Several members of The Journal of Higher Education (JHE) Editorial Review Board and other researchers who study U.S. higher education have separately requested that I follow up with a public response to an article written by Nolan Cabrera and Dee Hill-Zuganelli, published in JHE titled, “If Lil’ Wayne Can Say It, Why Can’t I?: White Male Undergraduates Using the N-Word.” Although they did not have me in mind to champion their position, I do have much more to say about this complicated matter.
If you had a chance to read my previous Editor’s Comment (JHE, Vol 92, #5, pp. 677–679), which addressed how JHE handled the review of this article, you would also know that I am not inclined to use the limited pages that we have for this purpose because it comes at the expense of publishing empirical research. I believe that the request by members of JHE’s Review Board and the overwhelming number of messages that I have received about this article justify publishing another Comment. Unless this controversy escalates, this should be the final one from me, but it will also be quite lengthy because the last one was obviously insufficient.
For those new to this controversy, Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli’s article reports on findings of an empirical study that examined white men’s usage of the n-word. In it, the n-word appears unredacted. This is certainly not the first nor only unredacted printing of the term in a peer-reviewed journal. Understandably, concerns have been raised about not redacting the n-word, which has resulted in a rush to judgment about this article and my decision to publish it. Thus, the purpose of this comment is to address the concerns raised and their impact beyond the ones that have already been well noted in the public domain about the toll on Black lives. A very thoughtful and persuasive essay about the gravity and implications of using the n-word was posted by Professor Terah J. Stewart (https://terahjay.medium.com/to-whom-it-should-concern-an-open-letter-on-the-n-word-and-academic-publishing-edcd0c699578).
Accordingly, I received many messages citing Professor Stewart’s post to raise issues with the article and JHE, but I also received messages supporting the article’s use of the n-word. That there is an unwillingness to express and support the latter position in the public domain is telling and deserves more attention. Given the complex range of feedback, I am still sorting through it all. It is clear from the criticisms, however, that some did not actually read the article. So, it is worth noting that the n-word was redacted 166 times in it. When it was unredacted, it appeared with the “hard r” 14 times. In those cases, they appeared in quotes from either study participants (4x), law professor Randall Kennedy (2x), writer James Baldwin (2x), or a newspaper clipping (1x). The remainder appeared in the reference section (5x). It also appeared unredacted with the “hard a” 8 times. In those cases, it appeared 6 times in quotes from subjects and 2 times in the reference section. Those who read the article seem to be most offended when it appeared 4 times in the quotes from the study’s subjects. It may well be that for some, both Kennedy’s and Baldwin’s quotes and the unredacted appearance in reported references are equally offensive and harmful.
When I read through the messages condemning the article, I also noticed that the most critical ones failed to account for the fact that the article had already been accepted for publication after having undergone a blind peer-review process, which included a revision based on feedback by two expert reviewers. For example, one person wrote me to convey her “complete distaste” with my “decision to both publish, and then abdicate from responsibility through multiple moves in an Editor’s Comment.” She regarded my Comment to be intellectually flimsy because I failed to recognize that “nonblack people writing out the n-word … it’s about fetishizing violent anti-blackness, and the thingafication of Black people in public; which is to say, it is about furthering the technology of white supremacy.”
I invite you to read my Comment as I took very seriously the recommendation to reject a manuscript that had already been accepted through the regular review process. I had never had to consider such an action among my responsibilities as the final arbiter of all manuscript publication and editorial decisions. As documented in my Comment, I consulted others on this matter. In the end, I saw no strong argument for rejecting it based on empirical grounds. On the matter of ethical responsibility, I considered different arguments especially regarding the issue of harm, which have been a part of a long debate (as reflected in the steady stream of conflicting messages that I have been receiving). I also considered the stated implications and significance of the findings by Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli. Based on these considerations, it was unclear that this article had actually crossed an ethical line that warranted rejection. So, given that it had already been accepted, I did not have strong ethical standing to reverse that decision. As for fulfilling my political responsibility, perhaps the criticism does indeed apply here. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using my position to advance any political leaning, so did not consider rejecting a manuscript based on political grounds, especially since it had already withstood the scrutiny of our reviewers. I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of rejecting a manuscript based on concerns that there could be fallout after publishing it. In short, an abdication of my responsibilities as I see it, would have been to take the easy route and simply yield to the pressure to reject the manuscript.
Since the online publication of Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli’s study, I have learned more about the harm of the n-word from reading Professor Stewart’s critique of the article in question and my decision to publish it. I read his post on July 16, 2021, but edits may have since been made. In any case, this is a very well thought out and moving essay. Professor Stewart makes a good case that reading the n-word triggers a “visceral reaction” for Black people, which is similar to watching virally circulated online “video footage of Black people being harmed.” He argues that “anti-blackness transcends the bounds of a white gaze. Or rather a gaze mediated by whiteness.” Accordingly, bartering “Black pain” is a dangerous precedent because making a spectacle of “Black violence, Black death, and Black pain” to appall non-Black people into discomfort in hopes that they might act only further serves to harm Black people. He adds,
I know that just like videos of police killing Black people will not stop the murder, printing the n-word unredacted will not stop white people who are committed to saying it and engaging in anti-black violence, from doing so.
