Dispatches from the Culture Wars

"She may have been offended by the book, but she didn't say anything to me."

So a person (provided they are a member of a politically privileged group) can secretly be offended and, without confronting the offense directly cause someone to be subject to disciplinary action? Whatever happened to double-secret probation?

"BTW, that's an interesting pin you're wearing. Isn't a cross an instrument of execution by torture?"

"That's an interesting book you're reading. Didn't that book tell a story approving of genocide"

I'm waiting for someone to formally object to the Darwin fish on my car, but I don't think they really want to go down that road.

Posted by: BaldApe | January 3, 2009 10:09 AM

So a person (provided they are a member of a politically privileged group) can secretly be offended and, without confronting the offense directly cause someone to be subject to disciplinary action?

incredibly yes. Our company just did a "harassment" training class and this was explicitly stated by the instructor (a law professor)

Posted by: jay | January 3, 2009 11:22 AM

Vincent Manis said:

I personally have no problem at all with speech codes or harassment rules, so long as the goals are to ensure that everyone at a school or workplace feels safe and free to express their opinions.

One of the more charming oxymorons I've seen recently: We restrain your speech so that everyone else will be able to speak freely. Presumably about the weather.

Posted by: kehrsam | January 3, 2009 12:02 PM

so long as the goals are to ensure that everyone at a school or workplace feels safe and free to express their opinions.

Just as long as the "opinions" conform to what those in power decide they should be. This becomes antithetical to free speech (isn't that supposed to be a hallmark of higher eductional institutions).

Is this any different than a Christian complaining about my having "the Portable Atheist", or a Muslim objecting to "Why I am not a Muslim?". This obsession with not giving offense is an incredibly dangerous social concept, and with the adoption of all sorts of things as harassment (things that are NOT harassment in any conventional sense), legale imprimateur has been given to concept.

It is often said that the reason for not permitting displays of (otherwise legal) heterosexual pornography at the workplace (other than creating an unprofessional environment) is that it disproportionately harasses women.

An argument that in itself demeans women, treating them emotionallyas fragile creature that need special protection from seeing something they might not like.

not determining what the book was about, and identifying it as a scholarly work

So free speech, or the freedom to read, is limited by what is determined to be 'scholarly'.

Posted by: jay | January 3, 2009 12:11 PM

We would no doubt find and article on the KKK in each of the school's encyclopedias, so shouldn't someone who looks at, or even touches, such an encyclopedia be charged with racial harassment? Shouldn't the library itself be charged and subject to disciplinary action?

Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | January 3, 2009 12:22 PM

Excuse me all -

Ms. Watkins was not reprimanded, she was PROMOTED and is deputy director of the EEO. Watch the video again. She also was not required to learn how to read.

That is the bigger outrage.

Posted by: Pineyman | January 3, 2009 12:47 PM

You picked a pretty awful site to link to there. Founding bloggers is just a pajamas media sycophant group.

Posted by: Anon Imus | January 3, 2009 1:14 PM

Just a followup to my earlier comment. I should mention that I was a college/university teacher (computer science) for approximately 30 years. In that time, I regularly controlled speech in my classes. I ensured that only one person was speaking to the class at a time, and when side-conversations got too noisy and distracting I would courteously squelch them (normally by asking the students involved a question about the material; I was advised by one administrator once that doing so violated `the dignity of the individual'!)

There is an absolutism about speech codes: on the one hand, we have those who advocate the unfettered right of the individual to express any opinions at all, regardless of the effect on others. These negative effects might include outright threats, denying others the right to speak, or similar actions. On the other hand, there are those who are prepared to allow only a narrow range of opinions. It seems to me that a balance is needed, which ensures the primacy of freedom of speech, but also recognizes that some speech is intended to be disruptive and threatening. Had an individual been reading a book entitled `Kill All N****rs', and flaunting the book around, I personally WOULD have wanted him to account for his actions (and even then an absolute defence would be a demonstration that the book had some kind of merit, though perhaps an unfortunately provocative title).

Those who object to speech codes on any basis should ask how it can be that we should prevent ID from being presented in the classroom as a `scientific theory', but endorse the presence of gay/straight alliances in schools. What basis, other than the belief that not all forms of speech are equally valuable, or equally appropriate in a given situation, allows us to do that? (I will point out that the advocates of ID are in fact using exactly the argument of freedom of speech currently.)

Let me emphasize, because I know some will distort it, that I am not talking about choosing which opinions people can express. (That is specifically what Jay accused me of.) The hallmark of restricted speech has to be not that it causes offence, but that it acts as a threat. A woman who has been raped DOES feel threatened when she sees someone looking at rape pornography; as a gay man attending university in the 1960s and 1970s, I well recall the casual homophobic language floating around, which caused me to not say things on my own mind. What about burning crosses in front of a mostly black (or immigrant, or aboriginal/first nations) student residence? Or screaming `SHUT UP! SHUT UP!' to shut down an anti-abortion rally? Are these `freedom of speech'?

