How can it be that, in the face of daily news of murders, grotesque punishments, and open oppression by radicals abroad, here at home American college students, who have grown up with degrees of freedom and autonomy virtually unknown in most times and places, agitate for restrictions on their own campuses, demand rules, regulations, and censorship in the name of their versions of justice?
I don’t think the answer to this question is that “this generation” of American college students is just more authoritarian in their way of thinking than their predecessors, or more impassioned about their political commitments. Nor do I think that they have been brainwashed by their families or school teachers – though this too plays a role.
Related: Limp Administrators Let the Angry Few Take Over
What has happened is that over the past couple of decades “political correctness” became mainstreamed: it went from characterizing only certain parts of the university (above all “identity” programs, such as women’s studies, openly committed to particular kinds of social change and intolerant of divergent views) to enjoying an obligatory and sincere endorsement by many faculty and administrators. This involves a massive redefinition of what higher education is and ought to be.
All the Dread Isms
Not that this is news. In the early 1990s, when I was still in women’s studies, some professors required their white students to disclose their first experience with blacks, and, if they declined to do so, the recalcitrant students were accused of being “in denial” about their own racism. Charges of racism were proving very effective in shutting down discussion and leaving even people who knew better speechless.
What has changed since is that charges of racism, sexism, and other dreaded –isms have become ever more commonplace, so that entire institutions, not just individual professors and administrators, live in fear of having such charges lobbed their way. Thus, today, it is common for universities to have orientation programs for first-year students that explicitly aim to indoctrinate them about the attitudes and words considered not just rude or thoughtless but actionable. And to have speech codes and harassment policies that all too often are in clear violation of the Constitution.
Related: The Modern Campus as North Korea
The brouhaha at the University of Missouri and at Yale, for example, perfectly illustrates the shift: what a heady feeling, to be able to push administrators and faculty into resigning, with or without official self-abnegation. And with proliferating protective measures undertaken by universities (with their ever-expanding corps of administrators), is it any wonder that the supposed adults in academe become more disempowered, more fearful of being charged with one of the stigmatizing –isms?
Somehow, in America, the more students in fact enter universities, the more “flexible” our course offerings and activities, the easier it is to get a degree, the more aggrieved students feel by the persistence of complexity in their social environment. And the unsurprising result for students who know little history and less world politics is clear: what is being demanded by protesting students is a kind of control over others that would seem to have no place in a free society. But how are they to know this, if they have little knowledge and simple views of their own society and its place in the world?
The situation is not helped by the readiness with which what used to be serious intellectual venues now join in the fray. In The New Yorker, on Nov. 10, 2015, for example, Jelani Cobb has an article whose very title lays out the parameters of acceptable speech. It is called “Race and the Free-Speech Diversion.” Such a juxtaposition both dismisses free speech and delegitimizes concerns about it at the outset.
Related: What Students Are Demanding Now
It’s hard to believe Americans would be so quick to adopt such a cavalier attitude toward one of our most valuable rights if they had actual experience of the repressive dictatorships that existed and still exist in various parts of the world. But the worst part is that these angry students and their academic abettors know and understand the First Amendment. Yet, they actively and open blatantly oppose it, believing that only the speech they approve of should be protected. The same attitudes prevail with rights of due process, routinely violated on college campuses. Why should those accused of using a racist slur or engaging in an unwanted touch or tasteless joke have any rights? Why shouldn’t they at once be punished? Forced to apologize, to grovel, to resign? This is the climate of vigilantism and instant (in) justice that prevails. And it should surprise no one that students will use whatever weapons come their way.
The Oppression Sweepstakes
Way back in 1994, Noretta Koertge, a philosopher of science and I used the term “oppression sweepstakes” in our book Professing Feminism to describe the unseemly competition in academe (though not only there) for most oppressed status. We lamented that young women were opportunistically embracing the rhetoric of victimhood. Students were also learning to spot “sexual harassment” everywhere around them, thanks to regulations that became ever broader and looser, the better to catch any offending word, look, innuendo, or gesture. Due process, like First Amendment rights, became just another quaint notion to be despised by campus justice warriors.
