More on the Canon or Cirriculum

This is again from "Soldiers of Misfortune," referenced in my last post.

"Predictably, both D'Souza and Kimball cast the debate over the canon in typical Manichean fashion--as the West vs. the Rest, as a choice between "culture and barbarism," as a titanic struggle between forms of civilized "high" culture (read: White, Western) and the "primitive," contaminating forces of "other" low-brow cultures (read: non-White, non-Western) thereby reinscribing the rigid binomial opposition of "ours" and "theirs" characteristic of neocolonial discourses ( Said, 1978:227-228). From the standpoint of conservative authors, any interrogation of the canon becomes commensurate to threatening the foundation of Western civilization and is branded as an exercise in ideological brainwashing. Thus Kimball suggests that:

In this war against Western culture, one chief object of attack within the academy is the traditional canon and the pedagogical values it embodies . . . Instead of reading the great works of the past, students watch movies, pronounce on the depredations of patriarchal society, or peruse second or third-rate works . . . after four years they will find that they are ignorant of the tradition and that their college education was largely a form of ideological indoctrination. ( Kimball, 1990:xii-xvii)

The trepidation and sanctimonious indignation that typifies this perspective rests on a defensiveness in which all "others" are seen as enemies intent on ravaging "our" civilization and way of life. In this account, the hard-fought changes which multiculturalists have wrought come to epitomize the debasement of all "authentic" Western culture. The "we" and "our" constructed in conservative narratives is highly exclusive. We, as Whites of European descent are civilized; intellectually and morally superior; and represent the highest standards of cultural achievement. The "multicultural" presence is thus constructed as a problem or threat against which "a homogeneous, white, national 'we' could be unified" ( Gilroy, 1991:48)."

An extremely straightforward examination of this movement; perhaps a bit too straightforward. Anyway i'm on the road as mentioned yesterday; so this will be it for a while; I might be back this afternoon.

More thoughts on Political Correctness

This is a pretty fair summary of what Political Correctness is all about, from "Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness" by Joe L. Kincheloe, Valerie L. Scatamburlo, Shirley R. Steinberg (Peter Lang, 1998).

"The phrase [politically correct], however, has since been seized by the New Right and has assumed an entourage of defining characteristics. Enforcers of today's status quo now use the term to describe any position that challenges the virtuosity of capitalism, the nobility of right-wing cultural values, or the notion that oppressive relations of racism and sexism are still pervasive in America. The right-wing appropriation of the term has enabled P.C. to become a catchall phrase for a variety of conservative targets, embracing every imaginable cause even remotely associated with the Left. Indeed, P.C. permeates our cultural sphere like no other soundbite in recent history."

I over looked this text initially, but might have to do some more reviewing of it. So don't be surprised if you see more from this text.

Incidently I largely agree with what is above. But you know that.

Comments from some willing to accept the lable "Politically Correct"

My titles are too long. Anyway this is an article from Ms. Rebecca T. Alpert, entitled "Coming out of the closet as politically correct" originally published in Tikkun, Vol 11., March April 1996 (and found by me at Questia.

I spend a fair amount of time and effort trying my best to be politically correct. I have never, for example, during a polite conversation, asked a heterosexual to explain to me about her activities in the bedroom, although they might seem exotic to me. And it's been years since I've told a joke that begins, "a priest, a rabbi, and a minister ...."

I have come under a fair amount of criticism for this behavior, and become the butt of many jokes in society these days. But I can't for the life of me figure out why, since I believe that what some deride as "political correctness" is really only a caricatured description of what I always defined as common decency; a variation on the Levitical precept that what is hateful to you, you should not do to others.

But these days, common decency seems to be out of style, replaced by the passionate desire to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter what the consequences to the listener. . . .

From my perspective, this kind of "let it all hang out and damn the consequences" type of honesty is not a good thing. First, inflicting pain is wrong. We Jews do not value suffering. When someone tells me that what I've said about them is hurtful, my impulse is to stop saying it. Nor do I really want to know all the lurid and evil thoughts that lurk in the minds of those who don't respect me.

Second, there is no great value to saying everything you think. Free speech is a complex ideal. It should be thoughtful and bold, not hateful and undisciplined. . . ."

Smart words.

On the road this afternoon--so this will be it till this evening, maybe. Enjoy.

