Interview with Kerry Ann McKeon: The Tennessee three

In this interview, Kerry Ann McKeon discusses her Journal of Language and Politics article, The Tennessee three: Mapping the discursive boundaries of inequality in statehouse political debate. She highlights the racist rhetoric used during the expulsion hearings of Black legislators in the Tennessee General Assembly.

Photo by Ambrose Prince on Unsplash

the Black legislators, who were ultimately expelled, were positioned discursively to be perceived as deserving of excessive punishment. Republican lawmakers employed framing strategies and racialized narratives to portray these individuals as “dangerous, disorderly and disruptive” and “less than,” reinforcing a “white racial frame”.

Why did you decide to write this piece?

Up to this point, I have researched political speech in the education sphere. I have wanted to learn more about how political discourse shapes education policy outcomes. My curiosity was piqued in 2023 by the citizen protests at the Tennessee House of Representatives (USA) in response to recent school shootings in the state. Three Democratic lawmakers were threatened with expulsion by their Republican colleagues because of their participation in the protests. When I looked at the transcripts of the expulsion hearings, I expected to find more debate relating to the issue of guns in schools. Instead, what stood out to me was the repeated racist rhetoric directed at the two Black legislators who were later expelled. While I didn’t set out to write a piece on racist discourse and framing, I felt that I couldn’t turn my back on what the transcripts had revealed to me. I had to map the racist framing strategies of the Republican supermajority.

What are the key takeaways?

1. Dominance through Discourse:

The paper examines how the Republican supermajority in the Tennessee legislature used discourse to assert their dominance during the expulsion hearings of the three Democratic lawmakers. This includes framing the actions of the minority Democrats in ways that justified punitive action.

2. Framing of Black Legislators:

The paper highlights how the Black legislators, who were ultimately expelled, were positioned discursively to be perceived as deserving of excessive punishment. Republican lawmakers employed framing strategies and racialized narratives to portray these individuals as “dangerous, disorderly and disruptive” and “less than,” reinforcing a “white racial frame”.

3. Suppression of the Opposition:

The article argues that the Republican supermajority used naming and framing strategies to discount and discredit the minority legislators who were challenging their inaction on gun control legislation. By framing the protests as a breach of decorum rather than a response to concerns about gun violence, they were able to intimidate and silence their opponents.

4. Racism and Inequality:

The discursive strategies used in the expulsion debates, including the forwarding of racism and inequality, are part of a broader “radical right-wing, global movement”. The article highlights the reification of such ideologies within political debate.

5. The Framing of Protest and Free Speech:

The article highlights the tension between the lawmakers’ right to protest and the legislative body’s rules regarding decorum. The Republicans’ discourse framed the protest as an attack on core values like law and order, while ignoring the underlying concerns about gun violence that sparked the protest.

6. Democratic Backsliding:

The analysis points to the “anti-democratic manoeuvres” employed through the power of language, suggesting that the way in which political debates are framed and conducted can have significant implications for democratic processes and representation. The use of procedural tactics to target and remove minority legislators are indicative of a broader trend of democratic backsliding and increasing inequality.

Where do you plan to go next in your research?

My research this year is headed in a different direction. I was recently asked to submit an article about the ideological influence of tech billionaires in shaping AI governance and policy. I want to look at the ways that well-promoted imaginaries of the tech elites construct representations of the world with serious implications for how AI governance is defined and executed. The technocratic imaginary, the neoliberal imaginary and the anti-political imaginary all challenge public policy and organizational decision-making in the AI space. I will be looking at how the discourse practices of key knowledge brokers in the AI space may prevent other competing discourses from effectively emerging, thereby challenging the ability of political and organizational leaders to maintain democratic accountability.