Actually, it didn’t and that is the point of the whole thing. His reading of the book did not create the “disruption” of a “hostile work environment” as was claimed. Whether or not someone is offended by a book you choose to read is not a defacto disruption.

Your claim that the ban should remain ongoing is without merit.

In that the ban is not ongoing, this is a strawman.

Whether or not the conduct in fact creates a disruption is not the standard, because if it was, what was and was not permitted would be completely determined by other people’s reaction to it.

In all employee relations such things as “dispruptions,” “hostile work environment,” and “guidelines” are always subjective and responded to based on people’s reactions. Whether that reaction is that of a co-worker or supervisor matters. Ultimately it is the supervisor who determines whether something is “disuptive.”

Surely you aren’t saying that the university has to allow a worker to spit in someone’s food while on break, or play music so loudly that no one can hear. At certain points, empolyers have to weigh the actions of employees and decide whether their actions create a disruption on company / university property.

The ban is still ongoing and it should not be.

The ban is not ongoing. You cannot support this statement. Sampson is free to read his scholarly works.

How is that a ban? How is the freedom to do what he wanted initially a ban?

Please reread the first paragraph of the second letter and explain how that is a ban.

Any action that an employee takes that causes disruption in any workplace is subject to action by an employer.

And his book-reading did in fact cause a dispruption.

In that the last line of the letter contradicts the previous letter and says that no action will be taken on the part of the university, and the the body of the letter says that Sampson is free o read scholarly books on his own (break) time, your stance that the ban against Sampson’s reading the book in question is without merit.

Your claim that the ban should remain ongoing is without merit. Whether or not the conduct in fact creates a disruption is not the standard, because if it was, what was and was not permitted would be completely determined by other people’s reaction to it.

The ban is still ongoing and it should not be. That’s why this is still a story and why the university’s new position is still wrong.

Any action that an employee takes that causes disruption in any workplace is subject to action by an employer.

In that the last line of the letter contradicts the previous letter and says that no action will be taken on the part of the university, and the the body of the letter says that Sampson is free o read scholarly books on his own (break) time, your stance that the ban against Sampson’s reading the book in question is without merit.

No sir. I am indicting the entire blog world for presenting this as “unsettled” when in fact it was already settled.

Let’s review. The originating article that started this was from the “newspaper” found at nuvo.com. They ran the original article on February 27. At the bottom of the article is an “editor’s note” saying that there was a SECOND letter that had been delivered to Mr Sampson. That letter is not mentioned in the article at all and the reader is left with the impression that Mr Sampson was still being restricted from his choice of reading materials when in fact he was not. All of the links in the orginating post here at Overlawyered (including Overlawyered itself) are dated AFTER February 27th and presented this as a case where Sampson’s rights were still being violated when in fact they were not. Most of the blogs covered their trails with an “update” to their original posts. I submit that what was “updated” was not the facts or events surrounding this case, but people reading what occured instead of relying on a faulty article, and word of mouth.

If you read the comments from the various blogs that covered this, including the nuvo site, you’ll see that many people are demanding that the school should reverse itself and let the man read his book. Yet the school had already done that.

Are you implying that, as long as it is corrected, we are not allowed to mention the original egregious mistake?

No sir. I am flatly stating that the way this event was reported was at best sloppy, and at worst incomplete.

but an apology is, given the apparent facts, in order.

Once again, given the nature of the “if I admit we were wrong, we open ourselves up to a lawsuit,” an official letter of apology may never happen. It may be something that happens in private. We don’t know. Because of liability issues, an official apology may not happen. Morally, it should.

Once again, this was something that was corrected by the school before the event hit the blogosphere, yet blogs portrayed the ban on the book as ongoing. The school was wrong in its initial decision. There is no doubt about that. Yet for some reason the school reversed itself. They should be chastised, drawn and quartered for the initial decision, but on some level they should also be noticed for not digging in their heels and not reviewing the original decision.

Many people at the school did a lot of things wrong, but someone there did something right.

Are you implying that, as long as it is corrected, we are not allowed to mention the original egregious mistake?

Markm may have used the wrong word; “compensation” may not be required (although no doubt the diversity crowd would demand it if the roles were reversed), but an apology is, given the apparent facts, in order.

Yes I have.

short of compensating for the original injustice

Why would there be compensation for this anyway? Taken to the extreme, are you saying that anytime a higher court overturns a lower court, the lower court should “compensate” the party for being wrong?

or of indicating that the affirmative action office has learned anything by this or is any less likely to do something similar next time.

Neither of which are necessary in the letter. We don’t know how the office handled this internally. One would hope that the office would have learned from this and that people would have been disciplined for their participation and original decisions. However, those internal actions are not really a part of the letter, nor should they be. They may even be contrary to legal advice and employment agreements.

I know the school screwed up and screwed up big time. It was good to see that they caught the error and tried to fix it BEFORE all of the stuff came out about the incident. I am sure that they are caught in the dilemma of “morally we should apologize, but if we admit guilt, we open ourselves up to a lawsuit and ‘compensation’ for Mr. Sampson. If we stay quiet and address the issue, we are much safer.”

I am not defending the school’s actions. They were definitely wrong.

But the depiction of this incident in the blog world was wrong as well.