"I enunciate 'nigger' in full, out loud w/ some purpose in mind. Usually the aim is to drive home to audiences the pervasiveness of anti-Black prejudice and, more specifically, the way in which this troublesome word has been an integral part of the soundtrack of American racism."
2/
Some defer "to the proposition that...a feeling of hurt upon hearing 'nigger' is a reaction warranting accommodation. I disagree. I am skeptical of some of the claims of hurt. I suspect that some of them are the product of learned strategic ripostes."
3/
"It is well known that in certain settings, particularly those that strive to be socially enlightened, you can effectively challenge speech you object to by claiming not only that it is abhorrent (racist, etc.) but that it makes you feel insulted, offended, or endangered."
4/
"Why the objection to...using the term for pedagogical purposes? B/c vocalizing the term has become...a symbol of obtuseness or defiance: a sign the (white) instructor is unaware that they ought never, ever vocalize it, or that the instructor is disobeying that injunction."
5/
"I am convinced that in a substantial number of instances these fights are not really over hurt feelings. They are struggles over status and power. Objectors have made avoidance of vocalizing 'nigger,' even in the guarded circumstances of classroom instruction..."
6/
[Vocalizing 'nigger' is] "...a taboo in which the failure to abide by the rule of avoidance is taken as a sign of disrespect. It is not the word...that causes anger [but rather] the 'failure' of the teacher to submit to the objectors’ demand, regardless of the circumstances."
7/
"But my position remains the same even in the case of the objector who genuinely experiences hurt feeling upon hearing the N-word. That is because of my view of 'feelings.' Feelings are not unchangeable givens, untouched and untouchable by how their expression is received."
8/
"Feelings are influenced by the responses of others. The more schools validate the idea that hurt is justified, the more hurt will be expressed, & the more there will be calls to respect expressed feelings of hurt by prohibiting or punishing what is said to trigger them."
9/
"I insist upon advancing the message that, in circumstances in which 'nigger' is aired for pedagogical purposes, there is no good reason to feel hurt. It does no favor to students to spare their feelings if doing so comes at the expense of valuable education."
10/
"In my view, 'useful' instruction should be pursued. Lawyers and judges frequently encounter distressing sights and sounds as part of their professional responsibilities. Every year, in hundreds of cases, 'nigger' is heard in courts."
11/
"A lawyer who becomes distracted or depressed upon hearing 'nigger' is one w/ a glaring vulnerability. Law school [should] impart to students techniques of self-mastery...to manage feelings in order to assist optimally the [clients] that will rely upon them for guidance."
12/
"If a conflict [re: my use of 'nigger'] arises, my position will be that conscientiously vocalizing 'nigger' or any other epithet for legitimate pedagogical purposes ought not give rise to any belief or insinuation that the statement displays racism or racial insensitivity."
13/
"I will offer no deference to demands for silence, avoidance, or bowdlerization. And I will certainly offer no apology. A pathetic aspect of the fight over the N-word is the spectacle in which a teacher issues a false, debasing apology, hoping it will appease protesters."
14/
"My remarks are not the result of a transient concern. They stem in part from a deep well of study nourished by experience. I am an African American, born in 1954 in the Deep South. My parents were refugees who fled Jim Crow oppression. They were branded as 'niggers'."
15/
"And I have been called 'nigger' too.
Should my race make a difference, cloaking me with more leeway in my pedagogical options than white colleagues? I abjure such a 'privilege.'"
16/
"In the domain of culture there ought be no boundaries that fence out people based on racial identification or ascription. There ought be no words that Blacks are permitted to say but that whites or others are prohibited from saying."
17/
"While racist use of 'nigger' should be condemned no matter the racial identity of the speaker, nonracist deployment of 'nigger' should be accepted no matter the racial identity of the speaker."
18/
"The racially discriminatory assessment of white speakers is often openly proclaimed: Black instructors (singers, comedians, etc.) can enunciate the N-word absent condemnation in circumstances in which white instructors (singers, comedians, etc.) cannot — no matter what!"
19/
"The upshot involves...reinforcing baleful tendencies that harm 𝘢𝘭𝘭 participants in the creation of culture. Nothing better illustrates this point than the bowdlerization of James Baldwin. He insisted that 'nigger' was the creation of white racism...
20/
"...and that the term said more about those who wielded it malevolently than those who were its targets. He declared that he was not your 'nigger.' But an acclaimed documentary film transformed his statement into 'I am not your Negro.'"
21/
"Racism, alas, remains a powerful presence that displays itself ubiquitously, as in the deeply disturbing campaign to intimidate dissident instruction about the history of American racial wrongs. Racism is a looming, destructive force that we must vigorously resist."
22/
"Vigilance is essential. But so, too, is a capacity & willingness to draw crucial distinctions. There is a world of difference separating the racist use of 'nigger' from vocalizing 'nigger' for pedagogical reasons aimed at enabling students to attain important knowledge."
23/
From:
"Is It Ever OK to Enunciate a Slur in the Classroom? A string of professors have been condemned, disciplined, even fired for saying the N-word in full,"
Remember when the neo-segregationist left told you that white doctors were killing black babies?
