The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Indiana University’s Jihad Against Free Speech – UPDATED

Posted by iusbvision on April 15, 2008

 

UPDATE – See Comments Section Below

Recently, IUPUI has come under fire for a violation of student’s rights regarding a book about the KKK. In a blatant intrusion upon the freedoms students and all citizens should enjoy, the administration punished a student for simply reading a book that made someone else feel uncomfortable. After hearing about this tragedy, I spoke with former Chief Justice Chuck Norton about  this event and others that have taken place on our own campus.

JB: Why was IUPUI’s action a violation of students’ rights?

CN: The details of the case are not in dispute. A student who was also a staff employee of the university is an avid reader. He was reading a history book about how the KKK decided to engage Notre Dame Students with violence in 1925 and the students at Notre Dame quite literally kicked the Klanners’ butts in what is likely the biggest street fight in the history of South Bend.

Apparently reading a true historical account of an important defeat of the Klan is “racial harassment” because a student/co-worker went to the affirmative action office and filed a complaint.

The affirmative action office, in a violation of the IU code of conduct, without looking at the legal definition of racial harassment, in a violation of IU judicial procedure, and in violation of federal case law, found him guilty of “racial harassment” without giving him any real chance to defend himself, or even knowing the name of his accuser. This very book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan sits in the IUSB Library.

This student contacted FIRE – The Foundation for Individual Rights and Education who moved swiftly to let IUPUI know what was going to come their way if the administration continued to behave in such an unlawful manner. The university backpedaled and is now in full “cover your backside” mode. I called the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office and they were not answering the phone and not returning messages or calls so apparently these people who are paid by the taxpayer believe that they are totally unaccountable to the public as well. The local media criticized IUPUI to their credit.


JB: In your time as Chief Justice, have you seen the university violate students’ rights here at IUSB? How did Judicial affairs handle those situations?

CN: There have been some cases where the university did the right thing, some cases where the university did the right thing after SGA members intervened and other cases where the university decided that it was going to break the law and dig in their heels.

JB: Can you provide any details about those cases?

CN: I was involved in defending students in several cases where they were falsely accused. In some cases Vice Chancellor Karen White intervened directly and did the right thing.

When the IUSB Vision was set up in a conspiracy between a professor who has a history of attempting to engage in censorship and a student with a mission to bring The Vision down Karen White got down to the bottom of it pretty fast and put a stop to it. White is no fool and is very capable of administering justice if she sets her mind to it.

There were other cases such as the proposed “bulletin board policy” that would have allowed the Director of Student Life to censor student speech that he found to be “potentially offensive” and last year’s SGA united and made it clear that not only would the students not stand for the policy, President Vigil and I advised the university that a federal lawsuit may have followed if the new policy was implemented. The university decided to do the right thing.

There were two cases where professors filed bogus charges of academic misconduct against students. I have little doubt that these students would have been railroaded and their academic careers destroyed if those students did not have access to someone like the SGA Chief Justice to help defend them.

The case that earned IUSB nationwide attention and shame has still not been fully resolved. A student was writing a series of articles about the Vagina Monologues. The student’s second article, which was a review of the content of the play, was an accurate description of the sexually explicit content of the play. IUSB graduates who were in the V-Club and performed the play went on the record to state that the content of the article was accurate. The student also interviewed members of the cast including V-Club advisor Prof. Smits. The student’s interview questions followed the themes and events which are highlighted in the play.

Members of the V-Club said in interviews that when they had received an advanced copy of the article that they objected to such an explicit description of the play’s content. The majority members of the V-Club including Prof. Smits decided to make a concerted effort to have the article suppressed. The evidence shows that Prof. Smits worked with Judicial Affairs Director Charlotte Pfeifer and others to manufacture bogus sexual misconduct, stalking and hazing charges against the student.  They solicited others to file bogus charges against the student. They also put pressure on The Preface Editor to not publish the article.

University rules, not to mention federal case law, do not permit the university to interfere with student publications in this manner. Yet the evidence shows that this is not the first time that the Office of Judicial Affairs has broken these rules.

Smits filed a complaint with Pfeifer’s office against the student. The complaint was ridiculous on its face. Smits pulled the “saucy” parts of the student’s questions out of the context of the play and its themes to make it look like the student was the dirty old man from 70’s hit comedy show Laugh-In. Her complaint tried to make it seem as if some guy just walked up to her and started asking probing sexual questions in an attempt to be lewd; in reality the questions all centered around the themes of the play, the content of the play and of literature in general.

