18 Comments

First, let me say that what happened to this gentleman was wrong – flat out wrong. No amount of sugarcoating, spinning, or whitewashing can change that.

But there is something else that needs to be addressed here. The initiating article for this that everyone references is from a “Independant Newspaper” at “nuvo.com.”

The article for this incident ran on February 27, 2008. If you read the article, the writer and editor leaves the impression that this is an ongoing injustice, yet at the bottom of the article, there is an editor’s note saying that as they went to “press,” they received the second letter rescinding the initial letter saying that Mr. Sampson could not read the book during his break.

This story really began to hit the internet on March 4th and 5th, a full week after it was resolved, and yet people – including the usually diligent FIRE – seem to report it as ongoing.

The school was wrong – there is no doubt about that. The so called “Diversity Center” needs a serious class in the law and the Constitution. Yet their ignorance doesn’t excuse the deliberate misrepresentation of what happened in this case by the “newspaper” and other blogs.

The incident had been resolved when the newspaper went to press, and yet they and the blogsphere maintained the impression that it was not resolved.

Shame on the school for their actions. Shame on the blogsphere for their actions as well.

It is amazing how far some people will go out of their way to be offended.

I feel kind of miffed. I live in Indianapolis and I have not heard a word about this. I’m a daily listener to the local talk radio (conservative) and not a peep.

I may have to take it upon myself to send a message to Ray Bradbury.

I wonder if he checked the book out from the University library?

Diversity is our greatest strength. Repeat until true.

What also seems odd is that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union hasn’t (apparently) taken notice or waxed public outrage. This surprises me (satire).

“Independant Newspaper” at “nuvo.com.”

Yeah, that’s the local lefty free rag. The most amazing part of the story is that even they thought the school went too far.

I’ve been yelled at twice by teachers for reading books between classes. The first time, I was in High School and was reading “Dune” during my lunch break. A passing teacher told me to stop reading it because, “it is a violent videogame and has no place in a school.” I assume she meant DOOM.

The second time was in college. As is my habit, I was about an hour early for class and was sitting in the hall of the English department reading “The Terrible Truth About Liberals” by Neal Boortz. Another passing teacher tore into me, denouncing me as a hate monger and, for some reason, a racist. As is also my habit, I responded to this insanity by laughing at her, which was very rude of me. Oddly enough, no one complained the week before when I was reading Hillary’s book.

This is just another example of liberal extremism that predominates the college and university campuses in the U.S. What a joke! “Indiana Civil Liberties Union” an even bigger joke!

gitarcarver: Have you read that second letter? It’s posted on volokh.com, and IMO it falls far short of compensating for the original injustice, or of indicating that the affirmative action office has learned anything by this or is any less likely to do something similar next time.

Have you read that second letter?

Yes I have.

short of compensating for the original injustice

Why would there be compensation for this anyway? Taken to the extreme, are you saying that anytime a higher court overturns a lower court, the lower court should “compensate” the party for being wrong?

or of indicating that the affirmative action office has learned anything by this or is any less likely to do something similar next time.

Neither of which are necessary in the letter. We don’t know how the office handled this internally. One would hope that the office would have learned from this and that people would have been disciplined for their participation and original decisions. However, those internal actions are not really a part of the letter, nor should they be. They may even be contrary to legal advice and employment agreements.

I know the school screwed up and screwed up big time. It was good to see that they caught the error and tried to fix it BEFORE all of the stuff came out about the incident. I am sure that they are caught in the dilemma of “morally we should apologize, but if we admit guilt, we open ourselves up to a lawsuit and ‘compensation’ for Mr. Sampson. If we stay quiet and address the issue, we are much safer.”

I am not defending the school’s actions. They were definitely wrong.

But the depiction of this incident in the blog world was wrong as well.

gitarcarver, I don’t understand what you mean by the “blog world.” You indict the entire blogosphere for talking about this because the University corrected its mistake. You yourself have read at least two blogs that both reported the original horror and the retraction (Overlawyered and Volokh).

Are you implying that, as long as it is corrected, we are not allowed to mention the original egregious mistake?

Markm may have used the wrong word; “compensation” may not be required (although no doubt the diversity crowd would demand it if the roles were reversed), but an apology is, given the apparent facts, in order.

You indict the entire blogosphere for talking about this because the University corrected its mistake.

