From Inside Higher Ed (click on screenshot below), we have a white professor being suspended—and going on medical leave because of the resultant stress—because he used the “n-word” in a discussion of James Baldwin’s famous book The Fire Next Time. If you’ve read that 1963 book (I have), you’ll know it as a powerful and antiracist work that had immense influence on many. Baldwin, of course, was black. And the suspended white professor, Philip Adamo of Augsburg College (an Evangelical Lutheran school in Minneapolis), has received an award as “Minnesota Professor of the Year” and asserts that he’s been active in “recruiting and retaining students of color.”

But it didn’t matter. Read the story (it’s at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/01/professor-suspended-using-n-word-class-discussion-language-james-baldwin-essay; I forgot the link when I first posted this):

We all know what the “n-word” is, and in fact even saying “n-word” makes you automatically hear the entire word in your head. Nevertheless, I’ll not use the whole thing here because it’s not necessary. When it is necessary, or at least useful, is when you’re quoting a work of literature that uses that word—in this case, Baldwin’s book. But you can also get into trouble by assigning works of literature that contain the word if written by a white man, or if the word is used by a white character, as in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. On those grounds alone the book has been banned in several places. There are even redacted editions of Twain’s work that replace the n-word with terms like “slave.”

The idea, I guess, is that it’s okay for black people to use the word, as they often do in intra-ethnic discourse or in rap songs, but when the word is uttered by a white person, even as part of literature, it becomes both taboo and a trigger. I recognize that the n-word is horribly racist and should never be used in a non-academic way by whites; but I also think that if blacks continue to use it in rap or normal discourse, it’s going to make the word harder to eliminate in general. After all, when whites sing along with rap songs containing that word, they’re supposed to shut up rather than sing it. Is that fair?

But academic discourse is different, and to be “triggered” by a word when you’re simply reading the works of James Baldwin or Mark Twain, is a form of hypersensitivity that I can’t get behind. Nor did Augsburg College, for they came down hard on Adamo. Here’s what happened (you can consult the links):

In an honors seminar called the Scholar Citizen, Adamo introduced Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time.In Adamo’s retelling, a student in the class quoted this sentence from early in the book: “You can really only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a n—–.” (Baldwin uses the full word, as did the student in class.) Students were shocked, Adamo said, and he asked whether, in an academic context, quoting from an author’s work, “it was appropriate to use the word if the author had used it.” In so doing, he used the word, not the euphemism. Class discussion lasted about 40 minutes, he said, and ended in consensus that the word was too fraught to use going forward. A similar discussion happened in a section of the course later in the day, Adamo said. After class, he sent all students a short email with links to two essays that he said pertained to the day’s talk. The first, by Andre Perry, David M. Rubenstein Fellow at the Brookings Institution, says to “choose to only use the N-word judiciously, reminding ourselves of its gravity by not using it loosely.” The second essay, by Ta-Nehisi Coates, formerly of The Atlantic, appeared in The New York Times in 2013, and has what Adamo called a “provocative title” — “In Defense of a Loaded Word.” But it concludes that “N—– the border, the signpost that reminds us that the old crimes don’t disappear. It tells white people that, for all their guns and all their gold, there will always be places they can never go.” Adamo said some students told him that they interpreted the email as “forcing” his opinion on them. Then, he said, several nonenrolled students attended the next class session, saying they were there to observe, as leaders within the honors program. Students in the class then asked Adamo to leave to discuss the situation. Adamo suggested there was work to do, but he eventually agreed to step outside. One of the nonenrolled students began to film him discussing the word with students. That recording, which is mostly audio, was shared online under the title, “Phil Adamo Justifying Use of N-Word.” Adamo’s tone throughout is deferential to students.

