Academia, Constitutional Law, Free Speech

Rutgers Professor and Law Student Under Fire for Reading Racial Slur From Judicial Opinion

The New York Times is reporting that a Rutgers Law Professor and law student are under fire after the student reluctantly read the n-word in a 1993 legal opinion.  It is the latest such controversy in high education.

I am assuming that the professor and students were discussing State v. Bridges, which begins with this background discussion:

“On September 2, 1988, defendant, Bennie Eugene Bridges, attended a birthday party with some fifty to sixty young people for sixteen-year-old Cheryl Smith in the basement of her home in Roebling, New Jersey. At about 12 a.m., Bridges had an argument with another guest, Andy Strickland. Shortly after the heated exchange, Bridges left the party, yelling angrily into the basement that he would soon return with his “boys.” As he drove past the house on his way to Trenton, Bridges again shouted, “I’m going back to Trenton to get my [n*****s.]”

In the virtual discussion, the student states “He said, um — and I’ll use a racial word, but it’s a quote. He says, ‘I’m going to go to Trenton and come back with my [expletive]s.”

That triggers a petition from students to demand action from the law school and apologies from both the professor and the student.  The students declared that “At the height of a ‘racial reckoning,’ a responsible adult should know not to use a racial slur regardless of its use in a 1993 opinion.”

Professor Vera Bergelson denied hearing the word but apologized, declaring “I wish I could go back in time to that office hour and confront it directly.” She added “There is no doubt in my mind that the student had no racist intent, and the fact that, given a chance, I would have corrected the student reflects only my personal pedagogical choices and not any doubt in the student’s good faith.”

We have been discussing professors who have been investigated or sanctioned for the use of the “n-word” in classes or tests at Georgetown, Duquesne, John Marshall, Augsberg, Chicago, DePaul, Princeton, Kansas, and other schools. There were also recent incidents at Wake Forest and Emory.

In my view, this should remain a decision for professors based on academic freedom and the specific context of the use. Some professors have read the word in literary or historical passages. The removal of such terms and images in a class addressing racism can substantially change and undermine a professor’s treatment of the subject. It is analogous to decision of the Yale University Press when it published Jytte Klausen’s “The Cartoons That Shook the World” (on the cartoons that led to riots and over 200 killed in protests worldwide). Yale removed the 12 cartoons from the book so not to insult Muslims. Thus, you could read the book but not actually see the cartoons themselves.  The question of how central this word is to a lesson is highly contextual. Faculty have been particularly reluctant to edited passages from classic works like the recent controversy over the writings of Mark Twain.

This is not the only law student under fire this week for controversial or offensive language. A law student at Abertay University in Scotland is facing discipline for the allegedly “offensive” and “discriminatory” statements. According to Daily Mail, Lisa Keogh is a mother of two who was taking part in a virtual class on “gender feminism and the law.” The class addressed transgender issues and Keogh expressed her view that allowing transgender athletes to compete against women was unfair — a view shared by many.  She referred to women as being physically weaker as a gender and that a 32-year-old trans woman who had testosterone in her body all those years “would be genetically stronger than the average woman.” She also reportedly responded to another student calling men rapists as an example of “man-hating feminists.”

There were obviously strong statements on both sides of the issue in the class. However, Keogh is facing possible discipline for speaking frankly about her views on the subject. As faculty members, we try to steer such exchanges into more civil and tolerant expressions. It is common for some students to cross the line on these subjects but there is value in all sides being able to be open about their views, including their biases. The best way to change minds is to be able deal directly with such views and rhetoric in a dialogue. College is a place for students to meet others with a myriad of different experiences and values. Hopefully, such exposure leads to a better understanding of the views of others and even evolution of one’s own assumptions.

The concern is that these investigations create a chilling effect on speech in our classrooms. We previously discussed a Gallup poll showing ninety percent of Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona but many of our colleges. This is not a problem for many students but an increasingly small percentage of self-identified conservatives. Another Harvard study showed that 35 percent of conservatives felt that they could share their views on campus.

