The 1994 moviePCU, about a rebellious fraternity resisting its politically correct university, was a milestone. Not because the movie was especially goodit wasn't. It was a milestone because it showed that political correctness had officially become a joke.
The derisive term "P.C." had referred to a genuine and powerful force on campus for the previous decade. But by the mid-1990s, it had become the butt of jokes from across the political spectrum. The production of a mainstream movie mocking political correctness showed that its cultural moment had passed.
At the same time, punitive campus speech codes were being struck down. Among the most prominent cases was Stanford Law School, which boasted a notorious speech code banning "speech or other expressionintended to insult or stigmatize" an individual on the basis of membership in a protected class arguably including every living human. You don't have to be a lawyer to see how a ban on anything that "insults" would be abused: Even showingPCUitself, which makes fun of campus activists, feminists, and vegetarians, could potentially get you in trouble under such a broad and vague rule. The 1995 court defeat of the Stanford speech code marked the end of the First Great Age of Political Correctness.
Some assumed this meant political correctness was a fad that was gone forever. On the contrary, it gathered strength over the next two decades, rooting itself in university hiring practices and speech policing, until it became what people now refer to as "wokeness" or the much-abused term "cancel culture."
Political correctness didn't decline and fall. It went underground and then rose again. If anything, it's stronger than ever today. Yet some influential figures on the left still downplay the problem, going so far as to pretend that the increase in even tenured professors being fired for off-limits speech is a sign of a healthy campus. And this unwillingness to recognize a serious problem in academia has helped embolden culture warriors on the right, who have launched their own attacks on free speech and viewpoint diversity in the American education system.
We've fully entered the Second Great Age of Political Correctness. If we are to find a way out, we must understand how we got here and admit the true depths of the problem.
In the decades that followed the First Great Age of Political Correctness, you could be forgiven for assuming that campus attacks on free speech were a thing of the past.
Professors and administrators dismissed concerns, claiming there was no shortage of viewpoint diversity (and that those who suggested otherwise had sinister, probably racist motivations). Speech codes had been roundly defeated wherever they were legally challenged. The P.C. movement had been reduced to a punchline. Indeed, it was such a common punching bag that some pundits rejected the whole idea as a kind of right-wing hoax. Problem solved, right?
Hardly. In reality, the major change after the mid-'90s was that professors were less openly enamored of speech codes. The campus speech wars entered their Ignored Years, during which far less attention was paid to campus speech even as the underlying problem grew worse. It was during this period that the seeds were sown for a deeper change just one generation later.
After the Stanford policy was defeated in court in 1995, speech codes should have faded away into legal oblivion. Instead, their number dramaticallyincreased. By 2009, 74 percent of colleges had extremely restrictive codes, 21 percent had vague speech codes that could be abused to restrict speech, and only eight of the top 346 colleges surveyed had no restrictive code. Unlike in the '90s, many of these policies were championed by a burgeoning administrative class rather than by faculty.
Meanwhile, viewpoint diversity among professors plummeted. In 1996, the ratio of self-identified liberal faculty to self-identified conservative faculty was 2-to-1; by 2011, the ratio was 5-to-1, according tothe Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.
More recent statistics paint a starker picture. A 2019 study by the National Association of Scholars on the political registration of professors at the two highest-ranked public and private universities in each state found that registered Democrat faculty outnumbered registered Republican faculty about 9-to-1. In the Northeast, the ratio was about 15-to-1.
In the most evenly split discipline, economics, Democrats outnumber Republicans "only" 3-to-1. The second most even discipline, mathematics, has a ratio of about 6-to-1. Compare this to English and sociology, where the ratios are about 27-to-1. In anthropology, it's a staggering 42-to-1.
In the Ignored Years, higher education became far more expensive and considerably more bureaucratized. From 199495 to 201819, the inflation-adjusted cost of public college tuition nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the administrative class expanded, from roughly one administrator for every two faculty members in 1990 to nearly equal numbers of faculty and administrators in 2012.
