By Catia Malaquias
Since I wrote explaining why the R-word is so offensive to people with intellectual disability, the Australia Football League and Greater Western Sydney FC have indicated that no further action will be taken in relation to the Heath Shaw incident as he apologised promptly and sincerely for the offence caused.
I don’t doubt Shaw’s apology was sincere.
My concern is that the public, the viewers watching the TV and media coverage of the game and subsequently of the incident, understand why such a slur is so offensive – rather than just being left with the impression it is “horrible” or “insensitive” or “politically incorrect”.
The R-word is directly offensive to people with intellectual disability, whether it is specifically directed at them or not.
When a slur derives its meaning from the denigration of a particular group, the harm is not confined to the individual at whom the word happens to be directed. It also reinforces the prejudice and devaluation historically associated with that language and experienced by the people it describes.
For that reason, public apologies for discriminatory language should acknowledge not only the immediate target of the remark, but also the broader group affected by its use.
Often, in each of the above cases, the greater emphasis of the apology is on redressing offence to the broader minority group.
However, Tom Papley, the target of the R-word slur, does not have an intellectual disability but is the primary recipient of an apology for being slurred as to intellectual disability. He does deserve an apology, but what about people with intellectual disability – and those around them, their friends and family? They were collectively and directly slurred by the public use of the R-word – albeit not publicly intended by Shaw – a football field on live TV is a public place.
Heath Shaw’s apology to “anyone else who took offence” misses an important opportunity to explain why the language itself is harmful. People with intellectual disability are not merely bystanders who might happen to have taken offence: the degrading meaning of the R-word derives from its association with intellectual disability.
A more meaningful response would acknowledge that broader harm and use the incident as an opportunity to challenge the prejudice, exclusion and low expectations that people with intellectual disability continue to experience.
[Cover photo © Emma Dau]
Thank you for visiting our website. You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @StartingWJulius