I remember the first time that a student asked me (in class) to give “trigger warnings” about material I was assigning. That was perhaps ten years ago. Now that term, too, is commonplace. Since then, hypersensitivity and the search for grievances have only intensified. As big problems disappear, little ones are forced into their place, and so we get “micro-aggression,” a sublime new term by which victim groups can keep complaining when the main sources of complaint have all but disappeared. Imagine the difficulty if one had to give up victimhood.
What are the implications of the fact that accusations of racism and sexism are so popular? One obvious one is that, far from being a society riddled with social injustice, the U.S. has made so much progress that such charges are cast routinely and fearlessly for they prove amazingly effective in delegitimizing others. A neat one-up move that has effortlessly worked its way into our culture.
Being called a racist automatically cripples (excuse the ableist language) the accused, since any response is immediately cast as evidence that one is simply in denial and trying to protect one’s privilege. And having “privilege” has itself become a slur, another tool in the arsenal designed to impede opposing, or even just differing, points of views. Scores of dystopian fictions, films, and realities have done little to dissuade these campus rebels from a belief that their version of equality and justice can be imposed by fiat, with no serious negative consequences to themselves.
It’s Who Says It, Not What’s Said
Identity politics, rooted in race, gender, sexual orientation (and an ever-expanding list of other protected categories), creates a climate in which the key element is not what one says but who says it. The result: only certain people have the right to say certain things. And since identity in fact does not tell us all we need to know about a person’s views, beliefs, commitments, or actions, many additional terms have been created to curtail the speech and attack the legitimacy of those with dissenting views, terms like “Uncle Tom,” “Oreo,” “not a real woman,” or “heteronormativity.” Thus, identity politics has morphed from actually requiring evidence of discrimination to merely verbalizing the claim to a supposedly oppressed identity and constantly hurt feelings.
When truth and falsity are determined by who speaks, not what is said or what relationship it bears to reality, we’re in free fall, and one can expect that those who yell loudest and claim the greatest oppression will rule. Not a pretty picture, and certainly not the way a democracy is supposed to function. Bertrand Russell referred to this many years ago with his ironic phrase regarding “the superior virtue of the oppressed.”
Intolerance with Moral Superiority
But this snapshot of some of the most popular gotcha games of our time does not suggest to me that students want to be treated like children, or that they genuinely want university administrators to protect them from unpleasantness and discomfort.
That is far too innocent a view of their energetic protests. Their actions suggest more worldly aims: they want to be tyrants, able to impose their will while disguising that drive with claims of moral superiority to those around them.
And a good deal of the responsibility for this state of affairs rests with faculty and administrators. Universities are not the only places attacking liberal values and the Western tradition, but what is perhaps surprising is that they’re not even willing to defend themselves as places where serious learning intellectual efforts are supposed to go on. What else does their desperate commitment to so-called social justice, community activism, and all the rest of the litany amount to? Having long ago abdicated intellectual leadership in favor of feel-good phony politics and self-defeating new definitions of their missions, these agents of the university are hardly in a position to protest students’ endless pursuits of these selfsame goals, which must rest on grievances and slights, real or imagined.
But, alas, when professors stop defending their academic endeavors in intellectual terms and opt instead for ersatz politics, they are rapidly outclassed by young people who can do that better: with more energy, more time, more anger. Hence, unable to compete, professors instead attempt to ingratiate ourselves with students, hoping (not very effectively, it turns out) to avoid getting caught up in their attacks.
Related: A Targeted Teacher at Yale Quits
Why, then, be surprised when students use turn against those very administrators and faculty who have been capitulating to them for years? And so students demand respect without earning it, status without achievement, and instantaneous action against the offenses they ferret out all around them.