Smits has taught literature and to say a great deal of published and revered literature is filled with sexual and lewd content is perhaps the understatement of the century, yet after performing in a play as sexually explicit as the Vagina Monologues is, her complaint would have you believe that she turned into a shrinking violet because someone asked questions about it.

The evidence shows that Smits and her accomplices claim the right to offend anyone they chose with the sexually explicit nature of the play, and yet claim the right to scream “I’m offended” and go after anyone who describes or questions their activities in detail.

SGA became involved in the case when a member of the faculty, who was well aware of what was happening and who will forever remain anonymous, asked the SGA Chief Justice to take action.

The evidence and witness statements show that not only did Pfeifer collude in bringing these bogus charges to bear; she did not give the exculpatory evidence that she was well aware of to the accused, and found him guilty of the charges.

President Vigil and I launched an investigation which yielded a great deal of exculpatory evidence. We advised Vice-Chancellor White and others about what the IU Code of Conduct and Federal law have to say about what had happened in this case. Our pleas fell on deaf ears.

We tried to handle the situation in house but the administration wouldn’t have it so the student filed an official appeal of Pfeifer’s decision and former President Vigil and I, with the support of President Blount, presented a defense brief outlining some of the evidence we had found in our investigation and a detailed explanation of the IU Code of Conduct and federal case law to the appeal commission judges which included two senior faculty members and a student.

The appeal hearing was very enlightening to put it mildly. The Office of Judicial Affairs presented a surprise witness in violation of IUSB’s own judicial procedures. We objected but the judges allowed the witness. Ironically under questioning their surprise witness substantiated the case for the defense.

The appeals hearing threw out the hazing and stalking charges but found the student guilty of sexual misconduct, when there was no conduct alleged, only constitutionally protected speech. The IUSB hearing judges and Pfeifer and White were presented with detailed explanations of Federal case law, the IU code and enough facts that left more than enough room for doubt and yet they made a choice to violate the rules and the law in finding this student guilty.

One of the judges even made statements indicating that for matters of that hearing, the law didn’t matter very much. At another meeting the same judge even told me in no uncertain terms, “good luck in finding a lawyer or group to take the case.” I appreciated that because the student ended up having plenty of luck.

At this point the student asked for high powered outside legal help and contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Students for Academic Freedom, and the ACLU, of which I am a member.

Students for Academic Freedom contacted the President of FIRE on the student’s behalf. FIRE, after conducting its own investigation, started advising and consulting with the ACLU. FIRE sent a gem of a legal “nasty gram” to Chancellor Reck. Reck referred the letter to IU legal and IU legal interpreted the IU Code and Federal case law correctly in its response saying, “the University erred in trying to address these issues through a disciplinary process. The Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct is designed to address behavior (i.e., conduct) and not speech. The charges filed against you should have been dismissed at the outset on that distinction.”

One administration member told me, “judicial affairs has egg on its face and it was published nationwide” and made it clear that things could happen which I interpreted as some form of retaliation.

After FIRE got involved and published what was happening to this student on its web site more people and evidence came forward which is being saved if needed. If and when this case comes to further legal action my advice would be to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth because the administration is not aware of just how much new evidence we have.

The aftermath has had its ups and downs. On the upside FIRE and the ACLU are watching IUSB very closely to put it mildly. There are members of the administration who are appalled at what has been happening in judicial affairs and have been acting with conscience.

On the down side IUSB refuses to investigate itself on the abuses of the system committed by Pfeifer, Smits and others who abused this student. IUSB has refused to clear this student’s record of this nonsense. IUSB sent out letters to other members of the administration and some school deans stating that this student is guilty of sexual misconduct, to the best of my knowledge new letters have not been sent out clearing his name. Professors are stating that they have been “warned” about this student, most likely as a result of those letters.

The university retaliated against SGA President Blount. He was fired from his job in student services and he has children to feed. He was told that it was due to “budget cuts”, however an examination of those budgets by those who are in the know say otherwise. Others who are in a position to know have stated that Blount’s status as a student was threatened. They also say that the administration has threatened to remove funding from the SGA. I know that Blount was so frightened that he was pressured to lie about some of the facts about the investigation in an attempt to undermine it and assault the credibility of the student [accused], former President Vigil and myself. Blount is a good man at heart and came clean when confronted on this.  FIRE has made it clear that it stands ready to take action on Blount’s behalf should he so wish it.

