# Political Correctness in our universities **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108 "2018-04-25T15:58:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/261 "2018-05-04T01:33:28Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course consumers should have the right to choose who they patronize. I also believe businesses have the right to refuse service as they wish. So we can have Whites Only restaurants and neighborhoods again? Businesses who can refuse to serve gays and liberals and black people? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/262 "2018-05-04T01:41:43Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > So we can have Whites Only restaurants and neighborhoods again? Businesses who can refuse to serve gays and liberals and black people? People can boycott for any reason. Businesses should be able to serve who they wish. Why should a business be forced to provide a good or service to a person who is dangerous, immoral, unethical, or some other undesirable trait? With facial recognition cameras and large databases it wouldn’t be hard to add troublemakers to a do not serve list that has nothing to do with skin hue. And aren’t you suppose to be fetching a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/263 "2018-05-04T01:54:36Z")
Why would I do that when everything you write shows “When Republicans do it, it’s right, when Democrats do it, they’re wrong.” Gloss over a history of civil rights violations that continue to this day and insist that people should just be able to refuse service to anyone and everything will be sunshine and daisy farts? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/264 "2018-05-04T02:07:13Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course consumers should have the right to choose who they patronize. I also believe businesses have the right to refuse service as they wish. They do, except for a few protected categories (race, religion, ethnicity, etc.) with a history of being denied service to the point that many (black folks in particular) were unable to travel, get housing, and other vital services. I think getting rid of these protected categories would lead to a new explosion in sundown towns (which still exist to some degree, Vidor TX being the example I’m most personally familiar with), meaning huge swaths of the country could be once again off limits to many Americans, which is why these laws are still necessary. > [@](#): > > Courts have found that. However, that doesn’t stop universities. They are making the cynical calculation that they won’t be challenged. It’s a bit analogous to civil forfeiture. Even though it’s immoral and crooked the cops know they can get away with and use the proceeds to buy tacticool gear and pretend to be military. But until the courts decide on a specific code or part of a code, we don’t know if it’s unconstitutional. I hope civil forfeiture is found unconstitutional soon, since it’s such a harmful practice, but until it is, it’s just a hope, not a fact. > [@](#): > > Again, you and many others miss the point that the magnitude of a response made possible by cheap modern mass communications has changed the environment. You currently don’t see it as a problem. You will if you live another 10 years. You’ll be like “hmm. that octopus sure was right about the speed and reach and overall ominpresence of data and weaponized outrage.” So you’re predicting the future. Good luck – lots of people do that. Your certainty isn’t convincing to me. “The sky is falling!” is generally unpersuasive without very solid evidence. > [@](#): > > We live in an age where stupid people can shame and politicize the dress a girl wears to a prom. And you don’t see how a populace encouraged and conditioned to seek outrage is not dangerous. Because this is way overblown. Are you talking about the Chinese dress? The vast majority of internet commenters and bloggers, liberals and conservatives, aren’t chiding the girl at all, and the few who are are being pretty damn gentle with their criticism. Maybe there’s an idiot or two saying idiotic things, but their idiocy is largely laughed at. There’s no outrage, faux or real, about this Chinese dress, aside from (possibly) a very few idiots with no influence. And gentle criticism and serious discussion about culture isn’t outrage or shaming. > [@](#): > > If I were a foreign power I would exploit this property until actual civil unrest occurred. Our current society reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode “Monsters on Maple Street.” I think it’s very likely that foreign powers are trying to take advantage of American idiots. That communication is better now means ideas, good and bad, can spread faster and wider. This is just a fact, it’s not a good or bad thing, or a policy, or something that can be changed. Boycotts can spread faster – good and bad ones. So can other ideas, good or bad. There’s nothing we can do to restrict the development of comms technology. > [@](#): > > None. It would be nice if businesses could have a do not serve list of troublesome consumers. See if people would like that symmetry. Wouldn’t be that hard of an app. I see no reason to believe that such an app or business practice wouldn’t be perfectly legal. Plenty of businesses refuse service to legitimately “troublesome” customers. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/265 "2018-05-04T02:08:32Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > People can boycott for any reason. Businesses should be able to serve who they wish. Why should a business be forced to provide a good or service to a person who is dangerous, immoral, unethical, or some other undesirable trait? Businesses aren’t forced to serve “dangerous, immoral, unethical, or some other undesirable” customers, unless the “undesirable trait” is race, religion, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/266 "2018-05-04T02:11:54Z")
Right. Total non-issue. So why all the drama about how people need to be able to do this thing they already do? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/267 "2018-05-04T02:52:28Z")