No sir. I am indicting the entire blog world for presenting this as “unsettled” when in fact it was already settled.

Let’s review. The originating article that started this was from the “newspaper” found at nuvo.com. They ran the original article on February 27. At the bottom of the article is an “editor’s note” saying that there was a SECOND letter that had been delivered to Mr Sampson. That letter is not mentioned in the article at all and the reader is left with the impression that Mr Sampson was still being restricted from his choice of reading materials when in fact he was not. All of the links in the orginating post here at Overlawyered (including Overlawyered itself) are dated AFTER February 27th and presented this as a case where Sampson’s rights were still being violated when in fact they were not. Most of the blogs covered their trails with an “update” to their original posts. I submit that what was “updated” was not the facts or events surrounding this case, but people reading what occured instead of relying on a faulty article, and word of mouth.

If you read the comments from the various blogs that covered this, including the nuvo site, you’ll see that many people are demanding that the school should reverse itself and let the man read his book. Yet the school had already done that.

Are you implying that, as long as it is corrected, we are not allowed to mention the original egregious mistake?

No sir. I am flatly stating that the way this event was reported was at best sloppy, and at worst incomplete.

but an apology is, given the apparent facts, in order.

Once again, given the nature of the “if I admit we were wrong, we open ourselves up to a lawsuit,” an official letter of apology may never happen. It may be something that happens in private. We don’t know. Because of liability issues, an official apology may not happen. Morally, it should.

Once again, this was something that was corrected by the school before the event hit the blogosphere, yet blogs portrayed the ban on the book as ongoing. The school was wrong in its initial decision. There is no doubt about that. Yet for some reason the school reversed itself. They should be chastised, drawn and quartered for the initial decision, but on some level they should also be noticed for not digging in their heels and not reviewing the original decision.

Many people at the school did a lot of things wrong, but someone there did something right.

The ban *is* ongoing. The schools most recent position includes the following statement, “Of course, if the conduct was intended to cause disruption to the work environment, such behavior would be subject to action by the University.”

The ban *is* ongoing.

Any action that an employee takes that causes disruption in any workplace is subject to action by an employer.

In that the last line of the letter contradicts the previous letter and says that no action will be taken on the part of the university, and the the body of the letter says that Sampson is free o read scholarly books on his own (break) time, your stance that the ban against Sampson’s reading the book in question is without merit.

Any action that an employee takes that causes disruption in any workplace is subject to action by an employer.

And his book-reading did in fact cause a dispruption.

In that the last line of the letter contradicts the previous letter and says that no action will be taken on the part of the university, and the the body of the letter says that Sampson is free o read scholarly books on his own (break) time, your stance that the ban against Sampson’s reading the book in question is without merit.

Your claim that the ban should remain ongoing is without merit. Whether or not the conduct in fact creates a disruption is not the standard, because if it was, what was and was not permitted would be completely determined by other people’s reaction to it.

The ban is still ongoing and it should not be. That’s why this is still a story and why the university’s new position is still wrong.

And his book-reading did in fact cause a dispruption.

Actually, it didn’t and that is the point of the whole thing. His reading of the book did not create the “disruption” of a “hostile work environment” as was claimed. Whether or not someone is offended by a book you choose to read is not a defacto disruption.

Your claim that the ban should remain ongoing is without merit.

In that the ban is not ongoing, this is a strawman.

Whether or not the conduct in fact creates a disruption is not the standard, because if it was, what was and was not permitted would be completely determined by other people’s reaction to it.

In all employee relations such things as “dispruptions,” “hostile work environment,” and “guidelines” are always subjective and responded to based on people’s reactions. Whether that reaction is that of a co-worker or supervisor matters. Ultimately it is the supervisor who determines whether something is “disuptive.”

Surely you aren’t saying that the university has to allow a worker to spit in someone’s food while on break, or play music so loudly that no one can hear. At certain points, empolyers have to weigh the actions of employees and decide whether their actions create a disruption on company / university property.

The ban is still ongoing and it should not be.

The ban is not ongoing. You cannot support this statement. Sampson is free to read his scholarly works.

How is that a ban? How is the freedom to do what he wanted initially a ban?

Please reread the first paragraph of the second letter and explain how that is a ban.

[…] may recall the remarkable case last year in which student employee Keith John Sampson was hauled up on university disciplinary charges […]