Each year, many sophomores at MHS read George Orwell’s famous novel 1984 in their english classes .  Published in 1949, 1984 is a rendering of Orwell’s predictions for modern society. In Oceania, where the events of the book take place, each citizen is oppressed through—among other methods — constant moderation by the totalitarian regime and overhaul of free speech by the redefining of language.

In 1984, the totalitarian regime, The Party, institutes a new language, called “Newspeak” in which words that express dissent or opposition against the regime are removed from the english language. For example, the word “freedom” is removed from the language because the concept of political or intellectual freedom has been eradicated.

It is this second point—this purging of expression through the expunging of free speech—that would be a direct threat to our First Amendment rights. Certainly, the playground indoctrination of many childhoods, that “America is a free country — I can say what I want!” is an indicator of how many Americans value free speech, even from a young age.

If Orwell’s novel was a forecast of contemporary society, we should perhaps ask ourselves if America faces a challenge to our First Amendment. More precisely, we should question the effectiveness of political correctness in a American society.

Too Politically Correct?

Political correctness, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is “avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive.” However, the true definition of political correctness is ambiguous. Many people worldwide — on an international front and a local one—are invested in a debate that questions what the true meaning of “politically correct.”

Political correctness can take many different forms. It includes adopting an attitude that, at large, seeks to prevent partisanship on the basis of one’s race, religion, sexuality, gender, or ethnicity, among other human qualities.

Although certainly well-intentioned, political correctness could be used as a censoring device. In an academic environment, political correctness can hinder discussion, which could prevent invaluable learning experiences that transgress the classroom walls.

“I encourage disagreement and I worry that political correctness forces us to all agree…We have differences of opinion that I believe should be voiced respectfully — but voiced and not stifled,” Tess Chakkalakal, an Associate Professor of English and Africana Studies at Bowdoin College said recently for The Bowdoin Orient.

This fine line between respect and censorship is what the entire debate surrounding political debate is based on. While discriminatory speech should not be tolerated, regressing to conformity should not be condoned either. As a society, we should celebrate individuality and not shy away from addressing differences in a respectable way.

The Price of Free Speech

Are those who criticize the implications of politically correct speech receiving backlash from opposing groups who feel that politically correct speech allows for a more tolerant environment?

Since critics of politically correct speech are mostly right-leaning — that is, are more republican than democrat — their opinions are sometimes in the minority at the more liberal secondary and postsecondary educational institutions, such as high schools and universities.

In this regard, those who condemn political correctness for violating the First Amendment may face a significant bias in their educational pursuits. While colleges preach inclusiveness—and by extension, political correctness — dissenters, who do not subscribe to the ideals of political correctness, are too often considered bigoted or hateful.

However, those who support the idea behind political correctness are not incorrect either. By forgoing someone’s identity as defined by society, a more pleasant and tolerable environment can begin to exist, where one is valued for their internal traits rather than, for example, their physical qualities.

Overall, if political correctness hinders free speech, it should not be supported. However, if it predicates a respectful environment among peers and friends alike, than political correctness should not be fully forgotten.

MHS Students Reflect

So does political correctness harm or help to foster a tolerant, yet intellectual discussion on people’s differences? Massapequa High School students were eager to share their opinions on this hot-button topic.

“Political correctness is mainstream intolerance: it is semantics over substance,” junior Kevin Hitchings said. “Everybody should be able to freely share their ideas without being labeled evil, and unpleasant ideas need to be confronted for the healthy continuation of democracy.”

Still, others felt that political correctness was less straightforward.

“There should not be a uniform ‘correctness’ of speech. Someone who speaks rudely is rude and someone who speaks kindly is kind. There should not be an established standard,” junior Rachel Ertman said.

As students of Massapequa High School, let’s work together to act respectfully towards each other while not shying away from what makes each one of us different and unique.