Adamo was forced into a public recantation, which is how these things go. He shouldn’t have had to suffer this kind of public humiliation:

After class, Adamo informed his provost what had happened. She suggested that he write a note to the students in the honors program, he said. That letter says, in part, that the classroom “is a place where any and every topic can be explored, even those topics considered to be taboo. This is how I understand academic freedom, which is a precious thing to me and other professors. It is the currency that allows us to speak truth to power.” Yet, Adamo continued, “I also understand that this point of view is available to me because of my privileged position. I am now struggling to understand how it may be better not to explore some taboo topics, and to weigh the consequences of absolute academic freedom versus outcomes that lead to hurt, racial trauma, and loss of trust.” Adamo wrote a separate email to the honors student leaders. Praising them for their defense of the program’s values, he also noted his concern about their “methods,” including showing up to class unannounced and filming him without permission.

It didn’t matter. Adamo was removed from teaching and his work as an honors supervisor at Augsburg. The American Association of University Professors have defended him, while his colleagues have both defended and attacked him (see the Inside Higher Ed piece for links). The University President even issued a statement praising the students for complaining about his use of the n-word:

“We know that the work of fostering an inclusive learning environment is ongoing, and we are fully committed to it,” said President Paul C. Pribbenow. “We are grateful to the students, faculty and staff who have spoken courageously to raise campus awareness, who have engaged in actively listening to the issues being expressed, and who have called for changes that advance our equity work.” He added, “Augsburg will address this important topic like it has many other critical issues in our 150-year history: we will acknowledge and engage the topic, not shrink from it, and work together to make the university better.

Now I am not black, so you can argue that I fail to grasp how hurtful that word is to African-Americans in any context, but my point is that it should not be hurtful in the way Adamo used it. I’m a Jew, and the equivalent words for me are kike, sheenie, hebe, yid, Hymie, and so on. You’d be hard pressed to claim that those words are not, or should not be, as hurtful to Jews as the n-word is to blacks. Yet I read those words all the time, and have no reaction. Arguably, they should be just as triggering to me as the n-word is for blacks. Yes, I would be upset if somebody called me those names, or if I heard somebody use them to refer to Jews. But in literature (I think they appear in Catcher in the Rye but can’t recall), or in academic discourse of the words’ meaning, I cannot cavil.

Some professors quoted in the article say that the student anger is understandable. I suppose that’s so, but I think it’s also unwarranted, for intent must surely count here. But I will quote one academic who says that intent doesn’t matter:

Jelani Cobb, a professor of journalism at Columbia University who has written about the N-word for The New Yorker, where he is a staff writer, said the short answer to the N-word in the classroom question is no. “I’ve taught courses on hip-hop where the word is ubiquitous, and it’s always a stumbling block,” he said in a Twitter message. “By using the term, even in a quote, you’re essentially asking students, particularly black students, to take it on faith that this is not a vicarious thrill or a kind of ventriloquism that allows access to an otherwise forbidden term.” In many instances, he said, “it will not be. In some instances it will.” Either way, the student is “almost always going to puzzle over that moment like a Rorschach test.” So while it’s important question to debate, Cobb added, “the potential downsides of actually saying it are large enough, and the likelihood of derailing conversation high enough, that it’s not worth saying even if you have the most purely pedagogical motives.”

Here Cobb is defending a form of hypersensitivity in which words become equivalent to rocks or bullets. I’ve read Cobb’s piece and I don’t see a good case that the n-word should never be used, even when you’re quoting a black man who wrote it, or an old work of literature in which it appears. There are good pedagogical motives for saying it, and dare I venture to add that blacks and whites might even have a productive discussion about the word? Or is that going too far?

My own position is clear: the word should never be used in a way that could be construed as racist, but there are times, mostly involving academic discourse, when it’s justified. And, at any rate, everyone hears the entire word anyway when you say the “n-word.”

But readers may feel otherwise. Should it never be used by whites? How about by blacks: is it okay to use it in rap music, or in friendly discourse between African-Americans? (I have to add here that I never call my Jewish friends “hebes” or “kikes”.)