I have been also made aware that some in the administration sought to take some action against me but decided otherwise because I have the means, resources and will to fight back and win. If they had retaliated I am confident that the depositions and discovery process would prove to be quite amusing.

JB:  In your opinion as Chief Justice, is the university looking to protect the rights of students on this campus?

CN: The simple truth is that most universities could care less about a freedom of speech and conscience. They all pay lip service to it, but a simple examination of FIRE’s web site in the complaints section shows that this problem is rampant across universities nationwide and what happened at IUPUI is merely one of the latest examples.

Across the nation there are more cases of students and professors being persecuted for constitutionally protected speech, falsely denied tenure, grades lowered for political reasons, anti-Semitic bias, and forced political indoctrination than I can count.  Most of the time they get away with these abuses because students don’t know how to defend themselves.

There are three film documentaries that bring light to this issue. “Indoctrinate U” is excellent. Magicians Penn & Teller did an episode on their Showtime program on this issue and famed actor, comedian, writer, and financial genius Ben Stein has made a documentary called “Expelled” which opens in theatres April 18.

As far as IUSB, Judicial Affairs is so structurally flawed that unless someone intervenes to make it fair, the student has almost no chance of a fair and impartial hearing. For example – let’s say that a professor makes an accusation against a student. It is Pfeifer’s job to be impartial, collect all the evidence both damning and exculpatory and lay it all out on the table for all to see and to make a judgment.  That judgment can be appealed to the vice-chancellor, to a hearing commission, sometimes the student affairs committee can get involved and it can be appealed to the chancellor.

Here is why that system is flawed. Pfeifer has told me to my face that a student’s word is never as good as a professors’. She has told others that as well. So if it’s “he said she said” then the student is guilty. There is no genuine benefit of the doubt.   Since the student has no resources to investigate and demand cooperation and Pfeifer and the professors do, the damning evidence is highlighted, the exculpatory is not and the student for all practical purposes is guilty until the student proves themselves innocent and is given almost no resources to do so.

So let’s say the student appeals to the hearing commission. Even in spite of solid evidence and law all of the assumptions went against the student in the case outlined above. Most of the benefit of the doubt went to Pfeifer and the professor.

Why is this? Academia has a culture that exacerbates this problem. Professors of course have a PhD. Most really believe that they and their peers are the smartest people they know. Most of them have enough similarity in their cultural and political views that for many they pat each other on the back, tell each other how brilliant they are, and after all it must be true because all of these brilliant PhD’s say so right? This environment leads to a culture where people stop challenging their own assumptions. They have made an assumption or a charge therefore it must be true.

This is precisely the kind of thinking I have run into time and time again in helping students fend off bogus charges. There are those who are more careful thinkers and will even challenge their own assumptions that sometimes get on these hearing commissions, but in the end they have to work with their peers and say hello to a vice-chancellor every morning; so all of the peer pressure goes against the professor chosen as judge. So who is inclined to go against the tide? “After all we have to work with these people,” I was told by one professor on a key committee who is sympathetic to students who have gone through this process. Students come and go, careers are almost forever.

If someone in the office of judicial affairs has an axe to grind against you or goes along with a misguided professor who does, the way judicial affairs is conducted becomes nothing short of Nixonian.

What every university needs in an ombudsman with real investigative power whose job is to help defend the accused almost no matter what, to balance this structural unfairness out. This ombudsman cannot be someone who goes to the same restaurants and cocktail parties as the rest of the faculty and administration. The peer pressure on the ombudsman has to be removed as much as possible.

JB: If a student feels that their rights have been violated, what course of action would you recommend? Are there any third party organizations that specialize in the protection of students’ rights?

CN: Contact me. I am willing to help any student with their defense. Get copies of not only the student code of conduct, but the actual judicial and appeals procedures as well and have a professor or a lawyer friend help you go through them so you understand them. They may try to use not so subtle intimidation tactics against you so give an appearance of confidence.  Another tactic is to escalate the charges if you make it clear that you won’t go quietly, so expect that.

Professors can be unreasonable for the reasons mentioned above. Talk to that professor’s supervisors. You might get lucky and that professor has a boss who is willing to risk conflict with a professor. It is rare but I have seen it happen.

Don’t incriminate yourself. Anything you say can and may be taken out of context and used against you. Find representation of some kind to go with you and make sure that representation is not someone who is going to be intimidated themselves. Sometimes talking to the SGA can help – but keep in mind that members of the SGA can sometimes be successfully intimidated as well. Some on the SGA are like politicians and won’t do anything unless there is a benefit for them.

