How racist is "boy"?

THAT was the question facing a federal appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia, which struck down a $1.3m award to a black employee of Tyson Foods. The employee, John Hithon, applied for a promotion. The boss, Tom Hatley, instead brought in two white outsiders, saying that the money-losing plant needed new blood. Mr Hithon sued, saying that Mr Hatley's use of "boy" to him proved racial animus, and was awarded $1.75m. An appeals court overturned the ruling. The federal Supreme Court then sent the case back to trial, saying

The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage.

The case was then re-tried, and two witnesses (including Mr Hithon) once again testified that Mr Hatley had called each of them "boy". Mr Hithon again won at the lowest court, but at the appeals level, a three-judge panel reversed the verdict. The case could still be appealed further.

Neither of twostories mentions any evidence of racial bias by Mr Hatley except for two uses of "boy". Without hearing more, I must agree with the Supreme Court's language above—the speaker's meaning does indeed depend on "various factors including context, tone of voice, local custom and historical usage". Unfortunately, two of those four—context and tone of voice—are unknown to us. (And for what it's worth, Mr Hatley denies using the word.) Is that word, by itself, by a white man to a black man in the South, "always" proof of racism, as 11 civil-rights leaders argue in a brief? It was often used in a racist way, of course, a usage that met a powerfully elegant response when civil-rights marchers carried signs reading "I Am a Man" in the 1960s.

But "boy" has many uses, from reference to actual boys, to "atta boy", to "boy, this sucks". The amicus brief says "If not a proxy for 'nigger,' [boy] is at the very least a close cousin." More like a second cousin once removed. Obviously, the context of a white man addressing a black employee is exquisitely sensitive. But Mr Hatley is quoted as saying nothing more than "Hey, boy" to Mr Hithon, and not during a conversation about the promotion in question. This is not, by itself, enough to prove that Mr Hatley passed over Mr Hithon because he is a racist, much less enough to justify $1.3m (including $300,000 for "mental anguish"). The standard for proving racism should be high, or the charge will lose its sting. This feeds bitter whites' complaints that everything they do is considered racist, and hurts real victims of racism by forcing them to yell louder over the clamour. This isn't to say that Mr Hatley isn't a racist, but only to say that "boy" alone, out of context and without more support, doesn't prove it.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pq%2FOp6amoaOpe6S7zGihqKCeqLyve5FpaGlnYWZ8cX2OoaawZaKWsKq%2F02agrGWSpMY%3D