UNIWERSYTET

IM. ADAMA MICKIEWICZA W POZNANIU

WYDZIAŁ ANGLISTYKI
Kierunek: FILOLOGIA ANGIELSKA

Jarosław Siedlecki

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THE CONTEMPORARY

UNITED STATES
POPRAWNOŚĆ POLITYCZNA WE WSPÓŁCZESNYCH
STANACH ZJEDNOCZONYCH

Nr albumu : 352671

Praca magisterska
napisana pod kierunkiem:
dra Bartosza Wolskiego
w Zakładzie Filologii Angielskiej
WPA UAM w Kaliszu

Akceptacja promotora

1
 SUMMARY

The purpose of this thesis is to explore and analyse the ways in which political correct-
ness operates within the context of the contemporary United States. The opening chap-
ter aims to define the phenomenon of political correctness and to identify its origins and
ties with Marxist ideology. It will further describe the manner in which, through the
efforts of the Frankfurt school intellectuals, political correctness was introduced in the
United States. The following subchapter shall analyse chosen literary works of notable
neo-Marxist thinkers and their influence on the rise of the American New Left. Finally,
the role of the left-leaning student activists in popularizing political correctness will be
examined. The second chapter focuses on investigating the ways in which political cor-
rectness works within the fields of language and psychology. An issue of pivotal im-
portance for further analysis – that of the interrelationship between language and
thought will be inspected in the first subchapter. Then, particular linguistic and semantic
structures through which political correctness influences communication will be de-
scribed. The last subchapter will be dedicated to examination of psychological studies
relevant to the matter at hand. The final chapter of the thesis tackles the issue of finding,
describing, and analysing particular examples of political correctness from the last fif-
teen years in the light of previous chapters. It is divided into four subchapters, each fo-
cusing on one area of American sociocultural life, namely: the academia, politics, sci-
ence and medicine, as well as the popular culture. The first one will put American
campuses in the spotlight, describing the new face of student activism and the changing
role of the teacher. The second subchapter will focus mainly on political correctness in
the context of upcoming presidential elections – the ways in which it is employed by the
candidates and how it affects potential voters. The following subchapter describes the
obstructive role of political correctness in research as well as practical application of
medicine. Finally, the last subchapter analyses examples of political correctness in
American show business.
Key words: Political correctness, cultural Marxism, free speech, the United States of
America

2
 STRESZCZENIE

Celem niniejszej pracy jest zbadanie i przeanalizowanie w jaki sposób poprawność

polityczna działa w kontekście współczesnych Stanów Zjednoczonych. Pierwszy
rozdział ma na celu zdefiniowanie zjawiska poprawności politycznej oraz wykazanie
jego powiązań z ideologią Marksistowską. Ponadto, będzie w nim opisany sposób w
jaki, dzięki wysiłkom intelektualistów ze Szkoły Frankfurckiej, poprawność polityczna
dotarła do Stanów Zjednocznonych. Następny podrozdział podda analizie wybrane
dzieła literackie myślicieli neo-Marksistowskich i ich wpływ na rozwój Nowej
Amerykańskieh Lewicy. Wreszcie, zostanie rozpatrzona rola lewicowych działaczy
studenckich w popularyzacji poprawności politycznej. Drugi rozdział koncentruje się na
zbadaniu w jaki sposób poprawność polityczna działa w zakresie lingwistyki
i psychologii. Problem o zasadniczym znaczeniu dla dalszej analizy zjawiska –
wzajemne powiązanie pomiędzy językiem i myślą – zostanie omówiony w pierwszym
podrozdziale. Następnie, opisane poszczególne struktury językowe i semantyczne, przez
które poprawność polityczna wpływa na komunikację. Ostatni podrozdział będzie
poświęcony analizie badań naukowych z zakresu psychologii istotnych dla tej sprawy.
Trzeci rozdział tej pracy zajmuje się kwestią zebrania, opisania i analizy
poszczególnych przykładów poprawności politycznej z ostatnich piętnastu lat w świetle
poprzednich rozdziałów. Jest on podzielony na cztery podrozdziały, z których każdy
koncentruje się na konkretnej sferze życia społeczno-kulturalnego Stanów
Zjednoczonych, a minowicie: wyższym szkolnictwie, polityce, nauce i medycynie,
a także kulturze popularnej. Pierwszy z nich koncentruje się na amerykańskich
kampusach uniwersyteckich, opisując nowe oblicze aktywizmu studenckiego oraz
zmieniającą się role nauczyciela. Drugi podrozdział skupia się głównie na poprawności
politycznej w kontekście zbliżających się wyborów prezydenckich - w jaki sposób jest
ona używana przez kandydatów i jaki wpływ wywiera na potencjalnych wyborców.
Następny podrozdział omawia hamującą rolę poprawności politycznej w zakresie badań
naukowych, jak również w praktycznym zastosowaniu medycyny. Ostatni podrozdział
analizuje rolę poprawności politycznej w amerykańskim show biznesie.
Słowa kluczowe: Poprawność polityczna, Marksizm kulturowy, wolność słowa, Stany
Zjednoczone

3
4
 Kalisz, dnia ............................

OŚWIADCZENIE

Ja, niżej podpisany/a ...................................................................... student/ka Wydziału

Anglistyki Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu oświadczam, że
przedkładaną pracę dyplomową pt:
...........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................... napisałem/napisałam
samodzielnie. Oznacza to, że przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsultacjami, nie
korzystałem/am z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałem/am
opracowania rozprawy lub jej części innym osobom, ani nie odpisywałem/am tej
rozprawy lub jej części od innych osób.Oświadczam również, że egzemplarz pracy
dyplomowej w formie wydruku komputerowego jest zgodny z egzemplarzem pracy
dyplomowej w formie elektronicznej.
Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, że przypisanie sobie, w pracy
dyplomowej, autorstwa istotnego fragmentu lub innych elementów cudzego utworu lub
ustalenia naukowego stanowi podstawę stwierdzenia nieważności postępowania w
sprawie nadania tytułu zawodowego.

[ ]* - wyrażam zgodę na udostępnianie mojej pracy w czytelni Archiwum UAM

[ ]* - wyrażam zgodę na udostępnianie mojej pracy w zakresie koniecznym do
ochrony mojego prawa do autorstwa lub praw osób trzecich

*Należy wpisać TAK w przypadku wyrażenia zgody na udostępnianie pracy w czytelni Archiwum UAM,
NIE w przypadku braku zgody. Niewypełnienie pola oznacza brak zgody na udostępnianie pracy.

(czytelny podpis studenta)

5
 Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 1 : THE ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY OF POLITICAL

CORRECTNESS .......................................................................................................... 10

1.1 PROBLEMATIC DEFITION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ............................................ 2

1.2. MARXIST ROOTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ..................................................... 11
1.2.1. The birth of Cultural Marxism ...................................................................... 13
1.2.2. Frankfurt School and Critical Theory .......................................................... 15
1.2.3. Spread of Cultural Marxism into the United States ...................................... 16
1.2.4. Neo-Marxist literature and cultural determinism at the heart of Political
correctness ...................................................................................................................... 17
1.3. Rise of the New Left ............................................................................................ 20
1.4. From young rebels to tenured radicals ................................................................. 22
1.4.1. Deceptive nature of the Free Speech Movement .......................................... 23
1.4.2. From marketplaces of ideas to institutions of indoctrination ....................... 24
1.4.3. American academia in the spotlight: the great debate about Political
Correctness ..................................................................................................................... 25
1.4.4. Sokal affair and criticism of post-modern science........................................ 28
1.5. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 30

6
CHAPTER 2 : PC AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC
PHENOMENON ........................................................................................................... 31

2.1. LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY AS THEORETICAL BASIS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. .... 31

2.2. LEXICOLOGY AND SEMANTICS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS…………. ................ 30
2.3. PC AND COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY ......................................................................... 44
2.4. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 47

CHAPTER 3 : POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THE CONTEMPORARY

UNITED STATES......................................................................................................... 48

3.1. PC IN AMERICAN ACADEMIA ................................................................................ 48

3.2. PC IN AMERICAN POLITICS .................................................................................... 56
3.3. PC IN AMERICAN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE ............................................................ 62
3.4. PC IN AMERICAN POPULAR CULTURE .................................................................... 70

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 77

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 79

7
Introduction

In contemporary times and especially within the context of Western culture, political
correctness is a phenomenon few are unfamiliar with. The great debate around it in late
1980’s and 1990’s has popularized the concept immensely and it continues to be one of
the most contested topics in American sociocultural life. However, despite abundant
examples of ‘political correctness gone mad’ in the media or political duels, where op-
ponents accuse each other of being ‘too PC’, it remains particularly difficult to define it
as a concept or to pinpoint its origin.
In the first chapter of this thesis an attempt will be made to trace back the source
of this elusive phenomenon and to follow its development and evolution into what it is
today. Political correctness will be shown as a result of adaptation of Marxist ideology
into cultural terms due to the efforts of the Frankfurt School. Moreover, its arrival and
spread on American soil owing to leftist activism will be discussed.
As political correctness mostly operates within the field of language, it will be
analysed as such in the second chapter. It shall be dissected for identification of specific
linguistic structures it employs. Furthermore, with the interdependence of language and
thought taken into consideration, psychological processes connected with political cor-
rectness will also be discussed on the basis of chosen studies.
In the light of this information, the third chapter will proceed with an in-depth
analysis of particular, concrete instances of political correctness in the United States
from the last fifteen years. The goal is to show just how profound an influence political
correctness exerts on the quality of widely understood dialogue in the United States;
how it can effectively shut down public institutions, turn a political debate into a farce,
destroy careers, and threaten scientific advancement. A phenomenon, examples of
which are so often met with an eye roll or amusement will be depicted as a major threat

8
to freedom of speech and expression that has been growing in strength and complexity
for decades.

9
Chapter 1: The origins and early history of Political Correct-
ness

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse Political Correctness as an extension of

cultural Marxism. In the following subchapters an attempt will be made to trace the
roots of Political Correctness and follow its transition from the context of early Marxist
ideology into a phenomenon widespread within the modern American society. The first
two subchapters contain the definition and genesis of Political Correctness as well as an
account of its evolution as a concept. The remaining subchapters focus solely on the
history of Political Correctness in the United States and its continuous rise in
prominence up until the dawn of the 21st century.

1.1. Problematic definition of Political Correctness

Political correctness (henceforth: PC) is a difficult concept to define for several reasons.
First and foremost, the very nature of the phenomenon entails ambiguity and deliberate
avoidance of sociolinguistic containment. As Lea (2008: 1-2) aptly notices, PC can be
used to either emphasize one’s modern and progressive perspective or to dissociate one-
self from what is often seen as an absurd attempt to belie the harsh reality. Throughout
the history, the label of politically correct has been both a tool employed by conserva-
tive circles to ridicule leftist philosophy as well as a badge of honour, proudly worn by
the self-described liberal forward-thinkers. Cummings (2001: 10) perceives PC as "[…]
an ideological narrowing, intolerance, and silencing of dissent, commonly attributed to
the left by the right." More than anything, PC hates moral grey areas, and with ferocity
reminiscent of ideological fanaticism aims to impose the false dichotomy that every

10
thought and idea can only be either ethically correct or downright offensive. Cummings
(2001: 10-11) believes it to be a glaring distortion of reality and calls attention to the
irony of the fact that such a simplistic, narrow-minded, and overly dogmatic point of
view is most commonly employed by people who pride themselves to be tolerant and
unbiased.
Hughes (2009: 3) is initially a bit more lenient in his evaluation of PC, alluding
to its benign fundamental basis. After all, as most would believe, PC started off with a
noble, if somewhat naive, mission to decontaminate language, to rid it of dialect of
prejudice and discrimination, to accommodate for the needs of underprivileged minori-
ties in social relations, and to promote equality. What the author opposes is the ill-
advised practical realization of PC tenets and the artificial restrictions it imposes upon
the language and socio-behavioral norms; the paradoxical nature of PC, which is liberal
in its goals but illiberal in practice. Of similar opinion is Green (2006: 8-10), who ad-
duces the famous passage from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where with the introduc-
tion of a new set of commandments, some animals are made “more equal” than the oth-
ers. He fears that with PC continuously gaining publicity and recognition, the western
world is headed toward a state of forced conformity and reverse bigotry, where mem-
bers of racial, religious, gender, and sexual minorities are near-exempt from criticism
and subject to special treatment due to general fear of being deemed intolerant or preju-
diced. Hughes (2009: 2) sees the onset of this worrisome trend in the great debate sur-
rounding American academia, which came under heavy fire from conservative circles in
the late 1980s for allegedly being leftist incubators. However, the phenomenon at hand
predates said controversy by a significant margin. To fully understand the contemporary
form of PC it is vital to look at its genesis and evolution throughout many decades. The
following subchapter will make an attempt to describe and analyse the history of PC
and to prove it is a concept deeply rooted in the Marxist ideology.