Demand that the IUSB office of Judicial Affairs give you all of the exculpatory evidence. If you don’t get it, you know something is afoot.

Don’t be afraid to call the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org) and talk to someone. While they cannot take on all cases, at least you can get some great advice at a minimum.


JB: Thank you for your time and for your perseverance working to fight for the rights of students on this campus.

 

Jarrod Brigham

 

About these ads

17 Responses to “Indiana University’s Jihad Against Free Speech – UPDATED”

  1. Kristi Dunn said

    I think you need to look at the accurate definitions of the term “Jihad” (and other such terms, which hold a powerful impact on today’s society) before using it so loosely in an article such as this. The term is already misused by the world’s populace, many of whom are not aware of the cultural / religious definition which refers to 5 Jihad – four of which are internal wars with oneself. The article can be a topic of debate on its own, but such an ignorant statement made by the title of the article alone takes away from anything (positive or negative) that the article may supply.

    Some terms really should be studied to a certain depth before being used so nonchalantly.

  2. Chuck Norton said

    Kristi – the word Jihad was used quite deliberately. It describes a radical leftist culture that seeks to suppress speech that doesn’t meet its own notions of political correctness. Those who do not tow the line of political correctness are treated as dhimmis, as second class citizens who have no rights.

    Rights are not restored until force is applied to restore them.

    A simple survey of FIRE’s web site gives countless examples of the lengths many at today’s universities will go to suppress free speech and conscience. The lengths to suppress go well into what can be described as a radical zeal to do so and the extremes that are stooped to speak for themselves.

    So with all due respect, your assumption is a false one and seems to be based on rediculous political correctness. The contectual meaning of the word here is crystal clear and completely proper.

  3. Kristi Dunn said

    My point is based on a proper knowledge of history and religion leading up to the correct definition of the term. It has not so much to do with political correctness as it does with simply requesting that the word be used properly or not at all.

    Your use of the term (with or without your explanation) remains frivolous and out of place. The actual definition of “Jihad” is outside of the realm of “a radical leftist culture that seeks to suppress speech that doesn’t meet its own notions of political correctness” – and by being outside of the realm I mean that the word used properly by it’s correct definition simply has nothing to do with the topic you are discussing.

    With all due respect, you can’t just pick and choose words to use because you think it will create a bigger impact, without adhering to the proper meaning and correct usage.

  4. Kristi Dunn said

    With all due respect, you can’t just use a word because you think it will create a bigger impact and ignore it’s proper definition and correct usage.

    My statement is not an assumption. It comes from having a proper knowledge of the history behind the word and a knowledge of the proper use.

  5. Kristi said

    With all due respect, you can’t just use a word because you think it will create a bigger impact and ignore it’s proper definition and correct usage.

    My statement is not an assumption. It comes from having a proper knowledge of the history behind the word and a knowledge of the proper use.

  6. Chuck Norton said

    Kristi,

    I see that you aren’t quite getting it so I will explain it to you more clearly.

    Point 1 – You say that people can’t use a word because it doesn’t match what you call “proper”. There is this little thing called the First Amendment, perhaps you have heard of it. It is a seldom invoked notion in the minds of college ideologues called freedom of speech.

    Point 2 – There is often a big difference between the ancient text book definition of a word and its common contextual use. For example the word “gay” in old text definition means happy or cheerful so I challenge you to do the following. Roam the halls of IUSB and point your finger at random people and shout “YOUR GAY” and see if someone objects. According to your logic no one will so lets see if you are willing to put your own nonsense to the test.

    Point 3 – As far as the word “jihad” – I suggest you take a look a http://www.memri.org and take a look at some Palestinian state run television and see how they use the word “jihad” – you may find that they use the word repeatedly and not in the context of an “internal struggle” that you view as “proper”. Perhaps you should start to write Palestinian TV and inform them that they are not using the word “jihad” properly. Let me know if they change their ways will you??

    Point 4 – The use of the word here has a metaphoric meaning and that seems to be obvious to almost everyone but you. Contextual meanings are often used as a literary device to draw what is called a literary comparison. On the bright side, you are a student at IUSB and I am confident that your lack of understanding about what a literary comparison is can be resolved by taking a few English lit classes. So think of this as a learning opportunity.

  7. Andrew Filmer said

    I think the question really is about whether the contextual meaning is based on an accurate, non-extremist Islamic understanding of the term “jihad”, or whether it is based on an understanding, however flawed or stereotyped, of present day society.

