This morning my mom sent me a link to an NPR piece about a blog called "Stuff White People Like."  She also included a message that said she was glad that I don’t feel a need to be outrageous in order to be read.  Since my mom is a member of an exceptionally small readership consisting of a few blood relatives and some close friends I’m thinking that it would be a little presumptuous of me to consider myself as read. 

I visited the blog, which apparently has garnered 4 million hits in just one month, and I have to say that I find it hysterical.  I think the guy does a great job of poking fun at our politically correct society, and of upper middle class folks in particular.  Several comments on the NPR discussion page devoted to this story point out that this is more a socio-economic commentary than a racial commentary and I think that’s accurate. 

What I find funniest about this site is that people might get their panties in a twist over satire aimed at white folks.  Is that equal opportunity or what?  Of course some people see it as a kind of back-door satire of non-whites, but my take is that if you look at every problem as a nail then every tool will look like a hammer.

This reminded me of some thoughts I had after church on Sunday.  During his sermon the pastor had talked about the need to keep in mind how women had been treated during Jesus’ lifetime and then related it to modern society.  He also referred to the racial divisions of the day and compared it to modern times.  In the process he did not shy away from using words like "rape" and "nigger" and thus his sermon carried a great deal of weight, relevance and resonance.  It also grabbed my attention because I can’t remember the last time someone used the word "nigger" even in the process of bemoaning the fact that racism still exists today.  That’s a shame.

While I’ll never believe that using words to intentionally hurt, scare or intimidate another person or group of people is an okay thing to do, I also think we do a great disservice to our society by censoring those words completely.  I should not have to resort to code words when arguing against bigotry, because when I do use code words I think the import of what I’m saying is lessened. If I’m having a debate or argument with someone then I want both of us to use whatever words we feel best represent what we’re thinking and feeling, not some watered down terms that we feel are politically correct.

Somehow we’ve gotten to the point that when sitting at the dinner table in our own home our children say things like, "Today at school Jimmy called Danny an n-word and Danny slugged Jimmy and got suspended, which I don’t think is right."  Why do they have to use "n-word"?  If they simply relate the story the way it happened it’s still clear that they don’t agree with Jimmy calling Danny a nigger and they think that Danny was fully justified in what he did.  Worse, instead of focusing on telling the kids that
maybe violence wasn’t the answer I’m instead worrying about explaining
why in this context they could have actually said "nigger." 

Now imagine if the child tells that same story to a friend in the school cafeteria and a teacher overhears it.  There’s
a very real possibility he’ll be disciplined for using a derogatory
term, even though he was simply telling a friend what had happened.   

Now I think, or at least hope, that most school administrators and teachers would use common sense in the situation I described above, but here’s a section from the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System’s Student Parent Handbook that might give you an idea of how they might deal with provocative language:

Article V. Academic and Personal Freedoms and Responsibilities
A. Freedom of speech. Students have a right to express their thoughts and opinions at reasonable times and places. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The school is an appropriate place for debate, discussion, and the expression of ideas. However, certain kinds of speech, whether spoken, written or symbolic, may be prohibited at schools. Understanding the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech is an important responsibility that students must accept in their learning process. The following types of speech are not generally protected by the Constitution and are prohibited at schools or at school related activities:
1. Profanity: words that are clearly considered profane by contemporary community standards of behavior.
2. Obscenity: words that describe sexual conduct and which, read as a whole, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, portray sex in a manner offensive to contemporary community standards and do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
3. Fighting or abusive words: words that are spoken solely to harass or injure other people, such as threats of violence, defamation of character or defamation of a person’s race, religion or ethnic origin.
4. Disruption: speech, be it verbal, written or symbolic that materially and substantially disrupts classroom work, school activities or school functions, such as demonstrations, “sit-ins,” “boycotts,” or simply talking in class when told not to do so by the teacher.
5. Lewd, vulgar or indecent speech or conduct.

Schools can deal with kids who break these standards with various levels of discipline. I truly have a problem with this approach.  Of course I find it despicable when derogatory comments and racial slurs are used, but I think we do our kids a disservice when we take the approach of saying "you can’t call people names" and then turn them loose in a world where that is done all the time.  Rather than teaching them how to stand up for themselves, or how to deal with a racist on their own, we simply say "you can’t say such things and if you do we’ll suspend you, and little Johnny whom you insulted will live happily ever after in his little cocoon of love and affirmation."  Is that what happens in the real world?

A better approach would be to teach kids how to mediate these situations themselves, how to approach racism, how to engage in conversation and not shouting matches.  In other words we need to teach kids that it’s not the words they use, but how they use them, and that the most effective way to fight harmful speech is not through censorship but to refute it with intelligence and wit.