A Club in the Hands of the Politically Correct – Part 2

As an introduction to this next part, I want relate another example of how Politically Correct can show up at our colleges and universities.

College and university campuses can be behavioral minefields for the unwary, naive, or even the innocent. This instance still shakes me as I think about it. Years ago a professor asked me to teach a class while he was out of town attending a conference. I had done this a few times for other professors and I was always up for the chance. The lesson was on Benjamin Franklin. We reviewed the material and he noted one reading, “Advice to a Young Man in Choosing a Mistress.” I said that I had read it, what about it? “Well, on the first day of class one of the students came to me and voiced a strong objection to what she felt was an inappropriate reading. I told her that I expected her to be prepared and that I would welcome her response when we got to it.” I didn’t give it too much thought – at the very least a college education should disturb. But within a minute or two after I introduced myself to the class this student got up from her desk, grabbed her books, exclaimed as she stormed out, “I’m not taking any of this!” I was stunned. I followed her out of the classroom with the idea to calm her down and ask her to re-join the class. She turned around furious, yelled something I don’t recall and stormed off. But I do recall the anger in her face and eyes. I went back into the class shaken, the class less so, and someone said “She’s like that.” I connected with the professor and he wondered about the worth of university studies for some of our students.

Well, Fry’s take is a bit extreme (and blunt)…but what purpose is served in simply crying “I’m offended”? If you’re offended, wouldn’t it make sense to at least try to communicate your offense in a measured, thoughtful exchange of ideas?

Within the week I get a call from the university attorney’s office informing me that a complaint had been made against me for sexual harassment! The attorney was quite abrupt: the woman was frightened of me (though she had already walked forty feet away from the classroom door before I got to it – and then must have overcome her fear because after I resumed our class she came back, disrupted again, and grabbed a piece of paper she had left on her desk). The attorney informed me his office would investigate and get back if needed. I called the professor about it, “What the hell did you do, Bill?” Ahh, though a tenured professor, he was already distancing himself from the accused harasser, even though we had known each other for years, for anyone associated with a complaint like this it could be the kiss of death. Well, that was it, nothing more, no further word – but what an education for me – a lesson and a moment which faded with time and which I considered, to my subsequent detriment, an inexplicable anomaly.

What struck equally strange was that this kind of charge could be made with impunity. Much like spaghetti, as in the case of this student: “Throw it against the wall, see if it sticks, if it does, great – if not, no harm done to me.” Indeed, there was no accountability as to what I considered her outrageous behavior or her equally outrageous charge – no apology to the class, to the professor, certainly none to me – I didn’t even get a call from the university attorney saying there had been no grounds; and surprisingly (or maybe not) no further comment from the professor – we just didn’t talk about it.

Without question Franklin’s subject matter irritated the student – though I doubt she read any more than the title (probably too disturbed); her irritation increased given that it was included as required reading in the course of study. She was offended and took what she felt was a justified reaction. But please, I can’t be the only one who sees the inanity in this, right? Ben Franklin had been dead for over two hundred years, the professor was out of town, and despite the fact it wasn’t my class or my syllabus, I was the logical (?) target for her outrage. I get it. It was certainly a gender specific historical document but in the course of her drama it had morphed into a modern instance of sexual harassment. And, again your assistance, how was it possible that a charge like this, patently groundless, could be thrown out there without any accountability?

Is there a freedom, an entitlement even, to accuse? I wonder if there is a parallel in the historical debates regarding freedom of speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking of a “clear and present danger,” famously remarked, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The danger in this sense was to loss of life; but what about putting reputations at risk with false accusations? I can hear the outcry now: how can you possibly equate life to reputation? I understand this response. However, if one is stripped of the latter how much is the former worth? A second cry is more telling, though: “Bill, there has to be a distinction between a ‘wrong accusation’ and a ‘false accusation.’” Correct, the one is a mistake, the other is a lie. We have to consider the mind-set of the accuser – as I noted, the young student perceived she was sexually harassed, in this case she was wrong (yes, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt). But (if it wasn’t a malicious lie, but a heartfelt albeit mistaken charge) how is it possible that she came to this surety?

Something else has happened in the last few years which might offer a clue. I find equally unsettling the cry and even demand for “trigger” warnings or disclaimers – statements which warn the reader, viewer or participant that the material or topic presented may cause emotional distress or discomfort. PTSD is real; I don’t need to read articles to know this; friends who have experienced trauma, mostly in war, have told me. Seldom do they share the event, but rather how they try to cope. One common mechanism they relate goes something like this: “Damn, Bill. I’m not stupid. I avoid the chance that this crap could hit me. It’s getting better, but I’m pretty damned careful.” That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

But now, it seems, the rest of us are entitled to be warned in our life’s passage when we will be discomfited, and the rest of society should modify its behavior to adjust to this concern and eliminate the possibility of causing discomfort – to anyone. The call for trigger warnings has become pervasive, especially so in the university environment.

Middlebury College Professor Laurie Essig relates her introduction to trigger warnings when she was called out after showing slides of anorexic fashion models in her Sociology of Gender course. She characterized the demand for warnings “ridiculous” and observed “I'm treating college students like the adults they are, and institutions increasingly treat college students like medicalized children.” But maybe a “trigger” statement would have saved me from the experience with Ben Franklin? I doubt it. The student knew the topic was disturbing, the professor knew it, the class knew her feelings, and yet she showed up anyway. Go figure. But I suspect to protect himself, the professor is now putting “trigger” warnings on his syllabi. Maybe I should consider one for my classes: “Warning: this class will require that you think about difficult and unsettling ideas – please be advised, up your meds.”

I am heartened, nonetheless, with the recent debates regarding the push to sanitize and homogenize our universities with the Politically Correct and stifle conversations and topics which some consider “triggers.” In an article published in the Penn Spectrum – note these remarks by Provost Vincent Price welcoming a new freshman class (also a note to any clubbers reading this: the word “freshman” was used by the female editor). Keep in mind that at the moment his is the minority position:

At Penn you will find much to love. You will also encounter ideas you might not. They may seem outlandish, offensive, or just plain wrong.  You may be confused at some point. Embrace that confusion.  A thoughtful stranger welcomes uncomfortable situations and disagreeable opinions.  It is through this very discomfort that we learn the true value of intellectual freedom: Not just the ability but the absolute necessity to challenge our assumptions of what we know.

But let’s get back to this student’s perception and this “trigger warning” tie-in. If a parent constantly berates a child a liar or a thief, I doubt anyone would be surprised if the child becomes one upon adulthood. Too much has been written about the power of affirmation, negative or positive, on the individual psyche to dispute this, at least I think. In an environment filled with warnings that such-and-such can cause emotional discomfort and if I weren’t having these feelings I might start to wonder “What am I missing? What the hell is wrong with me? Ahh, I better get in touch with my feelings.”

 Are you familiar with the term “emotional reasoning”? I had heard of this in my last few years at the university – my first reaction was it must be a joke, an oxymoron, something akin to “original copy,” “accurate estimate,” “beyond infinity,” etc. But nope, it’s real and another up-and-coming topic in education.

In an article in last September’s The Atlantic Weekly, “The Coddling of America’s Mind,” the authors observed:

Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important.

Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.

Does this shift to emotional reasoning sound healthy to you? I pulled up another definition:

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process that occurs when a person believes that what he or she is feeling is true regardless of the evidence. For example, from a feeling of jealousy concluding that one's spouse is being unfaithful. Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions.

Great, so now another bit on cognitive distortions:

Cognitive distortions are simply ways that our mind convinces us of something that isn’t really true. These inaccurate thoughts are usually used to reinforce negative thinking or emotions — telling ourselves things that sound rational and accurate, but really only serve to keep us feeling bad about ourselves.

Take pause and consider the two questions I posited in the earlier post: Critical Thinking begins with “Why do I think the way I do.” Followed by “Why do I continue to think the way I do?”