Turns out they were either incapable of analyzing their own data or outright lying to you.
A new study demolishes the failings and falsehoods in that first study. We unpack it: 🧵
2)
The original study claimed black newborns had lower mortality rates when cared for by black physicians. This got a lot of attention and influenced legal discourse, despite its, ahem, limitations. Classic 2020: it was as if they wanted you to think black people and white people couldn't live together.
The study was so influential it was even cited (with clumsy inaccuracies) by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, demonstrating how far-reaching its conclusions became.
"In December of 2022, I published on our university library website a research guide consisting of a bibliography of black writers with heterodox views. By May of 2023, five months later, I had been labeled a racist, placed on administrative leave, and targeted for firing."
3)
"The bibliography was created and compiled by folks at an organization called Free Black Thought whose mission is, in their own words, to represent the rich diversity of black thought beyond the relatively narrow spectrum of views promoted by mainstream outlets. Although their website contains a variety of resources, my librarian’s eye was immediately drawn to their bibliography, which they named the Compendium of Free Black Thought (). They presented it as an open access work and encouraged folks to use it as they see fit.bit.ly/36FTtDQ
"How could it be that the university is zealous about policing pronouns but blasé about the advocacy of hateful violence?"
Roland Fryer's latest for the WSJ, "Anti-Israel Protests and the ‘Signaling’ Problem," reproduced here in full. 🧵
2)
"The anti-Israel protests on college campuses present a puzzle for observers of academic norms and mores. Today, even relatively minor linguistic infractions, like the failure to use someone’s preferred pronouns, are categorized as abuse at many elite institutions, some of which even define potentially offensive speech as 'violence.' One need not even speak to run afoul of campus speech codes; I recently participated in a training in which we were warned of the consequences of remaining silent if we heard someone 'misgender' someone else.
3)
"Definitions of 'harmful' speech have become so capacious that one assumes they include antisemitism. In some cases, they surely do: A university wouldn’t take a hands-off approach to a student or faculty member who expressed prejudice against Jews in the manner of Archie Bunker or the Charlottesville marchers. Yet that’s what many of them have done when faced with protesters’ speech that is offensive to Jews, even when it crosses the line into threats, intimidation and harassment.
"I understand the ethics underpinning the protests to be based on two widely recognized principles:
1. There is an ethical duty to express solidarity with the weak in any situation that involves oppressive power.
2. If the machinery of oppressive power is to be trained on the weak, then there is a duty to stop the gears by any means necessary.
🧵
2)
"The first principle sometimes takes the 'weak' to mean 'whoever has the least power,' and sometimes 'whoever suffers most,' but most often a combination of both. The second principle, meanwhile, may be used to defend revolutionary violence, although this interpretation has just as often been repudiated by pacifistic radicals...
3)
"t is difficult to look at the recent Columbia University protests in particular without being reminded of the campus protests of the nineteen-sixties and seventies. At that time, a cynical political class was forced to observe the spectacle of its own privileged youth standing in solidarity with the weakest historical actors of the moment, a group that included, but was not restricted to, African Americans and the Vietnamese. Young Americans risked both their own academic and personal futures and—in the infamous case of Kent State—their lives. I imagine that the students at Columbia—and protesters on other campuses—fully intend this echo, and, in their unequivocal demand for both a ceasefire and financial divestment from this terrible war, to a certain extent they have achieved it.
The Wide Awakes was a youth "marching club" formed in 1860 to support Abe Lincoln.
Slave-owners feared them: "One–half million of men uniformed and drilled, and the purpose of their org to sweep the country in which I live with fire and sword."
2)
Wide Awakes—the ORIGINAL original "woke":
Our cause is Abolition,
And for the Nigger we do cry;
For we do love the Nigger,
And will love him till we die.
'Tis honest Abe and Hamlin,
We want to rule our nation,
And for the Nigger we do claim
Equality of station.
"In February, 1860. Cassius M. Clay [an abolitionist] spoke in Hartford, Connecticut. A few ardent young Republicans accompanied him as a kind of body-guard, and to save their garments from the dripping of the torches, a few of them wore improvised capes of black glazed cambric. The uniforms attracted so much attention that a campaign club-formed in Hartford soon after adopted it. This club called itself the 'Wide-Awakes'."
"By requiring academics to profess — and flaunt — faith in DEI, the proliferation of diversity statements poses a profound challenge to academic freedom."
—Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law) 🧵
2)
"DEI statements will essentially constitute pledges of allegiance that enlist academics into the DEI movement by dint of soft-spoken but real coercion: If you want the job or the promotion, play ball — or else."
3)
"Playing ball entails affirming that the DEI bureaucracy is a good thing and asking no questions that challenge it, all the while making sure to use in one’s attestations the easy-to-parody DEI lingo. It does not take much discernment to see, moreover, that the diversity statement regime leans heavily and tendentiously towards varieties of academic leftism and implicitly discourages candidates who harbor ideologically conservative dispositions.