Except maybe that ‘rights of free association’ such as the right to exclude whoever you want from your business (ie, black people) have been used since forever as code for white supremacists to make laws against minorities and protect local bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/268 "2018-05-04T06:46:27Z")
Man, **Chimera** , I don’t really agree with **octopus** (beyond the trivially true statement that not _every_ boycott or protest is a good thing, see also Christians throwing a fucking shitfit over red Starbucks coffee cups), but your interpretations of his posts in this thread have been consistently uncharitable and filled with straw, to the point where I feel the need to defend someone I really don’t particularly like. _Seriously_, dude. Cut it out, it’s bad and it’s lowering the level of the discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/269 "2018-05-04T12:36:19Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Because a boycott that has massive participation is damaging to a businesses bottom line If this didn’t happen, then there wouldn’t be any point to a boycott would there? > [@](#): > > The larger problem is that in the modern age of mass communication messages have too much reach Shouldn’t you have to demonstrate that this is, in fact, a problem? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/270 "2018-05-04T13:47:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So you’re predicting the future. Good luck – lots of people do that. Your certainty isn’t convincing to me. “The sky is falling!” is generally unpersuasive without very solid evidence. I’m pretty sure the horrors of boycotts will have to wait in line behind other right-wing predictions like how gay marriage will end the world… somehow. (I was amused yesterday to see a Republican claim that gay marriage was only possible because Republicans got on board and made it happen. Oh history, your revision is purty.) Businesses go political when they think there’s money in it, just like businesses sell puffy unicorn stickers or avocado toast when they think there’s money in it. Sucks to guess wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/271 "2018-05-04T15:30:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Man, **Chimera** , I don’t really agree with **octopus** (beyond the trivially true statement that not _every_ boycott or protest is a good thing, see also Christians throwing a fucking shitfit over red Starbucks coffee cups), but your interpretations of his posts in this thread have been consistently uncharitable and filled with straw, to the point where I feel the need to defend someone I really don’t particularly like. _Seriously_, dude. Cut it out, it’s bad and it’s lowering the level of the discourse. Dude, the right of free association has been used as a tool to beat down minorities since this country was born. In 1957, the National Review used it like a weapon, proclaiming Blacks morally and intellectually inferior and declaring that people should be able to do business with the people they choose to do business with. Sound familiar? Yeah, that’s Octopus’ strategy. If you’re not aware of how this works, then sure, I could sound like I’m picking on him over this. But this whole “we should be free to exclude troublemakers!” is just a dog whistle when people are already free to do exactly what he’s complaining about. And I stand by what I said about his hypocrisy on the ‘when my side does it, it’s ok, but when your side does it, it’s wrong’ disingenuous attempts to smear democrats as being wrong because boycotts are evil. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/272 "2018-05-04T15:46:52Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course consumers should have the right to choose who they patronize. I also believe businesses have the right to refuse service as they wish. Are you trying to equate those two. That, because a customer has the option to spend their money wherever they want it spent, that businesses should be likewise able to discriminate? If I am a racist customer, I don’t have to frequent minority owned businesses. There is no rule or law or anything even close to even a strong suggestion that I should have to. That doesn’t work the other way. If I am a racist business owner, I cannot turn away customers based on protected characteristics. > [@](#): > > Courts have found that. However, that doesn’t stop universities. They are making the cynical calculation that they won’t be challenged. It’s a bit analogous to civil forfeiture. Even though it’s immoral and crooked the cops know they can get away with and use the proceeds to buy tacticool gear and pretend to be military. Interesting analogy. I cannot think of any similarities whatsoever between the two. It’s like you took two completely unrelated things, and simply claimed they were analogous. > [@](#): > > None. It would be nice if businesses could have a do not serve list of troublesome consumers. See if people would like that symmetry. Wouldn’t be that hard of an app. Yeah, there’s nothing stopping that, other than the fact that [such services have come out](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/badconsumerscom-blacklist-customers_n_1933195.html), [on](http://ratemycustomers.com/index.html) [several](https://contractorscustomers.com) [occasions](http://www.nastyclient.com/), and businesses had no interest in using them. There are also facebook groups where people talk about customers in their industry, sometimes acting as a bit of a blacklist. But, I do like the cynical attitude that we’d be all up in arms about the hypothetical situation that an app was created, even though those apps have existed for at least the last 5-6 years, and there’s no outrage. Does the fact that the service that you think that we would be upset about existing exists make you rethink your words here at all? > [@octopus](#): > > People can boycott for any reason. Businesses should be able to serve who they wish. Why should a business be forced to provide a good or service to a person who is dangerous, immoral, unethical, or some other undesirable trait? What do you mean by “undesirable” there? In any case, sure, businesses can serve who they wish. I have a number of clients that I have asked not to come back, because they were rude to me or my employees, or because they bounced checks, or they had severe issues with keeping appointments. I’ve even let some of my clients go due to the behavior of their dog. So, sure, there are plenty of reasons not to serve customers, and there is nothing stopping me from doing so. I am curious as to what “undesirable” traits you would consider to be acceptable reasons for denying service. > [@](#): > > With facial recognition cameras and large databases it wouldn’t be hard to add troublemakers to a do not serve list that has nothing to do with skin hue. Except that businesses are not in the busesses of trying to limit their customer base, so not many businesses use such things, even though they are available. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/273 "2018-05-04T17:31:50Z")
