On my first day of Principles of Sociology, the instructor asked each student to discuss the social issue about which they were most impassioned. Among answers concerning the racial strife in America and giving support to marginalized communities, one stood out. One peer was worried about what they perceived to be an overly politically correct, or PC, campus climate at NC State.
This would have been understandable, except the student was not concerned about an inability to express their opinion, but rather the way in which they felt they should be able to express them. In shorter terms, they did not wish to end political correctness, but do away with basic manners and civility.
The term “politically correct” has taken on various meanings, often suited to fit the narrative of the user. Some use it literally, as in right versus wrong political action. Others use it to justify or silence ideas they deem socially or culturally unfavorable. The negative effects of the latter on college campuses has been widely discussed over the last several years, with many fearing that it creates an echo chamber of liberal ideas, with little tolerance toward opposition.
Some universities have even gone as far as to issue warnings against this type of overly PC campus culture, like the University of Chicago, which issued an open letter to the Class of 2020 emphasizing their commitment to an open discourse on campus, while denouncing the idea of “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”
In the last few years, the term “politically correct,” which in its newest meaning should refer to “avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive,” has been demonized. Those who are tired of it have used their distaste for it to justify the breakdown of civility not only on college campuses but throughout the country. For example, in response to a peaceful die-in that occurred on campus last year, students made several derogatory comments pertaining to the movement and its participants. They may not have agreed with the beliefs of those who were protesting, but none offered any constructive criticism, instead relying on stereotypes and ad hominem arguments to bully their opposition.
The term’s change of meaning can largely be attributed to President Donald Trump, who in many of his tirades against the PC culture, has justified his vicious bullying of women, minorities and several other groups by labeling it as a counter to political correctness. There is a difference between having the ability to voice your unpopular opinions and using speech to personally attack or degrade someone. Insulting individuals does nothing to further constructive conversations and can even deflect from the situation at hand. While you can choose not to be PC and go against campus norms, it is important to do so in a way that is civil, by at least respecting those you do not agree with.
We must always employ tact.
Aristotle noted that humans are unique in their ability to rationalize and use intellectual virtue, which allows us to “contemplate” and “reason logically.” Without this, humans would be unable to control basic impulses. Impulses that may compel you to say or do whatever comes to your mind, even if the action is considered impolite or uncivil.
Today’s modern rally against political correctness is nothing more than a rally against intellectual virtue. Rather than create a logical argument to justify one’s beliefs, we are seeing people give into brash impulses that only add fuel to a growing fire. To have an open and productive discourse on our campus, it is important to note that your disdain for political correctness does not justify personally attacking or degrading an individual.
For those who think it does, I would suggest you look to improve your argument.
