Debra Zavala Rhetoric 15 April 2002 Political Correctness: Impractical at Best, Dangerous at Worst The term politically correct (PC) has been around since 1936, but it really came into vogue during the 1990s. Political correctness means conformity to a belief that language and practice which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated. Originally, the movement sought to control words; it is now attempting to control thoughts, attitudes and even morality. By advocating things that are not feasible and contrary to common sense, PC policies detract resources from individuals and communities that could be put to better use. Furthermore, they downgrade our educational system and our moral fiber. It does not make sense economically to pursue some of the issues that are being advanced through political correctness. A collaborative book, by Marilyn Friedman and Jan Narveson, summarizes Narveson's position: "if it's PC, then it can't be reasonable; if it's at all reasonable, then it can't be PC" (129). Following that premise, a good example is the situation that occurred in Oregon. Political analyst Phyllis Schlafly writes that hundreds of farmers were denied water for their crops to save the habitat of a small fish that the Endangered Species Act has classified as "endangered." A federal court later ruled "the fish have more rights than the farmers," thereby forcing some farmers into bankruptcy (Schlafly). This is not reasonable; but time and money was spent arguing this matter in the courts of our land. The city of San Francisco passed a law requiring the city's health plan to pay for sex change operations ("San Francisco"). It is commendable to try and provide access to comprehensive health care for everyone; however, it is impractical. Medical and psychological care costs incurred for just one sex change procedure could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars; on the other hand, coverage for "well baby" care with no deductible, which is more useful to a wider portion of society and far less expensive, would be a better choice for society. Everything is an illness nowadays. In this new PC era, bad personal choices are labeled "disabilities," and communities are expected to pay for the remedy. Psychiatrist Sally Satel, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University directing a drug treatment program in the 1990s, found that the alcoholics and drug addicts in the program were considered to be disabled and thus were receiving disability checks (qtd. in McCarthy). Satel noted in her findings "what you saw were patients turning around and using the money to support their habits" (qtd. in McCarthy). Does this help anyone? Indeed, not. PC purports to care for the minority, the underprivileged. Contrary to that ideal, Jeannette Naish is practicing medicine in a predominantly Afro-Caribbean community and proposes the start of a program to test and identify all women at risk for sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia. This was something she was already doing for her patients as they came in for contraception counseling; nevertheless, the Community Relations Council for the area objected to expanding her work to help more people. They were more concerned that she was practicing "color coding" and with calling her racist than with helping the community. Apparently it would be too practical. Security at airports is a major issue of concern since 11 September 2001, and it will require a lot of money to make needed improvements. It has already had a major facelift and looks good, but unfortunately, that is all. Airport security personnel are severely hampered by the PC bureaucracy that says they may not target the groups everyone knows are responsible for the 9-11 atrocity. An Opinion Journal editorial is sadly on target in its criticism of the "FAA Guidance for Screeners and other Security Personnel": If a would-be Islamic terrorist from the Middle East logged on to the guidelines, he'd have to conclude that one of the best ways to get through airport security would be to disguise himself as, well, an Islamic terrorist from the Middle East. According to DOT standards, speaking Arabic, appearing to be from the Mideast, wearing a veil (for women) or a beard (for men) are all reasons NOT to be singled out. ("Profiles") Airline executives and even President Bush are to blame on a smaller scale by requesting deference to Muslims in an effort to not discriminate ("Profiles"). Where is the common sense in that? Even sadder is that, according to Andrew Roberts, America's intelligence agencies have opted for PC before "operational efficiency" (20). Intelligence expert Mike Waller reveals just one misuse of funds by pointing out a policy "whereby professionals at Langley [CIA headquarters] are forced to take sensitivity classes and do role-playing about how stereotypical language and attitudes create a hurtful workplace environment" (qtd. in Roberts). Resources expended so far, to make America more secure, seem to have been for naught; money is wasted on cosmetic solutions when PC policies still compromise our security. Our country is founded on basic respect for law and all human beings alike. Even so, we know that discrimination and intolerance exists that sometimes leads to violence towards certain individuals. The state of California is proposing a measure to try and discourage these attitudes concerning the gay community by proposing a referendum called the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. The aim is to present homosexuality in positive ways to, as it were, "shape an attitude" and "teach students to respect and accept these individuals" in order