Freedom To Be Offended: A Speech On Political Correctness
In modern times, societies of free thought may not necessarily be societies of unlimited expression. However, political correctness has not gone too far in the face of America’s varied, open cultures.
It is in the nature of the society of the United States to experience widespread argument. The country is often described as a “melting pot”-- a large nation diverse in ideology, ethnicity, and culture. Each American contributes to this national broth, producing a country that is a mixture of many nations. Findings by the Census Bureau in 2015 prove this notion; although whites represent a majority of the populace, around 38.4% of Americans are of a race besides that (Census Bureau). With such a level of ethnic and cultural diversity, it reasonably follows that there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints. It reasonably follows that multiple viewpoints increase dissent and therefore, possibility for offense.
Ideally, political correctness seeks to navigate this treacherous path, yet in any diverse society, some group will object to the viewpoint of the majority. The alternative, a homogeneous nation comprised of like-minded individuals, would be far less likely to experience this internal strife, and political correctness would be far less likely to face criticism, but to embrace this utopian society would be to abandon the ideals of America itself. Regardless of the pain wrought by disagreement and dissent, welcoming such adversity is at the core of our national identity; the lingering embodiment of this nation, the Statue of Liberty, does not represent harmony and narrow-mindedness. Rather, as Emma Lazarus so iconically wrote in “The New Colossus,” she is “Mother of Exiles” beckoning the varied “huddled masses” of the world towards America (Lazarus). It is inevitable that opposing views breed resentment, and offense logically follows.This serves as a natural symptom of free societies, and anything less would represent a societal failure. Democracy is only valid when it is based upon differences of thought and opinion.
In a similar vein, adhering to political correctness at all remains the conscious decision of an individual. Outward expressions of faith, approval of despised politicians, statements perceived as ignorant--although politically incorrect, the fact remains that they are legally protected. As enumerated by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” (U.S. Constitution. Amendment I, Section I). In its current form, breaking from what is politically correct can earn an individual disrespect and disapproval, yet it can not result in legal penalties; there is no law against politically incorrect speech. So long as this remains true, and dissent is enforceable only by social rejection, political correctness has not gone too far.
Opposition to political correctness is essentially a detraction from the views which it supports and often lacks nuance or reasoning. Rather than oppose the sensitivity of political correctness, detractors ultimately seek to uphold their specific brand of sensitivity. In other words, opposition to political correctness is frequently an enforcement of the very same-- political correctness for a different group. Many feel that under PC culture, they are unable to express their views openly, and wish to use certain phrases that are currently found to be offensive or marginalizing. In a sense, politically correct terms are marginalizing to them. Under the societal norms they advocate, political correctness would become politically incorrect. Individuals decrying the purportedly censoring nature of politically correct culture themselves wish to reinforce their own views as being acceptable, while socially restricting the ideas they disagree with. So long as freedom of thought and speech exist, political correctness and related offense will follow, generally within the boundaries of acceptable debate.
Even so, detractors of politically correct culture claim that the proclivity of such beliefs threaten their own expression; a lack of acceptance of their views equates to an inability to express them. However, when considering opposition to political correctness as a desire to offend without consequence, it becomes clear that it has not gone too far for a healthy society. Political correctness can exist in opposition to this-- as a check on distressing, malicious views on others.
Think, for example, of the words that are best left unsaid: disparaging terms and vulgar expressions directed against minorities, members of the LGBTQ community, and followers of every creed. It is through a politically correct society that such words earn the label hate speech. Is modern society not better for their omission from accepted speech?
The answer to this question is a resounding “no” from the opponents of PC culture. Where some see progress and social betterment in modern society, others see generational failures, and lapses in maturity. Few exemplars of this culture, however, receive quite so much criticism as the “safe spaces” of college campuses. As the Gay Alliance defines them, a safe space is “a confidential place where all people can bring their authentic selves and feel safe, welcome and included” (Gay Alliance). In essence, safe spaces are areas or groups that serve as bubbles of agreement and ideological security. As evidenced by a New York Times article titled “In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas,” many critics of safe spaces, author Judith Shulevitz included, argue that their existence represents a weakness of the younger generations, and a clear example of politically correct culture overstepping its bounds (Shulevitz). But the presence of safe zones hinge on one’s personal decisions; to remove or ban this option would be to deny the rights of those individuals. In the pursuit of avoiding offense, a person may go to whatever lengths are within their legal parameters. It is not for anyone beyond oneself to determine these lengths.
Another commonly cited example of the weakness of politically correct culture comes from the American Right Wing, specifically in regards to President Obama’s handling of terrorist attacks; political correctness, they argue, has weakened national security. Particularly vocal on the matter throughout his presidential campaign, President-Elect Donald Trump claims that a failure to label terrorist attacks committed by Muslims as “Radical Islamic Extremism” emboldens hostile groups such as ISIL, and exudes frailty and fragility (Fisher). Were this accurate, it would seem likely that PC language has indeed been detrimental to the nation. However, these claims have no observable merit; if anything, the opposite is true, and using less derogatory terms has provided some marginal benefit to the global standing of the United States. This assertion is given credence by writer Mark Hannah in Time Magazine. Early into President Obama’s term, the phrase “war on terror” ceased to receive the same wide usage as in years past. The phrase “war against Al-Qaeda” took its place. As Osama Bin Laden wrote in his journals, this change, ostensibly made for the sake of political correctness, produced a significant drop in the recruitment capabilities of Al-Qaeda (Hannah). One can thus argue that embracing a more focused, politically correct term directly benefitted American security, which negates the unsupported claims of the election season.
Contentious debate over political correctness will undoubtedly persist for years to come. As America becomes ever more diverse, it stands to reason that strong reactions to offense will be no less prevalent. Societal expectations of expression do not exist to forcibly silence free speech, but to encourage decency.
Free speech remains a feature of democracy rather than a failure, but despite the protests of a great many Americans, political correctness serves as a means of protection for those less able to protect themselves. As the adage says, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
Bibliography
"Population Estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015)." UNITED STATES QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.
Lazarus, Emma. "The New Colossus." Poetry Foundation. Poetry Foundation. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.
U.S. Constitution. Amendment I, Section I.
"Safe Zone Program." Gay Alliance. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.
Shulevitz, Judith. "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.
Fisher, Max. "When a Phrase Takes On New Meaning: ‘Radical Islam,’ Explained." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 June 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.
Hannah, Mark. "Political Correctness Is An Absolute Must." Time. Time. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.