A Response to “Political Correctness Is Essential to Productive Debate”
This article is a response to “Political Correctness Is Essential To Productive Debate” by Emily Fordice
In recent times, the idea of political correctness has been a major theme in the realm of Western politics. As Emily Fordice notes in her latest article, political correctness is defined as “avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive.”
In everyday discourse and conversation, people generally aim to be conscious of others. Upon reading the definition of political correctness, just about any person would approve of the notion of being kind and thoughtful to others. The idea of political correctness is, without a doubt, a benevolent one.
With that said, how do we avoid offending people? You might think, “by not saying offensive things.” Well, what constitutes offensive speech? What might people define as something that feels unkind? These questions lack definitive answers; they depend solely on the audience.
Given this audience basis, offensive speech can practically be anything that others deem offensive. In November 2015 at the University of South Carolina, Libertarian student groups held a free speech event that included numerous signs and posters. During the event, passing students read a sign that contained words that upset them, and promptly reported the incident to campus administration. Despite the fact that all of the signs were pre-approved by campus administration, the event organizers received student conduct charges due to the complaints.
PC culture is so pervasive in Western society––particularly on college campuses––that even if the authorities give approval to a message, one can still be held liable if someone else gets their feelings hurt. What good does this do us? Can anything be said without fear of retribution? Fordice expresses dissatisfaction with the fact that responsibility is put on the offended rather than the offender; how can it not be, when the offended alone dictate what is offensive?
The perpetuation of PC culture has made it nearly impossible to approach a topic, controversial or not, without risking being labelled a racist, sexist, bigot, or any other pejorative term. If someone does not believe in the 500 plus new genders created by Tumblr users, they are intolerant. If a person supports feminism in America they are heroes, but if they criticize abuses of women in the Middle East they are Islamophobic.
I myself was recently told I was sexist by a professor because I referred to a character in a scenario as a “secretary.” The professor wrote the scenario, and in the text itself labelled the character as a secretary simply to bait students into using it. Apparently the title of secretary, which I myself have held in multiple organizations, and one that is used to describe members of the President of the United States’ Cabinet, is offensive.
To many, particularly liberals, the concept of one’s right to not be offended is a one-way street. It’s acceptable for the left to label Dr. Ben Carson and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as “Uncle Toms” because they are Conservatives, but if you criticize former President Obama, you are labelled a racist. If an elementary school-aged white kid chews a pop-tart into the shape of a gun they are suspended, but if a minority kid brings what looks like a bomb to class they are a victim.
Beyond the scope of actually offending people, simply disagreeing with them could mean the end of your right to free speech. Conservatives, and not just the extreme brand like Milo Yiannopoulos, have been met with resistance on college campuses. In 2014 former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forced to abort her commencement speech at Rutgers University because of student opposition. Students were angered by her role in the Iraq War, and successfully prevented her from speaking because of their ideological differences. Apparently, the right to free speech is only limited to people you agree with.
What is legitimately offensive about political correctness is that it is one of the most patronizing movements in politics. Pandering to practically any marginalized part of society is heavily embraced by Liberal politicians; Hillary Clinton is a prime example. Granted, although unrelated to political correctness, Conservative politicians use similar tactics; criticizing Christians or questioning American exceptionalism prompts a harsh rebuke. For politicians, political correctness in modern times is more of a scam than an honest concern for decency.
Fordice is absolutely correct for her call for people to be more respectful, careful, and civil with their language. All should strive to become more inclusive communicators, and all should promote decency. Unfortunately, political correctness is not as simple as it sounds. What one feels is offensive or unkind is exactly what it is: what they feel. There is no clear standard as feelings are inherently personal. Feelings are not concrete, and thus should not measure how free speech can be restricted. We should not have to live in a world where we can have our rights restricted because we said something that someone else felt was offensive or unkind.
Political correctness has grown beyond a movement for decency and civility. What were originally the noble efforts of a well-intentioned group have evolved into a culture that results in Westerners being almost fearful to speak without backlash. Fordice claims that using offensive speech is the main barrier to effective dialogue; since anything can be offensive, she must be right.
