Twain, the N-word and all that kerfuffle.

There is something of a kerfuffle going on over an edition of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. As I hope you know, the novel is set in pre-Civil War America and Huck’s friend, Jim is a slave. The novel uses dialects and language common to the era and the place. And that means a rather offensive word, nigger, is used.

With the book in public domain a publisher released an edition of the book where this word was removed. And that got the Right wing in a tizzy—though to be fair that is a perpetual state for them. Howls of “political correctness” were heard and the move was denounced.

I think much of the outrage was misplaced, some of it was just dumb, and some of it was, perhaps, motivated by people who actually like the N word. Others are people who want the “pure” novel to shine through. There is a range of reasons that people are upset. My view is that all of them should just calm down a bit.

First, the man behind the book, Alan Gribben, is NOT motivated by political correctness. Before people should start screaming about him being PC they ought to check out the facts. I know the Right doesn’t believe in innocent until proven guilty, but a little fact checking is a good thing.

While Gribben was not motivated by PC, the matter does arise. Gribben is a Twain scholar and fan. He is a professor of literature and wrote a biography of Twain and his wife, as well as other works about Twain and his writings. Gribben teaches in Alabama and during a speaking tour on Twain numerous teachers came to him and lamented how Huckleberry Finn had been removed from the classroom. Yes, schools removed the book because people found the N word offensive.

Now, let us consider many of the Right-wing critics of this move, who are crying “censorship.” First, give me a break, you dumb-ass hypocrites! You people have been burning books, sometimes authors, for centuries and now you howl! These are the same sorts of people who demand the removal of all sorts of literature. They don’t only want to clean out the schools, but public libraries, and even private libraries. They march around demanding prosecutions for “obscenity” and lead entire movements pushing censorship. This is not to say that the Left is any better. Both sides want government restrictions on speech, just not their speech!

We also need to define censorship, as the word is used too loosely. Censorship is the coercive prevention of the expression of an idea by an individual using their own resources, or resources made freely available to them. If I don’t use the N word, it is my choice, not censorship. If I use force to prevent you from using it, it is censorship. Nor is it censorship when this publisher does this. The publisher is not coercively preventing you from buying a different edition of the book, with all the language intact.

The publisher is NOT censoring the book. She is editing it. Like it or not, this editing is not coercive. Censorship always violates the rights of someone. This publication violates the rights of no one. And, we often edit literature when we present it to children.

Gribben wanted to see more kids reading Twain. The publisher, Suzanne La Rosa, said she was aware the edition would be provocative but “We were very persuaded by Dr. Gribben’s point of view of what he called the amount of ‘preemptive censorship’ going on at the school level It pained him personally to see… the way that Twain’s novels were being de-listed from curricula across the nation. It became difficult for teachers to engage in discussion about the text when the kids were so uncomfortable with the n-word.”

In other words, Gribben’s edition was an attempt to get the book back into classrooms for kids to read. He was responding to censorship that already existed and trying to rescue as much of Twain as he could. Gribben’s own introduction to the book explains:

Far more controversial than this reuniting of Twain’s boy books will be the editor’s decision to eliminate two racial slurs that have increasingly formed a barrier to these works for teachers, students, and general readers. The editor thus hopes to introduce both books to a wider readership than they can currently enjoy. Twain, it should be remembered, was endeavoring to accurately depict the prevailing social attitudes along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1840s by repeatedly employing in both novels a linguistic corruption of “Negro” in reference to African American slaves, and by tagging the villain in Tom Sawyer with a deprecating racial label for Native Americans. Although Twain’s adult narrator of Tom Sawyer is himself careful to use the then-respectful terms “colored” and “negro” in Chapter 1, the boys refer to slaves four times with the pejorative n-word. In Twain’s later book, Huckleberry Finn, these barely educated boys and the uneducated adult characters in Missouri and Arkansas casually toss about this same racial insult a total of 218 times (with the novel’s table of contents adding another instance)

The n-word possessed, then as now, demeaning implications more vile than almost any insult that can be applied to other racial groups. There is no equivalent slur in the English language. As a result, with every passing decade this affront appears to gain rather than lose its impact. Even at the level of college and graduate school, students are capable of resenting textual encounters with this racial appellative. In the 1870s and 1880s, of course, Twain scarcely had to concern himself about the feelings of African American or Native American readers. These population groups were too occupied with trying, in the one case, to recover from the degradation of slavery and the institution of Jim Crow segregation policies, and, in the other case, to survive the onslaught of settlers and buffalo-hunters who had decimated their ways of life, than to bother about objectionable vocabulary choices in two popular books.