1.2. Marxist roots of Political Correctness

According to Lea (2008: 1-2), PC “seems to capture an essential quality of the modern
zeitgeist”. So ingrained is the phenomenon in contemporary western culture a watchful
observer can hardly read a newspaper or have a conversation with a co-worker without

11
noticing its more or less subtle impact. It exerts influence on every major area of soci-
ocultural life, forcing individuals, especially those of public significance, to walk on
eggshells as not to use an expression recently deemed offensive or touch upon tabooed
subject. This peculiar situation begs the question: how and by whom was this trend ini-
tiated? Much like the very concept of PC, the answer to this question is a complex one.
Hughes (2009: 61-62) traces the earliest documented instance of the term Politi-
cally Correct to a Supreme Court case in 1793 United States. It is, however, a discon-
nected occurrence, even more so that the phrase was used in literal sense, to correct an
improper instance of political nomenclature. The true origins of PC in its current under-
standing are found in the traditions of the old left. As Hughes (2009: 61-62) points out,
communism was an ideology that claimed to be the ultimate truth and only salvation of
the oppressed working class. Driven by this conviction, the leadership of major com-
munist states would establish a set of sociopolitical axioms, to which the citizens must
adhere. This was the official “Party’s correct line” (Tse-Tung 1929, as quoted in
Hughes 2009: 62). Divergent opinions would be labeled anti-proletariat, pro-capitalism,
or simply politically incorrect. Mao defines the correct line in terms of the opposition to
the incorrect, or erroneous thought, which he correlates with the bourgeoisie.
Jay (1973: 3) looks even further back in history, to the raw Marxist ideology pri-
or to the raise of communist molochs of the east, for the earliest stages in the evolution
of PC. Among the most prominent tenets of Marxism is that of continuous class struggle
leading to an inevitable conflict – an ultimate climax to the tension between the prole-
tariat and the overly privileged bourgeoisie. Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx
1848: 98-137, as quoted in Jay 1973: 124) makes a bold prediction that should a war
erupt in Europe, the working class would overthrow its oppressors, thus taking the first
step in building a communist society. Similarly, Trotsky (1914, as quoted in Jay 1973:
86) envisions in the wake of war a collapse of the national identity and raise of global
unity of the working class. However, the First World War was not only a tragic and un-
necessary conflict, but also a big blow to the expectations of the Marxist theorists.
Much to their dismay, the working class’ loyalty to their country proved to be stronger
than their class consciousness.
In 1917, the October Revolution took place in Russia, leading to the establish-
ment of the first self-proclaimed socialist state in the world. Such turn of events inspired
new hope in Marxists all over Europe. According to Raehn (1999: 2), influenced by this

12
new wave of optimism for communist cause they leaped at the opportunity to instigate a
proletariat uprising in their respective countries, leading to such events as the Spartacist
uprising in Berlin, the establishment of Soviet state in Bavaria, or the foundation of
Hungarian Republic of councils, following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Mon-
archy. For a moment, the possibility of the entirety of Europe falling under communism
was dreadfully real. However, their efforts ultimately proved to be futile. The revolts
failed, the communist states were short-lived, and the Bolshevik army marching west-
wards was defeated in the Battle of Warsaw. Marxist ideals failed to gain support of the
working class and capitalism appeared to be more entrenched than ever.

1.2.1. The birth of Cultural Marxism

Jay (1973: 3-4) considers the failure of communist revolutionaries to incite a global
revolt as extremely impactful for the Marxist philosophy. He believes it to be a source
of widespread confusion among its most prominent proponents, leading to significant
shifts in the overall ideology. Raehn (1999: 2) concurs with this notion and further ex-
pands on the new direction Marxism would take in the near future.

These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marx-
ist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be beneficiaries of a so-
cial revolution, which would place them on top of the power structure. When these rev-
olutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond.
The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed
the workers.

Indeed, Marxist thinkers would not acknowledge the defeat of their ideology or its fail-
ure to appeal to the target audience. Independently of each other, two prominent leftist
intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, reached a similar conclusion: it was
the western culture that had blinded the working class to the truth offered by Marxism,
and a widespread communist revolution will not be possible until the western culture is
destroyed. Gramsci was a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy and an
influential Marxist theorist. Anderson (1976: 9-11) considers the inherent differences
between the sociopolitical structure of the east and the west to be the main point of fo-
cus in Gramsci’s body of work. He reintroduced and expanded upon a Leninist concept

13
of cultural hegemony, suggesting its profound influence on the failure of the proletariat
revolt in the west. To Gramsci, the western bourgeoisie exerted control over the work-
ing class not only through political and economic means, but also through a hegemonic
culture. The proletariat, he believed, was indoctrinated with the values of western cul-
ture to the point, where they would consider them obvious and natural. By identifying
with those values, working class drew parallel between their own well-being with the
good of the bourgeoisie, thus refusing to rise against the system. What follows, is the
necessity for Marxism to include not only economical but also sociocultural theory that
would become an antithesis of capitalist values. This ideological superstructure should
then replace western culture. Yet, to achieve this, it must first undermine traditional
western values.
According to Raehn (1999: 3), even more radical in his convictions and stronger
in his criticism of western culture was Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian philosopher, literary
critic, and aesthetician. His monumental magnum opus, History of class consciousness,
gained him fame and recognition as one of the most influential Marxist ideologists. To
Lukacs, only a complete elimination of western culture would provide a basis for the
establishment of communist state. He writes: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of
society as the one and only solution. […] A worldwide overturning of values cannot
take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the
revolutionaries.” (Lukacs, as quoted in Buchanan. 2002: 75). As a People's Commissar
for Education and Culture in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, Lukacs put his
ideas into practice, notably by introducing alterations to school curricula. According to
Buchanan (2002:75-76), Lukacs’ program focused on radical sexual education, mockery
of monogamy, as well as rejection of parental and religious authority. Both Buchanan
(2002:75-6) as well as Kimball (2007) believe, the goal of these reforms were to un-
dermine Judeo-Christian values and the traditional model of family. The ideas put for-
ward by him and Gramsci attracted much enthusiasm among Marxist intellectuals. They
both laid the foundation for the development of a brand new form of the dated ideology
– Cultural Marxism.

14
1.2.2. Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

According to Jay (1973: 5), in 1923 the Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche – the first
Marxist Work Week took place. It was an event which gathered some of the most prom-
inent and influential Marxist thinkers, including Lukacs and Gramsci, in an effort to
discuss the new direction their school of thought would take in the nearest future. The
organizers hoped that for once the greatest minds of Marxism could gather in one place
and be afforded an opportunity to determine from many trends one, true Marxism.
Due to the perceived success of the summit, as well as financial help of Felix
Weil, a permanent institution of education was founded. Institute for Social Research,
which later came to be known as the Frankfurt school due to its location and ties with
The University of Frankfurt, was supposed to be a Marxist think tank and policy insti-
tute, modeled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. As both Lind (2000) and Jay
(1973: 6) point out, initially the entity was to be named “The Institute for Marxism”, but
the name was deemed too provocative, and a more bland, nondescript alternative was
sought. Soon thereafter, the institute was officially recognized by German Ministry of
Education and established close ties with local Academic facilities. There, as Lind
(2000) enumerates, such people as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Eric Fromm,
Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich worked to translate Marxism from economic into cul-
tural terms.
Faced with the reality of the new epoch, they were forced to contradict Marx
himself in some instances. Kimball’s (2007) take on the ideological shift is as follows:
in Marxism, proletariat was the oppressed class; in the version introduced by Frankfurt
school, everyone within western culture is at constant state of psychological oppression.
It was, therefore, a duty of every Marxist to make their best effort to dismantle the op-
pressive western culture. And for that they developed a powerful weapon.
Critical theory is among the most notable inventions of the Frankfurt School.
According to Raehn (1999: 3), it entailed destructive criticism of many of the core
western values and traditional institutions, such as “Christianity, capitalism, authority,
the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism,
heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.” Kimball (2007) accuses it of
essentially being a psychological control device. “Critical Theory, as its name implies,
criticizes. What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies.”

15
writes Flynn (2005: 15). This strange marriage of Marxist ideals and Freudian psychoa-
nalysis championed by Horkheimer and Marcuse, among others, was supposed to be the
catalyst for a social revolution.

1.2.3. Spread of Cultural Marxism into the United States

In the wake of the Nazi regime, Marxists living in Germany were faced with a signifi-
cant threat. In 1930 Reichstag elections National Socialist party lead by Adolf Hitler
came second, and formed a powerful opposition to Social Democrats (Nohlen & Stover
2010: 790). It was a wake-up call for the Frankfurt School, still enjoying their honey-
moon period. Shortly after the elections, Horkheimer asked Felix Weil to once again
provide them with financial support, this time to establish a new residence in Geneva.
According to Leo Lowenthal (as quoted in Dubiel, 1981), a long-time member of the
Frankfurt School, the new quarters were to serve not only as a bona fide branch of the
institute, but also as a possible escape route for the members residing in Germany.
Their worst fears came true in 1933, when Hitler was appointed a Chancellor
and effectively became the leader of Germany. On 2nd of March, Sturmabteilung (SA)
surrounded the building of the Frankfurt Institute. By that time most of its prominent
members managed to escape to Switzerland. There, as Lowenthal (as quoted in Dubiel,
1981) reminisces, they enjoyed near-celebrity status in academic circles, freedom to
conduct lectures and forward their intellectual work. Thanks to their wide-spread con-
nections among European intelligentsia, they managed to establish more branches of the
institute, notably in Paris and London. However, aside from Horkheimer, who pos-
sessed a permanent residence permit, members of the Frankfurt School were merely
guests in the country. Every few weeks they would have to leave Switzerland and
reenter with a new visitor’s visa. With every border control they were scrutinized more
closely due to their Jewish roots and communist affiliations - a fact that assured them
the Nazi ideology would inevitably spread across Europe. Eventually, they chose United
States, New York in particular, as their new destination. Paradoxically, in a country
where communism never fully taken its roots, Marxist ideologists found a warm wel-
come as well as a fertile ground for their ideas.

