From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness
Summary: There are several things to consider.
Keywords: politics, offense, incorrect, `Woof!'
Organization: Wheaton Alumna Professors at Rowan College, Inc
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog is _very_ politically incorrect.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:19:41 GMT


One of our Masochistic Listowners, Steven Klepzig, inadvertently started a
short thread on so-called `political correctness'.  Wanting it to remain
relevant to Christia's charter should the thread continue, he had some
questions to guide a discussion.  The discussion died down, so I never posted
my answers.  However, Ian Williams has just asked if someone could sum up the
issue in 100 words or less.  I can't do that -- some things just can't be
stuffed into a nutshell -- but I tried to be terse with my earlier answers.
Here they are:

> What is P.C.?
> Does P.C. actually exist?

So far as I am able to make out, political correctness is a standard whereby
you avoid saying anything that might offend anyone -- including the use of
terms which could be considered insulting.  I am not sure of the etymology,
but I wouldn't be suprised that it has something to do with the conduct of
politics: a politician tries to avoid offending anyone, for obvious reasons.

Skipping around the existential problems of whether a concept `exists', I'll
answer the second question by saying that there are people who oppose anything
that might be vaguely offensive to anyone, sometimes vocally.  The single best
example I can think of comes from my alma mater, the University of Maryland at
College Park.  During last year's Persian Gulf War, many people in the US
displayed the country's flag as a show of support.  But at UMD, it was deemed
that this display of support for Operation Desert Storm might be insulting to
non-US citizens who felt that our involvement in the war was improper.  To
prevent this possible offense, University officials banned any display of the
US flag in dormitories on campus.  (As you might expect, there was a firestorm
of controversy and the ban was lifted within a week.)

Similar isolated examples can be found, and a more general trend appears in
terms like "people of color" to describe those who used to be `black', who
were `colored' before that.  There is also "developmentally challenged" for
people who were once called `mentally retarded', and "physically challenged"
for people who used to be called `handicapped'.

Some observers think the trend is getting silly, and there are parodies such
as "person of gender" for `female' and "metabolically challenged" for `dead'.

At the same time, some colleges with rules about offensive speech do take
action against those who violate the sanctions, and that's not silly at all.
My own view is that you have no right to shut anyone up, no matter how
offensive he may be.  I think colleges with sanctions on offensive speech do
their students no favors -- you might get someone in trouble for calling you
a name this year, but what about later?  After you graduate, if someone on the
street calls you a name, will you call the police?  College is a place for
people to grow up -- I think the colleges should not play Mother Hen and
protect students from anything that might offend them.

I personally think that political correctness is a hopeless cause.  Any word
you use to politely refer to some subgroup will, sooner or later, be used as
an insult.  Once the word has insulting connotations, you'll have to come up
with a new one -- which will also be used as an insult.  The chase will never
end; you'll never come up with words that stay polite.  So far as I'm
concerned, polite people should not surrender words to those who would use
them as insults.  (This is an interesting reversal of what happened with words
like `Quaker'.  Strange how humans turn polite terms into insults and insults
into polite terms.)

 --

The rest of Mr Klepzig's questions dealt with how Christians should react to
political correctness, so I'll ramble a bit on the general topic instead of
responding exactly to his questions.

Some basic principles of Christian belief are simply offensive, and that can't
be fixed or wiggled around by euphemisms.  If you believe that people are
sinful (and I do), then there's no way to say that without offending somebody.
There are those who simply don't want to consider that they do/think immoral
things, and no circumlocutions will make the notion of sin acceptable to them.
Surely Christians should be the leaders in polite speech free of offensive
words or loaded phrases (an area in which we fail miserably to lead, as in so
many others), but we shouldn't compromise our beliefs to the notion of being
inoffensive.

We should always be aware of others' sensibilities.  If there is some term
that you discover offends people, and its use is not essential to making your
points, then you should not use it.

