop floor to talk with the supervisor-a woman with a sterling work history in a company that was none-too-friendly to women in non-traditional roles (printing). She was mystified that her employee got upset and walked off the job, leaving my office and heading home. The supervisor's intention? To make sure that this woman got a chance at what she believed was a premium milk beverage. Thinking back on how my brothers and I could "throw down" over the last bottle of Choc-ola, I could see her point.
Now, I said before that I used to be in AA/EEO. Wonder why I left? It just stopped making sense (aside from the fact that the real, live Klansmen were sure I was going to be unfair to white and the minority and female employees who were sure that I would robotically see their side as righteous). Workplace relationships (oh, hell, and reputations) were being destroyed and my peers in HR weren't helping. Sure, I wanted people to know that their complaints were going to be taken seriously, but I also wanted people to know that those accused were going to be accorded every bit of due process, missing in most HR departments, like this one. It galled me to note that rapists got a better shot at investigative fairness than someone accused of sexual or racial harassment or discrimination.
Sometimes, people, a chair is just a chair and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Posted by: Lalita | March 11, 2008 6:30 PM
Lalita,
Once again nice post.
Leni wrote:
"just because the guy was reading the book for school doesn't mean he wasn't being antagonistic. Maybe it's not as simple as it seems. Maybe it is, but I would feel like a jerk if I just assumed they were being hyper-sensitive and it turned out the guy was really complaining about what an injustice to the KKK it was or something."
Ugh. Yeah it doesn't mean he was either. When the initial assumption is that reading about the KKK has negative purposes or somehow constitutes harassment, we have a serious problem. This is a perfect example of the type of thought processes that caused the problem.
In this situation there was opportunity for both discourse, and mediation, yet the AA officer made the assumption to hear only from those offended and act upon it probably based on school policy. This is not the first time I've seen this sort of thing happen in academia. In addition, by completely ignoring his rights through the first action, they pretty much nullified any chance of disciplining him later in the event there was something more nefarious going on.
It was embarrassing to see my own university get into an uproar about the accidental use of the word "oriental" instead of "asian" or that my academic union actually considered filing a grievance on behalf of an employee that was offended by an administrator using the phrase "circling the wagons" during a speech. I was actually called a bigot, because I didn't agree that it was a grievable issue.
Running to the union or the administration when we are offended instead of talking or discussion is all too commonplace, yet we are appalled by the IUPUI case. We created this monster and it is time deal with it before it becomes completely out of our control.
Posted by: JoH | March 11, 2008 6:43 PM
JoH wrote:
If that's an accurate reading of the situation then I'd agree. On the face of it I agree with Ed, but I also agree with him that it's unbelievable. It seems so ridiculous that I wonder if that's perhaps it isn't as simple as it appears to be.
So I wasn't making an argument about why Ed is wrong, I was expressing my personal feeling of trepidation about coming to a conclusion based on what little I know about the situation, that's all. Sorry that's so exasperating for you.
Posted by: Leni | March 11, 2008 7:37 PM
Working for a large PC company (no not a personal computer company) we've learned not to say too much about anything non-work related. Still, the HR policies are mainly used by those who have lots of time on their hands to get good at them--so stay clear of anyone who does little real work as they will be best positioned to attack.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me... :)
Sadly this is all more real than it should be.
Posted by: Rich | March 11, 2008 8:44 PM
Joel,
Your alleged syllogism is not a syllogism. It's so annoying use inductive logic and call it deductive.
But more to the point, the logic of your argument is that because you were molested, we should never read about the triumph of catching and convicting a child molester. I would think, even if you couldn't bear to read about it yourself (understandably), it would be something to be celebrated.
And that's what several people posting on here have missed (including you, Leni)--this book detailed Notre Dame's defeat of the Klan. If anyone is offended by that topic, they'd have to be either (a) as stupid as Vox Day, or (b) a flat-out racist. So, for those disturbed by this guy reading the book, which is it?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2008 8:57 PM
leni wrote:
OK, I can accept that. You probably aren't aware of just how wholly ridiculous it sometimes gets at universities.