16
1.2.4. Neo-Marxist literature and cultural determinism at the heart of Political
correctness

Frankfurt school established close ties with the University of Columbia. Horkheimer,
Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, and Adorno, among others, soon renewed their efforts to
instill cultural Marxism into a yet new society. According to Raehn (1999), to achieve
this goal they dusted off their trusty weapon, critical theory, and targeted it at the core
American values. He believes a sociology book, The Authoritarian Personality (1950)
by Adorno et al. to best encapsulate the influence cultural Marxism would have on the
American society. In it, the authors assumed a scale of rating personality traits and
premised the notion that people who value religion, capitalism, and traditional model of
family are more prone to being racists and fascist. Concerned with this clear bias, Wig-
gershaus (1995: 420) poses the question: "Was it not, therefore, merely the prejudices of
left-wing academics, who wanted to discredit political and economic conservatism by
demonstrating a correlation between ethnocentrism and fascist character structures,
which were being disproved?".
Here lies the foundation of PC. To avoid being called racist, sexist, homophobic,
fascist, intolerant etc. one must always suppress his or her more conservative convic-
tions, either by dodging discourse where they might surface, or by adapting newspeak
of euphemisms and circumlocutions. As Kimball (2007) claims, it is “psychological
bullying” in an effort to impose uniformity of thought, speech and behavior. This trend
is further supported by another theoretical invention of Marxism under the influence of
Darwinian ideas – Cultural Determinism. To Horowitz (1998: 4-5), the concept can be
defined in terms of “identity politics-the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution,
and Afro-centrism-which is the basis of academic multiculturalism...a form of intellec-
tual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” The identity
politics, multiculturalism, feminism, sexual liberation etc. were to become the vanguard
of social revolution by providing an antithesis of the core values of the western culture.
Feminism would overthrow oppressive patriarchy, multiculturalism and ‘diversity’
would oust the relative homogeneity of American society, while gender theory and ‘free
love’ would undermine the normalcy of heterosexuality and nuclear family.
Such ideas are given voice in the literary works of Marxist theorists written in
the post second world war years, such as the previously mentioned Authoritarian Per-

17
sonality. In One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Soci-
ety (1964) Marcuse employs harsh criticism of American society as an authoritarian
regime disguised as democracy, ruling not with force but through consumerism and
media indoctrination. An advanced industrial society, according to Marcuse, creates
‘false needs’ and imposes them upon the individuals, as well as employs a particular
media narrative to steer their opinions in a desired direction to promote conformity and
discourage independent thought. This state of ‘unfreedom’ and suppression of individu-
ality is unacceptable to the author. He proposes an alternative in form of the Great Re-
fusal, an ultimate quest for sociopolitical freedom and individual autonomy. Kellner
(2000) defines this concept in the following way:

In order to break through this vicious circle, individuals must transform their present
needs, sensibility, consciousness, values, and behavior while developing a new radical
subjectivity, so as to create the necessary conditions for social transformation. Radical
subjectivity for Marcuse practices the "great refusal" valorized in both Eros and civili-
zation (E&C) and One Dimensional Man (ODM). In E&C (149f), the "Great Refusal is
the protest against unnecessary repression, the struggle for the ultimate form of freedom
-- 'to live without anxiety.'" In ODM (256f), however, the Great Refusal is fundamental-
ly political, a refusal of repression and injustice, a saying no, an elemental oppositional
to a system of oppression, a noncompliance with the rules of a rigged game, a form of
radical resistance and struggle. In both cases, the Great Refusal is based on a subjectivi-
ty that is not able to tolerate injustice and that engages in resistance and opposition to all
forms of domination, instinctual and political. (Kellner 2000)

Bearing in mind the previously discussed shifts in Marxist ideology effectuated by the
Frankfurt school, one could go as far as to draw parallel between Marcuse’s Great re-
fusal and the concept of proletarian revolution theorized by Marx himself; the oppressed
society casting off the symbolic chains forced upon them by their masters. It is, quite
obviously, not nearly as drastic in manner and extent and can therefore be seen merely
as a step towards a more extensive societal reform. Malloy (2006:37) eloquently de-
scribes it as “the philosophical no that preceded the revolutionary yes”, though as he
admits, he personally leans towards establishing and equation between the Great Re-
fusal and revolution on ideological level.
In his previous book, Eros and Civilization (1955), Marcuse gives much thought
to yet another form of repression – the sexual kind. To the author, the ability to freely
express sexual desire is inherently humane and liberating. However, in an advanced
industrial society this ability is repressed. Drawing upon the ideas of Freud, Marcuse
concludes that the sublimation of sexual fulfillment is crucial to ensure widely under-

18
stood progress, and the price for progress is what Lane (1969: 7) refers to as “substitu-
tion of guilt for happiness”. To Lane (1969), the opinions of Marcuse and Freud diverge
on the issue of the cause of such state of affairs. Freud believes that the problem lies in
the inevitable crash of Eros, the instinct for love, life, and sexuality and civilization. To
Marcuse, it was a result of the oppressive nature of capitalistic society, in which labor is
put on pedestal, leisure is limited, and gratification is delayed. He proposed a thorough-
ly utopian idea of “the convergence of labor and play” (Marcuse, as quoted in Bronner,
2011: 180). In his highly idealized view of a socialist society work is indistinguishable
from entertainment. This radical shift, to which Bronner (2011: 180) refers to as “apoca-
lyptic”, would call for a complete redefinition of science and technology; though, stay-
ing true to the fundamentals of critical theory, Marcuse fails to provide any realistic
plan as to how such transformation could be implemented and how this new society
should function, driven by drastically different basic principles.
Lind (2000) criticizes Eros and Civilization (1966) as thinly veiled hedonist
manifesto, echoing the concerns raised by Bronner (2011: 180) regarding the impossi-
bility of creating a social structure proposed by Marcuse. Even more relentless in his
criticism is Flynn (2000: 18):

Marx argued against the exploitation of labor; Marcuse, against labor itself. Don't work,
have sex. This was the simple message of Eros and Civilization, released in 1955. Its
ideas proved to be extraordinarily popular among the fledgling hippie culture of the fol-
lowing decade. It provided a rationale for laziness and transformed degrading personal
vices into virtues.

Indeed, the ideas put forward by the thinkers of the Frankfurt School did not fall on deaf
ears. The works of Marcuse, in particular, were immensely influential among the aca-
demic youth. The Vietnam War, and the nationwide draft associated with it, would
serve as a catalyst for the emergence of a new, powerful movement that would attempt
to put the Cultural Marxist theory into practice.
Adorno laid the basis for development of PC within the American society by
implying that upholding conservative values is near-synonymous with being fascist.
Marcuse further cemented it by providing a theoretical alternative to the oppressive and
unjust system, an idyllic vision of the world of happiness and equality, focused on pur-
suit of pleasure, without wars or back-breaking labour. Contrasted with the austere re-

19
ality, this paradise on earth seemed to young idealists a goal worth fighting for; and
their bloodless warfare of tongue and pen resulted in the birth of PC.

1.3. Rise of the New Left

The 1960’s saw a widespread rebellion of young generation against the established tra-
ditions. Easily digestible and tremendously attractive ideas of the neo-Marxist theorists
captivated the attention of academic youth. What resulted from that was the advent of
the New Left – an anti-establishment and counter-culture movement. McMillan and
Buhle (2002: 5) defines it as “a loosely organized, mostly white student movement that
advocated for democracy, civil rights, and various types of university reforms, and pro-
tested against the Vietnam war”. Their activism was largely concerned with the issues
of free speech, rights of the minorities, widely understood tolerance, and general dissat-
isfaction with the internal as well as international policies of the United States govern-
ment. In his essay entitled “Letter to the New Left” (1960), C. Wright Mills, an influen-
tial sociologist and self-admitted Marxist sympathizer, commended the activists for
their attempts to transform the old-left ideology into a modern form, where the primary
focus is on the opposition of oppressive culture, rather than class warfare.
As means of spreading awareness of their ideas, new leftists chose protests and
demonstrations on campuses. Unsurprisingly, the most influential member of the Frank-
furt School still remaining in the United States, Herbert Marcuse, became a de facto
ideological guru of the movement. Ruthless critics of Cultural Marxism, such as Flynn
(2005) and Lind (2000) believe it to be a fact of pivotal importance. Through his literary
work and lectures conducted as a professor at the University of California, Marcuse
aimed to steer the movement into whichever direction he desired; and the direction he
chose was to radicalize its principles, and to antagonize and deface any dissent, making
any sort of consensus impossible. Much like Bronner (2011), Flynn (2005: 20-21) is
skeptical as to whether or not Marcuse actually believed his highly idealized dream of
all-play-no-work society would ever come to fruition. He is leaning towards an opinion
that it was merely demagogic drivel, aimed to incite hatred of the current system, as
well as a desire to break it, among the young people using empty promises of an unat-
tainable paradise on earth. What is certain is that he was immensely successful in instil-

20
ling his ideas in the minds of American youth. In Marcuse, the American academic
youth found a mentor and a guide towards a new, better society. In turn, Marcuse finally
obtained agents of his precious social revolution.
According to Kellner (2004: 9-10), on the frontier of the transformation move-
ment Marcuse envisioned an alliance between enlightened intelligentsia and “the out-
siders”, among whom he enumerates the unemployed and unemployable, racial minori-
ties, and alternative sexual orientations. To him, those social outcasts are in the most
dire need of systemic change, but have no chance of achieving it without the help and
support of the academics; and such desperate need for fundamental shift calls for un-
compromising actions. In One Dimensional Man (1964) he writes that the systemic
transformation of such profound proportions cannot happen without victims and mar-
tyrs, that the brave young man and women who dare to speak against the old order face
violent opposition and police brutality, they risk jail and concentration camps, they defy
harm and death by refusing to “play the game”. (Marcuse 1964, as quoted in Kellner
2004: 8-9). However, as Flynn (2005: 19) points out, he did condone violence if it was
committed against the widely understood establishment. He praised militant groups,
such as the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, and Symbionese Liberation Army, arguing
that the acts of terror and brutality perpetrated by them were not intended to start a new
chain of violence but to break the old one. Similarly, he encouraged the use of swear
words but only if they should be utilized to insult the system. These highly questionable
opinions stand in accordance with a new idea, which Marcuse introduced in 1965 in an
essay “Repressive Tolerance”. In it he writes:

They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups
and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimina-
tion on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public ser-
vices, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought
may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational
institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within
the established universe of discourse and behavior-thereby precluding a priori a rational
evaluation of the alternatives. (Marcuse, 1965: 102).

Under the blanket terms of chauvinism and intolerance, critics of Marcuse, such as
Flynn (2005) and Veith (2013), see distorted beliefs of conservative circles. Therefore,
“liberating tolerance” would mean tolerance of left-leaning opinions and discrimination
against the philosophy of the right. Conservative critics are thoroughly appalled by the
duplicitous nature of Marcuse’s teachings. Flynn (2005: 24) sees in them manifestations

21
of the Orwellian newspeak. In the spirit of relativism so cherished by Cultural Marxists
and proponents of critical theory, tolerant could mean two entirely different things de-
pending on to whom and by whom it was applied. Horkheimer famously wrote “Logic
is not independent of content” (as quoted in Jay, 1973: 55). What follows, according to
Lind (2000), is that an argument is logical if it supports one’s cause, and illogical if it
does not. The meaning of words and phrases could readily be changed, twisted, and
distorted to fit the narrative and control discourse. The seed of PC has been planted on
the new continent, only to grow and develop in the following decades and continuously
erode the culture of the United States

1.4. From young rebels to tenured radicals

According to Gaitlin (1980: 21-22), the second half of the 1960s was the most prolific
period for the American New Left, with the year 1965 being of pivotal importance. Stu-
dents for a Democratic Society, a central organization of the movement, tripled in size
within 10 months and spread its chapters across the country. Anti-establishment ideas
resulted in the rise of popularity of on-campus movements encouraging students to un-
dertake political activism. Due to its sudden rise in prominence, the SDS found itself in
the media spotlight, which in turn brought even more attention to the organization. As
Gaitlin (1980: 22-23) aptly points out, seemingly overnight SDS went from a small,
elite group who communicated their ideas “face to face”, to a large and significant force
on the sociopolitical scene. As such, the organization became both famous and infa-
mous among average Americans.
According to Staples (2000), most would see the students as “spoiled brats”,
faux revolutionaries leeching off their parents, while more liberal voices would describe
them as “flawed but earnest idealists”. However, the aforementioned flaws were quite
significant. Their leaders were accused of having close relations with the Black Pan-
thers, a militant Black Nationalist organization notorious for their involvement in crimi-
nal activities. Their demonstrations frequently included flag-burnings and chanting of
anti-American slogans, which, quite obviously, riled the more patriotic individuals.
Gaitlin (1980: 183-184) adduces examples of the SDS members being quoted in news-
papers, saying that they are building guerilla force in their places of residence and ac-
tively organizing sedition. Although he is of the opinion that SDS was somewhat un-

22
justly radicalized by sensationalist media, Gaitlin (1980: 183-184) concurs that with its
numerical growth the organization took a more militant, extremist turn.

