The idea of “political correctness” (PC) has developed over time and has become a particularly popular topic in the United States. Webster’s Dictionary defines politically correct as: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”  Over time, the meaning behind this phrase has evolved in different ways. The idea of PC is something that has caused debate in America for many years.  Much of the argument is centered around the question of whether or not PC causes people to not express their opinion in fear of offending someone.  This question is important because it effects the power of discussion and debate. Having peaceful discussion creates understanding and possible solutions to many of our problems.  Understanding the evolution of the term, analyzing the power of modern day PC, as well as the growing sensitivity in society, answers the question of how political correctness effects peoples urge to express their opinions.  Based off of thorough research, it is apparent that political correctness advocates have caused Americans, particularly on college campuses, to be afraid to express their opinions. 

The evolution of political correctness provides a foundation of understanding behind the argument of PC hindering discussion.  The definition of the term today is different than what it was sixty years ago.  Therefore, knowing how PC has evolved and the history of the it, rather than a direct definition, gives understanding of the meanings behind the phrase.  In Bill Whittle’s video “The Narrative: The Origins of Political Correctness,” he explains how political correctness dates back to World War 1 and contains communist origins that have evolved over time.  He explains that during the time right after the war, Marxists created the Frankfurt School which was originally in Germany but later moved to New York City. While the school was in New York, it created an agenda that pushed Marxism on American culture. What resulted was the idea of “Critical Theory” on Western culture which called for criticism of the current practices. For example, this included strong criticism of American cultural issues such as gender equality and slavery.  This may seem positive because it allowed for reflection on western culture, but the way it was practiced was anything but constructive. From this, modern day political correctness arose and became what it is today that is seen often on college campuses across the country. What can be seen on campuses today are safe spaces, trigger warnings, as well as a trend of disinviting certain guest speakers on college campuses who may come across controversial. This picture seen on campuses is a prime example of how political correctness can take away diversity of ideas. Though a speaker or topic may be offensive or traumatic to deal with for someone, acknowledging diverse ideas rather than keeping them out, at least creates a dialogue. Many PC advocates refute claims about PC taking away discussion, and state that PC is something that “gives Republicans a kind of get out of jail free card for any time they say something offensive, inappropriate, or patently false” (Margolin 1).  Advocates such as Time Magazine contributor Mark Hannah, express the benefits of political correctness on an international level to ease tensions with other countries.  Though PC may work in certain cases, the effects on it has in America on college campuses outweigh the possible benefits. 

The critical stance on cultural issues in the earlier days of PC has lasted and carried over to present day. In many cases, the PC agenda could be viewed as an extreme disapproval with certain practices and prejudice. The fixing of bigotry has resulted in adjusting our language and determining what is acceptable to say in some cases.   Euphemisms have become a main method in which PC has changed language by using words that are not offensive. However, this creates a “euphemism treadmill” (Pinker 1) which creates a constant change of vocabulary as soon as a word becomes offensive. Without a doubt, racism, bigotry, and other harsh forms of prejudice are serious problems that are unacceptable.  Today, many people are treated unfairly by different groups such as police.  Police brutality on minorities, particularly black people, is a serious issue that deserves attention. However, what is factual and what is sensationalized give completely different stories to a situation. Much of this happens because people who want to criticize a cultural problem make up facts to fit their agenda.  An example of this was described by Dr. Steven J. Allen in his video: “The Politically Correct Narative and Al Sharpton,” where he criticized Rev. Al Sharpton for the way he handled the Tawana Brawley rape allegation case, saying that Sharpton continued to push a story that had already been proven false.   This shows the degree at which political correctness can push a political plan even when facts are presented.  Ignoring facts and pushing a false story to the public, even if there is a good intention, can be very damaging.  Dealing with heartbreaking and serious cultural problems need attention. However, bringing attention to those problems through forms of discussion that do not shy away from other ideas is where progress can be made culturally.  These examples show that PC is dangerous in the sense that facts and meaningful discussion can be marginalized.  Political correctness has evolved and what it is today can truly make an impact on America in a negative way. 

Modern day political correctness has become a powerful device that affects college student’s ability and desire to participate in discussion or debate. The way that PC has been involved in government relates to the way PC has had an effect on college campuses. There have been different instances in recent years that have involved a person’s actions and how the government interfered to respond to the situation.  In a video by Ben Shapiro called “The First Amendment is Dead,” he addresses multiple cases where the government has been involved in situations that relate directly to political correctness.  For example, Shapiro points out a situation in Colorado where a bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because of her religious beliefs.  This resulted in a fine by the government.  Because freedom of religion was hindered in this situation, it shows how the government has adopted certain laws driven by political correctness.  It could be argued that the baker was being prejudice and the government was only trying to protect the rights of gay people. However, taking control and punishing someone for their actions due to religious beliefs shows how PC affects rights such as freedom of religion, that were built into the fabric of America.  Situations such as this point to the amount of power that political correctness has gained in recent years. This power carries over to colleges all across the country as well. For example, at the University of Minnesota, the student government denied the proposal to have a September 11th “moment of recognition.” The students made a statement on this decision, and said that the decision was based off of the “potential perpetuation of Islamophobia.” (Lerner 2). Furthermore, professors and other faculty members at schools such as the University of California, are instructed not to use certain phrases because it sends a “denigrating messages to the recipient” (Volokh 1).   Much of these policies and restrictions at these colleges cause the students to be afraid to speak up for their beliefs or even participate in class in some cases. McLaughlin and Associates conducted a survey on college students and how they feel about free speech (Carter 1). Students were asked if they were intimidated to share their opinion in class if it differed from their professor and half of the students felt that their opinions were not welcome by the professor in those situations.  This poll goes to show how PC on college campuses has carried over to students and have resulted in fear of debate and discussion. This statistic shows that political correctness has the power to intimidate students enough to not want to participate in something as small as a class discussion.  The impact of this example of PC shows how freedom of speech and fear of expression are threatened. Not only is discussion and freedom of speech important, it is a particularly serious issue that it is threatened on college campuses. When people such as college students, are afraid to speak up for what they believe in, it’s a real problem because it involves the culture of the next generation.  Having an environment that is respectful and open to all forms of opinions is truly a healthy way for progress to be made. Without a doubt, the political correctness culture is growing and it is inhibiting important discussion.  