What's more, preliminary research showed a "12-to-one ratio of liberal to conservative college administrators," wrote Samuel J. Abrams of Sarah Lawrence College inThe New York Timesin 2018. His conclusion: "It appears that afairlyliberal student body is being taught by averyliberal professoriateand socialized by anincrediblyliberal group of administrators." Following theTimesarticle, Abrams was targeted twice by students in an unsuccessful campaign to get him fired for speaking out.
The '00s also brought the popularization of "bias-related incident programs," commonly known as "bias response teams" or "BRTs." These programs exist to root out "bias" (once called "prejudice") on campus by empowering anyone within the community to file complaints with the administration, often anonymously. They are attempts to enforce campus orthodoxy in ways that might be (just barely) constitutional. By 2016, nearly 40 percent of surveyed colleges had BRTs.
Early versions of BRTs involved policing inside jokes and pop culture references. Eventually, reported speech included everything from a "snow penis" at the University of Michigan to a humor magazine at the University of California San Diego that had satirized the idea of safe spaces to an incident at John Carroll University in Ohio, where an "anonymous student reported that [the]African-American Alliance's student protest was making white students feel uncomfortable."
It was also in the '00s that ideas such as "trigger warnings" and "microaggressions" burrowed their way into everyday campus parlance. Meanwhile, the number of speaker disinvitations, in which speaking requests were rescinded because of protests or other objections, slowly crept up.
Education schools, in particular, became even more activist, which had an outsized impact on where we are today. The early 2000s began with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)the accreditor of over 600 graduate education programs"recommending" that education students be required to demonstrate a commitment to social justice. The extremely influential Teachers College at Columbia University adopted the requirement, as did others. In 2005, in the face of protest from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), where I am president and CEO, NCATE removed the recommendation. But many schools, including Columbia's Teachers College, did not.
Education school graduates who had been steeped in social justice activism went on to dominate not only K-12 teaching but also the swelling ranks of campus administrators. A random sample taken by Sarah Lawrence's Abrams indicates that 54 percent of college administrators have degrees from education schools.
Two education school graduates helped develop and popularize "orientation" programs, implemented in various forms around the country, that could be described as efforts at thought reform. At the University of Delaware in the late '00s, for example, students were subjected to interrogations by student leaders about all manner of personal topicstheir views on gay marriage, their own sexual orientations, when they discovered their sexuality, whether they would consider dating members of other races and ethnicities, and more. The program then sought to provide students with "treatments," such as mandatory one-on-one sessions with their resident advisers, meant to inculcate them with "correct" moral beliefs.
Requiring "diversity statements" as a condition of faculty hires and promotions is yet another way colleges enforce ideological conformity on campus. These statements effectively require faculty to affirm and provide examples of their commitment to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusionwhich, of course, are rarely defined. Like NCATE's recommended social justice requirement, they function as political litmus testsdemonstrations of one's commitment to prevailing orthodoxies.
The University of California, Berkeley, uses a rubric to score prospective faculty on adherence to specific ideological positions. Candidates are scored negatively, for instance, for attesting to the position that one should "ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and 'treat everyone the same.'"
During the Ignored Years, then, university administrators created infrastructure to keep P.C. alivemoving from speech codes to BRTs as speech codes were shot down in court; encouraging the hiring of even more politically homogeneous professors and administrators; and reframing speech policing as a crucial part of protecting students' mental health.
If a single piece of writing marks the end of the Ignored Years, it's Jenny Jarvie's "Trigger Happy," a March 2014New Republicarticle critical of campus trigger warningsthe practice of alerting students anytime a potentially sensitive topic is about to come up in class conversation if the teacher thinks it may "trigger" a trauma response in students or just upset them in some way. Jarvie's piece presaged a marked increase in coverage of such issues beyond conservative media. Other milestones included Jonathan Chait'sNew Yorkmagazine article "Not A Very P.C. Thing to Say" and Jon Ronson's bookSo You've Been Publicly Shamed, both published in 2015. Suddenly, people were paying attention to speech on campus again.
