I just read an online article about a Ph.D. student, Rebecca Fowler, who has taught a class at Washington State University on Comparative Ethnic Studies. As part of the syllabus of the class she includes a section on terms that would cause deductions in grade if used by the students. Such terms include "colored people", "illegal immigrants, "illegal aliens", and others. There has been an uproar over this, including threats to her person and the bigots have come out in force. And now I am finding myself being in the incredibly uncomfortable position of saying that I don't think these rules, presented as they are in the syllabus, are a good idea.
There is an excerpt of that section of the syllabus included in the article, but only an excerpt, so I may be judging out of context here. This is my problem with this type of enforcement of PC language:
1. There does not seem to be any discussion as to WHY this enforcement exists. While for many it may seem obvious, if there is a need to be explicit in this rule, then there probably is a need for some sort of explanation. The instruction seems to be directed to those who would otherwise use these terms and perhaps not understand why they are extremely offensive. Ignorance is a common cause of bigotry.
2. The threat of grade deductions for using these terms prevents open discussion of the history behind these terms, how they became prevalent in our society, what about them is offensive, and perhaps the opportunity to enlighten, educate and open the minds of those who have been raised to use them.
3. Glossing over the preformed opinions and world views that students have been raised with by predetermining what speech should be used just hides the problems instead of confronting them and dealing with them. I truly believe that has been one of the ways racism has been able to thrive in this country. The use of PC language can hide all sorts of evil.
4. A rule handed out with a college level syllabus at a secular university that restricts free speech, no matter how well intentioned, is going to be a target and may cause the unexpected result of the "bad guys" winning. In this case the interim president of the university basically declared the use of offensive language should be allowed no matter what. This leaves very little wiggle room for any ability for the class to even self-regulate should there be even one dissenting vote.
I am not excusing the threats this women received nor am I excusing the incredibly bigoted reactions from people that opposed these rules. There is no excuse for such incredibly mean spirited, violent language or intention toward anyone for any reason. However, as stated in the article:
"My [students] who [come in saying] 'illegal alien,' they've been taught to say that, they unconsciously use that phrase. When someone stops and starts speaking out [about] why it's dehumanizing they're very open to talking about embracing a change in their terminology."
Providing an open exchange of ideas that allows for people to confront the bigotry behind language and learn how to change the way they think about it is a healthy thing to do. Allowing the class to compare the bad language with what is considered PC and see how it can change the entire emotive context of a discussion is something that I think is desperately needed. Once that process is in place, then to follow it up with something like:
"In light of these discussions and what we have learned about the use of language and how it can dehumanize, encourage bigotry, and even lead to violence verses how it can uplift, humanize, and create understanding between groups of people, we will be putting some self imposed rules upon the language we use for this class."
Allowing the class to help come up with the rules themselves might
create a sense of community and understanding and participation among the students that an authoritarian rule handed out with a syllabus could never create. This would not be a bad thing at all, if in the aftermath of this blow-up it would even be allowed.