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.
12 Comments
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.
— StCherylIt’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?
— mcintypwFreakonomics
I read the book ‘Freakonomics’ several months ago and have been following the blog ever since. The book, written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, is a fascinating collection of anecdotes and data pointing to some very interesting conclusions whic…
— blog.websolversI 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.
— mattb02I 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? :)
— Captain PlatypusI’m going to have to agree with the Captain, because I too seriously doubt the validity of the message above.
Also, I’ve been telling some of my friends that are still in college about this book, and although they might not have cited it yet, they also haven’t gotten into any trouble for “associating” with the information in the book either. So whatever that means…
— millermzI would guess that it’s a fraud. The college kid was likely telling the truth. I can tell you that quite a few faculty would be horribly offended by a student making such statements and making them look like idiots.
I think you know this though - it’s just worse at certain campuses. I know that in some classes students would be cut down by their peers as well.
The page 62 thing is a give away unless the HR guy googled freakonomics or something similar…
— semivoidMaybe the HR guy was named Catbert.
— StCherylMaybe it’s not true, but sometimes people (esp. IMHO on the left) don’t actually read the books or articles and instead run with the conventional wisdom, which is also often true.
I shouldn’t jump on the left though, because of the recent article here about the 1960 presidential election. That it was stolen by the senior Mayor Daley has become conventional wisdom on the right for quite awhile. As with a lot of conventional wisdom, there is evidence that it is false.
The point about the lynchings was one of the more interesting factoids in the book, along with the reason for the demise of the Klan.
— Bruce HaydenTo some extent, this whole thing is not that uncommon. I am still in amazement at the antics of those getting physically ill about the statements of Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard. What he said was, to me, quite mild, a lot milder than I would have said with the same facts before me. Women don’t do as well (collectively) at the top end of math and physics. Sorry. Fact of life. I don’t think that $50 million in Harvard grant money is going to affect that one wit.
— Bruce HaydenMen don’t do as well (collectively) at the top end of math and physics either. Silly.
— AndiAndi- I think bruce left out the implied “relative to men”. The point was that the distribution curve for men is shallower and wider than that of women, so men have more at both extremes, IIRC.
— elsmileo