But it wasn't just an increase in coverage. Something else had changed on campus. During the previous two decades, administrators were usually the leaders of campus censorship campaigns. Students, in turn, resisted those efforts. In late 2013, however, there was an explosion in censorship that was student-led. The infrastructure built during the Ignored Years was producing downstream effects.
The generation hitting campuses in 2013 had been educated by the graduates of those activist education schools. In some cases they were literally the children of the students who had pushed for (or at least were OK with) speech codes in the '80s and '90s.
This generation also grew up with social media; it had a genuine awareness of how hurtful and nasty speech can be, especially when anonymous and online. But it had not been taught that freedom to engage in nasty speech is necessary to the functioning of our democracy and to the production of knowledge.
In 2015 alone, there were multiple high-profile free-speech blowups on campus. Perhaps most famous was the confrontation between sociologist Nicholas Christakis and students at Yale that began over school guidance about inappropriate Halloween costumes.
In 2017, there was outright violence at Berkeley and Middlebury College, with activist students using force in response to speech they opposed. (At Middlebury, a professor named Allison Stanger was permanently injured in a melee during an appearance by the author Charles Murray.) Then came 2020, with hundreds of high-profile examples of attempts to get professors and students canceled, all across the country.
One might assume that the increased media attention and the numerous high-profile incidents of campus speech crackdownsincluding violent confrontations caught on videowould have definitively demonstrated that the campus free speech situation has become dismal. Yet not only were there debates about whether campus speech was really in crisis but new arguments appeared insisting that campus censorship and academic freedom simply weren't problems at all.
Netflix's The Chair is a smart, well-written, well-acted show. The series examines the many challenges facing an English professor and her department at an elite liberal arts college with dwindling admissions. One of the series' main throughlines occurs when a tenured professor is pushed out of his job after giving a satirical Nazi salute during a lecture on modernism. Students call him a Nazi and demand his resignation.
It's not quite as overtly comic, but it could be seen as this era'sPCU, in that it signals that it's OK to mock and resist the illiberalism we've seen emerge on campuses over the last five or six years. And it might be taken as a sign that people are finally willing to address the repressive atmosphere at many colleges.
But not all viewers saw it that way.New York Timescolumnist Michelle Goldberg wrote that "a real-world tenured professor like Bill would be extremely unlikely to lose his job for making fun of Nazis in the wrong way." She also posited that concern about the climate on campus isreallyabout people over 40 feeling ashamed of being "repelled by the sensibilities of the young."
In fact, polling finds that Generation Z (the cohort of young people born in 1996 or after) has the most negative outlook on cancel culture of any generation. And Goldberg's assertion thatThe Chairused an implausible example of a threat to free speech on campus is undermined by the fact that something very similar actually happened earlier this year.
In January, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Robert Schuyler was pushed into retirement after he reacted to being silenced in a departmental meeting by giving a mock Nazi salute. Critics characterized this one-second gesture as "heinous acts" and called on the university to punish Schuyler in order to demonstrate its opposition to "all forms of prejudice." The student newspaper dutifully reported that Schuyler told it "he does not endorse Nazism," as if his sarcastic reply to the rigid enforcement of faculty meeting rules could legitimately be interpreted as an expression of support for the National Socalist philosophy.
For those who defend free speech on campus, a case involving a Nazi salute would be among the less sympathetic cases in a given year. (The fact that Schuyler's gesture was sarcastic barely registers in an age when the alleged effect of speech is deemed more important than the intent.) But it doesn't take an accusation of Nazism to get you in trouble these days. Professors have been targeted for quoting James Baldwin and Martin Luther King Jr.; for asking students to analyze the consequences of the historical shift in trading and travel patterns known as "Columbian exchange"; and for speculating on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, University of Illinois Chicago law professor Jason Kilborn was placed on leave and subjected to months of investigation after students complained about aself-censoredreference to two epithetsliterally, "N_____" and "B____"in a law school exam hypotheticalaboutworkplace discrimination.
