Today’s IDS featured an article about an IUPUI student/employee, Keith Sampson, who was charged with racial harassment for reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book repeatedly in the presence of African-American co-workers on their break. The accusations were subsequently dropped, but Sampson is still seeking an apology for what he feels was a wronging. Was the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office correct in its accusation, or was Sampson unfairly targeted? In my opinion, the party at fault is still inconclusive.
Sampson was accused of racial harassment for reading this book on his break
From what information the story conveys, which is almost entirely Sampson’s side of the story, the situation appears to be a definite misstep by the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office that contradicts its own purpose by reversing the discrimination and limiting the rights of a non-minority person.
Although the book depicted burning crosses on the cover, it should have easily been discovered or known by the offended co-workers that it was in fact in opposition to the KKK and not in any way supporting the infamous group. Especially with the unfortunately rich history of the KKK in our state, the book has clear historical and educational value to readers of any ethnicity, and Sampson should not have been targeted as a racist or Klan-supporter for making an effort to educate himself by reading it.
The Holocaust was also an abdominal part of our history, but its offensiveness to certain groups of people shouldn’t prevent others from learning about it in or out of the classroom. The same concept applies to the KKK and Sampson, who, as far as we know, was not directly harassing his co-workers in any other way besides simply reading the book. In fact many would argue that knowledge of the history is the first step in preventing similar situations in the future. If his reading of the book was the sole source of racial harassment, he definitely deserves a sincere apology from his accusers.
While my initial reaction (based on the preceding logic) was to consider the accusation of racial harassment ridiculous according to the available facts, the situation does cause one to wonder why Sampson’s co-workers took the case so far. There was obviously no shortage of ill will between him and his fellow employees, who argued that “he was creating a hostile environment of antagonism.” It doesn’t seem extremely likely that the co-workers would be so determined to persecute Sampson for the simple fact that he was reading a book concerning the KKK.
So why were the co-workers so determined to strike out against Sampson? Did they have personal non-race-related issues with him? Was he exhibiting a racist attitude in their midst, intentionally trying to offend them with his “repeated” readings, and covering his tracks by making sure it was an anti-KKK book? Were the co-workers and the Affirmative Action Office actually the ones doing the discriminating?
These are all important questions that were not included in the story, which really only expounded on Sampson’s personal defense. They are undoubtedly being addressed in the IUPUI Human Resources Department’s continuing investigation of the case. Although it’s easy to jump to quick conclusions, I believe that until the results of this investigation become known and some of these questions are answered, it is impossible to make a sound judgment about Sampson and his co-workers’ allegations.
Linear Mode
