Political Correctness

by Jeff Goldberg

It is abundantly clear that the role for political correctness on college campuses is the subject of much debate. What is not so obvious is exactly who the proponents and opponents of political correctness are, and where both groups are located on the political spectrum. A chief reason as to why the controversy over political correctness in education is so complex may be attributed to the presence of more routine, fundamental political disputes embedded within the issue of political correctness. Some such issues include freedom of thought and speech, academic freedom and affirmative action. In his essay “Unsimplifying Political Correctness,” Peter Suber, a professor in the Philosophy Department of Earlham College, suggests, “Because liberalism includes a commitment to the freedom of vigorous, even offensive discussion, the left-wing should not be called 'liberal' here. For the same reason, the proper name for what conservatives are demanding is 'liberalism'.” In other words, for Suber, questionable speech and socially offensive discussion is typically a cause fought for by those that identify themselves as being on the left end of the political spectrum, while those who identify with the politically conservative right are more inclined to censor potentially offensive speech and discussion on moral grounds.

Suber goes on to say, “These routine controversies have jumbled the customary political alliances.” Put differently, when considering political correctness in school curricula, the traditional positions of both liberals and conservatives are essentially reversed. The conservatives are against speech codes and regulations that prevent students from engaging in discourse that, while potentially offensive, allows students to access a full range of ideas and opinions. Along these lines, social liberals favor such regulation in an effort to deescalate cultural opposition and restrain discriminatory relations, pushing instead for cultural pluralism and equality. The conflicting viewpoints of both positions are indicative of the broader culture wars taking place between those in support of traditional Western university curricula and those pushing for a revision of the traditional Western curricula that emphasizes cultural equality and relativism. However, as Suber points out, revising a finite curriculum amounts to the removal and replacement of material that was previously prioritized by educators and scholars.

In her article “Ethics, Education, and Political Correctness,” Marilyn Edelstein argues, “Anyone familiar with the history of literary criticism should realize that lists of the books ‘everyone’ considers excellent change over time, as do styles, subject matter, and criteria.” For Edelstein, because the demographics of universities in America have become more diverse over the recent years, it is important to diversify the curriculum itself so that is more culturally comprehensive and relevant to contemporary society. The case for political correctness in higher education relies upon the argument that many other cultures have contributed to and are part of what Western culture is known as today. With this in mind, Edelstein goes on to ask, “Shouldn't Asian-American or African-American students also learn from texts that reflect those cultures' distinct historical experiences and that reveal those cultures' roles in shaping Western culture?” Advocates of politically correct curricula would strongly answer yes to this question, contending that new voices more representative of postmodern Western society should replace voices that have become obsolete in the sense that they are no longer applicable. Another concern shared by Edelstein is the tendency for Western culture to be presented as at the culture of reference. Edelstein likens this tendency to the feminists who question the traditional view of the male experience as universal and normative. However, opponents of politically correct curricula fear that in an effort to decentralize Western viewpoints, liberals are deliberately emphasizing the negative aspects of Western history while overlooking its positive contributions to mankind altogether.

In his essay and book review “Political Correctness on Trial,” Dan Flynn explains, “The PC form of historical revisionism strategically hones in on America’s past weaknesses and mistakes, all the while ignoring her greatness.” For Flynn, politically correct revisions are motivated by an agenda aimed at tainting US history by elaborating on unfavorable moments while downplaying some of its proudest contributions to the rest of the world. Perhaps more distressingly, as Flynn points out, speech codes such as University of Arizona’s Diversity Action Plan prohibit students or faculty members from making negative comments involving color, ethnicity, gender, religion, and national origin in addition to making disparaging comments concerning sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. Rivals of politically correct curricula see speech regulations of this sort as a violation of free speech and an inhibitor of effective social discourse.