1.4.1. Deceptive nature of the Free Speech Movement

Between 1964 and 1965 SDS, as well as a group of independent activists, organized a
protest of unprecedented scope at the campus of the University of California. The Free
Speech Movement, as they came to be known, attempted under the guise of a noble
principle to politicize academic life and spread awareness of their neoliberal cause. At
that time political activism and fundraising were banned on the University grounds,
with exceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties. Some of the students saw the
existing system as a violation of freedom of speech and conducted numerous meetings
and protests (peaceful at first) to have it overruled.
Eventually, the University President issued a statement, in which he rejected the
aforementioned postulates claiming that picketing and accepting donations for political
causes is not an academic or intellectual activity and thus has no place on the University
campus. According to Heirich (1973: 116-117), the decision was met with indignation
by the protesting students and pushed them to seek a more combative approach. The
climax of the situation was a massive demonstration in front of the President’s Office
consisting of several thousand students, virtually shutting down the university, resulting
in multiple conflicts with other students and the police. With the escalation of the con-
flict, which all but descended into a riot, campus administrators agreed to renew negoti-
ations with the representatives of protesters. Though smaller pickets and demonstrations
would continue to appear on the campus, the members of Freedom Speech Movement
would claim their victory when in 1965 the administration designated a part of the cam-
pus as open discussion area suitable for student activism.
To many it would appear as if free speech had triumphed over stagnant and op-
pressive system that prevented young, intelligent individuals from engaging in political
discourse with their peers. However, its critics see the Free Speech Movement in a dras-
tically different light. Stern (2014), once a student at Berkeley and a participant in the
protests, hangs his head in shame while reminiscing about his involvement in the
movement. Idealistic slogans, heated speeches about the necessity of democracy in aca-
demic environment and liberation of ideas were to him nothing more than a charade.

23
The Free Speech Movement was a leftist Trojan horse, bringing into the campus not
political diversity but cultural Marxism. Stern (2014) laments his failure to recognize
the signs of this deception, among which he enumerates a visible perversion of lan-
guage, manifested in comparisons made between campus police and Nazi officers, at-
tempts to change the spelling of the word ‘America’, or referring to the existing socio-
political system as “fascism in disguise”. In fact, any dissent to their cause would be
labeled by the protestors as fascist, racist, oppressive, bigoted, along with a whole bar-
rage of similarly clichéd buzzwords. “We came to view America as a racist and imperi-
alist power—covering its tracks with a beguiling opportunity for self-expression and
conspicuous consumption for a considerable and privileged part of its population.” said
the self-imposed leader of the Free Speech Movement, Mario Savio (as quoted in Stern,
2014) twenty years after his little revolution petered out. However, remnants of that
period last to this day, enacting influence on American academia.

1.4.2. From marketplaces of ideas to institutions of indoctrination

Student rebels eventually returned from protest camps to the lecture halls and, in time,
obtained their degrees. Neither the process of education nor the passing of time have
managed to quench the rebellious fire in their hearts. To the contrary, with their radical
ideas given academic gloss, they renewed their efforts to politicize the scholarly com-
munity. Roger Kimball coined the term “tenured radicals” (Kimball, 1991) in his highly
influential critique of the state of American colleges in the late 20th century. He used it
to characterize the new academic elite, rebels turned professors, relentless in their at-
tempts to inject leftist ideology into education process; a group far more dangerous than
flag-burning, slogan-chanting young idealists as he would describe them. Their weapon
became, once again, critical theory, now applied to their respective fields of study, re-
sulting in the raise of social studies, scholastic multiculturalism, and anti-bias curricula.
With the belief that concrete sciences are inherently connected with hegemonic white
culture, no area of academic interest would be exempt from the destructive influence of
cultural Marxism. The outcome of this line of thought would be such absurd constructs
as Anti-Racism mathematics (Joseph 1994: 67) or quotas in academic course design that
necessitated for inclusion of the themes of race, gender, and class, regardless of the
course topic (Maloney 2007). Unsurprisingly, the branch of sciences affected the most

24
by this trend were humanities, where researchers would bend over backwards to appear
more progressive and inclusive towards the underprivileged; or to find yet another ele-
ment of oppressive white patriarchal culture in literary classic. Kimball (1991) com-
ments on this phenomenon with bitter amusement:

No one familiar with the land of thing that passes for scholarship today will be surprised
to discover—to take just one example—that the presentation of a paper called “Jane
Austen and the Masturbating Girl” at the 1989 annual meeting of the Modern Language
Association was matched by a paper at the 1990 meeting on “The Lesbian Phallus: Or,
Does Heterosexuality Exist?” (One might have thought that the evidence for the exist-
ence of heterosexuality was well established, but evidence does not necessarily count
for much among our new academic elite.)

Even more concerning, to Kimball (1991), is multiculturalism, or rather its perversion at

the hands of “tenured radicals”, which, reflecting the paradoxical nature of PC, serves
not to encourage pluralism and recognize genuine diversity of cultures, but to at any
cost undermine traditional Western values. As such, it imposes a narrative of victim-
hood among racial and sexual minorities and perpetuates the us-versus-them attitude.
An ideology that seemingly sets out to unite groups of different backgrounds and orien-
tations divides them even further. Those and other aspects of poststructuralist and neo-
Marxist influence on science and academia will be discussed in greater detail and more
concrete terms in the third chapter. It is however essential to understand the general
direction, in which the academic standards were headed in the 1980’s. In many a case,
the great marketplace of ideas that is a University became a monopoly through domina-
tion of ideology-driven faculty members and a powerful machine for social engineering.
This worrisome trend, where American colleges were rapidly changing into “institutions
of higher indoctrination” (Fiamengo 2014) sparked a heated, nation-wide debate.

1.4.3. American academia in the spotlight: the great debate about Political Cor-
rectness

Late 1980’s was the time where PC first entered American socio-political field as an
actual phrase, rather than a mysterious phenomenon, the presence of which was felt but
never identified. By 1995, as both Losey and Kurthen (1995: 3) as well as Bush (1995:
42) agree, it was the most overused term in the media. It emerged as a form of accusa-

25
tion and quickly became a go-to catchphrase of the right-wing politicians and pundits to
openly mock neo-liberal line of thought. The aforementioned alarming developments in
the American academic institutions gained extensive publicity, notably owing to articles
in influential newspapers, such as Newsweek and Forbes. In “Taking Offense” Adler et
al. (1990) adduce a whole litany of instances from campuses at that time of liberal stu-
dents being offended by complete non-issues and taking pro-minority causes to absurd
lengths. The authors denounced PC as a thoroughly totalitarian philosophy, attempting
to censors freedom of speech and expression, and to change the consciousness “of this
entire generation of university students”.
This was the aspect that captivated the attention of general public. What could
have previously been attributed to naivety of the students, seeking approval and recog-
nition as progressive and thoughtful of the rights of the unprivileged, now was shown in
the light of an underlying, aggressive agenda being implemented in the institutions that
are, after all, meant to disseminate knowledge and broaden their horizons. “Are You
Politically Correct?”, asks The New York Times magazine (Kosner 1992) enumerating
some of the most amusingly irrational neo-liberal neologisms and euphemisms, as well
as mocking the Orwellian characteristics of the phenomenon. In May 1991, in an ad-
dress to the students of the University of Michigan at a Commencement Ceremony in
Ann Arbor, President George Bush addressed the issue in a far more serious tone:

Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under as-
sault throughout the United States, including on some college campuses. The notion of
political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the move-
ment arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and
hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, cer-
tain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits. […]What began as a crusade
for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship. Disputants treat
sheer force -- getting their foes punished or expelled, for instance -- as a substitute for
the power of ideas. (Bush, 1991).

The response of the left was quite predictable in its nature, ranging mostly from com-
plete dismissal of the existence of PC, to ad hominem attacks, denouncing conservative
critics as opponents of equality. Kohl (1992: 5-9) claims that not only the term, but the
entire debate surrounding it, was invented by neo-conservatives, as a clever ploy to
overtly discredit progressive ideas of liberal thought using isolated instances of abuse of
power, to insinuate that proponents of those ideas are somehow tied with communism,
and to immunize themselves from criticism by posing as defenders of free speech.

26
Many a time the concept of McCarthyism comes up, drawing a parallel between PC
allegations and the anti-communist fear mongering campaign employed in the 1950’s.
Some critics attempted to remain neutral in the debate, notably James D. Hunter
(as quoted in Bush, 1995: 44), who claimed that such a clash of ideas was a result of a
far broader issue, namely the question of moral authority. As such, the discourse around
PC and American academia should be cherished as a part of a continuous process of
cultural dialogue, where full involvement of both parties may result in greater reciprocal
understanding or some sort of consensus. Essentially, he only opposes the practical real-
ization of the debate, which was often reduced to shouting matches and mutual accusa-
tions with hardly anything to do with the matter at hand.
In his groundbreaking, book-long study Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race
and Sex on Campus, D'Souza (1998: 1) condemns such approach, claiming there is no
longer any middle ground in the debate nor place for fence-sitters. As an academic him-
self, D’Souza provided a far more comprehensive account of the crisis of liberal educa-
tion; and as a member of a racial minority he could not be dismissed as yet another
‘bigoted white male.’ In his work, the author bashed the effect of affirmative action on
university admission policies, the distortion of multiculturalism, the unscientific charac-
ter of identity studies, as well as the widespread indoctrination and intolerance. Simi-
lar concerns appear in Rush Limbaugh’s The way things ought to be (1993), though they
are expressed in much more crude and accusatory terms, and without academic tone
characteristic of the works of D’Souza. As an unrelenting critic of all that is liberal,
Limbaugh indulges in a disparaging attack on academic institutions, the media, left-
leaning politicians, and “equality movements”. His most harsh criticism is directed at
the third wave feminists, whom he considers the most serious threat to American values
(1993: 193). He famously coined the term feminazi to illustrate the militant nature of the
movement, as well as their intolerance and hostility towards disparate sociopolitical
views. Much like the author, the text is quite vulgar, plain rude at times, with a distinct
populist tone. Notwithstanding, it was immensely popular and, along with its follow-up
See, I Told You So (Limbaugh, 1994) it made New York Times bestseller list and pro-
pelled its author to stardom as one of the leading ultraconservative critics. According to
Bush (1995: 45) such great success of the books was reflective of the general stance of
American society on the issue - disillusionment with more toned-down approach to-

27
wards PC expressed in mainstream media as well as an ever growing concern for the
state of the academia under its influence.

1.4.4. Sokal affair and criticism of post-modern science

In 1996, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics and mathematics at NYU submitted an arti-
cle to Social Text, an academic journal published by the Duke University. His work,
entitled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity (Sokal, 1996a) made an attempt to define quantum mechanics as a
linguistic and social construct. He makes a similar observation regarding physical reali-
ty, all but stating that laws of physics are merely conventions. Moreover, he draws par-
allel between mathematical axiom of equality and the equality postulated by minority
movements, claims that recent findings within the field of quantum physics correspond
with the speculations of neo-Freudians, and applies Derrida’s deconstruction to Ein-
stein’s theory of relativity. Essentially, Sokal (1996a) gives the still debatable theory
regarding the very nature of the universe political implications.
The ideas put forward in the article should seem completely absurd even to indi-
viduals with minimal knowledge of physics and mathematics. However, the article was
published in the journal in spring 1996 as a part of the “Science Wars” issue and gar-
nered some positive attention from the readers. In spite of its sheer irrationality, the text
slipped past the editors, who failed to have it peer reviewed or apply common sense.
Only after it was published did the author reveal his true intention. In the May issue of
Lingua Franca, Sokal (1996b) submitted yet another article. In it, he identified his pre-
vious work as an elaborate hoax and in great detail described particular fallacies he had
used. The purpose of the ploy was to expose the new generation of academics as
pseudointellectuals, who would agree with anything, as long as it fit their narrative and
was dressed in pompous language and accompanied by grandiose quotations. Sokal
succeeded in revealing the postmodern social scientists as incompetent and imprudent,
condemning their foolish attempts to dabble with hard sciences. He writes:

Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from
the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For
most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against ob-
scurantism; we have believed that rational thought and the fearless analysis of objective

28
 reality (both natural and social) are incisive tools for combating the mystifications pro-
moted by the powerful -- not to mention being desirable human ends in their own right.
The recent turn of many ``progressive'' or ``leftist'' academic humanists and social sci-
entists toward one or another form of epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage
and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing
about ``the social construction of reality'' won't help us find an effective treatment for
AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ide-
as in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and fal-
sity. (Sokal, 1996b).

