On November 14, Cornellians gathered in Malott Hall to listen to Prof. William A. Jacobson and Prof. Samuel Nelson discuss political correctness on campus. In the debate that ensued, both professors put forth arguments that all Cornellians should take into consideration when considering issues of free speech.
On one hand, Prof. Jacobson argued that, in practice, political correctness entails the shutting down of alternative viewpoints–a pattern which he believes often undermines the foundational value of free speech.
Prof. Nelson, on the other hand, argued that political correctness simply entails being more inclusive and sensitive to the feelings of others.
Prof. Nelson is correct in that college campuses should strive to be more inclusive, especially of previously marginalized groups. For example, words that may offend broad groups of people may understandably be curbed– if anything, doing so is simply the nice thing to do. And all Cornellians should, in my opinion, strive to be nice.
But Prof. Jacobson is also correct in saying that the power to declare something politically incorrect is a power we should use with caution. After all, who gets to declare speech politically insensitive? How can we be sure that these arbiters are and will continue to be in the right? These are important questions to consider when weighing free speech and political correctness, even if you generally agree with the current sentiments of these arbiters.
But regardless of which Professor you agree with, the fact is that at least two thirds of students today self-censor, according to recent surveys– a huge problem for universities that should ideally be hotbeds of intellectual debate. Indeed, it’s difficult to live up to that reputation when the vast majority of students aren’t comfortable with speaking their minds.
At Cornell, it’s up to us to address this problem. It isn’t practical to go all in on free speech or political correctness, if only due to the fact that the vast majority of students will never agree on either. What we all can do, however, is to sympathize with the side with which we disagree.
That means going to debates such as this one and recognizing that the discussion surrounding political correctness and free speech is less clear cut than we might prefer.
Ultimately, when faced with issues of free speech, the responsibility of balancing that fundamental right with our commitment to inclusivity and kindness falls on us. It’s hard to say how exactly this balance should be struck. If anything, the answer will most likely vary from person to person on a case-by-case basis.
For that reason, I will neither condone nor disavow political correctness in this piece– I leave that highly personal decision up to each of you.
What is important to remember, however, is that we should always assume others disagree for entirely legitimate reasons. To be sure, free speech is often used as an excuse to act in bad faith, which is probably the reason why so many Americans today are so distrustful of the country’s relatively tolerant regulations on speech. But we lose a lot when we assume everyone is acting with ill intent, and we ensure that two thirds of Cornellians will continue to stay silent.
So let us remember that free speech is a fragile thing, and that it’s up to each of us to ensure that we’re fostering an environment where our fellow Cornellians feel comfortable. In the end, regardless of whether you agree with Prof. Jacobson or Prof. Nelson, it’s important to perform a balancing act between their two viewpoints.
This article was originally published in the Cornell Review’s semesterly print edition: Semester in Review.