I very much appreciated these points as they deepened my understanding of this perspective, which helps me reconsider arguments that the same video footage has been pivotal for facilitating racial reckoning, awakening, and progress. Likewise, others such as Jonathan Rauch in a recent interview (August 12, 2021) published in the Chronicle of Higher Education (https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-ed-has-a-credibility-problem) have maintained that “Minority-rights activists should be the last people on the planet to embrace the stereotype that minorities are weak and need protection.” According to Rauch, to argue that minorities are too fragile and would be traumatized by being exposed to contrary arguments, or even hate speech, is both ahistorical and patronizing. Above all, he adds, it “aids in our oppression” by perpetuating the stereotype that minorities are “unable to fend for themselves” and need protection. Both Rauch’s and Professor Stewart’s points offer additional insights into competing arguments that I previously considered when I was asked to reject Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli’s accepted manuscript.
Professor Stewart’s open letter, however, goes beyond providing key lessons and charges that the authors’ choice to use the n-word “can only be described as reckless disregard for the humanity of those who are harmed by the word.” This is a very serious charge so should not be taken lightly or at face value. Furthermore, Professor Stewart’s arguments in his open letter have not only been celebrated but also applied to justify action against the authors and JHE. For example, members of Professor Cabrera’s department wrote a letter condemning his article, which has led to calls to reexamine Professor Cabrera’s recent promotion to full professor and to remove him from committees. Curiously, his department did not object to but rather praised Professor Cabrera for having been awarded the “2019 Publication of the Year” by the Association for the Study of Higher Education and Division J of the American Educational Research Association for his book, White Guys on Campus, whereby the n-word appeared unredacted multiple times. Given the high stakes associated with a shift in perspective, I am going to highlight some of the weaknesses of Professor Stewart’s arguments and their implications.
First, Professor Stewart repeatedly refers to the authors’ use of the n-word as a violent act and calls the decision to print the word as contributing to “exhibiting and consuming anti-black violence in pages of our scholarship.” When violence is evoked, I tend to think these days of incidents such as the killing of spa workers in Atlanta, the massacre of worshipers in Christchurch, and of course the killing of George Floyd. Given our highly charged racialized climate, perhaps others do as well, which explains the elevated sense of anger, fear, and hurt, especially among the most vulnerable. Understandably, when violence is evoked to depict an offense and strong emotions associated with tragic assaults are triggered, we feel even more compelled to seek retribution, as has been the case regarding this controversy.
While our own personal reactions and interpretations are meaningful and self-evident, taking action against the offenders is another matter. In deciding what to do, it is common ethical practice to go beyond one’s own narrow sphere of association and consider the context of the offense and other interpretations of it. Thus, before taking action in this case, it seems reasonable to ask a broader range of researchers if an article intended to address racism by quoting other people’s expressions of the n-word unredacted rises to the level of a violent act? Based on the private messages that I have received and the expert reviews of the original submission, which did not raise the issue of violence, I do not believe that there is undivided agreement even among Black scholars studying higher education that the degree of harm caused in this case constitutes violence. I understand, however, that this is still an open question so deserves further examination.
If there is undisputed agreement that the authors according to Professor Stewart, “choose violence,” then more decisive actions are warranted. Still, I would be deeply worried about the implications of setting the bar so low. Might such a broad range of acts that constitutes violence minimize the gravity of the most extreme acts? Might we end up conflating extreme acts with less extreme ones, triggering more severe reactions and responses across all acts we personally deem to be violent? I am especially worried about the latter when we are in highly politicized and divisive times and are subsequently more inclined to distrust and condemn.
Conversely, if there is significant disagreement on the matter of violence, this controversy may still have implications for adjudicating harm. If so, we need to keep in mind that education researchers regularly apply their findings and expertise to take a position on controversial subjects. By virtue of taking a position, the opposing positions and those who have a stake in them are arguably harmed. Accordingly, establishing guidelines that lean into “do no harm” can easily run into many pitfalls, including those that I already raised about what constitutes violence.
Another point that puzzles me concerns Professor Stewart’s admonishment of those whom he refers to as claiming to uphold “justice-based politic.” He argues that “as critical scholars, we ought to know better,” and expects “better politics or at minimum, better ethics from my colleagues.” At the same time, he argues that “non-Black people of color often participate in anti-black projects in harmful and problematic ways.” If he fully believes this, why would he expect his colleagues to know better? Even if they do, are they also expected to share the same politics and ethics? Moreover, Professor Stewart admits that the “nature of anti-blackness” is “elusive,” yet he is unforgiving and calls this controversy over the n-word a reflection of “anti-black solidarity at work.” Apparently, the offenders’ long record of civil rights activism and working across racial difference mean nothing.
