Political correctness in academia: many faces, meanings and consequences

"I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Of the many issues pertaining to education in Canada, political correctness or "PC" has garnered significant attention and generated considerable controversy. The nature, extent, and even the existence of PC has been debated (Berman, 1992), decried (Ellis, 1992; Gabor 1994; Phillips & Kurzweil, 1993), and denied (Ehrenreich, 1991). To say the least, PC is a very controversial topic.

What is political correctness or "PC"?

One would be hard-pressed to define the term "political correctness" (PC) in a way to would satisfy all parties. Political correctness has many faces and, therefore, many meanings. Essentially, however, the term "political correctness" appears to refer to a way of thinking and a way of life in our society that espouses sensitivity, tolerance, and respect for another's race, gender, sexual preference, nationality, religion, age, physical handicap, or other characteristic, especially if it differs from one's own (Thalasinos & Hwang, no date).

The term "political correctness" was first used in the 1930s among Stalinists and it resurfaced in feminist circles in the 1970s (Keefer, 1996). In 1975, it became formally associated with a movement led by Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) (Thalasinos & Hwang, no date). Now is the American association supporting equality for women. They attempt to eliminate discrimination and prejudice against women in government, industry, religion, education, medicine, law, and labour unions.

Since 1975, there has been a surge of articles and texts written about the subject. Some of these texts view the issue as a large joke, while others assay the matter with a mixture of outrage and worry. The term "political correctness" has become a figure of everyday speech. In many circles, it also has taken on an inescapably pejorative tone and to call an act politically correct has become grounds for discrediting it.

Why is PC being the focus of a debate?

If you believe that all human beings deserve to be treated with civility appropriate to basic human dignity, you may be wondering why everybody is not a fan of PC. After all, the PC philosophy believes in increasing the acceptability of diversity in culture, race, gender, ideology and alternate lifestyles. Unfortunately, it is not so simple.

Almost nothing in the recent years has provoked more debate or awakened a greater polarity of views than this PC ideology. Proponents believe that morally and socially all special groups of people must be treated equally and with respect. Opponents fear that being unable to make negative statements about special groups of people when warranted threatens freedom of expression and amounts to censorship. The former believe that special privileges will correct past injustices, while the latter believe that reverse discrimination is also unjust. Moderates (i.e., those who refuse to be labelled either "proponents" or "opponents") argue that desires to be morally and socially correct must be weighed carefully against the: concern about the gradual erosion of fundamental rights and freedom of speech.

The current degree of support for these views on PC in the general population is unknown. However, a survey conducted in the spring of 1995 of persons between the ages of 16 and 29 by USA Today and MTV (study cited in Leonard, 1995) suggests that people are more or less equally split over the issue of whether political correctness has gone too far or not far enough. Forty-eight percent of the 891 individuals polled said people need to be more sensitive in words and actions to avoid offending women and minority groups. However, 42 percent thought it had gone too far because its demands for greater sensitivity had become unbalanced with the right to free expression. Seven percent said both statements were true.

Why should academia be interested in PC?

According to Hu-DeHart (1995), multicultural curricula and PC have become the most divisive issues facing universities today. Some academics feel increasingly limited in what they can say, write, or do, and believe that some racial and minority groups are slowly but surely dictating what others can say. For them, PC is a new form of censorship and coercion and, therefore, a threat to excellence in scholarship and academic freedom. For other academics, PC is the way to go and, consequently, they do accept the limitations. They believe that sensitivity and respect for diversity increase knowledge and understanding that can help students to think, reason, and develop a more comprehensive world view.