History of Political Correctness

Part one is here. Part two is here.

Here is the third and final part of our comparative history of Political Correctness. First up is John K. Wilson.

"During the 1980s, conservatives began to take over this leftist phrase and exploit it for political gain, expanding its meaning to include anyone who expressed radical sentiments. Conservative writer Robert Kelner first heard of "political correctness" in the fall of 1985 as "a bit of college slang bandied about by young conservatives." And the conservatives not only appropriated politically correct for their own attacks on the radical Left, they also transformed it into a new phrase-- political correctness.

The liberals' original "I'm not politically correct" was an ironic defense against those who took extremism to new extremes, who demanded absolute consistency to radical principles. The conservatives warped this meaning to convey the image of a vast conspiracy controlling American colleges and universities. Politically correct referred to the views of a few extreme individuals; political correctness described a broad movement that had corrupted the entire system of higher education. By this transformation the conservatives accused universities of falling under the influence of extremist elements. F or conservatives, "I'm not politically correct" became a badge of honor, a defense against a feared attack-- even though no one had been seriously accused of being politically incorrect."

Agustin Blazquez (with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton) takes the reader on an exploration of how Political Correctness has appeared in Cuba (as well as revealing that Fidel Castro is a pretty bad guy), which seems to me only tangentially related to how the phrase appears on American Campuses.

"With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized - respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted."

Hmmmm. So we get from the Frankfort Socialists moving to California in the 1940s and somehow they are able to create Political Correctness (in order to destroy Western Civilization) on every campus in America, but unfortunately Mr. Blazquez is unable to explain exactly how. I also like the idea that it is the nature of Western Civilization to be "Civilized." I'm not sure what this means, but I'm sure there are many who might disagree.

At any rate, I should come as little surprise that I find Wilson's account to be a little bit more persuasive.

If anybody would like to point me to a more scholarly treatment of the history and origin of Political Correctness from conservative point of view, please do so.

More on the curriculum

I was reading another section of Ms. Rosa Ehrenreich's essay referenced below, when I came across this revealing tidbit.

"Conservatives like D'Souza and Kimball charge that traditional Western culture courses barely exist anymore at schools like Harvard, because of some mysterious combination of student pressure and the multiculturalist, post-structuralist tendencies of radical professors. Writing in the Atlantic Monthly last year, Caleb Nelson, a former editor of the conservative Harvard Salient, complained that in the 1989-90 Harvard course catalogue:

No core Literature and Arts course lists any of the great nineteenth-century British novelists among the authors studied, nor does any list such writers as Virgil, Milton, and Dostoevsky. In the core's history areas even students who . . . took every single course would not focus on any Western history before the Middle Ages, nor would they study the history of the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the American Civil War, or a host of other topics that one might expect a core to cover.

Nelson's major complaint is that Harvard is not properly educating all of its students. I agree with him here; in Caleb Nelson, Harvard has let us all down by producing a student so poorly educated that he's unable even to read the course catalogue.

I have the 1989-90 catalogue in front of me as I write, and a quick sampling of some of the entries gives us, from the Literature and Arts and the Historical Study sections of the core curriculum, the following courses: Chaucer, Shakespeare, The Bible and Its Interpreters, Classical Greek Literature and 5th-Century Athens, The Rome of Augustus, The British Empire, The Crusades, The Protestant Reformation. Perhaps Chaucer and Shakespeare are somehow, to Caleb Nelson, not "such writers" as Milton and Dostoevsky and the Protestant Reformation is a historically trivial topic.

Nelson also worries that students will have "no broad look on ... philosophy"- by which he really means Western philosophy. Yet in the Moral Reasoning section of the core, seven of the ten courses listed have at least four of the following authors on their primary reading lists: Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Machiavelli, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hume, Mill, Nietzsche, Marx, and Weber. There is one course devoted to a non-Western philosopher. Confucius. The remaining two Moral Reasoning courses focus, respectively, on the writings of "Aristotle . . . [and] Maimonides," and of "Jesus as presented in the Gospels."

Interesting stuff. So Caleb Nelson (who is presumably no relation to the Caleb who posts here on a occasion) claimed that Harvard no longer taught students the Basics of Western Civilization; it turns out they do.

