This is a very local issue but with larger implications. There is a food vendor in Albany, New York that calls itself "Wandering Dago". It sells pork sandwiches and has the image of a pig riding a bicycle below its name. It had a contract with the State to sell food at the Saratoga Racetrack and also applied to sell food during lunch to mostly state workers from the state plaza in Albany. After someone complained about the name the contract at the Saratoga Racetrack was terminated and the proposed contract at the plaza was rejected. The owners of the Wandering Dago are now suing the state, claiming that its refusal to contract with them is a violation of their free speech rights. As an Italian-American, as a lawyer, and as a member of this civilized society I most strongly disagree.
The name Wandering Dago offends me. The term “dago” is a slur, an insult, a derogatory label meant to deprive Italian-Americans of dignity, respect and equality. The Office of General Services and the Cuomo administration have rightly refused to enter into a commercial contract with a business that uses that slur in its name.
It doesn’t matter that the term “dago” might have some benign origin, it has never been applied in a benign way. It has always been used to elevate the person who speaks it over the person who is the word’s target. It is intended to demean. The N-word also has a benign origin; it is derived from the term “negro” which is simply meant to identify someone from the negro race. But despite its benign origin, it is a most ruthless and vicious word and one we hesitate to use even in a neutral context. Dago is not equally objectionable and offensive as the N-word, but it is still objectionable and offensive. Time has not softened the word. No one has ever used “dago” as a friendly, uplifting descriptor of Italian-Americans.
I suppose another argument we will hear in favor of the owners of the Wandering Dago is that Italians are no longer looked down upon or discriminated against. Don’t you believe it. We are still caricatured in film, television, advertising, etc. To many we are still either mobsters or dunces. When I was in high school I was an honors student, one of only two honors students whose last name ended in a vowel. There were some teachers and even some students who made it clear from the way they looked at me and treated me that they felt I didn’t belong. To them I wasn’t an honor student, I was an Italian-American who somehow squeaked into honors class. I don’t doubt that same bias still exists in the minds of many.
So the question is whether the State of New York has the right to refuse to enter into a commercial contract with a business that uses such an offensive name. Well, would the State be required to sign a contract with a food vendor that has as its name a slur against Jews or Germans, or the Irish, or African-Americans? If the State must contract with a vendor whose name slurs Italians then wouldn’t it be required to contract with a vendor whose name slurred any racial, ethnic or religious group? I believe that when the state rents its property for commercial purposes, it does so with the same rights as any private land owner. It can refuse to rent to a vendor that uses an offensive name. The name Wandering Dago offends me, and I am thankful that OGS and the Cuomo administration have refused to contract with that vendor.