If anything,The Chairmade the students demanding the professor's resignation look more reasonable than they often do in real life. The series features a confrontation with students evocative of Christakis' confrontation in 2015, an encounter I witnessed. There, students surrounded Christakis, screamed at him, broke down in tears, called him disgusting, and told him he shouldn't sleep at night. The cause? Nicholas' wife, Erika, had argued in an email that students should be able to decide which Halloween costumes to wearan argumentin favor of student autonomythat was surely less offensive than a Nazi salute.
Since 2015, there have been at least 200 attempts to get speakers disinvited from campuses; 101 of those were successful. But even when the events go on, student protesters sometimes physically block the entrance to speeches deemed problematic or chant, bang drums, or pull the fire alarm so the speeches can't be heard. A few speakers have actually been assaulted, including unknown chemicals sprayed at conservative podcaster Michael Knowles at University of MissouriKansas City. Riots at Berkeley in 2017 over a Milo Yiannopoulos speech included smashed windows, bloodied spectators, and fire bombs.
Goldberg's article was premised in part on the claim, advanced byLiberal Currentseditor Adam Gurri, that only a small number of professors have been targeted for cancellation. "If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale," Gurri wrote, "we would consider it effectively solved."
Gurri's count of targeted professors comes from data collected by FIRE. In context, it does not show a problem effectively solved.
From 2015 through mid-October 2021, FIRE identified 471 attempts to get professors fired or punished for their constitutionally protected speech, with almost three-quarters of them resulting in some type of sanction. In 106 of those cases, the sanction included the loss of a job. The frequency of these attempts has risen dramatically, from 30 in 2015 to 122 in 2020. And the list includes 172 tenured professors who were punished, 27 of whom were fired.
Tenure was designed to be a nearly invincible protection from termination for one's speech, beliefs, teaching, or research. Until very recently, even a single fired tenured professor for anything related to his or her speech or scholarship was a huge deal. Twenty-seven tenured professors fired in a handful of years for their expression is unprecedented. It undermines the whole function of tenure, which is to protect academic freedom by assuring professors they won't find themselves unemployed for exercising it. Contrary to Gurri's framing, this number is not small.
His argument resembles another misleading argument made by those who say campus speech culture is not a problem. It typically starts by noting that there are 6,000 colleges in the country and then shrugs off the hundreds of attempts to push out professors as a small number. This makes the problem look diffuse. In reality, it's quite concentrated.
Of the top 100 schools according toU.S. News & World Report, 65 have had a professor targeted since 2015. Meanwhile, the top 10 schools had an average of seven incidentseach.
In fact, if you start with the top 100 universities and then eliminate the schools that appeared in FIRE's Scholars Under Fire database, schools with severely restrictive "red light" speech codes, schools where FIRE intervened on behalf of a student or faculty member, schools with a successful disinvitation campaign, and schools with a Bias Response Team, you are left with only two institutions: the California Institute of Technology and the Colorado School of Mines. If you eliminate schools with vague "yellow light" speech codes as well, there would be no colleges in the top 100 left.
But the problem is disproportionate in some places. Take the "most influential university in the world," Harvard, which educates a notably large share of America's ruling class. Keep in mind that the Harvard faculty, as at most elite colleges, is politically homogeneous: Just 2.5 percent of its faculty of arts and sciences identifies as "conservative" and 0.4 percent as "very conservative." Despite that overwhelming ideological unity, there have been 12 public attacks on professors just since 2015.
In 2017, Harvard rescinded the admission of 10 would-be students over offensive memes in a Facebook group. In 2013, the school surreptitiously scanned resident deans' email accounts in the wake of a cheating scandalnot to find the cheaters but to sniff out who had leaked an emailaboutthe scandal, a gross violation of faculty privacy.
