Taking Preventative Action to Ensure No One Is Kindof Sortof Maybe Offended

If you have not seen it, the Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis (IUPUI) reaction to a university employee reading a history book almost defies parody.  As far as I can tell, someone got offended or maybe was concerned someone might be offended because the Klan was in the title (notwithstanding the fact that the book is apparently decidedly anti-Klan).  This makes the whole "niggardly" controversy seem well-targeted in comparison.

However, I think Jacob Sullum misses the mark when he says:

To clarify, then, Sampson was not in trouble because of the book he
chose to read. He was in trouble because of what he might have been thinking while reading the book.

In fact, this is still not correct.  In fact, Sampson was in trouble because of what other people might think when they see him reading a book that has "KKK" somewhere in the title.  Pathetic.  Another lunatic step in trying to establish a "right not to be offended" at universities.


  1. Larry Sheldon:

    You are _still_ off the mark.

    It seems clear to me that he is in trouble (note tense, i don't believe for a minute that he is out of trouble) because of what the management thinks other people think he thinks.


  2. Maule Man:

    Hi Warren,

    Your first link doesn't work for me. Could you check it?


  3. TC:

    In my meager readings over the years I was always sorta surprised and possibly appalled that revolutions seemed to target universities and those that taught the young of the country.

    As i get older and more informed, I realize that such is probably a valid strategy, for valid reasons as well.

    When the institutions we depend upon for creating the next generation of the populace are such phukups, well they sorta deserve to become an early target.

  4. Steve:

    You should see what they're doing up here in Canada. Human Rights Commissions are chasing down bloggers and newsmagazines for offending people's sensibilities. The complainant's legal costs are covered by the state, while the respondent (defendant) has to pay their way, often into six figures. And it's a complete kangaroo court; they have a 100% conviction rate.

    At the center of this mess are Ezra Levant (www.ezralevant.com), Mark Steyn (www.marksteyn.com) and MacLean's magazine (www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071205_112340_5592).

    Ezra Levant is currently being sued by one of these jokers for calling him litigious. Talk about defying parody!

  5. Dave:

    The big problem is that there is a full time affirmative action officer on campus. This offers the opportunity for no end of trouble. Any small topic is seen as a way to show her power (and obviously stupidity, but I'm sure she makes six figures for her efforts).

    If these complaints were passed up the management chain they would have very likely been resolved easily.

  6. Josh:

    The top link still isn't working.

    None of the Google reader links you've posted in the past few days have worked for me.

  7. Jens Fiederer:

    Is there some other link?