A conflation of racism and ignorance

By Julie O'connor

The word "niggardly" dates back to the late 14th-century Scandinavian term "niggard," meaning "miser," predating by hundreds of years the entrance of its homophonic racial slur into the English language. Yet last week it cost David Howard his job as aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C. after he used the word in a meeting.

Howard's resignation was immediately accepted by Mayor Anthony Williams, SM '79, who is black. "I don't think that the use of this term showed the kind of judgment that I like to see in our top management," the mayor said. "I would never think of making a racist remark," countered Howard, whose job involved listening to concerns of residents.

Yet neither an explanation from Howard nor the power of facts could appease the outrage over this purportedly racist remark from members of Washington's black community, which constitutes two-thirds of its population. And not even the mayor's recent offer to reinstate this aide can erase the damage done.

This issue bears a resemblance to a recent controversy in New York City. Ruth Sherman, a white third-grade teacher at a school in Brooklyn with primarily African-American students, assigned her class, Nappy Hair, a book about a girl who was proud of her "nappy" hair. After some parents became incensed and protested at a public meeting, Sherman was transferred out of the school—before a fear for her safety forced her to stay away permanently. The book was written by Carolivia Herron, an African-American woman who said that the book's theme is one of pride and self-acceptance. "The point of the book is to turn that insult around,"she later explained.

The more the label "racist" is stretched to apply to incidents of incorrectly perceived insults, the less weight it will carry when its use is appropriate. When he accepted Howard's resignation, Mayor Williams no doubt knew what "niggardly" meant. He knew that those who were angry were mistaken. Yet he maintained that Howard should have somehow anticipated these mistaken reactions. Was it fair to put Howard out of his job just because he didn't foresee the mistakes of others? Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, told the New York Times that it was Williams who had been "niggardly in his judgment on this issue." Bond commented, "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding. This whole episode speaks loudly to where we are on issues of race."

In addition to inflicting injustice upon Howard and Sherman, these incidents harm society and African-Americans themselves. Will other teachers like Ms. Sherman still attempt to enhance children's self-respect? Or will a chilling effect set in, forcing people to tiptoe at an acceptable distance from any issue involving race? If truth can be trumped by mistaken perceptions in these cases, it can happen again. African-American leaders have a responsibility to deal with these issues fairly. They must contest the misinterpretations of others. If individuals like Bond didn't speak out, white America might believe that all African-Americans think like the people who angrily misinterpreted these situations. And to suggest that African-Americans would not accept rational explanations once they are offered would be a patronizing implication.

Irrational thinking and faulty assumptions breed the kind of crowd mentality that supports racism. These are the mistakes that cause the injustices African-Americans fight every day. Occurrences like these, unfortunately, make them African-American mistakes too.

Julie O'Connor is a freshman in Davenport.

Back to Opinion...