Black and Disabled Viewers Deserved Better From The BAFTAs & BBC

The 2026 BAFTAs gave us much to celebrate. Rich, exciting, complex Black filmmaking was given its due, with multiple awards going to Black cinematic artists. Blockbuster horror Sinners, the British Nigerian coming of age story My Father’s Shadow, and British short animation Two Black Boys in Paradise collectively won an incredible five BAFTAs. Sinners Director Ryan Coogler made history as the first Black winner for Original Screenplay. It was also a night that recognized the lived reality of Tourette's Syndrome and Coprolalia; the emotional, heartwarming film I Swear documents the struggles Tourette's campaigner John Davidson has with the disability, and other people’s ignorance of it. The film won three BAFTAs including a surprising Best Actor win for lead actor Robert Aramayo.    

Within that celebratory same space, an uncomfortable, unfortunate incident unfolded: one that was difficult for everyone involved, and which has since been stripped of context and complexity by a slew of online commentators who favor uncompromising hot takes over nuance and in doing so, have arguably made a sad situation far worse. 

During the live broadcast, an involuntary vocal tic from Davidson was picked up by microphones while Sinners stars Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage presenting an award. The outburst included the offensive racist term the n-word, prompting a response from the ceremony’s host, Alan Cumming, who stated: “If you have seen the film I Swear, you will know that film is about the experience of a person with Tourette syndrome. Tourette syndrome is a disability, and the tics you've heard tonight are involuntary, which means the person who has Tourette syndrome has no control over their language. We apologize if you were offended." Despite being pre-recorded, the moment was broadcast live to millions by the BBC, creating a situation that was distressing for the actors on stage, the audience, and likely Davidson himself, who reportedly later left the ceremony early of his own accord.

It, of course, wasn’t easy to witness two Black people have a racial slur directed at them particularly in such a public manner, and on an evening where their art was being lauded by award ceremonies that historically have underrewarded Black filmmaking. The moment where both Jordan and Lindo register what’s been shouted at them, before almost immediately recomposing themselves and continuing, was a sad and likely familiar scenario to anyone who has ever publicly endured slurs. It was distressing to watch and both the presenters and viewers are entitled to their discomfort and sadness in response to an extremely difficult situation. 

Wider context has been largely absent from much of the online commentary, but here’s what we know about the details leading up to the event: BAFTA reportedly made guests aware in advance of Davidson’s experiences of involuntary vocal tics. I don’t agree with the ignorant arguments that have been fired off that dismiss Tourette’s Syndrome, including suggestions that Davidson should have been banned from the ceremony altogether, and that he was an unrepentant racist who must have meant what he said. Even actor Jamie Foxx has chimed in unhelpfully saying on instagram “Nah he meant that sh*t”. It’s quite shocking to hear almost medieval arguments that disabled people be locked away from public view in 2026. Such responses disregard the reality that Tourette’s can be profoundly distressing for those who live with it; involving loss of bodily control, deep shame, and a constant fear of public misunderstanding. 

But harm was caused. The word at the centre of this incident carries a specific and brutal history of violence, degradation, and dehumanization directed at Black people; a history that continues to shape lived experience today. In a global political moment marked by the resurgence of openly racist rhetoric, policies, and state violence, audiences are likely even more raw and sensitive to its use. That context does not justify the ableist or deeply unempathetic responses directed at John Davidson. But given that Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were on stage representing Sinners — a film that directly grapples with the history and ongoing cycle of racism in the United States — it does help explain the depth of feeling, and why this moment which shouldn’t have been aired landed with such visceral force. Who was protecting Jordan and Lindo in the moment, and the Black audience watching?

Variety reported other incidents of Davidson’s Tourettes throughout the ceremony, including  shouting "shut the f-ck up" at BAFTA chair Sara Putt and saying "f-ck you" as the award for best children's and family film was being accepted. Based on what we know about the disability, these actions were involuntary and not a malicious act. The attempt to ascribe the incident as a personal, moral failure of Davidson’s is wrong and unhelpful. It's a horrible irony that an evening where a film like I Swear won so much praise has almost immediately been followed with proof of precisely why the film is so necessary. 

The real issue in this story appears to be institutional. The BBC and the BAFTAs made a deliberate editorial decision to air the incident, despite the BAFTAs having been filmed approximately two hours prior to broadcast. This sits uneasily alongside the fact that references to “Free Palestine,” as well as mentions of Congo and Sudan, were trimmed from My Father’s Shadow" filmmaker Davies Jr.’s acceptance speech. In response to criticism, a BBC spokesperson stated: “The live event is three hours and it has to be reduced to two hours for its on-air slot. The same happened to other speeches made during the night and all edits were made to ensure the programme was delivered to time. All winners’ speeches will be available to watch via BAFTA’s YouTube channel.”