Gribben says that a “succession of firsthand experiences” lead him to conclude, “an epithet-free edition of Twain’s books is necessary today.”

Certainly neither Gribben nor the publisher deserve the attacks they are enduring. They are simply trying to get kids to read the book. And since Gribben has written a clear introduction saying he removed the word, students will rather easily be able to re-insert it if they wish. Gribben replace “nigger” with “slave” and any reader knowing this would be able to reconstruct the novel. But teachers wishing to read passages in class would no longer have to face the drama that will inevitably result from the use of a very offensive word.

I don’t know how I’d feel were I a black man who had experience racial slurs over a lifetime. I am not in that position. But I suspect I would be deeply troubled every time I heard the word. When Twain wrote his novel the word was in common usage. Thankfully that is no longer the case. It was a term meant to dehumanize a class of people. It reflects the legal status of African-Americans at the time. These were people held in bondage and the use of such demeaning words was a tool of that bondage. That victims of racism, and others, are sensitive to that fact today is NOT a bad thing, quite the contrary in fact.

If I were teaching a class on Twain I would find this word troubling. I would want the students to understand the context of Twain’s novel but neither would I want to inflict unnecessary pain on black students. The incentives would be to avoid Twain entirely. And that was what Gribben realized was happening, something he wanted to stop. And, I should note, that this problem exists whether the school is politically controlled or privately controlled.

There are few epithets as riddled with hate as “nigger,” very few. Even other offensive terms for blacks don’t carry the same baggage. Terms of derision used for Jews, Italians, Mexicans, etc., just don’t seem to have as much vitriol behind them. The only such word that I can think of, which is in this category, is perhaps, “faggot.” And, while gay people have been oppressed by American culture, their experiences are quantitatively different. Sodomy laws were awful but never nearly as pervasively enforced and destructive as slavery, segregation and racism. And it was always possible for most people to hide the fact that they were gay, hiding that one is black is a very different thing.

This is something my fellow Americans seem to never fully realize. I find it easy to view life as a white man. But I have lived in Africa where I was the racial minority. So I know something of what it feels like to be black in America, but only a vague something. Nothing in my life comes sufficiently close to the black experience. I have lived in countries where I couldn’t speak the language. So I know something of what it is like to an immigrant.

To the degree that “political correctness” means that people are voluntarily refraining from saying things that are hurtful to others, then I’m all for it. To the extent that law mandates it, I’m against it. I would like to live in a world where the N-word has lost its power; where kids are not taunted as “faggots” and then go home and kill themselves; where everyone is horrified when someone is derided because of their race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Ideally students should be able to understand that Twain’s use of the N-word was within a cultural/time context. But we don’t live in an ideal word. We still live in a world where the Klan exists, where the N-word is thrown about with the INTENT of inflicting pain, where racism still rears its very ugly head. It is hard for us to hear these offensive words without relating them to our own experiences.

I do not condemn Mr. Gribben or the publisher for this edition. I understand why they felt it was needed. I understand why many people are offended when they read the N-word in literature. And I understand why others want to preserve the book. I certainly understand the dilemma for teachers. That’s the problem with this controversy. Everyone has valid points. So, let a thousand flowers bloom. There may be places and times when the original edition of the book can be used, let it be used. And there may be places and times when the original would not be used; in that case I rather see this new edition used, than it not be used at all. And, all things considered, I would rather live in a world where hateful words are criticized and vigorously debated than in one where their usage is common and acceptable.

How Political Correctness may save Prop 8.