Sensitivity on college campuses in America has become a popular feeling that restricts meaningful discussion and progress.  This growing sensitivity is a core result of modern-day political correctness. A common thing that is seen throughout campuses across the country are safe spaces and trigger warnings. New York Times contributor Sophie Downes defines safe spaces as “an area on campus where students — especially but not limited to those who have endured trauma or feel marginalized — can feel comfortable talking about their experiences” (Downes 1).  In this article, Downes argues that helping students talk about sensitive topics is not coddling them. However, many of the safe spaces have been used in ways that seem very much like coddling.  For example, after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, colleges such as Cornell held a “Cry In” for students who were upset about the election results. American Enterprise scholar Mark Perry explain that students are “no longer challenged, but instead treated as fragile, intellectual children and coddled with a ‘safe place’ response to anything challenging or unsettling” (Singman 1).  In addition to safe spaces, trigger warnings are also a popular tool at colleges. Sophie Downes describes Trigger warnings as something that “consists of a professor’s saying in class, “The reading for this week includes a graphic description of sexual assault” (Downes 1).  Much of trigger warnings mean more than just a slight warning to the students.  For example, at Harvard Law, a student complained to the professor to not use the word “violate” because it could result in traumatic thoughts (Gersen 1). It may seem positive for a class to warn students or not use certain phrases due to possible stress it could cause. However, trigger warnings enforce even more of this sensitive atmosphere because they cripple students when they remove certain words or phrases.  This is a serious problem because it allows students to not face uncomfortable situations and results in sensitivity. An example of this sensitivity was at the University of Tennessee when students were encouraged to use pronouns that were “gender neutral” (WATE).  This caters to students who may identify with a different gender.  Movements that change language causes those who may not use the politically correct language to look like bigots even if the person did not mean any offense. This adds to what causes so many students to be afraid to speak up in certain situations because they do not want to be looked at as offensive.  New York Times contributor Steven Pinker referred to the changing of words as the “Euphemism Treadmill” (Pinker 1).  This refers to the constant changing of words to political correctness because of the words being replaced are offensive. The way the “Euphemism Treadmill” works is that over time a word becomes offensive and then is replaced by a new word and thus replaced by another once the new word develops a negative connotation (O’Neil 283).   The phenomenon resulting from PC advocates, has the positive intention of fixing distasteful people. Nevertheless, changing words often does not have a helpful result to bigotry. Ben O’Neil explains how “a bully who formerly used the word retarded as a term of scorn can just as easily use the euphemism differently abled as a term of scorn by using a malicious tone of voice” (O’Neil 282).  People who are not politically correct typically do not mean harm yet they are criticized when they don’t say something that is correct in the eyes of a PC advocate. O’Neil explains how PC advocates mainly ignore the factors of context and tone of a person and only focus on the language (O’Neil 284).  This explains how not only changing language creates sensitivity but it also does not have constructive results. Without a doubt, many of the solutions by PC advocates create sensitivity and can even be ineffective.   

The power of respectful discussion and expression is what is truly at the core of progress in America.  College campuses all across the United States are creating environments based around political correctness.  With political correctness happening on college campuses, many college students are becoming pro PC.  Though it may seem as though this means a respectful environment of all people, the new culture in which consideration of all people is crippling.  The way the new PC culture is affecting college campuses is harmful to debate and conversation in America. Being respectful with those we disagree is important but restricting and putting pressure on what someone should say, does not help people learn and find solutions to problems. The way the phrase has evolved and its history does not allow for productive discussion to take place.   Furthermore, PC has become a powerful tool that is affecting the country on multiple levels.  Very much at the center of the PC discussion is how sensitivity that is shown on colleges, drives the pressure for people to be politically correct.  When catering to sensitivity, it is easy to not discuss different topics and being open to other ideas. Based off of the points addressed, it is clear that in the long run, political correctness hinders discussion and does not fix the problems people face. Political correctness on college campuses limits many people’s desire to express their opinions and have discussions in fear of being ridiculed.  When problems like this happen directly within places such as college campuses, it can easily become a negative thing for future generations.   Conversation is the key to getting to know one another and developing level of understanding that does not result in hatred or discrimination. However, having discussion that is monitored in a way that disconnects people from talking, is when a true problem is present.  President Barack Obama spoke in a speech about how it is important to listen to those you disagree with “no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things coming out of their mouth” (PÉrez-peÑa 1).  The fact that a Democratic President had these feelings towards free speech and discussion, shows that the new PC culture is more than just a Republican versus Democrat issue.  This is something that effects the future of the country and how people will communicate and understand each other.  Thus, stopping this problem on college campuses can be beneficial not only for the students but also our society for many years to come.  