That explanation raises more questions than it resolves. It is difficult not to see this as a significant dereliction of duty: a choice that allowed public discomfort, humiliation, and misplaced blame to fall on Jordan, Lindo, and Davidson. Given the broadcaster’s clear capacity to edit sensitively and selectively, it is reasonable to ask why this segment was left intact, or why the audio was not muted, particularly when doing so might have mitigated harm for everyone involved. Now, the clip has been shared widely, including the word, causing a firestorm that could have — in part — been avoided. Jordan and Lindo shouldn’t have had to endure that slur being yelled at them, and Davidson shouldn’t have had his disability used against him in such a public manner.  The events that have unfolded suggest the BBC has an institutional bias in terms of what it regards as offensive, which lines up with its egregious wider reporting on issues such as the Israeli genocide in Palestine. 

The BBC issued an apology this morning (ET), hours after the widespread backlash: "We apologise that this was not edited out prior to broadcast and it will now be removed from the version on BBC iPlayer." By the time the apology was issued, the clip had already circulated widely across social media, fuelling outrage, misinformation, and deeply ableist and racist commentary, and leaving Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, and John Davidson to absorb the public fallout. There has been no public reflection on addressing the editorial judgement and criteria that allowed it to be broadcast in the first place.

These moments reflect some of the most destructive habits of online political culture, that many Black writers and thinkers have often highlighted as unhelpful in the wider scheme of things. People’s very real grievances can easily be projected onto these more tricky hyper-visible pop culture moments, and a desire for outrage and simplistic, absolutist punishment end up taking precedence over a more serious, empathetic conversation that can encompass multiple things at once. This flawed logic often relies on an explicit hierarchy of suffering, where your suffering must take total priority over another’s, but that framework is neither radical or effective. We live in a world that feels like it’s on fire, and racism is now a visceral daily reality in our politics.  Perhaps the powerlessness people feel means these moments unfairly become proxies for broader, deeper rage at an unjust world that no one seems to know how to fix. It's a sad rinse and repeat cycle that we’re trapped in.  

A number of disabled Black people, including some who have Tourtettes have provided far more caring, nuanced perspectives on the situation. @sh4ysgrwm on TikTok pushed back on the idea that tics can be controlled, clarifying that it’s the result of “neurons misfiring…we have got to stop thinking with our feelings and start thinking with logic. It’s ok to be offended, but it’s not ok to be ableist and try to make it seem like those with Tourettes, specifically those with Coprolelia, say their tics on purpose.” Misunderstanding these conditions can have wider and more troubling consequences. When public opinion and policy defaults to individual moral judgement, it is racialized disabled people who are most likely to face even harsher treatment, disbelief, or punishment. Involuntary tics from Black people are even more likely to be perceived as threatening or dangerous; it’s clearly in everyone’s interests to better understand and support people with these disabilities.

The impact of Davidson's disability was harmful and many Black disability advocades are calling for him to apologize. I am uncomfortable with the idea of Davidson having to apologize for his disability (although he may personally wish to as I assume he probably felt terrible about it) because of the precedent that sets for disabled people. It's true that we may be giving this white man more grace than a Black disabled person (especially a Black woman) may get in his situation, but I think the apology and changed behavior really needs to come from the institutions themselves.  

“I keep trying to write about what happened at the BAFTAs, and I can’t find the words,” BAFTA nominee and Sinners production designer Hannah Beachler, posted on X after the ceremony, reported by Variety. “The situation is almost impossible, but it happened 3 times that night, and one of the three times was directed at myself on the way to dinner after the show.. and a third time at a Black woman,” she wrote. “I understand and deeply know why this is an impossible situation. I know we must handle this with grace and continue to push through. But what made the situation worse was the throw away apology of ‘if you were offended’ at the end of the show. Of course we were offended…but our frequency, our spiritual vibration is tuned to a higher level than what happened.. This did not bounce off of me, but I exist above it. It can’t take away from who I am as an artist.” Delroy Lindo later said at one of the BAFTA after parties that he wished “someone from BAFTA spoke to us afterwards” confirming both BAFTA and the BBC have shown a significant lack of planning, safeguarding and aftercare even after the incident. BAFTA’s lackluster apology during the broadcast sits alongside what appears to be a total lack of accountability for the situation all parties were placed in. 

Aside from needing far better media institutions, this episode underlines why art remains indispensable. At its best, it gives us language for experiences we do not have first hand knowledge of, and it asks us to sit with discomfort and contradictions. Many of the best films showcased at the awards resist the urge to collapse human complexity, and the friction that can come with it, into simplistic ideas. A little less time on social media and a bit more time with art might be a good place to start- and it’s clear that the decision-makers at the BAFTAs and BBC need to learn from the very art these institutions are celebrating.  

Editor's note: Update: John Davidson has released a statement that reads, in part, “I appreciated the announcement to the auditorium in advance of the recording, warning everyone that my tics are involuntary and are not a reflection of my personal beliefs. I was heartened by the round of applause that followed this announcement and felt welcomed and understood in an environment that would normally be impossible for me... I can only add that I am and always have been deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning.”