The bigotry of the Mormon Church may have been behind Proposition 8 in California, but political correctness may prevent the measure from being repealed.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which represents the Democratic Party more than the gay community, “is urging activists in California not to go back to the ballot next year to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage ban.” The ostensible reason for this is “that too much work remains to be done changing the minds of voters who supported the ban in November.” The same news story reports, “three groups representing black, Asian and Hispanic gays in California said they do not believe voter opinion has shifted enough to justify another costly campaign.”

This sounds plausible, and it is meant to, but the fact is that this is a big cover-up. In the world of political correctness you sometimes are not allowed to state the obvious. It was perfectly fine to discuss the role that the Mormon Church played in raising the millions to fund the campaign of lies that the Yes on 8 campaign ran. But it was a big no-no to mention that black voter turnout was a key factor in this bigoted measure’s passing.

Left-wing pundits have bent over backwards to recast the facts to try to hide the fact that anti-gay bigotry is higher in the black community than in other communities. And they are unwilling to discuss the role that the Obama campaign played in the passage of this measure.

If Prop 8 goes back to the voters in 2010 it is far more likely to fail even without a major shift in the prejudices of voters. The reason it is more likely to fail is that Obama won’t be on the ballot. Consider what Dan Walters, of the Sacramento Bee reported last November.

Supporters of same-sex marriage rights are fuming over California voters' approval of Proposition 8, which would place a ban on such marriages in the state constitution – especially since in other respects voters showed a somewhat left-of-center bent, including a massive victory by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Ironically, however, a mathematical analysis of voting and exit poll data indicates very strongly that it was exactly that pro-Obama surge that spelled victory for Proposition 8.

The only conclusion, therefore, is that as Obama was running up a 2.6 million-vote victory over Republican John McCain in California – twice the margins by which Democrats won in 2000 and 2004 – a great many Obama voters were also voting for Proposition 8, sponsored by a very conservative religious coalition.

Proposition 8, in fact, garnered 1.6 million more votes than McCain received. And, it's apparent, many of those votes – enough to make the difference – came from African American and Latino voters drawn to the polls by Obamamania.

An overwhelming, but not surprising, 94 percent of the former supported Obama, exit polling indicated, while 74 percent of Latinos voted for the winner. But 70 percent of African Americans also voted for Proposition 8, as did 53 percent of Latino voters.

Walters concludes that that had voter turnout in the black and Latino community not been swelled by the Obamatrons “chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.” Wow! That had the Left in a tizzy. First, Obama is the messiah and second, we shouldn’t say that there are bigots in minority communities. Thus the cover-up started.

Nate Silver used a bit of slight of hand to help the cover-up. He wrote, “the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters—the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent of their votes)—voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin.” Notice how Silver rather dishonestly changed the groups being compared. Black and Latino voters were not, for the most part “first time voters” at all. First time voters tended to be young people and young people did support Obama and did oppose Prop 8.

Silver continues with his dishonest analysis by saying “it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage.” No one said that at all. Walters, who Silver was trying to rebut, never made that claim. What he said was that the black and Latino vote changed the result. That the turnout was unusually high in those communities does not mean that the additional turnout was mainly “first time” voters. I suggest Silver realizes his errors but political correctness is political correctness.

Over at the Left-of-center Daily Kos one Obamatron (the Left-wing version of the Rondroids) shrieked about a “hateful racist fingerpoint from a white gay person.” So the Obamatron “blew off work that needed to be done… [to] put to rest, once and for all, this virulently racist idea that Black people are to blame for the passage of Proposition 8.”

I should note that black voters are not to “blame” but that the higher black turnout most certainly changed the results allowing the measure to pass. Blame is shared by everyone who voted for the measure. But, if Obama had not run for office, and if black voter turnout had not surged well above normal, the results of Prop 8 would have been different.

The Obamatron at Daily Kos, using the name Shanikka fumes about “anti-Black offenders,” and “white gay persons who have engaged in hateful, racist rhetoric and scapegoating” and tells them to “shut the fuck up.” Shanikka’s cover up relies upon bad math. Not knowing Shanikka’s gender, nor caring, I shall refer to the writer as him/her, or the equivalent.

