From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The nature of enlightenment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:25:29

In article <9208140114.AA09798@coventry.Corp.Sun.COM> Lisa.Levine@Corp.Sun.COM (Lisa Levine) writes:

   The (Clayton) Cramer thread appears to have split many
   r.a.b.ers into two groups--one staunchly supporting the 
   right to be "politically incorrect," the other labeled "PC."

   Whatever one's beliefs, I've noticed a curious thing
   here and in other newsgroups: The backlash against the
   perceived "PC movement" seems to stem from a belief
   that the "incorrect" folks are in the minority, defending
   their independent thinking from a huge horde of censorious
   (drum-beating, overly-sensitive, new age) people hell-bent
   on depriving them of their basic rights.  The PCers, on
   the other hand, seem to feel _they_ are in the minority,
   barely making inroads in "enlightening" the masses.

   Each group seems to feel threatened, persecuted, and
   _outnumbered_ by the other.  (What are the facts? Can we have 
   a show of hands? A Harper's Index?)  Perhaps that's why so 
   many discussions seem to end up on a defensive note.  (Or maybe
   that's what makes for a "good discussion" in the first place?)

   (Here she falls off soapbox, spits, adjusts suspenders
   and lopes into sunset.) 

   Lisa 

On the Stanford Campus, the PC are in power in the administration
and mostly on the student newspaper.  What the actual majority is,
no-one knows.  Doubtless, the most strongly PC don't feel that they
are in power, because they feel that whatever has been done isn't
nearly enough.

However, some feel themselves in power.  A woman named Sharon Power is
the the Director of the office of multiculturalism (lower case because
I forget the exact title).  She issued a pronouncement that
multiculturalism was to imbue every area of education and research.  I
put in a phone call to her with the intention of kvetching at her that
we would like to do the right thing, but we didn't know what was
expected of us in computer science research.  Whatever she said, I
planned to ask in as worried a tone as I could muster what were the
penalties for not doing it.

She eventually returned my phone call, but I was out.  It isn't
clear that I could manage to hold the right whining tone.
Anyway too much time has elapsed since the pronouncement
for me to revive the matter.  I must wait for another pronouncement.

Needless to say, the proliferation of such officials raises the
cost of tuition.  Hmm, do you suppose the inclusion of research
in the set of activities that must become multicultural lets them
charge part of Sharon Power's salary to overhead costs on research
grants.

In the Computer Science Department, there are three who occasionally
make sarcastic remarks about PC in messages and no-one who
replies indignantly.  Perhaps we've beat them down, but more
likely there aren't any PC enthusiasts.  Why, we still have a
chairman.

Maybe the English Department is more explicitly PC, but
I don't have any actual evidence.

More likely, explicit PC has become unfashionable among those
who like to consider themselves sophisticated and of independent
mind.  Sophisticated and independent people are more affected
by fashion than anyone else.  The PC side has no-one to make
fun of their foes with a talent to match P. J. O'Rourke, and
we're holding Tom Wolfe in reserve.

My impression is that in many other schools, the power of PC
is more explicit and making fun of it is actually punished
in various ways.  If Clayton Cramer were in government,
Tom Maddox might have been able to force him to apologize abjectly
for saying "gal" on pain of being fired.

Certainly, either side can find places where it is a persecuted
minority, and this gives it the right to persecute fiercely where
it is in power.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.