What Is the Euphemism for Censorship?

by Dain Fitzgerald

Though it seems like an antiquated topic of conversation by now, unfortunately it’s still here. The concept of “political correctness” has been known to me for as long as I can recall remembering anything political at all. The widespread usage of the phrase and its enforcement really sprang up in the 1980s, after having been nurtured through the 1970s in response to the turmoil of the 1960s. What we now call “P.C.” for short, can be defined more or less as a deliberate attempt to alter and/or restrict language (both written and verbal) and actions in order to show sensitivity towards historically and contemporarily marginalized groups of people. I won’t go into the litany of what groups are considered to be a recipient of the doctrine of “political correctness,” for the effort could be a very non-“P.C.” thing to do. Racism and sexism however, are the sworn enemies of P.C. language, and it is important to understand the philosophical basis of “politically correct” language and its real life implications for free speech issues.

Turn on “Comedy Central” on cable television any day of the week and you will notice that most stand-up comedians have very little tolerance for political correctness (now minus the sarcastic quotation marks.). You will hear them pounce all over terms like “vertically challenged” to denote what an average speaker would simply deem “midget.” Also, the term “black” is still the most common way of describing someone who is “African-American.” Much to the chagrin of the chattering class and especially those in academia, the more sensitive (and complicated) ways of describing someone’s physical attributes has not caught on in the ordinary person’s mode of discourse.  Rampant disrespect for p.c. language is evident not only all over “Comedy Central,” but in the everyday speech of most people. The accompanying attitude of the new p.c.-minded individual has also resisted becoming a reality. For example, in “Who said PC is passé?” by John Leo, he describes a situation at UCLA wherein a Hispanic tutor had been declined a job tutoring needy students in English because he didn’t agree with the perception that there was “institutional racism” present on campus. This intransigence shows that the outcome that is expected of a politically correct environment cannot easily be lived up to. Efforts to instill sensitivity simply by changing language are superficial. The perception of political correctness is that of a petty, annoying stricture on language and action that is meant to force someone into feeling a certain way about something. Political correctness extends to more than simply language. It is a public policy issue as well--case in point: affirmative action, or “positive discrimination” in effect in many top universities. 

Christina Hoff Sommers, distinguished professor of Philosophy at Clark University, has analyzed the issue of politicized language and challenged the notion that words and even entire languages are inherently racist or sexist. Did you know that Persian or Farsi is actually gender neutral? There is no he/she distinction such as exists in English, French (le and la), Spanish and most other languages. Ms. Sommers shows that if language were such a determinant of the way in which people actually think and act towards each other, you would expect Iran (the home of the Persian language) to be the most sexually egalitarian country in the world. The Persian language has been spoken for millennia, yet Iran is currently ruled by a theocratic regime that hardly has women’s rights in mind. (This being due to American meddling in the region, but that’s another story.)

Back here at home, there are some real world examples of political correctness that run the gamut from silly to downright oppressive. In David Bernstein’s book You Can’t Say That: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Anti-Discrimination Laws, there is case upon case of the freedom of speech being trampled in order to protect an individual from feeling discriminated against (this goes back to the point of the intention of the speaker vs. the perception of the listener). For instance, the Newspaper Publisher’s Association of the state of Oregon listed 80 words (“master”bedroom) and phrases (“near church”) that were suggested be banned, in order to avoid lawsuits, lessen insensitivity, or both; another casualty of the political correctness doctrine is the extreme cynicism in which self-enforcement is enacted out of helplessness and despair over financial consequences rather than genuine sympathy for those discriminated against.

There are some genuine rebuttals to everything said heretofore. Sometimes it is obvious that the speaker is in fact hellbent on offending and that is quite clearly their intention. This marks a decisive turn away from language which may not simply sound bad, but is almost unequivocally being used to inflict injury. Isn’t the fact that the “n word” is virtually extinct in the public sphere of communication a positive development?  Isn’t the swift and uncompromising punishment for putting up swastikas on a university campus a good thing? Author Samuel Walker’s book Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy recounts the history of the American Civil Liberties Union and its position in the 1930s as an advocate of free speech – even that of anti-Semitic and fascist organizations. This was a difficult position to take at a time when Hitler was rising to power in Germany and fascism was a genuinely growing threat. However, the suppression of speech and dissent by venomous anti-Semites like Hitler and fascists such as Mussolini was precisely the reason advocates of free speech wanted to protect the 1^st Amendment – even if it meant coping with the loud and hateful pronouncements of sympathizers of those who would squash these rights to free speech. It is a paradox to be sure, but in the end it must be justified in order to guarantee that there be an equilibrium in effect that can span generations – one day’s “victim” being tomorrow’s “oppressor.” Those who would argue that words are as deadly as bullets or some such analogy make the dangerous implication that to respond to words with bullets would be a justified response.  

Language is a dynamic thing that can be used in so many different ways and in combination with so many other modes of communication that to attempt to “socially engineer” people by altering it is utterly futile. None of this is to say that instructing kids to say “please” and “thank you” is not important. But it is also not illegal. Neglecting to say “please” and “thank you” are not liable to land you in court (for now). It must be made absolutely clear that there is a big difference between what is moral or simply courteous and that which is injurious, in a legal sense. Political correctness has seeped into every facet of our relations with each other. You can be fired from a job if a co-worker has complained that the religious symbols on your desk are offensive. This should be the right of the employer, although it is no doubt a consequence of the devastating psychological impact of p.c., with its accompanying fear of lawsuits and an awkward work environment. Political correctness, for some, is sincere and born of noble intentions. This should be kept in mind. But remember the maxim: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”