Posted on 05/25/2008 11:00:42 AM PDT by neverdem
Recently I wrote a piece about Keith John Sampson, a college student who was charged with "racial harassment" for reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book. Not surprisingly, the article evoked a great response, including emails from those with their own stories to tell about persecution inspired by what I will call caucaphobia. A couple of these accounts are so compelling -- compared to one even Sampson's problems pale -- I've decided to publish them in this piece (both readers allowed me to use their names; their correspondence has been edited for punctuation, grammar and style). These are the stories the mainstream media won't tell, straight from the front lines of the culture war. They give voice to a persecution whose name most dare not utter.
Dear Mr. Duke,
I can empathize with Mr. Sampson. I've been through the same sort of ordeal. After retiring from the U.S. Navy, I accepted a position with Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry as its Manager of Safety (I'm a safety engineer). After four years there, a female (black-militant) employee noticed my tie bar (Celtic knot-work with the emblem of my Celtic family - despite my Iberian surname, gained by being adopted, my genetic heritage is Scot/Irish) and asked me what it was. Stupidly, I responded, ‘This? Oh, it's just my clan badge [referring to the Scottish clan from which he was descended].'
I'll leave it to you to guess what ensued. I'll tell you this: by the next morning, the rumor that I had been ‘outed' as a Klansman had spread, like wildfire, through the ranks of the museum's black employees (~ 60%). Two security officers frog-marched me out of a class I had been teaching (with every black person in the room glaring at me, with utter loathing!) and escorted me to my boss's office -- there to be grilled by him. Later in the day, I was called back in and fired from my position.
As I said, I can empathize.
Dear Mr. Duke:
In the fall of 1994, I (a white American) began studying at American University in Washington, DC. At the time, I lived on campus with my Japanese roommate. I lived with him for a year and a half. In the spring of 1996, he and I started to develop problems living together. One day, while in the restroom speaking with another student, I made the comment that ‘we should just nuke the f******,' in reference to the Japanese. Little did I know at the time, my roommate was standing outside and overheard the comment. A few days later he moved out of the room we shared.
After that, I started to receive harassing calls. I would have unknown Japanese students knocking on my door in the middle of the night. Later, I had my property destroyed with a note from a Japanese student that he would drop a bomb on me. This was then reported to and filed with campus security.
A few days later, I had numerous charges of ‘threats, harassment, and intimidation' filed against me not by my roommate but the floor's Resident Assistant [RA]. In a meeting with him and the Area Director [AD] (a black immigrant from Africa), I asked how I ‘threatened' my roommate -- the AD stated ‘It was because he felt threatened.' I was also told not to go near my roommate or further charges would be filed.
I then contested the filing of the charges with the Director of Judicial Affairs (a black woman) who then had the RA amend the charges to represent my creating a ‘threatening' environment for the residents on the entire floor. This was done to justify the RA filing the charges rather than my ex-roommate, since I could not counter-file charges against the RA, who represented the university [in other words, they wanted to make sure he was powerless to resist this racial persecution]. I was also told by the director that this was being viewed as a ‘racial' incident.
At the time I was home on Spring Break. Due to all the stress created by the charges and a scheduled judicial hearing -- where I faced potentially being expelled from the university -- under medical advice I did not return to the university the rest of the semester. By not returning the situation escalated further.
Because I was enrolled full time, I drove 3.5 hours to Washington to meet with my professors concerning my classes and would return home. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet with all of them. I then requested the assistance of the dean of the business school to attempt to get incompletes for my classes. The incompletes were given with the forms signed on my behalf by the dean; however, that information was never provided to me. I thus failed the courses.
While at home, I would receive harassing phone calls from the Office of Judicial Affairs. On one message I was told I was a ‘liar' when I had told the director I was no longer living at the university because I had been ‘seen' on campus. When I returned to the university to get my possessions out of my dorm room, I was greeted by six security officers. I was escorted to my room, allowed to get my things and then taken to the campus security office, where I was photographed and told that if I ever step foot in the dorm again, I will be arrested by the DC police for ‘criminal trespassing.' Apparently, at the request of the RA, I had been ‘barred' from the dorm but yet was never provided this information. I had requested the information from security regarding the request the RA had made but they refused to provide it, stating it could be ‘libel.'
In the fall of 1996, my [Japanese] roommate and I spend the semester studying abroad in London. I made various offices at the university aware of the charges and that he and I would be together. I was told I would be allowed to go, but should there be any ‘problems,' I would be immediately sent back to the United States and none of what I paid for that semester would be refunded. Then, after speaking with the Director of Residential Life the charges were dropped. She stated that my roommate would be going back to Japan and without their ‘key witness' they had no case. Additionally, she basically stated that next time I should keep my mouth shut, saying ‘think before you speak.'
