Aibu to drop racist student

I love that about Duolingo. It shows society as it is. Specifically US society which is where the app was created.

I think I question this. Yes, it may represent a particular urban subsection of the US.

But let's take the example of Sari, who wears a headcovering. Her best mate is Lilli. They spend time giggling about boys and Sari also interviews her schoolmates of both sexes for her radio show. The young Muslim women I know in the UK have parents who will send them to a single sex school if possible. They are likely keep a careful eye on their daughters friendships with non-Muslim women, in case such friendships led to say, the eating of non-Halal food or unsupervised socialising with young men, which would lead to gossip within the immediate community. So what's being presented is a very idealised community, in which the reality of cultural difference is erased. If Lily and Sari were to have a conversation, about which cafe they might go to and Sari said she could only go to a particular one because the chicken was halal there, then it might actually be doing something to promote understanding.

Similarly putting a diversity of faces on music tuition books is, on one level positive. But if it's papering over the very real social issue of decreasing state investment in music education which means that children from poorer communities - perhaps Pakistani and Bangladeshi children - are very unlikely to be able to learn to play an instrument then it's little more than neutral in terms of effect. Or if it means that the privileged people who paid for the consultants and commissioned the photos just think smugly, great we've ticked the diversity box, and now we don't have to do anything more, it's even arguable that it is a negative.

I would drop her like a stone. Life is too short to put up with arseholes. It's certainly not your job to re-educate her.

@TheignT "That is interesting. Bit like my gay colleague who would use the term gay boys or my disabled husband and his friend who would refer to themselves as lollipop men (men on sticks) which I thought was horrible but they'd just say well we are."

Almost there. We only need someone whose black husband thinks being called Sambo by his colleagues is such a joke/collects gollywogs.

I hate the use of people of colour. Smacks of slavery times when a black person who wasn't a slave was referred to as a free person of colour. I don't understand why that became the acceptable term.

@thepariscrimefiles "As another poster has said, being a racist isn't a protected characteristic unlike sexual orientation, so it's unlikely that OP's pupil, or her pupil's imaginary children, would have a case"

As I've already said the whole argument is moot because we don't know:

a) if the OP is going to actually stop tutoring her
b) what reason she is going to give for stopping lessons

There was a thread somewhere where a sports club refused to host a child's party without giving a reason. The mother was convinced it was because she was Islamic and thought it was some kind of discrimination.

I think that the heavy promotion of a particular brands of DEI is something that can be questioned without that making the questioner a wicked person.

I am learning a language via a popular app. The characters in the app include a teenage girl in a pink hijab, a man in a turban, a young woman with an Afro, a possibly Turkish man. A high proportion of the relationships cited are same sex. It feels relentlessly American 'woke' rather than connecting particularly with the culture of the country whose language I am learning. So, arguably, rather imperialist.

Some of these things are quite interesting in terms of a development of language element.

There are of course words for groups that are intended to be derogatory, some started that way and some became insults over time.

But words like "coloured" didn't really have that kind of natural evolution at all. It was never derogatory in its meaning. It was literally a matter of, a few people decided it was old fashioned, they wanted a new word that would have no baggage, and they told people to stop using the old word. It was very much based on theories about changing language to change attitudes. And in these cases, it was not picked up by everyone in the group, either - there were significant numbers of people who continued to use the old words for themselves without issue until that generation passed away.

It would be more accurate to say words like that were archaic, or old fashioned, rather than racist or derogatory. Except that wouldn't fit with the underlying purpose of those who push such changes, which seems to be to designate new in and out groups.

Words like "Frogs" or "Krauts" are similar in that they were not actually derogatory in themselves, any more than "limey" is. They were nicknames, typically used by the working classes. (They are also, now, somewhat old fashioned.) Using nicknames and substitution words was until fairly recently(and even now among certain groups, interestingly mainly racially united groups, my partner's wc Caribbean family has a ton of these kinds of terms) a significant component of wc language - including nicknames for individuals. In my father's generation for example, more than half of his friends were referred to by nicknames - some were related to something about the person, maybe an incident that had occured - others were standardized, for example guys with the last name Miller were always called Dusty in our area. You similarly see a lot of affectionate pet names among the wc people (luvie, duckie, etc)

Frankly, I think a lot of the inability to differentiate between racist language and the language traditions of differernt social classes comes down to class elitism, and it's the whole point of pushing ever-changing "correct" language and designating previously inoffensive language (or even correct in the case of coloured) - it's to be able to catch people out who can't keep up.

The people who get worked up about this stuff are typically the same people who are upset when some wc nurse calls them by a pet name when she gives them a shot, or who insist that someone shortening their child's name is deeply offensive. (Noteworthy that wc nicknames are not chosen or approved of by the person being named.) It comes from a middle class sensibility around language that will not in a million years be tolerant about language traditions of the working classes, because so much of being aspirationally middle class requires not being mistaken for that sort of person.

@JHound "Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic.
Saying racist things is not."

No but it's classed as 'hate speech'.

Where was that said?

I'm dying laughing at the person who told you it would be discrimination against racists to stop teaching her 😂

"The poster saying seek legal advice?!"

I'm glad you see it as a joke.

You asked for advice, and I've given it. You do what you like with it. Just don't come back here in 6 months saying that you're in the middle of a discrimination case.

Nowadays people get into trouble for "discrimination" at the drop of a hat. We have people in prison for "hurty words" on social media.
I don't think this pupil will initiate any legal action, but she might have a son/daughter who won't be enamoured with you refusing lessons on the grounds that she's "racist"

Remember the Christian bakers and the gay wedding cake debacle ??

The lengths Mumsnetters will go to defend racists never fails to amaze me.

You're missing the point. Even if we reach deep for an excuse as to why a woman living in the UK may somehow have escaped the fact that 'coloured' is not an appropriate term, that doesn't explain why she felt the need to comment on a black person being on the front of the book in the first place. I'm guessing she wasn't saying "isn't it great that the book reflects the diversity of our society", but rather either blatantly complaining, because she doesn't want to see people of colour represented, or that sly hinting people do to open up a racist rant with the like minded.

People in the UK used to use the term 'coloured'. Some still do sometimes because they think it is more polite than black. It doesn't suggest she is South African at all.

Has she expressed actual negative feelings towards those groups of people, other than using non-PC terminology? It sounds like she is using old fashioned language that is rooted in racism, rather than speaking offensively about other races and cultures. So, is she actually racist or using language 'of her time'? Perhaps no one has expressly called her out for using those terms and she doesn't recognise how offensive they can actually be. I'd take a first step of writing her an email expressing that while she might not mean to offend, you don't feel comfortable with certain language that in this day and age js racist. See what her reaction her, maybe it will bring her up to speed and if not you can cut your losses.