614
PARTISAN REViEW
In
the end, "resistance to the policy" became an accurate signal of
" lack of commitment to the cause," since the "truly committed" who
doubted the virtues of the policy had censored themselves , while those
who continued openly to oppose the policy were identified as the "truly
uncommitted." This process took place not just on campuses, but in leg–
islatures and on op-ed pages as well.
In
effect, the constraints of PC obviated the rational discussion of
the many complex ethical and political considerations raised by the sanc–
tions policy and by the tactics used to promote it. Decisions were made
without the benefit of a full analysis and debate. I am not arguing that
the sanctions policy was disastrous, merely that it was pursued without
due consideration of its objective consequences or, on occason, in spite
of what were thought
to
be the likely results. Perhaps as important to
the universities, decisions about the handling of student protests on behalf
of the policy were colored by a concern for the negative symbolism that
applying discipline in that context was sure to have. The inaction of
those years set precedents which have outlived the sanctions " debate."
There are some general features of the climate of tacit censorship
that political correctness encourages. One important aspect of such an
environment is that an individual cannot break the grip of a taboo
against the candid expression of his thoughts with a declaration such as
"Despite my violation of the norm, please understand that my values are
pure." Conventions of tacit restraint in public expression are made more
durable by the fact that they do not themselves easily become objects of
criticism, since it is often the "truly deviant" who have the greatest in–
terest in criticizing them. Those, for example, who genuinely value racial
equality know that, even if they harbor reservations about affirmative ac–
tion, in the interest of supporting a good and decent policy they ought
not to utter their reservations. If one wants to maintain his reputation as
a good liberal, he will not only abstain from criticizing affirmative ac–
tion, but he will also not complain about not being able to express his
criticisms. Under a convention of restrained public expression,
"progressive" people do not protest for the right
to
say "reactionary"
things.
Another general consequence of a PC regime is the use of ambiguous
and imprecise speech. Orwell, in the essay mentioned earlier, was
withering in his denunciation of this practice. He noted that "words ...
are often used in a consciously dishonest way.... The person who uses
them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he
means something quite different." With a euphemism, well chosen for its
vagueness, a speaker can say palatably (that is, in a manner consistent with
extent communal norms) what, if said more incisively, might offend some
