Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/23/2002 02:16:00 AM (Archive Link)
What other things annoy me? Well, let’s see… political correctness ranks near the top. I consider society’s penchant of it to be absurd. Invariably, it springs from the desire to not offend people. While this seems like a find thing, and often it is, it can also be taken to extremes. At its root, I believe, is politeness. You don’t insult people, especially stranger, because it’s impolite. You don’t e in public because it’s impolite. You don’t walk around because it’s impolite. If you’re being impolite then you’re offending people, generally the public at large; you’re an affront to their sensitivities. What I find bizarre is the abundance of concern about offending nobody. Frankly, you’re always going to offend somebody no matter what you do. Even your attempt to be non-offensive to one group will be offensive to another. One of the new articles that I love reading on a weekly basis is one entitled, “Tongue Tied” and it appears every Monday on FoxNews.com. It details the wackiness of political correctness. A recent column detailed how a high school choir dropped out of a Red Cross fundraiser because the Red Cross deemed that their song selection’s inclusion of religious (Christian) themes and language was inappropriate. The organizers wanted to be sensitive to those who were non-religious and non-Christian. I believe the terminology (and I will search for the exact quote) was that their commitment to the religious diversity of the audience led them to take such an action. I adore that word choice: “diversity.” Another case is a worker who was fired from a public library because she refused to remove a simple cross necklace while on the job as her supervisor demanded. Again, the reasoning was that they wanted to be sensitive to the wide variety of people who use the library and their diversity. What I find baffling about this is the idea that it’s in the interests of diversity. Diversity means the many in its various forms. Prohibiting the expression of one view doesn’t contribute to diversity, it takes away from it. Of course, that’s in its logical, pure sense. However, nowadays it’s been made to mean that respecting diversity is not offending the diverse. (As an aside, I’ve noticed that PCness often takes on the tones of Orwellian newspeak. Diversity is elimination. Freedom of speech is total censorship of speech. The majority is the minority.) As I’ve said, you’re always going to offend somebody. Most often, these people are going to be an extreme minority. In the case of the necklace, a cross pendant is going offend a very small minority of people. Few would think such a symbol (which itself has become as much a fashion symbol as a Christian one) is oppressive or insulting or that it’s an attempt to force a religion on them. Rather, people would be fine with it. Not approving, not disapproving, just non-committal and at peace with such a display. A pentagram pendant, on the other hand (as the knee-jerk counter-argument would be that if you allow a cross, you must also allow something commonly seen as bad), would be offensive to a vast majority. We should be concerned about the majority, but not the minority. It is ludicrous that we should allow the most sensitive person in society to determine what the rest of society does and thinks. Applying PC legalistically is absurd. Applying it with common sense is needed. The boringly obvious counter to this is that we must protect the minority… they must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny, yes. From feeling bad, no. I’ve read the Constitution. I’ve read the Bill of Rights. I’ve read the Declaration of Independence. I’ve read a number of important nation-building documents. The common theme is that the important rights to which people are naturally entitled are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I never read anything about the right not to be offended, or the right not to be annoyed, or irritated, or miffed. And the right to the pursuit of happiness doesn’t cover it. It’s the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. You must pursue happiness; chase after it. There’s nothing that says the government or entities or people must clear everything from your path of achieving bliss. There’s nothing that says you will get handed happiness on a silver platter (I sound like my mom now). Life is rough. It’s hard. You’re gonna get miffed. You’re gonna have people who will say something mean to you. You’re gonna be offended by something people do or say or wear. You’re find yourself in the minority sometime. But as long as the majority isn’t impeding your ability to live, your ability to be free, or your ability to pursue happiness, it’s done what is necessary to grant you your inalienable rights. If you actually want to be happy, you have to engage in the pursuit. Happiness takes effort.