Returning to the Rutgers controversy, there is a real value to discussing the issues facing faculty over the use of this term. Despite all of these controversies, there is rarely a full discussion of the issue. Many universities do not expressly bar the use of this word in historical or other documents. Faculty face different issues when considering the use of the word in a literary passage as opposed to a hypothetical. Many faculty do not want to remove words from literary or historical texts but to teach them as reflective of their times.  That does not make them racists.

I do not use the term because I do not believe that it is necessary for the cases and material that I teach despite my teaching issues of discrimination in tort and constitutional cases.  Yet, I believe that the previously mentioned faculty had good-faith and non-racist motives for the use of the term in their own classrooms. Admittedly, as many on this blog know, I tend to taken a more robust view of academic freedom and free speech. However, I sincerely wish we could have a civil and substantive discussion of this issue rather than speak only through petitions or across protest lines.

130 thoughts on “Rutgers Professor and Law Student Under Fire for Reading Racial Slur From Judicial Opinion”

  1. May we enjoy the freedom of speech provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

    Was it not always the case that people must adapt to the outcomes of freedom; that freedom does not adapt to people – dictatorship does?

    May we yet remove all of the emulsifiers which constitute the unnatural and perverse, nay, impossible attempt to compel the mixture of political oil and water?

    For good and obvious reasons, the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity, the acumen and the intellect sufficient to the task.

    May we nullify and void wholly unconstitutional generational welfare, forced busing, quotas, affirmative action, unfair fair housing laws, discriminatory non-discrimination laws, Obamacare, public housing, social services, rent control, minimum wage, utility subsidies, food stamps, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, SSI, absurdly intuitive “hate crime” laws, etc., and make America constitutional and free again?

  2. These whining students are going to have a tough time in the real world! Law School isn’t preparing them to read an opinion that contains an “offensive” word — even when an explanatory comment is made before reading it aloud. What is next: reprint every opinion, whether in print or on-line, and remove every “offensive” word???

      1. Colleges are nothing more than incubators of ignorance’ cultural illiteracy and hatred for everything a civilized society should stand for. Shut them down.

  3. More of Turley’s hysteria. What does “under fire” mean in this context? Was anyone fired, denied tenure, suspended, put on probation–what? I suspect nothing other than being asked to respond to criticism by someone who is excessively sensitive, which seems to be the trend nowadays. Does “under fire” mean that someone was criticized for perhaps not properly handling the utterance of a word that some have elevated beyond a slur? It makes good sense to tread lightly in this area, and I personally think that if someone is merely reading from a court opinion, testimony or some published material, and has no intent to insult others, then no consequences.

    1. you’re here lying
      you seem like you need to lie
      you must be a communist lib

    2. Natasha, you’re right. You make a good point. The 1st amendment doesn’t protect you from criticism for exercising your free speech rights. It’s a responsibility to be aware of that.

      As Turley’s own “self censoring” of the word makes perfectly clear, even he is too timid to stand up to his own principles.

      I agree that merely using the word shouldn’t be offensive or an issue if the context isn’t about a personal attack or a backhanded insult it shouldn’t be seen as offensive or taboo just because of what it is.

      I agree with Turley that it should be discussed without having to self censor.

      Yet, Turley pleads an excuse that is too common among those who are still fearful of saying it.

      It’s the same thing with the word “fat”. Think about it. It’s almost just as difficult to just utter the word in front of someone who IS fat. We got to couch our words with less “harsh” phrases like “overweigh”, “big”, “large”, “obese”, “big boned” etc, etc. but “fat” is just too direct, too close to reality. I was raised in another country and the term “fat” is still used. It’s acceptable, because it’s a direct honest description of what it is and it shouldn’t be offensive or insensitive.

      The n-word, should be the same as long as it isn’t used as an insult or denigrating manner. I don’t say it because I really have no real reason to unless i would read it out loud from a book or even a song lyric.

  4. This makes me wonder if we are talking words and, by making them unspeakable, we are making them holy. There are precedents in Taoism and Judaism.

