Am I Offending You?

I had lunch yesterday with a few of my colleagues.  Among other topics, we discussed Justice Scalia's recent comments concerning whether a cross is an appropriate symbol to honor all dead people (see Kathy's recent post here).  Some folks, on both sides of the argument, may have been offended by the remarks.

I then raised the possibility with my lunchmates that we, on occasion, may be using words or phrases that might offend some students.  For example, does a contracts professor offend some listeners if she uses the term "sacred cows" to refer to particular duties or obligations that cannot be waived by agreement?  Should corporate law profs avoid referring to a "Chinese wall"?  Should family law profs refrain from the phrase "black sheep in the family"?  Might athiests, agnostics, or others find offensive the UCC's numerous references to "good faith"?  What about "chink in the armor" (weakness in an argument) or "slavish conformity" (reading a statute literally)?

Thoughts on the above words/phrases, or others that might be construed as offensive?

Pictured:  Sue Sylvester (actress Jane Lynch), who in last night's episode of "Glee" referred to students as:  "Santana.  Wheels.  Gay Kid.  Asian.  Other Asian.  Aretha.  Shaft."

Comments

[Mark Tushnet]

There are some contexts in which the question of offensiveness is directly posed: teaching about obscenity/pornography without displaying it, risking that students will not understand what the material at issue is; teaching Cohen v. California without using the word that's at issue. I've never displayed obscene material and for quite a while I mentioned the existence of free web-sites on which such material was available without giving the urls, and I've waffled over the years about what to do about Cohen. This year I did give the web-sites' names, and probably will continue to do so, and I've settled on the practice of using the word in teaching Cohen. But these aren't easy decisions. I've found David DeWolf, Teaching Harbeson, 54 Journal of Legal Education 527 (2004), quite helpful in thinking about these issues. [Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the Journal when this article published, and regard it as one of the jewels of my tenure.]

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

I don't think anyone should find "good faith" (or mala fides for that matter) offensive, as the meaning of the word "faith" is not confined to what it denotes or connotes in religious settings and discourse. One example, admittedly exotic and philosophically technical, is Sartre's notion of "bad faith," the meaning of which seems to have now extended beyond what Sartre intended yet still lacks any sort of religious implication.

Nor can I imagine anything wrong with "slavish conformity."

Some of the other expressions are perhaps a bit troubling; I no longer use "black sheep" and my familiarity with Hinduism prevents me from speaking of "sacred cows" in any but a literal way or by direct reference.

[Go Dodgers!]

[John Steele]

the term "chinese wall," in the legal ethics sense, isn't used much anymore in the US, due in large part to objections by asian-americans. many people felt that the term wasn't racist, but given the objection the term is nearly obsolete in the US (although it's still used in the UK and elsewhere). see:

http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2005/06/chinese_walls_r.html