I wish I had Mr. Nelson's article in front of me, because I'll bet you, dollars to donuts, that he complains about the lousy courses that have taken its place. That's how this argument always goes; first some wild eyed speculation that decent classes aren't available and then an aggressive attack on those courses that are being offered. The point being that today's college professors are interested solely in political indoctrination or gross banalities.

So while a class on Milton is acceptable, a class on Gender Issues in Milton's Writing is suspect. A class on Kant is fine, a class on how Kant's theories are still reflected in the television sitcom Sienfield is a waste of time.

You know, it sounds to me like it's not just Politically Correct Thugs who want to slow down freedom of thought.

Are Colleges Dominated by the Left Wing?

Unsurprisingly John K. Wilson, who wrote "The Myth of Political Correctness," argues that the so called liberal dominance has been over stated.

"Although the radicalism of professors is often painted in alarming terms, a 1984 survey found that only 5.8 percent of faculty were self-described leftists, and only 33.8 percent called themselves liberals. Compared with 1969 numbers, the proportion of self-described liberals had dropped 6.8 percentage points. The greatest increases from 1969 to 1984 were among self-described moderate conservatives (29.6 percent) and strong conservatives (4.2 percent). Even those who called themselves leftist or liberal showed a considerable moderation of attitudes from 1969 to 1984; among leftists, the proportion who opposed relaxing standards in appointing minorities jumped from 39.4 percent in 1969 to 71.7 percent in 1984.

The attacks on PC obscure these facts by focusing on elite universities and colleges (where the proportion of liberals is somewhat higher) and by examining selected departments (such as sociology, political science, English, and history) where liberals and leftists tend to be in the majority. Critics ignore the "political bias" of business professors, even though business schools have more majors than all the humanities combined. Fewer than 1 percent of business school faculty are self-described leftists, and fewer than 16 percent call themselves liberal."

This isn't as much of a home run as it sounds like initially. The kicker is the phrase "self-described." Conservatives would just argue that of course they don't think they are all that liberal; which just proves how out of touch they are with the "real" America.

Still his comments on the selective nature of most conservatives "hunt" for political correctness are well taken.

History of Political Correctness Part 2

Part one is here.


The first selection continues John K. Wilson's account of the appearance of Political Correctness, from "The Myth of Political Correctness."

"Although no one is sure when or where politically correct was revived, nearly everyone agrees that it was used sarcastically among leftists to criticize themselves for taking radical doctrines to absurd extremes. Roger Geiger notes that political correctness was "a sarcastic reference to adherence to the party line by American communists in the 1930s." Herbert Kohl "first heard the phrase 'politically correct' in the late 1940s in reference to political debates between socialists and members of the United States Communist Party," where "politically correct" was "being used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion and led to bad politics." Ruth Perry traces PC to the late 1960s and the Black Power movement, perhaps inspired by Mao Tse-tung's frequent reference to "correct" ideas. "Politically correct" was used not by extremists on the left to describe their enemies but by more moderate liberals who objected to the intolerance of some leftists. Perry says that "the phrase politically correct has always been double-edged" and "has long been our own term of self-criticism."

The second selection is from Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton, continuing their history of the term.

"Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training"- sound familiar? - and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings."

These two accounts aren't, strictly speaking, parallel; the second account is still in the 1940's and the first is all the way up to the 70s. And, in other ways, they are not parallel. The Newsmax account focuses strictly, so far, on how the phrase existed in Marxist circles; as of yet he hasn't explained how it moved from a group of German Marxists, filtered through Chairman Mao, and sank into widespread use by the 1980s. Presumably we'll get to that next time. No fair clicking on the link and figuring out how this story ends.

Brain Burning Campus Politically Correct Stories

Again, thanks to Campus Report Online, we are reporting on horrific cases of Political Correctness gone astray. In line of the horrific nature of this particular case we are willing to offer a free coffin to any reader who dies of fright while reading this story. Please apply in person at our offices and we will provide said carpet. And don't try dying of something else; we'll know.

This sordid little story takes us to Bucknell University, where they are debating a revision to their harassment code. Apparently the poor students at Bucknell University are subjected to a code that prevents them from speaking. Said code prevents the students from the following activities.

