Who Can Use the N-Word?: 2009

We are in agreement with one another about most things. We like a lot of the same music, we generally enjoy the same movies, we like the same food (okay, that’s a bad example because we both like pretty much ALL food), and we certainly share a lot of the same views when it comes to social justice and issues related to race.

But there are a couple of places where we part ways. For instance, Charlton favors the Big 12 conference (OU) and Stephen is a Big 10 guy (Purdue). When it comes to Tastykakes, Stephen prefers Butterscotch Krimpets while Charlton reaches for the Chocolate Juniors (if you want to read something racial into that, go right ahead).

The most substantive disagreement we have with respect to race concerns the use of the n-word. A couple of years back, we did a mini-tour of some colleges where we publicly debated one another and then engaged in discussion with the audience. For a summary of our positions, see our earlier blog entry (and for video of one of the public debates, click here).

This disagreement surfaced again last month when New York member of Congress Carolyn Maloney (left) – who was then planning to run for the U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 Democratic primary against Kirsten Gillibrand – was quoted in an interview using the n-word. As always, the context is important; Maloney (who is White) was repeating what an African American said. Here’s the quote:

"I got a call from someone from Puerto Rico, said (Gillibrand) went to Puerto Rico and came out for English-only (education). And he said, 'It was like saying the n-word to a Puerto Rican,'" Maloney said, using the full racial slur.

Still, she was forced to make a public apology, and she has since announced that she will not seek the Senate seat next year. Here are our respective takes on this situation.

*************************************************************

Stephen: I don’t feel comfortable saying definitively that someone’s career ought to be derailed (and we don’t expect that Maloney’s will be – we only know that she won’t be seeking higher office in the near future), but I do believe that folks who called on her to make a public apology were correct to do so. Of course, the entire situation was somewhat complicated because Rev. Al Sharpton, who predictably (and, in my opinion, appropriately) criticized the comments, is a Gillibrand supporter. Further, the context within which she made the comments were racial because it centered on English-only education. So there is a lot going on here.

My position, though, is that a White person should (almost) never utter the word (I used to say “never,” but attendees at our public debates made some excellent points about, for instance, White actors in a play or film). That is not to say, of course, that White folks shouldn’t talk about the word – I am (hopefully clearly) very much in favor of that. And while it may seem ridiculous to say “the n-word” when everyone knows what it is (it’s like spelling "s-e-x" in front of a 16-year-old, right?), the symbolism of avoiding the word is an important indication of the word’s power.

In short, Maloney could have (should have) repeated the story and said “the n-word” instead of. . . well, the n-word.

Charlton: Yes, perhaps –- politically -- Maloney should have said, “the n-word.” But then again, the “n-word” is not quite the same thing as saying “nigger,” which, I guess is kind of the point on both sides of the issue. I won’t say Maloney was “right” to use the term, but I do think that given the context, it should have been permissible and not have become the albatross it became for her political aspirations. To describe the level of the term's offensiveness, using the “n-word” doesn’t carry the full effect -– the offensive effect it should have had when the person Maloney was quoting used it.

Plain and simple -– whether you’re Black or White –- when we throw all context out the window and say “you just can’t say the word,” we’ve reduced the conflict to nothing more than a political game over the limits of censorship. We can pretend we’re all children and use the n-word euphemism to show we know the power the word has and seek to shield everyone from that reality. Or, we can say that part of continually recognizing and reminding folks of the word’s power is making it permissible to utter the word – especially if the result is a productive conversation about the complexities of the term’s usage.

Stephen: The censorship argument is a red herring. I am not advocating "thought police" or any formal ban on the word (as we saw in a number of places and wrote about in this space a couple of years back). I am arguing that White folks should be thoughtful about the power of the word and should illustrate that power symbolically by conspicuously and ceremoniously avoiding it. We are in agreement, I think, that Maloney should not be unduly punished as a result of saying it in this context, but it was quite appropriate for her to apologize.

The bigger problem from my perspective is that her apology did not push forward the dialogue in any meaningful way. From her statement:

I apologize for having repeated a word I find disgusting. It's no excuse but I was so caught up in relaying the story exactly as it was told to me that, in doing so, I repeated a word that should never be repeated.

First of all, I don’t know that it is true that the word should “never be repeated.” Not only does my colleague argue that it can be used by Whites, but there is an entirely different argument with respect to whether persons of color – particularly African Americans – can use the term in different contexts. Further, she does not explain why she should not use it in this or any other context. As it is, she leaves us with a position that Charlton is correct to indicate is tantamount to censorship.