      1. Olly,

        In your Prager Univ. video the announcer says,”Words exist so that we might discriminate.”

        OMG! This guy thinks Americans are free to, wait for it, discriminate. Dang!

        Of course, the first step of freedom is discrimination.

        If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free.

        Americans can’t go down the pathway from their homes to the sidewalk, and discriminate by deciding to turn right or left.

        The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have Americans believing absolutely putrefied rubbish.

        The communists ((liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) insidiously conflate discrimination with property damage and bodily injury.

        The Teachers Unions have done a great job of addling the minds of young Americans.

        1. Leave it to Merriam-Webster to put the unlawful definition first:
          Definition of discrimination
          1a: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
          racial discrimination
          b: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
          2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
          the film viewed by those with discrimination
          3a: the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating
          a bloodhound’s scent discrimination
          psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

          Then in Findlaw we have this:

          In plain English, to “discriminate” means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. In everyday life, when faced with more than one option, we discriminate in arriving at almost every decision we make.

          Of course we discriminate, if we didn’t or couldn’t, we wouldn’t survive as a species.

          1. Olly,

            I agree 100%. To be human is to discriminate. It should not be a pejorative. There are only a very few matters about which it is unlawful or immoral to discriminate. Why then do Trumpists complain about being “cancelled,” in other words, discriminated? It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against Trumpists because they are not a protected class. If they deny safe zones for liberals, they can’t expect them for themselves.

            1. Is it legal, moral, or ethical to discriminate and then use force to take away one’s life, liberty or property, merely because they expressed a worldview different than others?

              How do you define Trumpist? Put another way; how do you discriminate to identify one as a Trumpist?

              1. A Trumpist is someone who does NOT believe Donald is a chronic and habitual liar. No one is talking about depriving liars of life, liberty or property, just respect, association and civility.

                1. A Trumpist recognizes that politicians aren’t always the most truthful, but Donald Trump turns out to be more honest than the others when compared. He kept most of his campaign promises, something not seen in other administrations. He was very transparent as President, something else the prior administration was not.

                  Then we get to the real complainers and liars that make accusations they refuse to back up. The same question faces Jeff as he faced the day he came on the blog. Can Jeff name those most significant lies of Donald Trump that involved Trump’s Presidential duties?

                  Jeff has never done that though he repeats his mantra that Trump is a liar every day. What do we call people like that? Deceivers and libelers.

                  1. I agree with Allan…

                    -Trump clearly got Mexico to pay for the wall that a minority of Americans wanted, and he got more than a small fraction of it completed.
                    -he re-established the failing coal industry.
                    -he achieved economic growth in the 5-7 percent range on average throughout his term up to the economic crash due to the pandemic.
                    -he moved directly to an infrastructure improvement plan immediately upon taking office.
                    -he came up with a replacement health care plan to improve on Obamney care.
                    -He got the North Koreans to significantly reduce their nuclear profile.
                    -He jincreased the grain exports and didn’t have to institute a proposed $28 billion stimulus program for grain farmers into to counter lagging foreign sales.
                    -He lowered national deficits.
                    -He ushered through tax policy that benefited the top end of the inome bracket while convincing the middle class that their taxes went down.
                    -He was able to scale down the wasteful and misguided sustainable power track the country had been moving forward and moved it back to an increasingly fossil fuel combustion energy model while making significant improvements to the national grid system.
                    -When faced with a pandemic making it’s way to the United States he created funding for Operation Warp Speed which enabled Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AstraZenica to rapidly upscale existing vaccine technoology to a sufficient pandemic distribution model.
                    -He increased funding and operational readiness of the federal pandemic response team…

                    And since Allan has proven himself over time to be a stickler for factual evidence, he’ll no doubt be able to sift though these points and be able to tell which ones are true, which ones are false, and which ones are partially true. As an added bonus, I’m going to guess Allan will also know which of these Trump actually made formal promises to do and which he didn’t. He’ll ace this no problem.

