What happened was I went home last night and got whacked upside the head with news. The result of that is a question that bothered me all night and into this morning.
The primary troubling question that interrupted my sleep: Just how far is this society willing to go into the realm of Political Correctness?
It's sibling: Whatever happened to the exchange of ideas or open and respectful discussion of different points of view?
The position: Colleges, I thought were hotbeds for intellectual exploration, the nursery for the exchange of ideas and active debate but it seems that is no longer the case.
Based on what I heard upon getting home last night, it seems that George Orwellian's lock-step world has taken over many college campuses.
Then again, maybe it's just an intellectual challenge - an exercise in "how will you work around this stricture?" On the other hand, and this is what really has me worried because it smacks too loud of Dark Age thinking, maybe it's not.
I'm a writer. I write ideas, feelings, thoughts, perceptions, opinions and so on. It's what I do and, quite honestly, it's what I live for. I don't see a whole lot else that enthuses me as much as writing - the thinking of it and the doing. Words are important to me. They're like my air, my blood and my sustenance. They have meaning - good and sometimes bad, depending upon context and use, delivery and perception.
But! Good, bad or indifferent, words are key to the exchange of ideas, of an individual's Self. Without words, how can we express ourselves?
We've all heard of the First Amendment, in relation to the press, to freedom of religion and speech. But we now have colleges and professors infringing on the right of students to express themselves. They, the faculty or the individual, deem certain words "offensive" and, therefore, not to be used.
This begs the asking: Where will that lead us?
The answer: Straight back into the Dark Ages where creative, individual thought was punished by censure, by prison, or by death.
What came out of the Draconian Dark Ages was a desire for freedom. That burning desire led the way to the fight for it, here in America in particular. It's foundational - the opening shot across the bow of censorship in our Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the freedom of expression - but that doesn't speak to anyone else. However, this has long been a discussion throughout society, and within the Court system. In 1927, in response to a case heard by the Supreme Court, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in his dissent:
Those who won our independence . . . believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
From that it seems that in his view if speech and ideas are restricted, society is weakened, it becomes inert and apathy will grow and spread, along with fear - 'If I say this, what will happen?' It's oppressive and, frankly, smells strongly of fascism.
From Wikipedia: Robert Paxton says that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
This pretty much sums up what's happening on some college campuses, and it seems to get worse every year. There are a couple of interesting articles about it, but in sum:
From Wikipedia: Robert Paxton says that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
This pretty much sums up what's happening on some college campuses, and it seems to get worse every year. There are a couple of interesting articles about it, but in sum:
A Washington State professor has declared that she will slash student's grades if they use certain terms in her classroom (or, I assume, in her hearing - office, around the campus, wherever). A student, no matter their background, personal feelings on or about the subject, will be penalized if they say 'illegal alien', 'male' or 'female'.
Here's what one article in the Los Angeles Times reports:
In the syllabus, which is available online,
graduate teaching instructor Selena Lester Breikss writes that the "use
of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or
generally offensive language in class or submission of such material
will not be tolerated."
How can ideas, opinions, attitudes be exchanged and, perhaps(?) minds changed if the subjects are restricted? Who is to judge what constitutes the sexism, racism or any other 'ism' of any of those restricted terms? Is it in her sole discretion? What someone else might find offensive, I might find worthy of debate, or enlightening. I might even,
Frankly, it seems as if the smoke filled rooms and male dominated society against which women railed for many decades is now being taken over by a bunch of pumped up pseudo-intellectual misandrist females who hate anything male related.
Sorry if that's offensive (not really, because that's my opinion), but it seems to be true. To me, it appears that these women are doing precisely to men what women fought against for decade after decade.
In North Carolina, Nancy Bishop, an instructor in "Women's Studies" (whatever the hell that is - do they also offer "Men's Studies"?) states in her course syllabus:
“You may NOT use ‘he’ or ‘him’ or ‘man’ to refer to both men and women,” it continues. Bishop tells students they can replace “mankind” with “humans” or “humankind,” and should write “she or he” instead of just “he,” though the syllabus is unclear on whether students should always lead with a female pronoun.
The traditional, historically accepted references to 'he' and 'mankind' when speaking of people collectively and humankind in general are, to her it seems, offensive. Sounds to me that in her perfect world, and in the perfect world of some others who have similar ideas and are in position to place such restrictions, men would be abolished.
How is that right? How does that make these people any different than those oppressive idiots who did this to women for so long?
It doesn't, as far as I can see. This is precisely the same kind of hatred - misandry instead of misogyny - that led to the women's revolution. This isn't a fight for equality. It's a declaration of superiority - and yet that is what they say they hate.
God I wish they'd make up their flippin' minds. Do they really want equality where all parties stand on the same footing, or are they really looking for superiority? If it's the superior position they want, why can't they just be honest with themselves, with the schools and, most importantly, with the parents of the students who are probably footing the bill for this alleged education?
I have a headache.
Best~
“You may NOT use ‘he’ or ‘him’ or ‘man’ to refer to both men and women,” it continues. Bishop tells students they can replace “mankind” with “humans” or “humankind,” and should write “she or he” instead of just “he,” though the syllabus is unclear on whether students should always lead with a female pronoun.
The traditional, historically accepted references to 'he' and 'mankind' when speaking of people collectively and humankind in general are, to her it seems, offensive. Sounds to me that in her perfect world, and in the perfect world of some others who have similar ideas and are in position to place such restrictions, men would be abolished.
How is that right? How does that make these people any different than those oppressive idiots who did this to women for so long?
It doesn't, as far as I can see. This is precisely the same kind of hatred - misandry instead of misogyny - that led to the women's revolution. This isn't a fight for equality. It's a declaration of superiority - and yet that is what they say they hate.
God I wish they'd make up their flippin' minds. Do they really want equality where all parties stand on the same footing, or are they really looking for superiority? If it's the superior position they want, why can't they just be honest with themselves, with the schools and, most importantly, with the parents of the students who are probably footing the bill for this alleged education?
I have a headache.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment