I think the article is persuasive. But (and there is always a but), the question begs: Is the social and moral prohibition of the N-word applied arbitrarily on campus? Law professors in Canada or the U.S. send their students to witness cases involving hate crimes, knowing full well that racial slurs will be mentioned. The "mention exception" is deemed acceptable because racial slurs represent the facts of a case. In court, everyone understands the difference between hurling a slur at someone and mentioning it in court for the purposes of disseminating facts. So, once returning to class, why would the "mention exception" not be deemed appropriate?
I would say in my personal opinion the moral/social obligation is in many ways limited to what the individual utters. There is simply no reason for a white professor to say the N-word instead of just saying "the N-word". So if I were assigning readings about hate speech, etc., and a Black author spelled the N-word out in full, I would have no issue with that. And I don't think a student complaint about such a reading should come with any consequences (indeed, as my post implies, I don't think faculty should be disciplined for merely uttering the N-word either).
Similarly, court proceedings may have good reasons for airing the N-word in full, as part of witness testimony or transcriptions of evidence, etc. A course instructor is only accountable to provide the students with clarity going into a field trip like that about what content might cover (just as if they would be expected, I would think, not to spring on a class a sexual assault trial without some proper warning!).
So in my view the social/moral norm applies to what an individual says, not an expectation that students somehow be shielded from language in all contexts, and doesn't apply to faculty discipline except in clear breaches of basic discrimination law/employment rules (such as directing a slur at a student).
Monsieur MacFarlane, Je crois que nous avons tous le droit de parole et que le livre de Pierre Valliere n'est pas controversé, l'auteur dans son livre parle/explique comment nous Canadiens Francais sommes percu par les anglophones blancs comme les américains de race noire. A l'époque ou son livre a été écrit nous étions dans un contexte politique particulier en terme socio-économique. Cette vérité a toujours été ignorée par la majorité anglophone. Le mot en question peut etre utilisé en francais puisque l'esprit de la langue francaise est completement différent de la langue anglaise. Mr MacFarlane I hope you can read my reply in French and that you can understand why the book of Pierre Valliere is NOT controversial and is famous because of it's historical importance in that period.
Well I think Mr Macfarlane that you make my point. Hatred of French speaking Canadians is unfortunately far too common in English Canada. No effort to even try to understand.
I think the article is persuasive. But (and there is always a but), the question begs: Is the social and moral prohibition of the N-word applied arbitrarily on campus? Law professors in Canada or the U.S. send their students to witness cases involving hate crimes, knowing full well that racial slurs will be mentioned. The "mention exception" is deemed acceptable because racial slurs represent the facts of a case. In court, everyone understands the difference between hurling a slur at someone and mentioning it in court for the purposes of disseminating facts. So, once returning to class, why would the "mention exception" not be deemed appropriate?
I would say in my personal opinion the moral/social obligation is in many ways limited to what the individual utters. There is simply no reason for a white professor to say the N-word instead of just saying "the N-word". So if I were assigning readings about hate speech, etc., and a Black author spelled the N-word out in full, I would have no issue with that. And I don't think a student complaint about such a reading should come with any consequences (indeed, as my post implies, I don't think faculty should be disciplined for merely uttering the N-word either).
Similarly, court proceedings may have good reasons for airing the N-word in full, as part of witness testimony or transcriptions of evidence, etc. A course instructor is only accountable to provide the students with clarity going into a field trip like that about what content might cover (just as if they would be expected, I would think, not to spring on a class a sexual assault trial without some proper warning!).
So in my view the social/moral norm applies to what an individual says, not an expectation that students somehow be shielded from language in all contexts, and doesn't apply to faculty discipline except in clear breaches of basic discrimination law/employment rules (such as directing a slur at a student).
Monsieur MacFarlane, Je crois que nous avons tous le droit de parole et que le livre de Pierre Valliere n'est pas controversé, l'auteur dans son livre parle/explique comment nous Canadiens Francais sommes percu par les anglophones blancs comme les américains de race noire. A l'époque ou son livre a été écrit nous étions dans un contexte politique particulier en terme socio-économique. Cette vérité a toujours été ignorée par la majorité anglophone. Le mot en question peut etre utilisé en francais puisque l'esprit de la langue francaise est completement différent de la langue anglaise. Mr MacFarlane I hope you can read my reply in French and that you can understand why the book of Pierre Valliere is NOT controversial and is famous because of it's historical importance in that period.
It was a pathetic comparison at the time and it's even more pathetic to defend now.
Well I think Mr Macfarlane that you make my point. Hatred of French speaking Canadians is unfortunately far too common in English Canada. No effort to even try to understand.