Essay, Research Paper: Political Correctness:

Political Correctness:
Essay submitted by Joshua Lewis

The University of Southern California:
The Teddy Bear Massacre


Like so many other traditions, the burning of the bruin was put on the chopping block
recently. The long running University of Southern California spirit activity consisted of
throwing a large stuffed bear in a bon fire the night before the football game against
their rival, the University of California at Los Angeles. The Black Student Union and
other student organizations recently questioned the event. Their concern was that the
event too closely resembled past lynching of African Americans in the American south.

This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to censor ideas that are not
created to offend certain groups. Political correctness, the underlying ideal, is the
"particular set of attitudes about the world that its proponents maintain should be
actively promoted." [Clark 369] Proponents of political correctness, or PC, had good
intentions in devising the idea, but it has serious flaws. Although political correctness
was founded with good intent, it does more harm than good.

The most noticeable example of harm is how PC proponents try to please everyone at
the same time. The burning of the bruin was just one of many activities held during the
week before the big UCLA game. The idea being that everyone could find something
that they could identify with and rally around their school. If the burning was
intentionally created to represent or oppress the offended students, the event would
have been banned long ago. However, as Matt Hutaff stated in his editorial in the Daily
Trojan:

"It's about school pride. It's love for the things that brought the university to where it
is today. It is traditions that define a school; it's student body and its heritage. Strip
the school of its traditions and all you have is a school that isn't worth rallying behind."
[5]

In appeasing one group, it seems the university neglected another group. It seems that
the lesson that one cannot please everyone all the time still needs to be learned.

Another lesson that needs to be learned is to meet offensive language head on instead
of hiding from it. This cannot happen, however, if the college is sheltering us from it. It
is the duty of the university to teach us how to live in the real world. How are they
going to protect us from what we do not want to hear out there? The answer is they
cannot, and the sheltered individuals are left unprepared to confront real world
situations that will offend them. As Irene Clark points out, an article by the National
Association of Scholars "asserts that it is the role of higher education to enable
students to grapple with contrary or unpleasant ideas and that to shield them from
such ideas will be detrimental in the long run." [373] Unfortunately, there are bad
things in the world. There is no way to change that. Ignoring them will not make them
go away. Eventually the sheltered must face them. If a school hides these things from
its students, they will be unprepared to confront them.

Even if PC proponents succeeded in their goal of eliminating offensive actions and
language, they can never kill the ideas behind them. In private these ideas can grow
and fester unchecked. In public, the offenders can be identified. When forced to hide
these ideas, the offenders will still express them in secret. When these people are
allowed to express their thoughts and opinions in public, the rest of the world is able to
watch what they are doing. If they are not aware that they are being offensive, they
can be told, also.


As Irene Clark states:

"...whether or not we agree with speech codes, such codes, explicitly or implicitly, are
not entirely new, nor do they prevent racist or sexist thought in private." [372]

As Clark stated earlier, PC is not a new idea. Various social movements have tried to
implement this restraint before. It has not worked in the past and it is not gaining much
ground today. As John Ellis states in Clark's book:

"...we can ask that people who want to take us through the fantasy yet one more time
first confront the lessons of history that show how disastrous 'politically correct' ideas
have proved to be." [378]

PC was brought up in the past and failed. Its performance today is just as bad. It
seems that history repeats itself.

History teaches us other lessons, too. One lesson is that our country is not perfect,
and it makes mistakes. For example, Native Americans were forced to leave their land,
and then the government sold that property. The Native Americans were treated like
cattle in the name of imperialism, and the country called it "God's will." These "Indians,"
as they were called, were my ancestors. It bothers me that my government could do
such a thing. Should I protest a march or similar event? It very closely resembles my
ancestor's plight, but it is not about repression of Native Americans. Our country made
many mistakes in the past, but we have all learned from them. We should not keep
reliving and suffering from them by fearing every resemblance to the original act.

This brings up the fact that the burning of the bruin has only a vague resemblance to
past hate crimes in the south. The resemblance would be more offensive if the toy was
of human form. This is a teddy bear in question. It is preposterous to compare the
personification of a toy animal to past crimes. An interesting fact is how the burning
does not lead to violent actions against any real bears. If either of these happened,
then there would be cause for worries.

For the defense of PC, however, the argument that the offensive language is
distracting does have value. However, the problem with this argument is there are
many things in life that are distracting. The best way to cope is to learn how to survive
the hurtful speech and offensive actions. Gwen Thomas, a community college
administrator, says in Clark's book that we have to teach students how to deal with
adversarial situations and how to survive offensive speech they find wounding and
hurtful. [393] It may be distracting, but if we do not learn how to deal with hurtful
speech we will remain in hiding which could harm us more.

Other things less related might come under attack as well. The next likely candidate to
be cut is Tommy Trojan, the mascot of the school. As Matt Hutaff questions from a
fictitious point of view of Tommy:

"I'm impossibly flexed in every muscle...a warrior, and...male. Sooner or later, that's
bound to catch up with me. I'll probably be melted down...'Lumpy' they'll call me, the
mascot of bland, unassuming and uninteresting icons that stir no emotion...in anyone."
[5]

All it would take is one offended person and Tommy's existence is in jeopardy. Nothing
is sacred, and anything can come under scrutiny. As Hutaff worries, what will we have
to rally around, and to have pride in? I hope we do not get that far.

In his book, 1984, George Orwell wrote of a nation, that eliminated all "unnecessary"
words and actions. This government even went as far as to try to control thought. I
am afraid that the PC movement will some day attempt this kind of act. I am also
worried as to where this campaign will end. PC has already overstepped its original
domain and attacked an act remotely related to the offensive actions PC was designed
to fight.

The best thing to do now is for the PC proponents to step out of their situation and
see that respect goes both ways. We cannot have everything manipulated to please
each of us. When something offends us, we need to ask ourselves if it is offensive to
anyone else. We also need to learn to face our fears, and learn to deal with acts and
language that we do not like. Let us not take the same path past generations have
taken. Let us take the good with the bad instead of ignoring the fact that the bad does
exist.

Works Cited
Clark, Irene L. Writing about Diversity. Chap. 7: pp. 369-404.
Hutaff, Matt. Traditions Shouldn't Need a Return Policy. Daily Trojan: Sep 11, 1997:
pp. 4-5.