It is not enough to simply say that it is a “bad” word that no one (or even just Whites) should never say. That isn’t a sophisticated position at all. That’s why my position is that Whites ought to make a conscious decision to talk about the word while not saying it so as to call attention to its hideous history and contemporary power.

Charlton: That is precisely my point. Maloney does not explain why she should not use the word – or whether she should in some context or another – because this is what our racial censorship has taught us. You say the word – there’s only one recourse: say "I’m sorry." That’s all anyone wants to hear. That’s all Rev. Sharpton wanted to hear. Few are really interested in a prolonged conversation about the term because doing so would necessarily require the freedom to use the term by all involved. It would also mean continuously risking the offense and confronting the emotions that would come along with it. That’s harder to do – understandably so. But we have chosen the easier course: We just say that no one should say it under most circumstances so we will never have to confront what it has and continues to mean and whether it should always do so.

**************************************************

As always, we're very much interested in your thoughtful comments on the issue. Please feel free to leave them below.

(Also, just as a reminder, we do not "moderate" the comments for content at all; that step is simply added to eliminate the tremendous amount of spam we receive in the comments section of our blog when the filter is removed. We love thoughtful disagreement, and we even publish less-than-thoughtful disagreement.)

No More "Nigger" in New York City

The New York City Council approved a symbolic resolution this week to place a moratorium on the “n-word.” This comes on the heels of a number of high-profile incidents of the use of the word and subsequent urgings by many black leaders to abolish it in black discourse [see our post about Michael Richards]. While most coverage of this issue is centering on the notion of freedom of speech, we wish to use our space today to address the complexities involved in the way this word has come to be used. For a very thoughtful and comprehensive analysis, please consult Randall Kennedy’s Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word.

For its part, the Council resolution is also quite thoughtful, rooted in the historical transition of the word and focusing on the current cultural context:

“While some African Americans started using the “N” word to refer to themselves in the 1970's cultural era known as Black Exploitation, the term was also adopted during the beginning of 1990’s cultural era known as Hip Hop. . .”

With that in mind, the sponsors craftily address the negative connotation of the word, irrespective of its spelling:

“Hip Hop culture removed the “er” from the end of the word and added the letter “a,” creating the term "Nigga," although the term remained pejorative in the Black community and, depending on social circles, at some times denoted class differences. . . .[N]o matter how it is spelled, the word carries throughout the centuries these connotations of hate; [. . .]

"The “N” word connotes a lazy person with no self respect or regard for family, a person who is ignorant, stupid, slow moving, does not speak proper English and has childlike qualities, and such definition was cemented in American culture by early 1900’s caricatures of Black people, such as the film “Birth Of A Nation;””

And finally, before calling for the moratorium, they acknowledge that there is not a unified position on this, even amongst the black community:

“Today’s African American community remains divided in its use of the “N” word: some neo-revisionists attempt to redefine and lay claim to the word while others refuse to use the word in their vocabulary at all.”

For the past six years, the two of us have had an ongoing disagreement about this issue, as well. We are both fans of hip-hop music, much of which contains liberal use of the word. We are both proponents of freedom of speech; neither of us would condone making the word illegal. We both acknowledge that language is powerful beyond the intent of the user (which is why we study communication from a social science, effect-based, perspective). We both agree that when used by whites with a clear attempt to offend, the word is inappropriate. We both agree that there is a logical reason for black folks to reclaim the word to take power away from an oppressive majority who for years used it to propagate hate and violence against black Americans. And neither of us is swayed by the argument about changing the word’s spelling to differentiate its meaning from its historical roots. That’s a lot of agreement, but it leaves us with a notable gap in our perspectives on this. We clearly come from different racial and cultural (not to mention academic) backgrounds, and that has shaped how we approach this issue. Below is a brief dialogue between us about whether the n-word should be used by whites in discussions of its importance and power.

Stephen: I don’t ever use this word, and I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone who is not black to ever use it. There is something immensely symbolic about someone like me, who studies race and who is clearly normatively anti-racist (and would likely never be accused of being a bigot by using the word in an academic context) refusing to use it. It signals to my audience that the word has such power that I am willing to go out of my way to not utter it, even in an otherwise-appropriate context. Further, it eliminates any second-guessing that would have to take place about intent and context when a white person does use the word. There’s no reason to do so; it can be discussed intelligently by referring to the “n-word,” and everyone will know what word I mean. My experience is that white folks are forever frustrated by what they perceive as a double standard that black folks can use the word and white folks aren’t supposed to. Indeed. It has never been used by black folks to oppress each other, but it has been used by whites to oppress blacks. That history cannot be ignored, even by changing the spelling. I am sensitive to the “intent” issue: young, hip, and racially sensitive whites often use the word with black friends to indicate that they are beyond racism and so that they can fit into the culture they wish to emulate. But as we have noted countless times in this space, no one is beyond racism in our culture, and white folks would do well to recognize that by avoiding the word altogether.