"ethnic or racial name-calling;

disparaging or condescending remarks about a person's nationality, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation;

verbal abuse, including anti-gay jokes and disparaging remarks about one's race or language;

ethnic insults or threats;

offensive racial graffiti;

bias-related physical aggression or contact of a threatening type, including punches, unnecessary brushes, or bumps;

bias-related theft or property damage."

Those poor Bucknell Students; controlled so rigidly.

Anyway the Bucknell University Conservative Club (BUCC) recently held a forum to discuss this code. Among the issues discussed were the following horrific incidents, as reported by Campus Watch Online.

"one recent Bucknell graduate accused the administration of applying a double standard in its enforcement of the rules. He said that when the Bucknell University Conservative Club (BUCC) issued an editorial critical of the school's speech policy, administrators immediately e-mailed the entire campus with a scolding response; but when the words "Die BUCC" were found chalked on a campus sidewalk, the administration was silent.

"Apples and oranges," replied Charles Pollock, Bucknell's vice president for student affairs, saying that the campus-wide e-mail was not punishment but "counterspeech" to the BUCC editorial."

One suspects that Mr. Pollock is regretting having used the phrase Apples and Oranges. So those poor Campus Conservatives had to face not only public disagreement with their opinions, they also had to face mean spirited graffiti. But did campus security look into the matter of the chalked horror? I am unsure, but it seems likely.

Mr. Pollock brought out an interesting point during the meeting, according to the campus paper, the Bucknellian, which was that if a student harasses a second student, aren't that second student's rights violated?

What's also interesting is that the campus conservatives don't seem able to trot out a lot of people who have been wrongfully prosecuted by the code. I mean if this code is so terrible and hurts students so much, you'd think they'd be able to bring forward a few victims of the code. Students who were expressing reasonable point of views, but who then were slammed into for being condescending or something, hauled before the campus courts, and then exiled from Bucknell (frankly such a story would really help out this article as well). But It doesn't seem to have been a subject in the meeting. Pity.

Of course the counter argument is that lots of people would like to say condescending things, but are prevented from doing so through fear of the harassment policy.

Should people be allowed to say what ever they want without consequences? As we will see later, when it comes to liberals saying what they want, these paragons of liberty are pretty much silent.

Political Correctness and the curriculum

This is from an essay by Thomas Short, entitled, "Diversity" and "Breaking the Disciplines":Two New Assaults on the Curriculum" published in academic Questions I (Summer 1988).

"In the sixties increased enrollment of black students combined with the influence of radical ideas led to the creation of a self-ghettoizing cadre demanding curricular changes in the name of racial justice. Black studies seemed a small exception to the principle that the curriculum should not be determined by political objectives; but before we knew it, feminism was also establishing its claim as a part of the curriculum, and then to all of it. Both proceed on the basis of an enormously damaging lie, namely, that the traditional curriculum "excludes" blacks and women. The legitimate attempt to correct omissions and bias was radicalized into the dogmatic assertion that every part of the curriculum not explicitly devoted to correcting social injustice implicitly defends a racist and sexist status quo. As a result, a new educational principle has become established: in place of the old idea that academic freedom is based on disciplinary competence and entails a responsibility to exclude extraneous political matters from the classroom, we are now told that all education is political and that one can do no better than propound a liberating ideology in each and every course."

The problem with this argument is the simple factual error in the middle of it, namely, that the statement that the traditional curriculum excluded blacks and woman (and, while we're on the subject, pretty much all other minorities) is a lie.

One could argue that race, ethnicity, and gender, should not figure into the study of science or math or engineering (although paying attention to the contributions of non-white males along with white males makes sense). In the social sciences and history and literature, however, the traditional canon or curriculum systematically excluded non-white male points of view, with a few exceptions.

Mr. Short also takes the time to criticize minority studies programs.

"Two reasons are also given for minority studies. One is that they are needed for minority students, and the other is that they are needed for "majority" students. Both arguments proceed from the same underlying assumption, that the traditional liberal arts curriculum represents the culture of "majority," a culture that is an alternative to the ethnic cultures of the black Americans, Chicanos, etc."

Actually I can think of a third reason for minority studies. The study of minority cultures has rewards that extend beyond any supposed social benefit such studies might provide, in much the same way that advanced physics research provides rewards beyond simple technological process. In both cases they are the essential attempt to understand the world with which we are surrounded.

