WILLIAM PHILLI PS
671
canon. The neoconservatives, who do not all take the same positions,
also do not talk about a fixed canon. Indeed, nobody does.
As for a middle ground, it simply does not exist. One either supports
the teaching of Western traditions and values, or dismisses them as the
product of dead, white males. And the fact is that most practicing writ–
ers and critics who do not mouth the abstract theories widespread in the
academy take for granted that there is a usable Western tradition which
they draw on and perpetuate. Writers realize that they continue the
Western literary and intellectual legacy - with modifications and addi–
tions, to be sure. Such academics as Gerald Graff pretend to present a
middle ground by proposing to teach the conflict. However, the conflict
is not a substitute for Western civilization, which is precisely what politi–
cal correctness does not propose to teach. The suggestion is much like
teaching the conflict between justice and injustice, murder and the
preservation of life, Communism and anti-Communism.
There are also some academic commentators, such as David
Bromwich and the art critic Robert Hughes, who create a false antithesis
between the left and the right. They try to balance a criticism of the
politically correct left by also criticizing Ronald Reagan and William
Bennett. The trouble with this approach, however, is that Reagan and
Bennett are not in the same arena as the PCers. And what Bromwich
and Hughes actually are doing is covering their left flank, to ward off
the standard criticism that opponents of political correctness are conser–
vatives - which, of course, is the deadliest sin. Henry Louis Gates,
Jr.
also
tries to cultivate the middle ground. He says he is against both extremes,
which is a safe position, since everyone is against extremes, except ex–
tremists, who sometimes also pretend they're not at either end of the
spectrum.
3. PC
What is political correctness? It is a loose but useful term, denoting a
wide movement with many facets and differences, but essentially a new
new left configuration. It includes extreme and radical feminist theories,
gay and lesbian liberation studies and activities, ideas stemming from the
deconstructionists, neo-Marxists, and remnants of old, revolutionary pos–
tures. It is not basically Marxist or revolutionary, but it is to a large ex–
tent anti-American, in some quarters anti-capitalist, pro-third world, pro–
minority, and anti-Western cultural and political interests.
There is certainly no reason why such views should not be freely ex–
pressed. But the movement has gone far beyond the rights of intellectual
advocacy. Unfortunately, it has seized academic power and has come to
dominate large sections of university life and to intimidate the rest of the
faculty and the administrators. The movement also has sought to silence
