A few days ago, we blogged about a college kid who got kicked out of class for citing Freakonomics. Now comes even worse news — from a reader who claims that he was asked to leave the premises of a job for simply owning the book. I’m somewhat skeptical of the verity of this story; judge for yourselves:
Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner,
I work for a company that provides software solutions for Fortune 500 media corporations. This past week I was on site at one of these media companies and took part in a conversation about crime. I happened to have read Freakonomics on the plane ride to my client and mentioned in the conversation that I had just read the book and that the other two people I was having the conversation with should read the book. After describing a few things in the book the individuals had indicated that they would be interested in reading the book. Having finished the book, the next day I brought the book in to give to one of the individuals. I had placed the book next to my computer as a reminder to give the book to the individual when I saw them.
Later that day, I was running around solving technical problems for the client when I was asked to join two directors and the HR manager in an office. One of the directors, in a very angry tone, proceeded to question me on why I would bring racially offensive material into their office. They cited that an employee turned to page 63 and read the words “those early lynchings worked” and were offended by them. I was asked to leave the premises immediately.
I have since returned to work back at my company and I’m waiting to hear what action, if any, will be brought on to me by my company due to this unfortunate event.
Regards,
T.S.
P.S. I apologize for the generality of my email, but I feel this is the only way to pass on this story to you without getting me into further trouble in the future.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
T.S. should consult an employment attorney if his employment with his company is terminated. It’s not as though there is anything inflammatory or offensive about the book’s cover. The employment laws in most states are pretty awful and grant enormous leeway to the employer — and I don’t have all the facts — but the relevant legal standard is one of reasonableness. I’m not sure it is reasonable for someone to go snooping in his book, read a few sentences and then level a charge against him that have an impact on his working environment.
T.S. should consult an employment attorney if his employment with his company is terminated. It’s not as though there is anything inflammatory or offensive about the book’s cover. The employment laws in most states are pretty awful and grant enormous leeway to the employer — and I don’t have all the facts — but the relevant legal standard is one of reasonableness. I’m not sure it is reasonable for someone to go snooping in his book, read a few sentences and then level a charge against him that have an impact on his working environment.
It’s very interesting hearing people’s reactions to this topic. Many people who have not read the book and are introducted to this idea seem to be very closed minded about the subject. The only constructive retort I commonly get is if crime is going down wouldn’t the population of poor people also be decreasing?
It’s very interesting hearing people’s reactions to this topic. Many people who have not read the book and are introducted to this idea seem to be very closed minded about the subject. The only constructive retort I commonly get is if crime is going down wouldn’t the population of poor people also be decreasing?
I think this story reflects the failure of some people to see the distinction between positive and normative analyses. I think what happens is when people hear a definitive positive analysis they hear a normative statement, probably because 9 times out of 10 that is what follows. But, to my recollection, Levitt and Dubner never take that next step in Freakonomics. The distinction is subtle and presumably missed by anyone who gets upset with anything in the book.
I think this story reflects the failure of some people to see the distinction between positive and normative analyses. I think what happens is when people hear a definitive positive analysis they hear a normative statement, probably because 9 times out of 10 that is what follows. But, to my recollection, Levitt and Dubner never take that next step in Freakonomics. The distinction is subtle and presumably missed by anyone who gets upset with anything in the book.
I would be skeptical about this correspondence as well. It reads like an urban legend. The only thing missing is the part that says it happened to my cousin’s boyfriend’s stepmom’s best friend.
Besides, what are the odds of someone picking up a book, randomly flipping to that particular page and picking out only four words?
Seriously, what are the odds?
I would be skeptical about this correspondence as well. It reads like an urban legend. The only thing missing is the part that says it happened to my cousin’s boyfriend’s stepmom’s best friend.
Besides, what are the odds of someone picking up a book, randomly flipping to that particular page and picking out only four words?
Seriously, what are the odds?