Political correctness in action

Once upon a time, the term "politically correct" was used on the left as a self-corrective, as a way of expressing disdain for rigid adherence to a party or ideological (at the time, often Maoist) line. Of course, it couldn't just be left alone that way, and after playing a featuring role in a short-term fad on some college campuses of parsing every expression for any trace of bias of any sort whatsoever as a means of being politically-hipper-than-thou, it assumed a central place in right-wing PR mythology, where every objection to even the crudest racial and ethnic slurs was met with a chorus of charges of "political correctness," which was equated with "suppression of free speech" by "Stalinists," who were equated with "liberals."

Like much of what the nutzoids spew out, this demon threatening to undermine all we hold dear was largely spun out of whole cloth, this time by stringing together a handful of incidents, most of which, on sober reflection, turn out to have been misreported, misrepresented, or otherwise blown out of proportion by a scandal-hungry media more interested in profitable conflict than dull, boring old accuracy.

Nevertheless, there is such a thing as "political correctness," defined as that range of expression which is to be allowed in "reasonable" debate among "reasonable" people. Expressions beyond that range, expressions that are politically incorrect, are to be suppressed.

Two recent incidents reflect that divide. Read them and take note, if you will, of what is and isn't acceptable speech in our political culture.

1) In the wake of 9/11, Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado and chair of its ethnic studies program, wrote an essay and a follow-up book that called the attacks

a response to a long history of U.S. abuses....

Churchill has said he was not supporting the Sept. 11 attacks in his essay, but believes "such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy."

In the essay, he also called those killed at the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns," apparently because many of the companies there were in some way involved with US economic domination of other nations.

No one really took any note of it until recently, when he was invited to take part in a panel discussion about 9/11 at a small college in upstate New York. Hundreds of relatives of 9/11 victims protested his invitation so angrily that the college, concerned about security, cancelled the program altogether.

That was the first result. Second result: He has been forced to resign his position as chair of ethnic studies. Third result: The state House and Senate of Colorado, with a total of one dissenting vote between them, have passed a resolution denouncing him, calling his statements "evil and inflammatory." Fourth result: Governor Bill Owens wants the university to fire him.

The Board of Regents "discussed the matter" but will not fire him - "at least not immediately." The reason given was not a commitment to academic freedom but that there is a process for firing a professor.

2) During a panel discussion in San Diego on Tuesday, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq, said of his experiences

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

First result: He has been actively defended by Marine commandant Gen. Michael Hagee, who called him

"a superb leader and one of the Corps' most courageous and experienced warriors.... I remain confident that he will continue to serve this nation with dedication and distinction."

He even insisted that Mattis "intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," which, apparently is "a hell of a hoot."

Second result: He was also praised by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claiming that his actions in combat "clearly show that he understands the value of proper leadership and the value of human life."

Hagee did concede, however, that Mattis should have chosen his words "more carefully." Exactly what words he should have chosen remain unclear. What is clear is that he will suffer no consequences for declaring it' s "hoot" and "a lot of fun" to kill people.

So we have two statements. One that the 9/11 attacks were a "natural and unavoidable consequence" of US policy and that some of the killed were "little Eichmanns." And another that declares what great fun it is to kill people. With the former, you are threatened, the state government denounces you, and the governor tries to get you fired. With the latter, your superiors praise you and defend you. That clearly tells us which one of those is outside, and which one is inside, the boundaries of acceptable speech.

I think that tells us something about who we are as a people.

Footnote: Please, please, please don't anyone start shouting that I'm justifying or agreeing with the characterization of people killed in the WTC as "little Eichmanns." I said nothing of the sort and you're only proving your inability to reason through what I am saying.