Hmm, I have to confess that in the wake of my classroom experience and the subsequent sexual harassment charges I simply could not believe that the student knowingly lied to the university attorney’s office – as I said, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt, can’t help it. Certainly her feelings were real; her offence was real; and no question about her outrage. On the other hand, she was mistaken – her feelings were not reality, there was no harassment. If it had been my class, my student, I would have requested (demanded?) some dialogue with her (probably with a trauma counselor in tow) just to make sure that she felt safe to be in the classroom and me safe with her there. But then again I still wonder, why did she even show up for the lecture? And why did she come back so quickly to the place of her trauma? After all this time, I still can’t make any sense of it, except to conclude that in a strange way she gained some kind of benefit – to stage or create an objectionable moment? to lash out at those she felt personified the root of her discomfort? 

Look. I’m not a psychologist; I’m simply trying to understand the environment which fosters and validates an individual proclaiming “My feelings are my reality.” Especially that such a personal conviction could be entertained as true in the course of one’s progress in higher education (a rigorous task), and in a setting which demands those attending to think critically. But here I am, years removed and now in the presence of other highly educated and accomplished people – and I have the same questions. I have yet to extricate myself completely from those who embrace this my-feelings-are-my-reality sensibility, and the process has been something akin to K’s experience in the Kafka novel. Those posts are coming.  

A New Generation:

I suppose the student considered herself a victim. In the last twenty years or so much has been written on the topic of victim mentality. Victim mentality is almost beyond my comprehension. I’m familiar with the idea but I am at a loss to understand the tendency. Our favorite dictionary resource reads: “Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to think, speak and act as if that were the case — even in the absence of clear evidence.” I’m not sure how helpful this is; but a lot has been written about it and these words keep popping up: perception, hostility, blame, self-blame, micro-aggression, psychological need, avoidance, justification, agenda, learned helplessness, prejudice, bias, stereotype, etc. It’s an up-and-coming psychological discipline.

Why would someone take upon themselves the victim label? I’ve met a lot of strong and successful individuals in business, in education and in politics, and for the life of me I can’t imagine any one of them happily taking upon themselves such a self-defining label or even tolerating other people to consider them as such. Addressing this very strange dynamic Charles Sykes in an early book on the subject observed “A community of interdependent citizens has been displaced by a society of resentful, competing, and self-interested individuals who have dressed their private annoyances in the garb of victimism.”

You know what? As I read over the last couple of paragraphs I noted a few words used to define this victim role and considered again why someone would be inclined (you’re probably three steps ahead of me here): resentful, competing, self-interest, psychological need, justification…? You’re familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy; I suspect that no matter what an individual’s psychological make-up, self-actualization would still be a goal – the attainment of the highest needs – no other needs beyond. Victimism has a certain appeal: you get to be one through no fault (or effort) of your own, consequently you have every right to be resentful and justified in whatever actions you take in striking back – a pretty powerful position. Victimism is also a bit like a drug: the subsequent outpouring of pity and sympathy is somewhat akin to being loved (not quite self-actualization, but close) – of course the former are counterfeits for the real thing, but in love’s absence (self-love or love from others) these counterfeits must bring great comfort and great appreciation. 

Holy hell! Hit pause for a moment and let me be clear before you bag and tag me. There are victims; I’m not talking about the raped, abused, molested, or those who are beaten down and forcibly kept down. I’m talking about the self-proclaimed victims. Individuals (or groups) who have gratuitously (even energetically) appropriated to themselves the “victim” tag.

I find humorous a recent twist on this – now it seems that “survivor” is considered the more Politically Correct term. Are we to make a Shoah connection here? I beg you, join hands and contact the living. In the course of my graduate studies I had the opportunity to teach Latin at my daughter’s middle school. At every semester talent show a half-dozen or so sixth graders would belt out Gloria Gaynor’s iconic “I Will Survive.” The enthusiasm and energy was infectious – the crowd always went nuts. I am still laughing at a remark one of the teachers made as we watched, she said, “I am always amazed with the level of angst these girls can feel in all of their eleven years!” It was quite remarkable.

So, being a survivor is cool: braver, stronger, happier! And taller! Doesn’t this smack a little elitist? I’m not going to digress on an examination of the “survivor mentality,” but isn’t there something wrong here? Is the cancer patient who lived through the disease really braver or any more courageous than the patient who died? The word used to mean one who lived through a life threatening event or simply made it through a difficult moment. Now it seems that just getting through life is majestic and deserves recognition.