By downplaying the scale of such problems, Gurri and others are wishing away the "chilling effect," the well-recognized fact in both law and psychology that when people have to guess as to which opinion, joke, or idea will get them in trouble, they tend to self-censor. Indeed, professors have been telling us they are chilled for years. As far back as 2010, when the Association of American Colleges & Universities asked professors to respond to the statement, "It is safe to have unpopular views on campus," only 16.7 percent strongly agreed.
According to a 2021 report from Eric Kaufmann at the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, 70 percent of conservative academics in America say that there is a hostile climate toward their beliefs, and 62 percent of conservative graduate students agree that "my political views wouldn't fit, which could make my life difficult." Meanwhile, 1 in 5 faculty members openly admit to having discriminated against a grant proposal because it was perceived as conservative or "right-leaning," and slightly more than 1 in 10 faculty members say they have discriminated against conservatives on both paper submissions and promotions.
Perhaps the saddest story of a targeted tenured professor is that of University of North Carolina Wilmington criminology professor Mike Adams, whose struggles at the school spanned nearly 20 years. After Adams was denied tenure because of his conservative writing, he filed a successful lawsuit, which not only won him tenure but also resulted in an important 4th Circuit appeals court decision protecting academic freedom in five states. Nonetheless, last summer, Adams was pushed into early retirement after he tweeted a sarcastic comparison of COVID-19 restrictions to slavery. In the weeks that followed, he killed himself.
Of the 471 incidents mentioned above, most have come from the left of the targeted scholar. But 164 of them have come from the scholar's right. In fact, many of the efforts by conservatives to turn the tide on campus have mutated into approaches that look uncomfortably like the very speech codes they battled for decades.
In one case, researchers trying to determine whether liberals were becoming more comfortable with political violence were targeted by conservative author Todd Starnes, who insisted that a survey to discover student attitudes was equivalent to endorsing violence. In another case, the chairman of the Virginia Republican Party demanded that the University of Virginia investigate professor Larry Sabato for tweets that were critical of former President Donald Trump.
Across the country, conservatives trying to reduce the influence of campus-style identity politics have passed laws banning what they dub "critical race theory" (CRT), a catchall term for a constellation of ideas that encompass a certain perspective on race and its intersections with society. For most of its history, critical race theory was a niche area of study within the academy. But since the George Floyd protests of 2020, it has gone mainstream with the political left and become a villain to the political right.
The laws that Republican lawmakers have written in their effort to counter CRT are almost always unconstitutional as applied to higher education. What's more, they're likely to backfire. Giving campus administrators permission to get rid of professors who teach or subscribe to a particular ideology will almost always be used to get rid of dissenters. And conservatives who honestly express their opinions are, by definition, dissenters on most campuses today.
What's remarkable about this debate, asThe Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf has pointed out, is that the right and the left have swapped places. Two of CRT's leading thinkers, Richard Delgado and Mari Matsuda, were two of the strongest proponents of hate speech laws and campus speech codes in the '80s and '90s. And both have contributed to books with titles such asWords That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. By relying on the idea that ideas are dangerous, the anti-CRT laws now being promoted by activists on the right are direct descendents of the speech policies long favored by Matsuda and Delgado.
Pennsylvania H.B. 1532 bans requiring "a student to read, view or listen to a book, article, video presentation, digital presentation or other learning material that espouses, advocates or promotes a racist or sexist concept" in public K-12 schooling and higher education and bans hosting or providing a venue for a speaker that "espouses, advocates or promotes any racist or sexist concept." Laws in Arkansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma ban courses that teach that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"; bills in eight more states would impose the same language; and a federal bill referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform proposes restraining Washington, D.C., schools in the same way.
As with Matsuda and Delgado's work, the underlying notion is that some discomforting speechespecially speech that causes discomfort about race or genderis harmful and should be prohibited.