Black voter turnout of total voters is normally 6% of the vote. In the Prop 8 election it was 10%. Shanikka said that is impossible “unless a million or so Blacks (he/she consistantly capitalizes this incorrectly) snuck into the state just before the election so they could say they cast their vote for Barack Obama on sunny California shores.” That simply is false, bad math, and an indication that he/she doesn’t understand percentages. The simplest way to prove that wrong is this: if the same raw number of black voters voted in the 2008 California election, but all other races stayed home, then black voters would have made up 100% of the voters without anyone sneaking into the state to vote.

Shanikka doesn’t appear to understand that percentages are relative numbers and can change when other factors change. A lower white turnout would increase the percentage of black voters. Shanikka seems to think that the percentage of black voters in an election can’t be higher than the percentage of blacks in the state. That merely indicates a lack of knowledge about percentages. While black voters make up 7% of the population of California, they could easily make up 10% of the voters in an election if they turnout in unusually high numbers while white voters vote in lower numbers.

That Obama was on the ballot did increase the number of minority voters in California. And because the election results were pretty clear before the California vote that decreased the likelihood of other groups of turning out. Shannika went through similar gymnastics in other areas with similar results. He/she claimed that it is a myth that “All Black people in California are old enough to vote.” No one said they were and that once again confuses raw numbers with percentages. He/she also said it was a myth that “All adult Black people in California are eligible to vote.” Again that confuses raw numbers with percentages. At least Shannika is consistent—making precisely the same error over and over just in different ways.

Another PC inspired cover-up was conducted by claiming that “after taking into account the effect of religious service attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African-Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups.” That black Americans are inclined toward both religion and anti-gay bigotry, more so than white Americans is a fact. But that doesn’t change the fact that the high turnout of Black voters is a prime reason that Prop 8 passed. Factoring out relevant facts creates this cover-up. As one gay site claimed: “African-American and Latino support for Proposition 8 not significantly higher when religious attendance is factored out.”

Is religion correlated with bigotry? Yes, I would say it is. But that doesn’t change the fact that black voters were more likely to vote for Prop 8. That they choose to be more religious than most Americans doesn’t change that fact. Religion and prejudice are choices people make. Some groups are more likely to choose both than other groups. This is true of blacks and Southerners both. None of that changes the fact that the higher black turnout in November is a prime reason that Prop 8 passed.

There was one somewhat prophetic article published at Salon before the Prop 8 vote by LaDoris Cordell, who is an African-American lesbian. She wrote:

The Obama candidacy has energized African-Americans. Black voter registration is up, which bodes well for him. But here's the rub: Could a large black turnout also bode well for the passage of Proposition 8? Those who would ban same-sex marriage certainly hope so. They are counting on the "Obama Effect" to enlist black voters, along with conservative Latinos, into their ranks. Frank Schubert, co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, says that, "[T]o the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us." As an African-American lesbian who has been in a loving relationship for over two decades, I have been made well aware of the black community's discomfort with things gay. Our long and courageous history in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights notwithstanding, the leadership of black America -- politicians, ministers, business leaders -- has not been as outspoken as it could be and should be on the issue of gay rights.

Unfortunately Cordell was only somewhat prophetic. She recognized the widespread anti-gay prejudice in the black community but went on to write: "Black voters will, I predict, view same-sex marriage as the constitutional guarantee that it is, thereby giving new meaning to the 'Obama Effect.'" Ooops! Cordell was engaging in wishful thinking. She realized that antigay views were strong in the black community and may well determine the results of the election, but that was before the election, while she could entertain the hope that black voters would see the light at the last minute. It was safe to voice these fears before they became reality. Now, that they are reality, it is politically incorrect to say the same thing.

Over at Obsidianwings a blogger did a decent numerical analysis of whether the higher voter turnout among blacks shifted the results for Prop 8. His conclusion is that they did. Under normal turnouts black voters would be 6.7% of all voters. Under the abnormally high turnout for Obama they were 10%. This analysis finds that if blacks voted for Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters the measure would have gone down in defeat. He notes that “if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss of 50.4%).” But 69% of black voters supported Prop 8 so it passed.

