Contact
Subscribe


Political Correctness and Me

Nov 11, 2007
By .
Politics & Current Events

Recently I got in a mild argument elsewhere concerning political correctness, and it made me think more about how the term is used now.

I went to college and law school at the high tide of political correctness (or at least as I perceived) and at two of the most politically correct schools around. I once thought I knew what the term meant. For instance, when I joined the campus pro-choice group at Stanford (more out of base motives than ideological ones), I got in a dispute that led to my expulsion. I thought we should call the opposing group what they chose to be called, the Pro-Life Somethingorother. My colleagues in the pro-choice group insisted you could only call them the "Anti-Choice people" or some such; in other words that we should only use names to frame the issues in the way we wanted. My intransigence eventually led to my expulsion from the group. That struck me as political correctness.

Now, though, I'm not sure what it seems to mean. I hear complaints about political correctness all the time. In fact, I hear such complaints far more often than I actually encounter anything I recognize as political correctness. I'm not sure I understand the definition the complainers are using. Some people seem genuinely outraged at the prospect that if they act like a asshat they might get called an asshat. There seems to be a curious belief that the first speaker in any engagement is sacrosanct — that we should value the social right to say whatever one wants whether or not it is disagreeable, but not someone else's social right to disagree vigorously. Ironically, though such people like to say that we have all become too thin-skinned, they seem awfully sensitive to criticism.  Apparent lesson: talk first, talk fast? That doesn't make much sense.

And then there's the Walter-Mittyesque notion that political correctness is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy to squelch speech and transform society, and that its critics are on the front line of that glorious battle. Imagine 24 if Jack Bauer's enemies used the MLA Handbook instead of guns. "Damnit, Nina! Unless I can call people 'Oriental' without social consequence, millions of people are going to die!"

Look, there is genuinely contemptible political correctness around. The type that is worth caring about happens when people use actual power, great or petty, to enforce orthodoxy. See below. But if you act like a jackhole and people call you on it, you are not a victim of political correctness. You are a victim of being a jackhole. If you innocently (and without abject ignorance) use a term someone doesn't like and they jump all over you, you are not a victim of political correctness. You are a victim of that person being a jerk. If the person weren't being a jerk about that to you, they'd be being a jerk to you about something else. For Pete's sake — if I may be politically incorrect for a minute, man the fuck up, will you? Walk it off. Or get back in the person's face and argue that nobody rational would find whatever it was offensive. Or determine to be that guy who prides himself on saying "outrageous" things, so long as you live with the consequences without whining. But if you complain about being a victim of political correctness under such circumstances, please anticipate being ridiculed mercilessly.

Now, as an example of actual political correctness, I give you Brandeis University. Courtesy of the avocationally annoyed Ann Althouse , I saw this story of a Brandeis professor, a 47-year veteran of teaching, who endured an investigation and now endures a "class monitor" because two students complained about a statement in one of his lectures. What was his comment? He said “When Mexicans come north as illegal immigrants, we call them wetbacks.” The professor, who teaches on subjects relating to South and Central America, was rather clearly not saying that's what illegal immigrants are properly called or what they should be called. He was making an observation about how we treat people in those circumstances. But in some university settings, nuance, irony, sarcasm, and even accuracy are no excuse for saying things that in some context might offend someone. So after a procedure that bears little resemblance to due process, he's got an orthodoxy watcher in his classroom.

More on actual political correctness later this week, when — long after it's become a non-issue — I take up University of Delaware's experiment in dorm-based political reeducation.

Last 5 posts by Ken

5 Comments
Tags

5 Comments

  1. David  •  Nov 12, 2007 @6:53 am

    "There seems to be a curious belief that the first speaker in any engagement is sacrosanct — that we should value the social right to say whatever one wants whether or not it is disagreeable, but not someone else’s social right to disagree vigorously."

    So, for instance, some folks believe that it's OK to express a worldview defined by Mormon doctrine while pursuing the presidency, but some of those same folks do not believe that Richard John Neuhaus should exercise the right to disagree vigorously when evaluating presidential candidates.

    Good thing we're steering clear of political correctness. ;)

  2. Ken  •  Nov 12, 2007 @7:27 am

    Exactly. No, wait. Exactly not. ;)

    Criticizing Neuhaus' rationale for discouraging people to vote for a Mormon is not in any meaningful sense saying he should not exercise his rights. It's disagreeing with and criticizing that exercise. It's no more political correctness than you criticizing me for doing it is.

    Otherwise every single disagreement is potential political correctness. That was sort of my point.

  3. David  •  Nov 12, 2007 @7:30 am

    So you're maintaining that political correctness is manifest only in exercises of institutional authority aimed at silencing the unorthodox discourse, and not also in unofficial acts that reinforce and enable that authority?

    You're also one of those people who think editing only counts as censorship when undertaken by the state, right?

  4. Ken  •  Nov 12, 2007 @8:37 am

    Yes, with a but, or no, with an if.

    Part of my point is that "political correctness" has become so overused it appears to mean whatever its user wants it to mean. What its users most often seem to want it to mean is that it is wrong for their speech to be criticized — a completely different proposition than the more common and reasonable one that critics of their speech are wrong on the merits. That's not very meaningful and not a reason to care about a so-defined phenomenon.

    By contrast, exercise of institutional authority to promote orthodoxy is something to be more concerned about (though it is not necessarily wrong), and is distinguishable in a meaningful way from mere disagreement. I'm sure there are some "unofficial acts that reinforce and enable" such institutional authority, but question how prevalent they are. If I ridicule someone for calling my kids "Oriental," for example, that doesn't meaningfully reinforce some university someplace in disciplining a 90-year-old professor for doing the same thing. Similarly, when I criticize Neuhaus, I'm not reinforcing any authority because there isn't any. There's no prospect that Neuhaus will be sanctioned by the government for his expressed views. I didn't call for his publication to fire him, which might be seen as a call for the exercise of institutional authority. (It's unlikely that I would in that circumstance — if his writing offended me sufficiently, I'd probably just ridicule both him and the publication for its choice to run his writing). In the Brandeis example I gave, I suppose that students criticizing the professor meet your definition, as they are by their actions supporting institutional action — though it's a bit more complicated than that. (What if a student said he thought the professor acted like a jerk, but didn't support the professor being disciplined or monitored for it?)

    Finally, non-state action may meet the dictionary definition of "censorship." But I submit that non-institutional censorship is inherent in individual speech rights. Individuals and private entities are not public fora; they can't be, consistent with speech rights. If I can't kick someone out of my house for being an ass, how am I free?

    Let me turn the question around on you. Is there a principled definition of political correctness that defines a phenomenon we should care about?

  5. Ken  •  Nov 13, 2007 @11:16 am

    The blog at The Fire has a good discussion today pointing out that social sanctions are a perfectly acceptable alternative to official sanctions:

    The bullet:

    "At FIRE, I sometimes find myself in the disagreeable situation of defending expression that I dislike. I’m not defending it from any of these social punishments, which can be quite severe, as many people quickly learn. When I dislike a poster or a cartoon or something that offends me, I am glad to see that people who agree with me are letting others know (sometimes even under threats of legal action by those who can’t stand the attention). But I am defending the expression I dislike from the coercive power of a college or university that presumes to take punishment into its own hands.

    Social sanctions are plenty, and they are effective. University punishment for controversial expression, in contrast, is often unconstitutional, invasive of one’s private thoughts, out of proportion to the offense, and presented as though there is only one point of view—the university’s view—about whatever has been said."