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