In short: Chandler (1971)
16 hours ago
But Sampson says his union official likened the book to bringing pornography to work...Huh? Pornography? Nice to see your union sticking up for you. I can only speculate as to why they didn't. Maybe you should have been a Boston firefighter. Then you could have brought porn to work, got high and pleasured yourself to the porn in your break room and they'd still argue that you deserve a pay raise to compensate for drug testing and sexual harassment training...but we're not talking about Boston idiots...we're talking about Indiana idiots.
...and the school's affirmative action officer in November told Sampson his conduct constituted racial harassment.My jaw kinda' dropped when I read that. What an ignorant, Pavlovian reaction to a "brand name". Don't try to read the title in context. In this case, just focus on the "KKK" part and figure it must be a racist book. Funny, it's not. It appears to be about the other thing that rips this country limb from limb - religion. Maybe these knee-jerkers could have read the title of the book. Maybe someone could have asked him, "Hey, what's that book about?" Naah. Too hard. Why try to understand what he's doing?
"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," Lillian Charleston wrote in a letter to Sampson.
"I can candidly say that we regret this situation took place," Bantz wrote.OMFGWTF?!?! YHGTBFSM!!!!!