Sokal’s criticism is directed at the core constituents of cultural Marxism and

critical theory and, through that, the very basis of PC. As a leftist of the old
guard, he condemned the direction the left has taken, giving ground to trendy but
ultimately meaningless ideas put forward by postmodern intellectuals. Indeed,
the far-right camp, notorious for its attacks on science on religious basis, was
joined in the deed by neo-liberals. Amusingly, the latter invented far more inane
arguments against natural sciences. Notable feminist Hélène Cisoux (1976: 876
as quoted in Mandelker [n.d]: 53) criticized the scientific language as “phallo-
centric” and urged women to employ language that is never simple, objective,
and straight to the point, encouraging irrationality and following feelings rather
than logic. Sandra Harding (1986: 113 as quoted in Nemcek 1994: 99-100), re-
ferred to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a “rape manual” because science is
a male rape on female nature. Luce Irigaray (1987: 110 as quoted in Dawkins
1998: 142) calls E=mc2 a "sexed equation” due to the speed of light taking privi-
leged position over all other “speeds necessary to us”. These are but few of
many examples of the utterly ludicrous blather peddled by postmodern pseudo-
scientists.
In the light of such blatant misuse and abuse of scholastic terms, open
rejection of scientific theory, and asinine conclusions reached by applying criti-
cal theory to natural laws, one can understand the rightful outrage of proper sci-
entists at the state of American academia. One could also assume that with a
nation-wide debate, plethora of articles and books on the subject, with social
experiments such as Sokal’s hoax, and with the aforementioned pseudo-
scientists embarrassing themselves, one inane theory at a time, something would
have been done about college campuses being bastions of deranged leftist prop-
aganda and quackery. Surely, a university is not a place for individuals who re-
nounce logic itself and refuse to engage in a discourse if it does not fit their nar-

29
rative. However, as the third chapter will attempt to prove, PC is now more than
ever entrenched in American academia and postmodern thought continues to
erode empirical science. The extensive deliberation about it only managed to
introduce the concept of PC to general public as a blanket term for all the more
or less nonsensical failed attempts of the left-leaning individuals to appear pro-
gressive and egalitarian. Withal, the phenomenon itself continues to pose a sig-
nificant threat to freedom of speech and expression. The following chapter will
explore the manners in which it operates within the fields of linguistics and psy-
chology.

1.5. Summary

The main objective of this chapter was to establish a connection between cultur-
al Marxism and PC, to show how the translation of Marxist ideology into cultur-
al terms ultimately resulted in the birth of a psycholinguistic phenomenon,
which under the guise of promoting equality and protecting the rights of the un-
derprivileged, aims to limit free speech and instill leftist agenda into modern
American society. The first subchapter deals with the definition of PC in its con-
temporary understanding. The second subchapter traces the genesis of PC and
attempts to present it as a concept inseparably tied to Marxist ideology. The re-
maining subchapters show the manner in which PC was brought into the Ameri-
can sociocultural context and how it rapidly rose in prevalence, culmination in a
great media debate in the 1990’s.

30
Chapter 2: PC as a psychological and linguistic phenomenon

In this chapter Political Correctness will be discussed in linguistic and psychological

terms. The first subchapter shall outline the origins and development of linguistic
theories regarding the relation between language and thought, culminating with Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis as theoretical groundwork for the application of PC. Subsequently,
specific linguistic structures operating within PC language will be analysed and
categorized. Finally, the last subchapter will focus on PC in relation to cognitive
psychology.

2.1. Linguistic relativity as a theoretical basis of Political Correctness

A central issue for the analysis of PC is that of the relationship between thought and
language; the ways in which thought is conveyed through language and how language
can affect thought. This interrelation has been a subject of a debate lasting centuries.
Plato (as discussed in Russel, 1967: 120-122), argued for the existence of eternal ideas,
the world of forms, with corresponding linguistic items representing them. As an exam-
ple: there are many animals that could be described as a cat. They share similar appear-
ance and behaviour; they make similar sounds. The word cat, therefore, corresponds
with numerous living organisms and provides sufficient description to evoke an image
of a cat in one’s mind. The word itself is independent of any particular cat. It does not
gain meaning when the cat is born nor does it lose it when the cat dies; it is eternal. In-
stead, the word refers to a unique, ideal cat that holds the essence of ‘catness’ and of
which particular cats are only inadequate reflections. A distinguished student of Plato,
Aristotle, attempted to specify the ways in which people form links between concepts

31
and words in what He (2011: 560) refers to as the first ever systematic discussion of the
relation between language and thought. He introduced ten main categories according to
which people classify foreign items and experiences prior to forming a comprehensive
understanding of them, namely: “Essence, Quantity, Quality, Comparison, Position,
Time, Being, Having Been, Action and Being Acted Upon.”
In far less metaphysical terms than Plato, St. Augustine of Hippo determined
words to only be labels applied to items existing in reality, where meaning is what the
object stands for (Wittgenstein, [1953] 2009: 3). According to He (2011: 560), the be-
lief that language is a reflection of the objective world and thought remained prevalent
throughout the Middle Ages as what later came to be known as the theory of linguistic
reflectionism, the essence of which is perhaps best encapsulated in the words of Witt-
genstein ([1922] 2007: 74): “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. It
would not be until 17th century that such a belief would be challenged. As He (2011:
560-561) reports, in 1697 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz introduced a notion that language
is not merely a vehicle for thought but a medium that determines it. Such an idea would
be echoed by later scholars, namely a 19th century German linguist Wilhelm von Hum-
boldt. According to Grumperz (1996: 70), the main area of Humboldt’s interest was
diversity of languages and corresponding speech communities, as well as the role of
language in shaping particular, distinct “Weltanschauung” (worldview) within afore-
mentioned communities. The conclusion he came to was that each language involves a
certain set of worldviews and that being a user of a language binds an individual with
said views. He writes: “Language is the formative organ of thought (…) Thought and
language are one and inseparable from each other” (Humboldt [1836] 1988: 54, as
quoted in Gumperz 1996: 70). Much like a word stands between a man and an object, so
does the language between him and reality.

He (2011) and Gumperz (1996) agree that the ideas put forward by Humboldt had a pro-
found influence on an acclaimed American linguist Edward Sapir. In The status of the
linguistics as science ([1922] 1985: 162-163) he refers to language as a guide to social
reality and a medium of expression for societies. He further argues: Human beings do
not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinar-
ily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has be-
come the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that
one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely
an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The
fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to a large extent unconsciously built upon
the language habits of the group. … The World in which different societies live are dis-
tinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. (Sapir [1922]
1985: 162)

32
 To understand a poem, Sapir ([1922] 1985: 162-3) asserts, it is not enough to be
able to comprehend individual words on paper. The task involves understanding the life
of the community as reflected in words that lends contextual meaning to the text.
Throughout his work, the author places a great emphasis on the role of cultural factors
for the understanding of a language and vice versa – the role of language as an aid in the
study of cultural phenomena.
Sapir’s views were shared by his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf, a linguist great-
ly invested in the study of indigenous languages. As He (2011: 561) reports, in his re-
search of the relation between language and culture and behaviour Whorf compared
and contrasted standard, average European languages (SAE) with the languages of the
native peoples of the south and north America. One of those languages was that of the
Hopi Indians, a primitive, simplistic dialect built with limited linguistic elements.
Gumperz (1996: 47) presumes, that Whorf hoped that the drastic difference in complex-
ity of the Hopi language in comparison to European languages would be reflected in the
culture of the community and that the lack of corresponding linguistic structures for
particular objects and phenomena would be synonymous with absence of the aforesaid
concepts within their worldview. He (2011: 561-2) concurs with this notion and further
elaborates on Whorf’s methods of research as well as his findings.

(…) the implied duration of time in the Hopi language shaped Hopi’s understanding of
time as “getting later” of everything and a process of preparatory accumulation instead
of repeating motions. Such a thinking pattern worked on the Hopi culture that highlight-
ed the importance of “preparing behaviors” and the community spirit of cooperation. In
contrast, the objectified time in SAE not only influenced Westerners’ perception of time
as something separable and measurable, but also cultivated a cultural interest in exact
sequence and historical annals. (He 2011: 561-2)

Gumperz (1996: 43) clarifies, the notion of time in SAE operates within the
same grammatical framework as ordinary object nouns. This objectified nature of time
allows for it to be measured and counted as cyclical experiences; unlike in Hopi, which
treats those cycles as recurrent events or a concept of becoming later.
While scholars such as Sapir only speculated about the possible impact of lan-
guage on thought, Whorf managed to demonstrate actual correspondence between lin-
guistic structures and specific thought models. His findings would later give birth to
what came to be known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He (2011: 561-2) perceives it as
a bit of a misnomer, since neither of the distinguished linguists ever officially formulat-

33
ed a hypothesis under such label and it only gained popularity after their death. It came
to life due to the academic acclaim surrounding works of Sapir and Whorf, which were
often discussed in unison due to similar nature of the theory presented. Notwithstand-
ing, the lack of accurately defined basis of the hypothesis leaves it, to some extent,
vague and open to interpretation.
In its essence, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis entails the idea that one’s thoughts
and behaviors are affected by the language he or she speaks. As such, contemporary
scholars differentiate between two possible understandings of the hypothesis – the
strong and weak versions. Kamiura (2008: 2) refers to the former as linguistic determin-
ism and defines it as a belief that thought and language are identical and that thought
and behavior, as well as perception of reality and sense of being, are dictated by lan-
guage. He (2011: 562) adds that, according to the strong version, “one cannot think
outside the confines of their language.” and argues that it is not difficult to point out
glaring fallacies and oversights in this interpretation. First and foremost, the perception
of the world is, quite obviously, not completely dependent on one’s mother tongue.
Even though certain cultures might lack vocabulary for particular colors it does not in-
dicate that they cannot see them. In all but few isolated cases, human beings share the
same biological makeup and experience colors in the same manner. Furthermore, ab-
sence of words corresponding with particular objects within a language community does
not bar it from perceiving, understanding, and describing the aforesaid object within the
context of their limited language. A member of an isolated, primitive culture who has
never seen an airplane before will still be able to see it and verbally communicate the
encounter to others. Secondly, contemporary psychologists doubt that humans actually
think with words rather than images, symbols, or something even more ambiguous. 1
Anyone who has ever had a word “on the tip of his or her tongue” but failed to articu-
late it knows that it is indeed possible to think of a concept without producing a corre-
sponding word for it. Thirdly, frequent language shifts and changes indicate the primacy
of concepts over words. If human beings were indeed completely confined by the lan-
guage they speak new vocabulary could not possibly emerge. Additionally, Hoijer
(1994, as discussed in He 562-3) criticized linguistic determinism for exaggerating the
role of language in human thought and culture and alleging that the assumptions of the

1
Hurlburt & Akhter (2008) suggest that much of our mental processes take form of unsymbolized think-
ing, a distinct phenomenon that does not involve the experience of words or images.