In his essay “Politically Correct Education,” Don Closson contends, “What is most appalling is the attempt to remove the freedom of speech from students who fail to conform to the correct position on a broad spectrum of topics.” The ability of students and educators to present all sides of socially sensitive issues such as affirmative action is severely limited by the fear of violating academic speech regulations. Closson goes on to argue, “The so-called marketplace of ideas that colleges are supposed to represent had been shrunk down to convenience-store size. Since one cannot be certain that even the most balanced discussion of a topic such as gay rights or religious cults might not stigmatize a fellow student, one must refrain from entering into that territory.” To deprive students from hearing all viewpoints in their best form, university administrations are in effect hindering the ability of the student to exercise their autonomous judgment, ultimately preventing the student from reaching their own conclusions, whatever they may be, on their own terms.

In a similar vein, in his article “Restoring American Cultural Institutions,” Jerry Martin states, “The degree to which professors feel compelled to refrain from saying in public things they say (to their best friends) in private is extraordinary. It can only be compared to how intellectuals behave in dictatorships.” Essentially, politically correct speech policies do not allow educators to express controversial opinions on sensitive and important social affairs, restricting students from encouraging and hosting uninhibited discourse within the classroom environment and ultimately vitiating academic freedom as a result. By threatening the livelihoods of educators, with or without tenure, who do not comply with the politically correct ideology, university administrations warrant a title commonly associated with dictatorships: Thought Police. Martin goes on in his article to point out that even organizations as notable as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have failed to protect academic freedom because they did not stand up against speech codes and other forms of political correctness enforced on campus.

Most would agree that UCLA has not yet reached “Gestapo” levels of PC enforcement. In fact, as it now stands, UCLA is the only UC campus that does not have a diversity requirement in its general elective curriculum. However, traces of the influence concerns stemming from political correctness policies have had on UCLA are readily apparent. Flynn points out that, UCLA academics were given a $2 million federal grant from the Department of Education to write the National History Standards. In order to stress the country’s racism, the KKK was mentioned 17 times, while Samuel Adams, Thomas Edison, and the Wright Brothers were omitted completely. The American Revolution was compared to the uprisings in China and Cuba, and even the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. While the motives of UCLA and the Department of Education in this case are certainly debatable, it is nonetheless important to place these relationships and collaborative efforts under intense scrutiny and bring questionable intentions to the attention of the public.

Political correctness in its most potent form eradicates important voices and principles that helped to establish America and are at the foundation of Western culture in general. Conversely, a traditional curriculum in its most extreme form overlooks the contributions other cultures have made to the development of the West along with the role they play in making Western culture what it is today. When considering freedom of speech and thought, on the one hand, political correctness if left unchecked has the potential to greatly inhibit the expression of different viewpoints along with the discussion of affairs that are even remotely provocative. On the other hand, completely unregulated speech can set the stage for an uncomfortable learning environment that discriminates against students who come from a multitude of different backgrounds. University administrations should make concerted efforts to protect speech that is intended to stimulate effective social discourse, and prevent speech that is uttered for the sole purpose of inciting conflict and offending those who the speech is directed at. Furthermore, while it is undoubtedly important for universities to design a curriculum that acknowledges the multifarious cultures present in contemporary American society, they should not be included at the expense of voices that were vital to the expression of values that ultimately formed the naissance of American society itself.

Links
Closson, Don. “Political Correctness and Postmodernism.” 1998.
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/Polcor/PC2.htm

Humphreys, Debra. “Political Correctness: The Truth About Diversity and Tolerance in Higher
Education.” 2000. http://www.diversityweb.org/research_and_trends/political_legal_issues
/politics_campus_diversity/pc_briefing.cfm

Lind, Bill. “The Origins of Political Correctness.” Transcript of Accuracy in Academia address,
2000. http://www.academia.org/lectures.html

Wallace, James. “Campus Speech Codes: Civility or Tyranny?” 1994.
http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/essays/pccodes.html

Wikipedia. Online encyclopedia explanation of political correctness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness