"Nigger" Please!

“Ban the use of the word ‘Nigger!’” It’s the latest movement hatched by minority leaders and liberal do-gooders alike. From Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson to mostly white towns such as Brazoria, Texas to the diverse megalopolis of New York City; this hip, new political fad has been part of the effort to do what proponents say is the best way to deal with the harsh offense the word often engenders: educating people, particularly young people, about the historical origins, context, and consequences that often follow the word’s use.

While censorship is never an answer to countering offensive speech, and while proposals to ban the word are, for the most part, symbolic in nature and would not be legally binding, education is clearly the best tool for ensuring that people have an informed view about the word – one that would temper and moderate their use or abuse of the term.

Following on the heels of the Ban and Educate About “Nigger” movement, however, is a complete and contradictory turn by educators themselves, some of whom are now saying that direct and explicit education about the word is out of bounds. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that high schools in Montgomery County, Maryland have decided to suspend teaching a lesson called “Questionable Words” that required students to read about and confront the history and legacy of the term as a precursor to reading the popular novel To Kill A Mockingbird. The reason: some students found it offensive.

This move by the Montgomery County School Board reflects a bundle of contradictions. On the one hand, works like To Kill a Mockingbird, Huckleberry Finn and other generally required reading in high school literature classrooms were once anathema to many because of their unquestioned and de-contextualized racist content, replete with racial epithets such as the word “nigger.” Progress promulgated the penchant by these schools and others to institute means by which students and educators would openly question, confront and inform themselves of the historical origins, offenses and deadly actions that were often a direct consequence of the word’s use. And now they seek to reverse and roll back this educational progress by banning that which initially sought to, in part, mitigate the influence and offense of the term?

But this isn’t the only contradiction. Most proponents of so-called “N-Word Bans,” as well as scholars, have recognized that the term is, among all other racial epithets, the “nuclear” option, as Randall Kennedy – author of the acclaimed book, Nigger – points out; it is the epithet that out-offends every other epithet. Given this, it is curious and bordering on comical, that the new replacement for the now-banned lesson on Nigger and other offensive terminology in the Montgomery County schools is a reading by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. that details his father’s experience of being referred to as “George.”

This is not a criticism of Professor Gates; he is a brilliant man whose writings on race have much to teach us all. He did not write his piece for the purpose of substituting for a frank discussion of the “nuclear.” (In fact, we wonder if he’d even be comfortable with this substitution.” Is anyone ready concede that in the realm of offensive black epithets, “George” is nowhere close to “Nigger?” Like Jules (Samuel L. Jackson’s character in a film by a white film maker often criticized for using the word in question) once said about another explosive topic, “it ain’t even in he same fucking ballpark!”

So why the charade? Why this end-run around the interrogation, contestation, and consequences the term deserves and demands? There’s one reason: it is a reason that implicates African Americans and other minorities, as well as whites, in perpetuating the offensive force it carries and the stranglehold it continues to have on race relations in the United States. It is overwhelmingly apparent that we’d just rather not confront the issue of “nigger” and other racially offensive language in this country. Confrontation is difficult, painful, messy, and often ends with no resolution. It requires people to be engaged and to be willing to “confront,” which always carries with it the risk of offense. We’ve made this point several times before (recall that Stephen opposes whites using the word, while Charlton does not – Stephen wouldn’t even type the word in this week’s blog!); the aftermath of Michael Richards, Don Imus and others recently have all expressed a common preference towards a hollow harmony that comes by skirting an issue.

It seems that those who have most to gain by confronting these issues head on would just assume put the term to rest once and for all. In fact, the NAACP did just that recently. Replete with coffins, mourners, and eulogies, supporters of the action declared, with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, “Good riddance to this vestige of slavery and racism, and . . . hello to a new country that invests in all its people.”

Too bad some students have just lost another opportunity to learn about this vestige of slavery and racism because students, parents and leaders of all kinds have decided to let the elephant in the room remain for the time being – choosing instead the comfort and ease that comes with ignoring bliss.