Politically Correct, Critical Thinking, victimism, emotional reasoning, trigger warnings, my-feelings-are-my-reality – that’s the environment. I hope you will give these elements due consideration before the next post. Thanks.

All my best. XOXO

*****

I may have mentioned in previous posts that my youngest daughter is a grad student in Asian Art History. Her interest in art probably had its beginnings at about eight years old when she and I began trekking off together to visit museums to see some of the great pieces. I never offered her any “trigger warnings” and damn it, I don’t remember seeing any. But here are some of our favorites – in the spirit of the times maybe you can come up with a few suggestions – I’ll be glad to pass them on. Art can get pretty emotional. 

                        Lacoon                                                                The Dying Gaul

Bernini, Apollo and Daphne                 Michelangelo, Pieta                               Donatello, David

Picasso, Guernica

       David, The Death of Marat                              Goya, The Third of May 1808

                    Gericault, The Raft of the Medusa                                    Van Gogh, Eternity’s Gate

Hang in there, kids. Life is tough.

 

A Club in the Hands of the Politically Correct – Part 1

OK, a bit of a strange post for a blog “Living and Teaching in Albania.” This post is the first of three more up shortly giving my side of a nightmare that began five months ago, less than five months after I came to this country to start my Peace Corps service. In “My Last Peace Corps Post” I offered the official story regarding my Peace Corps separation which was not complete – it was factual but not the whole story. So, bear with me, long story – the first two posts tend more to the social-academic, but they will offer some information, I think, to better weigh the last two which unfortunately are more inclined to reality-TV.

The Advent of Politically Correct:

I came of age during the 60s and 70s – it was a disruptive time for America and indeed for the rest of the world, but it was also a most significant time for social change: civil rights, minority rights, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental awareness, gay liberation, youth empowerment, scientific revolution, political grass movements and sometimes violent social and political action – a heady ten years or so, even without considering the war protests and the cultural changes driven by and reflected in the cinema, arts and the music of the of the time.

The attention and the demand for action regarding social inequality hit the high-water mark during this decade. It was a time of reassessment: bumper stickers of the day advertised the need to question authority and more to the point was one which proclaimed “Don’t believe everything you think.”

For those who paid attention and duly considered these ideas, it was a moment of a massive paradigm shift in what we had heretofore considered normal: what was acceptable or unacceptable, just or unjust, ethical or unethical, right or wrong, and the list goes on. More attention was given to the destructive nature of ethnocentrism, stereotype, and prejudice; the dangers of the latter two had always been understood but now with more deliberation – regarding the former, some of you may remember, for example, that only in your lifetime has the world map in our stateside classrooms moved away from the bifurcated Asian landmass in order to promote America’s imagined central and primary position in world affairs.

People were called upon to think differently – indeed, to question why they think the way they do. Human behavior is simply a result of human thinking. Hardly revolutionary – Proverbs tells us “So as a man thinketh so he is.” Destructive behavior and speech (certainly a direct product of thinking) was called into question – in effect, put under a white-hot spot-light. One motivation was if one’s behavior or speaking was questioned, perhaps he/she would take stock in his/her thinking and behavior would change in a way that was more than apparent – perhaps, it was even hoped that the individual would make the shift from knee-jerk, short cut conclusions to more considered thought. This is the advent of what we now call being politically correct.

My father’s family migrated from North Carolina to Arkansas in the early 1800s (at the time of the Trail of Tears – my great-great-great grandmother was a Cherokee). I mention this only to point out that my family had significant southern roots (just reading “southern roots” I suspect might give rise to a stereotypical response). It’s only been in these later years that I realized I never heard from any members of my large, extended family any prejudicial words regarding race. In fact I never heard a destructive comment about any people or any individual – the young in my family were taught (without knowing it) by example, stereotype and prejudice were wrong and gossip was simply not a part of our conversations. During the fifties and early sixties hurtful words were common – for example, I grew up hearing jokes at the expense of the marginalized: blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, etc.: bullies beating up on victims. The move to politically correct was a good thing and effective. When was the last time you heard a Polish joke? I heard a lot of them in the sixties; it’s been decades now. As children growing up in the absence of these hurtful words, we were less inclined to prejudicial or stereotypical actions, and in turn my cousins and siblings acted upon more positive, even tolerant, convictions.