During all of my communication with the university, I was told that everything was being done on my roommate's behalf. However, at the end of 1996, the director of the London program, my roommate, and I had the first opportunity to discuss what had occurred. My roommate admitted it was not racial, that he was just angry because we were having problems living together, and that it was the RA that approached him initially. Furthermore, everything that had happened to me on his ‘behalf' he was totally unaware of.
In the spring of 1997, I was supposed to graduate from American. However, given the status of my courses from the spring of 1996, that was in doubt. Upon returning to campus, I was informed that although the charges had been dropped, the barring from the dorm had not been. Additionally, the university's ‘solution' to my classes was for me to ‘sit in' on the courses and retake them and then I could graduate in the fall of 1997. However, this apparently was not ‘officially' sanctioned by the Registrar's Office.
Given a year's worth of threats, harassment, and intimidation by the university, I believed it to be nothing but a hostile environment at that point. I then submitted the paperwork to the university to withdraw. However, because of the ‘reasons' for my withdrawal, the dean refused to sign the paperwork. To this day, I do not know when or how I was withdrawn since they refused to provide me that information.
A year later, I then received information from the Department of Education [DOE] concerning my financial aid. According to their records, I had borrowed several thousand dollars for the spring 1997 semester. I had informed them that I had withdrawn and therefore did not borrow the money. They had no record of this. Apparently, there was a ‘glitch' in the computer system according to the university. The money eventually was refunded to DOE but not within the 30 days required by law. I then filed a complaint with the DOE's Office of Civil Rights given everything that had happened. However, since my complaint was being filed after the180 day limit from the first incident, it was not accepted.
Upon withdrawing from American, I then spent another 2.5 years in school to finish my degree by transferring to a local community college and then to the University of Miami in Florida. By doing so, I also put myself in debt another $30,000 on top of the $30,000 borrowed to attend American.
While I have not been at American for years, the loans have been a consistent issue. I received no benefit from that money since I had to repeat everything all over again. Thus, I have been in a constant dispute with the DOE. Their response has been, ‘You signed the note. You attended the classes. You owe us the money.' However, my point to them has been that for American University to qualify for the federal loan program they must comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which mandates equal treatment in all operations of the university, which was not the case. I filed charges with security for being threatened by a Japanese student and nothing was done. I did nothing to my roommate and had the full weight of the university fall upon me.
As a result of my refusal to pay the loans, DOE has since garnished my wages. I was informed by them that I have a right to a hearing to contest the garnishment. I filed the appropriate forms and sent 120 pages of documents regarding the situation. My hearing was denied and the garnishment imposed. According to DOE, I had attended American until August of 2000, and, therefore, because I was still at the school, I needed to repay.
When I spoke with the representative of DOE (a black woman), she stated that I ‘alleged' discrimination but did not prove it. I asked her where the August 2000 date came from; she told me it was provided by American University. I told her that they were providing fraudulent information because I was at Miami at the time. She then became very belligerent, stating ‘I know how to do my job' and hung up on me.
So, 12 years later, I am still dealing with the repercussions of a simple comment made in a restroom at the university. Because of the various individuals involved and their own racist agenda, I have essentially had my life ruined. The future that I felt I was going to have when I first arrived at the university was taken away from me and their actions have cost me dearly -- mentally, emotionally, and financially. Every two weeks when I get paid and have the garnishment taken I am reminded of what happened. Of course, the absolute irony in all of this is that I'm still friends with my roommate.
In conclusion, I would like you to know how much I appreciate what you wrote in describing the situation Keith Sampson unfortunately found himself in. Your statement, ‘people of low character, often vile, ignorant, unintelligent individuals' is very accurate, although phrased much nicer than I would say it.
Uneducated agenda driven DOLTS — Who know not the difference between Clan and Klan. The rest are also in that category for their screeds.
Perhaps the Russian term and ulitmate insult, “Neculturna” fits them best — meaning “Uncultured Barbarians.”
I always wondered if in such situations it was possible to directly sue the people involved in these implementing these discriminatory policies. If anything, having to deal with such lawsuits would be a measure of payback.
As has been said before, this crap has been going on for years under a GOP watch, and there's never a peep about it.
Wow, pretty tough stuff!
The Japanese student alleged discrimination and did not prove it either but because he is a member of a minority group, American University decided to punish the white student for an admittedly hurtful comment that wasn't even uttered towards his Japanese roommate. A anti-caucasian comment would be laughed at on today's college campuses.
This is one of the paramount reasons I don't vote Democrat: liberal racism.