    If it was based purely on the former, I think using any literary comparison that would allude to a particular aspect of a religion would be ill-advised at best. However, while I would personally seek not to distract readers from the main thesis of the article, it is nonetheless evident that the terms “crusade” and “crucify” – and even direct references to the Spanish Inquisition – are used on a frequent basis without any relevance to present-day Christianity (including Catholicism) and without causing due alarm. An equal playing field would thus allow Chuck to use the term without automatic discrimination.

    If it refers to the latter, it does tend to reinforce Kristi’s point that the use of the term to begin with is a dangerous stereotype. Even if Chuck did consider the use of the term in his comment of April 16, it is hard to imagine that all readers would come to that same conclusion without overtones borne of stereotypes of Islam.

    These two perspectives in mind, I do believe that Chuck has the right to use the term. Whether it was a bright idea to do so is debatable. Personally, I feel this is a reason why in professional newspaper writing, editors take over the responsibility of headline writing from the writers – so that they take into account the overall impact of the paper, and not just the article in question.

    Who knows, usage of the term “jihad” may indeed may eventually have the same effect as that of the term “crusade”. The clouds of amelioration and pejoration are not easy for one to forecast. “Incredible”, after all, used to be a negative term, literally meaning “not credible”.

    Kristi certainly has a point in the sense that having gone this far in commenting, I’ve practically forgotten what the article is about. This should have been the overriding editorial concern.

  8. Kristi said

    My apologies for multiple posts. I had computer issues.

    Andrew, thank you for your post.

    Chuck, the first ammendment supports free speech, not outright ignorance.

    As it is, I made my point and I know several people have understood it. A flame war is unnecessary, so I’m out.

  9. [...] and all citizens should enjoy, the administration punished a student for simply reading a book thttp://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/indiana-university%e2%80%99s-jihad-against-free-speech/Why the great British breakfast is a killer Times OnlineThe news that Heston ???Bacon and Egg [...]

  10. Chuck Norton said

    Kristi –

    If my position is so ignorant – how come you addressed exactly ZERO of my substantive points and observations with anything meaningful? …. Or even any of my valid points that were made with a bit of tongue and cheek?

    Your point was clear – you were trying to swing the hammer of political correctness to try and shame people into silence or backpedaling and using that hammer to try and make some sort of misguided discrimination claim and/or implication. The people here are immune to such nonsense.

    Have a great summer.

  11. Chuck Norton said

    Andrew – if the word Jihad has become some type of stereotype – than the people who have made it one are muslims themselves.

    Allow me to explain.

    Almost 30% of the muslims in Britain by a poll approved of the attacks made by radicalized muslims there. Fatwa’s were issued against Salmon Rushdie because he dared to write a book. Theo Von Gogh was stabbed and murdered. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is hunted because she left Islam and criticizes it, in fact the note that was stabbed in Theo von Gogh’s chest was addressed to her. Look at the riots and burned embassy’s etc etc because someone published cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Look at the signs on the pro-jihadist marchers that say “behead those who insult Islam”.

    Look at the alarming rate of honor killings, female genital mutilation, and look at how women are treated by Sharia Law “courts”.

    Take a gander at Iranian or Palestinian or Hezbollah TV.

    Ok now look at all the millions and millions of muslims marching against the jihadists…. oh wait there really arent that many of them. The jihadists can own the front page and suck the media oxygen out of the air.

    If there is a stereotype – it happens for several reasons:

    The media exposure of the radicals, the media under exposure of the moderates, the unwillingness of too many muslims to take risk for real reforms, the oppression of some who do speak out.

    The word stereotype is one of those “buzz words” but even though some stereotypes are born of ignorance or intolerance, others are made because there is a long established pattern of behavior by a highly exposed group.

    Your example of the crusade and inquisition are excellent examples. The Spanish Inquisition killed between 3-5 thousand people between 1560 and 1700. So that is like 21-35 people a year depending on whose numbers you want to trust.

    You hear the inquisition used as a weapon against people of Christian faith routinely. It is a pillar of the PC crowds arsenal. Yet do we call the murder of 30 million people under Stalin a holocaust or have some nice buzz word to describe it? Of course we dont, because political correctness likes Marxists.

    Jihadists kill a great many more people than the Inquisition and have done so in a day rather than over the course of 140 years. So indeed some stereotypes are indeed tools of the bigoted and the ignorant and the hateful, others are just a result of combining circumstances and patterns of behavior.