But Mr. Short's arguments seem more geared towards arguing for the existence of required (usually Freshmen) courses in cultural or minority studies, rather than arguing for or against the existence of minority studies programs. Which is not the same thing, and is more debatable. But that debate also moves us into the whole realm of what do we want to require our college students to know. Consider this question, asked by all sorts of students, white or black. "Why do I have to waste my time studying this stupid history (or calculus, or Shakespeare or chemistry)?" Tough question to answer, and not one to get into at the end of this little article, so I leave it to you the reader.

A Note

A lot of really long articles this week; and this may not be the subject you find the most interesting. But I want to put this all together; because it's a subject that interests me. So hang in there.

Professor Stephan Thernstrom Revisited; a study in Political Correctness

Professor Thernstrom was one of the early focal points for the political correctness debate. Let's look at his case from a couple of different angles. The first comes from John Taylor, and appeared in New York Magazine.

"Racist."
"Racist."
"The man is a racist!"
"A racist!"

Such denunciations, hissed in tones of self-righteousness and contempt, vicious and vengeful, furious, smoking with hatred?—such denunciations haunted Stephan Thernstrom for weeks. Whenever he walked through the campus that spring, down Harvard's brick paths, under the arched gates, past the fluttering elms, he found it hard not to imagine the pointing fingers, the whispers. Racist. There goes the racist. It was hellish, this persecution. Thernstrom couldn't sleep. His nerves were frayed, his temper raw. He was making his family miserable. And the worst thing was that he didn't know who was calling him a racist, or why.

Thernstrom, fifty-six, a professor at Harvard University for twenty- five years, is considered one of the preeminent scholars of the history of race relations in America. He has tenure. He has won prizes and published numerous articles and four books and edited the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. For several years, Thernstrom and another professor, Bernard Bailyn, taught an undergraduate lecture course on the history of race relations in the United States called "Peopling of America." Bailyn covered the colonial era. Thernstrom took the class up to the present.

Both professors are regarded as very much in the academic mainstream, their views grounded in extensive research on their subject, and both have solid liberal democratic credentials. But all of a sudden, in the fall of 1987, articles began to appear in the Harvard Crimson accusing Thernstrom and Bailyn of "racial insensitivity" in "Peopling of America." The sources for the articles were anonymous, the charges vague, but they continued to be repeated, these ringing indictments.

Finally, through the intervention of another professor, two students from the lecture course came forward and identified themselves as the sources for the articles. When asked to explain their grievances, they presented the professors with a six-page letter. Bailyn's crime had been to read from the diary of a southern planter without giving equal time to the recollections of a slave. This, to the students, amounted to a covert defense of slavery. Bailyn, who has won two Pulitzer Prizes, had pointed out during the lecture that no journals, diaries, or letters written by slaves had ever been found. He had explained to the class that all they could do was read the planter's diary and use it to speculate about the experience of slaves. But that failed to satisfy the complaining students. Since it was impossible to give equal representation to the slaves, Bailyn ought to have dispensed with the planter's diary altogether. . . .

Even worse, they continued, Thernstrom had assigned a book to the class that mentioned that some people regarded affirmative action as preferential treatment. That was a racist opinion. But most egregiously, Thernstrom had endorsed, in class, Patrick Moynihan's emphasis on the breakup of the black family as a cause of persistent black poverty. That was a racist idea. . . .

The semester was pretty much over by then. But during the spring, when Thernstrom sat down to plan the course for the following year, he had to think about how he would combat charges of racism should they crop up again. And they assuredly would. All it took was one militant student, one word like Oriental taken out of context, one objection that a professor's account of slavery was insufficiently critical or that, in discussing black poverty, he had raised the "racist" issue of welfare dependency. And a charge of racism, however unsubstantiated, leaves a lasting impression. "It's like being called a Commie in the fifties," Thernstrom says. "Whatever explanation you offer, once accused, you're always suspect."

He decided that to protect himself in case he was misquoted or had comments taken out of context, he would need to tape all his lectures. Then he decided he would have to tape his talks with students in his office. He would, in fact, have to tape everything he said on the subject of race. It would require a tape-recording system worthy of the Nixon White House. Microphones everywhere, the reels turning constantly. That was plainly ridiculous. Thernstrom instead decided it would be easier just to drop the course altogether. "Peopling of America" is no longer offered at Harvard.

