Opinion
Is there too much political correctness?
By Charles Dunst ’18
October 8, 2015
Political correctness is an issue on the mind of Americans everywhere. Maligned by Fox News and mocked by South Park, it has become a topic of popular discussion. The ever-polarizing Donald Trump drew monumental applause at the Cleveland Republican debate when he stated, “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.”
On the other end of the political spectrum, the creators of South Park are known to hold relatively liberal views. Regardless, they have repeatedly mocked America’s political correctness. They recently aired an episode in which a boy, Kyle, was shamed for refusing to acknowledge Caitlyn Jenner as a hero. His sentiment did not seem bigoted or ill-informed. The sentiment expressed on the episode was a comment on her character, and it certainly was not mocking her gender dysphoria. However, Kyle is still seemingly shamed by the politically correct crowd to concede and eventually hail Jenner as a hero. The show received backlash for their grotesque depiction of Ms. Jenner. However, as is the norm with South Park, there seem to be no repercussions. Ironically, Mr. Non-political correctness himself, Donald Trump, was mocked in the exact same episode. So, the questions arise: when is political correctness a hindrance? When does it prevent honest discussion and growth?
In the South Park example, political correctness bared a true commentary on the character issues of now-hero Caitlyn Jenner. Wesleyan University recently had a similar issue. Wesleyan is a renowned liberal paradise, a space in which political correctness is often decried as an issue. Not to confuse anyone, I am a very liberal person, but refusing to acknowledge political correctness as an issue in liberal spaces would be dishonest.
At Wesleyan, the student government received a petition urging them to revoke the funding of the on-campus newspaper after it published an opinion piece critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. I support the Black Lives Matter movement, but it certainly has some issues. There is no reason for an article expressing some discontent with the movement to be met with so much resistance. In my opinion, the Wesleyan newspaper did no wrong. Judging from a quick browsing of the newspaper’s website, the Opinion section is overwhelmed by liberal opinions on the Kim Davis controversy, Islamaphobia, the Syrian refugee crisis and other issues. There was no outcry when the Argus published these one-sided views. Similarly, at Hamilton, there is no outcry when The Spectator publishes overwhelmingly liberal opinions.
At Wesleyan, it appears that the Argus was attacked for publishing a normal, factually-supported opinion article. The article does not even seem to be particularly conservative or insensitive. The article itself explains that the author “is not questioning their [Black Lives Matter’s] claims of racism among the police, or in society itself.” However, he simply questions, “Is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?”
In the overwhelmingly liberal world I have grown up in, questioning movements pushing for gay or minority rights can be social suicide. Do I believe that gay and minority rights movements have a place in our current American society? Yes, absolutely. This is my opinion, and it is not factual. However, my opinion seems to fit with the politically correct notion of my small world. Many of my friends do not wholly accept these movements. Their disagreeing with a liberal opinion does not make them evil. Similarly, defying political correctness does not make one evil. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, regardless of its validity. That’s the freedom of speech we love America for.
The Wesleyan story is simply the most recent example of political correctness going too far. If political correctness prevents a conversation from being had, it is problematic. Criticizing Black Lives Matter, the LGBT rights movement or even Planned Parenthood is not racist, homophobic or misogynistic. While I support all three of those movements, I constantly engage in conversations with those who do not. Otherwise, my opinions stay the same and stagnate. Stagnation of opinion is the death of intelligent thought. Am I, or any politician, expected to hold the same views for my entire lifetime? Vice President Joe Biden refused to support gay marriage in 2008, but he has come around. Donald Trump used to be pro-choice, but he has recently migrated to the pro-life camp. If political correctness prevents open discussion, it is a deleterious obstruction. Americans need to be able to confront and discuss the difficult issues, and political correctness can’t hold us back. Right now, it seems that the overwhelming emphasis on being politically correct and non-offensive is doing just this. Am I saying that we should openly throw around gay or racial slurs? Absolutely not. But we need to be able to converse with those who do not support these causes.
Let me simplify and conclude. Political correctness is a good thing in the sense that it often prevents slurs from being viciously lobbed at marginalized people. Political correctness is a bad thing in the sense that it prevents discussions between those who fall on the “correct” side of things, and those who do not. If pro-life and pro-choice supporters cannot have a discussion as a result of politically correct censorship, it is a negative thing. Political correctness can be a wonderful thing, but it must also not be utilized as a tool of censorship. However, it seems that this is the path we are heading down, in the media, in politics and even on our college campuses.