This Will Offend You

PCI have gotten into arguments through the years over the good and bad points of being “politically correct.” I have always contended that, despite eliminating some obvious hateful or historically hurtful terminology, political correctness is too often just a political grab for the conscience of the country and upsets as many people as it coddles. But my real argument with political correctness is when it is applied to historical events, documents, pronouncements, usually accompanied by the inane insistence that “they should have known better back then.”

Look at slavery. Slavery and prostitution have been a part of the human culture since wampum was invented. That doesn’t make it admirable; just factual. Should we insist that the ancient Egyptians were evil because they didn’t pay the guys who worked on the pyramids a minimum wage and tended to have a tent on the side for their harem girls and chilled grapes? Of course by the time the Americans got around to institutionalized slavery, it was late in the game and things like the Rights of Man were being publicized and recognized around the world; look at the sacred documents of the United States and try to rationalize slavery … they should have known, right?

But now I am reading of an insidious variation on political correctness that suggests we need to avoid any subjects or reading that might hurt anyone’s feelings based on the possibility that seemingly innocuous works may be read by someone who had an episode in their lives that might be revived by the reading. I suppose this is a variation on the fear that when discussing, say,  cancer, there might be a person in the crowd who just lost their father to cancer … we wouldn’t want hurt their feelings or make them sad.

Here is what Michael Moynihan wrote about this subject (for the complete article, go to The Daily Beast):

Warning: This Column Will Offend You

Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

At the University of California, Santa Barbara, the student senate, which appears to be staffed by the only people in the solar system dumber than actual senators, passed a resolution to “begin the process of instituting mandatory ‘trigger warnings’ on class syllabi,” flagging books that could make students feel uncomfortable. One student arguing in favor of the measure commented, with all the grace and wit of Soviet bureaucrat, “I’ve been in this kind of situation before — it sucks; we should pass it.”

The poison is spreading, with even less intelligent students across the country demanding their schools take action. At Rutgers, an opinion piece in the student newspaper demanded that “trigger warnings” be affixed to various great works of literature, fearing the tender souls sleeping through English classes might confront difficult social issues:

For instance, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s critically acclaimed novel, The Great Gatsby, possesses a variety of scenes that reference gory, abusive and misogynistic violence. Virginia Woolf’s famous cerebral narrative, Mrs. Dalloway, paints a disturbing narrative that examines the suicidal inclinations and post-traumatic experiences of an English war veteran. And Junot Diaz’s critically acclaimed work, This is How You Lose Her, observes domestic violence and misogynistic culture in disturbing first-person narrations.

And this stuff isn’t dribbling only out of the mouths of undergraduates. Oberlin College codified the trigger warning into its teacher guide, telling professors to “avoid” triggers in their classrooms. “Triggers are not only relevant to sexual misconduct, but also to anything that might cause trauma,” faculty are told. “Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.”

The idea was shelved last week, pending further debate. Shielding students from the cissexism of the Western canon was too silly even for Oberlin.

I have often argued with conservative friends that the final ledger on political correctness wasn’t all negative. The casual racism once found in polite company, while certainly not eradicated, is almost unthinkable today. But my unilateral declaration of an end to the kulturkampf was depressingly naive. Because language cops are like pornographers: The stuff that was once seen as extreme has become quotidian, demanding that it be replaced with something even more extreme and confusing.

All of this is the unsurprising result of teaching soft-headed but well-intentioned college students that if we can control language, we can control behavior. But these handy phrases-as-argument both skirt and ultimately suffocate real debate, often demanding feelings be valued above reality.

Since I have admitted that the presence of bodily fluids and irrational behavior is prevalent in my favorite literature, I suppose I am not a good judge of political correctness. But then again, are the number-rich slasher movies politically correct?


One response

  1. PC is so out of control. This is extra ridiculous though. What books would be left to read? They would surely be so boring that the students would fall asleep. But wouldn’t that hurt the teacher’s feelings then, lol.


What are your thoughts on this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: