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