34
theory imply impossibility of cross-cultural understanding. Moreover, he chastises pro-
ponents of such interpretation for underplaying the role of physical and mental factors
common to all human beings in creation and development of cultures.
For the reasons stated above, as Kamiura (2008: 2) aptly points out, the strong
version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been largely rejected by the academic com-
munity. However, the weak version also known as linguistic relativity, enjoys far more
support from present-day scholars. Rather than something that shapes one’s thoughts
and behavior, linguistic relativity assumes language to be something that exerts more or
less subtle influence on an individual. Furthermore, the weak version stresses the im-
portance of external factors as shapers of language, presuming that one’s worldview as
either an individual or a part of a community leaves its mark on the language he or she
uses. Unlike linguistic determinism, linguistic relativity is supported by several influen-
tial studies.
A notable experiment conducted at the University of Washington under supervi-
sion of Elizabeth F. Lotus and John C. Palmer (1974) attempted to test how particular
kinds of vocabulary influence one’s perception of events. A group of forty-five students
divided into groups of various sizes were shown a video depicting a car crash. After the
viewing was completed each student received a questionnaire regarding circumstances
of the accident. They were to first provide their own account of the events shown in the
video then answer a series of specific question. The question critical for the study was
as follows: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” (Lotus &
Palmer 1974: 586). The control group of nine participants found this question on their
sheets, while the remaining individuals found the word hit replaced by smashed, collid-
ed, bumped, or contacted. The mean speed estimate for the verb smashed was 40.5 mph,
1.2 mph higher than collided, while bumped, hit, and contacted were estimated at 38.1,
34.0, and 31.8 respectively. The researchers concluded that the wording of the question
had a significant influence on the estimates made by participants and was in fact far
more important for the end result than the actual speed of the car in the video. One week
later the participants were asked an additional question: “Did you see any broken
glass?” (Lotus & Palmer 1974: 587). The individuals who had previously received a
questionnaire with the word smashed were over twice as likely to say yes to that ques-
tion as compared to those with the word hit.
Another study of similar nature was conducted by Carroll and Casagrande

35
(1958, as discussed in Carroll 2007: 414). The participants consisted of native English
speakers and Navajo children. In the Navajo language verbs forms encode shape, flat-
ness, and flexibility of an object. The participants were presented with a blue rope and a
yellow stick then asked which one of the two goes together with a blue stick. While the
English-speaking participants chose according to color, matching blue rope with the
stick, the Navajo children put the two sticks together according to shape. The Kay-
Kempton experiment (1984, as discussed in Michaelis 2007:2-3), involved a color dis-
crimination task. Tarahumara speakers, whose language is limited to one word for green
and blue, were grouped with English speaking participants. They were presented with
three chips: green, turquoise, and blue and asked to eliminate the odd one out. While all
the English speakers unanimously removed the blue chip, the Tarahumara speakers
eliminated either the green chip or split randomly.
Linguistic relativity, the idea of mutual interdependence of language and
thought, supported by both theoretical paradigms as well as empirical evidence, paves
the foundation for the existence of PC as a psycholinguistic concept. As Lin (2010: 2)
asserts, the phenomenon stems from attempts to harness this power of language as a
shaper of ideas to impose upon individuals a certain narrative. After all, if thoughts are
indeed influenced by language at our disposal, it follows that a change in words and
linguistic structures we use for certain concepts would result in a revision of our ap-
proach to said concepts. Advocates of PC assume that by employing a language of eu-
phemisms and circumlocutions they can bring unconscious biases into awareness and
allow for the individuals to adjust their world views to their liking. Hateren (1997: 39)
subscribes to this notion, further elaborating that the point of departure for PC specifi-
cally negates the concept of “viewpoint neutrality”. Of similar opinion is Cameron
(2012: 74), who asserts:

There is always a point of view in language, but we are apt to notice it only when it is
not one we share. The politics of discourse are about getting others to believe that the
point of view embodied in this or that verbal representation is not really a point of view
but just the plain truth of the matter, whereas alternative representations are biased and
perverse. Certainly, those who talk about ‘collateral damage’ and ‘elimination of unde-
sirable elements’ are engaged in this kind of politics. But so too are those who tell us
what should have been said in both cases is ‘murder’, and that referring to murder as
‘collateral damage’ is perversion of English language. (Cameron 2012: 74)

Thus, as both Cameron (2012: 74) as well as Hateren (1997: 45) agree, that true
‘realism’ in language appears to be an unattainable ideal. While the opponents of PC

36
often beseech objectivity of language and plain, unobstructed truth to be communicated
in discourse, the PC crowd rebuts that under the guise of seeking the truth hides the de-
sire for the same information to be expressed in a language that is ideologically closer to
their hearts.
Some argue that even dictionaries, often treated as impersonal authorities on the
subject of language and objective reference points for the purpose of decoding the
meaning of words, are not safe from bias. Hughes (2009: 88-91) writes extensively on
the issue of putting too much trust in dictionary definitions, as they often reflect the
zeitgeist of the period in which they were compiled as well as prejudices of the authors.
Even the colossal Oxford English Dictionary is not above criticism. Williams (1976: 16,
as quoted in Huges 2009: 88) writes: “(…) the air of massive impersonality which the
Oxford Dictionary communicates is not so impersonal, so purely scholarly, or so free of
active social and political values as might be supposed from occasional use. Indeed, to
work closely in it is at times to get a fascinating insight into what can be called the ide-
ology of its editors”.
Drawing on the assumption that language is indeed inherently politicized and
can be used as a tool to steer narrative in particular direction it is time to examine spe-
cific strategies employed by proponents of PC in their attempts to shape the world view
of individuals. In the following subchapter linguistic items and structures characteristic
for the PC language will be discussed.

2.2. Lexicology and semantics of Political Correctness

In Political Correctness: A history of semantics and culture Hughes (2009:106-111)

provides a detailed account of the linguistic structures characteristic for the PC lan-
guage. He prefaces his deliberation by considering the question of whether the words
and phrases now considered politically correct are mostly neologisms conceived during
the great debate or pre-existing units of language. As it turns out, a significant number
of items discussed by Hughes (2009: 106-111) falls into the latter category. Although
pinpointing a particular date of coinage for specific words can be an immensely difficult
task, the author argues that many of them were known decades ago; they then faded into
obscurity for years only to be readapted by the PC crowd with either the same or modi-
fied meaning. Another difficulty that immediately presents itself is the distinction be-

37
tween words and phrases actually introduced by proponents of PC and those coined by
their opposition as a form of parody. Certain euphemisms, such as affirmative shopping
in reference to looting or theft, are often so absurd one might find it impossible to think
them genuine, yet when presented with plethora of equally irrational structures of clear-
ly established origin the matter becomes far more complicated.
For the purpose of further analysis Hughes (2009: 110-111) divides PC linguistic
items into four distinct categories according to the degree of opacity. In the first catego-
ry meaning of the word is rather obvious despite its euphemistic character, for instance
chairperson instead of chairman, visually impaired instead of blind, disabled instead of
crippled. The second category includes words the meaning of which is dependent on the
agenda of the user. A notable example of such word is diversity, which, coming from
the mouth of a PC proponent, usually refers to inclusion of racial, ethnic, and religious
minorities as well as balance and equality between genders. Nearly every American
workplace prides itself on promoting diversity and becoming a ‘diversity consultant’ is
now a viable career path. To an uninitiated onlooker, the term, which, in its essence,
refers to plurality of concepts, might seem confusing until it is inspected through the
lens of leftist ideology. Opponents of PC criticize the now commonly used term for be-
ing a distortion of what it should actually encompass, that is mutual acceptance, respect,
and celebration of individual differences, into a tool serving unfairly preferential treat-
ment of minorities. Similar assessment applies to multiculturalism, where conservative
critics (such as Younkins 2004) point out how no one has ever deemed a country ‘too
black’ and in need of cultural enrichment from white people, whereas the opposite hap-
pens frequently.
The third category described by Huges (2009: 110) is that of context-dependent
language, where knowledge of contextual framework is necessary for proper under-
standing of given word or phrase. Such items as collateral damage and friendly fire in-
stead of non-combatant deaths and unintended attack on allied forces are found within
it. Many of the items contained within this category could also be described as examples
of doublespeak. According to Kehl & Livingston (1999: 77-78) it is a concept distinct
from euphemism due to its insidious nature. Doublespeak aims to deceive, manipulate,
and control one’s opinion and behavior through carefully chosen words and phrases that
hide disturbing truths under relatively innocent sounding, vague jargon. As such, it is a
powerful instrument in the hands of those who seek to instill their sociopolitical agenda

38
in others. Although doublespeak is most commonly associated with the government and
politicians, PC crowd has found numerous ways to employ it for their own purposes.
Examples of strictly PC-related doublespeak include violent extremism instead of Is-
lamic terrorism or undocumented worker to refer to illegal immigrants. In neither of the
examples the true meaning behind the buzzword is immediately obvious and it requires
from an individual a certain degree of insight into the particular situation where it ap-
plies.
The fourth category identified by Hughes (2009: 110-111) contains words that
need to be decoded for one to understand them, the implication being neither the context
nor knowledge of the agenda of the person using such word provide any clue as to what
do they actually stand for; the meaning can only be understood if the definition is pro-
vided. One of such items is glass ceiling, a term related to socioeconomic inequality that
had garnered a great deal of attention in the 1990’s and continues to be a subject of con-
troversy to this day. A government-founded organization called The Glass Ceiling
Committee defines the concept in the following way:

The “glass ceiling” is a concept that betrays America’s most cherished principles. It is
the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the
upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements.
(…)The glass ceiling is not only an egregious denial of social justice that affects two-
thirds of the population, but a serious economic problem that takes a huge financial toll
on American business. Equity demands that we destroy the glass ceiling. Smart business
demands it as well. Discrimination — the glass ceiling, in particular — remains another
deep line of demarcation between those who prosper and those left behind. (…) It is not
only a matter of fair play, but an economic imperative that the glass ceiling be shattered.
It matters to the bottom line for businesses and to the future economic stability of Amer-
ica’s families. (Reich et al. 1999: 4-6)

With the definition provided, the symbolism behind the term immediately starts to make
sense; an invisible yet impenetrable barrier keeping the unprivileged social factions
from soaring to the heights of success indeed evokes a vision of a glass ceiling. Similar
is the case with significant other, a phrase that could theoretically refer to any member
of immediate family or a close friend. In fact, it is a gender-neutral term for one’s life
partner that stems from the desire not to disclose one’s marital status and sexual orienta-
tion
Interesting to Hughes (2009: 109) is the prevalence of compounds among the
items enumerated. Some of them are made up of two or more original words but most
are composed of a root word with one of recurrent affixes, such as –phobia, –ism, and –

39
ist. Heteren (1997: 25-26) also recognizes this trend, claiming that, overwhelmingly,
euphemisms are longer than the terms they replace. They either contain more letters,
syllables, or have a higher number of words that the corresponding authentic word.
Heteren (1997: 25-26) identifies two possible reasons for this. Firstly, most Anglo-
Saxon words that are deemed taboo are short. Secondly, the longer a word or phrase, the
easier it is to avoid stating an idea honestly and directly. Another observation made by
Hughes (2009: 110) regarding compound euphemisms concerns negative forms. A curi-
ous dichotomy is apparent when the properties of prefixes –neo and –new are compared.
It would appear that majority of the words preceded by neo– bear negative connotations
(e.g. neocolonialism, neo-nazi, neocon, neo-imperialism). On the other hand, words
with the prefix –new are largely positive (e.g. new age, new woman, new negro, new
labour).
Alternating the spelling of existing words is another linguistic technique em-
ployed by PC crowd, notably radical feminists. Womyn instead of ‘woman’ (with the
plural wimmin) is perhaps the most famous of such alterations, although Tandon (2008:
69) enumerates several different possible alternate spellings such as womban, womon,
or even wom!n. Similarly, the words ‘female’ and ‘human’ can be spelled as femal and
humyn. In both cases, the alternative spelling aims to remove from the feminine terms
the masculine constituents, namely syllables ‘man’ and ‘male’. As Tandon (2008: 69-
70) explains, proponents of such modifications believe them to be symbolic of breaking
away from patriarchal, male-centric language; a statement, that, much like the word,
they do not need a man to feel complete. ‘Man’ is perceived by them as an exclusively
masculine term, regardless of the final shape of the word, and the fact that the feminine
terms are built upon it implies a view on women as a deviation from the norm. Objec-
tively speaking, this could not be further from truth. According to Spender (1990: 14),
in Old English ‘man’ was a gender-neutral term. Masculinity and femininity was estab-
lished through addition of appropriate prefixes, either –wer for man or –wyf for woman.
With time the language evolved and ‘werman’ was simplified into man while ‘wyfman’
turned into woman. Another example of spelling alterations to combat gender bias is
herstory instead of ‘history’. What applies here is the same principle as the one dis-
cussed above, and in the same manner proponents of such machinations reject the his-
torical root of the word. Although ‘history’, Greek in origin, etymologically has nothing
to do with the English possessive pronoun ‘his’, to some, replacing it with ‘her’ leads to

40
a shift of focus – from a biased, male-centric perspective on the events of the past to a
more inclusive one. Sommers (1994: 50) is been deeply critical of such beliefs, defend-
ing ‘history’ as a perfectly apt name for an objective science while condemning herstory
as an attempt to inject ideology into education. However, it does not deter notable writ-
ers from using it, as proven by the existence of such books as Herstory: Women who
changed the world (Ashby & Orn 1995) or Daughters of Eve: a Herstory Book (Kelch-
ner 2004).
Staying on the subject of gender-sensitive language, as Hughes (2009: 181) re-
ports, there has been much controversy regarding the push to neutralize gender-specific
professional terms. Such job titles as ‘fireman’, ‘salesman’, ‘alderman’, or ‘policeman’
were assumed to be biased towards men by the proponents of PC, who sought alterna-
tive words to replace them. The resolution came in a form of a new suffix, –person, to
replace the dreaded ‘man’; thus, a ‘salesman’ became salesperson and ‘chairman’
turned into a chairperson. Those new structures enjoyed mixed reception but were ap-
parently eminent enough to make their way into the dictionary.