Defenders of anti-CRT laws usually concede that the legislation's language is overbroad and poorly crafted. Almost invariably, they then insist the laws' vagueness should be ignored because of the scale of the problem and because those crafting the laws are on the side of the angels. I have seen this exact same argument made for decades to defend speech codes aimed at addressing racism and sexism on campus: In the face of such a terrible problem, the specifics of the law don't matter; only the intentions do.
As anti-CRT laws have proliferated, many on the left suddenly became aware of how broad and vague speech codes can be used to punish ideologies, and educators, they are fond of. Meanwhile, many on the right suddenly began to embrace the same sorts of codes they had fought for decades, hoping such codes could be the weapon they've long needed in order to turn the ideological tide on campus.
True believers from across the political spectrum seem to believe that some weapons are good if they're wielded by the right people and bad if wielded by the wrong people. That's a problem that needs to be solved, lest campus culture become a tit-for-tat race to the proverbial gutter.
Amid the Second Great Age of Political Correctness,American higher education has become too expensive, too illiberal, and too conformist. It has descended into a period of profound crisis wrought by shifts in hiring, student development, and politically charged speech codes developed during the Ignored Years, when too few were paying attention. American campuses should be bastions of free expression and academic freedom. Instead, both are in decline.
We cannot afford to just give up on higher ed. College and university presidents can and should do the following five things:
Those who donate to colleges should refuse to do so without demanding these changes.
But we need to do more than reform our existing institutions. We need alternative models to traditional higher education.
In early November 2021, an upstart called the University of Austin announced the intention to create a new academic institution on the principles of radically open inquiry, civil discourse, and engagement with diverse perspectives. Publicly available information is sparse, but according to Pano Kanelos, the incoming president of the University of Austin and a former president of St. John's College, it plans to launch masters programs in 2022 and 2023 and an undergraduate program in 2024.
Meanwhile, Khan Academy is an online program where anyone can watch free, high-quality instructional videos on a variety of topics and receive an assessment of their abilities in return. Minerva University is an ambitious hybrid model offering brick-and-mortar facilities in San Francisco and several foreign cities and online instruction to students around the world. It focuses on teaching "critical wisdom" to top-tier students and claims to be more exclusive than the most elite colleges. It's not too hard to imagine a future in which employers value a mastery level from the Khan Academy or a degree from Minerva more than a degree from a middling traditional university.
The bottom line is that the opinions of professors and students should be ferociously protected, and that those who run universities must reject the idea that colleges and universities exist to impose orthodoxies on anyone. Over the past decade, too many academic institutions have grown used to promoting specific views of the world to incoming students.
Radical open-mindedness would be wildly out of place at most contemporary universities. Getting there will take substantial cultural and political change.
That starts with self-awareness. One lesson of the First Great Age of Political Correctness and the P.C. wars of the 1980s and '90s is that it was a huge mistake to think that because a movie likePCUskewered campus culture, the problem had already fixed itself. As a result, the problem was allowed to grow worse.
We can't make that mistake again. The ideal time for achieving real change in higher ed was 30 or even 40 years ago. The next best time is now.
