Brenda, > And most of the commentary seems to point to > examples in the book of student cases since the whole anti-PC movement began > (roughly around 1990).
Like I said, I found it by accident today, knew nothing about it previously, haven't read the book, etc. What interested me is that they are defending and representing students who are currently beeing banned from displaying American flags, slogans and having pro-American rallies on campuses. How ironic - some of the people now who are so concerned that they will be thought anti-American or told to "love it or leave it" like back in the 60s when they dissented, area turning around and banning expressions of being "pro-American." It really is a little insane to me, that people have to feel like they are being incorrect or offending someone to be "pro" their country in a time of national crisis. >So personally, I will be more inclined to buy the > connection to the 60's as outlined in the introduction, if it is about more > than speech codes and the "PC" era because I'm of the opinion that the PC > phenomenon is not of a Marxist origin. And it's a far cry from totalitarianism > in my book. I knew nothing of any anti-PC movement until you mentioned it. I make the connection because of the great influence George Orwell's writings had on me when I was young. Orwell, a staunch socialist, saw the trend within his own ranks and warned against it. If an individual's speech is being controlled and defined by a self-appointed of officially appointed group that is definitely right in the ballpark of the totalitarianism that Orwell warned about. Maybe Orwell is passe these days. My thinking may be prehistoric at this point, but I see it from my reference point. > On the campus where I attended college, "political correctness" and > multiculturalism was a response to blatant and acknowledged racist acts by the > administration, campus police and students. The trouble is that it has gone > too far in the other direction. See, this is where something that starts out for good and moral purposes becomes twisted and perverted somehow by people who abandon discernment in favor of advancing whole "movements." Blatant racist acts absolutely should always be publically condemned and dealt with strongly wherever and whenever they happen. However, to go to the furthest extreme and assume that everyone on earth is automatically racist and must be systematically re-educated is perhaps treacherous, not to mention abusive in itself, in some instances. > What I've read so far about the book leads me to believe that the writers make > their case that individual liberties have been compromised by speech codes and > that there is a lack of due process on campus. However, I want to see how they > prove the re-education to collectivism. These are two separate things to me. > I'll let you know what I think after I read it. Maybe I should read it, too. They criticize the institutionalization of "group-think." Maybe that relates to collectivism in the sense that for it to be successful one either has to assume, or direct, or dictate that the group is all on the same page. > I was in college from '84-'88 and in my crowd being a "yuppie" was considered > shallow. And I was Republican! ; ) Good, I personally could not stand the rise of "yuppiedom" myself and used to crankily scowl at them ;-) Kakki