I repeat: there is a huge gray area between language that clearly is threatening or disruptive on the one hand, and legitimate discourse on the other. Whenever we can interpret an act as being the latter, we should. But there still are cases where purely speech acts cause damage, and we have to have some way of demonstrating that those, and only those acts, are unacceptable. Reading `The Satanic Verses' might be taken as offensive by some, but that's part of academic discourse; disrupting an Islamic prayer service by standing outside and screaming `If you do not know Christ, you will go to hell' is NOT part of academic discourse. (I might mention Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, who might easily decide to do something similar at an institution that teaches courses on sexuality, but I've already reached my quota of LGBT examples :-)

Again, I repeat that in the video, it's clear that the process used here had absolutely nothing to do with respecting this balance, or the rights of the accused, or anything else.
Incidentally, human rights legislation is often concerned more with reconciling the two parties than it is with legalistic punishments. At least, that's the theory; in this case, I see no evidence that any attempt was made to do this; maybe IUPUI's regulations make no provision for this. The accused was simply wrong, and that's that. That is not simply offensive in terms of freedom of speech. If a student is accused of cheating at IUPUI, is a decision of guilt and punishment made without the student being allowed to account for his/her actions? Is the student unable to appeal this to a higher body? That's truly scary.

Posted by: Vincent Manis | January 3, 2009 1:41 PM

This is an open and shut case, but I could see where reading a book could be harassment. Suppose it was a book published by the KKK with the title "N****** Are Subhuman" (although with the actual word) and pictures of outrageous stereotypes all over the cover.

Posted by: Taz | January 3, 2009 1:47 PM

Enough already with the P.C. monster! If the teachers at I.U.P.U.I. had bothered to find out what the book was about rather than simply panicking because it had "Ku Klux Klan" in the title, everyone might have learned an enlightening lesson about an American terrorist organization. We've gone from intolerance of our differences to intolerance of expression (which we have the right to criticize if we think it's wrong.) P.S. I'm actually from Indiana, which was a strongold of the Ku Klux Klowns in the 1920's. Some of them even got elected to office!

Posted by: Raymond Minton | January 3, 2009 2:59 PM

So a person (provided they are a member of a politically privileged group) can secretly be offended and, without confronting the offense directly cause someone to be subject to disciplinary action?

incredibly yes. Our company just did a "harassment" training class and this was explicitly stated by the instructor (a law professor)

In some situations this is a necessary protection. If someone is being harassed by a superior they may rightly fear retaliation if they confront the superior about the harassment. Or perhaps there is a particularly obnoxious colleague who, when informed that their behavior is offensive, just steps up the behavior in an attempt to push more buttons. Or there may be concerns that the alleged harasser is mentally unstable and may become violent if confronted. These are extreme cases but they do exist.

Of course I don't think that was the case here and I find this whole incident outrageous beyond words. I just wanted to point out that there are circumstances in which it is understandable why the harassee(?) would not directly confront the harasser before going to HR/EEOC/etc.

Posted by: peaches | January 3, 2009 3:53 PM

BaldApe,

I find myself in a bit of a pickle because I totally agree with you. It's phenomenally unfair that someone may be accused of harassment when they've done no such thing simply because a colleague is overly sensitive. At the same time there are the rare (I hope) cases in which confronting the harasser would do more harm than good to the other employee(s).

I have seen both situations personally and that's probably what leads to my ambivalence. My boyfriend was once threatened by a crazy coworker with an absolutely ridiculous sexual harassment suit. It was the stupidest of the stupid so I have no sympathy for those who file frivolous claims. On the other hand, I worked for a few years with a guy who was mentally unstable and would occasionally harass other employees. We knew he had a history of threatening violence and AFAIK the reason he was never fired, despite numerous complaints and disciplinary actions, was because personnel was worried that he would come back with a sawed-off shotgun if they canned him. Anyway, none of us were stupid enough to try and confront him about his behavior; all our complaints went straight to personnel. (I think they were waiting for enough documentation to apply for a restraining order before firing him.)

Those are two extreme examples and between them things get fuzzy. I have no idea where to draw the line as to when a confrontation should be required and when it's OK to skip that and go to HR instead. My hope would be that the HR department would be competent enough to review each case thoroughly and come to a reasonable conclusion so that frivolous cases such as the one you mention would be dismissed while the serious ones are dealt with responsibly. But the IUPUI story is evidence that this is not always the case.

I worry that always requiring a confrontation between the harasser and harassee would result in the most extreme cases never being heard. But not requiring confrontation leads to ridiculous cases being filed and even to unjustified firings/disciplinary action/prosecution. I have no idea what the solution should be.

Posted by: peaches | January 3, 2009 4:48 PM

The problem, peaches, is that I have no way of knowing, for instance, if a particular woman wants to go out on a date with me. If asked her out is "harassment" without any requirement that she let me know she isn't interested, I will die childless in fear that I might be harassing someone.

