
The American College Campus is at is crossroads when determining if Political Correctness enhances or squanders the purposes of the learning environment. Before delving into this debate, it is important to establish what PC is and what the purposes of higher education are. Until recently, the phrase political correctness hardly arose in conversation. In use, it is virtually only uttered by the political right under a negative connotation. For our purposes, this essay will utilize the phrase as a neutral term. As may already be clear from my need to include this disclaimer, PC culture is not only a touchy subject, but beckons a wide spectrum of opinions – making it difficult to define. According to Merriam-Webster, it is the “conformance to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of race, sex, etc.) should be eliminated” (Merriam-Webster). Unfortunately, keeping in mind the spectrum I mentioned, not everyone accepts this definition. Despite this, there are some main take-aways. Firstly, PC-users take some level of caution to avoid offending or marginalizing what many refer to as disadvantaged groups (Guterl). For example, black Americans may be considered disadvantaged because of the set-backs our country’s history of slavery triggered. Generally speaking, the right believes efforts of PC are exercised to an extreme. While one side argues that PC creates psychological comfort that enhances learning, the other side argues this enhancement is only made possible by intellectual diversity and the freedom of speech. 

Secondly, it is worth clarifying the most common means of PC: safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggression avoidance. All three strategies are regularly perpetuated on college campuses and covered in the news, but I will explain the basis of safe spaces because they arise repeatedly in this essay. Advocates for these spaces define them as “a place where students can fully self-express without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or challenged on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity/ expression, cultural background, age, physical/ mental ability” (Guterl). While a mouth-full, the cause explicitly claims to place emphasis on respect for the feelings of others at the sake of their dignity. Even though safe spaces are approached differently on various campuses, most agree that they enhance PC culture. One thing must be noted here. Safe spaces are not the only form of PC perpetuation. Furthermore, successful pleas to rename buildings, remove art, reinvent mascots, disarm campus security, and turn away speakers, are just a few of the “safety” measures taking place. Finally, we arrive at the question of PC’s implications on the goals of the University. There is an outcry, mainly among conservatives, that PC compromises the shared mission of all colleges. Each university in America offers different programs and tools for helping their students to achieve. However, there lies a singular goal to prepare young minds to function properly in the professional world and think critically in the adult world. I am interested in exploring how PC culture relates to this purpose. 

My interest in this subject began because the debate around political correctness garners heightened emotional responses from both sides. Between all of the modern policies of college administrations, there is a newfound attempt to promote inclusiveness and ensure respect. Any decent human being agrees that students should engage in discourse without unjustifiably compromising the dignity of someone with a different opinion. The controversy here is a question of how far is too far. While it is reasonable to encourage students to express their opinions in an unhostile manner, this simple request has morphed into a complex one. With rising political tensions, what one may prescribe as unacceptable language or speech, another may deem as acceptable. Not only does neither person have the authority to dictate if certain lawful speech should be forbidden, but the labeling of “politically incorrect talk” may be used to silence. In short, the PC debate impacts my values. I value both my first amendment right to free speech and respecting my peers. In addition, I value academic freedom and intellectual diversity. In my opinion, it is the diversity of thought that contributes the most to our uniqueness as people and leads to the healthiest debate. Free discussion forces students to challenge their peers and “reassess or validate their own beliefs” (Pazienza) By design, a University is to do just that. By learning to critically think, students are ready for the adult world. On the other hand, after my research, I have come to consider certain students’ need for healing, which may be fostered by safe spaces and the like. This could include students who have experienced sexual harassment, racial discrimination, lifestyle shaming, etc. I truly do not want any of my peers go through the anxiety, depression, or self-hatred that may result from this treatment. Ultimately, anyone with similar values or concerns should care about this issue. 

