PC Wolf-Crying

NEW YORK MAGAZINE called it the "New Fascism." In a recent cover story, Newsweek called its adherents the "Thought Police." Articles in scores of other prominent publications across the nation, from The New Republic to The Wall Street Journal, have defined the phenomenon of "political correctness": the imposition of an oppressive leftwing agenda which squelches the expression of conservative and moderate opinions by labeling them as "racist, sexist and homophobic."

PC represents the conscious abridgement of freedom of speech by those who claim to hold it most dear. But perhaps even more tragic for the pursuit of free thought on this campus, it has become a straw man for various conservatives who prefer hiding behind accusations of PC to engaging in constructive discourse.

HARVARD STUDENTS have read dozens of articles, letters and posters in recent months in which campus conservatives claim that the rampant PC orthodoxy is stifling their freedom of expression. There should be little doubt that many of these accusations are justified.

At the January 30 open forum on the Afro-American Studies concentration, sponsored by the Undergraduate Council, I saw Thomson Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 called "ignorant" and "a racist" simply because he felt the Afro-Am Department should be organized as a committee rather than as a department. At the same time, students in the audience derided the Black scholars whom Mansfield cited as supporting his position, such as W.E.B. DuBois, as having sold out to white society.

Conservatives should avoid adopting the tactics of the politically correct.

While Mansfield's reasoned arguments received jeers from the crowd, his counterpart, Thomson Professor of Government Martin L. Kilson drew cheers when he stated (three times) that the concept of an Afro-Am department was "unassailable." That evening's events can be fairly characterized as the hegemony of "political correctness"--the suppression of rational arguments by intolerant emotional rhetoric.

Simply because PC exists at Harvard, however, does not mean it is as prevalent as a few campus conservatives claim. As they would have it, any conflicting opinion is politically correct and can be dismissed.

The most egregious example of this abuse of PC name-calling in recent weeks is the characterization by AALARM co-founder E. Adam Webb '93 of the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel as "a political, PC, hack group." The charge is ludicrous.

Many active members of Hillel can also be found on the membership list of the Harvard Republican Club (HRC). Hillel Chair Dan Libenson '92, though not an HRC member, is a registered Republican. The charge of "political correctness" is not merely unjustified in this instance; it serves to make all such claims, even those that are valid, appear ridiculous.

LOBBING UNFAIR CHARGES of "political correctness" at one's ideological opponents results in several detrimental effects. First, it trivializes the charge. Second, it weakens the position of those who justifiably make the charge, a phenomenon I call the "crying wolf" syndrome. Third, it makes the accuser, and, more importantly, the conservative movement he or she supposedly represents, seem downright silly.

Moreover, this practice also has the dangerous side-effect of eliminating certain arguments from the realm of discourse just as much as PC itself does. For example, there are legitimate arguments for an Afro-Am Department, a Palestinian homeland and the continuance of sanctions before launching the recent attack on Iraq. These positions, part of the "politically correct" agenda, should not be categorically dismissed simply because they are part of that agenda.

Rather than waging a which hunt against the "politically correct" just as the PC crowd tries to root out "racists, sexists and homophobes," conservatives must keep in mind that all ideological purges quickly border on absurdity.

This dynamic can be best demonstrated by the baneful effects of PC on other elite campuses with less open-minded administrations. Amherst College has forbid the sale of Coca-Cola products on campus because of the corporation's investments in South Africa-despite Coca-Cola's brilliant record of providing scholarships for Black South Africans and other aid for the oppressed non-white majority of that racist regime.

Rather than adopt the tactics of the politically correct, then, conservatives must demonstrate the superiority of their arguments through rational discourse. Rather than throwing around the charge of PC to discredit the position of their opponents, a practice that will eventually begin to backfire, conservatives and moderates must seek to destroy the icons of the PC crowd. Just as in literature, "crying wolf" will only result in deaf ears when the Harvard community needs to be alerted to true examples of "political correctness."

Conservatives can weaken the arguments of the Left by presenting a well-reasoned position, defending it to the best of their ability, and logically dissecting their opposition. It is only in this manner that the orthodoxy of "political correctness" will fall. Only then will we be able to bid farewell to the intellectual McCarthyism of the extreme Left and welcome reason and rational arguments to everyday campus discourse.

Harry James Wilson '93, a Crimson writer, is president of the Harvard Republican Club.