Does anyone have a right to live unoffended? I ask this not with aims of exploitation, to take advantage of anyone’s vulnerability in this regard, but simply to highlight an understanding of what is reasonable on the topic of so-called “political correctness.”
We are all familiar with this prevalent idea, but some may have trouble discerning the actual manifestations of this social phenomenon. When someone justly exercises their right to free expression without undue restraint or censorship, why does it receive instant critique and scorn? Where are the requests for clarification and attempts at discussion? Without such graces extended, the one open-speaker seems to have fallen into a trap. This careless method of measuring the worth of words is a far cry from the means by which an advanced, progressive society should handle disagreements. We have lost so much in the way of public discourse, and I want it back.
Who decides what is acceptable speech and what is not? If it is dictated by some agency or group of individuals vested with some sort of authority, is this not an arbitrary imposition? These questions and many more surround the modern concept of political correctness. Such a pervasive and convoluted idea cannot be rightly addressed in such a short article, but perhaps this will at least provoke thought.
This summer, attention fell once again upon the National Football League team from Washington D.C., the Washington Redskins. The team’s name has been accused of being culturally and historically insensitive toward Native Americans. I do not wish to presently tackle the issue of merit in the critique or defense of the name, but I do wish to emphasize the manner of the dialogue, or lack thereof, that defines this clash of perspectives. Renowned neurosurgeon, author and conservative political activist Ben Carson is one of the many concerned with the threats political correctness pose to the constitutional freedoms of Americans. Carson says perhaps there are indeed more important topics of discussion that should morally convict us and press us toward action. Tragedies from afar and misfortunes from not nearly as far are all disconcerting, and such concerns of greater worth than petty arguments should stir our selectively sensitive souls. Things abroad and things at home warrant our devoted effort, not simply our voiced support. From high platforms of convenience and havens safe from confrontation, we find it expedient to proclaim our views and quickly condemn the opposition in the verbal equivalent of hurling a projectile from a sheltered ledge, while unsuspecting yet allegedly guilty passersby walk into the path below.
Taking a different approach, famed actor Gary Oldman has spoken candidly on the scourge of political correctness. In an interview with the notable magazine “Playboy” (scandalous, yet strangely proficient in acquiring top-notch interviews), Oldman openly speaks about his disdain for the culture that has installed political correctness as the prerequisite for open thought and free speech. He laments this through allusions to particular instances of celebrity blunders where notable actors/actresses are caught saying something off-color and careless and are subsequently banished from certain realms of high-society and fall out of favor with some of their fellow celebrity elite. And the intense scrutiny felt at the top is not good for those at the bottom, or anyone in-between for that matter. Do you think these accusations leveled against the darlings of our modern world will leave us unaffected? I do not think so. Speak out of line and you will face the consequences.
But what is curious is that, even among statements deemed significantly less offensive than such crass yet negligible speech as racial slurs and ignorant caricatures, many statements commonly contain noticeably less vitriol than the speech used to condemn them. There is certainly no shortage of foolish and hateful people out there, but treating every clown and bigot as a threat to civil society does not push us forward if rather keeps us fighting the same battles perpetually. If we do not give these crooks a microphone, we will not hear them speak, and their words of hate will die with them, only to be reborn anew the next day.
We have seen the likes of Keith Olbermann who are champions of some detached progressive vision of fairness who dispense liberal wisdom with moralizing faux-rectitude. Olbermann criticized Tony Dungy simply for speaking openly (something that is oddly praised when the words are pleasing, yet denounced when unpleasing) about his personal views, specifically as relates to his own profession and realm of expertise, professional football. This is unfortunate for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the gross encroachment on the freedom of speech. It is offensive and simply un-American that there are times in the public square when speaking out of genuine conviction and pure intention, with none of the trappings of hate or slander, will be rejected and quickly maligned as insensitive and even wrong.
In the classic Vietnam War film “Apocalypse Now,” we receive an astoundingly vivid piece of commentary on the business of political correctness and censorship. A deranged, yet brilliant, Col. Walter E. Kurtz notes of the American forces: “We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won’t allow them to write ‘f***’ on their airplanes because it’s obscene!”
The question arises: which is more obscene – profanity, or indiscriminately dropping napalm on innocent civilians? And from this question perhaps another, more essential question is drawn, one that is applicable today: where are our priorities?
