Shark Blog and Silver Rights have been discussing an incident in Seattle, in which a teacher, Brian Emanuels, chastised a black student for using the word “gay” in a derogatory manner. The controversy comes in because of the way Emanuels decided to demonstrate bad behavior by example:
Brenda Little, deputy general counsel for Seattle Public Schools, said the teacher then walked back into the classroom with the boy, saying to the class, ” ‘Well, I guess the n- – – – – can come back in.’
The NAACP is calling for Emanuels’ firing. Shark Blog disagrees, on the grounds that “Emanuels’ use of the N-word was not meant to harass anybody, but was merely a clumsy attempt to teach a lesson in tolerance.” In other words, Shark Blog is defending Emanuels based on the idea that Emanuels had good intentions.
But I think intentions are irrelevant. Accepting for argument’s sake that Emanuels had the best intentions in the world, the NAACP is still right about this case.
The problem is, how the school system responds to this incident won’t just effect Emanuels; it sets a precedent for how the school acts in the future. What happens when the next teacher disparagingly refers to a black student as a “nigger,” and claims that his intentions were good, too? It’s important – hell, it’s essential – that any teacher who acts as Emanuels did be put through hell and back.
Does it seem unfair that a well-meaning teacher faces punishment, and might even lose his job? Consider this: teachers can – and should – be fired and hired based on many things in addition to their intentions. Let’s continue assuming that Emanuels meant well: What does it say about his competence and judgment as a teacher, that he called a black student “nigger”? I’d say that’s a demonstration of stunning incompetence; and there’s nothing wrong with disciplining incompetent teachers, regardless of their alleged good intentions.
I do agree, of course, that using “gay” in a derogatory way is homophobic, and teachers should speak out against it. So I’ll give Emanuels points for that. But I think it’s possible to teach that lesson without calling black students “nigger”; if Mr. Emanuels does lose his job, perhaps he’ll be replaced by someone who can teach against homophobia more competently.
All that said, I worry that it’s a mistake to focus on cases like this. The big problem of anti-black racism isn’t white teachers calling black students “nigger”; it’s smooth, well-spoken men in expensive suits who would never use the word “nigger” in public, but who pursue policies and ideologies that keep in place a de facto segregation of black and white that puts blacks (on average) in worse schools, worse jobs, worse neighborhoods, and out of positions of wealth and power. And it’s the powerful folks who don’t say “nigger,” but who passionately oppose any policy that might actually create change in that de facto segregation.
In other words, I worry that stories like this make it seem like racism is all about individual racists. Individual racists suck, but I think institutional racism is what’s really doing the most damage. The very fact that our current system is very worried about use of the word “nigger,” but pretty much accepts the racist system that keeps blacks disproportionately poor and out of power, suggests to me that criticizing use of the word “nigger” isn’t much of a threat to the system..
I heard about this incident on the local news and the teacher just blew it. He started off doing something good, and he’d have had my support if he had kept it to simply pointing out that the word shouldn’t be used in that context, and equated it with other words that people wouldn’t like used in a derogatory way. That’s what he started off doing, and he could have either done it in the hall with the individual student, or in the class with everybody. But then he added the sentence when he and the student reentered the room, no doubt trying to drive home the point. But that was a huge mistake, not only because it’s just plain wrong, but because it destroyed his work at making his very valid point.
I feel like the Sufi judge: one side makes an argument. “You’re right,” he says. The other side makes a counter-argument. “You’re right, too” he says. An onlooker gasps and cries “But they both can’t be right!” And the judge says “You’re right.”
A clumsy attempt at teaching tolerance is right. The first part of the attempt I have no problem with. It’s classic ad hominem — to the person — reasoning: “How would you feel if you were in this similar position?” The second half of the little passion play was entirely mistaken and the teacher should be disciplined, but not fired, for it. I would advise requiring an apology for the second.
As for the difference between “institutionalized” and “individual” racism: the line’s pretty fuzzy, ampersand. Institutions are run by cliques, cabals, and groups of people who have power. The racism of these individuals matters. And your distinction could be used in a backlash: why worry if a bunch of white students — individuals to the boy and the girl — become racists because of this? After all, they aren’t in themselves institutions.
Each person forms part of an institution. Institutions don’t just include bureaucracies, corporations, small businesses, and schools: they also include families, gangs, marriages, and cliques. These, too, institutionalize racism and they wield power by organizing their members to a purpose. All can be soul-oppressing, all can suck dignity straight from the heart of the persecuted.
The individual is where we must start. The boy was wrong to use the word “gay” in offense against another. He needed to be corrected. The teacher, too, needs to be corrected for fueling the racism of others. His lesson backfired because he handled it stupidly. An apology is due for part two of the exercise, but for part one he owes the student no apology and the student must be made aware of the distinction between the two parts of the case.
