This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Jan. 10, 2011 - A jury will be in the position to decide if Tom Burlington, a reporter-anchor for a Philadelphia television station, was wrongly fired. While the complexities of this individual case bear out in court, I continue to be amused (it's a better option than infuriated, at times) that we are willing to consider wrongdoing in this individual scenario yet remain resistant to acknowledging systemic disparities.
To back up, Burlington is suing his employer, because he feels he was wrongly fired for saying the word "nigger." When reading the full documents, it is clear that he uses the term within the context of discussing a story that will be run by a White co-worker on the burial of the word. Burlington claims that other African Americans used the word and were not fired. However, what is not highlighted is that the reporter running the story (a White female) was also reported using the term in response to Burlington's suggestion to use the full epithet rather than the euphemism (i.e., "the n-word").
Burlington was not the only White person to utter the slur, but he was the only one who was let go at the end of his contract term. Unaddressed holes suggest there is more to this story than is being presented in the media and the court documents. The media (whether intentionally or not) are crafting the story to highlight what many suggest is a double standard excluding Whites from using the term. It will be interesting to hear the story unfold as jury selection (sure to be racially charged) and the trial get underway.
To be honest, until I read the court documents myself, I only had commentary to paint a picture of what occurred. In those reports, it is as if Burlington was in a room of Black people who were signing choruses of "nigger," and his mere utterance of the word in attempt to join in the fun caused him to be banished from the premise. ("Evanesco!" Ala Harry Potter) The incident has been presented as diversity and political correctness run amok without full presentation of the facts.
I get it: Burlington and his attorney have to throw claims at the wall in hopes that one will stick. (the claim of hostile work environment has already been struck down. The situation is no good for him personally or professionally.
Yet, I get frustrated when cases such as these come up, because we get even more entrenched in our sense of individualism. I do not intend to minimize Burlington's plight. However, I immediately wonder (before being quickly reminded that I would be laughed out of town and called a radical) if we would see similar reactions upon filing mass suits to claiming discrimination and hostile environments for the students of color and those in poverty receiving substandard education. Can we be just as swift to report and drum up sympathy for the men of color disproportionately targeted by our law enforcement, prosecuted by our legal system (https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/race-and-death-penalty), and housed in our prison systems?
The remix of responses to my rhetorical question might go something like this: Well some of those people deserve their lot. We can't become socialist and redistribute wealth to have equal outcomes. The government can't barge in to control people's lives. Where does individual responsibility come into play?
There's a great deal to unpack there, but I would like to highlight that we seem much more willing to acknowledge the personal plight of Burlington than we did of Oscar Grant two New Year's ago (who was wrongfully slain). Much of the commentary has assumed Burlington was wronged because of a sense of "reverse discrimination." Whereas, the Grant commentary focused more on the officer than attempting to humanize Grant or condemn the egregious transgression. While a drastic comparison, the cases involve two men who were wronged yet the media made different assumptions about the level of accountability for personal circumstances.
We conveniently decide when it is important, worthwhile, or valid to look at larger patterns of actions versus isolate individuals. Much of that process has to do with race and power. Burlington's trial is set to begin Jan. 18. I predict that the proximity to Dr. Martin Luther King Day will prompt someone to argue that King would have supported equal treatment (i.e., in favor of Burlington). However, I assert that the proximity should, more importantly, remind of us to focus on the massive systemic inequalities, which he died fighting against, and continue to exist.
Kira Hudson Banks, Ph.D., is assistant professor of psychology at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington. The native of Edwardsville is a regular contributor to the Beacon.