Sacked for using 'N' word

[Horrace]

I don't know how to copy link sorry but has anyone been following the story of the Lloyd's bank manager who was sacked for asking a relevant question in a so called anti racism training session by his employers but in his question he used the full 'N' word.
His question I believe was how would he be expected to deal with black employees or customers speaking to each other using that word.
The trainer was so offended by the word, she had to take 5 days off work. However, he got sacked.
He has since been awarded £500,00 but no apology from Lloyd's and no job back.
As far as we know, the ridiculous incompetent trainer is still employed.

I am close to this story but afraid to say how.
But will say that I'm losing sleep and furious more and more at this bank.

Why quote the post of you haven't read it properly? @Krampers said they'd never heard it used AT WORK. I don't know why you're bringing rap, America or movies in to make your (dumb) argument.

I don't feel in the context of black people using it amongst themselves that I really offer a valid opinion. I think that in certain contexts a white person can say it (artistic authenticity for example) and, if all I had to go on was the sacking/appeal/tribunal then I'd maybe even have some sympathy with what happened here.

It was the "I'm a white person and that's why I can't get on in life" thing that rings alarm bells, and the claim of racial discrimination in his employment.

Interesting to see he's given an interview to a freedom of speech podcast thing

Ridiculous. It's not a magic word. It's not Voldemort. Using the word in context in a racism training course should not cause anyone to lose their jobs.

I agree Krampers. The disinegunous questions like 'what if two black colleagues greet eachother like it' are so telling. If women don't call eachother bitch at work why would black people call eachother the N word?

MN threads on racism always end up the same. People falling over themselves to explain to people of colour why stuff isn’t racist
The issue is how racism is defined in the context of the use of words.

We ALL agree that the word N** is racist when directed at a black person.

SOME believe that it is also racist when used as a general word not directed any specific group or individuals, others believe it IS racist.

What seems to be never mentioned is how other racist terms should be dealt with. It's been established that nationality falls under racism. Does this that any insulting reference to nationality in the work place should be deemed a sacking offence?

The reality is that if people do believe that the guy in question here was rightly dismissed, they should agree that everyone using a racial offensive word should be too. Yet I'm not convinced that they are as clean as they claim. I've used the example of using the common phrase 'excuse my French' after cursing. This falls under the same definition of racism yet you can bet that everyone or next too will have used that saying. This is the one example that fine to mind but they are no doubt many common words or saying refering to nationality that is offensive.

That's why I think there is a lot of hypocrisy and virtual signaling here.

This post will of course be ignored because no one will acknowledge that they do or have used offensive terms relating to nationality or sex or age. They never do. Much more satisfying to point the fingers to others and accuse them of racism and pat themselves on the shoulder for educating others.

I will admit to saying excuse my French or something similar. In hindsight I probably shouldn’t have. But I wouldn’t say that the word French or its use within the context of that sentence (however racist the sentence is) is the same as the N-word.

No1 has said not to ever say black, Nigerian, Ethiopian or any other word that is the equivalent of saying French. It’s the equivalent of someone saying black magic. Doesn’t have the best connotations but not the same as saying the N-word.

An equivalent term might be a word which begins with P describing people from Pakistan. As someone not from that culture, I would never use that word even to discuss the word or conversation around it. 1. Because I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone from that culture and 2. Because it’s astoundingly easy for me not to use it.
I lose nothing in my life by not saying it. Why do people want so badly the right to say the N-word? What about it makes it something that people are arguing so fervently for their right to use it?

@Bex5490 your patience and eloquence is amazing, thank you for articulating what I’m struggling to!

But I wouldn’t say that the word French or its use within the context of that sentence (however racist the sentence is) is the same as the N-word
Toy missed the point of the meaning behind the expression. It's not the word French that's an issue, it's the fact that this expression implies that the French curse a lot, and that's what makes it offensive. Surely you can understand that.

But you prove my point exactly. Who decides the hierarchy of what is offensive and then what justifies one being a stackable offense and what isn't?

It's obvious that calling a black person the N word is more offensive than asking a French person to excuse their French but is it worse to mention the N word within the context of training significantly worse than saying 'Well F* me' me to a French person you don't like like added by 'excuse my French'?

What if there had been a black person in that training class who'd said it hadn't offended them at all, whilst the French person went home crying feeling that their colleague had used the expression in purpose to be rude to them?

