-
8. Applications
- NYU Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
| 147 8 Applications This chapter applies the test developed in the preceding chapter to a number of examples. The examples flesh out the abstract analytical structure already presented. In most of the examples, the suggested conclusion is that the speech presented was not hate speech. That should not be taken as an indication that I do not have concerns over hate speech. Examples in which the speech should be considered hateful are numerous, ranging from the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, through cross burning, to an individual’s referring to a coworker using racial epithets or a driver’s shouting such words at a group standing on a corner, but these are rather easy to analyze. Except under very strange circumstances, they would all have to be considered hate speech. The more interesting examples are those in which words that would commonly be used in a racist context are used in a way that should probably not be considered racist. These examples require a focus on, and a greater understanding of, the factors that have been set out in the preceding chapter. In that process, there will also be the occasion to question the reasoning behind those factors, and the examples may help explain their justification. The first example was selected because it has also been addressed by Randall Kennedy, a prominent African American law professor, who also feels that in this case there may have been an overreaction to speech that in other contexts should be considered racist. His concurrence does not mean that others cannot feel differently. His view may be as idiosyncratic as the views to be presented here. What his agreement does demonstrate is that the view presented here is not a hopelessly Eurocentric one. The Central Michigan University Basketball Case Keith Dambrot was the head basketball coach at Central Michigan University during the 1992–93 season.1 That year’s team consisted of eleven African American and three white players; the coaching staff consisted of Dambrot, 148 | Applications who is white, one black assistant coach, and one white assistant coach. There was also a white graduate assistant on the staff. The incident that led to the dispute occurred in the locker room, either during halftime or at the end of a game that Central Michigan lost to Miami University. Dambrot said he had told his players that they had not been playing very hard. He also said to them, “Do you mind if I use the N word?” The players indicated that it would be all right, and the coach said, “you know we need to have more niggers on our team. . . . Coach McDowell is a nigger, . . . Sand[er] Scott who’s an academic All-American, a Caucasian, I said Sand[er] Scott is a nigger. He’s hard nose [sic], he’s tough, et cetera.”2 Dambrot said that his intent had been to use the word in the “positive and reinforcing” manner that the players used the word toward each other in games, in the locker room, and on campus. The coach said he had used the word to mean a player who is “fearless, mentally strong and tough.”3 It seems that Coach Dambrot had used the same word on at least one other occasion. After a practice, he had told the team that “he wanted the players to ‘play like niggers on the court’ and wished he had more niggers on the basketball court.”4 More problematically, he also said that “he did not want the team to act like niggers in the classroom.”5 Dambrot’s locker-room talk led to his dismissal as coach. A former member of the team heard about the comments and reported them to the university ’s affirmative-action officer, who asked Dambrot about the complaint. The coach admitted using the N-word but said he had done so in a positive manner. The AA officer saw the language as a violation of the university ’s discriminatory harassment policy, and the coach settled the complaint, accepting a five-day suspension without pay. The suspension served only to spread the news of the coach’s language. There were two demonstrations on campus to protest the “racism” of the coach. Eventually the athletic director told Dambrot that the environment had become such that he would be unable to provide the leadership the program needed and that he would not be the coach for the 1993–94 season. Dambrot sued the university over the loss of his job...