I mainly agree with Joel, but will point out an error. The student was using the word ‘gay’ in its current adolescent slang sense, ‘uncool.’ He wasn’t referring to a person at all.
Several people have said I should give more weight to the underlying connotations of gay being synonymous with uncool, and I have in a second entry. There will likely be a third since I’ve received so much commentary on this topic.
Also, I urge people to read the full Seattle Times story. More than one student was involved and Emanuels almost came to blows with one of them. That is part of the reason I believe he really is not cut out to be a teacher.
So, MacDiva, if I use the word “nigger” and I say that it just means “you’re uncool” it’s OK? (My answer: NO.)
“Gay” means “effeminate pansy” in the current adolescent sense, not “uncool” in everyone’s dictionary except the idiosyncratic one that you invented for the purpose of your post. You’re acting the de facto apologist for gay-bashing, because the boy happened to be African American.
I’m not buying the product you’re selling. It would help all who fight prejudice more if you wouldn’t try to find excuses for people you happen to like.
So, MacDiva, if I use the word “nigger” and say that it just means “clown”, it’s OK? (My answer: NO.)
“Gay” means “effeminate pansy” in every one’s dictionary except the idiosyncratic one that you invented for the purpose of this post. You are, in your zeal to stand up for an African American, enlisted as a de facto supporter of homophobia.
I’m not buying your product. It’s nothing more than a weak attempt to save a person you happen to like.
I’ve read your caption and in it you imply the TEACHER said that this [insert N-word here] could come back to class when in fact the STUDENT said it… From the Seattle P.I.
“The maelstrom surrounding Emanuels began April 29, when a black student in one of his classes referred an exercise as “gay.” Emanuels told the student the term was hurtful to homosexuals and unacceptable in his classroom. When the teen argued, Emanuels took him into the hallway to discuss the matter and asked him how he would feel if someone called him a “nigger.”
Emanuels said that AS THE STUDENT walked back into the class, he remarked, “This nigger can come back into the classroom,” and [Emanuels] immediately followed the comment by telling the class such language is offensive and unacceptable.”
In light of this, I believe some of you may wish to re-consider your stance on this. I don’t believe that the teacher did anything wrong, he simply asked the kid, “How would you feel like if someone called you a [insert politically incorrect N-word here….]?” Then this was made into something it was NOT.
The teacher got this negative attention because he was WHITE, no other reason. Which in itself is innappropriate. If a black teacher asked a black kid the same question, this would never have been an issue.
It’s a politically correct witch hunt. The kid doesn’t face any negative consequences for using “Gay” in a derogatory manner… why? If the teacher is going to be disciplined for trying to EDUCATE the student about how some words can hurt people, then why shouldn’t the student actually be disciplined for being a “gay basher”? Fair’s fair, or is it politically incorrect to discipline a non-white student for making slurs about races or sexual preference.
Just a clarification and my comments on the ACTUAL events….
Lance, you’re mistaken.
From a story in today’s Seattle P.I. – this is a direct quote:
Emanuels said that as the student walked back into the class, he remarked, “This nigger can come back into the classroom,” and immediately followed the comment by telling the class such language is offensive and unacceptable.
The word “he” only appears once; it can refer to either the student or Emanuels, but not (as in your version of the quote) both. So either “he” refers to Emanuels – in which case Emanuels said “nigger,” not the student – or “he” refers to the student – in which case, the student “immediately followed” his own use of the n-word “by telling the class such language is offensive and unacceptable.” That seems unlikely.
I do agree that the phrasing is confusing. Consulting other stories makes it clear that either every press account got things wrong, or I got things right.
From an earlier Seattle PI story:
Brenda Little, deputy general counsel for Seattle Public Schools, said the teacher then walked back into the classroom with the boy, saying to the class, ” ‘Well, I guess the n- – – – – can come back in.’
“He’s not denying he said that,” Little said.
And this is the story from the Seattle Times:
He pulled the 16-year-old junior out of class and referred to him with a slur used against black people, asking him how he liked being called that name. Emanuels later repeated the slur in class.
Finally, I do think that teachers should be held to higher standards than students, so I’m not bothered by the double-standard of punishing a teacher more for saying “nigger” than a student is punished for saying “gay.” (Not that Emanuels was fired, or even resigned; he kept working for the school system until he was laid off along with dozens of other non-senior teachers, due to budget cuts.)
You seem to be on a witchhunt for a “politically correct” witchhunt, dude. But you’ve gotten the facts wrong on this incident.
“Gay” means “effeminate pansy” in every one’s dictionary except the idiosyncratic one that you invented for the purpose of this post. You are, in your zeal to stand up for an African American, enlisted as a de facto supporter of homophobia.
“You are, in your zeal to stand up for an African American, enlisted as a de facto supporter of homophobia.”
So P.C. — I just loved that post.
We all know that “fag” means “To labor to wearness; to work hard” in every one’s dictionary except the idiosyncratic one . . .