To contrast that point of view, here's an section from an article by Rosa Ehrenreich, which originally appeared in Harpers Magazine, December 1991. Ms. Ehrenreich was a student at Harvard during the controversy.

"The operative word here is "imagine." Taylor seriously distorted what actually happened. In February of 1988, several black female students told classmates that they had been disturbed by some "racially insensitive" comments made by Professor Thernstrom. Thernstrom, they said, had spoken approvingly of Jim Crow laws, and had said that black men, harboring feelings of inadequacy, beat their female partners. The students, fearing for their grades should they anger Professor Thernstrom by confronting him with their criticisms?—this is not an unusual way for college students to think things through, as anyone who's been an undergraduate well knows?—never discussed the matter with him. They told friends, who told friends, and the Crimson soon picked up word of the incident and ran an article.

Professor Thernstrom, understandably disturbed to learn of the matter in the Crimson, wrote a letter protesting that no students had ever approached him directly with such criticisms. He also complained that the students' vague criticisms about "racial insensitivity" had "launched a witch- hunt" that would have "chilling effect upon freedom of expression." Suddenly, Professor Thernstrom was to be understood as a victim, falsely smeared with the charge of racism. But no one had ever accused him of any such thing. "I do not charge that [Thernstrom] is a racist," Wendi Grantham, one of the students who criticized Thernstrom, wrote in the Crimson in response to his letter. Grantham believed the professor gave "an incomplete and over-simplistic presentation of the information.... I am simply asking questions about his presentation of the material...." As for the professor's comment that the criticisms were like a "witch-hunt," Grantham protested that Thernstrom had "turned the whole situation full circle, proclaimed himself victim, and resorted to childish name-calling and irrational comparisons ... 'witch-hunt'[is] more than a little extreme...." But vehement, even hysterical language is more and more used to demonize students who question and comment. Terms like "authoritarian" and "Hitler youth" have been hurled at students who, like Grantham, dare to express any sort of criticism of the classroom status quo."

John K. Wilson, mentioned above also deals with this particular case.

"But except for a vague statement condemning "prejudice, harassment and discrimination" (issued weeks before the controversy began) and praise for the "judicious and fair" students who had "avoided public comment," Harvard officials never took the side of the students, and a month later the dean of the faculty announced that no disciplinary action would be taken against Thernstrom. While Thernstrom may have objected to the administration's neutrality, even Eugene Genovese-- a critic of political correctness-admitted that "the Harvard administration more or less upheld Thernstrom's academic freedom.""

I'm sorry I can't link to these articles--I am getting them from Questia, which is an online library.

This is a tricky one; because nothing actually happened to Mr. Thernstrom. I mean if he had been disciplined, that would be one thing, there'd be a record of it. But instead what we have are supposed attacks on his good name. One account paints those attacks vitrioliclic; the second paints a much more indirect picture.

So there's two stories, and you can take your pick as to which one you believe.

1. Vicious PC students spread rumors about a blameless professor in an effort to get him terminated and to ruin his good name. The professor chose not to offer the class again.

2. Students questioned publically some statements made by their professor, which criticisms found their way into the media to the embarassement of all involved. The professor, unused to facing criticism, decided not to teach the class ever again.

History of Political Correctness Part 1

This section of our review of Political Correctness will present two views of the origin of the word, and then discuss which is more plausible. The first comes from "The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education" written by John K. Wilson, Published by Duke University Press.

"The words first appeared two centuries ago in the 1793 Supreme Court case Chisholm v. Georgia, which upheld the right of a citizen to sue another state. Justice James Wilson wrote an opinion in which he objected to the wording of a common toast: " 'The United States' instead of the 'People of the United States' is the toast given. This is not politically correct." Wilson's use of the term was quite literal. He felt that the people, not the states, held the true authority of the United States, and therefore a toast to the states violated the "correct" political theory. Supporters of states' rights did not concur, and the Eleventh Amendment was passed to overturn the Chisholm decision. And the phrase politically correct quickly faded from memory."

Let's compare that to Agustin Blazquez's (with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton) article on the origin of Political Correctness, entitled "Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times."

"Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Remember, by the way that this is only part one. More parts to come that will illuminate further these records. However, a few initial comments. Mr. Wilson does focus on an American origin to the word; while Mr. Blazquez is tracking the origin of the idea (or what he thinks the idea behind the phrase "Political Correctness" is).

