What might be most disturbing and yet telling about Brooke Leonard's article, "Political correctness can be hindrance for free speech"(CT, Sept. 22) is the hyperbole and ambiguity with which it is written. While she spends two whole paragraphs detailing a metaphor of political correctness as an "insidious cloud" in America, no doubt one that targets white suburbia, she does not devote a single sentence to specifically stating in an example what it is this cloud comprises itself of. Instead, the old and tired tactic of finger pointing is used; this time the far left is the scapegoat.
Why is the far left targeted? Apparently sensitivity, cultural respect and wariness for bigotry in all its subtle forms are modes by which liberals dodge the criticism of the right. If by rightwing critics one refers to oxycontin addicts who tout themselves as role models (i.e. Rush) or representatives who believe an appropriate way to question the president's policies involves screaming the accusation "you lie" like a petulant kindergartner, then yes, the left has little regard for these kinds of critics.
The real issue, however, may very well have nothing to do with politics but a social agenda, one many individuals wish they could discuss more openly without fully exposing themselves. When Ms. Leonard discusses the collapse of American values, which ones is she noting? Is it our long standing history of depriving certain groups of civil rights? Maybe it's the new found American tradition of blaming the gay community for the failure of heterosexual marriages. Or is it more historical? It is no secret America has a natural distaste for immigrants, and certainly since Sept. 11, has no love for Islam, which it commonly generalizes without any comprehensive understanding of the faith. Indeed, maybe supporters of the article are upset because instead of being able to target people based on their skin color like some believe, now we have to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they may not adhere to the radical philosophies of certain fundamentalist groups; a shame to be sure.
Calling words like "homophobe" and "racist" buzzwords suggests that no one is in fact racist or homophobic, or that these are just technical terms used to stir people or strong arm them into submission. Apparently incidences like the Jena Six assault in Louisiana or what happened to Megan Williams at the hands of six white captors has been completely forgotten by the public.
The article disguises itself under a topic everyone can support: free speech. But do we not also benefit from an America that asks for a little class and accountability when it comes to exercising our "rights"? Free speech was written into the Bill of Rights to allow people the freedom to speak out against their government, not to license the use of inane or truculent criticism that may target an entire group of people. The existence of words such as racist, homophobe or xenophobia are understood when we realize that the social climate of America at times harbors these philosophies, whether or not politically correct agendas keep them under wraps.
Now let's take a moment and have a realistic conversation about the value of respecting one's neighbor, a tradition that existed long before anyone felt entitled to say whatever was on their mind.
John Driessnack
junior
biological sciences
Leave a comment 21 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
wow.. nothing like calling out the left for namecalling to get the liberals to their keyboards! the ironic thing here is that Brooke's article mentioned the abuse of the race card, and what does this author do? "no doubt one that targets white suburbia"... fail!
Reply to this Top
Hey everyone just walk away from this one, you're not changing anyone's opinion. We can all have a much nicer day if we leave this page and act like it was never posted. Let's choose to not have a flame war this time.
Reply to this Top
hhahaha are you suggesting people forgo free speech? afraid of a little heated debate or somethin?
Reply to this Top
Everyone, I think, is missing the point of the discussion in the first place. Nobody is saying that racism doesn't exist, and it's certainly logical to assert that one who practices racism actively is indeed a racist. More generally, the world is full of bigots (on both ends of the political spectrum, and on both sides of every perceived injustice - especially racial injustice; don't think for a second that there doesn't exist racist sentiment in the black community against white people). This isn't really news. The point of the original column was that it is intellectually irresponsible for anyone to attempt to squelch debate by leveling the 'racist' or 'bigot' assertion and leaving it at that. Don't like Obama's policies? It can't possibly be because of his politics - clearly, only racists oppose him! That's a clearly ridiculous thing to say . . and that's the point of this discussion.
Reply to this Top
Yeah. This guy knows what is up.
Reply to this Top
For the record, the reason that the original column makes a point of 'pointing the finger' at the political left is more because of the fact that the Democratic party has a near-universal grip on the political power in DC right now. They own the bully pulpit - so everything they say gets ample air time. The Republicans are just as guilty, but far less capable of receiving airtime because they don't have the power right now.
Reply to this Top
I love it when Kyle decides what the point was. I think while Leonard was focusing in on what Kyle said what John's issue was is how she went about attacking it. And I have to agree, she built her article in the wrong way. I can see how it was offensive. By the way, I think black people have good reason to be racist against whites, right or not, whites have no reason - or at least had none in the beginning. That is for sure.
Reply to this Top
dearest John, when you are able to critique an article for what it contains (an opinion supported by statements) instead of attacking the writer his or herself and their beliefs then I'll read the drivel that you put onto paper. and ps. GREAT incorporation of blaming gays into the article, I guess that part hit home for you.
Reply to this Top
Anon, or should I say Brooke Leonard? You DID read my drivel and apparently it struck a nerve.
Reply to this Top
By the way...do not write something you are not willing to be accountable for.
Reply to this Top
The only reason Anon would state, 'I guess that hit home for you' regarding homosexuality is if she thought it was a kind of insult. What reason would the author have to be ashamed of his sexuality? Why would she even note that point if it was not something she felt was negative? She may not be homophobic but she certainly has some insecurities.
Reply to this Top
lol, how on earth would Brooke know if you were gay? unless you two know each other. I have no idea. although I'm the one who wrote it, and I can assure you I am not Brooke Leonard, nor am I homophobic. I merely found it amusing that you felt the need to use that in particular as a comparison. deal with it.
Reply to this Top
lol, why would Brooke know your sexuality in the first place? Unless you two know each other, I don't know if you two do, although what I do know is that I am not Brooke Leonard and I am the one who wrote the other comment. I merely found it amusing that you chose homosexuality in particular to use as your comparison. and no, I'm not homophobic. deal with it.
Reply to this Top
Why can't we just all be friends and hold hands together?
Reply to this Top
I guess that doesn't make sense because there were comparisons to racial profiling, homophobia, xenophobia...and other forms of bigotry. So I would have to ask why you singled out the one on homosexuality. Oh and, I did not write the comment by anonymous at 11:13...so deal with it?
Reply to this Top
Anon @ 12:14: I don't see where John singled out homophobia to use as a comparison. He discussed homophobia, racism, and xenophobia throughout the piece. I think it is worthy to note that you continue to try and convince us that you aren't homophobic...and yet for some reason that seemed to stick out the most for you, and that is what you tried to insult John with. Now that doesn't make sense.
Reply to this Top
Looks like Anon can't handle a little free expression. In fact, kinda seems like she's upset for being called out for her insecurities. Much like Kyle who in the other piece had to convince people he didn't care about race. You guys crack me up...you're all so self-evident.
Reply to this Top
"By the way, I think black people have good reason to be racist against whites, right or not, whites have no reason - or at least had none in the beginning. That is for sure." That makes absolutely no sense.
Reply to this Top
man, i was hoping once obama was president this crap would go away. the word racist is so meaningless now. but it is kind of funny when people are called a racist and go on the defensive like its a matter of life and death so i am glad the word is still around. it is the ultimate topic changer
Reply to this Top
Freedom is expression is freedom expression...it's my my fault that you get upset and what I say or write. Take a valium and go cry to your therapist while you hope the ACLU will take up a defamation lawsuit in your honor.
Reply to this Top
What an insensitive cluck you are, especially hiding behind freedom of speech. Sounds like you're the one who needs a therapist.
If you don't clean up your attitude, you'll make lots of enemies. And if you keep offending others, they may not hesitate to offend you.
Reply to this Top