No one thinks that there will be a huge shift in opinions before next year. That’s the problem. If there is no shift in opinions, or just a small shift, and if the repeal of Prop 8 passed, that would destroy the PC cover-up about the vote in the black community. NGLTF, and other fronts for the Democratic Party, don’t want to deal with the ugly truth about anti-gay prejudice in the black community. They wish to pretend it doesn’t exist or is irrelevant at best. A repeat election, with a lower black turnout, but one that repealed Prop 8, would destroy this pretense. So they made the choice to keep Prop 8 in place for a few years more in order to cling to their political correctness.

Even worse, if the repeal is not done in 2010 when will it be done? 2012? If 2012 that would mean during another presidential election and the Democrats will renominate their messiah, if that option is open to them. That would mean a larger black voter turnout again, though I suspect not as large as the glimmer of Obama’s smile fades. Delaying the vote to 2012 instead of 2010 will actually increase the likelihood of another defeat. But these Democratic-fronts are willing to risk that in order to keep their illusions alive.

I repeat that I am not saying that the black community is “to blame” for Prop 8. Most supporters of Prop 8 were white. But in a vote as close as Prop 8 it is the margins that matter. And black voters provided the margin. Most white voters opposed Prop 8. Most Asian voters opposed Prop 8. Hispanic voters were almost evenly split. Only black voters overwhelmingly endorsed the measure. And that was enough to change the results from “No on 8” to “Yes on 8.”

A lower black turnout in 2010, which is expected because Obama won’t be on the ballot, would be sufficient to allow the “No on 8” vote to win. But that is not the only factor that will bring about the repeal of Prop 8. Even a small shift in white opposition to Prop 8, which is likely, would cement that victory. In addition, it is questionable whether the Mormon sect would engage in the same sort of behind-the-scenes fund-raising campaign again.

The Mormon leadership wanted to hide their role in Prop 8. They did their best to deceive the public about their role in Prop 8. They used the church to raise funds for the measure and they provided the bulk of the funding used. They got caught. They lied about their role, they lied about their funding and they got nabbed doing so. They will be far more reluctant to get as heavily involved a second time around. Meanwhile the No on 8 voters are really pissed off. I’d double my contribution to a repeal and I suspect a lot of other people would as well.

My guess is that a repeal campaign would be better funded and the campaign to preserve 8 would have less funding. In addition, the number of states with marriage equality will be much higher than it was when Prop 8 went down to defeat. California was the second state with marriage equality. Now there are six and two or three more are likely by next year.

A third factor working in favor of any revote on marriage equality is that old people die. (I say that as a baby boomer who is old enough to worry about such things.) Old people were another anti-equality group in the election. In 2010 a number of the old people who voted for Prop 8 won’t be around to vote against the repeal. They will be replaced by young people who become old enough to vote for the first time, a demographic more likely to support repeal.

In addition we should note how weak Obama’s opposition to Prop 8 was in the last election. He did very little to oppose the measure. He didn’t want to alienate the black vote. What he has done is piss off the gay vote, and that is not insignificant for Democrats. Obama’s pathetic record on matters that impact the gay community, such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

I have yet to hear a good reason that the repeal of Prop 8 shouldn’t be put on the 2010 ballot. I am not saying that one doesn’t exist but I’ve not heard it. What we are getting from the Left are excuses. More importantly they can’t analyze the situation accurately because their desire to be PC prevents them from dealing with the facts. They would rather put PC sentiments first and keep Prop 8 for several more years. Based on the facts, as we know them, the repeal of Prop 8 is likely in any election where Obama is not on the ballot. Yes, that means that 2014 would be a good year for repeal, but then so is 2010, and why let the injustice last another four years?

Political Correctness insanity

We blogged about this incident when it happened. Here is a short documentary about the incident. It is still ridiculous, of course.

Trinity College in uproar over fake racist message.

Some years ago I was asked to guest lecture at Trinity College in Hartford. I believe it was the only time I was on the campus but it seemed like a nice place. However, recently a controversy erupted on campus.

It appears that there is a web site, unaffiliated with the college, called TrinTalk and someone posted a remark that was considered racially insensitive. The closest I came to actual content was that the comment claimed the admission of more minority students lead to a drop in the college’s rankings.