                    EB 25

                    1. Bug, indirectly, you are unwittingly honest in this reply. You admit to not knowing the difference between what is true and what is false. You have the opportunity to discuss item by item what Trump did. Trump was far from perfect but far more effective than Obama. Trump led us in a positive direction. Obama, though he seemed nice, lied, weaponized the DOJ, intelligence agencies, and the IRS. Obama did not live up to his campaign promises, nor did he tell the truth while President. He didn’t secure peace in the Middle East, something where Trump was triumphant.

                      Biden, Obama’s replacement, created a war in the Middle East, caused NATO a tremendous loss of power, and created a racist America that hasn’t existed for years. Whereas racism in prior years was mostly limited to certain areas, it was not the US government’s policy. Today promoting racism seems to be the main reason for the US government to exist.

                      SM

                    2. Allan, did you have to waste two paragraphs on a deflection that could’ve been handled in one sentence that said, essentially: I’m not going to answer? Or better yet, no response at all since that is basically what you’ve done here?

                      EB 25

                    3. Bug, the deflection was on your part. I spoke the truth. “Bug, indirectly, you are unwittingly honest in this reply. You admit to not knowing the difference between what is true and what is false.”

                      Yet, still, you have the right to discuss Trump’s failures or successes one by one. You don’t do that because you lack the necessary means to do so. If I wait for an intelligent response from you, I probably will have to wait forever.

                      SM

                    4. Also, the reason why I posited points some of which are true, some false, some partially true is not because I don’t know the answers, it’s because, with all things trump you’ve proven time and again to be his finest judge of character and accomplishment…

                      This should’ve been a softball for you, bud.

                      EB 25

                  2. SM,
                    President Trump’s accomplishments are now in the history books. Nothing will change those facts. What these Leftists don’t want is for anyone to focus on the disaster in the White House today. Certainly not comparing and contrasting what he’s done to this country in only 4 months.

                    Biden’s America Last policies are on full display. Where’s the outrage over Biden’s pro-Russia (anti-green) energy move? At the expense of the US and our European allies? After Russians hacked and shutdown our own pipeline? It puts our national security at a severe risk. Where’s the media, where’s the congressional investigations?

                    1. Olly, the history of recent decades has shown that the left dominates the fabricated history scene. Look at the 1619 project. There is nothing wrong with highlighting the history of slavery. Please take note of the errors contained in that piece. It was too much for the NYT to handle. The NYT had to backtrack when the experts stepped in, stating how wrong the 1619 piece was.

                      Minor historians were the primary source, and prominent historians were excluded. Even the Fact Checkers were involved in approving the piece but never checking with one eminent historian whose ideas were used. That historian wrote a response that the author was wrong about what she said, but that article was never published in the NYT. Instead, the editor retracted a bit more from 1619.

                      Of course, your discussion is more about deflection in that no one wishes to discuss what Biden is doing and how he is destroying America while hurting black and brown minorities the most. He is creating instability abroad and is already responsible for a war in the mid-east and soon to be outbreaks elsewhere. His weaknesses and the weaknesses of the left, in general, are being taken advantage of. The very far left is happy. They look for the destruction of America.

                      In the latest vote of $1.9 billion post-Jan. 6 supplemental security spending bill, take note 3 Republicans against the bill through some failure ended up not voting. The bill passed by one vote. Was someone bought off? Do these Republicans give a dam.n? They should be tarred, feathered, and permanently removed from office.

            2. Jeff Silberman, excellent point. I believe it’s the always the point of view from a privileged position that makes it more difficult to really grasp the concept.

              How can someone truly understand real discrimination when one is not subject to it?

              I see it all the time on this blog.

              Those who have never been minorities or those who once were and are now among those who are not now, like Irish Catholics.

              I don’t really think it’s discrimination they think it is if they are being criticized for being simply ignorant. I think it has more to do with chafing at the notion that they are victims of their own ignorance and not wanting to accept that reality. Instead most project that uncomfortable truth on others.

