Sure, you can make an argument going that way but there is an argument going the other way too. Noone is saying that there is no way to view this where the firing was justified. We are saying that there is a way to view this where the firing was unjustified.
I would have to find an awfully naive jury to get them to buy “can we finally use the n-word?” as a mere inquiry.
It’s not clear that he was fired for something (using a racial slur in an inappropriate and offensive manner) that a black guy wouldn’t be fired for.
As much as I agree with LHoD’s take on this story, I have to admit, when I read this part, my first thought was the stoning scene in Life of Brian.
Use two letters.
The “sh-word,” the “fu-word.” 
White people are not a protected class. They don’t have to endure racial harassment that is severe or pervasive. A TV anchor can be fired without cause, as long as the employment action isn’t a violation of law or public policy. I can, for example, fire my assistant for wearing a red shirt, and allow my other assistant to wear red shirts every day. Now, if the one I fired was black, she could certainly allege that the red shirt was a mere pretense for my racial hostility to her, and she would back that up by pointing out that white people don’t get fired for wearing red shirts.
However, if I fired my white assistant for wearing a red shirt, she’d be out of luck, even if I let other white employees (or even black employees) wear red shirts.
People without contracts can be fired pretty easily. I don’t see a need for the station to have to defend itself here. They wanted this guy gone, for whatever reason. If they believed a significant portion of their advertisers or viewers would want them to take this action, even if their wrong, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. IMO.
To repeat myself, the firing doesn’t have to be “justified.”
I’m pretty sure “white people” are a protected class. No one can be fired for being white, according to the law.
Neither are black people. Race is a protected class, and that protection applies to everyone regardless of their skin color.
Uh no, that’s not how anti-discrimination laws work.
It’s just as illegal to fire people for being white as it is to fire people for being black.
Obviously the latter is more common than the former, but that doesn’t mean the former is legally permissible, with few exceptions.
But that’s the point. If a black person says nigger and keeps their job and a white person says nigger under similar circumstances and is fired, then no matter how they want to skirt around the issue he was fired for being white.
Sure, if the circumstances are similar. I’m not sure that they are.
Ok, yes, I misspoke. You cannot fire someone for being white. However, when you start comparing treating white people different than black people for same conduct, you are talking about policies that have a “disparate impact” on a protected class. That’s what I meant to get at. Women and minorities are considered members of a “protected class.” White guys are not.
Thus, you can fire a white guy for using language, even if you don’t fire a black guy for the same language. He’s not being fired for being white in that scenario.
I’m astonished that use of the word, “finally”, HAS to mean the speaker is expressing a personal desire to use the word and not a commentary on other people. I can easily imagine a scenario where the tv station regularly receives complaints from viewers who question use of the phrase, “the N-word”, if other slurs are not euphemized. It may have also been reflective of the fact that thousands of their viewers say, “nigger”, everyday to one another.
In that context, the use of “finally” is suggestive of the expectation that some viewers will be pleased, even if everyone else is uncomfortable. There’s nothing sinister there, just an acknowledgement of their audience.
By the way, I don’t think any of the people getting upset about what the guy said spend any time among black, teen-aged males. Use of “nigger” is ubiquitous. (The girls use it less.) The worst the guy should have gotten was a talking-to.
I’m not clear why you think the behavior of teenagers has any bearing on the treatment of an adult in a professional position.
Because the word is ubiquitous in the black community. It is not like gook, or wetback, or towel-head, or any other slur that has a generally pejorative use. In fact, I hear it regularly, and only rarely is it pejorative. (It’s usually: “Nigga, you comin?”, “Nigga, you see that?”, “Nigga, text me later”). That is NOT a word someone should be fired over.
Of course, it can be used hatefully. But certainly a discussion of the word as a word has no hateful undertones, unless you choose to define it that way. But that’s not how I hear it used.
It’s not ubiquitous in “the black community”. It might be ubiquitous among certain elements inside the black community, but it’s far from ubiquitous among the entire black community.
Don’t have to be.
So I can fire a white guy for wearing a red shirt even if I let everyone else wear a red shirt and even if its obvious the real reasons I am firing him is because he is white?
Look up “ubiquitous”. It doesn’t mean, “universal”.
Duh.
I thought we had established that he had not used it in an offensive or inappropriate manner unless the mere utterance is offensive or inappropriate. If a black guy had done the exact same thing in the exact same tone and manner, do you think he would have been fired? Of course not. There may have been other reasons for the termination but if it was just this then it looks like he might have a case.