More to come.

Bone-Chilling Politically Correct Stories

As real as last week, and yet so horrific, your hair might turn white. We here at "Make me a Commentator!!!" urge those with weak stomachs or hearts to avoid reading the following terrible tale.

There have been recent protests about the California Governors plans to raise campus tuitions. Apparently the protesters have not been all that numerous; but they have existed. Brace yourself, it gets worse.

According to academic Watchdog Website, Campus Report Online, some professors may have provided information on these protests. Check out this account, oh brave reader, and feel your blood run cold.

"During a recent class, our source at SFCC [San Francisco City College ]writes, our instructor went around the room handing out copies of a letter from the dean of the Castro Valencia campus.

?“When asked, he said he had been told to distribute them. This letter asked students to help fund a partisan effort to lobby against budget reforms currently being proposed by the governor of California.

We are finding that the use of students as political operatives, which many parents and their college-age children find inappropriate, is a standard practice throughout the California state university system. Our source at California State University at Sacramento informs us that her professors told undergraduates that they should attend the aforementioned grassroots demonstration."

Scary isn't it? This instructor had "been told" to pass out these letters. By whom? Was it someone else in the department? Or the president of the college? Or the ghost of Comrade Lenin? It's left unclear, and we are free to let our minds wander over who it could be. It is a blessing that this "source" didn't take the time to find out exactly who told this instructor to pass out these letters; I'm sure the truth would have been too much for even such brave readers as you.

Also note the apparent lack of coercion. I say apparent, because it is clear that in a story as hideous as this, there was massive coercion. Perhaps the teacher threatened to lower grades if the students didn't attend. Perhaps he threatened to open the Gate to the Plane of Boiling Oil and flay the skins from their bodies. The story provides no details as to what type of coercion might have occurred. The uninitiated might assume that this indicates that there was no coercion exercised; but you and I know the horrors of campus life. Of course there was coercion even if it was never spoken or expressed in anyway.

Also note the use of students as political operatives. Fortunately, college students are unable to think for themselves and so are enticed into participating into such demonstrations. If they were able to think for themselves, of course they would be in favor of raising tuition. Instead we have liberal zombie students shuffling their way from class to cafeteria to playstation to bed.

Anyway tune in next time for another bone-chilling politically correct story.

Politically Correct Week

If you choose to punch in the words "political correctness" into Google, you get back 344,000 sites (Politically Correct pulls in 736,000. Politically incorrect pulls in 377,000). That's a whole heap of sites. But what is "political correctness?"

Top of the list and second to the top of the list is an article by Phillip Atkinson on how Political Correctness has ravaged Australia. Let's see what he has to say.

"Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state."

Oh my that doesn't sound very good, does it? But let's look at the ahistorical nature of this statement. It was a "spontaneous declaration." Where did this declaration happen? It is unclear. When did it happen? The author is a bit more forthcoming on this issue. Apparently it appeared in the 1980s. Why did it happen? On this the author is initially silent; although the use of the word "spontaneous" suggests that it did not spring from any antecedents, but just appeared.

Mr. Atkinson does eventually suggest a source for this political correctness; the selfish baby boomers who hated and resented their parents.

"The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, none-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War ), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values."

So according to this particular author, it is infantile to find the term nigger or coon offensive. I need hardly point out that people of color aren't even on stage for this discussion; it is, in Atkinson's mind, strictly a debate between two white generations, and, apparently, their opinions are the only one's that matter.

But perhaps I am being politically correct.

Among the other top ten sites at Google on Political Correctness are a speech by Charleton Heston, a story about the use of "People who are Blind" rather than "Blind People," quotes from Camille Pagalia (some of which are quite good), and a history of the term at the ultra republican Newsmax, claiming it came to us from Frankfort socialists by way of Chairman Mao (which, frankly, is quite a little voyage for an English language term to make).

There is one slightly more scholarly treatment of the term at Wikpedia, but it gives short shrift to the theory that the term originated more as a perjorative against over-righteous liberals. "Many leftists allege that the term "political correctness" started as a label jokingly used to describe one's over-commitment to various political causes. In the view of one conservative commentator, Bill Lind, however, the intellectual roots and attitudes associated with PC are many decades old and rooted in radical leftist movements. Also, in a linguistics mailing list, there was discussion of the term used--sometimes quite straight-facedly--in the early and middle 1970s."