At the same time, people should be aware of how words can slant ideas, and how
euphemisms change the emotional impact of words.  For example, what was once
called "shell shock" is now "post-traumatic stress disorder".  It can be
argued that the latter term is more strictly accurate, since not all people
are affected by shelling, and other kinds of trauma can produce it.  But at
the same time, we've traded two syllables for eight.  We've traded a term that
directly reminds us of war for one that has nothing military in it.  There is
a different set of emotional baggage in `shell shock', and using p-t-s-d may
distance us so far from the person's experiences that we lose our empathy.
This isn't important enough to worry about, but it is important enough to pay
attention to.  We should always try to see past the words to the meaning that
is being conveyed, and not just take verbal descriptions at face value.


So far, I have never been involved in a situation where political correctness
directly affected me.  However, I've heard some stories of situations where
opinions that happen to be widely shared among Christians were declared
`politically incorrect', or situations where certain kinds of discrimination
were declared improper, to the detriment of Christians having the freedom to
follow their religious principles.  Until a few years ago, US courts said that
the First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom unless the State had a
`compelling interest'.  But a recent Supreme Court decision involving Native
American practices eliminated the necessity for compelling interest; a law can
now restrict religious freedom with no good reason.

At one time, churches could be confident in not having to hire homosexuals
because doing so would violate their religious principles.  A homosexual who
was discriminated against in hiring would have no chance of winning a suit
against a church.  But if laws can restrict religious freedom without a
compelling interest, then Christian churches could be forced to hire
homosexuals.  Similarly, denominations that use wine at services could safely
step around rules about giving alcohol to people under the drinking age -- but
without the `compelling interest' rule, this practice is no longer protected.
The irony is that some Christians wanted the SC to restrict the Native
American religion, but now are unhappy that similar restrictions may soon
befall them.  (The Golden Rule in action.)

I don't expect living in the US to ever equal the Roman Empire, of course.
And I think it is insulting to those who truly suffered when we call what
happens here `persecution' -- people say they've been persecuted after
somebody calls them nasty names or swears at them.  (I often think people in
the US are incredibly soft.)  But at the same time, I recognise that our
religious practices may come under increasing pressure.  Some of that pressure
is a kind of poetic justice, I think: the Christians who wanted infringement
of Native American religions will also get infringement of Christianity.  "He
who lives by the sword..."


Wresting all this back to political correctness, I think that when Christians
are hampered by laws or rules about offensive speech, they should work within
them while trying to have them changed.  Intentionally breaking the rules is
not acceptable to me except in severe circumstances.  Those who are active in
politics should probably work to ensure religious liberty in all cases for all
religions (except severe circumstances like human sacrifice), if not for the
moral considerations then for the practical ones.


There are two things that I think should be carefully avoided:

 a) Describing the problem in overly-simple terms, such as the claim that
    "Political incorrectness is any idea, theory, or belief that implies or
    advocates monotheism."  It is true that many adherents of monotheistic
    religion believe things that are politically incorrect, but a polytheist
    who espoused similar moral principles would be just as incorrect.  It is
    easy to think that others are bothered by you for noble reasons, like your
    firm religious beliefs or your unshaking moral character -- but lots of
    people bother me for reasons that have more to do with self-righteous
    arrogance, superiority complexes, judgmental attitudes, and stupid
    arguments.  It's always worth considering that people may be bothered by
    you for reasons that are not very noble.

 b) Attributing complaints or difficulties to `political correctness' and
    dismissing them.  It has been said that the term `people of color' is
    silly and pointless, and that `black' serves just as well.  But few who
    make this argument would use `nigger', another word that was in common
    use for a long time.  Political Correctness has some silly aspects to it,
    and has sometimes been carried to ridiculous lengths.  But the original
    notion, that we should try not to be offensive, has a lot of merit.


Anyway, that's my ramble.  Go back to your corners and come out fighting.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"At some time in my life, `toilet paper' became `bathroom tissue'."
                                                           -- George Carlin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU