What is political correctness?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\nWhat is Political Correctness?\r\n<\/p>
\r\nJonathan I. Katz\r\n<\/p>
\r\nProfessor of Physics\r\n<\/p>
\r\nWashington University, St. Louis, Mo.\r\n<\/p>
\r\n<\/p>
\r\nWhat is political correctness, where did it come from, and why is it\r\nso influential at universities? It is the object of widespread ridicule,\r\nusually a very powerful weapon, so why doesn't it go away?\r\n<\/p>
\r\nI used to think it was a simple matter of conformism, but there is a lot\r\nmore to it than that. Political correctness is also sometimes regarded as\r\nsynonymous with ``left-wing'' politics, but I think it is a tool rather than\r\na specific set of political positions, and it appears in apolitical contexts\r\nalso. \r\n<\/p>
\r\nConsider, for example, the indignant letters that appear (as did recently in\r\nmy local paper) when a newspaper publishes a picture of someone bicycling\r\nwithout a helmet. These letters criticize the newspaper for publishing the\r\npicture. We may be justified in criticizing hazardous or reckless\r\nbehavior, but why should a newspaper suppress the fact that people act that\r\nway?\r\n<\/p>
\r\nOne day I felt politically correct thoughts myself,\r\nand understood them better. My local newspaper ran a series of articles on\r\nthe dangers to living donors of organ donations, illustrated with stories\r\nof donors who had suffered serious damage to their health, or even death, as\r\na consequence of donating. My emotional reaction was ``They shouldn't have\r\nrun those articles.'' Why? The articles were apparently factual (though\r\nunbalanced---there was no discussion of the benefits to the recipients).\r\nWhy should the public be denied the facts on a matter of wide interest?\r\nThe reason for my reaction was that I was afraid the articles would reduce\r\nthe willingness of people to be living organ donors, which would cause the\r\ndeaths of people needing and waiting for a transplanted organ.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nMy reaction (that I reject rationally) was that the truth should be\r\nsuppressed because it might cause harm. This is a totalitarian impulse, and\r\nit is the root of political correctness. A democracy depends on the widest\r\npossible dissemination of facts, and the freest possible discussion of them.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nI was reminded of an event that happened around 1980, in the early days of\r\npolitical correctness. I was at UCLA, and there was a controversy about the\r\nsafety of the campus research reactor. I went out on the roof above it,\r\nstood in the exhaust of its ventilating system, had someone photograph me\r\nthere, and sent the photograph to the student newspaper, which published it.\r\nSomeone came to me and said ``You shouldn't have done that.'' Why? To\r\nthose opposed to the reactor, the truth that it was not discharging\r\nradioactive waste threatened their cause, so they wanted to suppress it.\r\nThe harm they were afraid of wasn't the real harm done to a patient unable\r\nto get an organ transplant; it was harm to their political cause. The only\r\nacceptable position was that the reactor was dangerous and had to go, and\r\nanything that might suggest that this was incorrect was socially\r\nunacceptable, even if truthful.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nOn all issues there is a range of opinions people\r\nare willing to consider, outside of which opinions are rejected without\r\nconsideration. Sometimes this rejection is justified on grounds of common\r\nsense, independent knowledge, or morality. For example, it is possible to\r\ndefend many positions about the causes and consequences of the American\r\nRevolution, but pretending it never happened is outside the range of\r\nreasonable discourse.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nPolitical correctness is the narrowing of the range of acceptable opinions\r\nto those held by a small group that enforces it. It is a attempt, often\r\nsuccessful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing\r\ngroup by suppressing any contrary opinion and making independent thought\r\nunacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the the consequences of\r\nopen discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical\r\nmotivation: it wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to\r\nwhich it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling\r\nany disagreement from it outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This\r\nis unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only\r\nmeans of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nPolitical correctness also comes with an admixture of moral indignation.\r\nIt removes the issue from the ordinary give-and-take of rational argument or\r\nthe political process by injecting intense emotion. In my personal episode\r\nof politically correct thought, thinking of people dying for lack of an\r\norgan aroused strong feelings. Political correctness uses language with\r\nstrong connotations, such as ``discrimination'' and ``racism'', or evokes\r\nancient wrongs in order to associate any disagreement with support of past\r\nabuses. This emotional blackmail is effective in a self-consciously\r\nprivileged environment, and what environment is more self-consciously\r\nprivileged than an American university, populated with undergraduates who\r\nhave been spoiled for eighteen years by overindulgent and affluent parents\r\nand with tenured professors, many of whom are still racked with guilt for\r\nhaving dodged the draft during the Vietnam war?\r\n<\/p>
\r\nA current example is the movement to get the legal and tax privileges of\r\nmarriage for homosexual couples. Its advocates express their case in terms\r\nof ``discrimination'', a powerful term because it evokes the past history of\r\nracial discrimination in America. Use of this term is an attempt, often\r\nsuccessful, to make discussion of the genuine moral and policy issues\r\n``politically incorrect'', that is, outside the range of acceptable\r\ndiscourse. Few people want to be accused of supporting ``discrimination'',\r\neven though there is a strong case to be made, on grounds of\r\npublic health as well as morality, for public\r\npolicy to discourage and discriminate against homosexual behavior. Not all\r\n``discrimination'' is Jim Crow.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThe classic example of political correctness was the reaction to the book\r\n``The Bell Curve''. The theses (there were several) of this book, which was\r\nessentially the popularization of several decades of psychometric research,\r\nmay be summarized:\r\n 1. Intelligence (more particularly the quantity called ``g'' or general\r\nintelligence by psychometricians) is a meaningful description of mental\r\nfunctioning. Measures of it in an individual are reproducible and stable\r\nacross time.\r\n 2. Intelligence is a key to success in life. More intelligent people\r\nhave, on average, higher incomes and better jobs, and are less likely to\r\ncommit crimes, use recreational drugs or have illegitimate children than\r\nless intelligent people.\r\n 3. Intelligence is strongly heritable. This is difficult to quantify,\r\nbut at least half the variation in intelligence is explained by heredity.\r\nThe remaining variation is environmental, in poorly understood ways.\r\n 4. The mean intelligence is different in identifiable racial groups, and\r\nthis explains the large variation in their success in American society. The\r\nmost successful groups (East and South Asians) have the highest mean\r\nintelligence, Americans of European ancestry have somewhat lower mean\r\nscores, and Americans of West African ancestry have the lowest.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThe fourth thesis was, naturally, the most controversial and aroused the\r\nstrongest attacks. In fact, the first three probably would interest few\r\nother than professional psychometricians were it not for the general belief\r\nthat the fourth follows from them. Of course, it is consistent with\r\npopular belief (held by most people, including most members of the groups\r\nasserted to have lower mean intelligence). And it isn't a new idea: for\r\nexample, the English explorer Francis Younghusband said in his book ``The\r\nHeart of a Continent'' (1896) recounting his explorations of Central Asia\r\n(p. 396): \r\n``In mere brain-power and intellectual capacity there seems no great\r\ndifference between the civilized European and, say, the rough hill-tribesman\r\nof the Himalayas; and, in regard to the Chinaman, I should even say the\r\nadvantage lay on his side.''\r\n<\/p>
\r\nGiven the uncertainties and limitations of social science (even of\r\npsychometrics, which lies between social science and biology) it would be\r\nfutile to try to decide if ``The Bell Curve'' securely demonstrated its\r\nconclusions. More interesting is why it aroused such a strong reaction.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThe facts regarding the mean success or failure in life of the various\r\nAmerican racial groups are well-known and are a matter of everyday\r\nexperience. One can hardly open a newspaper without reading about them.\r\nCuriously, the people who dwell on them the most are the friends of the less\r\nsuccessful who want compensatory action, but by dwelling on them they only\r\nstrengthen the conclusion that their failures must be deeply rooted and\r\nthat efforts at compensation are futile. If they have not been remedied by\r\na generation of compensation, then they are nearly immutable, and it hardly\r\nmatters whether they are a matter of heredity or environment.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nEveryone knows that identifiable racial and ethnic groups differ, on\r\naverage, in many ways even aside from defining racial markers such as skin\r\ncolor. Scandinavians are heavier and taller than people of Mediterranean\r\nancestry, the world's best sprinters come from West Africa and its best\r\nmarathoners from East Africa, Pygmies are short and the Masai tall (because\r\nof geography and climate Africa has more human diversity than any other\r\ncontinent), etc. Why couldn't differences extend to psychometric measures?\r\nMore important, why should that suggestion arouse such a strong attempt to\r\npush it beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse?\r\n<\/p>