Consciousness of Political Correctness in the eighties and nineties has encouraged the
development of such forms, and tended to result in a less self-conscious use of many of
the resulting compounds. A visitor to a restaurant may expect to be served by a waitper-
son (and even refer to the activity as waitpersoning); watching a local news report he or
she might see an alderperson or a clergyperson being questioned by a pressperson.
(The Oxford Dictionary of New Words 1997, as quoted in Hughes 2009: 181)

Unsurprisingly, none of compounds found in the above quotation ever came into
broader use. Neither did the robotic-sounding waitron, yet another attempt at coining a
gender-inclusive term for waiting staff. Job titles with distinct feminine and masculine
versions, such as ‘actor/actress’ or ‘comedian/comedienne’ also became a bone of con-
tention in the PC debate. According to Aarts & McMahon (2006: 737), feminine forms
are only marked with respect to masculine, firstly in a way that something has to be
added to create a feminine form, and secondly because only the masculine form can be
used generically. As such, they have been criticized as unfairly male-centric. Some of
the efforts to neutralize professional terms have been rewarded, and such titles as police
officer, firefighter, bartender, flight attendant, postal worker and chairperson or chair
are currently widely used in place of policeman, fireman, stewardess, mailman, and
chairman. Nonetheless, staying politically correct in relation to job titles is a murky
issue, as there appears to be no definite general rule regarding the formation and usage

41
of professional terms.
Comparably complex is the matter of gender-specific pronouns. According to
Hughes (2009: 6), quite recently a campaign formed with the aim to prohibit the use of
prescriptive masculine pronouns. As Penfield (1987: 19-22) points out, traditionally in
writing, ’he’ and its derived forms (/’his’/’him’/’himself’) would be applied in a case of
indeterminate gender (e.g. A student should attend all the lectures if he wants to gradu-
ate). This is, once again, perceived by feminists as preferential treatment of masculinity
in text and essentially a sexist practice. Several gender-neutral alternatives have been
proposed, among which Hughes (2009: 6), Aarts & McMahon (2006: 336), and Penfield
(1987: 28-31) enumerate: ‘s/he’, ‘he or she’, and singular ‘they’. While the former two
are rather self-explanatory and plausible replacements, the recently gaining popularity
singular ‘they’ or ‘their’ is a curious structure. An example of a sentence using ‘singular
they’ would be: ‘Whenever I meet a friend I hug them’. Critics of the idea are quick to
condemn it as grammatically incorrect and silly-sounding. However, distinguished lin-
guists, such as Pinker (2014: 78) argue that it is in fact a centuries-old form that only
lately has enjoyed resurgence on major scale.

Recently, various new constructions or new words have been proposed to mitigate per-
ceived English linguistic sexism; these are innovations, and must be evaluated as such.
But singular "their" (etc.) is not an innovation, but old established good usage. So here
anti-sexism and traditional English usage go hand-in-hand -- and those who object to
singular "their" can find no support from history, linguistics, or the aim of inclusive lan-
guage. Already in 1894, the famed grammarian and linguist Otto Jespersen (who was
decidedly not a feminist himself) wrote in his book Progress in Language: With Special
Reference to English (§24) that "it is at times a great inconvenience to be obliged to
specify the sex of the person spoken about. [...] if a personal pronoun of common gen-
der was substituted for he in such a proposition as this: `It would be interesting if each
of the leading poets would tell us what he considers his best work', ladies would be
spared the disparaging implication that the leading poets were all men." (so that it can
hardly be claimed that a concern about such matters is only a recent outgrowth of 1970's
feminism or so-called "PC" ideology). (Pinker 2014: 78)

As such, there might indeed be a far better rationale for complete implementa-
tion of such structure than it would appear at face value. However, as of yet, there is no
general consensus regarding legitimacy of ‘singular they’. While some literary sources,
such as The Chicago Manual of Style (1982) consider it a proper linguistic structure,
others remain neutral or outright reject it.2

2
The matter of subjective personal pronouns in connection with transgender/alternative sexuality circles
will be analysed in the third chapter.

42
 If nothing else, the vast array of attempts to inject PC into everyday speech
proves that language is far from a dogmatic, inert database of linguistic structures. As
Rosa (2007: 42) points out, language is much like a living organism, subject to constant
change and diachronic transformation. However, some linguistic domains undergo such
shifts more frequently than others, owing to the influence of PC. Taboo words, for in-
stance, tend to be periodically replaced by new, less controversial words, until the latter
themselves acquire negative connotations and a yet another word takes their place.
Pinker (2002: 190) refers to this phenomenon as ‘euphemism treadmill’. A euphemism,
in itself an expression intended to blanket a potentially offensive, crude, or ugly term,
with time undergoes a process of pejoration and becomes as distasteful as the original
word. Accordingly, ‘water closet’ became a ‘toilet’, which became ‘bathroom’, which
in turn became ‘restroom’ or ‘lavatory’. Words such as ‘idiot’, ‘imbecile’, ‘moron’, and
‘cretin’ used to be official terms for the classification of mental deficiency. According
to Jara (2007), such terms became obsolete when society at large started using them as
insults, and were replaced by ‘mentally retarded’. Soon enough, ‘mentally retarded’
started being abused by laymen and calls were made for alterations in official nomen-
clature. As Hingston (2011) claims, the ‘r-word’ is now gradually giving way to such
terms as mentally challenged, intellectually handicapped, mentally disabled, or various
combinations of those words. In 2006 The American Association on Mental Retarda-
tion dropped its name in favor of Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disa-
bilities. A similar fate met the now popular slang term ‘lame’, which used to mean ‘hav-
ing difficulty with walking’. According to Nerlich & Burkhardt (2010: 363), it rode the
euphemism treadmill through ‘crippled’, ‘handicapped’, ‘disabled’, down to ‘differently
abled’, which is the current preferred term. Of course this trend is not limited to medical
nomenclature. Another example given by the authors referenced above is that of the
term for ‘black people’, which started with ‘negroes’, then ‘colored’, then ‘African-
Americans’ or ‘people of color’. What is important to note is that while the construction
‘people of color’ is considered appropriate, ‘colored people’ is not because, according
to Folkins (1992: 1-7) it puts the word ‘people’ in a secondary, dehumanizing position.
The people-first language is a method to emphasize the humanity of individuals regard-
less of ethnic, racial, and religious differences as well as their potential disabilities.
Therefore, ‘people of Islam’ and ‘a lawyer who has schizophrenia’ are more PC than
‘Islamic people’ and ‘schizophrenic lawyer’. Even seemingly neutral words such as

43
‘minority’ cannot avoid the treadmill. As Pinker (2002: 190-191) recalls, a certain city
in the USA attempted to abolish ‘minority’, deeming it disparaging to non-whites, and
replacing it with AHANA (African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native-American).
Pinker (2002: 190-191) is rather amused by such desperate attempts at being PC. None-
theless, he rejects the possibility of the phenomenon of euphemism treadmill disappear-
ing in the foreseeable future. To him, it is yet another proof of the concept briefly dis-
cussed in the initial paragraphs of this chapter - that people tend to think with concepts
and symbols rather than words. If the concept itself is controversial or offensive it will
remain as such no matter how ornate a euphemism it is camouflaged by. The only reso-
lution is to change, through dialogue and mutual understanding, the preconceptions
about the concept rather than cover it with yet another word-blanket.

2.3. PC and cognitive psychology

Although in academic circles PC is mostly a subject of vivid interest among linguists,

the phenomenon is near-inseparable from the field of psychology. After all, as it was
previously discussed, the rationale for application of PC derives from the assumption
that specific linguistic forms can influence one’s mind and shape his or her worldview.
Having examined grammatical and semantic devices connected with PC, it is time to
test this assumption based on psychological and sociological research. Unfortunately,
the psychology of PC is a severely understudied subject. According to Wright & Cum-
mings (2005: 20) this is because it is politically incorrect to question PC and researchers
tend to steer away from the subject. Nonetheless, the following subchapter will be dedi-
cated to analysis of case studies as well as examination of various sources related to the
field of psychology.
In a study published in Psychological Science journal Norton et al (2006) inves-
tigated a phenomenon they referred to as “strategic color blindness”. Their hypothesis
was that PC influences people to pretend not to notice race of other individuals as not to
appear prejudiced. The first experiment in the study involved fifty-seven white students
whose task was to categorize photographs of 24 volunteers according to factors such as
race, gender, hair color, background color, or age. Subsequently, they were asked which
of characteristics of the people in the pictures they identified the fastest. Researchers,

44
who had timed the reactions of participants, found that they were the quickest to catego-
rize by background color, followed by gender, and then race. However, the students
named race as the second to last characteristic to identify. The very same experiment
was repeated with black students. Although the results of the grouping tasks were simi-
lar, black participants were far more likely to name race as a primary characteristic they
used to identify the photographs. Norton et al (2006) believe that such a discrepancy
stems from whites to appear tolerant, as though the race of an individual has no bearing
on their evaluation of him or her.
To further test this theory a second experiment was conducted. This time, thirty
white students played a game of questions and answers. Each of the participants entered
a room alone where they were met by an either black or white confederate. Subsequent-
ly, they were assigned as the one asking questions and given twenty-four pictures from
previous study. The person answering was given an album containing the same photo-
graphs and asked to open it on random page. Through questions regarding visual char-
acteristics the participants were supposed to establish at which photograph is the con-
federate looking at. Unsurprisingly, the participants talking to a black confederate either
refused to ask about race of the person in the picture, or did so at far later stages of the
game when compared to those who talked to a white confederate. Moreover, when the
question regarding race was finally asked, whites talking to black would be more likely
to ask “Is he an African-American?” rather than “Is he black?”, which happened more
of the white-on-white scenarios. Independent coders, who later watched video record-
ings of the experiment pointed out that white participants paired with black confederates
and eventually asked about race looked more nervous and were less likely to maintain
eye contact. The researchers concluded that “strategic color blindness” severely inhibit-
ed the ability of whites to perform this trivial task. Concerned with PC-necessitated ra-
cial sensitivity the participants were unable to act naturally.
In a study conducted at Cornell University, Boven (2000) examined ‘pluralistic
ignorance’ and its relation to PC. His main assumption was that the pressure created by
PC standards leads people to publicly proclaim beliefs that are not actually their own for
fear of being labeled a bigot. This, in turn, could lead to perpetuation of unpopular so-
cial norms. In the first phase of the study seventy-one students were asked to estimate
what percentage of their peers support, oppose, or remain uncertain about the issue of
affirmative action. As it turned out, the students in general overestimated the portion of

45
their peers who supported affirmative action (AA) and underestimated the percentage of
those who were against it. According to Boven (2000), such results suggest a case of
pluralistic ignorance as well as a general belief in prevalence of PC opinions on campus.
In the second phase of the study, the participants were given two additional tasks. First,
to disclose how PC in their opinion it is to support affirmative action, ranging from 1 –
not at all to 13 – extremely; second, to indicate their personal stance on affirmative cor-
rectness. As expected, the students who rated the support for affirmative action as high-
ly PC were the ones who grossly overestimated the number their pro-AA peers. As it
turned out, the majority of the students were actually against or undecided on affirma-
tive action. Boven (2000) sees this as a worrisome trend, where a widespread belief in
PC beliefs being commonplace influences people to demonstrate fictitious opinions in
public, further propelling the vicious circle of ignorance. Sennels (2011) proposes that
the psychological phenomenon of “bystander effect” might help explain this tendency.
He writes:

If the others do nothing, it is seen as a sign for the individual that the others believe that
there is no need for intervention. This affects one’s own judgment, and thus one’s reac-
tion. The majority’s response acts as a kind of “barometer” for the truth. If we transfer
this phenomenon to political correctness, it means that since the majority do not express
criticism of Islam, Sharia (also called Islamization) and Muslim immigration, people
take it as a “proof” that there is no need to criticize such things. (Sennels 2011)