Now some (lengthy) comments on Critical Thinking:

OK. So I’ve offered my take on the idea of what it is to be Politically Correct; Critical Thinking connects with this – actions and behavior are called into question and with the hope I repeat, that with purposeful thinking a shift in outward behavior will shift the inner being.

If you pull out any university or college catalog there will be a statement regarding the school’s commitment to instill in its students the ability to master or at least improve upon their critical thinking skills. In one of my courses a number of years ago a new first year student had the courage to look foolish in front of her classmates and ask me what critical thinking was. I turned the question over to the class since I could see some students who were in their last year before graduation – I felt that after nearly four years of study they would have some idea. Those who attempted to define critical thinking framed it as an exercise (whether it was a task, a problem, an assignment, a term paper, etc.) where the student brainstormed, analyzed, or to a great degree, focused really, really, really hard on the task at hand. Accomplishing the task or getting the “right” answer was foremost in these students’ minds. It was apparent that the college, department, or teachers had reduced this valuable and necessary skill to great sounding buzz words since it was also apparent that the students in this class, even those who were scheduled for graduation in a few months, had little clue what critical thinking was.

So, I ask you the question: What is Critical Thinking? You will see how this comes into play in my next posts. The great majority of my fellow Peace Corps volunteers were college educated. Pretty smart people in their fields – I wondered in the course of events, however, how few of them understood this concept. “The Foundation for Critical Thinking” offers this definition:

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.

This might be considered a more precise rewording of the explanations my students offered when I asked for their thoughts. What they would likely have missed is that the antecedent of the “it” at the end of the first sentence is not “subject, content, or problem,” but “that mode of thinking,” that is, the way we think. The attainment of effective critical thinking, in my estimation then, begins with the question, “Why do I think the way I do?” It is from this point the “self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective” bits come into play.

This is a simple enough question, but certainly not rhetorical. Remember the bumper sticker, “Don’t believe everything you think”? I ask my students what this can possibly mean and for the most part they settle on moments when we make mistakes, but mistakes we can correct with either more information or more deliberation. It takes some effort to impress upon them that analysis, planning, and execution are only part of the demands to effectively think critically. Two lines follow the above quotation: “[Critical thinking] presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” I have discovered that many of my students failed to grasp the enormity and impact of these last elements. It is from this point that their education begins: as Socrates famously remarked, true ignorance is not knowing what we don’t know.

Most of us, I trust, understand the terms social or cultural construct. However, do we really grasp how powerful these construct are? We like to think we are individuals, but we’ve had a lifetime experience with cultural/social constructs and they have determined our thoughts, ideas, and even our ways of thinking. The very cells of our existence, I submit, have been constructed for each of us. These are the influences which create the context of our lives:

• race and gender;
• economic status;
• religious and political affiliations;
• family experiences;
• our society;
• our level of education;
• our moment in history; and likely,
• deeply personal significant emotional experiences.

All of these shape our thoughts and make us who we are – we have been taught and we have learned. These “constructs” have no meaning other than that we judge them as “normal” – they are constructs which determine who we are but at the same time have very little (if anything) to do with what is “inherent” in being human (whatever that might be). Of course we would have a very difficult time navigating life without social or cultural constructs: for example, simply driving five city blocks would be nearly impossible in absence of the traffic laws that have been constructed for our health and safety. But it would be a mistake to conclude that a passive acceptance of all constructs is encouraging to our physical or mental well-being.

Some social expectations and requirements are explicit (such as traffic laws), others constructs we have impassively received from birth. Our unquestioning embrace of culturally-driven values, assumptions and thought processes, Geert Hofstede has termed the “collective programming of the mind.” That our thoughts are not our own is a difficult even troubling circumstance to accept. Again, we like to think that we are each individuals and unique from the rest of the members of our culture or society. But to the degree we’ve shared a common culture or society we are, for the most part, all the same. Hence we come to the importance of learning how to critically think. Without this skill, we will never take ownership of our individuality and our thoughts will always be forfeit to collective or group prompts.

