Crowbar at the Ready
This post initially started out as a candid question about a specific controversial issue — one that I had hoped would ignite discussion and help me understand the issue better. After pitching the original idea to some family members, the feedback I received led me to reconsider, for there is a risk. I don’t want to put my reputation or career on the line over some uncompensated writing done in my spare time.
However, that discussion with my family got me thinking and led to a related idea for an essay topic: Why are some ideas considered so objectionable (or at the other extreme, infallible) that they’re outside the scope of good faith discussion and interrogation? Should these even exist in a society that values freedom of speech?
In lieu of the unspecified issue alluded to earlier, I would like to explore these “meta” questions instead. I believe a truly free society should have no such “sacred cows.” Anything and everything should be open to inquiry — especially the kinds of topics that are liable to get people riled up.
I recently learned about a concept that applies well to this discussion. It is called the Overton window — named for its coiner, Joseph Overton — and it refers to the set of policies voters will deem acceptable solutions to some problem.
An example (pictured to the left) on the website for the think tank where Joseph Overton worked considers education: At one extreme of the spectrum is complete abolition of public schools; on the other, compulsory education in public school. Some subset of the policies in between those two extremes is considered palatable by the voting public. This subset is the Overton window — and take note: The window moves around over time as public opinion changes.
Now, hold on to that thought about the Overton window for just a moment. To make this discussion topical, over the past few months, I have come to believe that a significant portion of the populism we’re seeing in the United States (and Europe, too) is driven by opposition to political correctness. Here’s what I see…
I think lots of ideas have become taboo because PC activists have spent the past two decades or so progressively narrowing the Overton window. They accomplished this feat by deeming everyone else’s ideas racist, bigoted, and oppressive.
Any policies that didn’t comport with the desires of these activists (namely, just about all views outside of the far left) were tainted with the label of “oppressive.” Thus, many formerly-acceptable ideas became verboten through guilt by association. After all, no kind, compassionate person wants to be seen as an oppressor!
Here is just one example of an idea that’s become taboo: Check out this video of Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union address and fast-forward to 45:30, where you will hear Clinton advocating stern immigration policies. How did Congress respond? With enthusiastic applause.
Imagine if a speech like that were given today! No public figure could get away with it. Reporters and bloggers would be tripping over themselves to express their disgust and call out the speaker’s blatant bigotry. You can almost envision The Huffington Post running an outraged and outrageous headline like “Clinton Has Taken A Page Straight From The Hitler Playbook.”
Yet for all the talk about tolerance and diversity, the PC movement has shown little tolerance for diversity of opinion. People have been ousted from their jobs for what amounts to thought crimes, even when their beliefs had no bearing on qualifications for the job.
Case in point: Even though I would argue in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage, I fail to see how Brendan Eich’s opposition to it disqualified him from being CEO of Mozilla. He had years of history with the company and worked his way up the corporate ladder. Why should his opinion on Prop 8 matter as an executive at a software company?
It’s especially worrying seeing this kind of censorship on university campuses. Of all places, universities should be all about critical thinking, challenging dogma, and asking questions. We are doing students an intellectual disservice by letting them “disinvite” or shout down speakers whose ideas they find offensive.
Last year, Yale professor Erika Christakis raised some questions about the university’s Halloween costume guidelines. The reaction from students was so hostile that she (and her husband — also a professor at Yale) had to resign. In her words:
“I didn’t leave a rewarding job and campus home on a whim. I lost confidence that I could continue to teach about vulnerable children in an environment where full discussion of certain topics — such as absent fathers — has become almost taboo.”
Does that sound like a world-class university where controversial ideas are discussed openly? I think not, and there are plenty of other examples of professors and speakers fearing speaking their minds on college campuses. For curious readers, the nonprofit organization The FIRE keeps track of such incidents.
As a quick aside, I don’t think it’s any coincidence that lots of these clashes are happening at universities. A Pew survey from late 2015 shows US millennials, more than any other age group, favor the ability for government to censor offensive statements about minorities (see chart to the left).
Superficially, for a while, things seemed to be working out well for the PC crowd with its opposition cowed into silence. But if you dug deeper, you would find discontent brewing. Dissenters had been silenced, but not convinced.
Over the years, political correctness made enemies on countless disparate issues. It eventually got to the point where enough people had been alienated that they could unite — not in favor of their pet issue, but rather in their opposition to political correctness.
This group is now becoming mainstream, and its members wield metaphorical crowbars with which they intend to pry the Overton window wide open. They are eager to see controversial topics up for discussion.
Frankly, I’m glad the tide seems to be turning against political correctness.
While I still don’t feel emboldened enough to you what I wanted to say in my original essay, I will confess to this: I’m becoming very sympathetic to the anti-PC line of thinking. I would argue preventing people from speaking their minds is itself an egregious form of oppression. Why else do you think totalitarian governments visibly and harshly punish those who dare speak out their regimes?
Of course, I realize we’re not talking about governmental censorship here, but the effects are similar: Political correctness is being used as a pretext to stifle debate on controversial topics. We need these debates. When I find myself reluctant to ask a good-faith question about a concern I have, fearing my reputation could be permanently damaged, that suggests something is wrong here.
Try putting yourself in the shoes of the person holding a controversial opinion. Would you renounce your views after someone prevents you from making your case? Hell no — being shut down is no refutation of your argument! If anything, you’re going to feel pissed off.
I want controversial ideas out in the open — and you should too. That’s the best way (and only way, for that matter) to confront them peacefully. Poorly-supported arguments will be pushed into irrelevance, where they belong.
If you insist on shouting down those whose views you find oppressive, here’s what you’re going to end up with: People won’t simply abandon their attitudes; they will resort to discussing these things in private or anonymous fora — places where the participants have already self-selected for their beliefs. “Echo chamber” is an apt descriptor for such a place.
The ideas you so detest won’t be challenged much there — if at all. Instead, they quietly gain traction until they have a critical mass of support, whereupon the whole countermovement explodes into the mainstream. Then comes chaos.
The PC “establishment” is shocked by the sudden influx of fringe ideas, wondering where all the hatred came from. All the while, the anti-PC crowd is livid about having been excluded from the debate all those years. The PC people resume the accusations of oppression, which only pisses off and emboldens the anti-PCs even further. And so things spiral out of control.
I think this is what we’re seeing right now, and I must ask: Is this what we want? Call me presumptuous, but I bet not. The good news is there’s an easy way to head this all off: Let controversial ideas be expressed. Letting someone speak is not tantamount to agreement with or even approval of their words. If you don’t like what they have to say, put up a better argument to win over hearts and minds.
In closing, I would like to leave you with some words on this subject from one who is much more eloquent than I: Dr. Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He became a lightning rod for the controversy over political correctness late last year for refusing to use certain gendered pronouns.
Speaking in defense of offensive ideas (@ 11:55), Peterson said, “…freedom of speech means that you can have combat with words…it doesn’t mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions… [hurt feelings are acceptable because] the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat.”
I’d much rather have a war with words than a war with weapons.
