Previously published in The Exonian
On January 6th before a Republican Club meeting, Dr. Philip Tisdall made a comment to the Multicultural Affairs intern that the intern found racially offensive. By January 15th, the remark had been reported to the administration and Dr. Tisdall, the guiding force behind the club, had been banned from campus. The fact that it was an uncalculated remark made about the “nice rhythm” in the intern’s voice, according to Upper Dean Walsh (the sole witness to the event), is important, but is not the crux of the issue. While it was, at worst, a mildly offensive remark, the more important lesson to take away from this situation is that you should try really hard not to offend anybody at all, or you might get kicked off of campus. This is political correctness taken to a new extreme here at the Academy.
While a comparable penalty exists for hazing, which the E-Book defines in part as an action with the “result of embarrassment, disturbance, or humiliation,” the Discipline Process provides the opportunity for a thorough investigation of the incident, and includes advocacy for the student by representatives from the groups that would be affected by the student’s requirement to withdraw, including the student themselves. In the case of Dr. Tisdall’s expulsion from campus, this process was minimal. To say that a single unfortunate—but by no means egregious—comment outweighs his six years of mentorship to students at the Academy is irresponsible and shows little compassion for the many students that have learned and grown because of him, quite apart from diminishing the voice of another minority group on campus that deserves the Academy’s respect: Republicans.
The response to a comment that Sarah Palin made in the days after the Tucson Tragedy, in which she used the term “blood libel” to label the accusations that gun metaphors that she and other Tea Party politicians caused Jared Loughner’s shooting spree, provide another example of the perils of political correctness. I am no Sarah Palin fan, but while using the term may have been a bad decision, it is hardly worse than some articles I have seen that claim that Chicago Bears’ Quarterback Jay Cutler is being “crucified” by fans for his decision to leave this Sunday’s NFC Championship game because of injury. Indeed, Palin’s comment is much more appropriate as she is being accused of causing the death of six innocent people. No, she is not a Jewish woman being accused of murdering Christian kids and draining their blood to make matzah, which is the historical origin of the term “blood libel”, but neither is Jay Cutler actually being nailed to a cross. They are figures of speech and should be taken as such.
Political correctness is the antithesis of much that Exeter claims to stand for. The Harkness method succeeds when it fosters an environment of open, honest communication. When students are unable to speak their mind because of fear of reprisal from their peers, many of the best insights are left unsaid, which ends up hurting everybody. Academia itself relies on the ability of professors and students to expand their intellectual horizons without restrictions on what they can study or publish. Unpopular views are often the ones that turn out to be right in the long run, and should be protected, except in cases of outrageous offense or inappropriateness. Dr. Tisdall’s views, along with the views of many in Republican Club, may be unpopular in this liberal institution, but they, along with Dr. Tisdall himself, deserve a place here at the Academy. Out-of-control political correctness does not.
There are three important questions to ask oneself at the beginning of any discussion:
ReplyDelete1. Are we asking the right question?
2. Do we need to define terms?
3. Are any points based on quantitative or semi-quantitative data? Please show the source of that data.
When applied to tguth's article, I would pose somewhat different questions:
-the "uncalculated" remark is "at worst...mildly offensive". The remark was hardly uncalculated. It is true. Mr. Islam has, to my ear, a speech pattern that does not sound native to New England. He does not have a speech impediment of which he might be self-conscious. He does not have a speech pattern of a lower class or otherwise lower status group. I did not recognize the pattern, saw no reason to suspect sensitivity and therefore asked about it. My remark was "calculated".
- The intent of the observation was one of curiosity. Who gets to decide what is "offensive"? If it exists in the mind of the listener alone, then all discourse must grind to a halt. How does one prove that no offense is intended to someone who is determined to be offended? When I first came down from Canada, my "out and about" sounded like "oot and aboot" to New England ears. I was surprised when they asked if I was from Canada, because I cannot hear that difference. Should I have been offended? If I am, is it just my problem or can I harm others with it?
The joy of our Republican Club was that it was a protected place for Republicans, a clear minority, where we didn't have to worry about being misinterpreted or made to submit by group disapproval. I would be willing to bet that there are other unique cultural groups on campus where jokes are often made at the expense of others and discussions have undeclared but understood rules. I certainly hope so. It is not easy always "being on guard" in the larger culture and the ability to release tension by using humor in an empathetic group really helps. That was the necessity of the only club rule, "no one is allowed to be offended".
I therefore disagree with the premise of the letter. I did mean what I said and still think it true. Why don't we post a video of Mr. Islam speaking and see it anyone agrees with the original statement? If my observation is verified, then we can move to the second question, when is anyone allowed to be offended? If I'm wrong, then we can explore why I have a tin ear.
The larger disappointment is that we have lost a great opportunity to learn how to talk to each other in an atmosphere of mistrust and resentment, the very time we need it most.
I agree with Tom, you should have thought first if your comment might be conceived as offensive, therefore is was clearly uncalculated.
ReplyDelete^ You are missing the point. Anything can be "conceived as offensive," and Philip and I would argue that it is witless to draw a flickering, subjective line in the sand and take it seriously. There is a difference between protecting your honor and being a prickly bitch. As third parties, we need to not immediately condemn Philip when Mr. Islam claims his feeling have been hurt, but to determine whether or not Mr. Islam's feeling have been justifiably hurt. It is critical to think about this when there is no provable harm. Being offended is a charge easily made but difficult to disprove.
ReplyDeleteJimmy, you have to be reasonable here.
ReplyDeleteRP
I am a mirror, RP. Give me reason and I will reason. Give me an extreme and I will present my own.
ReplyDeleteI would offer this thought to the anonymous post of Feb 2 who states, "if your comment might be conceived as offensive, therefore is was clearly uncalculated."
ReplyDeleteI would ask you to differentiate between an uncalculated comment and a comment uncalculated to offend. I can assure you that in this instance both are true. Part of what made the Republican Club so much fun is my ability to make candid, unique statements that may be uncomfortable for the listener(s). What newcomers can't appreciate is that tables have been turned on me multiple times in the past.