Charlton: Yeah. I’m not begging for you to call me "nigger" (or anyone else for that matter). But, what I’m saying is for the person who would use the term judiciously, in context, in full view of a group of people who are free to respond to you, question your motives, etc., there should be some limited space to call a time-out, to say that we’re big enough to discuss something that by implication necessitates that I use the term called into question.

Unless the discussion is about euphemisms, that is. I guess. But even if that’s the case, do you really not know what you’re saying when you say “the N-word?” Do I not know what you’re saying? Does anyone else? Are you going to go up to someone and say, “Get out of my way, N-Word?” No, because it would sound silly. And, no, because you wouldn’t do it anyway. So, what I’m trying to say is that when your intentions and motives are clear, is it not useful – as an educator – to be able to use the term that is at the center of your discussion that is certainly aimed at understanding its history, its affects, its violence?

That is not to say there is no risk taken here. Even in the loftiest of educational settings, a black student may very well get frustrated, angry, and/or upset when you, a white professor, or me, a black professor, in earshot of white students, says "let’s talk about the term 'nigger.'" But I think the best learning comes with risk, even if that risk is the risk of possibly offending.

I just finished having the same discussion we’re having here with my fiancée, Raechel, a white, employment attorney who sues companies whose employees (for instance) say "nigger" to another employee without repercussion by a supervisor. It’s Randall Kennedy’s “Nigger in Court.” If “nigger” is at issue, then “nigger” must be said – in her briefs, in her conversation with clients, in her statements to jurors, in her debates with opposing counsel, and with the judge. When she wins the case (actually whether she does or not) and I invite her to come to my Rhetoric, Law & Public Policy class to discuss her work, will she say “nigger?” No. Just like you won’t. Should she? That’s a question only she can answer. Should she be able to? Absolutely. Do I think my students – black, white and otherwise – will be better off for it? Absolutely.

Stephen: Charlton, you ignorant slut. (If you, dear reader, are too young to get that joke, please accept my apologies). Your fiancée is clearly a bigot, and you should question your matrimonial plans.

In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure we're not talking apples and oranges. (Though as Chuck Klosterman has said, this is a silly phrase; they're both fruit, so is it really such an outrageous comparison?) The question is not whether I CAN say it. I'm perfectly able to make my mouth utter the word. And, I would never call for a formal (legal) ban on ANY word on its face. The question at hand is whether I SHOULD say it as a white teacher, scholar and anti-racist proponent. And as insightful as your comments above are, I still say "no." Not because I'm afraid of taking a risk, of being accused of being a bigot, or even of normalizing the word. All those concerns are valid, but they're not the reasons for my refusal to utter the word, even during what you must admit is a dead-on karaoke performance of Snoop Dogg in "Nuthin' But a G-Thang." I refuse to say the word to send a signal that racism is so powerful and so relevant still today that a six-letter word still should not be spoken by someone of a cultural heritage other than that which it has been used to oppress.

I don't make a big show of it. No need to. Just like I don't chastise my colleagues who continue use the archaic term "freshman." I simply choose to use "first-year student" to signal my recognition of the gendered nature of the former term, and that's powerful enough. But I am concerned that any use of the n-word by whites in academia sends a signal to young whites that since white progressives use it, and their black friends use it with one another, and their musical heroes use it, the term lacks the historical power that it once had. That's simply not true, and I refuse to take part in perpetuating that myth.

Charlton: Apples and oranges, fruit and freshman aside, an implicit refusal to utter the word in any context is, in effect, the same as legislating a ban. It has a chilling effect on those whose use of the word may be limited to purposes I think we both agree have some positive consequences. Yes, you might take the risk of engaging a discussion about the “N-Word,” but do you think any of your white students are going to ask without being prompted, “professor, why is it that the N-word is bad?” You think they will ask their black friend, “Hey, what do you think about people using the N-Word?” or, “I heard you using the N-word with your other black friends, why is it different when I say it?” I maintain that someone should be able to ask such questions, if indeed they are looking for ways out of their ignorance.

The bottom line - and the final word - which I get this time - is that refusal to utter the word in any context guarantees that the word will retain, if not gain even more power.