to promote tolerance ("California"). This is a commendable effort on the surface. Everyone wants all students to be in a safe learning environment. Alan Keyes, host of MSNBC's Alan Keyes is Making Sense and noted author, educator and public speaker, succinctly challenges their standpoint ("California"): "to avoid possible physical harm, one inflicts actual moral damage on students in the classroom and claims that this is not an infringement of religious belief and conscience. How can this be so?" In the end, this will wind up eroding morality and sending us further down that famous slippery slope. A political science professor at The University of Texas Pan American, a self confessed ACLU card carrying liberal, was asking for suggestions about possible causes of cheating and plagiarism. Widespread cheating is a pervasive problem in our schools that downgrades and cheapens the significance of a post-secondary education. He opened up a discussion with a statement to the effect that putting the Ten Commandments in the school system would have no immediate effect on the problem of dishonesty. A student in class asserted it was true there would be no immediate effect, but just as the decline in the moral fiber of society has been a gradual one, if the Ten Commandments were put back in the school system, in time there might be a gradual resurgence of ethics. Religions aside, seven of the Ten Commandments are admonitions basic to the social and moral fiber in every society. These are things that need to be inculcated. Inspiring our youth to learn and achieve their best is our challenge; teaching our children values and morals is our quest. We are being undermined in this goal by political correctness in our school system and post secondary system. Greater justice for minorities in our society is the objective, a very noble pursuit indeed; instead, proponents of PC effectuate a downgrading of the educational system and our moral fiber as well. According to Harvey C. Mansfield, a political science professor at Harvard University, his institution practices systematic grade inflation, so much so that he tells his students they will get two grades in his class: one that he will turn in to the registrar and one that they really deserve (qtd. in Lawler 133). Studies indicate that A-minus is the average grade at Harvard and "B-plus now stands for undistinguished competence" (133). Our schools are not fostering an environment for virtues and character building. Mansfield asserts that inflated grades started as the misguided response of faculty to the lower quality of work of Black students allowed into Harvard in the 1960s thru 1970s (134). Giving these Black students access to an Ivy League education is laudable; but, very plainly, instead of bringing them up to a higher standard, the bar has been lowered for the rest. Dishing out self-esteem in the form of inflated grades for the oppressed, or those who cannot perform to standard, has replaced traditional hard work. Consequently PC, however noble on the surface, has caused insidious damage to the education system and undermined the values of our society. PC activity is quiet and subtle. It starts with changing words and then progresses to changing thoughts. What better place to do that than in an educational setting? Speaking on affirmative action, Narveson notes that "it is economically inefficient and it inflicts its own positive injustices" (Friedman and Narveson 114). This statement can be made about most, if not all, PC programs. Political correctness is an extremist position that has opened up serious abuses and misuses; economics is just one area, a very powerful area that everyone can understand: the pocketbook. Indeed, PC is alive and spreading in our country. Richard Lalonde, an associate professor in psychology at York University in Canada, cites a 1992 study that points out, "Conservatives are convinced that the liberal opposition is so committed to race and gender equity that it is willing to sacrifice fundamental American principles, including individual liberty and fairness" (Lalonde, Doan, and Patterson 319). Changes in language or policies are meant to bring about greater justice; however, justice is exactly what winds up missing (Friedman and Narveson 50). In all fairness, both sides of the aisle of political correctness have good points; it's when extremist positions are adopted that the baby is thrown out with the bath water. |
Sources Cited "California Legislation Called the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000." Alan Keyes is Making Sense. MSNBC. 31 Jan. 2002. 13 Mar. 2002 <http://www.msnbc.com/news/l98071.asp>. Friedman, Marilyn, and Jan Narveson. Political Correctness: For and Against. Lanthan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1995. Lalonde, Richard, Laura Doan, and Lorraine Patterson. "Political Correctness: Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 3.3 (2000): 317-336. Lawler, Peter Augustine. "Grade Inflation, Democracy, and the Ivy League." Perspectives on Political Science 30.3 (2001): 133-141. McCarthy, Michael. "Do 'PC' MDs Threaten Health Care?" Lancet 358.9289 (2001): 1246. Naish, Jeannette. "The Changing Face of Political Correctness." British Medical Journal 315.7120 (1997): 1475. "Profiles in Timidity." The WSJ.com Opinion Journal 25 Jan. 2002. 25 Jan. 2002 <http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printthis.html?id=95001778>. Roberts, Andrew. "Bring Back 007." The Spectator 6 Oct. 2001: 20-21. "San Francisco to Cover Costs of Sex Change." British Medical Journal 322.7295 (2001): 1140. Schlafly, Phyllis. "Humans vs. Fish at Klamath Falls." Human Events 6 Aug. 2001: 17. |