After my extensive research of this dilemma, I have found that it is nearly impossible to find hard data that supports one side or the other. For instance, “to function properly in the professional world” can be looked at very subjectively. What does it mean to function properly? A popular means of gathering statistical evidence is through students’ participation and reviews. Many articles literally gained the student perspective by recording their reaction to safe spaces. After reading the results, most students in a sample of 121 claimed to “have learned more in a safe space rather than in an ordinary university environment” (Holley). In this study, the students were required to talk briefly about their identity, and about certain language or statements that offend them before starting a conversation within a safe space (Pickett). From this, it was concluded that safe spaces create “psychological comfort” for the participants, which allowed them to “relax and talk freely knowing each other’s boundaries beforehand” (Holley). In fact, virtually every study collecting this type of data favors the pro-PC side. One doctor agreed that perceived “psychological safety” helps one remove “barriers” that would get in the way of our willingness to “connect and learn” from one another (Wanless). Simply put, if one feels threatened, they are less likely to take the “risk” by “engaging” (Wanless). As the solution, safe spaces offer more structure so there is a sense of predictability. As an example, in the event of campus rape being discussed in college, victims of sexual assault may speak with more confidence if they know that their sexual choices will not be brought up (Pickett). Even though safe spaces garner some skepticism, they are worth exploring because of the apparent increase in healthy discourse. 

 However, existing studies are not definitive proof that PC enhances the learning environment. Even those responsible for the studies warned that the results should be taken lightly. Not only did each study employ small sample sizes, but the participants themselves were like-minded in the sense that they shared the same major, which means they often shared the same professors at the same school. Another characteristic of these studies to keep in mind is their accuracy in relating to safe spaces that are more restrictive than the ones monitored on these campuses. Also, survey-based studies rely on the participant’s ability to declare themselves whether they learned more in the safe space. In other words, the only way we are measuring the variable “learning” is from their response. This is a problem for two main reasons. First, their private support for safe spaces may influence their answer. Second, they cannot rightfully compare their experience to anything concrete because this could be their first time having a conversation with a group of random peers about anything controversial. Lastly, because the studies do not explain the nature of the conversation, the reader is unable to know if the topic is even controversial enough to impede on the speech rights of the students. It is possible that the subject matter either did not challenge their view, or they did not have a controversial opinion to give. 

To detail the layout and results of similar study, consider a recent one that found a positive correlation between political correctness and creativity. It found that mixed-gender groups could brainstorm more “business ideas” about unused areas on campuses after receiving a “political correctness talk” (North). (The single-gendered groups did not experience this correlation.) The same study noticed that the groups without the PC talk spoke with more “verbal markers of uncertainty.” The designers behind the study claim that this proves that establishing PC guidelines beforehand offers “clear expectations” so the participants felt more “comfortable to freely express themselves” (North). I have several issues with the strategy and findings of this study. First, I am hesitant to apply PC as causation to creativity in this case because business ideas surrounding campus zoning are unrelated to political topics. In fact, findings among the single-gendered groups confirm this. Additionally, I would argue that any discomfort that the non-PC groups experienced was possibly a cause of the growing PC-culture. Therefore, this would be an instance of PC trying to solve a problem that it concocted. To conclude, the only statistical proof on the pro-PC side is in the form of studies, and these studies are weak based on the rules of the statistical sciences. 

To be fair, many arguments exist that offer logical reasons for the existence of PC culture. Even though the specific studies contained flaws, the general research I mentioned earlier on psychological comfort and its positive effects is very convincing. The medical community has more reliable data that suggests safe spaces are basically an establishment of what lines not to cross with each other. This knowledge, in a way, frees individuals because there is a newfound sense of security in understanding what lines not to cross. As a result, this knowledge fuels their confidence, which would logically up one’s willingness to share their ideas. Even leaving out the question of if PC enhances learning, this side of the argument vales campus safety. Students should not fear that their safety is at risk on a college campus. If this is an epidemic, then safe spaces and other means may be the answer. 

