|
Columnists' Debate
Is SCSU too politically correct? Or isn't it PC enough? Discuss the alleged assault on the Republican student, the recent garland controversy and the UND mascot controversy. If our school has the wrong amount of PC, what should be done to correct the situ
We are too PC
by Scott Bushee
I can prove that political correctness exists and oppresses me simply by saying that I feel like it does.
Not buying it? A look at recent politically correct issues shows that feelings and emotions, not reason, are the coin of the PC realm.
During finals week last semester, a Jewish professor allegedly attacked a student for the crime of publicly supporting the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist. Of course the official reason was that he took her picture. But attacking someone for snapping a picture isn't rational either.
In another case protestors complained because Atwood Center sold magazines like Maxim and Cosmo.
The PC crowd's claim that pictures of scantily clad women cause us guys to think dirty thoughts about women doesn't say anything profound; rather, it shows a profound ignorance of the way college aged male minds work. Here's a hint: An average hour in our minds goes like this: sex, sex, beer, sex, (class), sex, and then beer. Followed by sex. We don't need pictures.
Then over break, Atwood had to take down a garland display because some felt it was too Christian. To me, garland is about as Christian as snow, fat North Pole dwellers and the pine tree in my yard. Like most of the trappings of the modern Christmas, garland has very little to do with Christ. But, someone felt offended.
And then there's the ever-present "Fighting Sioux" controversy.
Sports are a highly regarded part of our culture. Therefore, one would think that naming a team after a certain group is an obvious token of respect, not a slight. For example, though I both have Scandinavian ancestry and come from a northern state, it's been weeks since I protested either the Vikings or the Yankees.
But that logic doesn't fly with the protestors. Regardless of the lack of ill will behind it or the fact that American Indians are themselves divided on the issue, the PC crowd feels like the name "Fighting Sioux" is oppressive, and therefore it is.
Indeed, emotionalism is the core of political correctness. And emotionalism has taken PC on this campus to levels well beyond what any reasonable mind could accept.
So how do we end this? Our first step must be to realize that, like other potentially offensive issues such as flag burning and pornography, this is about freedom of speech. Our campus must accept that while freedom of speech enjoys Constitutional protection, there is no such thing as freedom from offense. Instead of taking hasty action every time someone feels offended, our school must learn to solve conflicts using reason, not emotion.
But since that probably won't happen, I'd settle for an administration that had the backbone to say no to the PC crowd once in a while.
PC misunderstood
by Mike Lauterbach
Lots of people hear the term "politically correct" and think of PCU.
They think of the protesters--loony, Frisbee-toting folk who dress up as cows, eliminate football and replace their mascot (what else) with the endangered whooping crane.
They think of the heroes--simple folk who aren't prejudiced but understand that this thing, whatever it is, has gotten way out of control.
But although PCU is a great film, it's got the wrong idea.
Even the most ardent supporters of PC would agree that in some instances, well-meaning folks have gone too far in the name of political correctness. They've drawn up elaborate orthodoxies of right and wrong things to say and do, sometimes ad absurdium.
But the overriding principle of PC has always been sound: treat others with respect.
At a university, the first corollary of that rule is: educate others about what that principle means. SCSU should not be in the business of telling students what to think, but it does have both a right and a duty to teach them what it is to be sensitive to other cultures and religions.
That means that when the College Republicans displayed materials that some found racially insensitive, school officials asked them to remove the material and told them why. Those who make the booth fiasco out to be a PC censorship issue are missing the point. The booth incident was a simple miscommunication, where an attempt to educate was mistaken for an order.
Students cannot, should not and are not forced to be politically correct at SCSU. But the University itself is subject to a different set of rules. As opposed to students and student organizations, who are free to say most anything they like, a public institution like SCSU should remove itself from even the appearance of impropriety.
But is removing a garland from Atwood going too far? Maybe. But if it was giving the impression that SCSU supported Christianity, why keep it there? And why, if it was such a bland symbol, should its removal even matter?
The presence of protesters and an active opposition to using the "Fighting Sioux" logo here is not an indication that our school is too PC, any more than the presence of the College Republicans (or of the students who booed the protesters at the game) indicates that our school is too conservative. Rather, it simply shows that our student body is politically active and has a wide range of opinions.
SCSU paid out $1.1 million a few months ago--a little over $50 per student--on behalf of some faculty and administrators who couldn't figure out what racial sensitivity was all about.
Nobody wants that to happen again. So what's the solution? A little personal responsibility might help. But this is an institution of higher learning--an institution designed to educate its students. A little more education on how to be politically correct certainly won't hurt. Understanding what PC is really about won't hurt either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
