The definition for political correctness is: “Political Correctness refers to language policies and actions that are meant to avoid offense to particular groups of people.” However, these idealistic ideas can be problematic because those who use them censor others. The restriction on freedom of speech means that our representatives must be careful not to offend anyone. However, those speaking may choose to use politically-correct language. People are often forced to speak in ways that do not reflect their true beliefs for fear of losing their credibility, electability, and future chances to express themselves.
The current culture surrounding the Politically Correct Movement (PC) is precarious. People who support this language are using their anger to silence arguments from those they disagree with. If we allow those who are only interested in advancing their political agenda to moderate our language, it is a violation of the first Amendment. The problem is clear: the university has full control over who can speak, where and when they can talk on campus. Many universities have these rules, which makes it very difficult for conservative speakers on campuses. One author believes that the enactment laws to limit our freedom is a worrying proposal. However, the constitution prohibits any such laws from being put in place. The First Amendment stipulates that Congress should not make laws “abridging the free speech of all persons.” However, the only thing that can enforce political correctness is rules and regulations within areas that support it. Many private and public organizations, universities, as well as workplaces, use a speech code. This is any rule or regulation that restricts, restricts, bans or prohibits speech beyond what the law allows. Though speech codes are often well-meaning, they can also have their limitations. The first amendment protects others from hate speech or true threats of incitement. The purpose of speech codes is to limit freedom of expression. They are also vague and could be misused depending upon their application. Many policies prohibit offensive language or disparaging remarks. These speech codes can and have been abused to limit many protests/demonstrations to free speech zones or outside the campus. These protestors will need to ask permission to display on campus. University officials can accept or deny their request. The FIRE Foundation, also known as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE Foundation), states:
Universities would have to follow these rules strictly if they wanted to silence major critics, satire, or commentary. This would result in the ban of some of our most important authors, filmmakers, and artists. Students also believe that they are entitled to freedom from offense, embarrassment and discomfort. Other students may also resort to self-censorship.
College is where a student experiences the most transformational years. Interactions with students and speakers as well the witness to protests will impact a student’s political outlook, attitude, or character. Social Justice Warriors or SJWs are known for their protection of the ideas and opinions of others. However, they are instantly triggered by the presence of anyone who is not in line with their views on issues like gender equality and racial justice. Your views may not be allowed to be challenged if you don’t allow them. They effectively suppress any discussion that is not in line with their views, and pretend to be eliminating all those they find offensive. The FIRE foundation stated “… these HTML codes have led students to believe that they are entitled to free speech and freedom from offense. There are many things that can be done to ensure healthy dialogue. It’s amazing to think that someone could be expelled from college campuses for saying something offensive. Is this the right limit? College students are unable to have healthy disagreement without being offended. This “easy-triggered, privileged” society is trying to create a safe haven for everyone.
Safe-spaces refer to “a place or an environment where a person can feel safe that they will not suffer discrimination, criticism, harassment or other emotional or bodily harm.” These safe-spaces are becoming more common across the country. These safe spaces are designed to protect those who are easily offended. Safe-spaces can be a benefit for minorities that allow them to gather and share their grievances with their peers in safety. However, the PC movement is extremely well-off.
The majority of PC activists are college students, mostly from minority and liberal backgrounds. They are the ones protesting against speakers they don’t agree with. They are also the ones who enforce the rules of language, which is the core issue. The problem is that the government gives in to the PC movement’s demands. Their students’ safe-space may be one thing. However, in practice, it’s quite benign and allows them to gather together and feel secure. There are usually only their peers in the room, and no one challenges their views. It is basically an echo chamber for politically correct propaganda. These young adults are made to feel like they are the victim by being coddled with safe-spaces and banishment of speakers. They are actually the bullies. This group is so outraged that it has caused so many people’s careers to be destroyed, it is worth considering eliminating their protections. These students then enter the real-world after graduating from these universities.
They are all such bleeding heart liberals, who will use every means necessary to promote their agenda. They have established a dangerous precedent by claiming that they are on the right side of an argument. This is false. The PC movement is manipulative and dangerous, and it threatens the livelihoods of all who support it.
