Reconsidering political correctness

When it came time a few weeks ago for administrators at Kean University to pick a commencement speaker, I imagine that Common seemed like a safe choice. He has always been lauded as a “conscious” rapper (whatever that implies) who starred in a romantic comedy, happens to be a pescatarian, wrote a book about his mom, has a charity dedicated to supporting underprivileged youth and, of course, co-wrote the song “Glory” with John Legend for the movie “Selma.”

Somehow, though, someone managed to take offense —New Jersey State Troopers Fraternal Association president Chris Burgos called the invitation a “slap in the face” to police officers. Apparently, Burgos had managed to dig up a fifteen-year-old song dedicated to Assata Shakur, the controversial figure condemned by some as a terrorist while vigorously defended by others. Around the same time that Princeton students were rallying against Big Sean, a police organization was protesting against another artist of color from a working-class background in a struggling Midwestern city.

This incident is an example of what Paul Krugman refers to as “right-wing political correctness.” This kind of conservative correctness may have hit its peak in the early days of the Iraq War, when Congress actually voted to rename cafeteria french fries “freedom fries.” Then there are countless instances of fundamentalist Christian groups rallying against portrayals of homosexuality in entertainment. Apparently even AP US History is under fire.

These are cases where certain words or phrases become unacceptable not because of the way they demean marginalized groups, but because of the way that they question an established “American” norm — a set of traditional nationalistic, Christian or free market values. Of course, when people try to make language more inclusive of and welcoming to members of marginalized groups, they become politically correct “social justice warriors.” But language designed to make “job creators” (a term that many conservatives use in place of “the wealthy”) more comfortable somehow just qualifies as the common decency to refrain from class warfare.

I mention all this to call into question the assumptions behind the phrase “political correctness,” since I’ve heard it thrown around on campus a lot recently. Julius Dixon ’16 probably captured the feelings of over four hundred students who liked his Facebook status when he wrote: “To the PC police and all other butthurt parties — the world is not here to cater to you.”

I have also observed a large amount of conservative correctness. The fact that columnistsNewby Parton, Christian Wawrzonek, Steve Swanson and the Editorial Board all felt compelled write very similar columns in The Daily Princetonian criticizing the protest of Eisgruber’s speech suggests that certain language — such as “cultural appropriation” or “racism” — makes some people at Princeton uncomfortable beyond a mere philosophical commitment to free speech.

I personally differ somewhat from the protesters in my interpretation of Eisgruber’s email, and I too tend to adhere to a fairly liberal standard of free speech — but the fact that these writers all took the opportunity to criticize a small group of brave students demonstrating on behalf of peers who were also hurt by events on campus suggests not only that they actually take this kind of protest as a serious threat against free speech. This kind of reaction also implies a deeper kind of discomfort with serious discussion about problems for minorities on campus.

Wawrzonek writes, “I was dismissed because of my race and insulted because my opinion did not align with an absurdly overhyped narrative.” He says that he’s not looking for sympathy, but he must have felt injured enough by a few Facebook comments to write a substance-free column about not “fighting discrimination with discrimination.”

Meanwhile, all four parties ignore what the real threat to free speech is: those ugly, reactionary instincts that manifest themselves under the cover of anonymity and threaten those students brave enough to exercise their freedom of speech. It’s hard to explain the ugly reactions that appear under the cover of anonymity any other way than to directly call out the sensitivity of those of us with privilege who find that conversations about race, class, gender or sexuality make us feel personally uncomfortable.

Anonymity — whether it comes in the form of posting on Yik Yak or tearing down pro- and anti-divestment posters — severs speech from accountability. It also enables students to single out individuals like Joanna Anyanwu ’15 who, by vocally calling attention to the problems that minority students face on campus, apparently make non-minority students feel “victimized.” Free speech cannot fulfill its promise as long as students like Anyanwu who choose to use this freedom face intimidation from their own peers.

To an alarming degree, I’ve heard many students like Wawrzonek and Yik Yak users justify their complaints about campus dialogue with narratives of reverse-discrimination — the biggest excuse for self-pity and over-sensitivity around today. Conservative correctness is strong among our student body, and in combination with anonymity it represents a serious threat to our freedom of speech.

Max Grear is a freshman from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@princeton.edu.