Has political correctness gone too far?

Children learn the rope of political correctness (PC) quickly. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (1981) was heavily inspired from Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Kohlberg believed that moral development occurred in stages. Through different stages (pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional), children learn right from wrong. According to him, it is during the teenage years that individuals begin to understand “right and wrong in terms of what pleases parents and what is consistent with broader cultural norms“(Macionis, Clarke, and Gerber, 1997). This stage is also marked by the assessment of intention as opposed to mere imitation. On a side note, has anyone ever witnessed the look of shame on parents’ faces when their little angel still in the pre-conventional stage tells Uncle Ben he is fat? Très comical.

As defined by Wikipedia, “Political correctness (also politically correct, P.C. or PC) is a term used in English-speaking countries to describe real or perceived attempts to impose limits on the acceptable language, terms, and viewpoints in public discussion. While it usually refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology or public behavior.”

I am hardly concerned with the linguistic aspect of PC aimed at making the language more inclusive (e.g. police officer instead of policeman, canine citizen instead of dog). What disturbs me is when PC starts guiding ideologies and behaviour. In this context, PC is purely regressive.

Let me pause for a second. I am not referring to sexism, racism, ageism, otherism, labels, stereotypes, and unfounded generalizations. Some remarks are clearly untrue, degrading, and mean. Where I draw the line is when some verifiable scientific findings are contested because they are ‘offensive’ (Think Freakonomics’ abortion/crime theory). Worse, when research is not even conducted because it is considered ‘offensive’ (Think stem cell research).

The controversial Doc Mailloux (psychiatrist) in Quebec is a good example of science and PC or lack thereof. On a popular TV show, Dr. Pierre Mailloux cited a study: “ Les Noirs vivant en Amérique étaient le résultat d'un processus de sélection artificielle et par conséquent ils ont un legs, un léger désavantage sur le plan intellectuel. En anglais, « Given that Blacks in North America are the result of ‘artificial selection’,they are intellectually [IQ] disadvantaged [compared to Whites]. Surprise, surprise, that kind of statement doesn’t fly in Canada.

Many people were offended and dismissed the statement. They didn’t critically assess the study to come up with a scientific reason about why this statement is incorrect. They dismissed it because it was oh so unpolitically correct.

I am saddened that PC has gone so far that we cannot even consider the idea that perhaps oppression, slavery or genocide have long term social impacts on generations of people. I don’t know if this particular statement is true, but I refuse to reject it just because it is not a PC thing to say. J. Philippe Rushton’s theories found in his book Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective were scientifically dismissed by other academics. That kind of rejection I am eager to accept.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC).