In recent years a new code of ethics has been put together. It defines “political correctness” – p.c. for short. The code tells us how we must avoid hurting the feelings of the various categories in our society that are considered to have been victimized in the past. That includes a lot of people; women, members of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, homosexuals, self-proclaimed witches, as well as the disabled, the elderly, and the very young (but not the foetus).

The code had its origin in the universities, where it is still most strictly-enforced, but it begins to dominate life outside the ivory tower as well. Politicians are careful to adhere to it, as are most journalists, textbook publishers, teachers, lawyers, and whoever else makes a living by dealing with the public. This does not mean that the code is universally accepted. It is the brainchild of left-wing radicals. Conservatives like to attack it. So does a fair number of liberals. Even if they agree that some victimized groups are entitled to more respect than they received in the past, these people consider the code too radical, they don't like the way it is being enforced, and they strongly object to the ideological background of the p.c. movement.

Inclusive Language⤒🔗

Before looking at the code's enforcement and background, I will give some examples of the taboos it has established. Several are well known to our readers. A lot of them have to do with language, which traditionally favoured the male. That is now called sexism and is no longer allowed. Language must become inclusive. Instead of a chairman we therefore get a chairperson, instead of mankind, humankind, and so on. We also may no longer refer to a human being, in general, as he: it has to be she/he (if one wants to be truly politically correct one puts the feminine pronoun first). There are even Bible translations enforcing the code of inclusive language in a more or less radical fashion.

Some zealous reformers go so far as to mutiliate the language. Even traditional guardians of the language are known to have done so. Last year Time magazine gave a review of the new Random House Webster's College Dictionary and showed that it lists such terms as “herstory” as an alternative for history (even though the “his” in history has nothing to do with gender: the word derives from a Greek term meaning inquiry), waitron or wait-person instead of waiter, and womyn instead of the plural noun women – to avoid the “sexist” reference to men.

Ableism, Lookism, and the Like←⤒🔗

Women are not the only people who can claim to have been victimized. Just about anyone can. There is only one general exception: the white, western, heterosexual male, dead or alive. He is the perpetrator of all the injustices ever committed in our society, and indeed in the world at large, and even if now he is increasingly coming under attack, he will never be allowed to claim victimhood. Radical feminists have seen to that. They have established as unassailable dogma that oppression is possible only with the help of the “institutional power” of the dominant culture, and that the only person possessing such power is the aforesaid white, western, heterosexual male.

In its March 1991 issue, Harper's Magazine printed a list of actions or attitudes that are deemed politically incorrect. This particular list had been distributed by the Office of Student Affairs at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. (Various other universities publish similar lists.) The Smith College document explains that people are often oppressed because they are “perceived to be different.” It adds that the realization of this iniquity [and of course the need to declare it taboo] made necessary the creation of new words, and proceeds to list the following:

• Ableism: oppression of the differently abled by the temporarily able.

• Ageism: oppression of the young and the old by young adults and the middle-aged, in the belief that others are unable to take care of themselves.

• Classism: oppression of the working and non-propertied classes by the upper and middle classes.

• Ethnocentrism: oppression of cultures other than the dominant one in the belief that the dominant way of doing things is the superior way. [Hence: Eurocentrism.]

• Heterosexism: oppression of those of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual.

• Lookism: the belief that appearance is an indicator of a person's value; the construction of a standard for beauty/attractiveness; and oppression through stereotypes and generalizations of both those who do not fit that standard and those who do.

• Racism: the belief that one group of people are superior to another and therefore have the right to dominate.

• Religious discrimination: oppression of religions other than the dominant one. [It should be noted that since Christianity is the dominant religion in the West, Christians, like the western male, by definition cannot claim victimhood no matter what happens to them.]

• Sexism: stereotyping of males and females on the basis of their gender; the oppression of women by society in the belief that gender is an indication of ability.

A few other taboo attitudes appearing on at least some p.c. codes, although not on the Harper's list, are: heightism, which is discrimination against short people (vertically challenged is an acceptable term); weightism, which refers to bias against people who are overweight; inappropriately directed laughter; and conspicuous exclusion of students from conversations.

The Smith College document concludes by giving a sample of “Names Self-chosen by Groups with a Mutual Identity” – that is, the terms we all should be using if we want to be politically correct. They include the following:

• Bisexual: gender-neutral term preferred by people who are open to intimate relationships with people of either gender.

• Differently Abled: term created to underline the concept that differently abled individuals are just that, not less abled or inferior in any way (as the terms “disabled,” “handicapped.” etc., imply). Physically challenged is also acceptable.

• Nontraditional-Age Student: a person whose traditional undergraduate education was interrupted and who has made the decision to return and complete it. [In other words: an older student – but to refer to someone as old or older is to be guilty of ageism.]

