I do not usually chime in on topics that have become this polarizing. But I have been listening and watching attentively to the discourse surrounding the BAFTA incident, and I feel compelled to share my perspective.
I come to this as a Black woman. As someone who works in social services and as the founder of a wellness-focused brand rooted in care and connection. From both lived and professional experience, I believe the emphasis in this conversation has been misplaced.
The focus should not be on debating Tourette’s Syndrome.
The focus should not be on whether the actors should endure and “move on.”
The focus should be on BAFTA’s responsibility.
This was a live event with a delay. A racial slur was allowed to air publicly. That is not a neurological condition. That is a systems failure.
Duty of Care on a Global Platform
When institutions host global platforms, they hold a duty of care to everyone involved. That includes Delroy Lindo. That includes Michael B. Jordan. That includes John Davidson. And that includes the broader Black diaspora who experienced harm in real time, as well as those living with Tourette’s.
My heart goes out to Michael and Delroy. They should not have had to endure that moment on a global stage with their dignity challenged in real time. They handled it with composure. But let us be honest. If they had reacted differently, if they had walked off the stage or expressed visible anger, the backlash likely would have been swift and severe. They were navigating more than a moment. They were navigating optics, stereotypes, and a long history of inequitable treatment.
In hindsight, part of me wishes they had calmly walked off the stage. That would have sent a powerful message about boundaries and total intolerance. But hindsight is easy. In real time, on a global stage, with cameras rolling, the weight of history sitting on your shoulders, choices are not simple. They almost had no choice but to move forward.
Inclusion Without Safeguards Is Not Care
I feel for John Davidson. I read that he ended up leaving early. I can only imagine the embarrassment he may have felt. Living with Tourette’s already requires navigating public misunderstanding. To have that unfold in a public global forum, without adequate preparation or safeguards, must have been overwhelming and upsetting.
Inclusion matters. John should absolutely have been present. The film is about his life and shines a light on the challenges of living with Tourette’s and navigating moments like this one. Ironically, this situation became a prime example.
But inclusion without preparation is not care. Inclusion without disclaimers, without outlining possible tics (including words or phrases that could be expressed), without clear safeguards and communicated contingencies, is not psychological safety. It is exposure.
If you want a credible resource on Tourette’s (for readers who need context), here are two:
BAFTA Dropped the Ball Including on Themselves
BAFTA did Delroy and Michael a disservice.
They did John a disservice.
And they did themselves a disservice.
Their credibility has been compromised. Trust was eroded. And the narrative shifted from celebration to harm. Intentional or unintentional does not change impact. Either way, the institution dropped the ball.
(For transparency, BAFTA published a statement here: A statement from BAFTA.)
Accountability Must Be Structural Not Symbolic
Accountability here cannot be symbolic. It must be structural.
I understand that some of these actions (apologies) may have already happened, but it does not hurt to apologize again while taking accountability. I believe it should look like this:
- A public apology is necessary, not as a formality, but as acknowledgement of harm.
- The editorial team responsible for allowing the slur to air should be replaced. This is not about punishment. It is about restoring trust and demonstrating that cultural competence, sensitivity, and responsibility for reducing harm are not optional on global stages. Neglect and incompetence or deliberate disregard have natural consequences.
- Mental wellness support should be offered to Delroy Lindo, Michael B. Jordan, and John Davidson. Not imposed. Offered. Paid for by BAFTA, if they choose to access it.
- Sizable, equal donations should be made to charities of each of their choosing, including organizations serving the Black community and those supporting Tourette’s awareness.
- And perhaps of equal importance, BAFTA should publicly outline what happened behind the scenes and what changes will be implemented to ensure this does not happen again.
Reports have also circulated about inequitable censoring and treatment throughout the awards. Whether isolated or systemic, these patterns must be examined. Institutions cannot claim inclusion while perpetuating harm in subtle or overt ways.
One uncomfortable question lingers for me. With everything happening globally, especially south of the border and across other regions in crisis, I cannot help but wonder what world event was muted because this incident took centre stage. Harm not only injures individuals. It shifts collective attention.
Psychological Safety Is Not a Buzzword
Care is not passive.
Connection is not theoretical.
Accountability is not an afterthought.
If we are serious about building cultures of inclusion and psychological safety, then institutions must lead with action when harm occurs, starting by swiftly acknowledging that harm occurred for all parties involved.
This is not about cancelling anyone.
This is about protecting the dignity of everyone.
As someone who believes in creating cultures of care, I believe this moment requires less noise and more responsibility.
Why Creative Consciousness Matters
And this is why Creative Consciousness matters.
When institutions fail to anticipate harm, it is often because creativity was not applied to care.
Creative Intelligence is not just about innovation or artistry. It is about foresight. It is about curiosity. It is about courage. It is about care. It is about connection. It is about culture.
When those capacities are activated, harm can often be prevented before it becomes public.
Psychological safety is not tested when everything goes smoothly. It is tested in moments like this, on global stages, under pressure, when dignity is on the line.
If we want psychological safety to be more than a buzzword, we have to practise it when it is uncomfortable.