Political correctness has its advantages (e.g., promoting language that is not offensive to particular groups). However, there are times when it seems that political correctness is honoured more than truth and can actually stifle free expression of ideas and academic debate. Consider the following cases.
Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, gave a speech in January 2005 to an economics conference. In the speech, he proposed three hypotheses to explain why there is a shortage of female science professors:
In making that last point, he wasn’t suggesting that women aren’t as clever as men or that women don’t make good scientists. However, he cited some evidence that men tend to score better on science aptitude tests, particularly at the higher end of the scale. His comments caused more than a stir. There were calls for him to resign and he may still face a no-confidence vote at the next faculty meeting. Hundreds of articles about the case have appeared on the web since January. Was he being politically incorrect and offensive to women or did he raise a legitimate topic that should have been able to be discussed and debated freely in an academic setting? (The Australian, 2 March 2005, p. 27; also see articles on montereyherald.com and michnews.com).
Professor David Ayres of Dallas Baptist University did not fare so well. He “presented evidence that some of the differences between men and women originate in biology and genetics. His research, however, inflamed campus feminists ... . The university’s administration ... leveled charges against Professor Ayres and directed Dean John Jeffrey to investigate. Jeffrey refused; he maintained that Ayres was performing legitimate scholarly research and that his rights to due process were being infringed by the university’s tactics. Both men were fired.” (McDowell & Hostetler, 1998, p. 168).
Dean Kenyon, a prominent biologist at San Francisco State University, used to be a firm believer in Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, he had come to see holes in the theory and he exposed his students to some of these problems. He wasn’t teaching Creationism or advocating that evolution be rejected. He was just asking his students to think critically about the theory and consider other evidence. However, he was accused of teaching religion and was removed from class. The biology department then “voted 27 to 5 that naturalistic evolution is the only theory admissible in biology—and that reference to an intelligent cause at the origin of life is strictly unscientific” (Colson, 1994, as cited in McDowell & Hostetler, 1998, p. 169).
These cases are not unique to the United States. There was recently an outcry over an exam sat by Grade 7 students in New South Wales. Someone in the Education Department changed the term 590 BC (i.e., before Christ) to 590 BCE (i.e., before the Common Era). The Education Minister later said that the change should not have been made. (The Chronicle, 3 March, 2005, p. 13).
A childcare worker in Bundaberg, Susan Burgess, was sacked because she raised her voice at a child who was about to bite another child. The director of the childcare centre said that Ms Burgess’s methods amounted to emotional abuse and that yelling at the child would disturb other children. However, Ms Burgess only raised her voice to stop another child being hurt. She then took the would-be biter aside, explained to him why it was wrong to bite friends and then gave him a cuddle. The case went before the Industrial Relations Commission and she was exonerated on all charges. She also had the support of parents and the Australian Family Association. In this case, it seems that the director of the childcare centre put more emphasis on the self-esteem of the “biter” than the safety of the child about to be bitten. (The Sunday Mail, 6 March, 2005, p. 11).
Unless otherwise stated, the rest of the comments in this handout come from the book “The new tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children” by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, 1998, published by Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois.
According to McDowell and Hostetler, the definition of tolerance has changed in the postmodern world. They make a distinction between traditional tolerance and the new tolerance.
Webster’s dictionary defines tolerate as “to recognize and respect [others’ beliefs, practices, etc.] without sharing them” and “to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]” (pp. 15-16). Similarly, the Macquarie Dictionary defines tolerance as “the disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry; the disposition to be patient and fair to opinions which are not one’s own”. According to McDowell and Hostetler, this definition is compatible with scripture because a traditional view of tolerance has meant such things as “respecting and protecting the legitimate rights of others, even those with whom you disagree and those who are different from you”; “listening to and learning from other perspectives, cultures, and backgrounds”; “living peaceably alongside others, in spite of differences”; and “accepting other people, regardless of their race, creed, nationality, or sex” (pp. 16-17).
McDowell and Hostetler argue that about 80% of the time we hear the word tolerance in our society today, however, it is referring to the new tolerance driven by postmodernist thought. According to Thomas A. Helmbock, “the definition of new ... tolerance is that every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal ... There is no hierarchy of truth. Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative” (as cited in McDowell and Hostetler, p. 19).
“In contrast to traditional tolerance, which asserts that everyone has an equal right to believe or say what he thinks is right, the new tolerance ... says that what every individual believes or says is equally right, equally valid. So not only does everyone have an equal right to his beliefs, but all beliefs are equal. All values are equal. All lifestyles are equal. All truth claims are equal” (pp. 19-20).
In their book, they address ways in which the new tolerance can be seen in government, society, and the church. Here I just want to look at some of the implications they raise for education. They argue that the new tolerance is the dominant theme in modern education and that there are six main dangers:
They recommend fighting the new tolerance by aggressively living in love while humbly standing for truth (i.e., speak the truth in love, Eph 4:15). They argue that if the proponents of the new tolerance could see real Christ-like Christian love in action, they would realise that the new tolerance pales in comparison to real love, grace, respect, and acceptance.
Real Christian love:
In fact, people’s needs may be at the heart of the issue. Someone who aggressively promotes political correctness and the new tolerance may actually have a real need for love and respect.
Last modified: Thu Mar 24 14:38:26 EST 2005