The PC ideology has major consequences for academia. When preferential treatment is provided on the basis of race and gender, for example, it affects admission, hiring and contracting practices. The preferential policies are seen by some as unjust and discriminatory against the non-preferred, as patronising of minorities, as detrimental to excellence in education, and as destructive of mutual respect among colleagues. Others defend set-asides, quotas and other preferential policies by arguing that they are necessary to cure past discrimination in academia and to provide students with models that they can identify with. PC proponents are serious about helping those who need assistance and, accordingly, they strongly favour actions or policies that can produce immediate results for people who are disadvantaged and who have been the victims of discrimination,

PC proponents argue that research on controversial topics should be restricted when it has the potential to hurt certain populations. These restrictions affect the funding and publication of research. They are seen by PC opponents as unwarranted because they are based on moral and political values, rather than grounded in research. PC opponents start with the premise that, in a free society, the burden rests with the "censors" to show that research on sensitive issues has a high likelihood of producing significant social harms. They maintain that research on sensitive issues is essential for developing well-informed public policy. PC proponents defend restrictions and support tougher peer review for research on sensitive topics by arguing that they are necessary to avoid hurting certain populations, and influencing public opinion and social policy adversely. They strongly believe that academics have a responsibility to be sensitive to how their research affects the way people feel about themselves and how others will feel about them, as well as to how their research may affect social policy.

While the debate goes on, one cannot help to notice that researchers shy away from controversial topics or unsavory findings became of the professional risks (Azar, 1997). Those who conduct research on politically hot topics are more likely to have problems with funding, publishing, and tenure. Furthermore, they are more likely to be ostracised because of their findings, regardless of what their personal beliefs are. Sometimes, the treatment of those who espouse the PC ideology is not much better in that they may be the target of anger and ridicule. Obviously, there is a need in academia to address these issues up front.

To be or not to be PC?

Political correctness has many faces and many meanings. More important than the question of "To be or not to be PC" may be how we articulate our values in the pursuit of knowledge and human relationships, and, then, how we demonstrate these values in our daily lives. In recent years, the ideology of PC has become an issue of great controversy, and those who are hurt by either discrimination or reverse discrimination are the most vocal. Sometimes, there is more heat than light. As psychologists, we need to become informed of the interpretations and the implications of the faces and meanings of political correctness. We need to have an open and honest discussion of the issues.

This issue of Canadian Psychology includes a series of papers on political correctness in academia which offers a wide range of views. Several of them were presented at a symposium organised by the CPA Committee for Scientific Affairs at the 1995 CPA Convention in Charlottetown. Each author has been asked to present his or her position based on factual evidence and rational discussion. As members of a scientific discipline, we are concerned with facts, experience and rational thinking. We hope these articles will enhance our perspectives on the issues surrounding political correctness and their relationship to what we generally value in academia and society.

I thank Dr. Jean L. Pettifor who kindly provided me with some critical comments and many useful suggestions following her reading of an earlier draft of this paper. Any inadequacies that remain are my responsibility.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Janel G. Gauthier, A (Ecole de psychologie, Pavilion F.-A. Savard, Universite) Laval, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada, G1K 7P4 or to

janel.gauthier@psy.ulaval.ca.

References

Azar, B. (1997, August). When research is swept under the rug: Some of the best psychological research suffers for the sake of 'political correctness'. APA Monitor, 28(8), 1 and 18.

Barker, K. (1994). The be PC or not to be?: A social psychological inquiry into political correctness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(2), 271-281.

Berman, P. (1992). Debating P.C.: The controversy over political correctness on college campuses. New York: Laurel.

Ehrenreich, R. (1991). What campus radicals? The P.C. undergrad is a useful specter. Harper's Magazine, 283, 57-61.

Ellis, J.M. ( 1992, January 15). The origins of PC. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 81-82.

Gabor, T. (1994). The suppression of crime statistics on race and ethnicity: The price of political correctness. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 153-163.

Hu-DeHart, E. (1995). Rethinking America: The practice and politics of multiculturalism. In D.M. Newman (Ed.), Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life : Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press/Sage Publications.

Keefer, M. (1996). Lunar Perspectives: Field Notes from the Culture Wars. Concord (Ontario): House of Artansi Press.

Leonard, M. (1995, October 12). Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far? [On-line], Available:

http://maine.main e.edu/~mleona51/PC-humor.htm.

Phillips, W., & Kurzweil, E. (Eds.). (1993). The politics of political correctness: A symposium. [Special issue]. Partisan Review, 60(4).

Thalasinos, E., & Hwang, E. (no date). Political Correctness [On-line], Available:

http://www.bergen.org/~eritha/political/whatPC.html.