I’ll never forget my senior year of high school I wrote a paper about race relations in the United States for my American Government class. I was writing in favor of racial equality but from the standpoint of racial transparency. My thought was that if we could stop considering race in any way, people would be less likely to use race in a way against, say, a job applicant, thus removing the ability for the applicant to appeal a job denial on the basis of race, as an example.
Not only did the pseudo-anti-affirmative-action argument fall flat with my teacher, I used the word “niggling” in one part of the paper and was written up for racial insensitivity. Word spread like wildfire, and I was all of a sudden this second coming of Hitler among my peers.
I can DEFINITELY relate to the letters in this story. Thankfully mine didn’t go as far as some of these folks did, but I’ll say it again, “If you listen carefully, you can hear the death knell of the white, Christian male in the very near future.”
ping
Without Whitey to blame; maybe I’m just a loser!
Thank your guardian angel that you didn't use the word niggardly.
I am forcibly reminded of the liberal white bureaucrat in Washington DC was raked over the coals for appropriately using the word 'niggardly' in a budget discussion(1999). The motivating factor in 'PC'dom appears to be an embrace of the perverse power of 'victimhood' and the elevation of "I'm offended" to a criminal offense!
I'm also wondering about the attraction of 'Obamamania' and the liberal college educated. I've read speculation that part of the desire to elect Obama is the perception that by demonstrating their ability to elect Obama means that we have achieved the equality utopia. It is convoluted, but it rings true to me.
Nasty-grams sent to AU and Chicago Museum....
Sickening stories if true.
They are true.
LOL, we were all referencing the same word, niggard, from this article. Great minds think alike and write simultaneously!Looking it up on line, the Oxford Pocket Dictionary now lists it as ‘often offensive’. I wonder why - blame the Vikings I guess, and since I’m sure George has some Scandinoovian in him from somwhere, it is inevitably; “Bush’s Fault”!
Where did they come from? A novel, The Clansman, written by Thomas Dixon in the first decade of the Twentieth century. The book, which portrayed the Klan as heroes, was a big success, eventually being made into a stage play and a movie (The Birth of a Nation). Dixon added the costumes and burning crosses to add visual drama to the story.
So where did Dixon get the idea for a burning cross? From Sir Walter Scott's poem "The Lady of the Lake". In that poem, a runner is sent across the Highlands carrying a flaming cross as a signal for the Highland clans to muster for combat. Dixon thought the imagery was impressive and put it in the stage play. The rest -- as they say -- is history.
Just as Hitler screwed up one good luck symbol (the swastika), Dixon perverted the meaning of a Scots symbol.
I watched with horror as the media sliced and diced Hillary for saying last week that “after all, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June” in reference to the timeline, the reason she’s staying in the race. But immediately she was called to task for a “major gaffe,” an insult to Saint Obama. How twisted is that? Saint Obama is not the only Democrat in danger of being assassinated by some idiot, so is Hillary. Of course it’s on her mind.
Which brings up the question, is she being discriminated against because she’s white?
Electing Obama will mean a limitless increase in cases cited in this American Thinker article. Meanwhile, last week, I had two encounters with black men who worked in stores and in both instances they could not have been more friendly, polite, personable and aces at their jobs.. I would vote for a black man for president in a heartbeat if he had the right credentials but not a wussy Marxist who purses his lips like an old lady and wants apologies for all perceived intrusions into the liberal logjam in his mind. A “Grievance Collector.”
The guy’s a nightmare.
Happy Memorial Day. Go Danica!
It's a story so outrageous that if the mainstream media actually did what they say is their job, Mr. Reese would be on 60 Minutes.
What they say their job is, and what they are actually paid to do, are two entirely different things.They are paid to indicate that they are objective, they are not paid to be objective. Rather, they are paid to attract attention by calling into question the institutions and people upon whom we rely. Corporations we rely on for our fuel and our vehicles and our food and water and electricity. Policemen, military leaders and personnel. Broadly, anyone you might suspect of being attracted to the Republican Party. In this case, white men in general.
“The post-Civil War Klan did not run around in sheets or burn crosses.”
They did, though, wear cloth covers over their heads, with cut-outs for the eyes. Hence the association of the Klan with hoods.
A question for scholars of Catholic Church history:
During the Spanish Inquisition didn't the "Inquisitors" wear white (or red) robes and tall, conical head gear with eye-hole cutouts?
Just curious...
Regards,
GtG
It was about 15 years ago. A liberal (white) DC bureaucrat used to word niggardly (stingy) to describe some total of public funds for a program --the amount should be higher, he said.
The black establishment exploded, and he was made to resign, after apoligizing.
This guy they canned? Was a lib GAY dude...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.