When I was in grad school at the U. of Oregon, there was a big uproar because a student used the phrase "a coon's age." Apparently no-one on the West Coast was familiar with it. There were threats, and demands that the student be sent to re-education camp...I mean sensitivity training.
When the dust settled, and the poor kid--who happened to be from the Midwest--made it clear that he wasn't being racist, the response was, "OK, we guess you're not racist, but you shouldn't have said it because people might take it the wrong way."
Unfortunately, this kind of silliness does occur, much more frequently than it ought.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2008 9:02 PM
Wow. I feel like a "metal stud-filled snowball [has] starts/ed rolling," my way...
Dr. X, you are the only one who got the joke;-) Now you deserve a hot dago samwitch,or since we are near St. Paddies Day, get some of that 'traditional Irish food' of 'corned' beef(most Irish have never eaten it)... on me, at the Purdue Cafteteria.
Skamono, if you want a decent response respond decently, as your first post was neither respectful, nor critical. Your last post? A little too late to unpack the substance of my first post. Go read that, and I will reply to you. But your negation of my thoughts did not n=merit that I respect you. Datdisbegetsdis, braw.
Janine: Keep your "Fuck You" to yourself--I am sure my pecker wopuldn't give you a second look.The white woman speaks...yeah, I think you menat good white jewish "half-breeds" like me, thanks for noticing, whitey.
MarkH: sounds like you need to see that shrink--maybe Woody Allen can refer you. You know what I like about freedom the most? The freedom to be wrong, in my views, in my speech, and in my facts. Sure, I was wrong about 'the facts' in the case. (refer to my comment to Dr. X above for context, and the 'depth' of the percieved wrong--but mostly, look at the respone=ses generated herein;-)
You see Mark? That is what freedom really, really IS. Even for David Irving. But "Holocaust Denial" as punishable by imprisonment? Speech and thought--even 'incorrect thought' is 'scary'...I think Jon Stewart (Daily Show) is rolling over in his pajamas right now.
Wow--I want reparations from the Jewish Inquisitor De Torquemada for the Spanish Inquisition; or the other Holocaust, that of Americas native people after Colombo--er, 'Colon' er....Columbus came ( he was very likely Jewish too..)--and I want those reparations paid by the Irving judgement, or Lipshitz's Holocaustic stipend...Oh, yeah--I think what Irving meant was that the International Capitalists who expoited Germanies downfall included Wall Street financiers--many of whom were Jewish--and the Zionists--many of whom directly benefitted from the creation of the Stad of Israel--were complicit in that Holocaust, in a very provably capitalist way--much the same as that body politic was also involved in Pol Pot, the middle east today, and the ongoing war on Islamic beliefs. Collusion is collusion, whether you are Prescott Bush, or one of those other war makers like Haym Solomon (look him up)....
Lance: you got it too. The left here is not a real left, it is a pseudo left--people who have read too many books, and not done enough living outside of those books. They are precisely the people who have created this dearth of intelligent conversation based in reality--the reality of racism, the reality of anti-semitism ( which for them doesn't include the 'darker' shade of Semite, the other brothers of Shem--like Palestinians), and the same who have passed more laws aimed at speech and thought than even the real enemy--the right wing, ever did. Right wingers are one trick ponies, always using religion to hide their ignorant legislation behind, but left wingers? tThey should know better, and don't. They speak only for what the book told them about theories of social control...
Ed: your being a meanie, and did not address the substance of the post...
Posted by: the real cmfanonymous | March 11, 2008 9:15 PM
It's doubly tragic because you know, without doubt, that this will be used as ammo by certain racist trolls. Not to mention how it distracts us all from important, pertinent issues of race & gender, such as actual nooses being hung on the doors of university faculty.
