Political Correctness (5 posts)
1. Political Correctness
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 4:21 AM/EST
Tyler
OK, I'll start the often mentioned / never created PC thread. I'll start by giving you guys an interesting quote from a Jon Katz column in which he is describing examples of the "New Censors:
"
Sarah Lawrence College found a student guilty of harassment for "laughing" when he heard another student call a young man, a former roommate with whom he had feuded, a "faggot." Without being permitted to confront his accuser, the student who laughed and the one who used the term were found guilty of creating a "hostile and intimidating atmosphere" and sentenced to one year's social probation and 20 hours of community service.
Furthermore, the school required both of the "offending" students to view a videotape called "Homophobia," read a publication, Homophobia on Campus, and write a paper on homophobia.
One R.A. who didn't want to watch a sexually explicit film on gay life because of his religious convictions lost his position. The University of Maryland-College Park lists among "unacceptable verbal behaviors ... idle chatter of a sexual nature," "graphic sexual descriptions; sexual slurs, sexual innuendos," "comments about a person's clothing, body, and/or sexual activities," "sexual teasing," "suggestive or insulting sounds such as whistling, wolf-calls, or kissing sounds," "sexually provocative compliments about a person's clothes," "comments of a sexual nature about weight, body shape, size or figure," "comments or questions about the sensuality of a person, or his/her spouse or significant other," "pseudo-medical advice such as 'You might be feeling bad because you didn't get enough' or 'A little Tender Loving Care (TLC) will cure your ailments," "telephone calls of a sexual nature," "stage whispers" or "mimicking of a sexual nature about the way a person walks, talks [or] sits." Furthermore, said the university, to constitute harassment these remarks don't necessarily have to be directed at a specific individual. They can simply be uttered out loud.
"
What are people's reactions to these types of policies? Are they too extreme? What, if anything, should be done about the problems they serve to address? Just a couple of things to think about.
BTW:
The rest of this article can be found at:
http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1998/10/22katz.asp
I would recommend that everybody read some of Katz's stuff, if you haven't already. Several of his articles give great examples of political correctness taken too far. (He used to write for WIRED's Netizen web site, but now writes for the Freedom Forum)
2. PC
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 10:41 AM/EST
JimP
I honestly believe that PC has, or had in its origins, good motives. It is, however, an example of good motives being incrementally implemented to become bad policy. It is a case of what would have been previously been called politeness, courtesy, or perhaps decorum, installed as some governmental body's official policy.
Publishing organizations, or associations who publish their member's articles, may have guidelines for language that they do not allow in their publications, It is perfectly acceptable, to me, for the Journal of ____ (fill in the blank) to state in their guidelines that use of certain slang, pejorative, or degrading language is not acceptable. But, when an organization such as Sarah Lawrence, or the University of Maryland, begins to outline specific phrases or language that is not acceptable, we begin to move into the arena of censorship. In the first place, not even the most exacting lawyer, semanticist, and politician can define EVERY phrase or word that a person, or group, may find objectionable.
I've often, within my circle of friends and acquaintances , stated that life is incremental. I believe it is. Very few of us, to use a spiritual comparison, reach our religious positions through a blinding flash of light, or epiphany. Most of us arrive there through incremental advances, sometimes retreating one step for every two taken forward.
Death may also be incremental. It is, in my opinion, through incremental limitations on freedom that all freedom is lost. I once had a black friend tell me that when blacks are allowed to have their scoundrels, as whites have, then we will all truly be free. Similarly, as long we are not allowed to have the scoundrels of speech, there is no freedom of speech. Repeating from another thread, this is where the ACLU is so valuable.
3. I see red!
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 11:35 AM/EST
Gayle
PC, plain and simply, is an erosion of the First Amendment. PC assumes that everyone is inherently a victim and needs to be protected from everyone and everything. PC assumes every utterance is verbal abuse. PC assumes people are too weak-minded to defend themselves against words.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That was taught by family, in an attempt to strengthen our characters for the day we entered the cold, cruel world. It was a first step in learning how to stand up for ourselves. In other words, how not to be thin skinned and fall into the 'victim syndrome'.
It's a sad situation when every spoken word is suspect: when every compliment can be construed as harassment: when every remark can be seen as a slur. We are only victims of words if we allow ourselves to be. There is no place for censorship in a free society.
What's next? The Bad Thought Police?
4. A Surface Solution
Sat, Jan 16, 1999 - 8:10 PM/EST
Crispus
Personally, as a person who is considered black, I resent policies that restrict speech in an attempt to protect me. If an individual thinks one way or the other about me or my ethnicity, I want them to feel free to say it, rather than build resentment over being muzzled. How can any progress in understanding our fellow citizens be made if language is restricted? Such policies will only serve as fuel to bigots when the wheel comes around and it's their turn to write policy.
5. Fuel for bigots?
Sun, Jan 17, 1999 - 12:23 PM/EST
McRostie
They don't need fuel Cirspus. The ones who raise the spectre of "political correctness" are quite possibly the worst bigots, the ones who seem to feel they have a corner on all that is right and good in society to the exclusion of all others.
Your idea is the right one. Let people say what they believe. Only in that way will we ever come to an understanding of what it is that is required to make this a better place.
Regards, McRostie
