"Empathic Correctness": Opinions As Aggression On Campus
For me, one of the greatest things about college was the exposure to new ideas, including ideas that made me uncomfortable. This is what college is supposed to be about -- or was.
Kevin Truong writes at CNS:
What began in the 1990s as political correctness - a desire not to offend others - has now morphed into what one academic observer calls "empathetic correctness" - a desire never to be offended. Even celebrities have weighed in on the debate, with comedians Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher saying the environment at college makes it almost impossible to do their routines without someone becoming upset.While many have pointed to helicopter parenting or the mainstream media as root sources of a politically correct culture on campus, much of the criticism is oversimplified, academics say.
According to professors and higher-education experts, the trend is driven by financial realities in the American higher education system, and exacerbated by a contemporary world in which opinions are catalyzed and publicized by the intellectual echo chamber that can exist online. With a drop in the number of college-age students, as well as decreased funding from states, increased competition among colleges and universities has resulted in an atmosphere where students are treated like consumers and more emphasis may be placed on their satisfaction rather than how much they are learning, critics charge.
Professors can feel disincentivized to bring up controversial issues up in class for fear of getting in trouble either with administration or with students that they may offend, critics say.
via @glukianoff, who, with theFIRE.org, defends free speech rights on college campuses.
Lukianoff's two terrific books: Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and the quick but compelling read, Freedom from Speech.
Yup. Some of form Gov. Rick Perry's advisers tried to implement a bunch of "reforms" in higher education at Texas public universities that included basing a substantial part of professor's rankings on student ratings, and treating students more like "customers." Interestingly, the reformers were conservative businessmen.
http://www.texastribune.org/2011/03/16/whos-behind-proposed-reforms-to-texas-higher-ed/
ahw at July 31, 2015 9:43 AM
Jerry Seinfeld is pretty old... is it that far of a stretch to think he might be out of touch with the humor of today's youngsters?
NicoleK at July 31, 2015 7:12 PM
Minor nitpicking here . . .
"What began in the 1990s as political correctness - a desire not to offend others - has now morphed into what one academic observer calls "empathetic correctness"
Political Correctness - I first heard that term my senior year of undergraduate school in 1980; not in the 1990s. The author needs to research his academic history a bit more.
Back then, I pegged it for what it was (not, as the author suggests, "what it has morphed into") and was always meant to be - a way to stifle those who have a different viewpoint.
The term, itself - "politically correct," implies that there is a politically "incorrect" way of thinking. It sounded then, as it does now, as something straight out of a communist re-education camp. Just, for example, read the woman in your previous post that you responded to, Amy, in which she says "get yourself an education." As if her viewpoint/belief is the only correct way for an educated person to think. That has been PCness from the start - there is only one correct viewpoint.
Quite funny side note; I had a classmate in graduate school who insisted that she was politically liberal because she had a "liberal" education. She really didn't understand/know that liberal has more than one meaning based upon its context. She was much younger than me; so, I guess she was truly a product of the PC-controlled education system. She wasn't educated, she was indoctrinated! And, that is what the PC pushers have always been aiming for - indoctrination, not education.
PCness was never "about a desire to not offend." Some followers may have mistakenly believed that was all it really was (just like some Italians thought Mussolini was only wanting to get the trains to run on time); but, those leaders who have been pushing Political Correctness have always intended for it to be about shutting up the "non-believers." I'll bet many of those PC leaders would have loved to been a part of the Spanish Inquisition if they were only born in a different century.