Posted by: Skwee | March 11, 2008 9:19 PM
Leni -
It is fine to have trepidation but when you have seen situations like this as regularly as I have over a 20 year span of academic work, what may seem so ridiculous it appears unbelievable to you is just another of a list of similar situations that I have seen more times than I wish to count. I have no doubt that something like this will happen again. This is the bizarro world of academia.
Posted by: JoH | March 11, 2008 9:21 PM
I thought that maybe the book's cover was offensive, maybe just a big picture of clansmen with no context. So I checked it out-- the cover mostly just looks like a big building, with a crowd and burning crosses.
I noticed that Todd Tucker, the book's author, has posted a comment on Amazon as well.
He states:
"
Some of you may have heard about a recent travesty at IUPUI - a major, state-funded institution of higher learning in Indianapolis. A student-employee was found guilty of racial harassment for . . . .reading my book, Notre Dame vs the Klan.
Anybody taking five minutes to assess the contents of its page on Amazon could determine rapidly that the book is enthusiastically anti-Klan. You could perhaps argue that this shouldn't matter - a college campus ought to be a safe haven for exploration of ideas. But I do think it makes this situation even more outrageous that the good people at IUPUI's affirmative action office didn't care about that. My more recent book has as its heroes religious pacifists during World War II - I think it's safe to conclude I don't have any kind of right-wing axe to grind.
The stance of the Affirmative Action Office, it appears, is that any act is racial harrassment if they call it racial harassment.
This incident is getting a lot of attention, as it should. NUVO, the independent paper out of Indianpolis, gets credit for breaking the story. You can go to their website and read actual copies of the letters from the Affirmative Action Office. They are every bit as ridiculous as I describe.
http://catch22.nuvo.net/
"
Posted by: Hammy | March 11, 2008 9:26 PM
OK, Ed, I reverse my position. Please censor or otherwise destroy, or burn my posts. I have abrogated my responsibility to goose-step in line with the other profound thinkers here, and deserve punishment.
But whatever you do, don't burn those other flagrantly blatantly false words called to goyim as the Bible, nor burn the Talmud, and especially don't pass gas while praying--->
http://www.torah.org/advanced/mishna-berura/S103.html
Then, just to please the "Dead Racist" advocate up there, please put a picture of me with my face kicked in on the internet, just like this one of David Irving:
www.davidirving.8m.com
Then, everyone can be satisfied that only violent people do violence,and only ignorant people make jokes or have no time to correct fact errors ( there are always ppl with that extra time--we call them TA's) and so, when the left does it, it is fact error, and violence to them isn't violence, and it was necessary, and provoked by 'words', not egos or agendas.
Posted by: the real cmf | March 11, 2008 9:37 PM
The 'slippery slope' that we started when the law, in addition to banning actual harassment, included too much touchie feelie in the definition... to the point that now an office of adults has to be more G rated than broadcast TV. By enabling such lawsuits by people who chose to be offended, the government has supported a level of censorship and self censorship that could never have been accomplished with direct laws.
Hell, I remember Playboy desk calendars, how vapid we have become.
Posted by: jay | March 11, 2008 9:38 PM
I started to read about your experience, Joel, but then I was worried that I'd offend someone and lose my job, so I stopped.
Posted by: itchy | March 11, 2008 9:44 PM
As a big fan of the Purdue Boilermakers, I apologize to everyone here on behalf of Purdue University, where cmf seems to be polluting my beloved home state of Indiana.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2008 9:55 PM
James Hanley wrote:
I can imagine.
That said, yes James, I understand that the book is not pro-KKK. That's kind of unnoticeable. And, you know, the reason this is even a topic. But thank you for pointing out the obvious in a totally condescending way.
(I know you were backing off but I'm going to chastise you for it anyway.)
JoH wrote:
Good. I'm glad you understand where I'm coming because frankly, your reaction struck me as a little... overblown.
