N-Word: The Inaugural Debate

Last Friday, we engaged in a public debate with one another about who can use the “n-word.” Held on the campus of North Central College, we spent an hour and a half pushing each other to consider the nuances of the debate, while some of the 130 audience members in attendance asked questions that further probed the difficulties of this contemporary issue.

TWIR readers will recall that we have blogged on related topics a number of times in the past year. On March 2, we addressed New York City’s banning of the word. Then, on July 14, we addressed how the “ban-the-word” trend had been gaining more momentum. But our discussion Friday centered not on whether the word should be banned, but rather assuming that the word is to be used, who should be able to use it and under what circumstances.

To that end, we framed the debate in this way. We can envision a continuum on which this issue can be discussed. That continuum is bound by the two extremes: anyone can use it under any circumstances, and no one can use it under any circumstances. But in between those extremes is a great deal of variance.

1. (extreme) Anyone can use the n-word under any circumstances.
Very few Americans hold this position today. Recognizing the painful history of the word, few would argue that it is appropriate for white folk to use it as an insult toward African Americans.

2. Any racial minority can use the word, and they can use it anytime and any way they like.

Stemming from a belief that members of racial minority groups are similarly oppressed by a power system that puts them at a disadvantage, it can be argued that use of the n-word by Latinos, for instance, is acceptable. Few Americans would accept this position because of the implications of having the word be used in a hateful way toward African Americans by non-blacks. Latino hip-hop artist Fat Joe uses the term often, for instance.

3. Persons of any race can use the n-word so long as it is not used derogatorily and the context is understood. This is increasingly common with white youngsters who have grown up listening to hip-hop music where black artists use the word liberally. In this scenario, the white person’s black friends (some race theorists have referred to them as “post-black”) must explicitly or tacitly approve of the word being used.

4. Any racial minority can use the n-word, but it can not be used in a derogatory manner toward African Americans or anyone else. This is similar to number 3, but by expanding the usage to all racial minorities (similar to number 2), the implicit solidarity between members of historically disadvantaged racial groups is preserved.

5. Persons of any race can use it with persons of color who use it in one of the contexts noted in positions three or four. For instance, if a white person is singing along to his or her favorite hip-hop song, he or she does not have to censor the n-word if it is used by the artist.

6. Persons of any race can use the word, but only with respect to talking about its historic power as a symbol and tool of oppression. For instance, white professors teaching about it may use it in an academic context.

7. Only African Americans can use the n-word, and they can use it anytime and any way they like. While this position is rarely advocated, it is used in practice. We hear, for instance, black youth using the word toward one another in anger.

8. Only African Americans can use the n-word, but not to offend; it may be used in an effort to reclaim the word and, therefore, disempower it. Much like LGBT folks have appropriated the once-harmful word “queer,” it can be argued that since it is widely unaccepted for whites to use the n-word, but at the same time commonplace for blacks to use it, African Americans have wrestled the word from the oppressors and maintain it for themselves.

9. (extreme) No one can use the n-word under any circumstances. This is the position taken by the NAACP, Bill Cosby, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. That is, it’s the “bury the n-word” position.

In the debate Friday, Charlton essentially argued position 4. Stephen advocated explicitly for position 6 (though he did not offer any language that would rule out positions 2, 4, 7, 8 or 9). In other words, Stephen argued that white people should not use the word under any circumstances whatsoever. He gave three reasons for this argument:

1) As a group, whites have benefited by the use of the n-word, so we should not be involved in the discussion about whether black folks should use it. Any attempt to do so is intellectual colonialism.

2) The argument that it’s a double standard to accept the word’s use by black folk but not by whites doesn’t hold water. Fairness does not always necessitate equality. If both groups were on equal footing with respect to power (both historically and currently), it may.

3) Even in intellectual settings, the use of the word by whites should not be used; whites do not deserve a seat at the table where determinations about the word’s use are held. Charlton argued that symbolically burying the word dooms us to repeat our past. If white educators, in particular, avoid the word, such action only serves to give the word more power. He challenged the white audience members to read aloud the name of Randall Kennedy’s book “Nigger,” and none would do so. He asked if they would be willing to carry the book around campus.

It was an excellent discussion, which will be revisited at a closed session for faculty and graduate students at the Adler School of Professional Psychology on November 14. The North Central debate was recorded, however, and will online soon. We will include a link to the file here when it is available.