Photo provided by the Warwick Department of Economics
Nothing has angered me more this month than watching the privileged students at Ivy League institutions whine about their hurt feelings because someone didn’t agree with their beliefs.
There, now that I’ve said those words I’m going to try to calmly and coherently explain the problem of this modern political correctness.
In a now infamous video of Yale students confronting Professor Nicholas Christakis, Christakis asks students, “who gets to decide what’s offensive?” Two students reply, “when it hurts me. When it’s offensive to me,” to which Christakis responds, “what if everybody says, ‘I’m hurt,’ does that mean everyone else has to stop speaking?”
Christakis addresses an important question: who decides what is offensive? Some entitled people may answer the question like the two students above, but it needs to be clear that being offended is subjective. What offends you may not offend me, and vice versa. People today, especially the younger generation, want to restrict anything that may be racially insensitive, classist, sexist, ageist, or any other ‘-ist’ word the PC world can create. In context, these are often reasonable concerns, but what about those offended by vulgar language, skin-revealing outfits, religious criticism, distasteful humour, feminism, or an ‘opposing side’ of the abortion debate? Should their concerns be heard as well and acted upon, or should they simply look away and cover their ears? The world is not a safe space for continuous comfort, it is a safe space for free speech.
In Erika Christakis’s ‘controversial’ email, she said that “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”
Erika is defining a “safe space” properly. A safe space should be defined as “a space where people have the freedom to express themselves without fear of discrimination for their ideas,” but some are defining it as “a space that disallows free expression to prevent offense or discomfort.” No longer is it freedom of speech, but freedom from speech. Those that use the latter definition may be well-intentioned individuals, but such an intolerant ideology is anti-democratic and extremely dangerous.
You cannot regulate what people say and still call your country a democracy. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, and Eritrea rank terribly on the Press Freedom Index every year because when freedom of speech is reduced and regulated, the less free and more totalitarian a nation becomes. The Canadian Charter guarantees us the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” with “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The moment these freedoms get threatened, we need to unite and defend the right to free speech, even if it’s offensive and detested content.
I’ve been offended on campus. Heck, I’ve been offended reading articles from this very newspaper, but do I do anything about it? Of course not. I don’t care. They have their freedom of speech just as much as anyone else; it’s the very foundation of a democracy. If you’re offended, then be offended because nothing happens. But if you have to, discuss it with your peers and settle the dispute yourself. Don’t call for administrative intervention. University students are adults and should act like it. In Erika’s email she says, “if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”
Freedom of speech, whether one agrees or takes offence, needs to be protected within the constitutional regulations. I will conclude with a nursery rhyme I heard when I was little and I still hold it close to my heart: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”