During the week that Americans remembered the infamous Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., identity politics reached a boiling point nationwide as Americans took steps everywhere to identify, uproot and expose acts of bigotry.

The first of these events occurred in the city that never sleeps: New York. As reported by the BBC, New York's City Council, in response to an apparent epidemic of racial slurs brandied about on its streets, passed a resolution effectively banning the "N-word." This action was taken because, as black leaders assessed, it is "offensive in every context." That context is certain to include hip-hop — which has used the term as a means of endearment — but the effect, leaders claim, has still been repressive.

A girl in Santa Rosa, Calif., was punished for saying, "That's gay," in a conversation about a Mormon girl's family life, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. While hardly on par with Tim Hardaway's rant on gay NBA players, the girl's remarks unintentionally slandered the LGBT community, but the punishment, in the form of a warning on her academic file, identified the school's unwillingness to understand this point.

Finally, in our own slice of progressivism, UW law professor Leonard Kaplan expressed views about the Hmong community in an academic discussion and consequently felt the heat from a piping hot liberal crowd calling for his head. Kaplan's supporters were dubbed on message boards as racists simply because they had the gall to stand by their friend in a time of trouble and the guts to find out what he actually said.

What is bad about all three of these situations is that the word that seemed to dominate the discussion was not what the actual offenders or potential offenders might have said. Rather, the word that seemed to dominate the discussion in the least progressive way possible was "bigot."

Throwing the term around is easy. Call anyone a bigot and his or her life's work is questioned simply because it might have had some implicit oppressive motivation. But the term, despite liberalism's monopoly on its meaning, hardly possesses any progressive value as it labels and generalizes the entirety of a person's point of view and life based on one — sometimes misunderstood — statement. The consequences are even greater than that: The social implications of being called and labeled a bigot are intensely damaging — just ask Michael Richards or Mel Gibson.

So, if calling someone a bigot rarely furthers a discussion — as anyone perusing The Badger Herald comment board in the past week can plainly see — why do people insist on using it in such a cavalier fashion?

Well, it is easy, and it requires little effort, which is precisely the same kind of thought process that goes into actual slurs that would qualify as bigotry. However, this practice of labeling weakens liberalism's understanding of identity politics and rarely advances any genuine discussion to change people's minds on individual issues.

Instead of relying on the law — like New York and Santa Rosa did — or society's fury, as Madison did, to change people's minds we need to avoid throwing the term "bigot" around and simply address individual situations as they arise — in a less publicly damaging way. If someone acts bigoted, their actions do not necessarily make them a bigot. Unless we aim to staunchly adhere to critical race theory, we should avoid calling these people bigots, unless the person who the term is aimed at actually agrees to be called such.

If not, they are someone who does not want to be bigoted, and we should therefore avoid branding them as such. Giving them the opportunity to not be bigoted is precisely the kind of open-mindedness that liberalism predicates itself upon, but throwing the term out there and having someone deal with its societal ramifications closes the door on this opportunity and creates difficult divisions for anyone in society.

Whether it is RZA using a word against himself, a teenage girl using an unfortunately popular but derogatory phrase against the LGBT community or a law professor challenging his students with a controversial example, these people hardly fit the bill of the bigots that we should be trying to change.

It has been 42 years since the march in Selma, Ala., and I would venture to say that as long as nobody is getting beaten with a baton while marching for the simple right to vote, we are making progress.

Let's not throw all that progress away simply because when people make mistakes and say things that we disagree with, we feel the need to label them the very thing that they don't want to be. That desire on their part is indicative of the great progress that we have made and that we are capable of making in the future.

Robert Phansalkar ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.