Anti Anti-Anti PC

Despite the facetious double negative, two wrongs still don't make a right--or, to be more precise, excess is no answer to excess. If the right, as represented by the National Association of Scholars and their admirers, has been overly hasty to call liberal positions PC, an organization of more liberal scholars could restore some balance to the debate and provide the opportunity for both sides to have a fair hearing.

But there are several reasons why this unconditional applause for "Teachers for a Democratic Culture" is premature, if not utterly misplaced.

First, the members of "Teachers for a Democratic Culture" would not be characterized by themselves or others as the voice of moderation. One of its leading members, Stanley Fish of the Duke University English Department, believes that all standards--moral, literary, academic--are nothing but subjective matters of taste.

But don't think this philosophy makes him more moderate or receptive to others' ideas: Since standards are worthless, he has explicitly announced that he sees no need to live by any theory he may advocate. Such excesses are what prompted the anti-PC movement in the first place, and it would be naive to expect them to disappear just because liberal professors have started a formal organization.

Free political speech has become the province of the right because the left has consistently supported the sacrifice of free discourse to protect the feelings of selected groups, a standard which is not applied consistently (a la Stanley Fish) and which does a disservice to all groups--or rather, to all individuals.

This division of academic life into warring special interest groups would only be enhanced by morality-play stereotyping of TDC as the white knight (oops, knight of color) that would do battle against the monolithic evil empire of the NAS.

Finally, if people are afraid to discuss the issue of PC, it is probably not because they're afraid of being compared to Dinesh D'Souza.

Rather, it is partially because even philosophical criticism of affirmative action, gay rights, and the like is grounds for disciplinary action and/or forced sensitivity training at many universities. The dissenting right, or even non-party line liberals, have hardly "gone unchecked."

I would like nothing more than to see a liberal organization of scholars that returns to the classical principles of liberalism, namely free speech and a defense of minority-group rights that is based on individual rights, not pressure-group warfare. These principles should form the basis of all constructive political debate, not just that of the right. But it doesn't look like such an organization will come along soon.