Go here to read the rest:
- The growing attacks on cops and other commentary - New York Post - May 11th, 2022
- 30 Helens Agree Amazons Kids in the Hall Revival Is Hilarious: Review - Consequence - May 11th, 2022
- Parents are 'sleeping giants' who will fix American education - Fox News - May 11th, 2022
- Abortions and the pendulum - Kathimerini English Edition - May 11th, 2022
- Labour may think its moving on, but working-class voters arent following - The Guardian - May 11th, 2022
- Grace Hyland says she 'hates' being politicised as the transgender community is 'the antithesis of a political issue' - 9Honey - May 11th, 2022
- The Cathedral Vs. The Orthodox Church - The American Conservative - May 11th, 2022
- Chadar At Ajmer Sharif And Praises On Prithviraj Chauhan Cannot Go Hand-In-Hand; Chishti Blessed Ghori To Defeat Prithviraj, As Per His Biography -... - May 11th, 2022
- The Name "Indian" and Political Correctness | HuffPost ... - May 3rd, 2022
- PCU (film) - Wikipedia - May 3rd, 2022
- Reading between the lines of "1984" in 2022 | Opinion | morgancountycitizen.com - Morgan County Citizen - May 3rd, 2022
- Why 2022 is the worst year for anniversaries - TheArticle - May 3rd, 2022
- ITV DI Ray fans left divided about show but all in agreement on one thing - Birmingham Live - May 3rd, 2022
- Republicans making critical gains among Hispanic and non-White voters ahead of 2022 election - Washington Times - May 3rd, 2022
- Bell: Kenney government wants hands off old John A. - Calgary Sun - May 3rd, 2022
- Parapsychologists, sects and secret services: Remembering the most tense chess game in history - EL PAS in English - May 3rd, 2022
- Austin Powers: 10 things you didn't know about the landmark '90s comedy - Tilt Magazine - May 3rd, 2022
- Kerr: GOP's 'stokeism' is replacing substance with the surreal - Seacoastonline.com - May 3rd, 2022
- POTUS Broadway Review: The President Cant Be Held Responsible for This Mess - Yahoo Entertainment - May 3rd, 2022
- Letter To The Editor: A Response to the OpEd 3/21 The Reed College Quest - The Reed College Quest - April 15th, 2022
- Bill Maher's #Adulting and Comedians' Obsession With Haters - TIME - April 15th, 2022
- Replacing Human Rights Act will weaken protections, say peers and MPs - The Guardian - April 15th, 2022
- Elon Musk, Twitter, and the Politics of Disruption - The Bulwark - April 15th, 2022
- Slave Coin Or Freedom Coin: Which Way Western Man? - Bitcoin Magazine - April 15th, 2022
- Another Trump hate rally: The threats get worse, and polite America turns away - Salon - April 15th, 2022
- Comedy Is More Dangerous Because Of Will Smith: DL Hughley Weighs In On The Consequences Of The Slap (Video) - Radio Facts - April 15th, 2022
- Oingo Boingo little Girls Song Controversy, Meaning Of Little Girls And Still The Creepiest Music Video Of All Time? - The Current - April 15th, 2022
- Seth McFarlane's 'Ted' Series Announces Its Main Cast - We Got This Covered - April 15th, 2022
- The abortion culture and atrocity in Ukraine - The Christian Post - April 15th, 2022
- No, Russian artists have not been cancelled - The Indian Express - April 15th, 2022
- S N Balagangadhara Interview Part IV: There Is Intellectual Poverty In Islamised Regions; India May Be Headed The Same Way If It Does Not Watch Out. -... - April 15th, 2022
- The Problem with Political Correctness Life Lessons - April 9th, 2022
- Has political correctness gone too far? | The Economist - April 9th, 2022
- 'Politically Correct': The Phrase Has Gone From Wisdom To ... - April 9th, 2022
- Political Correctness Run Amok - The Post & Email - April 9th, 2022
- Is Real Time with Bill Maher new tonight, April 8? - Last Night On - April 9th, 2022
- The futility of framing one another as progressives and evangelicals, devils and dummies - Baptist News Global - April 9th, 2022
- "The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be" - Public Radio Tulsa - April 9th, 2022
- Oreos Gone Woke: Is Nothing Off Limits to LGBT Left? - Daily Signal - April 9th, 2022
- Political Correctness - Munk Debates - April 6th, 2022
- Today's letters: Readers comment on the one-party system and school lunches - Daily Commercial - April 6th, 2022
