At a seminar on historical thinking at the Department of History, a teacher used a pejorative racial epithet to illustrate how the connotations of a word can change and that, as historians, we must take account of this in order to understand historical context.
“But then an open discussion took place that got out of hand,” explains student history teacher Molly Sjödin Lundholm. “Some students said things that were disrespectful and objectionable, creating a bad atmosphere.”
“The word was used outside the teaching point concerned and the students were not challenged on it,” says Anna Nylund, another student history teacher.
The then director of studies at the Department of History, Karin Hassan Jansson, arranged a meeting between the teacher and students to discuss the balance between the need to examine and discuss social phenomena and to respect how various terms can be perceived.
“It would be easy to ignore the issue of this and other loaded words simply because they are sensitive; however, it is crucial that we have this discussion,” says Karin Hassan Jansson. “The meeting with students reminded us of how important it is to prepare thoroughly; the discussion must be introduced with care and sufficient time needs to be set aside.”
“A pejorative racial epithet always links to the wider issue of oppression and perhaps not all students understand the difference between using such a word in teaching and in other contexts. It is a very complex issue that demands time, respect and empathy,” says Anna Nylund.
“And regardless of whether it is used derogatorily or illustratively as part of a discussion, it can be very troubling to hear. Irrespective of the teacher’s good intentions, simply using the word may also legitimise its derogatory use by those who do not understand the difference,” adds Molly Sjödin Lundholm.
One part of the solution is to avoid using the word in its entirety and instead apply an abbreviation.
“For us, it goes without saying that we would use the abbreviation to distance ourselves even further from the intension [abstract definition] of the original word,” explains Anna Nylund.
“While we may feel that we are using the word with due respect, for this generation of students it is a powerful symbol that should never be spoken,” says Karin Hassan Jansson.
The meeting also led to a follow-up meeting between Karin Hassan Jansson, the teacher in question and all faculty members at the department.
“This created a greater understanding of the students’ reactions among the faculty,” says Karin Hassan Jansson.
“Our outrage is often misinterpreted; when this racial epithet is used in its entirety, I am sad and angry on behalf of people I know who are adversely affected. That doesn’t mean that I am unable to discuss the word or am easily offended,” says Molly Sjödin Lundholm.
“There is an attitude prevalent in the debate that students are easily offended – that their outrage is groundless,” says Anna Nylund. “This leads to a fear of speaking up, but it is important to raise the issue so that everyone feels welcomed to the University.”