Andrew Jones

If Chaucer can say it: Rethinking swearing in schools

Originally published by SecEd Magazine on 18 June 2025.

One of my fondest memories of studying English literature A level at the college I attended was of our rather eccentric teacher – who, legend had it, used to hang out, read poetry and drink wine with Germaine Greer while at university.

The moment came when a student asked what Chaucer meant by the word “queint” in the prologue to The Wife of Bath’s Tale. She did not mince her words in her explanation and the C-bomb was detonated.

In response, my somewhat chivalrous friend Pete – sat between a number of girls – raised his hand and said: “I don’t think it’s appropriate to use words like that.”

Our teacher, peering down her nose over her half-lens reading glasses, replied, very matter-of-factly: “If Chaucer can use the word ‘queint’, I can use the word ‘cunt’.”

That moment – awkward yet intellectually provocative – highlighted a tension that still echoes in classrooms today: what counts as inappropriate, and who decides?

Our teacher’s unapologetic use of Chaucer’s original word, framed within a literary context, raises deeper questions about the role of swearing, or the use of profane or taboo language, in schools – not just by teachers quoting texts, but by students themselves.

While swearing at teachers or in a way that challenges professional authority is clearly unacceptable, can words that shock or offend in one setting be acceptable, or even meaningful, in another? And how should schools respond when students use swearing as part of their everyday speech, whether to express emotion or assert identity?

What counts as swearing?

Other than the obvious words – “fuck”, “shit”, “bollocks” – there seems to be varying tolerance among teachers for what we might consider “lesser” swear words and phrases – such as “crap”, “pissed off”, and “damn” (yes, some people still consider that a naughty word).

For instance, at one school, I was deemed “harsh” by a senior leader for rebuking a student who said “bloody”, while the headteacher later sanctioned another for saying “for god’s sake”.

Interestingly, Ofcom’s offensive language quick reference guide (2021), which categorises swear words as “mild”, “moderate” or “strong”, illustrates just how differently swear words are perceived in the UK.

For example, “cow” and “arse” are seen as mild insults that are unlikely to cause widespread offence. In contrast, words like “wanker” and “bitch” are classed as stronger and more offensive, especially when used aggressively or directed at someone. These examples highlight the shifting scale of acceptability – and how context, tone, and audience all influence whether language crosses the line.

Ofcom’s guidance could be used as a barometer for offensive language in schools. However, I would contest some of their categorisations. While they classify “munter” as mildly offensive and “knob” as moderately offensive, I would probably be tougher on a student calling someone an “ugly munter” than a “silly knob”.

Considering all this confusion, it is probably best to step back and examine the broader arguments for either a zero-tolerance approach or a more flexible stance when it comes to those potty-mouthed students who occasionally let the odd profanity slip out.

The case for zero-tolerance

Many people argue that swearing completely undermines social norms, school values, and classroom decorum. An obvious concern is that profanity can be perceived as disrespectful, even hurtful and emotionally harmful, particularly when directed at teachers or peers. Most swear words are appropriated to offend or denote an aggressive tone, so banning them outright might be a no-brainer.

Moreover, the disruption caused by offensive language may interfere with learning and contribute to a hostile or unsafe school climate (Gilliam et al, 1991). Coarse language can exacerbate disagreements and change the direction of conversations that were, at one stage, quite amicable. An inappropriate or aggressive swear word can be the spark that ignites the fire, so to speak.

Schools are also legally and ethically charged with safeguarding students’ wellbeing. Inappropriate language, especially slurs or language that perpetuates discrimination, can harm students psychologically and socially.

While racial and homophobic slurs are clearly hostile, many of our swear words contain sexual references, which are often verbally weaponised in speech to degrade others.

This might be true of words such as “ho”, even if Ofcom deems that “mild”. Others could be deemed overtly sexist in nature, including “bitch” and “cow”. Yes, girls can use these towards each other, but masculine equivalents don’t really exist – terms like “dickhead” allude to stupidity more than an attack on male identity per se.

Subsequently, and according to research by Espelage and Swearer (2003), hostile environments marked by verbal aggression can increase rates of bullying and decrease academic engagement. Thus, it could be seen as common sense that schools adopt zero-tolerance policies on swearing, viewing them as essential to maintaining discipline and social cohesion.

Furthermore, from a developmental perspective, adolescence is a critical period for learning social norms, formal expectations, and self-regulation.

Tolerating swearing in schools, even if in casual conversation, arguably sends mixed signals about professionalism and interpersonal conduct, which include behaviours essential for success beyond the classroom.

Research suggests that inappropriate language, such as swearing, can damage professional reputations and working relationships (Porath & Pearson, 2013).

Swearing as a linguistic act

Nonetheless, others may counter that swearing is a complex linguistic phenomenon that serves a variety of communicative functions. Linguists such as Timothy Jay (2009) and Dr Robbie Love (Ashton University, 2023) have identified several roles of swearing, including emotional expression, social bonding, and identity formation.

In this sense, swearing is part and parcel of growing up, as teenagers test the boundaries of childhood innocence and experiment with more “adult” language and phraseology.

Moreover, among adolescents, swearing can act as a tool for negotiating peer relationships and establishing group membership (Eder & Kinney, 1995; England & Petro, 1998). It is not merely a lapse in decorum, but a form of expressive language shaped by culture, context, and individuality.

For some scholars, acknowledging linguistic diversity, including vernaculars and non-standard forms of speech, has encouraged a rethinking of traditional disciplinary approaches (Doherty et al, 2018; Ashton University, 2023).

Swearing, in numerous contexts, may not necessarily indicate malice or defiance. Instead, it can reflect emotional intensity or even rhetorical emphasis (Pinker, 2007). This perspective complicates blanket prohibitions and opens the door for more nuanced approaches to language management in schools.

Contextual tolerance

Some studies have shown that zero-tolerance policies are often inconsistently applied and disproportionately affect marginalised or disadvantaged students.

Studies suggest that students from ethnic minorities are more likely to be disciplined for subjective infractions such as “disrespect” or “inappropriate language” than their white peers (Gregory et al, 2010). And while I cannot find any direct academic evidence, this could possibly be true of social class differences too, with working class vernaculars more likely to ruffle the feathers of middle class teachers – there is evidence for bias against working class students more generally (see Maddern, 2023).

In addition, and despite the crusade against trauma-informed teaching (see, for example, Bennett, 2024), the punitive focus of many policies may fail to address the underlying emotional or social dynamics that prompt swearing.

In a study of secondary students, Morrison (2007) observed that students often used swearing, or offensive language, to cope with stress or social alienation. Addressing the root causes, rather than merely punishing the behaviour, could lead to more constructive outcomes.

Balancing expression and respect

Ultimately, the acceptability of swearing in schools cannot be resolved by simple rules or absolutist policies. It requires a balance between upholding respectful communication and recognising the evolving nature of language and youth culture.

While I don’t think swearing should be tolerated, neither should all forms of swearing be treated as equally harmful or malicious. Intent, context and relational dynamics matter. In my own school, the consequence for “swearing in conversation” results in a warning and deduction of reward points, whereas “swearing across the classroom” or “swearing at someone” result in more serious consequences. In more extreme cases, the behaviour is logged as “verbal assault”.

In practice, schools might consider developing flexible language policies that distinguish between casual and targeted profanity, between private utterances and public disruptions. Personally, I think this is bloody obvious.

Of course, there are exceptions, and that – I think – would include Chaucer. He can damn well say what he wants.

Further information & resources

Picture credit: Open Clipart (Used under a Creative Commons Licence)

Leave a comment