I just finished reading the linked NYT article, written by Dan Levin. I assume from his name that Dan is a Jew, like me. But his reaction to racial epithets or slurs is quite different from my own. If you read the entire article, I wonder who you will sympathize with, Jimmy or Mimi. Jimmy Galligan, a bi-racial kid, temporarily ruined the life of Mimi Groves, a white kid, over her three-second video featuring the “N” word. (I would prefer to spell out the “N” word, as a way of diminishing its power.)
The overt political correctness of the article took me aback. It seemed that Levin was siding with Galligan against Groves throughout the piece. For some reason, and maybe this is a New York Times thing, the reporter refers to these kids – to me, 18 and 19 year olds are still kids – as “Mr. Galligan” and “Ms. Groves.” I think of the Mr. and Ms. titles as referring to adults, not to teenagers still in high school or even to freshmen in college. But there may a reason for the reporter giving these still-immature kids adult titles. Because once you’re an adult, you can be held accountable for your words, in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. But shouldn’t we give kids more of a break for the stupid and thoughtless things they say? That video clip from last school year, held onto by Jimmy, was then intentionally used against Mimi in order to cause her trouble getting into college. “Mr. Galligan, who had waited until Ms. Groves had chosen a college, had publicly posted the video that afternoon.” And it worked! Jimmy is pleased with the results: “I’m going to remind myself, you started something,” he said with satisfaction. “You taught someone a lesson.”
Was there another way this could have gone? Could it have been turned into a “teachable moment,” in which Mimi acknowledged that she shouldn’t send “N” word videos to people, that she recognized that doing so could hurt people’s feelings, that she apologizes for what she has done, and will take specific actions to undo the harm she has caused? Could the University of Tennessee have handled this incident in a way that everyone learned from it but was not stigmatized by it? Couldn’t a better result have been achieved for everyone, other than those committed to perpetuating a cancel culture?