My main argument is that PC weakens what it claims to strengthen: tolerance despite diversity. By its very nature, PC places a spotlight on groups based on race, sexuality, gender, and religion; it ignores the intellectual diversity within each group. As an example, Lyell Asher recounts a recent event that occurred on Harvard’s campus before the Thanksgiving holiday. Placemats were distributed to the students, detailing how to “respond to a family member’s opinion on problems such as race relations or the refugee crisis” (Asher). The fact that an Ivy League was responsible for this case proves the epidemic influx of PC and a newfound value on speed and convenience over independent thought. Essentially, the University is discouraging their students to think through these issues, because they have done the thinking for them. This goes against the mission of higher education because, at the very least, education begets thinking. Rather, education requires thinking. Education seizes to exist without thinking. These placemats are taking that precious right away, and due to this fact, Harvard was forced to apologize. Political correctness clouds our eagerness to hear from and relate to one another. I believe that aspects of PC culture do marginalize the students, in the case of Harvard, who may disagree with the mainstream talking points being pushed by the school. And for the ones it does not shame for their beliefs, it does not challenge them. And, the university system fails a student when it fails to help them exercise critical thought (Asher). 

      One important point to remember is that the American college campus an environment where young adults can enjoy their Constitutional guarantees with other young adults for the first time. (Pazienza). In the west, free speech is recognized as a basic human right that many Americans have fought and died for (Does). Our founders did not sugarcoat their language when they wrote in the freedom of speech, rather than freedom from speech (Does). To abolish any hesitancy to accept PC culture as widespread, I want to give a few more instances of suppression of speech as a result of a university’s speech codes. Back on Constitution Day in 2013, “a student (who happened to also be a war vet) was told on a public college campus that he could not hand out copies on the Constitution.” That same year, a student on another public campus was banned from protesting NSA surveillance outside of a free speech zone, an area that comprised only 1.37% of the campus. Once again that same year, a public campus in Hawaii banned students from both the distributing the Constitution and speaking out against the NSA. As should be expected, these three schools were taken to court. These encounters seemingly unmold students for the real world. College should be less like high school and more like the real world because, progressively, students out-grow high school. Colleges may be able to have a designated percentage of their campus devoted to free speech right now, but 100% of the adult world is a free speech zone, not a mere fraction. The protection of safe spaces and trigger warnings are nonexistent outside of the classroom years. Why would we introduce these PC aspects in the college years only for students to discover that they do not follow them after graduation. Four years of being shielded from conflicting opinions probably means that students do not know the arguments against their own. 

In addition, one must bear in mind further conditioning that PC brings. For instance, safe spaces imply that interaction outside of them is “unsafe.” The labeling of outside speech as unsafe suggests that it is dangerous, and therefore, wrong. Safe spaces are (whether with or without this motive) conditioning users to believe that speech unaligned with the guidelines of PC is wrong speech. However, just because speech is offensive does not make it wrong. Certain statistics may be rooted in fact, but still be deemed offensive. As an example, if a study finds that on average blondes are smarter then brunettes, this may be offensive to brunettes. But, no one should anyone be protected from the results of a study just because of their hurt feelings. 

In fact, I believe that all lawful speech should be protected. This does not include speech unprotected by our first amendment right: fighting words, incitement, child pornography, obscenity, libel, etc. To present further out country’s commitment to ban harmful speech, the Supreme Court decided in Brandenburg vs. Ohio that any speech that incites imminent violence is not protected. Also, the majority concluded in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell that there would be increased penalty for all hate crimes. But, hate crimes and hate speech are dramatically different in that one is action and one is not. In R.A.V vs. City of St. Paul, the majority decided that hate speech is indeed free speech. They reasoned that speech cannot be banned based on its content since the same laws could be used to silence both bigots and non-bigots. In other words, “hate speech” would become an exception to the American rule of free speech. This gives leeway and even encourages ideologues to harass those who hold a different view. 

I conclude that PC culture would squander your learning because you must interact with all people and views in order to completely learn how to deal with them. In other words, we learn from experience, and political correctness take away experience. Safe spaces may hold some value, but other means are simply impeding on the constitutional rights of students in America. Free speech translates to academic freedom in universities. And with more freedom comes more intellectual diversity, adding to the overall vibrancy on a campus, instead on robotic compliance to a political agenda. Ultimately, PC does not enhance the mission of higher education in America; it chokes it. I encourage everyone to decide what they value most and how far they are willing to go to protect their values. Whether someone believes it is their first amendment right or safety at risk, they should act accordingly and speak out against any policy they question. That is their right, not their privilege. 