I understand that there might sometimes be fear of retribution, but ISTM that a person who is doing something that someone else finds offensive deserves the opportunity to stop the supposedly offensive behavior before being executed for it.

Give me a break. Are you seriously suggesting you cant understand why someone might feel intimidated when asked out by a superior? No one is saying you'll get sued for harassment asking out someone in the bar, bookstore, online chat room, pick another scenario. If the only place you can find dates is at work with your underlings, then maybe you should die childless.

Posted by: Lorax | January 3, 2009 5:01 PM

_Huck Finn_ (short title) was kept from English classes, unless multicultural awareness discussions were concurrent, at my old high school (Cherry Hill West, Cherry Hill, New Jersey) because of the word "nigger." No thought was given to the fact that Huck's white father was a worthless drunk but Jim the "Negro" was pretty much a real dad to Huck. Irony is America's middle name.

Posted by: Keith | January 3, 2009 7:45 PM

This sounds similar to the guy that got fired from his job for using the word "niggardly", which means "cheap" by the way. PC stupidity.

Posted by: mroberts | January 3, 2009 10:13 PM

None of this is terribly new. I got in trouble in high school because I was reading a book (on my own time, during lunch, sitting in a stairwell away from the more traveled areas no less) which had a swastika on the cover. The book was "Inside the Third Reich", the autobiographical work of Albert Speer, who was Hitler's chief architect and eventual Minister of Armaments. Not a perfect work, but important for the viewpoint it offers and certainly not pro-Nazi.

That was about 1986.

Posted by: Chris A | January 3, 2009 11:37 PM

What cowards some folks are; they can't even stand someone reading a book about a touchy subject - a book which happens to chronicle an episode in which the "good guys" won one. I am ashamed to say that my undergraduate education was earned at IUPUI.

Posted by: jws | January 4, 2009 12:26 AM

Blippey
your ass is grass!
As it should be if you are pushing unscientific alternatives!

Posted by: Mike | January 4, 2009 8:16 AM

Let me point out something not discussed. What if this had been a book about the Klan and Mr. John was a sympathizer of the Klan? Mr. John has a right to read any book on his free time. The point is he was not harassing anyone by merely reading a book for his own information. No university policy can usurp that right. The Affirmative Action department at this university should be seriously investigated.

Posted by: Melissa | January 4, 2009 8:57 AM

The most ironic part is where Sampson says "I feel that she was used, somebody was using her for their own agenda."

It's ironic because FIRE is clearly using him to advance their own agenda against Universities. It's doubly ironic since the whole "University" aspect here is a red herring.

This is a workplace harassment case, pure and simple, and the fact that it's at a University where he is also a part time student isn't relevant unless your goal is to make it a "big bad University" sort of thing, which is what FIRE does.

According to FIRE, there was no warning, no investigation, and Sampson will be tarred for life by this accusation. According to the actual letter, he was "repeatedly asked to refrain" from reading the book around people who found the cover offensive but did so anyway. It also indicates that there was an investigation that interviewed him, the accuser, and other coworkers and witnesses, during which he claimed not to be aware that the Klan could be offensive. Seriously. It also warns that *additional* behavior *could* trigger action, but he wasn't fired, demoted, or otherwise penalized.

Employers have a ton of leeway in determining what can be displayed in the workplace. The fact that the bookstore sells the book is also irrelevant; a bookstore may stock Hustler but that doesn't mean an employee can show centerfolds in the break room. This book isn't in the same class as porno, but it's not unreasonable that someone wouldn't want to be confronted with "The Klan" and burning crosses when they're on break.

It's also worth noting that the reprimand was retracted as soon as the ACLU got involved. It's FIRE that decided that this wasn't enough and demanded a formal apology. It's FIRE that is trying to twist a "hostile workplace" case into an "academic freedom" one.

If Sampson's version of the facts is correct, it's a pretty messed up situation. If he was asked to cover the damned burning crosses and refused, he's a jerk. Either way, FIRE has proven that they are willing to be dishonest in how they present the issue.

Posted by: ann | January 4, 2009 3:48 PM

@ann
The dishonesty was with Watkin's investigation NOT educating the complainant about the book's content. The dishonesty was with the process having no appeal and oversight - an issue that continues. The dishonesty is assuming that FIRE's goals make the attack any less valid. The dishonesty lies in the office that makes a mistake and does not admit such.

The retraction was hardly an exoneration and the employer took many months to fully correct the error rather than the 15 minutes it would take a rational human.

Employers may have lots of leeway but that really doesn't seem to apply in this case as the employer is a university which, on the surface of it, ought to have academic inquiry at it's core. If a black employee is so intellectually retarded as to be offended by a book chronicling the defeat of the klan, then the employer may have some duty to correct THAT problem rather than the other way around.

Posted by: Mike | January 4, 2009 7:21 PM