The name Wandering Dago offends me. The term "dago" is a derogatory label meant to deprive Italian-Americans of dignity and respect. 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. The N-word also has a benign origin. But despite its benign origin, it is a vicious word that we hesitate to use even in a neutral context. Dago is not as ugly, but it still offends. No one has ever used "dago" as a friendly, uplifting descriptor of Italian-Americans.
So the question is whether the state has the right to refuse to enter into a commercial contract with a business whose name is patently offensive to Italian-Americans.
Well, would the state be required to sign a contract with a food vendor that has as its name a slur against Jews, Germans, the Irish, or African-Americans? Aren't Italian-Americans deserving of the same respect as other groups? When the state rents its property for commercial purposes, it should have the right to refuse to rent to a vendor that uses an offensive name.
Antonio Milillo
Latham