\r\nTo some extent, it is a matter of group pride (a fashionable euphemism for\r\nracism; recall that pride is one of the seven deadly sins). But do people\r\nreally take more pride in intelligence than in\r\nathletic ability (how many people pay to watch chess matches, in comparison\r\nto professional sports?)? I doubt it. And group averages tell nothing\r\nabout individuals---the fact that intelligence is correlated with income\r\ndoesn't make Bill Gates smarter than you or I (judging by the quality of his\r\nsoftware, he surely isn't). The question isn't injured pride, it is the\r\nattempt to exclude a hypothesis with significant empirical evidence in its\r\nfavor (and some against, despite the failure to identify ``cultural bias''\r\nin intelligence tests) from the field of acceptable discourse.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nThe reason is that accepting, or even seriously considering, this hypothesis\r\nwould injure some people's material interests. There are many people in\r\nAmerica who make their livings from programs to address the supposed racial\r\nimbalance in American society, and more who are beneficiaries. The\r\njustification for these programs is always that if members of a certain\r\ngroup aren't, on average, doing well this must be the consequence of\r\n``discrimination'' (which seems to be lost in the mists of ``disparate\r\nimpact'' theology, because actual examples in modern America are few and\r\nhard to find) that must be remedied by some ``affirmative action'' program,\r\nand, yes, I'll manage such a program for you. And if you don't agree I'll\r\norganize a demonstration and call you a racist and there will be lots of bad\r\npublicity. You really don't want that, and we can negotiate the price. If\r\nthe reason members of that group don't do well is that their aptitudes or\r\npreferences extend in different directions then the justification for\r\n``affirmative action'' and some people's careers evaporates, so the\r\npossibility must not even be thought of.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nOf course, if people weren't intimidated by threats of being called racist\r\n(or of demonstrations) they might decide that the supposed ``imbalance'' was\r\nof no more significance than the fact that right-handers are\r\n``underrepresented'' among baseball pitchers---that's just the way the world\r\nhappens to be, we may not understand why, but as long as we treat each\r\nindividual fairly we needn't be concerned with it. That would put a lot of\r\naffirmative action coordinators and diversity\r\nadministrators out of work.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nI observed another example when I posted on my web site an essay\r\nDon't Become a Scientist! arguing that the job\r\nprospects for scientists are so poor that young people should look for\r\ncareers elsewhere. One of my colleagues, a quite distinguished man whom I\r\nformerly respected, said he wanted to censor this. Why? Because if young\r\npeople realized how poor the job prospects are in science he wouldn't be\r\nable to find graduate students to work in his laboratory. The later fate of\r\nthese students in a flooded job market did not concern him. Political\r\ncorrectness is found even in matters that aren't overtly political, when\r\nsomeone wants to further his interests by suppressing facts or opinions.\r\n<\/p>
\r\nUniversities are the institutions most vulnerable to this extortion and its\r\nmost enthusiastic participants (though large corporate and government\r\nbureaucracies do it too). One reason is that it is almost impossible to\r\nmeasure their success (no sales or production figures), so their leaders can\r\nindulge their prejudices freely. Another is that many universities are very\r\nauthoritarian institutions (my own, Washington\r\nUniversity in St. Louis, may be among the most so) in which neither\r\nstudents nor faculty have any voice or influence. Students are\r\nvulnerable because they have few legally enforceable rights. They can be\r\ngiven bad grades or subjected to discipline on subjective grounds (this also\r\nleads to sexual exploitation, something that still happens, despite the\r\nnear-hysteria about ``sexual harassment'').\r\n<\/p>