It would be naive to think that framing Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli’s article as a reflection of anti-black solidarity would not be divisive, leading readers to turn against scholars who are viewed as being in service of an opposing camp. If we continue to uphold such a manufactured divide, my sense is that in the long run, it will likely push out more than bring in scholars to engage meaningfully in dismantling racism. To be clear, I am not suggesting that claims about harmful consequences associated with this specific peer-reviewed article are necessarily invalid and should be patently dismissed. Rather, I’m raising the specter that a rush to judgment based on an oversimplified framing is problematic because it tends to be reductive, eliminating important distinctions that exist outside of the manufactured divide, which in my opinion undermines more than advances the pursuit of justice.
This leads me to what I consider to be perhaps Professor Stewart’s weakest claim. He states that “ … if you are not Black, I am not personally interested in you using the term, debating the term, speaking the term, nor publishing the term.” This position appears to guide his public stance in defense of “Blackness and Black people.” What is most curious to me is that one of the coauthors of the article in question, Professor Hill-Zuganelli, identifies as Black. Is Professor Stewart dismissing Professor Hill-Zuganelli’s authorship of the article in defense of Black people? Or, is he also charging him for being anti-black and acting in reckless disregard for humanity? Whatever the case, if Professor Stewart’s stance is widely shared among those who study higher education, it will be important to examine more closely the implications downstream. According to Rauch in the Chronicle interview,
“ … the notion that once I quote my lived experience, my subjective truth, that ends the conversation … now we can’t talk about it, you’re disqualified, then that’s a violation of the Constitution of Knowledge,” a network of norms and rules for turning disagreement into knowledge.
In sum, Professor Stewart’s open letter challenges us to examine more carefully the important issues that he raised. However, some who read it skip that stage altogether and have instead applied his arguments to justify action against the authors and JHE. Given the messages that I have received and read in the public domain, I am becoming increasingly more concerned about the general willingness to embrace unchecked charges and then indict the accused with a sense of moral certainty. I do not believe that this approach for addressing disagreements will end well for the study of higher education. I recognize, however, that there are profound differences in opinion about the norms of open debate and exchange of ideas, which are mediated by privilege. This is evidenced more broadly by the mixed reactions to what has become known as Harper’s Letter, a statement on justice and open debate published last year by Harper’s Magazine (https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/). It remains to be seen whether “public shaming and ostracism,” as noted in the Letter, “and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty” will “ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time.” History repeatedly reminds us, however, that the tendency to focus just on disagreements and call out the opposition in divisive terms is destructive.
Those tendencies, to be sure, are not limited to just position taking regarding the n-word. In June of this year, one of JHE’s Associate Editors forwarded me the following message that she received after sending a rejection notification,
Yes, I see I should have examined the backgrounds of the editorial board before deciding to send my paper to you. Clearly, the journal has taken a hard shift away from policy issues and more toward diversity in higher education.
In response, I recommended that she approach it in the same manner that I do when I receive unconstructive opinions about diversity, feminism, queer theory, post-colonialism, critical race theory, etc., namely just file it away. Someone once pointed out to me that “silence is violence,” which did not ring true to me in light of my own dealings with countless expressions of racial antipathy intended to put me in my place. As those unconstructive opinions continue to stream in, perhaps one day I will respond to them but it will be in a different capacity.
I will be stepping down as the Editor-in-Chief on February 28, 2022, after having served four years. To be clear, no one has asked me to resign, at least not yet. Since some were expecting this Comment to be an apology that subsequently announces a retraction, I suspect that the pressure to resolve this controversy will continue to mount. It will also be very time consuming to resist knee jerk calls to implement reform and instead develop thoughtful guidelines that do not police scholarship or impinge on academic freedom. Even without having to take on these additional duties, the regular editorial workload has been overwhelming. When I stepped into this position in March, 2018, JHE received approximately 545 manuscript submissions per year. Last year we received about 1,038, and this year we are on track to receive over 1,200, placing us at about a 4% acceptance rate. On top of this, we have had to negotiate the impact of the COVID crisis. Simply put, I no longer have the bandwidth to deliver the level of attention that this journal deserves to move forward.
Since I expect this to be my final Comment, I want to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for those who contributed to JHE. If you do not already know, JHE operates almost entirely on volunteer service. I am grateful for all of those who have generously volunteered their time, especially the remarkable Associate Editors, to make this a successful intellectual project. Also, without the editorial management provided by current and former UCLA graduate students over the past years, JHE would have collapsed. Lastly, reviewers are the backbone of JHE and here, members of our Editorial Review Board conducted a large share of those reviews and deserve more recognition for their invisible labor. Besides the wonderful and capable talent pool of contributors, a major part of JHE’s success must be attributed to our constructive engagement with disagreements, which I have had the privilege to participate regularly in and oversee from my vantage point. I hope that this will continue to be a core attribute of JHE.