Oh god, today is just the day for wildly inappropriate racist BS, isn’t it?

The latest exhibit of racist crap that keeps happening even though it should never happen, is a torts professor at Emory University School of Law who dropped the N-word — in the first week of class no less. Sure, the exact point in the semester when that particular bomb gets dropped really doesn’t matter — but so early in the semester before students have any sense of the professor is all the more upsetting.

Paul Zwier was teaching his torts class about offensive batter and the case of Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (I’ll give the rundown of the pertinent facts of that case because, well, law school was a long time ago for some of y’all.) In that case, a black man was denied service at a banquet at a hotel, and while offensive stuff was said to the plaintiff, the N-word was not used. Professor Zwier, however, used that word when he called on a student — a black woman to boot — to ask about the fact pattern in the case.

In a three-page letter explaining the situation (you can find the full letter here), Zwier says that while he doesn’t specifically recall using the racial slur and he may have gotten the facts of the Fisher case confused with the facts of a different case (and next on the syllabus), Bowden, where the slur was used. Though he goes on to acknowledge he shouldn’t use the full slur even when the facts of the case may call for it, he also points out the educational goals he hoped to meet by calling attention to the specific language used in each of the cases:

Of course, I may have made at least two mistakes in discussing the Fisher case. I conflated the facts in the case with a hypothetical to follow, and or the following case, and also should have said the “N word” rather than saying the “n….” . I was rushing at the end of class and should have picked my words more carefully and made my point more clearly. My purpose was to discuss on Tuesday how tort law evolves away from requiring contact for battery into intentional infliction of emotional distress. Depending on how pressed we are for time, I want to show how the common law evolves along with the understanding of words, using the “N word” as an example. My purpose in setting the slur up in Fisher (1967) was then in Bowden (1991) to ask whether its use was worse in 91 then in 67? And to ask what about now, in today’s environment? Would it be worse to use it now?

As educational justifications for white people using the n-word go, it’s not the WORST one we’ve ever heard.

He also says that while he literally said the N-word to a black woman, he didn’t intend to direct the slur at her, and he did not intend to normalize the offensive term:

[T]o be clear, the use of the word was not directed at a student. It was used once. The purpose of my discussion of the N word was never to normalize its use. My purpose was just the opposite. I hoped to show Torts students how explosive and harmful words can be in so many setting and that words alone can qualify, without contact, as an intentional tort.

It is perplexing to imagine how such an offensive word just “slips” out. Indeed, when you’re discussing such a racially charged issue you’d think using precise language — and never, ever using the N-word — would be at the forefront of your mind.

For their part, the administration at the law school responded swiftly to the controversy. Zwier has been removed from the classroom for the remainder of the semester. And in a joint email sent out on Friday nigh, the Dean, Provost, and President of the school made it clear that language such as this will not be tolerated:

Yesterday, a professor used the “n-word” in a classroom when lecturing first-year law students on the topic of 1960s civil rights lunch counter protests in the South. This offensive language was not part of the case law cited. The use of this – or any racial slur – in our community is unacceptable. The term is deeply rooted in degradation, fearmongering, and the creating of a deliberate sense of “otherness.” It reflects a tradition of white supremacy that we actively reject at Emory. People share a fundamental right to work and learn in an inclusive environment free of hostility. When insulting conversation is normalized, it creates a hostile environment and it undermines our institutional values.

The law school administration is also meeting with students to determine how best to support them:

Steps are being taken to identify appropriate redress in the present case. After learning of the incident, Dean Hughes met with several of the students in the class. Later in the day, he also met with a larger group of students, including representatives from Emory’s Black Law Students Association. Dean Hughes also spoke with the professor to apprise himself of the professor’s perspective. It has been our shared goal to understand what happened and to get some context for how students are feeling and responding and what impact this may have on our broader community.

And importantly, the email announced two specific measures to deal with the situation — the first is implementing mandatory training for all faculty and staff and ensuring that all employees adhere to the standards the school expects of them, and the law school is also officially supporting a student rally taking place this week in response to the incident.

While the entire incident was disruptive and upsetting, particularly for students of color at the school, it is good to see the law school taking clear, decisive action. You can’t stop all the racism, but at least Emory Law is supporting the students that are dealing with it.

(You can read the professor’s response here and the law school’s email about the incident here.)

Earlier: Law Professor Drops Racial Slur In Class Because Otherwise How Will Black Students Ever Learn About Racism?

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).