We will be revisiting this theory of the origin of the term as we progress. This might make for a dull scholarly week, but I need a break from the same old thing, and I think it might be interesting to take a subject like this and really explore it.

Just so you know where I stand, I think that the use of the term "political correctness" has done far more to silence and shut down the expression of liberal ideas than it has to silence conservative ideas. Obviously I haven't proved that yet, but I intend to.

So sit back and enjoy. Or actually you'd probably be better off going and watching some TV, since I might not post again until tomorrow or later on tonight.

A Musical Question

Laura Miller, at Salon, has written an article on a subject near and dear to my heart. Fascism. Of all the -isms, fascism is the one that's the most elderberry. The whole article is interesting for what it reveals about fascism, as well as the misuse and overuse of the term. She concludes by looking at our own President Bush.

"Closer to home, using Paxton's definition, is George W. Bush a fascist? Nah. America in the early 2000s doesn't resemble Germany in the 1930s much at all, really. But that doesn't mean this administration's encroachments on civil liberties, cheap appeals to patriotism in launching an ill-conceived and ineptly executed war in Iraq, or efforts to conduct government business in excessive secrecy aren't extremely disturbing. The comparisons of Bush to Hitler don't shed much light on his policies, but they do show just how much fury he's provoked. Usually, when Americans call a politician they don't like a "fascist" it's not because we know he's got an extra-governmental squad of jackbooted thugs ready to sic on his enemies. It's because it's the worst thing we can think of to call anyone. But you can be a bad leader who does bad things without deserving comparisons to the Nazis and ominous references to the "thin end of the wedge." We've all heard the poem by the German who didn't speak out when they came to get this group and that, but let's face it, it's just not effective political vigilance to cry "Hitler" at every provocation. Because most of the time it's not Hitler, and should the day finally come when it is, we want to make sure people are still listening."

She's not wrong.

Great Question

This was about half way through the interview between Presidential Candidate John Kerry and Tim Russert. I didn't actually watch the interview, so it's possible this didn't play as bad as it reads.

"MR. RUSSERT: Senator, again, in the interest of candor and clarity, you have promised to create 10 million jobs...

SEN. KERRY: Yep.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and cut the deficit in half in your first four years.

SEN. KERRY: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: If you don't achieve those goals, would you pledge that you would not seek re-election?"

Hmmmmm. I don't know exactly what the point of that question is; does Russert really think that Kerry should commit to not run for reelection based on that set up? For one thing, the House at least will probably remain in Republican Hands, and they not be interested in passing Kerry's budgets or jobs creation bills. For another, world events might intervene in between now and then. At any rate, let's hear Mr. Kerry's answer.

"Well, it would depend on the circumstances. If I don't because there's a war or
something terrible happens, of course I'm not going to make that pledge. But if I walked away from my promise, which I won't do, I wouldn't deserve to be re-elected. Look, I know I can create 10 million new jobs for this country. Bill Clinton, when he ran in 1992, pledged to create eight million. Guess what, Tim? He created 11 million. We're now a bigger economy with more people. There's no reason we can't create 10 million jobs. But you can't do it with George Bush's failed policy.

I will make this country and our economy stronger by restoring fiscal responsibility. And what I've promised to do--and I have a plan. George Bush has no plan except tax cuts that take place seven years from now for the wealthiest Americans. My plan is to give 98 percent of all Americans a tax cut now. I will give 99 percent of all American businesses a tax cut now. And I pay for it. And I show precisely how I pay for it. And I'm going to reinstate the pay-as-you-go principle that we lived by in the 1990s so that, if we're going to have a program, we're going to have to show Americans how we pay for it."

Although the MSNBC Story about the interview does reveal the positive news that Kerry does have a plan for Iraq (which you all should know, frankly), the interview itself seemed to consist of Russert reading off Republican attacks on Senator Kerry and asking him to respond. It seemed a lot less softball than the infamous Presidential appearance on Meet the Press a couple of weeks back.

New Quotes

Yep--but these are actually old quotes that have already been used. Still, you'll hardly be able to tell the difference. Plus, a new quotes page.