              1. Svelaz,

                You make a good point. Those who have never suffered discrimination cannot genuinely know what it is like to experience it. And when you point it out, it’s no wonder that they grow defensive and charge reverse discrimination.
                No one likes to admit their faults so it is not surprising there is denial and pushback. Fox News has made a fortune on appealing to those who resent this comeuppance. There is no question that some minority advocates are irresponsible in their rhetoric and exploit the situation in bad faith. And Fox News grabs onto these unfortunate instances to feed the sense of grievance of its audience in its efforts to pushback against this accusation. No one on the Right can deny there was and still remains racism in this country. The argument boils down to the amount of emphasis we should place on this problem in this modern day and age. The Right wants to stop acknowledging it as a significant problem and the Left insists that there is much work that still needs to be undertaken. It’s a matter of which of these two narratives will predominate (among many others) in the culture war.

                JS

  5. What happens when water is heated inside a closed vessel without a pressure relief valve? It eventually explodes violently.
    The same happens with humans, and it’s exactly what these insignificant, worthless, despicable nitwits that populate our universities today don’t understand when they try to shut down opinions they don’t agree with.
    Beware all you pinheads and pissants out there, the explosion is coming and it won’t be pretty.

    1. Professor Turley,

      Is it your intention to foment in your readers the rage as expressed by Carlson? I think not given your constant lament about what you refer to as the “age of rage.” Yet many of your readers misconstrue your commentaries as a call to arms. Why don’t you condemn these threats of an inevitable holy war? Don’t you have an ethical responsibility to state unequivocally that your opinions should not be interpreted to justify such hostility?

      1. “Is it your intention to foment in your readers the rage as expressed by Carlson? “

        Jeff, you are fomenting rage by your denial of what has transpired nationally including riots not contained by Democrat leaders. Rage from an election that had lawless components. Rage from cancel culture that has exceeded the McCarthy period to such an extent it sounds like a holiday. Then comes the racism and the crazy ideas behind CRT.

        Turley is totally normal. You are not. Carlson is correct. You don’t know science, something Carlson was explaining to you.

  6. College is a place for students to meet others with a myriad of different experiences and values.

    Not for but where students will likely meet others…

    I do not use the term because I do not believe that it is necessary for the cases and material that a teach despite my teaching issues of discrimination in tort and constitutional cases.

    So you self-censor, but decry others for their chilling effect on free speech? Well congratulations, you’ve been chilled. What’s next, when citing the DoI, will you self-censor the word God out of the text to not offend the atheists in your classroom?

  7. The professor disgusts me. After she told the student to read the word out loud, she pretends it was his idea.

    And his complaint fellow students are a bunch of totalitarian bullies.

    1. “…compliant fellow students…”

      – William, JD
      ___________

      It’s entire “…compliant…” generations.

      I recommend you watch “The Circle” with Tom Hanks.

      It’s Jim Jones at Jonestown.

      It’s the Koolaid.

      It’s Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Instagram, et al.

      It’s freaking scary!

  8. These n-word cases are all ludicrous gotcha manure. Why is that same word in so many rap songs but that’s okay? If people are that weak, they need mental help.

    1. Yep. And like most mental cases, they don’t want justice. They want scapegoats.

  9. “responsible adult should know not to use a racial slur regardless of its use”

    Therefore, people who use racial slurs regardless of their use are irresponsible. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for self-reflection by certain segments of the population…

    That said, the word ‘regardless’ is a tad broad. It would seriously mess up the movie Glory and an excellent scene between Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington.

    John McWhorter is writing a book about 9 nasty words–that’s one of them. I bet he has interesting and wise words about the spectre possessing that word.

  11. This crap needs to stop. Certain blacks use the so-called “N-word” as a weapon because they found out they can get away with it. Never mind that the word dates back more than 400 years well before this country was even discovered by Europeans, and is in common use among blacks today. Incidentally, the term “white trash” was coined by black slaves to describe poor whites they considered beneath themselves. There’s a reason James Madison proposed that Congress (and thus government, which is “of THE PEOPLE”) would not have the power to prohibit ANY speech. Blacks and Jewish activists, and now “Hispanics” and Asians, are holding America hostage and trampling all over the First Amendment. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Keep it up and there will soon no longer be a United States of America. Of course, that’s what Marxist radicals like the women who founded Black Lives Matter want.

