During the 2026 BAFTA Film Awards on Sunday, Feb. 22, actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, co-stars of the hit film “Sinners,” took the stage at London’s Royal Festival Hall to present the award for best visual effects.
The slur that stole the show
As they began their remarks, an audience member was heard loudly yelling the N-word. The racial slur was audible both inside the venue and on the television broadcast.
The person responsible was later identified by multiple outlets as John Davidson, a longtime Tourette syndrome campaigner and the real-life subject of the BAFTA-nominated film “I Swear,” which centers on his diagnosis and life with the condition, including uncontrollable swearing.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Davidson had been visibly experiencing tics earlier in the show, and attendees were warned before the ceremony that an audience member with Tourette syndrome might make involuntary sounds during the evening.
Jordan and Lindo continued presenting the award without interruption, though the moment underscored the gravity of what had occurred.
Host Alan Cumming addressed the situation gently but vaguely during the broadcast, thanking the audience for “understanding” about “the strong and offensive language.” He went on to apologize “if anyone was offended.”
Half-hearted apology
Cumming explained that such language can be one manifestation of Tourette’s syndrome. He educated viewers that Tourette syndrome is a disability and that the tics heard that night were involuntary, while again apologizing “if anyone was offended.”
Following the broadcast, both the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and the BBC issued more formal apologies. BAFTA acknowledged that guests “were subjected to very offensive language that carries profound trauma and pain for many,” and extended “unreserved apologies” to everyone affected. The organization praised Jordan and Lindo’s professionalism and composure, stating it had created a “challenging situation” by failing to prevent harm. BAFTA pledged to learn from the incident while reaffirming its commitment to inclusion, emphasizing that tics “are beyond Davidson’s control and do not reflect their beliefs,” and citing his history of advocacy.
The BBC also apologized, stating that the incident was “not edited out prior to broadcast, and it will now be removed from the version on BBC iPlayer.”
The silence towards the actors
The fallout continued when Vanity Fair reported that, according to Lindo, no one from the channel or the organization had reached out to him or Jordan following the awards.
The “Best Supporting Actor” Oscar nominee told the outlet after the ceremony that he and Jordan “did what we had to do,” referring to how they continued presenting despite the slur being hurled from the audience. The veteran performer added that he wished “someone from BAFTA spoke to us afterwards.”
In the days that followed, online discourse featured commentary from both disability advocates and Black commentators.
Some argued that Davidson had no control over what he said because of his condition and should be given leniency based on his disability. Others pointed out that while his intent may not have been malicious, intent does not erase impact—especially when anti-Black language is heard at the exact moment two Black men are on stage.
Several disability advocates noted that while coprolalia can involve racial slurs, harm-reduction strategies are sometimes used, such as stepping out of a room during quiet moments or redirecting or muffling tics by speaking under one’s breath or into sleeves or hands.
A broader debate on racism and disability rights
The lack of urgency in offering a clear, direct apology or outlining a course of action to the actors raised questions about how seriously BAFTA and the BBC understood their responsibility in the moment.
Online commentators also questioned how entertainment institutions like BAFTA and the BBC can fail to protect guests—particularly Black creatives—from racist harm. They raised concerns about the unsettling reality that event organizers were unable to accommodate a disability without exposing marginalized people to additional trauma. Others challenged white disabled people to consider how access needs intersect with racial power dynamics in public spaces.
For many Black viewers, the fact that an anti-Black slur rang out at the precise moment two Black men stood on stage underscored how fragile so-called “safe spaces” in the industry can feel—even at events meant to celebrate their work.
Ibram X. Kendi also weighed in on the controversy, sharing his perspective on Facebook.
“Racist ideas position Black men as the penultimate verbal and physical assaulters, as danger embodied. When a person who happens to be a Black man does verbally or physically assault someone, racist ideas say it is not due to his individuality, but his being a Black man. Apparently, that’s what Black men do; that’s why we should be killed at the highest rates by the state; that’s why we should be caged more than any other group. What Black men call pain, racist society calls protection. When we as Black men are verbally or physically assaulted, racist ideas lead people to blame us, or to argue no one is to blame. It was the Tourette Syndrome, they say, as if people with involuntary vocal tics invariably sound the N-word whenever they see Black men. As Black men, we are taught to respond to assaults as if we feel no pain. We are taught to keep going as if nothing happened. We are taught we inflict pain, we don’t feel it. Racist society can’t handle the pain of Black men.”
The incident has sparked an ongoing and complex debate about racism, disability rights, accountability, and harm. For some, it serves as a cautionary example of how Tourette syndrome can be invoked in ways that deflect broader conversations about anti-Blackness. Recognizing the involuntary nature of certain disabilities does not negate the real and lasting harm inflicted by racist language.
Disability advocates have long maintained that people with Tourette syndrome should not be demonized for their tics. At the same time, many support nuanced approaches that prioritize planning and harm reduction when tics include slurs or incendiary language—particularly in public settings where the impact can be profound, regardless of intent.