Like other tyrants, petty or not, students engaging in phony revolutionary claims, these students just want to have their own way, impose their ideas, and be done with it. Hence they shout down speakers, get invitations rescinded, and disrupt campus activities.
They may be infantile in their yelling and screaming, but that doesn’t mean they are actually seeking adult guidance. Not at all — they’re trying to intimidate their elders into further subjection and are achieving marked success. And they bravely do this in the comfy atmosphere of the modern university.
Isn’t it time for faculty to say: How you feel is your own affair. Feelings get hurt; that’s life. People can be unpleasant, true. But what matters here is what you do. You’re here to learn, to develop intellectually, and that requires effort and commitment, not moments of high drama and self-exaltation. Not every slight is an assault, every unkind word an instance of discrimination.
You want to know about inequality and pain? Just travel around the world and see what the absence of liberal values and functioning civil rights leads to, and then come back and see if continuing to complain about the horrendous inequities of your university is still your best bet for creating a better world.
6 thoughts on “How Political Correctness Corrupted the Colleges”
You didn’t go back far enough. Today’s demands for censorship of speech offensive to leftist sensibilities goes back to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 paper, Repressive Tolerance. Marcuse was a noted, although today forgotten, Maoist philosopher who wrote that free speech should protect progressive speech but not speech that marginalizes the weak and oppressed. Does this sound familiar? He was laughed at in 1965 but seems to have triumphed today. The enthusiasm with which this demand for censorship is advanced is testimony to the success of the left’s Long March through the Academy. Those student protestors are getting their cliff notes from someone, and in this case, it’s from all their lefty professors who have been pumping out Marxist propaganda for years under the headings of “Critical Theory of XYZ” or various ethnic or gender grievance studies. It makes me think that the best thing to do would be for the states and federal government to pull the universities’ subsidies and tax exemptions and student loans and let them all sink.
What we hear in the demands is nothing more than a long, drawn-out whine for MORE: more money for programs for ‘people who look like me’… more money to hire more ‘people who look like me’… more money for more places that ‘people who look like me’ can segregate… and, of course, more of the ritualistic shaming now being required of campus leadership accompanied by the mandatory Ludovico Conditioning for Right Thinking.
In sum, more power, more lebensraum, and head bowed in obeisance towards the twin gods of Race & Gender. A very dangerous time.
I think that maybe there’s a “developmental psychology” aspect to this as well. Say you’re 18-20 years old. All your life, you’d been told that racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. is wrong, wrong, wrong, but you don’t actually see much of it. Then you go to college, and your professors start telling you about how all of this stuff is the entire basis of your culture, and you don’t see it because you’re white/male/whatever.
At that age, you’re still trying to work out what it means to be a good person, and finding out that your entire culture is based on oppression has got to be pretty alarming. Being young, you haven’t really developed a long view of how societies work, you’re still pretty emotionally driven, and having been brought up in the west, you’ve never really known any kind of hardship or privation.
All of this kind of stews together in your head, and you reach a fairly predictable conclusion that you’ve got to do something.
Ideologues on the faculty are more than happy to cultivate and take advantage of this.
I think in many cases the admin don’t WANT to defend anyone attacked. They *like* that “the oppressed” have power now – however, this monster often turns on those who support(ed) it.
But even when those in a particular university are eaten by the young, to save that person would be to admit the ideology is wrong – and this is *class* warfare – wherein the individual counts for nothing, and the great revolutionary socialist class struggle must go foreward.
“so we get “micro-aggression,” a sublime new term”
Not very sublime: it explicitly states that it takes one million of microaggressions to make up one aggression.
What no one seems to get is that the sensitive, immature, politically correct collegians of today have been in training to become just what we are seeing displayed for 14 years before entering the college scene. Pre-K – 12 government schooling has as its goal producing dumbed down, irreligious, non patriotic, compliant servants for the global community. The goal is accomplished.