Censorship and Intimidation←⤒🔗

The new code is not all bad. True, it goes overboard, at times it is downright silly, and it is also doing sad things to the language, but there are redeeming features. The code takes the side of the underdog, and it insists upon an attitude of tolerance, kindness, civility, and similar social (and Christian) virtues. It seems to be based on the golden rule that we must do to others what we want done to ourselves. And it is true that some minorities have been sorely oppressed and that corrections are overdue. So how could the p.c. code become the object of ideological strife, both on and off campus?

One reason, as I mentioned, is the manner of its enforcement. This generally leads to censorship and worse. At those universities where the forces of political correctness are in control, free speech and academic freedom are in mortal danger. The enforcers of political correctness, convinced of the righteousness of their cause and determined to have that cause prevail, make short shrift of the rights of their opponents. Horror stories abound about the dangers facing non-conformists. P.c. spokesmen (or rather: spokespersons) routinely demand the cancellation of courses they find objectionable, the expulsion of students who break the code, and the dismissal of ditto faculty. Often they are able to enforce their demands by organizing demonstrations, disrupting classes, occupying buildings, and similar means of intimidation, which are reminiscent of the tactics used by the brownshirts in Hitler-Germany.

And it does not take much to break the code. It is not good enough to refrain from insulting members of a minority group: professors and students must be willing to “affirm” the rights and cultures of these minorities. As at least one university p.c. code has it, one can be guilty of oppressing homosexuals simply by “not acknowledging their existence.” To criticize them is altogether forbidden. In fact, several schools have disciplined students who said they objected to homosexuality on religious grounds. One must of course also be very careful not to make jokes about them. And what goes for homosexuals goes for women, coloured people, and all the rest. Only positive remarks are allowed. To speak, on the other hand, in a positive manner about such taboo subjects as European history or the contributions of western civilization is politically incorrect and can be risky.

Multiculturalism←⤒🔗

Although the p.c. movement is not confined to the United States, that country seems to be infected by some of its most virulent strains. One reason is its racial and ethnic diversity. Unlike a country like Canada, which officially stresses multiculturalism, the United States used to portray itself as a melting pot. Immigrants were not to keep their own separate cultures, but were to be transformed and become one people of non-hyphenated Americans. That ideal is fading. As a result of more liberal immigration policies, the non-western and non-white sections of America's population are increasing rapidly. Cultural diversity is a fact of life, and is now more and more being stressed. In our days this is, of course, not just an American but a world-wide phenomenon.

That attention is given to minorities is, again, in itself a good thing – especially if it concerns groups, such as blacks and native Americans, that have legitimate complaints. That they are being acquainted with their history and culture is equally laudable and just. Whereas some members of these minorities adapt easily to the dominant western culture, others appear to need role models from their own background. They often also feel the need to know their roots. And in many cases they are anxious to affirm the dignity of their ethnic group.

Therefore, to have not only the legacy of western civilization, but also the history, literature, traditions, and achievements of dominant minority cultures taught is to be applauded. Children from racial minority groups have been encouraged by it and have benefited from it. Furthermore, the literary canon (that is, the list of what are generally considered to be the most important literary texts), as well as the writing and teaching of history, have been and will be enriched by it. They have also been enriched by the inclusion of the work and contributions of western (and non-western) women. Traditional historiography and the traditional literary canon indeed used to favour the western male.

Tribalism←⤒🔗

Changes are in order. The problem is that, here too, the reformers go overboard. My main concern at this time is to show some of the movements' consequences.

One of these consequences is that the cultural heritage of western civilization, which was always at the centre of American life and education, is being suppressed. In the view of the politically correct, this civilization is by definition sexist, racist, classist, and oppressive. Its historiography and its literary canon perpetuate the power of dead, white, heterosexual, European males over women, blacks, hispanics, gays and other minorities. Therefore it is not good enough to purify the language, or to teach the cultures of certain minority groups in addition to the traditional one – the curriculum has to be purged altogether of its Eurocentric orientation.

Courses in European history and literature are therefore adapted, or cancelled – to be replaced by courses in minority cultures and even subcultures, such as that of homosexuals. Gay and lesbian studies are added as legitimate university courses and prove to be an inexhaustible source of topics for doctoral research projects.

The occasional replacement of scholarship by fiction is perhaps not the most serious consequence of these developments. In the end that will probably rectify itself. More important is the fact that these types of group-forming threaten to lead to the kind of tribalism of which the world has seen too much in recent history – from the rise of fascism to the present. Tribalism leads to the idolatry of the group, to resentment of and rivalry with other groups, and also to a denial of individual liberties, human rights, and the rule of law. As it happens, these rights and liberties are among the unique contributions that a Christian, western civilization has given to mankind.

The widespread defamation of the civilization that bequeathed this inheritance, the refusal to study and be instructed by its culture, the exaltation of the rights of the group over those of the individual, the fragmentation of society and the tribalization of the country – these are some the most disturbing consequences of the divisions that plague America and, increasingly, other western countries as well.