There are other “programming” considerations which I have previously mentioned which can be added to the list above: namely our ethnocentrism, our tendency to stereotype, and most egregiously our prejudices. Ethnocentrism has likely been a factor since humans first gathered in distinct groups. And I probably don’t need to point out the dangers of this type of thinking (all you need to do is tune into a Republican presidential debate).

Stereotyping probably epitomizes the absence of any critical thought – it is a short-cut to a conclusion based on a ready-made rubric. It is a generalization about groups which oversimplifies their culture or place in the world: Jews are rich; American-Hispanic men are gardeners and the women are cooks; African-Americans are good at sports; Asians excel in science and math; all gay men are effeminate and gay women are not. Stereotyping, positive or negative, hurtful or good natured, will have its repercussions. Stereotyping takes no regard of relevant facts but goes directly to a sure judgment.

If stereotyping makes a broad conclusion about the group, prejudice makes a specific determination about the individual – it ignores any possibility of accepting individuals for their personal character or worth – or even, alas, taking the time to understand the individual. Again, the judgment can be positive or negative, but in the end it is an opinion held without thought or reason. Please note this point: ethnocentrism, stereotype, and prejudice foster attitudes without thought or reason.

Continuing the rigors of critical thinking to its next step is another question which needs to be considered: that is, after addressing the difficult first query, “Why do I think the way I do?” – he/she should address an equally disturbing question, “Why do I continue to think the way I do?” We like to think that we are receptive to new ideas, new ways of doing things and that we have, as it were, “open minds” and embrace change and take lessons from personal epiphanies. This is hardly the case; the efforts to disengage from our continued way-of-thinking collide with more personal considerations which fatally inhibit a successful thinking change. Again, the obvious is if thinking does not change, neither will behavior. So, I get a lot of shocked responses when I assert, “People don’t change.” But seriously, let’s say you want to change your life markedly – well, the best prediction of what your life is going to be like six months from now is what it was six months ago, and likely not too much different than it is right now. Change is hard; wanting to change is not enough; will-power is not enough. Will-power will never overcome imagination.

OK. I can hear you now: “Wrong! I know plenty of people who have changed! I’ve changed!” More probably you know a few people who have changed – it’s not impossible. And as to whether you have, well, we all think we have a sense of humor, but you know plenty of people who don’t. If you have changed I hope it’s toward being a better person, that’s really the only change that counts.

Recall the earlier quote, Critical Thinking requires a “commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”  But it’s more than this. Briefly then, these are some of the basic reasons (or excuses) why the next step (that is, “Why do I continue to think the way I do?”) is problematic:

• Egocentrism: it’s true because I  believe it;
• Sociocentrism: it’s true because we believe it;
• Self-validation: it’s true because I have always believed it;
• Selfishness: it’s true because it is in my vested interest to believe it;
• Wish-fulfillment: it’s true because I want to believe it. 

These are some typical (and error-prone) reasons why we continue to think the way we do, even after we have recognized the elements which construct our thoughts. No question about it – critical thinking is tough – if it were easy everyone would do it. The fact is, we make value judgments every day of our lives – but when was the last time you made one, stopped, and questioned why you made that judgment? We don’t because we rarely question how we think – if we did, likely our response would be, “been thinking and acting this way all my life and it’s worked so far!” Yeah, situation normal.

Critical thinking, then, is an attempt at objective thinking. Complete objectivity is of course impossible – and frankly, what a boring world that would be. So, thrown into the mix with the cultural or social “programming,” the more personal and destructive limitations of ethnocentricity, stereotyping, and prejudice construct a behavioral status quo that is almost immutable. All of this results in short-cuts to judgments, knee-jerk conclusions, and they save a hell of a lot of time – one look and the object is sized, tagged, and tossed in the warehouse; no effort needed to see if the damn thing has been mislabeled – been there, done that.

