LEROY Comrie, a New York City councilman, recently asked his fellow Council members to abolish "the n-word." To make his point, Comrie formalized his plea by submitting a resolution to the Council requesting a "symbolic moratorium on the use of the n-word in New York City."
Abolish just the n-word? Politicians should go ahead and abolish other words in the English language and call for a "symbolic moratorium" on free speech.
Bizarrely enough, the idea proposed by Comrie has been echoed by the mayor of Brazoria, Texas. However, the fate of the New York City proposal will be similar to that of the one in Brazoria: it will meet overwhelming rejection.
In rejecting the abolition of the n-word, Brazoria locals made it clear that the notion is ludicrous. The ban might result in censoring more and more of the English language.
The fact that the n-word has long been used to demonize African-Americans certainly makes it easy to target the word itself as the cause of hatred. But, it is not the content of the word that should be the focus of politicians like Comrie. Rather, it should be the racist attitudes which give the word its derogatory force.
The n-word today has a variety of possible meanings. It can be a colloquial gesture analogous to "man" as in "hey man." But, it so happens, that one of those meanings evokes racist overtones. This multitude of meaning, especially in its colloquial form, makes a ban on the n-word impractical.
It is hard to imagine the word abruptly exiting the conversations of the people who use it. Even penalties would likely be incapable of deterring individuals from using a certain word or phrase. Take, for example, honking car horns in New York City. Honking is a $100 fine, yet angry New Yorkers continue to honk habitually.
Aside from the fact that the ban would never be observed regularly, consider the corollary of simply enacting a ban on the n-word. This gives politicians license to legislate the English language. After the n-word, politicians could eradicate the infamous f-word and mark a plethora of other "one-letter" words on their linguistic hit lists.
They might, of course, object that unlike the f-word, the n-word conveys a disgusting message of hatred directed at a specific group of people. But what about other racial and ethnic groups?
There are, unfortunately, an abundance of words to describe other groups. Politicians, however, have not been so eager to abolish those other words. Perhaps those other words do not really matter. These messages are precisely the ones which are perpetuated by giving special concern to the n-word. What about Asians, Arabs, and Hispanics?
To say that the n-word is the vilest and most pernicious word in the American language is to claim that one culture is more important than another. It carries the message that the ethnic slurs used to denigrate Asians, for example, are less vile than the n-word. Social dynamics in America should not be reduced to black and white dichotomy as often happens in dialogues concerning race. And interestingly enough, New York City is perhaps one of the most diverse locations in America, yet all but the African-American community was excluded in Comrie's proposal.
To hear a politician speak only of a ban against the the n-word, especially in New York City, is far too narrow-minded. If anything at all, a symbolic resolution against hatred might have been better in order to equally represent the rights of other groups to dignity and respect.
The boundaries of consideration as they pertain to bans on words can even be stretched further to include epithets for social groups. Not surprisingly, this would make it increasingly difficult to decide where the boundaries end.
Politicians like Comrie and the mayor of Brazoria, Texas, need to be careful to not overstep their limits as officials. Restricting language could endanger the very diversity of thought which defines America. Epithets of any type must not be banned. The English language offers almost unlimited possibilities to create new words or phrases which can carry meanings as hateful as those words and phrases which currently exist.
The n-word is not the only offensive word. Perhaps we can attribute this to the fact that language is, to a certain extent, untamable. Yet surely we can attribute it to the illimitable freedom of speech upon which this country was established.
Charles Lee's column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at clee@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 19 hours agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 2 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 5 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