You know what this reminds me of? The MacDonald's hot coffee case, where every jackass know-it-all (including myself, until I got my ass handed to me on a platter by an actual corporate lawyer after shooting my mouth off in public) feels compelled to make a lot of overblown remarks about how ridiculous it obviously all is and blah blah blah.
So your experience in the bowels of academia may be contributing to your reaction, I can understand that even if I don't think it's a particularly good thing. What's contributing to my reaction is the painful memory of public humiliation, and genuine regret for thinking stupid and thoughtless things about someone who didn't deserve it. Obviously she never heard them, but I still feel bad about it. And ashamed by my willingness to unthinkingly join in the feeding frenzy.
Posted by: Leni | March 11, 2008 10:13 PM
Gee, I once read Colonal General Heinz Guderians' memoir, "Panzer Leader," so I guess that makes me a Nazi.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2008 5:31 PM
hmmm I read Erich Von Manstein's "Lost Victories" so that makes me a bigger nazi...
Posted by: Kevin | March 11, 2008 10:27 PM
JamesHanley: No actually I am up here in Minnesota, volunteering at homeless shelters, and tending to the effects of good ol' Indiana racism daily. Boil that one...
Did you know that many many ( did I say MANY?) of the African Americans who your state has negated, and disenfranchised came here because of the general malaise that exists there with the Who?siers? Gary Indian is no pretty picture...
So go back to your whiteness-ism, and back to your suburb tonight feeling happy that your 'race problems' have gotten better down there, because all of those people who your state could not afford to tend to moved here for drug counseling, homeless shelters,job opportunities and to just generally GTHOO your state. Sleep well, James, your 'pollution' problems have apparently subsided. Me, my friends, and clients won't be going to your state anytime soon.
Posted by: the real cmf | March 11, 2008 10:46 PM
okay cmf, now you're just being an asshole. I think it's time for you to go.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 11, 2008 11:00 PM
You know, he almost got me to prepare a detailed critique to his screed up there... but then I remembered: I don't care whether he respects me!
In fact, given the content of his comments, I think I'm much more comfortable that he does not.
Posted by: Skemono | March 11, 2008 11:41 PM
Well, the McDonald's coffee case still seems stupid to me. I looked up a number of consumer coffeemakers and many held coffee at the same temperature as McDonald's. McDonald's fault seemed to be having incompetent lawyers who didn't dispute claims that they brewed coffee extra hot so they could use cheap coffee and have fewer refills.
Let's not forget "coonass" either (to stay a little on topic).
Posted by: j a higginbotham | March 11, 2008 11:46 PM
This is not just acedemia. Large corporate HR (as pointed out by Lalita) has given in fully to the "we don't want to be sued in a meritless case and lose" fears and so all sanity is out the door.
One simple example: my boss was recently in a meeting where another manager mentioned that two of their cohorts were flying to Europe in the midst of a really crucial time on the project, which was behind schedule. Another manager commented that he knew what they would be working on. My boss understood him to mean they'd be working on the project, and she said she could not fathom how it could have been taken any other way. But another person decided the comment meant they'd be joining the mile high club, and filed a grievance. The manager making the comment was disciplined per MANDATORY policy, even though no one present except the offended party could believe it would be taken as any kind of offense and said so in the investigation. My boss who is very straight laced and politically correct herself was astounded; she has no idea how to combat this but simply tells us watch out for what you say.
Posted by: Rich | March 12, 2008 1:15 AM
Now let me see if I got this right.
A man reads a book with a provocative title in a lunchroom. I assume he was having a break at the time, therefore it was time that the company is obliged by law to allow him to eat, drink coffee and read a book. Then someone came up to him and said they found the Klan offensive. Well yes don't we all? But the other worker refused to listen to the reply of the man reading the book (who probably agreed). Rude, stupid and perhaps bigoted behaviour but not worth going to the alphabet soup lady over. Then this rude worker tells him that he has a complaint against him.
Am I right so far?