The PC Left came out in force and held protests on campus. They said they wanted to start a “dialogue” which is nice. But, in my experience, when the PC Left says “dialogue” that means they talk and you listen.

One oh-so-PC prof, Johnny Eric Williams, claimed that because he is black “I’m uncomfortable all the the time on this goddamned campus.” To prove how uncomfortable he feels he referred to a handful of minor incidents over a 13 year period. There was some racist graffiti left on a tennis court, rude messages written outside some dorm rooms and students in Halloween costume which Williams found offensive. None of this comes close to a real violation of rights. But apparently it is enough for Prof. Williams to fell uncomfortable “all the time”. Williams knows how to play the victim card for maximum impact. For the record he teaches courses like "Race, Racism & Democracy", "Race and Ethnicity" and "Mass Media, Popular Culture, and Social Reality." The first course teaches "ethnicity and race as reactionary and revolutionary ideologies" The second discusses "persistent and perpetual forms of racial oppression" so students "can better understand the structure and process of politics govern (sic) the everyday lives of oppressed racial groups in capitalist democracies."

Of course, he has an agenda. He is demanding the school increase “student and faculty diversity” and one way of increasing “diversity” is “to not admit students who are intolerant.” The man is a perfect ass. First, many students who enter university as bigots are not bigots when they leave. Bigotry is often a result of social isolation from the people against whom the bigot is prejudiced. Social interaction with these people tends to reduce the levels of prejudice. Prof. Williams wants to make sure that “intolerant” students continue in their social isolation by refusing them admission to university. That makes no sense.

Well, that makes no sense if the goal is to reduce bigotry. But I suspect that is not Prof. Williams’ goal. His goal is to increase the political power of people like himself. This is done by admitting more individuals who agree with his agenda. The bigots will remained bigoted but Prof. Williams will have more clout on campus. Williams thrives on bigotry. His political agenda needs bigotry. If bigotry died completely tomorrow Mr. Williams would be impotent politcally.

The controversy took a new twist when the author of the racist remarks was revealed. It was Lynda Ikejimba, who immigrated to the United States from Nigeria when she was six. She is, as you might expect given her country of origin, black.

Ikejimba has scurried to explain her actions and I’m not sure they make any sense. She claims it was done to “test” the real racial feelings on campus. Her original anonymous comments were deleted by the web site’s administrator shortly after she posted them. But students who were offended by the remarks made sure they were spread as widely as possible -- something that strikes me as stupid or intentionally provocative. There is no indication that students supporting the remarks spread them about.

There was NO racist expressing bigoted views. There was a black woman, pretending to be a racist, posting a fake message. It was deleted. No one supported the message. Yet Prof. Williams feels “uncomfortable all the time on this goddamned campus.” Of course, he could remove himself from campus for someplace that he will feel more comfortable. But I suspect his claim of discomfort is as bogus as the original message that set this whole thing off. His offense is intentionally magnified for the purpose of campus politics, not because he is actually uncomfortable. The handful of incidents he refers to, spanning a 13-year period, never once approach the level of being an actual violation of rights. Surely there is a huge difference between some frat kid in an “insensitive” Halloween costume and a lynch mob. From Prof. Williams' response you wouldn't think so.

My view is that as racism dies its well deserved death the PC “racially-aware” Left will continue to invent excuses for pushing demands. They will exaggerate every potential offense, intentional or unintentional. Every relatively minor incident will be blown far out of proportion. And if no real incidents take place they will do what they can to manufacture them. The reason for this is simple: no one takes their continued demands seriously if there are no serious violations of rights.

The Klan is, for all purposes, dead. Racism is clearly very much a minority viewpoint. A predominantly white country elected a president who isn’t. All this good news is bad news to the campus activists -- professors and students alike. The dearth of serious racist incidents requires the creation of fake incidents and the exaggeration of real, but minor, ones. I, for one, find this sort of politicking offensive. It is filth but political cockroaches thrive on filth.

We are surrounded by morons.