  12. Chuck Norton said

    UPDATE –

    The New York Press has picked up the story –

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/my_racial_harassment_nightmare_110119.htm

    – which prompted a column from the Renew America group who had some edgy yet interesting and rather bold things to say about this case. The perpetrator of this atrocity has either retired or been retired this year. http://www.iupui.edu/~iuihome/jagnews/?id=3379

    Here are portions of the column –
    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/080515

    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 until 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 and a more noble entity called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. …

    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.

    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.

    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.

  13. Chuck Norton said

    Update –

    IUPUI Chancellor Charles Bantz has seen the light? It would seem so:

    I can candidly say that we regret this situation ever took place and that IUPUI takes this matter very seriously. IUPUI is committed to ensuring that its future approach to such matters is consistent with and affirms the long-standing commitment of this campus to the principles of freedom of expression, lifelong learning, and respect for the rights of all members of the IUPUI community. In the near future, IUPUI will be reexamining the campuswide affirmative action processes and procedures related to internal complaints.

    http://thefire.org/pdfs/9bccb3d3c350724d09c4b17922270f0c.pdf

    Wow – I am impressed and almost envious – and what do you want to bet that there will be no secret or thinly veiled retalliation later against the student involved or other students?

    IUPUI is even going to make sure that the student’s file is cleared of this nonsense – something that IUSB refuses to do for our intrepid Preface writer who was victimized by IUSB – Una Mae?

  14. Rich Henry said

    Misdirection is unfortunate. Kristi must have got up on the wrong side of websters. ;-)dictionary.reference.com/browse/jihad – States simply this “a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims. ”
    I can understand that chuck was just being “laconic” to capture the essence of just how ruthless these attacks are, and they are out of control. I am so very happy to see someone will stand up and be a part of the process to keep our rights protected even if our educators feel they shouldn’t be bothered by such a burden.

    laconic \luh-KON-ik\, adjective:
    Using or marked by the use of a minimum of words; brief and pithy; brusque
    I didnt want kristi to misunderstand me…..

    ;-)

  15. Eric said

    Hi, stopping by a couple of years later but I’m still glad I found this site. I’m certain there’s similar situations going on all over the country. Isn’t it funny how those who *claim* to be victims — or the descendants of such — have become the victimizers? You know, I don’t have too much of a problem with “jihad” IF the playing field is leveled but when one side tries to work within the system, while the other side continually tries to subvert it, *damages* should be awarded. The decisions by Miss Charleston, in Hitlerian fashion, might have somehow been deemed allowable by her playbook, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t actually violating civil rights… and, therefore, damages should be awarded.

    As for Kristi, God bless you man for taking the time to respond to her. You were 1000% on-target to point out that people like her have no horse in this race, therefore, their best bet to convince themselves they possess a wisdom they do not is to cherry-pick something to debate that has no relevance to the main point. I say such people, if you let them, will drag the conversation into the weeds and, once you’re tangled up in them, will proclaim a faux victory.

    Plus, people like that, are a dime a dozen… because they’re lazy and that behavior requires none of the intellectual demand associated with critical thinking.

    Keep up the good fight!

    [Thanks for your kind words! - Editor]

  16. Paul Geer said

    I was caught up in a similar situation as a full time employee with IUSB for 22 years. Working in the wood shop in the afternoon, I would have Rush Limbaugh on the shop radio. After we had a complete change of “upper management” and department head is when my problems began. I was accused of having a “anger management” problem with in two years of our new department head. I was sent off to counseling two times each with about me having an episode of showing anger. Now, I have to admit I a passionate person and if I’m upset about something I don’t mind showing it. Each time there was an “incident” my boss was right in the middle of it. To make a long story short, I lost my job because of all this. The union made a half hearted attempt to represent me but lead to nothing but me signing a document stating that I could no longer work for IU, ever. Management didn’t ask for this but was offered from the union. At this point I realized the union didn’t want me there as well. Was it Rush Limbaugh? After 22 years of putting up with me, and my retirement was around the corner in 3 or 4 years, what do think?

    The new management are uber-liberal, and to think Rush Limbaugh was playing on campus!

  17. I was on that online community and 1 guy was chatting involving your web site. My interest brought me study. I tend not to have a very single thing terrible to say concerning your cyberspace pages, Infact I imagine this extremely is an incredible weblog! At all times writing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers

%d bloggers like this: