Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently became the first member from the Obama administration to publicly describe the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas as “Violent Islamic Terrorism.” This is a major development in the way the administration has been describing and classifying terrorism — extremist acts. It certainly hasn’t been its modus operandi up to this point.
Senator Joe Lieberman went so far as to say the “reluctance” to use the phrases “Islamic extremist” or “Muslim terrorist” is a “pet peeve” of his.
I am not trying to say that all Muslims are terrorists, or that even most of them are; but it is very important to classify threats correctly without fear of repudiation for not being politically correct. The threat we face is from Islamic extremists and we should not hinder ourselves by failing to call things what they are and hiding behind political correctness.
For students who are immersed in a collegiate atmosphere, not being afraid to classify or label things what they are should be a top priority. We must not be afraid of offending people just for the sake of being politically correct. We, as a whole, must realize threats that are posed to us as a people. And the first step to combating these threats is to correctly classify them without fear of not being politically correct.
We see examples of this every day, ranging from the minor to the extreme. Just a few weeks ago, the SECU on Hillsborough Street was robbed. The University sent out an alert describing the suspect as a “dark complexioned male wearing a black hooded Nike
sweatshirt, armed with a handgun.”
That’s not very helpful at all. Dark-complexioned male? What does that even mean? Was he a black man? A Mexican? Or was he a frat guy who got stuck in the tanning bed too long? While most of us know what “dark complexioned” means, the phrase still leaves room for ambiguity, especially when the only other information provided was that he was wearing a black sweatshirt. So does about 95 percent of campus, at some point or another. This information is not very helpful for students when trying to keep an eye out for the suspect, especially when he is armed with a handgun and students are concerned about their safety.
So why did the University describe the suspect in such an obscure manner when all other news outlets and police statements at the time described the suspect as a black male? The University used vague and easily misunderstood terms, possibly placing students in danger, possibly for the sake of being too politically correct. If this was indeed the case, it
means our leaders consciously made a decision that being politically correct was more important to them than the safety of the students, faculty and staff. Or, possibly, political correctness is so embedded in their brains that they put us in danger without even realizing it. When leaders fail to place the safety of those they are lead above being politically correct so as to not offend anyone, they place those people they are supposed to protect in grave danger.
College is a place where people can share ideas and learn from each other. Maybe it’s time to realize that sometimes labels can be a good thing, not just in extreme cases, but in learning about someone’s life. Who you are is who you are; there’s no need to hide behind political correctness.