Nathaniel Black is the current undergraduate governor on the Carleton University Board of Governors.
As of the March Board of Governors meeting, Carleton’s executive administrators have yet to directly address whether or not using the N-word should be a fireable offence for faculty.
Though I have posed this question to the board on several occasions, nothing has changed. Board members continue to refer me to policies that are presently in place to investigate and determine the proper course of action, rather than directly answer whether the use of the word is grounds for dismissal.
On this, let my opinion be clear: using the N-word in any context—including an academic one—should be a fireable offence at Carleton. The board’s refusal to address the topic demonstrates serious issues of systemic racism at the school.
Many would argue that prohibiting the use of certain words by academics is censorship. However, the use of a word with as many horrific historical and contemporary connotations as the N-word—a word that continues to be used to actively oppress Black people—is not simply a matter of “free speech.”
Free speech advocates proclaim ensuring free speech by allowing the use of the N-word on university campuses benefits everyone in an academic context. How? Allowing such appalling language at Carleton does not benefit the students whose trauma is triggered by its use.
The trauma of Black students is not something the board should take lightly, not only on the basis of empathy, but also the fact that 47 per cent of Carleton’s student population is made up of racialized individuals. This means that a significant amount of tuition funding comes from students of colour—many of whom have expressed extreme opposition to the use of the N-word in an academic context, as the accepted use of any racial slur is an affront to students of colour in general.
Furthermore, other Canadian schools that have done little to take action against use of the N-word by their faculty have faced serious social and reputational repercussions as a result. The University of Ottawa, for example, faced significant backlash from students and media coverage by refusing to discipline a faculty member for unapologetically using the word in a class—backlash that was made worse when U of O’s president went so far as to defend her.
Countless advocates for free speech use the concept to degrade, belittle, and dehumanize members of BIPOC communities when looking to justify speech that “has no place in civilized discourse,” a point Carleton president Benoit-Antoine Bacon made at a January committee meeting.
While the president’s words on the matter are appreciated, for me, and for many other students of colour, the university’s continued refusal to declare its opposition to the use of the N-word by faculty members does not bode well. It illustrates a pervasive issue of racism in the structures that exist at Carleton today.
This is clear when looking at the number of Black individuals in the current Carleton executive administration, specifically that of the office of the provost and vice-president (academic). Currently, there is only one: Michael Charles, the assistant vice-president for equity and inclusion, whose work is excellent, noteworthy and qualifies him for higher office. He led the process to draft the new equity & inclusion plan, ensuring Carleton takes an institutional approach to addressing racism in the university’s curriculum, research, and community projects.
Currently, the process that theoretically outlines how uses of the N-word would be dealt with if brought to administration is located in the school’s human rights policy.
The policy notes that complaints and accusations of discriminatory language or behaviour may result in an investigation with outcomes ranging from mediation to censure. On page 42, it states the matter of dismissal is left to the president’s discretion in cases where the university has failed to provide a “safe, non-hostile environment.” This leaves the president to “direct an investigation and order any relief that he or she deems fit.”
The sad reality is there are not enough Black people seated at Carleton’s decision-making tables to ensure Black students’ concerns regarding the N-word are taken into consideration. Diversity is especially lacking within executive portfolios close to the president, who has the authority to address the unsafe and discriminatory environment created by the use of the N-word in classrooms.
There is no reason this discussion should continue to be cast aside as taboo. It is a critical issue that must be addressed by concrete action. I think I speak for many students in saying it is time for action, which starts by agreeing as a community to consider the N-word a fireable offence.
Featured image from file.
