On Political Correctness By William Deresiewicz Summary

Often in today's world individuals worry about being politically correct. When being politically correct one must merely not offend or disadvantage any group in our society. If a person wants to avoid being called offensive or rude their opinion must never oppose another and always remain correct in the other’s eyes, which is impossible if someone wants to speak their mind or communicate in today’s politics. The point being made is that everyone has their own opinion.

While I won’t claim that free speech is without its flaws, I will contend that it is itself necessary to equality which was brought up as a counter argument. When we allow speech that has no impact on public safety to be regulated we open the door to interpretation, this is a gamble. Does the interpreter share my views, or yours, or someone else’s entirely? What would America look like if the proponents of slavery were allowed to regulate speech on the topic, or the world if the National Socialist had achieved their goals? Speech can harm, it can be hateful, and cause adverse reactions, but so can many things we think nothing of because they serve to facilitate everyday life. If we regulate speech based on harm it will only be as harmless as those that regulate it. I think that is something most wouldn’t care to risk, regardless of color, creed, or nationality. When a majority solution can’t be found we as a people tend to prefer freedom as the doctrine so we may all be equal in

In this article the research I collected explains the use of political correctness at a University. The purpose of political correctness is to avoid or take extreme measures to desist any action or expression that may exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. It is clear that majority of the people in this article are not satisfied by the way issues were handled at the University. The author presented relevant information to answer the question; “Is political correctness an enemy of free speech?”. Some government officials that were brought into this situation, agreed with political correctness and what it means. While doing this research I learned that political correctness in not only this, but also is a tool used to control people's speech so that no one feels offended. I believe political correctness is barricade for anyone who wants a power of choice. Moreover, this article is useful for an analysis on limitations for societies in

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

In the early 21st century there are many issues that arise within societies. Whether the issues are based on freedoms, rights, or power of government. The way we handle these situations is to look at the US Constitution for guidance as the country tries to figure out a solution. One issue that has been in the mainstream as of late, is freedom of speech, which is the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The controversy surrounding the first amendment comes from whether it should be instituted on college campuses or censored by professors and administrators. Ancient philosophers have written about similar issues surrounding censorship in societies and many differ in their beliefs. Plato and Thomas Hobbes would agree that creating an environment

Proponents of censorship seem to believe that they alone can determine what is and isn’t offensive to everyone. They believe that their own freedom of speech will remain intact when they have successfully silenced those that they oppose. They don’t seem to understand that once one group’s rights are taken away, we are all subject to loss of our constitutional right to speak and think freely.

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

Larger society may disapprove due to their immoral ethics and promotion of deviant ideas, but larger society also supports freedom of speech. Whether or not morals are worth the loss of a basic constitutional freedom of speech is in question.

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

According to the Word Police,  political correctness has some disadvantages. In each case , “the would be censor aspires to suppress what he or she finds distasteful   all of course in the name of public good” So this does limit what you have to say.Another Speaking out could cause violence or squabbles.

Most who argue against censorship believe that it goes against a person’s right to freedom of speech. Within this argument, most people wonder “just when, and on what grounds, the state is justified in using its coercive powers to limit the freedom of individuals” (West). When thinking in this mindset, individuals tend to antagonize the government, because they come to believe that it suppresses their individuality and fail to consider the fact that it unites people who share its similar beliefs. As a result of the recent spike in technology and use of the Internet, the public must continually alter its definition of freedom of speech and expression. As the media offers more and more methods of communication, many of which are relatively self-regulated by users, more methods of expression develop, which may render other forms of expression obsolete, or even socially unacceptable (Qazi). Without understanding how much freedom of speech one is entitled to, one may never hope to defend that freedom if it ever comes under attack. Because technology develops so quickly that one definition will hardly suffice for a short period of time, people will find it increasingly difficult to understand how much right to expression they are allowed and will therefore fight for any and all that they may attain, never considering the benefits of censorship in the slightest. In America especially, people idealize the idea of democracy, the investigation of truth, and independence (Fieser). In

However, many groups claim that political correctness in society is justified in its efforts to sanitize offensive material created though years of oppressing minorities. What was originally a noble idea, to remove blatant words of offensive meaning, has turned into an “over the top” effort to rid any words of possible controversy. We are regulating our ways of plain speaking, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. Laws of restrictions on slander and public decency should be decided on the common law methodology and not by the interests of the liberal “mob”. If plain speaking is not allowed, clear thinking is

“Terms such as politically correct thus have a hidden history, uncovering which is dependent both on the accurate recollection of those who were there,” (Cameron, 1995,78).

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people