TO BE OR NOT TO BE 'POLITICALLY CORRECT' -- THAT IS THE QUESTION ???

(Oops, I used the word ‘VIOLATE’ and should have more correctly used another verb for fear the word ‘violate’ might trigger trauma in a person)*


Extreme positions ALWAYS lack common sense. Today, we are living in a culture swinging from mean spirited hate speech to overly accommodating political correctness. Neither promotes unity, dialogue, or freedom of speech. Both maintain a stance of perpetual outrage over others’ behavior. Hateful commentary hides behind the anonymity of internet screen names while acquiring sadistic pleasure from unmercifully assaulting others. Politically correct speech attempts to shield hyper-sensitive beings from experiencing any words which could possibly offend their fragile sensibilities. Somewhere in the middle exist politeness, consideration, courtesy, discretion, civility, respect, tolerance, understanding, kindness and the Golden Rule – moderate attributes garnering little attention today. The cyber community has provided forums to polarize society, where more and more users seem to gravitate.

Ironically, it is easier to make a case against someone speaking politically incorrectly in a school or office, than it is to obtain a cease and desist against personally threatening hate speech. Hatemongers stand behind the First Amendment to protect them from being deprived of hurling invectives at innocent victims. Meanwhile, the test for ‘political incorrectness’ is simply a self-reporting of being made to feel ‘uncomfortable’ by hearing the potentially belittling words of another, thus possibly creating an unsafe environment for the individual. The only evidence you need is your own emotional reasoning. So, some students now insist on the use of ‘chalkboard’ instead of ‘blackboard,’ and ‘ho, ho, ho’ can no longer be used by many public Santa’s, ‘Baa, Baa Black sheep’ has been removed from numerous pre-school curriculums, and Sea World must now refer to ‘Fairy Penguins’ as ‘little Penguins’ so as not to potentially offend. Chris Rock, Bill Maher, and Jerry Seinfeld are refusing to play college venues due to the many restrictions required by campus political correctness. Even such an innocuous and well-meaning question as “Where are you from?” can be considered discriminatory in implying that the inquirer does not consider the other person a REAL American. The list of taboos goes on with a Seattle school replacing ‘Easter Eggs’ with the new moniker ‘Spring Spheres;’ the word ‘manhole’ now known as ‘utility hole;’ and Microsoft banning the word ‘gay’ from its web content, even if it is part of yours or your town’s name. The public seems to be falling in line with these unwritten speech codes, ostensibly from fear of being penalized, fired, or sued. Marxist and Orwellian theorists believe instituting politically correct speech is the covert expansion of governmental control over individual rights.

There is even a new jargon emerging from the Politically Correct movement. A person saying anything perceived of as discriminatory or belittling is called a ‘micro-aggressor.’ Teachers today must give ‘trigger warnings’ prior to presenting any content that might evoke a negative emotional response, and the student may ‘opt-out’ of being exposed to such material. ‘Sensitivity training’ is a new industry providing preventative guidelines for political correctness in government and corporate environments. Such attempts to shield people from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort seems antithetical to adequately preparing students on how to live in a world full of potential offenses. The underlying principle is that minorities, LGBTQ’s, immigrants, and women have unduly been harassed in the past and are all suffering from a form of post- traumatic stress, which should not be exacerbated further by politically incorrect (offensive) speech. This is not just an American phenomenon; Australia and Sweden are also promoting similarly extreme political correctness.

My question is who told anyone they have the ‘right’ not to be offended? And, who is the final objective arbiter as to what is ‘offensive?’ Are we becoming a community that polices unintentional slights and innocuous speech to an extreme? While appreciating the negative effects of chronic bullying on the young, are today’s parents being overly protective of children in the name of safety and not preparing them for the harsh realities of life? Is the purpose of government to cleanse society of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense? In no way is this essay meant to condone hate speech or a chronic pattern of harassment as set out in 1999 Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education decision. However, we as a nation must find some middle ground in determining what a reasonable person would find objectively offensive while recognizing as the Buddha advised, “the world doesn’t conform to your personal desires.”


*Harvard Law School