This stuff doesn’t directly impact me. I’m just surprised (not really) at the professional nitpickery employed to deflect from the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/274 "2018-05-04T18:25:35Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > This stuff doesn’t directly impact me. I’m just surprised (not really) at the professional nitpickery employed to deflect from the big picture. Your post had things that were factually and demonstrably wrong. Then you based your conclusions (the big picture) upon that incorrect information. It’s not nitpickery to point out that your assumptions are based on falsehoods. If all you have to respond to the complete underming of your argument on every level that you have presented is that it is “nitpickery”, then I think we are done, we can wrap up and go home now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/275 "2018-05-04T18:38:16Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > This stuff doesn’t directly impact me. I’m just surprised (not really) at the professional nitpickery employed to deflect from the big picture. The basis of your argument, or at least part of it, was based on incorrect information – that businesses can’t discriminate against dangerous, disruptive, rude, etc., customers. They can and do, routinely. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/276 "2018-05-04T21:06:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The basis of your argument, or at least part of it, was based on incorrect information – that businesses can’t discriminate against dangerous, disruptive, rude, etc., customers. They can and do, routinely. Yeah, no one cares if one customer avoids a business. But a national boycott is damaging. The analogous situation of an industry blacklisting a customer so they are actually financially damaged doesn’t exist yet. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/277 "2018-05-04T21:36:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The analogous situation of an industry blacklisting a customer so they are actually financially damaged doesn’t exist yet. Yeah, that was called Jim Crow. Being able to refuse services to black people and denying them the ability to live in certain communities or even be there after dark seriously damaged black people’s lives. Otherwise your point is laughable, as I have worked for companies when they decided that they didn’t want a specific person as a client anymore. Usually it’s the bad clients who cost more money than the company makes from them. I worked for a Fortune 20 company when we blackballed a customer and told them they could never again purchase our products or get us to provide them with support and served them legal papers to stop them from calling the support line to abuse employees. It was rather impressive, actually. So now that we’ve struck down both of your points on this little fantasy, do you have any other ways you think companies aren’t being allowed to deny services that should be allowed? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/278 "2018-05-04T21:39:31Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Yeah, no one cares if one customer avoids a business. But a national boycott is damaging. The analogous situation of an industry blacklisting a customer so they are actually financially damaged doesn’t exist yet. Of course it’s damaging, that’s the point. That’s a characteristic of a free society – corporations and business have to worry about the opinions of their consumers. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/279 "2018-05-04T22:33:41Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Yeah, that was called Jim Crow. Being able to refuse services to black people and denying them the ability to live in certain communities or even be there after dark seriously damaged black people’s lives. > > Otherwise your point is laughable, as I have worked for companies when they decided that they didn’t want a specific person as a client anymore. Usually it’s the bad clients who cost more money than the company makes from them. > > I worked for a Fortune 20 company when we blackballed a customer and told them they could never again purchase our products or get us to provide them with support and served them legal papers to stop them from calling the support line to abuse employees. It was rather impressive, actually. > > So now that we’ve struck down both of your points on this little fantasy, do you have any other ways you think companies aren’t being allowed to deny services that should be allowed? What’s laughable is your interpretation of basic English. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Of course it’s damaging, that’s the point. That’s a characteristic of a free society – corporations and business have to worry about the opinions of their consumers. And the flip side should be true as well. People with wrong opinions should be deprived housing and food unless they can build it themselves. Wrong opinions have consequences. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2018, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108/280 "2018-05-04T22:54:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > What’s laughable is your interpretation of basic English. > > And the flip side should be true as well. People with wrong opinions should be deprived housing and food unless they can build it themselves. Wrong opinions have consequences. If you want to try and make this happen, feel free. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-correctness-in-our-universities/813108.md?page=15)