Tom:
While I agree that there is not a concerted movement behind PC, there are people and organizations out there who are willing to trample the concept of free speech for the purpose of eliminating what they perceive to be hate speech or politically incorrect speech. Denying that there are idiots on both sides of the issue does not strengthen your argument."
I’m not sure in what sense you think I’m “Denying that there are idiots.” Throughout this thread, I’ve used words like “inept,” “wrong-headed,” “oversensitive,” and “foul” to describe foolish behavior of one kind or another. In what sense is that denial?
You also mistake me if you think that, on the whole, I advocate censorship or deny the existence of organized groups determined to censor. I know that public libraries have to deal with this issue all the time. These assaults come from all over the political spectrum.
What I am denying is that there are “sides” to this “issue” for there to be idiots neatly distributed around. And what I’m also arguing, most strenuously, is that “the issue” itself, which really involves several issues, can usefully be called “political correctness.” In my opinion it cannot.
One reason I object to that designation is that it imputes a coherent political agenda that is often entirely absent to relatively isolated episodes of people behaving stupidly. Another reason I object to it is that the term is almost exclusively used to criticize people who either stand for some left position, or are seen to. If we are talking about censorship, let’s call it that and let’s admit that there is a great deal of censorship emanating from various right-leaning positions. But by talking about “political correctness” as a coherent phenomenon on the left, reasonable calls for civility end up being tarred with the brush of stupid gaffes, or problematic censorship policies. And a double standard ensues. (Yes it’s outrageous for a man to resign b/c of an innocent use of the term “niggardly”; but why should a member of an administration have to resign because she mentions masturbation?)
Let’s take the very specific example of speech on campuses. I’m not an expert on this policy by any means, though I’ve heard my share of debate back when it was raging in the early 90s. From what I understand, university administrations typically see themselves as different from, say, shopping malls, since they are in loco parentis, (in the place of parents). They have codes of conduct that exceed basic legal statute. So, for example, copying your roommate’s homework, or purchasing a paper from an outside writer, may be against the university’s code, though not against the law.
As to the “water buffalo” incident which occurred in 1993 (and did not hit my radar at that time or since). The link you posted isn’t as full as I could wish since it doesn’t give the administrator the chance to explain her position. On the surface of things, I would agree that she probably acted inappropriately: what the student said simply isn’t a racial slur, and the whole context seems unlikely to describe harassment in any meaningful sense (he all alone, sorority sisters en masse).
If this was some planned sorority event he might have, at worst, used bad judgment for not just picking up and going to the library rather than yelling at entire sorority in the midst of some outdoor performance. But bad judgement and racism are two very different things. They shouldn’t be confused and insofar as they are, I’m as opposed to it as anyone else.
The more serious debate here, I think, is to do with the speech code that was introduced in 1987 (see link). Was it the culprit here
and if it was, how can campuses can encourage the civil environment they hope to achieve without such problematic codes?
Personally, I’m even more interested in the Wisconsin case (“niggardly” in the Chaucer class). In this article from the school’s paper the impression we get is that the perceived offense was felt very strongly by the student, when the word was used, and when it was used again to explain its actual meaning. (I’d like to know more about what happened when the faculty senate met to address the problem; so I don’t want to weigh in on the subject as though all the facts are in. I just don’t have the time to research further now.)
Given what I know now, what I’m struck by is the sense this student went through an experience that many professors could not have predicted. I think the professor behaved entirely credibly, and it doesn’t sound like there was any disciplinary action against him. But I also believe that the student felt really badly and felt herself as being isolated as the only minority in the class: she was hurt by what she believed he had said, then possibly embarrassed when she learned of her mistake, and then upset again because, as he tried to rectify misunderstanding, he reopened the issue for her.
In this case especially, I’d say that we learn almost zero by characterizing this as a case of “political correctness” run amok and go on the hunt for “idiots” responsible. We’re also not really talking about censorship here, but about what professors can and should do to make their students feel comfortable and respected.
I care a great deal about academic freedom and when various trustees, and Lynn Cheney singled out professors who spoke at peace ralleys in the wake of 9/11, and called for the revoking of their tenure, I was disgusted.
I would also be disgusted if the Wisconsin professor had been disciplined for use of ambiguous language or some such thing (and I gather that was not the case).
"As with Mr. Howard and “niggardly,” good sense may have triumphed in the end, but there has certainly been unjustified abuse heaped on innocent people in the name of opposing hate speech.
"
Indeed, unjustified abuse was heaped on Mr. Howard, who by all accounts was entirely innocent, in the name of opposing hate speech.
But, to repeat my point, to characterize such episodes in terms of a widespread “political correctness” that is raging in multifarious forms inhibits rather than enhances understanding of what is at stake.
You generally seem to agree that the behaviors we’re labelling as PC are bad, you just disagree that they all stem from the same mind-set. I think it’s telling that most of these behaviors are popping up at the same time, though - I don’t think these sorts of things were really widespread until 10-15 years ago, or so.
).