Language Policing: The Inconsistent Rules of Controversial Terms

The Politics of Language: Who Gets to Say What?

Lily Gaddis, a self-proclaimed traditional housewife and social media influencer, has recently found herself at the centre of a viral controversy. In a now-infamous TikTok video, Gaddis was caught using the N-word, sparking immediate outrage across social media platforms. The backlash was swift and severe, leading to her termination from the company she worked for, which is notably "owned and operated by an African American female and is also an immigrant-owned business."

In her controversial TikTok rant, Lily Gaddis made a series of inflammatory statements. She made derogatory comments about women and also also took aim at immigrants, but we all know that what landed her in deep water was her using the infamous N word.

So why does this word continue to elicit such powerful and visceral emotional responses whenever it is said by a white person? There have been countless instances where people have faced severe consequences, including the loss of their jobs, for uttering it, even if they later claimed that it was used innocently or without any malicious intent.

For example, in 2018, John Schnatter, the founder and former CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, faced criticism and resigned from his position after reports surfaced that he used the N-word during a conference call. Despite Schnatter’s argument that he used the term while expressing his disapproval of racism, the incident had still significant negative consequences for his reputation and professional standing. Other public figures involved in similar controversies include Madonna, country musician Morgan Wallen, Gina Rodriguez and others

The consequences of using the N-word are not limited to celebrities; everyday citizens can also find themselves facing severe repercussions for uttering this “controversial” term. An example is the case of Carl Borg-Neal, a 59-year-old father of two from Andover, Hampshire. Borg-Neal, a regular working citizen with no claim to fame, found himself at the centre of a firestorm a few years ago when he was abruptly fired from his job for using the N-word during a diversity and race education training session. The bank worker inadvertently dropped the racial slur while seeking advice on how to handle situations where a black person uses the term. There was no malicious intent, and he wasn’t directing it at anyone. He was simply trying to ask a question and understand the context of the N-word’s usage in rap lyrics or among “individuals playing basketball”.

Even though he immediately apologised for any offence caused, his remark allegedly left the session’s leader so distressed that she took a week off, a factor that contributed to the decision to terminate his contract for gross misconduct.

However, Carl Borg-Neal refused to accept his termination lying down. In a bold and principled move, he took his former employer to court, asserting that his dismissal was unjust and unwarranted given the context of his question and the absence of malicious intent. The employment tribunal sided with Borg-Neal, validating his stance and acknowledging the legitimacy of his question.

He was awarded a substantial payout of £490,000, a sum that not only recognises the wrongful nature of his termination but also serves as a powerful statement against knee-jerk reactions and the rush to judgment in such subjective situations.

Why are there different rules for white individuals regarding the usage of certain terms? During a live performance in Omaha, Nebraska, American rapper and singer Doja Cat openly warned white attendees against singing the N-word. TikTok footage captured the award-winning star performing her 2021 track 'Ain’t Sh*t,' which features the controversial term in its hook. The explicit instruction given to her white fans in attendance was, “Watch your mouth if you’re white.”

I have also observed that this inconsistency regarding who can say what extends beyond seemingly offensive words and has even permeated everyday interactions. For example, compliments, often meant to uplift, express admiration, or simply break the ice, can suddenly be perceived differently when they come from a white person.

Asking about someone’s background or expressing curiosity about their origin is generally considered normal and acceptable, unless, of course, a white person is the one expressing such curiosity. For example, I often ask people I meet, whether for the first time or as I become more familiar with them, about their origins, and I usually receive similar questions from non-white individuals without any issues. This practice is viewed as a way to connect with a person, learn more about them, and build relationships and rapport.

Yet this natural and common aspect of human interaction transforms into a hunt for racism when a white person is involved; basic curiosity is not so basic anymore with White individuals in the picture. 

In such cases, these questions have been labelled and framed as racist, occasionally escalating into full-blown controversies. No wonder there is a climate of uncertainty surrounding the rules and boundaries of what is deemed acceptable.

But back to the N word, while some argue for its reclamation within the African-American community in the US, I find myself questioning the wisdom of embracing a term supposedly entrenched in historical suffering. The word is supposed to carry an extremely heavy historical weight and deep-rooted associations with racism, oppression, and dehumanisation of black people. So why are we reclaiming this? Is reclaiming the “N-word” truly empowering, or does it inadvertently and subconsciously keep alive the negative ideas it used to represent? If the term once symbolised the abuse and dehumanisation that black people endured in centuries past, why wouldn’t someone choose to distance themselves from anything associated with such a painful period? If it's such an awful, racist word steeped in oppression and hatred, why would any self-respecting person want to reclaim it or keep using it? The argument that it's somehow "empowering" for the black community to embrace this vile slur is simply ridiculous mental gymnastics.

Imagine a woman who has endured prolonged and systematic domestic abuse and was given a derogatory nickname by her abuser. Does it make any sense for her to cling to that name after the abuse has ended? Wouldn't it make far more sense for her to reject being known or referred to by that demeaning label? Even if it's her referring to herself by it, or her own family members using that word for her. Either a word is inherently harmful, or it's not. If you insist on not being offended when using an abusive word yourself, but become enraged when others use it, then you haven't truly reclaimed anything, you are still enslaved by it.

Perhaps this "reclaiming" of offensive words isn't about empowerment at all. Perhaps it's more a thinly-veiled power play by the perpetually outraged to wield moral superiority over others and control the language of others.

Rather than actually rising above slurs and hurtful language, some people seem to want to revel in keeping those toxic words alive, so they can continue lording their victimhood over everyone else. It's really just manufacturing fake outrage to gain leverage and attention. Instead of moving forward, they cling to the language of oppression as some twisted badge of courage. But there's nothing brave about this.

I believe that instead of wasting energy policing words, we should be focusing on reclaiming the things that actually matter in our communities. Rather than virtue signalling over who gets to say the N-word, how about reclaiming certain parts of our neighbourhoods from crime and decay? Reclaiming a culture of two-parent households, strong family values and personal responsibility? Reclaiming quality education and economic opportunity in our communities?

This fixation on symbolic word games might allow some people to pat themselves on the back, but it does absolutely nothing to improve lives or address the real issues holding communities back. It's a colossal waste of time.

If we're going to "reclaim" anything, it should be reclaiming the basic human fundamentals that create upward mobility, safe streets, community pride and a positive environment for the next generation to thrive. All this other empty moralising over lingual purity is just a distraction from the much harder work that needs to be done and more important conversations that need to be had.

The consequences of using certain words should not be based on the racial makeup of the person uttering them. If using such a word in one context is considered so egregious that it constitutes a fireable offence, then in all honesty no one should use it.

---

Ada is the Head of Content at The Equiano Project. Subscribe to The Equiano Project YouTube channel HERE.

---