My question is who makes the law as to what is offensive or not and decide on the hierarchy?

I bet most people who use the expression 'excuse my French' on a regular basis would say that it's not offensive because of how THEY use it and gave done for ages, but does that alone mean that French people have no right to be offended by it?

*your patience and eloquence is amazing, thank you for articulating what I’m struggling to!
And here you go. You don't find it offensive so it's ok in your book, and very low on the hierarchy regardless of how it might upset a French person. It's a very self centered approach to the notion of racism.

I did understand that it wasn’t the ‘French’ that made the sentence potentially offensive. That’s why I gave you the example of ‘Black magic’ being an equivalent given that the word black, like French isn’t offensive alone but using it as a way to say that the magic is sinister or evil could potentially be…

I think you understood that.

And I think the people that would be offended are the ones to decide on the hierarchy of offence. You think otherwise. Fine…

But only if that’s in equal measure. With your logic men should get equal rights to decide the hierarchy of what’s offensive or sexist to women. Is that what you believe?

@vivainsomnia I’m half French but, sure, go off…

Edit: There’s also not the years of racism, slavery, oppression and discrimination behind the use of the term “excuse my French”. So it’s hardly the same and you know it.

The lust to use the word, the hopping up and down with rage at not being able to use the word is coming accross as, well…racist.

I’m half French but, sure, go off…
So all French couldn't possibly be offended.... You should decide on behalf of all French? I think that's what some posters here have been criticised for.

Edit: There’s also not the years of racism, slavery, oppression and discrimination behind the use of the term “excuse my French”. So it’s hardly the same and you know it
And I acknowledged that but it is still racism as described legally.

So again, what racist discrimination justifies sacking and what doesn't? Where is the threshold? Who sets it? On which basis?

Re French: If even one French person tells you it’s offensive and asks you to stop saying it, then stop.

But it’s not even comparable.

White people have been asked to not say n-word and know exactly why, know that it’s offensive, but still you and other posters are gagging to say it in the only context you feel you might “get away with it.”

@vivainsomnia You didn’t answer my question.

Do you think men should have an equal say on what is deemed offensive to women?

Which group of people do you think should decide on the hierarchy of what is considered sexist or misogynistic?

White people have been asked to not say n-word and know exactly why, know that it’s offensive, but still you and other posters are gagging to say it in the only context you feel you might “get away with it.”
You are making dreadful assumptions and that's pathetic. It's not about getting away with anything, saying such a thing IS offensive.

What is well known is that you should aim this word at a black person or refer to it in an offensive context. I personally have never ever heard or been told that I shouldn't ever pronounce the word if any situation whatsoever. That referring to the N word is ok but not the full enunciated one and you can be certain that I'm far from the only one. So again, I want to know which legal body has made this clear and where it can be found.

Do you think men should have an equal say on what is deemed offensive to women?
No I don't think they should. Nor do I think none French people should have an equal say on whether that expression is offensive to French people. Offensive should in my view always be defined by the recipient. However, I also believe that when something is said that offends someone but without the intention to be so, that person should just be informed of how it's been received and this should result in an apology.

I actually agree that some offenses cannot be compared to others due to a number of factors. That's not the arguement. However, there still needs to be a threshold to decide how it is applied, as in this instance, in a decision to dismiss someone.

There is a good reason why this person won in court and that's because the bank threshold wasn't applied reasonably or clearly described anywhere.

The lengths people will go to to explain why at times it’s ok to use a word that is deeply offensive is astonishing

the threshold is it should never be used by white peoples adults know this as all adults know we do not tell our boss to shut the fuck up when the are wittering on or shout at people on the train to be quiet so you concentrate on your book we gain information and piece things together we do not need it spelled out to us

but apparently the educated women on MN need further guidance

its absolutely pathetic it would be laughable if it wasn’t so tainted

I don’t necessarily disagree that if he genuinely had no idea that saying this would cause offence (as in was born and lived under a rock until the present day) then he should be allowed to apologise and learn from the situation. That isn’t my issue.

My issue is the saying he should’ve been allowed to say it because of the context. You were questioning before the logic of hierarchy within offensive language or who should be able to determine it.

Those are two separate things.

Do you think he should be allowed to apologise and move on which in itself recognises that it isn’t something white people should say?

Or do you think he should be given the right to say that word in a specific context even though that is not the judgement of those who are offended by the word?

My last post was in response to this.