The Fear of Being Perceived as Politically Incorrect and How to Avoid It (not the fear, but the perception):

What does all of this, especially the lengthy bit on Critical Thinking, have to do with the post title? Well, this is what I see has happened in the last ten to fifteen years. The calling out of someone or something as being politically incorrect had been a tool used to protect the oppressed from bullies – to protect people and individuals from the more harmful social and cultural constructs and to call out groups or individuals that promoted ethnocentrism, stereotype, and prejudice. Now it’s used very effectively to silence – too many of the Politically Correct are now the new bullies. In this new generation of Politically Correct it’s hard to exchange any meaningful thoughts on race and ethnicity, integration, gender relations, economic policy, educational policy, etc. without encountering strange looks from those around – so we simply avoid these topics. The safe path is to keep your mouth shut. As individuals in this new environment we have modified our own behavior; we are careful not to get on the wrong side of acceptable discourse; we silence ourselves out of fear. It’s a matter of weighing personal integrity against compliance; freedom of thought and expression against the imposition of norms both legal and informal.

I have seen this in my university classes – what should be a mainstay of free speech has turned into an environment of caution, uncertainty, and fear – fear of being at the wrong end of the Politically Correct club has resulted in restricting substantive communication and dialogue. About half-dozen years ago I started teaching an introduction to humanities and we covered most of the above topics. I could tell the students had pretty strong opinions on this stuff but pretty soon I noted how many of their statements started with “I don’t want to offend anyone, but I think…” Their timidity was downright suffocating and I wondered how many of my students were simply content to be silent. I finally had to tell them that while I would be forthright in class I expected the same from them. Jokingly, I told them to think of our classroom as “Las Vegas” and that they should be unafraid to offer whatever opinions they had and quit apologizing. Ah, living in the world of the Politically Correct.

For the course above I have the students keep a semester journal and finish it off with a semester reflection. Consider this response:

Humanities racked my brain:

On my first day of my Intro to Humanities class, I was told that my thoughts were not my own.  Every thought generated in my brain was created by something else.  This scared me.  I had gone through my whole life thinking that I was an original, independent individual.  I spent the next week analyzing where all my thoughts had come from, and found out that my teacher was right.  All my thoughts had been generated from others, my experiences, and things others had said.  But this didn’t scare me anymore, because how I reacted to everything was, in fact, still my choice. 

            Throughout this course, the one thing we were told every day was to analyze why we think the way we think.  At first I was hesitant, and for two reasons: The first was, when writing essays, teachers rarely wanted to know all of my opinion.  They wanted research and facts and persuasion through my topic.  My second reason was that I was afraid that this might change me considerably, seeing as I had never thought that deeply before. 

            Thinking critically has been immensely beneficial to me and others around me.  It has been a great tool for self-improvement and development.  I found that I didn’t change much, but my beliefs and my opinions became stronger and well thought out.   I believe that I will now have the ability to address any deep questions asked in the future. 

            The topic that I was most afraid of while going into this class was religion.  Reading about all those other religions and their beliefs, I was afraid I would discover how untrue mine was.  This was, in fact, the opposite.  I loved reading about all the different cultures and beliefs, I found them very fascinating, and, as fascinating as they were, they gave me an even stronger belief in my religion and an unyielding faith for which I will forever be grateful. 

            I can gladly say that this class taught me the most about myself, and my part in the world around me.  It was an eye opener, and a very humbling experience.  I will use the critical thinking tools I acquired from this class for the rest of my life. 

I have presented at conferences, “Teaching – the Most Honorable Profession.” At times the classroom experience can be transcending, even magical. The same is true, I think, about life. I think we can overdose on Politically Correct – especially in the absence of Critical Thinking – to our own detriment and surely to the detriment of those with whom we inhabit this cell of our existence.

I hope you made it to the end of this – a hell of a lot longer than I hoped – the next post will get to the recent and prevalent embrace of victimism and the ubiquitous call for trigger warnings. The last two posts will relate my own clubbing at the hands of a few (probably more than a few as I think about it) Politically Correct Peace Corps volunteers.

My best to all of you. XOXO