\r\nStudents have come to expect indoctrination\r\nin their classes. They often fear that disagreement with their instructors\r\nwill bring reprisals in the form of bad grades and that disagreement with\r\nadministrators will lead to disciplinary action.\r\nIn this climate university administration and teaching attract bullies who\r\nenforce political correctness. Universities themselves are terrified of bad\r\npublicity, because what they are selling is chiefly an image. This makes\r\nthem vulnerable to the tactics of external enforcers of political\r\ncorrectness, whose chief weapon is the threat of bad publicity.\r\n<\/p>
<\/p>\r\nA few years ago I posted a web page In Defense of\r\nHomophobia. The title was deliberately provocative; the content was a\r\ntemperate and reasoned discussion of how homosexual promiscuity had caused,\r\nand is morally culpable for, the AIDS epidemic in America. I fear\r\nhomosexuality because it has created a deadly epidemic. For some years\r\nno one seemed to notice. Then one of my students did, and published an\r\nopinion column in Student Life calling for its censorship. (To my surprise,\r\nthe administration has not attempted to do so.) This was followed by a wave\r\nof similar calls, including an editorial. After this first wave, my\r\ncritics, most of whom probably consider themselves liberals, seem to have\r\nrealized that censorship is not a liberal position. The next wave consisted\r\nof a mixture of name-calling, irrelevancies (one girl wrote how much she\r\nloved her wonderful homosexual ``Uncle John'') and attacks on positions I\r\ndid not take (most commonly, the erroneous idea that only homosexuals get\r\nAIDS). Most disturbing was the concern, voiced by several students, that\r\ndisagreeing with a professor would bring reprisals. Apparently this abuse\r\nof professorial authority is so common that students expect it.\r\n
<\/p>\r\nNo one took issue with what I actually wrote; it was as if I had\r\ntriggered a nervous reflex rather than thought. While the published\r\ncomments were mostly negative, private emails have been running about 2:1\r\nin agreement with me, suggesting censorship by social pressure of public\r\ncomments. One favorable email follows:\r\n
<\/p>\r\n[Identifying information removed from following message:]\r\n
<\/p>\r\nYour personal web page tells it like it is.\r\n
<\/p>\r\nI am a [institution deleted] faculty, not tenured, who finds\r\nyour ability to frankly state the obvious refreshing. \r\nUnfortunately I do not feel the academic freedom\r\nwithin this system of higher learning to voice non\r\npolically correct sentiments. \r\n
<\/p>\r\nFor now I'll toe the line, make the papers, work for\r\nthe rank and tenure to be free to once state my real\r\nbeliefs without fear of repression, censure, or job\r\nloss from from the Right.\r\n
<\/p>\r\n[End of anonymized message; presumably he means Left\r\nrather than Right]\r\n
<\/p>\r\nThe negative comments, both private emails and letters and columns in \r\nStudent Life (from late September through October,\r\n2005) were frequently near-hysterical tirades, filled with name-calling and\r\ninsults. These don't bother me, and I take the fact that I aroused their\r\nrage (and that none of them has attempted to meet my actual argument) as a\r\ncompliment. But people who care more about the opinions of others might be\r\nintimidated; this is one of the ways in which the ``thought police'' enforce\r\npolitical correctness among those who do not accept the official line. No\r\none responded to my challenge to a public debate; insults and name-calling\r\nare the response of those who know their positions are too weak to defend.\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
\r\nPolitical correctness can be found any time people are afraid of the\r\nconsequences of an idea or a fact, and use social pressure to suppress\r\ndiscussion of it. The intensity of their reaction is usually an indication\r\nthat they know or fear that the objectionable opinion is valid, but that\r\nthey are invested (emotionally or literally) in its falsity.\r\n<\/p>
<\/p>\r\nPolitical correctness can be resisted by insisting on free, open and public\r\ndiscussion of even the most sensitive issues. The more it makes some people\r\nuncomfortable, the more important it is. A healthy society requires a free\r\nmarketplace of ideas. You have a right to your own opinions, and to express\r\nthem freely.\r\n
\r\nJonathan Katz
\r\nThu May 13 12:39:11 CDT 1999<\/i>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/wuphys.wustl.edu\/~katz\/pc.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"What is political correctness, where did it come from, and why is it so influential at universities? It is the object of widespread ridicule, usually a very powerful weapon, so why doesn't it go away? ","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2006\/08\/173641.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}