September 2001
As most readers of the Newsletter
know, last academic year for the first time I taught the course PSY 383E:
Psychology and Ideology – the Study of Political Correctness at King’s
College of the University of Western Ontario in London. As soon as the
National Post had published an article, the media took an unexpectedly
great interest in the course. I was repeatedly interviewed by the CBC,
BBC and a dozen other radio stations for any time up to two hours. The
most enthusiastic interviewers and audiences were in the Western provinces.
Among all the media attention that I received with the course there was
only one article that was critical and disapproving. The opposition came
from the Women’s Caucus of UWO which was vehemently antagonistic. True
to feminist dogma, it was argued that the issues to be examined in my course
are already ably analysed in a number of other courses (in the Women’s
Department) and, further, that I as a patriarch could do it only in a biassed,
i. e., unfair manner.
Twelve students enrolled
in the course which was limited to third and fourth year honours psychology
students. The majority of the students were white women. They all expressed
great interest in the subject matter, were open-minded, and eager to learn
the analytical skills necessary to intelligently read scientific reports
and newspapers. There were no agents provocateurs or officious observers
from other departments. The President and Vice-President of the Women’s
Caucus who claimed to be appalled by the putative one-sidedness of a course
on PC were warmly invited to speak in class, however they declined to come.
Political Correctness was
defined as a canon of orthodoxies and prohibitions, as a set of claims
that society today does not readily allow to be questioned. Psychology
is replete with such dogmas that are based in ideology rather than empirical
research, such as: learning disabilities, therapeutic touch, multiple personality,
repressed memories, hypnosis, anorexia nervosa and bulimia, self-esteem,
sexual and racial harassment, homosexuality, and a host of dogmas that
have their origin in burlesque feminism (glass-ceiling, chilly climate,
equity, rape, battered-wife syndrome, etc.).
Emphasis in the course was
on the following topics: freedom of expression and scholarship and censorship;
harassment codes as speech codes; hate legislation and the human rights
commissions; violence against women research and advocacy research in general;
feminism; racism (affirmative action, racial profiling, college admission
policies, diversity).
The students were required
to read and were examined on: Canadian Psychology, Special Issue: Political
Correctness in Academia, 38(4),1997. D’Souza, Dinesh (1995). The End of
Racism. Principles for a Multiracial Society. New York: Free Press. Fekete,
John (1994). Moral Panic. Biopolitics Rising. Montreal: Davies. Klatt,
Heinz (1997). Death by the Atomic Bomb and its Educational Fallout. UWO
Klatt, Heinz (Ed.) (2000). Reader on Political Correctness. UWO. Kors,
Alan & Silverglate, Harvey (1998). The Shadow University. The Betrayal
of Liberty on America’s Campuses. New York: Free Press.
Twice I had guest speakers.
Prof. Jeffrey Asher, formerly from Dawson College in Montreal and forced
into early retirement by a feminist coup, spoke on the Deadly Hazards of
Being Male in Canada. Prof. Richard Zeller, who had recently resigned from
Bowling Green University in Ohio, spoke on Affirmative Action. Prof. Zeller
for seven consecutive years had offered to teach a course on Political Correctness
in the Sociology Department as well as in the Faculty of Education, even
large undergraduate sections and without remuneration, but was never allowed
to do so. For both evenings all members of the university were invited,
both sessions were very well attended and well received. One of the two
guest lectures was particularly lively due to the very active participation
of an instructor from UWO’s Women’s Department. There was a frank and hardy
exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Unfortunately, due
to lack of time I could not accept offers of other colleagues who were
willing to contribute.
What were the major difficulties
in teaching this course? The topics chosen for discussion were all fascinating
and made the teaching easy. Further, it was easy to present opposing arguments
because they have been clearly articulated over and over in the literature
and the media. I never refrained from offering my own views and routinely
ended debates by telling them that it was for them to choose. All exams
were formulated in such a fashion that the students had to show familiarity
with the facts and interpretations without having to take sides.
However, what I found most
difficult was to make them understand that all interpretations and opinions
are not equal or equally meritorious. When I, for example, judged that
genital mutilation of non-consenting girls is categorically wrong, I was
judged as being as dogmatic as those who defend the practice. Many times
it appeared to me that even among the more insightful students of this generation, cultural
relativism is in their blood and their every brain cell. The argument that
opinions based on empirical facts are better than opinions based on tradition
or superstition is very difficult for them to accept because for them all
opinions have the same status. Even for students who are appalled by the
reality of PC the ultimate virtue is not to judge at all, but to be “tolerant”!
How difficult have we made it for this generation to accept any moral principle
besides to be “nice” and “non-judgmental”!
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
