The 2026 BAFTAs incident– in which Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson shouted a racial slur, which was not edited out of the BBC’s delayed broadcast, while actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage presenting an award– sparked intense global conversation about intersectionality and identity politics. This is because the incident brought two historically marginalised groups and identities into direct conflict, leading to public debate over how discrimination is defined and contextualised. The two competing lived experiences of racism and ableism demanded the same recognition at the same time, and so the controversy did not fit neatly into a single moral narrative.

The N-word is an abhorrent word with a violent, colonial history attached to it. Rooted in racism, slavery and white supremacy, it has long functioned as a tool of dehumanisation and oppression. For a lot of black people, hearing this word can be deeply traumatising and triggering. It is therefore understandable why so many people reacted with frustration and anger when it was broadcast in such a public setting. What is less understandable, however, is the refusal by some to apply nuance and extend the same level of understanding to the realities of a neurological disability.

Davidson’s condition includes coprolalia, the involuntary utterance of taboo or offensive language. Coprolalia is not an expression of belief or intent. It is not a window into someone’s values or beliefs. It is a neurological tic, often involving precisely the kinds of words a person would never consciously choose to say. He reportedly left the auditorium shortly after the incident, describing himself as “deeply mortified”. Despite this, many American commentators and social media users argued that the cause of the slur was irrelevant compared to the harm caused to the victims. Jamie Foxx commented below a post about the incident on social media, saying, “Unacceptable” and “Nah he meant that shit”, reflecting a broader sentiment that the disability was being used as an excuse to mask racism.

Much of the backlash against Davidson was driven by the perception that he had not apologised. However, Davidson’s team later clarified that he had reached out through professional channels to apologise personally to Jordan, Lindo, and production designer Hannah Beachler. In the digital age that we live in, private accountability is often overshadowed by the expectation of immediate public remorse. Many people immediately assumed the worst of John Davidson.

This frustration surrounding the incident was, in some instances, coupled with ableist rhetoric. Many dismissed and denied the nature of Tourette’s syndrome, with some suggesting that John should not have even attended the event at all, despite his presence being connected to his film I Swear, which aims to educate audiences about the lived experience of the condition. There was a notable cultural and geographical divide online in the reactions to the incident. In the UK, the discussion centred on Tourette’s syndrome and the responsibility of the BBC. Greater emphasis was placed on the medical context and intent. However, in the US, less grace was extended to John as the dominant lens through which this incident was seen was racial trauma. In the US, there appears to be a broader lack of public understanding about the full extent and complexity of Tourette’s, particularly the involuntary nature of certain vocal tics.

Much of the anger, therefore, was misdirected. Rather than vilifying a man for his involuntary tics, people should have focused mainly on the institutions that failed in their duty of care. Despite the ceremony being aired on a two-hour tape delay, the BBC failed to edit out the slur before it reached millions of viewers. What made this even more shocking to many was that the BBC edited out a “Free Palestine” remark from director Akinola Davies Jr.’s acceptance speech for “time restrictions”, yet allowed a racial slur to air. The unedited footage remained on BBC iPlayer for over 12 hours before being pulled for re-editing, which many viewed as a failure of basic oversight. 

The BAFTAs also faced criticism for failing in their duty of care. While the audience in the hall was verbally warned about possible outbursts, arguably, BAFTA failed to provide adequate written information or context to all nominees and presenters in advance. Following the incident their response was delayed: Delroy Lindo noted that no one from BAFTA spoke to them immediately after the incident to offer support or an apology. Meanwhile, Davidson questioned why a live microphone was placed so close to his seat. This institutional failure is much harder to excuse than Davidson’s tics. The abuse that Davidson was subject to because of this institutional failure was completely unacceptable.

Ultimately, the rhetoric and discourse that followed this incident exposed the flaws in identity politics. Identity politics will not lead to real progress if people refuse to accept and understand intersectionality. Intersectionality reminds us that people experience overlapping social realities; in this case, both racism and disability rights entered into the same controversy and views on both sides were very polarised. This polarisation is exactly what critics of identity politics often point to: they claim discussions about race, disability, and representation can divide audiences rather than unify them. This division is exactly what played out in the aftermath of the BAFTAs. Some individuals who strongly identify with anti-racism movements responded in ways that perpetuated marginalisation against another vulnerable group. The ideas they suggested (segregation) echoed the very forms of structural oppression that they typically oppose. 

When movements prioritise single identities without intersectional awareness, they can reproduce exclusionary logic, which weakens the broader project of social justice. In this case, many people’s rightful anger about injustice towards their race blinded them from the reality of another marginalised group. Even more concerning, for people who fall under both umbrellas, the response risked moving from advocating for social justice to competing for a higher spot on the hierarchy. This approach is somewhat dangerous because it shows that some people who claim they are fighting for social justice and equality are actually seeking to join the ranks of the dominant or oppressive class. 

Critics have argued that identity politics encourages people to see themselves primarily as members of competing groups rather than as citizens with common interests. The reaction and discourse that followed the BAFTAs incident clearly demonstrated this. For social justice and equality to be achieved, there needs to be a better understanding of all forms of marginalisation and discrimination. Two things can be true at once. The incident was both an involuntary, non-racist act and a deeply harmful, racist experience.