If we're comparing it to STFU, he didn't actually say it to anyone.

It's fine to ask a question like 'a customer told me to stfu, how do I react?' Not fine to tell a customer to 'stfu'.

With the exception of a few posters, most people don't want to say the word. There is no reason to say it (I Don’t even understand why he'd put himself in that position - stupid). they just don't think it's proportionate to have him fired for this

The point I am making is quite clear as explained in my post

we learn what is ok and what isn’t we learn language to use that is ok and what isn’t we don’t always need to be explicitly told even children will pick up on this

he choose to use a word that is extremely offensive and harmful why should I propel in the group be subjected to this. I am not sure why such actions should be dealt with any differently

In his book, The Identity Trap, Yascha Mounk talks about how social norms are rarely contested in mono cultures, whereas they can become a point of tension in diverse communities. I think this is what is showing here.

My values are such that I don't believe that it is a good thing for a word to be classified un-utterable in any given context. Even worse, for a word to be deemed utterable in many contexts by some yet never utterable by others. I think this applies to words relating to anything, including protected characteristics. In case it needs clarifying, this view is a million miles away from (often misrepresented) freedom of speech arguments suggesting anyone should be free to say anything at any time. It is also a generalised position, based on all words with all histories.

I understand and sympathise with people who want to outlaw words that they deem harmful. There are words that I too find hard to tolerate, for a range of reasons. However, the level of illiberalism that a ban in all contexts involves is, in my view, unacceptable and dangerous. Who are the arbiters of which words are permissible and how is this determined? In today's polarised world, lots of people are very happy for this to be the case, but only in it's their team calling the shots.

Who are the arbiters of which words are permissible and how is this determined? In today's polarised world, lots of people are very happy for this to be the case, but only in it's their team calling the shots
Thanks for your post, @Brainworm. This is exactly my point. You explained it much better than I.

That's the question I'd hoped to be debated here: who gets to determine which words are ok to use and which are not? Posters here have mentioned education which is fine for those races/cultures that have more of a voice, history etc... but they've shown that when it comes to long engrained words/saying that THEY have grown up to consider acceptable from THEIR own culture and education, they are totally biased.

Why is such a loaded word that is offence and harmful ever be accepted in the work place

why should other people be subjected to that word (we have a choice to listen to music/watch films)

there Is a choice to either uphold the line of no tolerance around racism and the use of racist language that is its not tolerated at all or well sometimes it will be as people choose to at times use racist language regardless if others are offended and try to intellectualise this

he choose to use the word it comes knowing that it can cause offence and hurt

While I agree that the 'N' word is something I would not use, and personally think it's been considered offensive for long enough now that most people of working age should understand why it would be better censored, I think it's a slippery slope to assume that EVERYONE is entirely up to date with the correct vocabulary for all instances and that making one mistake deserves the most severe punishment. I'm in my 30s and within the last few years have experienced various acquaintances (colleagues/friends/family), all of whom I would consider to be nice, fairly well educated people in their 20s-60s, not those who would ever want to hurt feelings or deliberately use the wrong terms, say things like 'coloured people' 'transsexual' 'retarded' (describing something rather than someone), etc.

My organisation considers itself to be very up to date on terminology but atm still uses BaME which I know some of my colleagues strongly dislike, so I could absolutely imagine if I, for example, went on maternity and was away for a year, or transferred to a different job, could use what I thought to be the 'correct' phrase but be wrong.

The correct reaction the first time someone says the 'wrong' word, particularly a trainer, whose whole job is to educate, should be to say something like 'I'm sure you didn't mean to cause harm but that term is considered to be out of date and offensive, most people now tend to use the term xxxx/if we can all avoid saying the full word during this session. Thanks! Now to answer your question....'

A decent person would then apologise and know for the future, and it would also have the benefit of educating everyone else in the session/nearby.

Not go 0-100 in sacking someone for what is likely to be an honest mistake. If the guy had been warned before for something similar that would be different, but doesn't seem to be the case.

This man wanted to go on the course as he was going to be mentoring three younger colleagues (one happened to be black) to brush up on the latest PC language and etiquette

he has managed a young rugby team he is or was mayor so I involved in local council

and what adult who has had contact with the outside world, world with the public for so many years through work needs to be explicitly told. He isn’t stupid he was arrogant and wanted to make a point and still is that it’s all gone too far

why is the subject of when it’s ok to use racist language at work even up for debate