Are we too politically correct at Hunter?

Generally, political correctness is regarded as a kind of insult.

If you’re called out for being too “PC,” or politically correct, it’s probably because you called someone out for saying something unruly or problematic.

So, what exactly is the issue here? Why are were looking into whether or not pointing out someone’s sexist/racist/(fill in blank) language is in a sense affecting student life? In an article titled The Coddling of the American Mind authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that political correctness contributes to creating “a campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers,” resulting in a hypersensitive educational environment that hinders student’s ability to think critically and poorly prepare them for life after college.

“The Coddling of the American Mind” cites political correctness, along with trigger warnings and (the policing of) microaggressions as contributions that conclusively limit students educational experience. Though not clearly defined, political correctness is referred to throughout the article as “a movement…to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense”. Lukianoff and Haidt use a few examples to illustrate their view. Students at some schools have asked for trigger warnings regarding Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart for racial violence and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby for misogyny and physical abuse, so those who have had experience with the above can avoid being “triggered” by skipping those works.

Another example refers to a Harvard professor asked by their law students not to teach rape law — lest it cause students distress. A less recent incident occurred at Indiana University-Purdue University in 2008, when a white student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan, when the cover photo of the Klan rally offended the student’s co-workers. Now, although some of these examples may border on the extreme, they do raise important questions: should trigger warnings be allowed in classrooms? Is this movement limiting free speech? 

I spoke with Michael Philip Fisher, a lecturer for the Women and Gender Studies Department at Hunter college, to discuss political correctness and the use of trigger warnings. Concerning trigger warnings, Professor Fisher believes that the college campus shouldn’t exist to shield students intellectually. “I don’t give trigger warnings in class. I’m sensitive to this idea about dialogue. I believe that a classroom and a university are confrontational spaces, so that’s ultimately where my political commitments are.”

Trigger warnings are certainly a complicated situation. Although it is important to acknowledge that there are certain cases where students deeply suffer from certain conditions where they depend on trigger warnings to avoid contact with certain images/topics/etc, this shouldn’t affect a whole classroom. The article mentions another incident where a faculty member at Oberlin College in Ohio provided an online resource guide that included a list of trigger warnings (15). This guide, meant for faculty, listed topics such as classism and privilege. It recommended that some materials be avoided altogether unless directly contributing to course goals, due to negative reactions that may be triggered among students.

Academic freedom serves as a right of students and faculty. Professors should be able to teach whatever material they desire, for the aim of educating and raising awareness to students. Especially topics such as classism and privilege. These are subjects that affect absolutely everyone, regardless of what “side” you experience. College is a place that exists to expand minds, especially in ways that promote equality and understanding. The ability to teach materials that may trigger some students are one of the ways in which educational spaces confront the mind, rather than coddle it. Hunter echoes this in their code of conduct:

“The tradition of the university as a sanctuary of academic freedom and center of informed discussion is an honored one, to be guarded vigilantly. The basic significance of that sanctuary lies in the protection of intellectual freedoms; the rights of professors to teach, of scholars to engage in the advancement of knowledge, of students to learn and to express their views, free from external pressures or interference. These freedoms can flourish only in an atmosphere of mutual respect, civility and trust among teachers and students, only when members of the university community are willing to accept self-restraint and reciprocity as the condition upon which they share in its intellectual autonomy.”

Those who feel like they fall under a category that reserves a right to avoid certain “triggering” material for particular reasons should certainly discuss these issues with their professor. Even if your professor may not agree with you to a certain extent, you still have the right and freedom to express your views. If you really do feel that strongly about it, it’s important that you make your opinions known, but that you understand the thoughts of others as well.

The article elaborates on this idea of trigger warnings as a negative effect on people with mental illnesses. The authors use studies on exposure therapy to claim that shielding people from “triggering” material only furthers their anxiety. Instead of avoidance, students should take steps to gradually associate themselves with the material until they’re able to interact in a healthy manner. To be honest, I’m not sure how to go about this. Lukianoff and Haidt indulge in a variety of arguments, ranging from the educational environment being institutionalized to accommodate emotional reasoning to political correctness breeding an environment that limits speech and  critical thinking capacity. It’s a lot to digest in twenty seven pages. The examples they provide are quite unique and I don’t think they properly represent what this “movement” is really all about.

Do some students take advantage of the use of trigger warnings to the point where it harms the learning experience of others? Yes. Is it fair to say there are some people who relabel the whole of a person to represent a few personal beliefs that are disagreed upon? Hell, even I’m guilty of this. Does this mean that political correctness as a whole is this huge ugly green monster that should just go away? Not so fast. Rather than present political correctness as an element that blocks the ability to think critically, I would argue that it might just do the opposite.

Although Professor Fisher didn’t read the article personally, he lends some thought into this idea of political correctness and the stigma attached to what it means to be “politically correct:”

“When people say political correctness, I think there’s a misunderstanding. I am very sensitive though, about the way that language and spaces are configured to marginalize and this whole question about political correctness often was received as just a demand that you use certain words. And if that’s what this is about well that’s actually ridiculous. You know, no one cares – and this is like the great misunderstanding of the bigot, right – it’s not that you said this word rather than that word, it’s that you had some hateful or exclusionary or marginalizing intention. That that’s what you’re trying to do with that language. And so, if political correctness is understood as what I think the actual demand from people is – ‘don’t run this institution, don’t organize this space to exclude me,’ then it presents no dangers at all and also is not speech code! It does not demand that you say this or that! So the speech thing, to me, is a red herring. Because if anyone is saying this is about regulating particular things you may or may not say…well then that’s a very tiny demand. I’d rather make the bigger demand, which is that the university be organized as a place that actually cultivates people, students and faculty both, irrespective of their prior experiences or their race or their sex or their whatever.”

As a whole, political correctness is regarded by some as an unruly presence on campus which aims to police language and demonize anyone who has an opposing idea, comment or opinion. That’s just not true. Yes, there are some “dark sides” of political correctness just as there are with any movement. But that’s just a small fraction of the whole. Generally, political correctness serves to raise awareness and spread knowledge by paying attention to language and action. Wouldn’t some argue that this fosters critical thinking rather than denying it? If I’m having a conversation with someone, and I’m actively thinking about how my words and actions can negatively influence or impact someone else – isn’t that of good character? Or at least an effort to understand that words are powerful, and have always been used to exclude, marginalize and hurt others?

Now, that’s not to say that anybody’s perfect. We all have said and will continue to say shitty things. But these strides that people are taking to bring more awareness to the ways in which people negatively affect others will probably generate a much more positive accepting environment in the end. It’s not about avoiding certain material, limiting speech, hating someone because they said something sexist that one time, or “hurting mental illness on campus” as the article puts it. It’s more about understanding that your words have consequences, advocating education and maybe – just maybe – making the world a bit of a better place.

@TheTab