Keith Sampson works as a janitor at Indiana University - Purdue University in Indianapolis. He is also studying for a degree in communications there. During his work breaks he would routinely sit down and read books. And that is what got him in trouble. You need to read this story because you aren’t going to believe the utter stupidity of the anti-discrimination at the University -- along with the incredible stupidity of the woman who caused the ruckus.

Sampson was reading a book Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fight Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan. Back in 1924 the Klan went to South Bend, Indiana, to hold a rally and to insult the famous Catholic school located there. The students at Notre Dame, shall we say, mixed it up with the Klan and sent those cowards in sheets running for their backwater tent revival for solace.

You’d think that a story about plucky university students sticking it to the smarmy bigots that inhabit the Klan would be reading that was applauded. Not so.

During his work break Sampson was sitting in the break room minding his own business while reading this book. He was told by a fellow employee, Nakea Vincent, that she was insulted and offended because he was reading a book that mentioned the Klan. Sampson tried to tell this ignoramus that the book was anti-Klan but she didn’t want to hear it. She was offended and in the Nanny State mere offense is proof positive that someone is guilty of discrimination.

The local union shop steward (need I saw more about his intelligence) berated Sampson for reading the book. He compared it to bringing hard core pornography to work. Hey, I know it’s dumb but I did warn you that he was a union official! At no point did it seem to sink into the heads of these morons that Sampson’s book was anti-Klan!

A few weeks go by when Sampson is summoned to Grand Inquisitor Marguerite Watkins’ office. She informs him that he is now charged with heresy, I mean, with reading a book that the clearly ignorant Vincent found offensive -- offense entirely due to own stupidity. Because the moron was offended than Watkins committed the crime of “racial harassment”. Too bad they don’t have a word to describe the harassment of intelligent readers by fools.

Apparently the mad censors are at work to censor books, not because they even promote racism, since this was an antiracist book, but merely on the premise that some mental midget is irrationally offended by something she doesn’t understand. In other words, Sampson is to lose his rights because Nakea Vincent is mentally challenged. And the professional discrimination sniffers at the Affirmative Action Office told Sampson that they find him guilty based on their investigation. I quote the letter from the Office of the Holy Inquisition:

“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 repeated requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence.”

Note that his entire crime is that he read a book which some silly woman found offensive purely based on her ignorance of the book. The book is not racist but Nakea Vincent is offended. If Mr. Sampson found stupid women offensive would that be sufficient reason to ban Ms. Vincent from the break room?

They also found that it is reasonable for Vincent to control the reading habits of her fellow employees. What sort of nonsense is this? It is based on the absurd view that Vincent’s offense, no matter how rooted it be in her own ignorance, is sufficient reason to strip another individual of his rights. She has superior rights because she is offended.

Sampson is chastised further because he was ordered by Inquisitor Watkins “to stop reading the book” around other people. Instead he was to sit in a separate area, away from others, if he wished to read this book. This is sort of an intellectual apartheid. A Jim Crow law for people who are smarter than offended idiots.

Well, when word got out what this book-burning brigade of politically correct bureaucrats were doing they did a quick retreat. After the Orwellian “Affirmative Action Officer Lillian Charleston” told Sampson that reading the book was racial harassment and informing him that dire consequences could follow Charleston did a quick turnaround in the face of some publicity.

Her second letter was, she said, to replace her first letter. Maybe drop it down the memory hole. Now she tells him that she didn’t mean to “imply that it is impermissible for you or to limit your ability to read scholarly books or other such literature during break times.”

From charging him with racial harassment, and finding him guilty, she now says she was merely trying “to address conduct on your part that raised concern on the part of your co-workers.” See Nakea Vincent was suffering from delusions of stupidity, she was just concerned. God, these people can’t even weasel well without couching words with their own lingo. Charging someone with racial harassment and threatening severe consequences is now just “addressing conduct”.

From saying he was guilty of racial harassment Charleston now says she has no “final conclusion concerning what was intended by the conduct.” Get that? “Intended by the conduct?” Okay, lets say it real slow for the bureaucrat. His intended conduct was to read a book! Case closed.

Disclosure: It is with some embarrassment that I have to confess that I took courses at Purdue University.