very now and then, one hears a story that is so outrageous that one thinks that the story has to be false.  I am going to tell one such story.  To begin with, the story is about a man, namely Mr. Keith Sampson, reading a book; and the title of that book is How the Fighting Irish defeated the Klu Klux Klan by Ted Tucker.  Now, even if the words “Klu Klux Klan” gave one pause, the rest of the title should certainly put one at ease.  I mean defeating the Klu Klux Klan is surely a good thing; and in some cosmic sense, it is even a better thing if it is the Fighting Irish of the University of Notre Dame who is giving the Klu Klux Klan a whipping.  How could anyone with an ounce of commonsense not see this as just wonderful? 

Well, leave it to political correctness and a black person, namely Ms. Nakea Vincent, who fixed upon the words “Klu Klux Klan”.  Oh, did I mention that Sampson is a white man?  No, I did not.  But should it matter?  Absolutely not.  Sampson was not reading a book entitled “How to Burn Niggers on Sunday”.  Rather, he was reading a book whose very title made it clear that the book was about the Klu Klux Klan having been defeated.  How is it even possible for a black person who has an ounce of common sense to be offended by that? 

Worse, how is it possible for that the black person’s complaint to be upheld by the Affirmative Action Office of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis?  It would be one thing obviously if he were reading the book when he should have been doing his job.  But no: Sampson read the book during his break. 

Now, what exactly is the charge?  Well, the charge is that by reading the book with that title in front of black people Sampson was thereby creating a hostile environment for blacks. 

I actually have a somewhat surprising explanation for what might have happened.  I shall offer it momentarily.

But first, let me pause here to say that I think a person is entitled to read whatever he pleases on his own time.  Besides, (a) there is what a person reads and then (b) there is the person’s intent in reading it.  I might read be interested in reading the book How to Burn Niggers on Sunday (NoWhere: In Da Hood Press, 2022) precisely because I might want to learn about the kind of thinking that went into that sort of racist activity.  A white person could read the book for the very same reason.  But if a racist wants to read How to Burn Niggers on Sunday, then so be it.  Likewise if a black wants to read a book entitled How to Drown White Crackers without Getting Wet (NoWhere: UpYours Press, 2029). 

Back to Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, however.  Lillian Charleston is the name of the Affirmative Action Officer who wrote a letter reprimanding Keith Sampson for creating a hostile environment by reading How the Fighting Irish defeated the Klu Klux Klan in front of black employers.  Here are her letters: one; two. 

Now, while I am all for protecting folks from racism, it sometimes turns out in the matter of race that the learning moment is on the other foot, as they say.  That is, it is the black person rather than the white person who needs to do the learning.  And that was imminently so in this case. 

Thus, by supporting Ms. Vincent’s hyperbolic accusations against Mr. Sampson, the truth of the matter is that Ms. Lillian Charleston insulted the intelligence of black people everywhere.  Indeed, she did more harm than good.  How much more decent—politically correct, even—can a white person be around black people than reading about how white people acted to defeat the Klu Klux Klan?  And if the title did not make things evident enough, all that Ms. Vincent had to do was pick up the book and browse through it; and that would have settled any doubts that she could possibly have had about the nature of the book.

This is so obvious that Vincent's not so behaving cries out for an explanation.  And I have one.  My suspicion is that Ms. Vincent could not read very well; accordingly, it was actually not possible for her to ascertain what the contents of the book might be about.  So Ms. Charleston supported Ms. Vincent in order to cover for the fact that Vincent could not do the obvious, namely browse through the back and see what it is about.  If the only words that a person can confidently recognize in a title are “Klu Klux Klan”, then the rest of the words in the title are irrelevant. 

Now, the explanation that Vincent cannot read makes sense of her reaction to the book that Sampson was reading.  If this is right, then Sampson’s real so-called problem is that he made Vincent feel woefully inadequate by reminding her that she could not perform a rather basic task at a relatively elementary level, namely read.  The issue was about race only en passant: Simpson is white and Vincent is black.  From what I can tell, it has not crossed anyone’s mind that Vincent probably cannot read. 

If this explanation is right, then Ms. Lillian Charleston did what I regard as wholly unconscionable.  It is obviously unfortunate that Vincent cannot read.  This misfortune, however, does not excuse in any way Charleston’s tainting the character of a very, very decent man.  For Charleston could have turned the event into a most extraordinary learning moment for all involved.  Charleston could have brought out the decency of Sampson and she could have inspired Vincent to learn to read (or to read better).  It was a miscarriage of justice to invoke the veneer of racism by claiming that Sampson was creating a hostile climate for blacks by reading the book in their presence.  Given what the book was about, he could no more have been doing that by reading the book, then a priest could be hinting at a lynching by wearing a cross around his neck. 

I do not know Ms. Vincent.  So I do not know that she cannot read.  But if she can, then she is an utter ass and a morally despicable person.  My assumption that she cannot read makes more sense of her reaction then the presumption that she can do so.  My assumption even allows a little pitty for her.  Otherwise, she is a detestable human being.

The behavior of Ms. Lillian Charleston, though, is another matter entirely—if, that is, what Charleston did is hide behind the veneer of racism in order to cover up the fact that Vincent cannot read.  Although it is embarrassing not to be able to read, there is so much moral goodness that Charleston could have wrought from the moment.  Sampson, for instance, could have been instrumental in helping Vincent and others to learn to read.  And everyone would have come out ahead.  But that would have taken both foresight and moral courage.  And this tells us what we have always known or, in any case, should know, namely that fighting wrongdoing and its effects requires depth of insight and courage.  Indeed, we must sometimes be willing to make victims feel uncomfortable in order to make them better off.  Moral progress is like that.  Charleston was too busy being black to do for the black janitors—Ms. Vincent, in particular—what they most needed.  Everyone suffered.  Mr. Sampson was no doubt deeply hurt; and we still have a black woman who cannot read. 

Ms. Lillian Charleston: The next time black people need someone to stand up for them.  Be sure to step down.