Then he gets a copy of the complaint that states that he was told to desist from reading this "offensive" publication because he had been "asked by co-workers to stop reading it repeatedly because they found it offensive".
Except he wasn't. ONE worker said they found the Klan offensive. No mention of the book or a request not to read it. He was on HIS OWN TIME, HE WAS READING A BOOK (not reading aloud even), THE BOOK WAS ANTI-KLAN (not that anyone bothered to find out) and HE WAS NOT ASKED TO CEASE READING IT IN THE LUNCHROOM BY ANYONE.
"Grow up & get over yourself" doesn't even begin to cover this story. -DJ
PS Anyone notice the letter informing the man of the complaint was in ENGLISH, perhaps it should have been in all the Earth's langauges. Wouldn't want anyone to feel discriminated against.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 12, 2008 1:21 AM
"OK, Ed, I reverse my position. Please censor or otherwise destroy, or burn my posts. I have abrogated my responsibility to goose-step in line with the other profound thinkers here, and deserve punishment."
If there were any censorship on this blog I suspect I'd be one of the first targets.
I have never been censored and given Ed's strident defense of free speech, I doubt any other posters have been.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 12, 2008 4:48 AM
I once ran into trouble at my workplace for having a Fokker DXXI as a screensaver. This was meant to be an anti-fascist statement - after all it was a fighter intended for use by the Spanish republicans, and used by countries that had been invaded by the nazis, like the Netherlands and Denmark. However, it was also used by the Finns, and some moron misunderstood the Finnish markings (blue swastika on white roundel) for a nazi symbol (Finland was not even allied to Germany during the winter war, which was fought in 1939, when the Hitler-Stalin pact was in full swing and nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were best friends. It would later ally itself with Germany in the continuation war, but that's another story).
Many German antifascists wear buttons that show a svastika that is destroyed in one way or another - hung from a gallow, crushed by a baseball bat, trampled down by a doc martens boot etc. It has become depressingly common that these kids find themselves being dragged to court for using nazi symbols. It's a mad world...
Posted by: johannes | March 12, 2008 7:34 AM
Leni wrote:
Well, Leni, you were one of the few on this thread who gave the impression of not getting it. You said,
This despite the fact that the text of the letter referred solely to the book, not to the guy "being antagonistic." From that I inferred that in fact you did not get the obvious.I believe the inference was not unreasonable, but I am glad to know it was wrong.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 12, 2008 7:57 AM
Rich wrote:
I guess I can't be surprised about that either but I figured I would talk about academia since this is where it happened and I am very close to it. I'll leave the "outside of academia" situations to be described by those that know better like you and Lalita.
Leni said:
I am absolutely frustrated by dealing with policies that cause people to jump the gun at punishing those for simple freedom of speech issues like reading a book at IUPUI, misinterpretation of a bad joke, a misunderstanding of a colloquialism, among other examples described throughout the thread. Harassment policy in particular as it applies to speech have become way too broad, they don't solve the problem, they don't promote discussion, they aren't working.
Oh and at the same time the university was overexcited about the old phrase "circling the wagons" and the union was actually considering this as an issue, both the HR office and the union refused initial support for what was proven to be an legitimate harassment case by the office manager in my academic department. The problem was addressed oddly by the academic department head, she actually ignored HR and union policy in order to investigate our claims and with her help we finally were able to convince the HR department that there was a problem (it took over a year). So if you think my reaction is overblown than I'm guilty because I think a lot of these policies are trampling on first amendment rights but everyone seems too scared to fight them.
Posted by: JoH | March 12, 2008 12:40 PM
XYZ,
While it is true that Ian Gould is "full of crap", he is however correct when he points out that the host of this blog values free speech.
This point is emphasized by the fact that your post still exists.
