College prof use of slur was wrong

To say or not to say. It isn’t a question. It’s a decision. And it’s not something new. It’s something very old.

Today’s political climate has a tendency to divide people sharply over everything, but language is a real sticking point. While some are calling out verbal offenses, others are bristling at politically correct policing.

The sides ebb and flow with the words. No one has cornered the market on being hurt or angry. And a word that was once OK can change in a heartbeat.

But while someone might be unaware of the impact of some words — crazy, moron, articulate — there is one that should require no explanation.

We won’t use it, but you know exactly what it is. It starts with an “N” and that’s all the description it ever needs. It is the very soul of aggressive language.

And that is why that unmistakable word has no business in a classroom.

A Duquesne University professor was placed on paid leave after using that word in an educational psychology class. Not only did he use it, but he encouraged others to do so as well. Video clips of the virtual class were published to Twitter, and the reaction was swift.

“I’m giving you permission to use the word, OK, because we’re using the word in a pedagogical sense,” Professor Gary Shank is heard saying. Shank, who is white, cites examples of the word’s common use, back when he was young. “Could we do that nowadays?” he asked. “Absolutely not.”

The problem is, the use of the word, even in the classroom setting, isn’t Shank’s to license. A college professor shouldn’t have to have that explained.

Shank did not just say a forbidden word. It wasn’t an unplanned utterance, like a shout when stubbing a toe. It was an orchestration, complete with a presentation slide that said “Race (from a cultural sense).”

Saying the word was a decision. And it was the wrong one.

— Pittsburgh TribuneReview, via the Associated Press

Don’t kill state solar industry

Advocates of an innovative means to expand solar energy production while generating cash for farms apparently have forgotten that they are in Pennsylvania.

Weeks after the solar advocates testified at a hearing of the House Consumer Affairs Committee, Republican Sen. Gene Yaw of Lycoming County — the chief legislative guardian of gas interests and chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee — said he would introduce a bill that is a thinly disguised poison pill to kill solar development.

The House bill would provide a state tax credit for residents who invest in solar generation other than at their own homes. The idea is to help farms install solar arrays on barns and in fields where the structures would provide shade for crops that favor it, or for animals. Leslie Elder, MidAtlantic regional director for the Coalition for Community Solar Access, testified that if the bill passes, 220 solar projects in 40 counties will be ready to proceed. Under leases that already have been negotiated, Elder said, farmers would receive between $3 million and $4 million.

aw, a cheerleader for more than $2 billion in state tax credits that have been awarded to businesses for using natural gas produced in Pennsylvania, plans to stifle the use of tax credits to expand solar generation.

His bill would require expensive bonds on solar and wind projects to cover the eventual costs of disposing of solar panels and wind turbines. He claimed similar bonds are required for other types of energy projects, but those bonds cover the potential public costs of pollution that those projects generate. Renewable generation does not produce pollution, and the pollution produced by manufacturing the components for solar panels and turbines is no greater than that created by the production of other energy-producing equipment.

The Legislature should reject Yaw’s bill. If it doesn’t, Gov. Tom Wolf should veto it.