Activism

OPINION: Why the N-Word Should Be Eliminated from Schools: A Call to Educators, Parents and Students

The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Published

9 months ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Zetha Nobles. Courtesy photo.

By Zetha A. Nobles,

The presence and rampant use of the N-word in educational settings poses significant challenges to the social-emotional learning (SEL) and psychological well-being of students and teachers.

The historical and contemporary usage of the N-word carries deep-seated racial connotations and trauma, making it imperative to address its impact in the school environment.

Here’s why the N-word should be eradicated from schools and its detrimental effects on SEL and psychological health.

Historical Context and Significance

The use of the N-word is considered a severe violation of dignity due to its deeply hurtful and dehumanizing nature. The N-word is historically rooted in a long and sordid history of racism, oppression and dehumanization.

It was and is used to dehumanize, degrade, demean and denigrate African American people. Its historical presence is marked by extreme violence and pernicious systemic oppression.

Despite the evolving societal appropriation and the exploitation of the word in hip hop music and other media forms, its controversial use has morphed or mutated into a word now used to signify friendship or endearment.

In schools its use is complex, representing camaraderie, being cool and defiant while consciously and unconsciously dehumanizing African American students and staff.

The N-word has a long history of being used as a tool of oppression and degradation against Black people. It was employed during periods of slavery, segregation, and ongoing racial discrimination to strip individuals of their humanity and reinforce systemic racism.

Its use is a painful reminder of this history and the ongoing struggle against racism. Its impact:

Dehumanization: When the N-word is used, it reduces Black individuals to a derogatory stereotype, stripping away their identity and worth as human beings. It perpetuates the idea that certain groups are inferior and unworthy of respect and dignity.
Impact on Self-Worth: Hearing or being called the N-word can have profound psychological and emotional impacts, leading to feelings of shame, anger, and diminished self-worth. It communicates to individuals that they are lesser or undeserving solely because of their race.
Interpersonal Harm: The use of the N-word in interpersonal interactions conveys disrespect, hostility, and a lack of regard for the feelings and dignity of others. It undermines efforts to build inclusive and respectful relationships.
Symbol of Structural Injustice: The N-word symbolizes larger societal injustices and inequalities. Its continued use reflects ongoing racial prejudice and discrimination, perpetuating harmful attitudes and behaviors.

Given these reasons, using the N-word is not just a matter of inappropriate language; it represents a significant violation of human dignity and reinforces harmful racial stereotypes and hierarchies. It is crucial to reject and actively challenge the use of this word to promote equality, respect, and dignity for all individuals.

In schools, the word retains its harmful and damaging impact and remains a powerful symbol of racial animosity. The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Impact on Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

Social-emotional learning is crucial for students’ development as it encompasses the skills needed to manage emotions, establish positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. The use of the N-word in schools disrupts this process in several key and critical ways:

Emotional Trauma: The N-word is a trigger for emotional pain, particularly for African American students and teachers. It can evoke feelings of anger, sadness, shame and humiliation, which hinder the ability to engage fully in the learning process.
Hostile Learning Environment: A safe and supportive learning environment is essential for effective SEL. The use of the N-word creates a hostile and unsafe atmosphere, leading to increased anxiety, disrespect, and stress among students and teachers.
Relationship Building: One of the goals of SEL is to foster positive relationships. The use of derogatory language such as the N-word fosters division and mistrust among students and staff.

Psychological Impact on Students and Teachers

The psychological effects of the N-word on students and teachers are profound and far-reaching. For students, especially those of African American descent, the word can lead to feelings of inferiority and exclusion. This not only affects their academic performance but also their self-esteem and mental health. Studies have shown that exposure to racial slurs can increase levels of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.

For teachers, addressing the use of the N-word in the classroom is a significant challenge. It places an emotional burden on them, particularly for teachers of color who may feel personally targeted. The stress of managing such situations can lead to burnout and affect their ability to provide a supportive learning environment.

Strategies for Eliminating the N-Word from Schools

To effectively eliminate the N-word from schools, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Here are some strategies:

Clear Policies and Consequences: Schools must implement and enforce policies that explicitly prohibit the use of the N-word and other derogatory language. Clear consequences for violations should be established and communicated to all members of the school community.
Cultural Competency Training: Providing cultural competency and anti-racism training for teachers, staff, and students can foster a more inclusive and respectful environment. This training should include the historical context of the N-word and its impact on individuals and communities as well as alternative language.
Support Systems: Schools should offer culturally congruent support systems, such as counseling and peer support groups, for students and teachers affected by the use of the N-word. These resources can help individuals process their experiences, mitigate psychological harm and co-create a culture of dignity.
Community Engagement: Engaging the broader school community, including parents and local organizations, in dialogue about the impact of the N-word can reinforce the school’s commitment to creating a respectful and inclusive environment.

In addition to the moral and ethical arguments against the use of the N-word, there are also legal and policy considerations that support its prohibition in schools. Many school districts have anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that explicitly prohibit the use of derogatory language, including racial slurs. The use of the N-word in schools can lead to disciplinary actions and legal consequences for both students and staff who violate these policies.

Furthermore, federal laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Schools that fail to address the use of the N-word and other forms of racial harassment may be in violation of these laws, potentially resulting in investigations and penalties from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Addressing the N-word in educational settings is not just about prohibiting a word; it is about dismantling a symbol of hate and fostering an environment where all students and teachers can thrive.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections

Don't Miss

Opinion: There’s a Sensible Approach to Fix California’s Broken Lemon Law

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

5 days ago

May 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.