    1. And then there’s the racial epithet “honky”.

  12. This consistent shying away from using a word or cartoon because of the threat of violence solves no problems. It merely permits the creation of new trigger words and ideas that will lead to even more violence. Weakness in the face of aggressive people doesn’t make them less aggressive. It makes them more aggressive. We have seen that this past year.

  13. Cowards and bullies.

    The Left has gone down a rathole and will have to live with the consequences.

    1. Law school students are adults as are professors. If they cannot use the actual words in a text never mind read them, they will not have a full understanding of what the situation was during usually an earlier time. Context matters.

      1. and they are in training to be lawyers. I have prosecuted criminal cases for over 30 years. The use of the “N” word, fully pronounced, will be part of the evidence in some cases and is relevant to a criminal act. Are these adults so fragile they cannot deal with the real world of crime and conflict that is part of litigation every day? If so, send them over to another profession.

      1. That’s an interesting point. Jews are not allowed to speak the name of God except on Yom Kippur, and even then, only by the High Priest in the tent of appointment (later, the Holy Temple)> There is a religious aspect tot this, perhaps.

  14. These students are deluded. There is no “racial reckoning.” What we have is a craven Democratic Party using the race and gender cards in a desperate attempt to corral what’s left of their diminishing base. By dispersing CRT ideology throughout academia, liberals hope to repress oppositional speech and promote their own distorted version of reality. But in the process, they are trampling on the Bill of Rights and smearing the best parts of Western art, literature and law. Bottom line — they have nothing to offer their base but discriminatory perks that will eventually be overturned by saner minds. This is not a “reckoning” — it’s a hijack.

    1. Well, promoting racial hatred as a way to gain and maintain power worked pretty good for the National Socialists in Germany in the the 1930s. The liberals in America are simply the flip the side of the same coin. It has to begin somewhere and there is no reason to believe that, if unchecked, this will not spiral out of control (if it hasn’t already). Americans aren’t near as obedient and organized as the Germans, but rounding up conservatives–particularly white conservative Christian and Jews–is not outside of the realm of possibility if this continues in this direction.

      1. “Well, promoting racial hatred as a way to gain and maintain power worked pretty good for the National Socialists in Germany in the the 1930s. “

        Suze, you are quite right. With the leftists in our country that have not yet found their Hitler we can slightly alter Martin Niemöller’s famous words by starting with ‘ First they came for the unborn…

        “but rounding up conservatives–particularly white conservative Christian and Jews–is not outside of the realm of possibility ”

        As an aside, anti-semitic crimes in this country and Europe are very high and going up.

      2. Suze,

        It’s ironic you should suppose that Leftists will round up the Right because we suspect worse treatment from Trumpists! I fear if Trumpists have utterly no shame in lying to our face, they will have even less compunction to put a bullet into us when our backs are turned. For that is the only way Never Trumpers will ever be silenced until you stop lying for Trump. Otherwise, you will never hear the end of it.

    1. That is it, exactly. Black activists found they could use the word as a weapon to get what they wanted back in the Sixties, and have been using it ever since. Black activists chose W.E.B. Dubois and other blacks who wanted political power over Booker T. Washington, who advocated education and adaptation. Dubois, who came from Massachusetts and had no personal knowledge of slavery while Washington was born a slave, was Marxist and a Communist.

  19. I practiced criminal defense law in the Chicago area in the 1990’s. My life and the life of my family was threatened many times by people who meant it.
    How in the hell will these snowflakes survive when a word that offends them unhinges them so?

    1. They’re not snowflakes. They’re bullies who pretend to be offended in order to justify their bullying behavior.

  20. “I wish I could go back in time to that office hour and confront it directly.”
    ***************************************
    Behold the words of the coward above and the antidote below:

    2. The irony is that it was blacks, not whites, using the epithet, and to mean one’s friends, companions or associates, not antagonists.

Comments are closed.