I didn't see evidence of 'a campaign' and conclude that the single use of the word negro in a complimentary context does not prove the case for Racial vilification

The ‘offender’ could have told Dickie that she looked like Marcia Hines, without mentioning the word ‘negro’, just as Stephanie Lusby hasn’t told us whether or not Dickie is black. If she is black, why would she be offended by being compared to another black woman? If she isn’t black, surely she would be the ‘racist’ if she was offended by being compared to a black woman?

And what’s this nonsense about being “a little bit racist”? The tribunal found that there was no charge to answer, and any reasonable person would not think that the reported remark was in the slightest bit racist.

It’s amazing that Lusby took up this matter at all. She admits that she knows nothing about the ruling and, therefore, it would not be “…constructive to attempt to make a call as to whether VCAT’s ruling was right or wrong.” Why she drones on about it, then, only she knows, and how she came to the conclusion that tribunal was “shocked” by the used of the word ‘negro’, only she knows that too. She didn’t mention it before leaving the tribunal’s no case to answer ruling.

What’s wrong with the word ‘negro’ anyway? It describes a good many people in the world, just as the descriptions Caucasian, middle-eastern, Asian etc. do. No problems with those words. There should be no problem with negro.

Lusby also objects to the term ‘emotionally fragile” as apparently used by the tribunal to describe the ‘victim”. As Dickie’s case was brought before the tribunal because a comment (found to be not offensive) allegedly was “a key contributor to her suffering a nervous break and subsequently developing a chronic adjustment disorder”, the term used is very apt.

Stephanie Lusby’s article is a wishy-washy as her biography. A pointless attempt at stirring up trouble where none exists.

I agree with the premise behind this article: there IS not such thing as being "just a little bit racist" and yes, we do need to make more attempts to stamp out racism and the culture of violence.

But I think that the author did not do her cause any good by using the Dickie case to illustrate her point.

In the face of all the racial vilification and overt expression of prejudice that exist, much more hard evidence could have been used than a case which, to be objective, boils down to "she said/she said". I understand that the point was that the case was thrown out but, having read what I could find about it, it is one that was not a particularly strong one to begin with.

Both my sons were born in RSA and, three weeks after arriving here the youngest was told by another group of students - in front of many witnesses including a teacher - "We don't need you furken South African bastids in our country" and thrown through a plate glass window. He required an amergency operation and has permanently lost the use of a particular tendon in his arm. The school gave me $20. - for fares to the hospital.

I don't offer this in the spirit of one upmanship but to illustrate rather that this article could easily have made use of much more unambiguous and harmful incidents to build a more convincing case for her premise.

Romany,

If you have to offer an old example from another country then things cannot be too bad in Australia and in all fairness you should really be drawing the writer's attention to that.

From what has been reported it sounds very much like an opportunist compensation claim. Unfortunately some mud sticks and the person who was named and blamed, as well as those around her, will never be able to fully restore the reputation and credibility they had before the complaint. These are the real victims and it is fortunate that they cannot pursue the complainant likewise for damages.

Rather than encourage people to wear their belts high in the hope of advantage or reward we should be getting quite annoyed at the waste of public resources that has occurred and the unwarranted negative publicity for the school and its staff. Then there is the effect on the education of the children because long running battles like this draw resources and attention away from the school's core business.

The AAT is independent. It has rigorous procedures and its findings are based on evidence. What more do you want?

On the other hand the article presents no evidence whatsoever to challenge the AAT's ruling and further embarrassment to the real victims who are the teachers and administrators who are forced to walk a tight rope every day from fear that some litigious complainant might bring them into disrepute.

What is really needed are hard-hitting articles about the frustration, demotivation and eventual job wastage of teachers and other professionals who walk on eggshells and cannot effectively perform their duties because of the political correctness that continues to reign supreme in the West.

Anybody who uses a term like "negro" in this day and age and doesn't know that it's offensive is obviously racist. That they're unaware of their racism merely indicates how ingrained it is.

However, I agree that this appears to be a pretty mild case of it, but I think that the sheer unthinking banality of such racism continuing to exist in Australia is the author's main point. It also worries me that a Victorian primary school teacher in 2009 thinks that using the term "negro" is okay - one can only wonder what she lets slip in the classroom.

Stephanie Lusby is right to raise the issue of the pervasiveness of 'mild' racism in Australian society, but she could have chosen a better example with which to illustrate her point.

I truly can't believe that we live in such a violent, racist society that something as tragic as this can happen.
It's genocide!