- The Oral History of PCU, the Culture Wars Cult Classic - VICE - April 6th, 2022
- So-Called Cancel Culture Is a Vacant Concept, So It Can Be Turned Back Against the Culture Warriors - Justia Verdict - April 6th, 2022
- Ideology and Disunion - The American Conservative - April 6th, 2022
- Hungarian media freedom is alive and well - Washington Examiner - April 6th, 2022
- PR News | Earth to Jeff: There's Trouble Brewing - Wed., Apr. 6, 2022 - O'Dwyer's PR News - April 6th, 2022
- Why does Twitter think Russian lies are OK but Trump isn't? - The Spectator - April 6th, 2022
- The Saints goal that counted... for the opposition! The odd tale of Brian Walsh - St Kilda FC - April 6th, 2022
- Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, running for a third term, expects education issues to motivate voters in the fall - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - April 6th, 2022
- Did Guy Gibson and his mates go to war in vain? asks ANN WIDDECOMBE - Express - April 6th, 2022
- In a word: Marx Brothers: Absurd, wacky and still relevant - Lewiston Sun Journal - April 6th, 2022
- Disney succumbs to whims of the woke left - Fort Bend Herald - April 6th, 2022
- Kevin Smith Remembers His Best Movie On Its 25th Anniversary - Giant Freakin Robot - April 6th, 2022
- Empire of Asylumdom - The American Conservative - April 6th, 2022
- The War In Ukraine Or 'The Special Military Operation In Ukraine'? Analysis - Eurasia Review - April 6th, 2022
- Putin, the haters White Knight - The Jewish Standard - April 6th, 2022
- How did we get to where political correctness and woke-ness rule in our society? - Paris Post Intelligencer - March 31st, 2022
- Will Smith's Slap Is Political Correctness Taken to Its Logical Conclusion | Opinion - Newsweek - March 31st, 2022
- Letter to the editor | Free to express thoughts | Readers Forum | tribdem.com - TribDem.com - March 31st, 2022
- There is no free-speech right to a university platform - Times Higher Education - March 31st, 2022
- Chris Freind: Open letter to Will Smith: Your worst performance ever - The Delaware County Daily Times - March 31st, 2022
- How The Kashmir Files has caught our bleeding-heart liberals off guard and their lies exposed - Firstpost - March 31st, 2022
- There Will Be No Power Instinct Re-Release on Its 30th Anniversary - Siliconera - March 31st, 2022
- No, America Does Not Have a Free Speech ProblemAt Least, Not the One The New York Timess Editors Imagine - Justia Verdict - March 31st, 2022
- The politics of nothing and the enabling church - Baptist News Global - March 31st, 2022
- If the BBC is cancelling anyone, it's cancelling the Left - The Canary - March 31st, 2022
- Today's letters: Readers comment on the term 'progressives' and the Democratic plan - Daily Commercial - March 31st, 2022
- I refuse to take my kids to the playground after parents were made to sign DISCLAIMERS in case they get... - The Sun - March 31st, 2022
- Ukraine devastation puts 'Partygate' in perspective | Alex Brummer | The Blogs - The Times of Israel - March 31st, 2022
- The culture of nastiness: insults have replaced arguments in political debate - Stuff - March 31st, 2022
- 'Politically incorrect' | Fred Clark - Patheos - March 21st, 2022
- The EU's Shameful Treatment of Poland and Hungary | Opinion - Newsweek - March 21st, 2022
- 'This is the game: you're an employee' - Maverick Viales and political correctness - Motorcycle Sports - March 21st, 2022
- Woke Pat Forde Remains Silent On Lia Thomas Winning A National Title Over His Daughter & Her Olympic Friends - OutKick - March 21st, 2022
- The Indians Are Coming! The Indians Are Coming! - Watson - GoLocalProv - March 21st, 2022
- Why did Jeff Garlin leave The Goldbergs? - GEEKSPIN - March 21st, 2022
- Putin does his best Stalin in threat to 'cleanse' Russia - Fox News - March 21st, 2022
- Florida's racist and anti-LGBTQ bills are already having a chilling effect - The Real News Network - March 21st, 2022
- Suspect in Grisly Mosque Murder Was Obsessed With 'Race War' Group - The Daily Beast - March 21st, 2022
- Theres More Than Just Whats on the Page in Licorice Pizza - The Ringer - March 21st, 2022