“It is no longer cool to be politically correct in America.”
So begins an exceptionally banal defense of censorship political correctness courtesy of Cornell Daily Sun columnist Emily Hardin ’16, which goes on to sing praises of PC despite acknowledging all the detrimental effects it has on free speech and the development and exchange of ideas. In fact, there is little point in articulating a point-by-point rebuttal of Ms. Hardin’s column, as she often prefaces or concludes each of her pro-PC arguments with an anti-PC one. The latter ones, of course, are mostly sprinkled in as mere afterthoughts or throw-away comments, so I decided to highlight of a few of the pro-PC arguments here with additional rebuttals.
Claim: “Instead of advancing a meaningful dialogue, the declaration of an argument as overly PC has become a way to shut down a conversation entirely.”
Alternatively put: Referring to a word, phrase, or argument as PC in order to discredit it is a tool used by those in privileged positions to silence their opposition.
Truth: The exact opposite is true. The declaration of an argument as lacking PC has become a way to shut down a conversation entirely, almost always based on superficial reasons related to “hurt feelings” or similar rhetorical niceties ill-afforded in the real world. For example, the recent faux-controversy over the term “anchor babies” has many in the liberal media with their heads reeling. But are the ones calling for the retirement of this phrase also the ones calling for an end to or the never-ending expansion of PC censorship? Fighting back against PC censorship isn’t about stopping the conversation–it’s about trying to keep it alive.
Claim: “[W]hen the guise of free speech begins to encompass the protection of blatantly sexist, homophobic and racist words and actions, we must evaluate the implications of this unchecked freedom on a wider scale.”
Alternatively put: All speech is free, but some speech is more equal than other speech.
Truth: There are very few people who in serious settings use blatantly sexist, homophobic, and racist words and actions; the few who do are usually reprimanded in the appropriate manner. But, as is often how the political left operates, certain violations of the norm are illegitimately extrapolated and used in their kangaroo kourts to indict entire groups of heinous wrongdoing. PC applies this unforgiving and often tyrannical way of looking at things to the idea of free speech, with disturbing results. Hardin thinks speech is too free while employing her very right of free speech to argue such. This is irony and hypocrisy at its richest. What comes next is the rise of those–whether they be bureaucrats, the military, the Church, etc.–who become the arbiters of allowable speech. Whenever anyone speaks of “unchecked freedoms” be wary of the implication: He (or she–we’re being politically correct after all, right?) who identifies the unchecked freedom almost always thinks he should be in the position of checking it to his advantage.
Claim: “The reality is that political correctness is an incredibly awkward but necessary way to foster inclusion in public spaces.”
Alternatively put: You can’t go outside unless people’s speech has been censored according to the arbitrary whimsies of society’s most sensitive.
Truth: If someone is making threatening statements at you or a group you’re a part of or is using truly traumatizing language (i.e. invoking memories of experiences in war or sexual assault), that is case to fear entering the same space as the verbal assailant. However, if one’s words are anything less than threatening or traumatizing–i.e. merely irritating, unsettling, embarrassing, or distasteful–then there really isn’t more to say than “grow up.”
To conclude, “Why Political Correctness Matters” has morphed PC policing from its reality as a tool of political obfuscation and silencing to the fantasy of some sort of oppressor-oppressed power dynamic wherein PC, of all possibilities, is the oppressed. Truly fascinating. Truly disturbing.