The author is correct in that blaming helicopter parenting or the MSM is an oversimplification; but, I don't agree that the stifling of free speech through political correctness is a result of "financial realities." In my opinion that sounds like professors, many of whom created political correctness, looking for a scape-goat. They created this monster and now want to blame someone else for their folly. (yea, there were no Nazis to be found in Germany in 1946 either)
I do agree that PCness, and its many offspring such as microagressions, trigger warnings, redefining words (e.g., racism is now defined in such as way that blacks cannot be racist), charges of "white Privilege," etc. are a serious threat to the academic environment, and therefore a threat to society as a whole. If our institutions which are intended for creating, inventing, discovering new ideas, methods, and viewpoints are not allowed to do so then we, as a society and a nation, will stagnate like a cesspool.
charles at July 31, 2015 8:21 PM
Sort of a reverse McCarthyism, eh?
Are you now or have you ever been . . . ?
Do you associate with people who . . .?
Canvasback at July 31, 2015 10:39 PM
Let's not forget, though, that there really are two types of political correctness - and political incorrectness. E.g., it is NOT helpful to the cause of free speech to go around bragging about how often you use derogatory words for people who are different from you - and yes, that's true even if you're female or from a minority group.
Miss Manners, as usual, put it very well - back in 1995:
"Good PC vs. Bad PC"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1995/06/25/good-pc-vs-bad-pc/0ecede84-2980-4dab-8d51-942341c7f8d5/
Excerpts:
"...insulting a person on the basis of what was clearly said or done out of nothing but goodwill is, obviously, rude. No question about it.
"In fact, this is so obvious that Miss Manners has become slightly suspicious of those stories. And when (as a polite coverup for her inability to double up in shock or merriment at yet another of these tales) she asks dainty questions, some of these incidents turn out to be not quite so clear-cut.
"Perhaps there was a previously omitted detail, such as that those (business) pleasantries the lady was so touchy about had included a little friendly but unauthorized touching. Or that the (black) gentleman who was so surly about his work was getting the dirty work not assigned to his peers.
"Condemnation of PC has become so popular that the distinction between reacting to imaginary and real slights seems to have gotten lost. The anti-PC forces have succeeded in casting suspicion on anyone who won't accept the expression of bigotry with equanimity..."
lenona at August 1, 2015 7:29 AM
And, in 1991:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/20/opinion/dialogue-speech-on-campus-say-the-right-thing-or-else-attack-ideas-not-people.html
First half:
WASHINGTON— Can the university, with its special trust of protecting free speech, be hampered by the restrictions of civility? What kind of a frill is etiquette, anyway, for those in the noble pursuit of truth?
These questions are raised whenever a loose-tongued student turns publicly nasty. When Brown University recently expelled such a student, many argued that all restrictions of free speech are intolerable in the university. Brown's president, Vartan Gregorian, agreed with that premise and neatly reclassified the offensive speech as behavior.
But the premise is wrong.
The special trust of a university is not to foster unlimited speech: It is to foster unlimited inquiry. And totally free speech inhibits rather than enhances the free exchange of ideas.
The law cannot restrict such speech without violating our constitutional rights. But etiquette, the extra-legal regulative system that seeks to avert conflict before it becomes serious enough to call in the law, can and does. You may have a legal right to call your mother an idiot, or somebody else's mother a slut, but you won't if you know what's good for you.
Nor could you convince many people that the controversy that such remarks are likely to provoke will lead to advances in knowledge.
The university needs to enforce rules banning speech that interferes with the free exchange of ideas. It must protect the discussion of offensive topics but not the use of offensive manners. It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another...
lenona at August 1, 2015 7:31 AM
"It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another..."
So it should be against the rules to call someone a racist?
dee nile at August 1, 2015 9:58 AM
Dee Nile: "So it should be against the rules to call someone a racist?"
No, but, if you are going to call someone something - back it up with facts!
Too often I have seen someone call someone "racist" because they don't have a good response to something they disagree with. This is often an effective way to shut down the conversation.
PCness has been doing this from the get-go.
As for myself, if I think it might be worth it to challenge them, when someone calls me a racist I ask them to explain "how so?" They either just stammer because they aren't used to someone challenging them back or they shout "because you are!"
charles at August 1, 2015 5:49 PM
Leave a comment