Taking offense

We live in a culture in which a breach of political correctness is criminal. In the self-proclaimed beacon of the free world, a political statement or a fringe assertion or even a joke that goes “too far” can ruin careers and make national (and campus) headlines. A raised middle finger on America’s holiest day, Super Bowl Sunday, can summon instant condemnation. The President’s omission of the word “God” in a Thanksgiving message to the nation can bring angry rumblings from the Religious Right. A parody video containing a Barnard joke can elicit a Spectator op-ed with 64 comments. It’s time to admit that we have an addiction to being offended.

I am convinced that political correctness is directly responsible for the decline of Western civilization. Now to give credibility to that ridiculous statement, a quote from the king of offending people—he has reached the legendary “fatwa” level—Salman Rushdie: “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” Offending people is the very essence of free expression, which itself is the purported essence of the United States—the principle of protecting the minority voice.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously defended free speech as a marketplace of ideas. Everybody contributes to the marketplace, and the strongest ideas, once vetted by the marketplace, become the most successful. Similar to capitalism, the marketplace functions best when it is free. In a free, unregulated market, argued Holmes, the best-reasoned ideas will naturally win over the slipshod ones. A marketplace that allows all ideas—even the most controversial—to be heard is at its healthiest.

Political incorrectness is a view that is deemed unacceptable by a group or an individual, meaning the act of upholding political correctness is to minimize or eradicate any idea or action that offends. Any act of political incorrectness—regardless of whether it has merit or not—will benefit a free, unregulated marketplace of ideas.

A controversial statement with merit will spur debate and discussion. When the Columbia University College Republicans handed out pink sheets of paper decrying safe spaces last year, they were initially met with outrage and disdain. They ultimately spurred a town hall discussion and discourse throughout campus on the issue. The Barnard joke in the “Shit Columbians Say” video, which had the merit of comedy, launched an entirely new wave of dialogue on the Columbia-Barnard relationship, including op-eds and impassioned commenting.

Political incorrectness without merit is usually just a view with a singular goal: to offend or spread intolerance. If brought to court, the legality of free speech prevents these views the platform they would otherwise gain. In a perfect marketplace, without the exposure of a courtroom, unfounded or hateful ideas such as Holocaust denial are quickly rejected due to their weak nature. In allowing these ideas to be shared and subsequently dismissed, they lose any degree of influence or traction. Even if they are not rejected, though, they can be flipped to have the opposite of their intended effect. Inflammatory and bigoted views can bring strength to the offended party. Last semester’s Kingsmen poster, which many felt trivialized rape, became a rallying cry for numerous sexual awareness groups around campus. Politically incorrect views fuel free speech, always pushing dialogue in a forward direction.

On the other hand, political correctness has two negative consequences for the marketplace. The first is exposure. If groups seeking to shock or offend can’t rely on courts and litigation as their pulpit, they must rely on political correctness to make sure their voice is saturated into the marketplace of ideas, often depending on the outrage of the public and the media to gain exposure. The Westboro Baptist Church relies on the outrage of the media and the public to gain incessant exposure. Even the Kingsmen perennially use the same “offensive” jokes because the group knows they will get a rise out of people and bring them attention. As hard as it may be, if offensive groups are ignored, their words cannot have impact—they will fade into obscurity. These small groups rely on people being outspokenly offended to gain massive exposure.

Furthermore, political correctness can act as a muzzle, preventing important ideas from reaching the marketplace. A large burden of the public’s distrust in politicians stems from the fact that politicians are fake in order to avoid controversial views and please the general will. Columbia, too, has a tendency to attack and silence unpopular opinions. Although I sympathize with those opposed to it, the Kingsmen’s poster last semester was far less offensive than an average episode of South Park, and it hardly necessitated a (planned) protest. No matter how much I disagree with their methods or motives, the College Republicans deserved more respect when they attempted to open a dialogue on safe spaces last year. Even “Shit Columbians Say,” with a Barnard joke that had nothing to do with the school’s perceived inferiority, was attacked as sexist and unfunny. Unfortunately, when people are offended by something, their first reaction is often to silence it.

People have just as much a right to be offended as they do to offend people. At the same time, attempting to uphold political correctness often has the opposite of its intended effect: It fans the flames of unnecessary controversies and silences necessary ones. We have to realize that political correctness is far more dangerous than any idea, statement, or view could possibly be. We have to put our trust in the marketplace of ideas.

Leo Schwartz is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in political science and Latin American studies. Rationalizing the Irrational runs alternate Mondays.