Posted by: Lance | March 14, 2008 2:45 PM
No, the only reason Larry's comment still exists is because I hadn't noticed it yet to delete it. Now that I have, it's gone. As for my support of free speech, there is no contradiction at all between advocating a virtually absolutist version of the first amendment (as I do) and controlling who may and may not comment here (as I also do, though I've only had to ban perhaps a dozen people in nearly 5 years of this blog out of untold tens of thousands of readers and commenters). The first amendment protects us from the government. This is my blog, my personal property, just like my home is. You come into my home and say something vile about my mother and I'm throwing you out on my ass. If I did so and someone said "but I thought you believed in free speech" I would laugh and call them a moron. One simply has nothing to do with the other. My house, my rules; don't like them, don't come here. And there is not the slightest contradiction between that and my support of free speech. There is no more freedom of speech here than there is in anyone's home.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 14, 2008 7:39 PM
James wrote:
I clearly said that the situation may or may not have been as simple as it appeared, and that I was worried about running with the worst possible case. You disregarded that, and instead acted as if I was trying to argue something I wasn't. In other words, you assumed the worst and jumped the gun.
It's no big deal, it happens to the best of us. But please don't put the responsibility for your actions on me.
Posted by: Leni | March 14, 2008 8:38 PM
Wow, Larry, you don't really get the whole concept of analogies, do you?
Posted by: Skemono | March 16, 2008 4:18 AM
My dear Larry,
Firstly, actually Ed is right, it IS his blog therefore (like any mail posted to his address) he is perfectly free to discard any that he doesn't want to read. Secondly, he never alleged that you DID say anything about his mother, he used the SUBJUNCTIVE tense ("..IF you said anything against.." [my emphasis]),
IF you bother to read posts here THEN bother to comment. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 16, 2008 10:33 AM
If a professional journalist would be thrown out on his ass if his employer found him arbitrarily censoring blog visitors' comments, why aren't employers throwing professional journalists out on their asses for arbitrarily censoring blog visitors' comments? In fact, why do these employer's hire people whose responsibility is to arbitraily censor comments?
As usual, Larry is making stuff up in his zeal to attack Ed.
Note: the phrase "arbitraily censor comments" as used in this comment is used in the sense Larry uses it, not the standard definition that the majority of the English-speaking world uses.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 16, 2008 11:45 AM
Technically, subjunctive is a "mood," not a "tense."
...Just trying to add to the conversation. I'll go now.
Posted by: Brandon | March 17, 2008 5:25 AM
Larry claims I am full of crap, yet ironically, the very post he references demonstrates my claim! In that post, Ed linked to a Detroit Free Press article. In the comments section,, Larry left two comments on March 7. The second, in which he attacked Ed and and accused him of "arbitrary censorship," has since been "arbitrarily censored." Yet the journalist still writes for the Free Press. In fact, all comments have a "Report Abuse" link attached - a feature which sends a notification to people hired by the paper to "arbitrarily censor" comments. This is a very common feature in newspaper blogs and comment sections.
Here's another example from a major newspaper from Ed's state. The Detroit News has a whole community of bloggers, including staffers. Larry would be outraged at the "arbitrary censorship" exhibited there, yet these bloggers even get their work periodically published in the print edition!
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 17, 2008 8:08 AM
Larry, there's nothing at all that's arbitrary about Ed deleting your comments. You ran out your welcome months ago. (Perhaps more than a year ago?) Ed had a very specific reason to do so, and any objective outside observer would almost certainly agree with him and do the same.
So for the sake of your mental health, Larry, just walk away... the only reason why you keep feeling provoked by Ed is because you keep trying to post in a place where you're unwelcome.
I'd suggest you trying to reconcile with your brother. It was Dave, wasn't it? He seemed like a nice person who showed genuine concern for you.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 17, 2008 8:40 AM
The more I think about it, the more I conclude that Larry is just seeking attention -- any attention, positive or negative -- since he's probably feeling lonely.
Ed, perhaps you should set your alarm clock to 7am each morning... just to delete Larry's nightly attempts at getting this attention.
lol
(i laugh because i care)
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 17, 2008 8:45 AM