To sum up, there appears to be a strong impulse for people to assume PC stance in so-
cial situations regardless of their actual opinions. Wright & Cummings (2005: 20-24)
attribute it to implicit psychological allure of PC that works on several levels. Firstly,
PC allows one to express hostility in manners that are socially acceptable. One does that
by assuming the role of a victim. Claiming oppression, regardless of the actual power
balance, places one in the position of a sufferer of injustice and thus any action against
the opposition becomes an act of self-defense. Furthermore, as researchers claim, PC
encompasses narcissism. An individual believes himself a paragon of morality and tol-
erance and, as such, treats dissenting opinions as moral failings of the opponents rather
than different views. In combination with aforementioned assumed victimhood, such
stance leads to bizarre victim Olympics based on one-upmanship in terms of who is
more socially sensitive and open-minded. Indeed, PC appears to function as instant-

46
gratification morality, a way to appear just and righteous without having to make any
sacrifices. Whereas in traditional sense estimable morality would require from an indi-
vidual some effort to, for example, help feed the poor or donate to charity, in the context
of PC one can claim moral superiority when correcting co-worker’s improper euphe-
mism or defending welfare system.
Moreover, PC provides a distraction. An accusation of racism or bigotry can
completely derail a discussion, forcing the interlocutor to defend himself or herself, and
freeing one from having to present a meaningful rebuttal. As much as a distraction it is
an intimidation tactics, silencing the opposition and discouraging them from engaging
in a debate. Lastly, according to Wright & Cummings (2005: 20-24), in a way there are
no alternatives to PC. Some individuals simply lack understanding on how to implement
more effective and less harmful solutions to an existing problem. Neglect of critical
thinking and proper education on the subject of social ills results in individuals assum-
ing the most PC stance as, at face value, it appears the most morally fair.

2.4. Summary

There is no denying that PC is a powerful force in contemporary society. It has a strong

theoretical basis, a rationale for the implementation of alternative linguistic structures as
a way to purge the language of racism, sexism, and bigotry, drawing on the theory of
linguistic relativity. It has given birth to countless new words and phrases and changed
the meanings and spellings of existing terms, molding them to best fit the narrative. It
continues to shift, evolve, and spread into new areas of life. However benign the inten-
tions of PC might be, its effects are profoundly harmful for honest public dialogue. As
research shows, it is detrimental to clarity of information exchange and mutual under-
standing above social division. It sets obstacles on the way to solving problems related
to identity issues by silencing any disparaging arguments, however substantial they
might be, with petty accusations. The following chapter will be dedicated to PC in use.
Particular examples of its influence from the last fifteen years will be analysed and dis-
cussed in relation to corresponding categories in which they appear.

47
Chapter 3: Political Correctness in the contemporary United
States

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and analyse how PC functions within the
contemporary American society. The analysis will cover the years between 1995 and
2015. The first subchapter will focus on PC in the context of American academia,
especially the issue of recent revival of campus activism and shifts in the student-
teacher dynamics. Subsequently, the role of PC in American politics will be discussed
in the context of upcoming presidential elections. The third subchapter analyses the
fields of science and medicine, especially medical research, for the presence of PC
sentiment. In the final subchapter instances of PC in American popular culture will be
identified and examined.

3.1. PC in American academia

American college campuses of current decade stand a proof that PC sentiment not only
is not dead, but it is experiencing a renaissance. Much ink has been spilled on the topic
of its robust resurgence in the context of plentiful examples of recent student activism,
ranging from interference with long established curricula, through protests and sit-ins,
to getting lecturers and faculty members fired over poor choice of language. While in
the past leftist voices might have rejected the very existence of PC as a phenomenon
threatening the freedom of thought and expression, it is now blatantly apparent that a
worrisome trend is emerging in campuses; a trend that can best be described in what
Howe (2015) refers to as “victimhood culture”. It is a mindset characterized by overt
sensitivity to emotional distress as a result of being exposed to seemingly harmless ex-
pressions or topics. It transcends political spectra and particular ideologies, instead put-

48
ting the priority on protecting an individual from mental discomfort.
Friedersdorf (2015) expands on the subject describing the phenomenon in socio-
logical terms. To illustrate his point, the author adduces a story. During the celebration
of the Latino Heritage Month at Oberlin College in 2014 a talk was coincidentally
scheduled at the same time as soccer games. Information regarding the events was sent
to a group email, to which one of the students responded: “Hey, that talk looks pretty
great but on the off chance you aren’t going or would rather play futbol instead the club
team wants to go!”. The reply sparked aggravated a female Hispanic student, who de-
cided to broadcast her grievances on public forum. She accused the soccer enthusiast of
appropriating her culture by using the word futbol, giving unwelcome opinion (seeing as
he was a white male), as well as somehow insinuating she could possibly choose ball
game instead of event of such significance during a month dedicated to celebration of
Hispanic heritage. Friedersdorf (2015) cites this exchange as an example of emergence
of a new social culture. In honor cultures, like the Old West, an offense directed by one
individual at another would result in a confrontation between both parties involved, of-
ten resulting in violence. In dignified cultures associated with western countries in 19th-
20th century, an offense would have a much lower chance of inciting bloodshed. Indi-
viduals would much rather ignore the offense, especially if it was small or insignificant
enough, cut the ties with insulting party, or resolve the conflict non-violently between
each other. In the aforementioned instance, however, the offended party took an entirely
different approach, deciding to publicize the exchange, hoping to garner sympathy. So-
ciologists Campbell and Manning (as quoted in Friedersdorf 2015) believe this case fits
neither the spectrum of honor culture, as it prefers unilateral resolutions and scorns third
party involvement, nor dignified culture, as it would be far more likely to forego the
offense due to its insignificance. In victimhood culture, on the other hand, one has no
qualms about involving a third party in the case; indeed, one seeks to advertise his or
her status as a victim, expecting sympathy and approval. What is of utmost importance
to note is that victimhood culture entails intolerance to insults even when they are unin-
tentional, often ignoring the context and rejecting the possibility of informing the of-
fending parties of their perceived transgressions on a face to face basis. The latter may
therefore remain ignorant of the fact that they had erred in any way until they are
drowned in a litany of accusations in public.
Those seemingly harmless expressions constitute a central issue in the discus-

49
sion of PC in its current form, especially in the context of academia. Microagression, a
term tracing its origin to 1970’s psychiatry (according to Sue 2010: 16), recently re-
turned from obscurity to plague academic discourse, turning college classes into a lexi-
cal minefield, where every word the lecturer dares to utter has to be thoroughly inspect-
ed for internalized biases and influences of hegemonic culture. But even that does not
guarantee safety from inciting offense in socially sensitive students, since microaggres-
sion can be virtually anything. As Lukianoff and Haidt (2015) write, certain college
campus guidelines deem asking an Asian or Lationo ‘Where were you born?’ a microg-
gression, as it implies he or she is not a real American. Janet Napolitano (as quoted in
Watanabe and Song 2015), President of the University of California, concluded, that
asking people of color to speak English is a microaggression that makes them feel like
foreigners in their own country; similarly she believes it is wrong to use the term ‘melt-
ing pot’ in reference to American racial diversity as it belittles the importance of one’s
personal ethnic experience. In fact, even praise can sometimes be perceived as an in-
stance of microaggression. Watanabe and Song (2015) provide an example of an Amer-
ican student of political economy at US Berkeley, who reacted negatively to being
commended on his eloquence and broad knowledge, seeing in it an insinuation that the
rest of African Americans are uneducated and ignorant. Furthermore, microaggressions
are not limited to what people say but may also include their tone of voice, the way they
act in presence of minorities, or even the way they dress.
As New York Times reports (Johnson 2015), something as trivial as Halloween
costumes is now an object of heated debate on various college campuses in the US.
Some students expressed their concerns that costumes inspired by traditional attires of
particular cultural, racial, or ethnic groups may be offensive. People dressing up as gei-
shas, Indians, or mariachi are, to them, perpetrating cultural appropriation – an act of
pretending, for fun or profit, to be of different racial or ethnic background. In 2015 Stu-
dents association at the University of Seattle sent out emails containing guidelines re-
garding proper, non-offensive Halloween dress code, as well as 6 minutes video warn-
ing about the dangers of using an aspect of someone’s identity as a costume. According
to Kirk (2015) President of the University of Louisville, James Ramsey, was forced to
issue public apology after a photograph from a faculty Halloween party surfaced on the
internet. In it, the faculty members, Ramsey included, are shown wearing ponchos,
sombreros, and fake mustaches, cheerfully waving maracas at the camera. Similar fate

50
met a sorority at Penn State in 2012, when they threw a Mexican-themed party. In both
instances, the perpetrators were criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Moreo-
ver, as Johnson (2015) reports, drag queens and bums are highly politically incorrect, as
they might offend individuals struggling with their sexuality as well as the economically
underprivileged. In addition, those who believe they are safe from unintentionally of-
fending others with their appearance the other 355 days of the year should be wary that
some students raised concerns about white people wearing dreadlocks or styling their
hair using chopsticks as glaring examples of cultural appropriation (Sartwell 2015).
To combat microaggressions students strive to, first and foremost, raise aware-
ness of possible of words and expressions others may find offensive. Sometimes, as
Lukianoff and Haidt (2015) point out, such attempts can have a drastically different
effect. In 2015, at Brandeis University, the Asian American Students Association con-
structed an installation wherein they gave examples of common words and expressions
they deemed insulting to their racial group, including “Aren’t you supposed to be good
at maths?” or “You don’t look Asian”. However, there was an immediate and massive
backlash against the organization and their undertaking, as many students complained
that the installation itself was a microaggression and it triggered anxiety in more vulner-
able individuals. The installation was quickly dismantled and the Asian Students Asso-
ciation publicly apologized for causing people distress. Another concept that is crucial
for the analysis of PC on contemporary American campuses emerges, and that is the
phenomenon of triggers. The example above illustrates how even in the context of pro-
moting social consciousness and raising awareness of language that should be avoided
in order not to hurt the feelings of others, the mere presence of a word or an expression
can trigger a psychological reaction that ultimately leads to recipient feeling offended,
hurt, or anxious.
As Roff (2014) explains, the concept of triggers is part of the psychology of
post-traumatic stress disorder, wherein survivors of harrowing past experiences might
relive the trauma when they see or experience something that reminds them of it. To
prevent such situations from taking place academic PC crowd devised the trigger warn-
ing – a notice placed at the beginning of a text informing the reader that it contains ref-
erences to topics that can possibly trigger a traumatic memory. Many other call for total
exclusion of material that could in theory cause students distress from syllabi. “Imag-
ine a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become

51
distressed if he sees or handles blood.” writes Jeannie Suk (2014), a professor of crimi-
nal law at Harvard. In the article she discusses recently arising difficulties the teachers
of law are facing as a result of students’ attempts to rid the curricula of certain difficult
topics, such as rape. Student organizations who claim to represent women’s interest are
instructing their peers not to attend or participate in lectures related to sexual violence if
they are uncomfortable with the topics. At the same time they are pressuring professors
to include trigger warnings, to remove or reduce the discussion of the topic to mini-
mum, and not include rape-law on the final exam. Some individual students, as Suk
(2014) recalls, have even asked the teachers not to use the word ‘violate’ (as in ‘violate
the law’) because it was triggering. What is interesting is that professors, fearing for
their careers, are giving in to such demands. Furthermore, the example described above
is far from an isolated case.
“I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me” admits Schlosser
(2015), an Ivy League professor of literature writing under a pseudonym out of fear for
his position should the students find out about his politically incorrect views. He further
confesses that the sole reason he has kept his job so far is very careful evaluation of
every book he places on the mandatory reading list and every piece of material he
brings to class. Should any of them contain potentially controversial or offensive themes
they would be promptly rejected. Some of his colleagues, Schlosser (2015) reveals,
were not so lucky. One of them was fired after exposing students to “offensive” litera-
ture of Mark Twain and Edward Said. His line of defense, that the texts were intended
to be slightly upsetting in order to provoke dialogue, was ignored.
In 2014, seven liberal arts professors (Freeman et al. 2014) issued an open letter
to students wherein they condemn the demands for trigger warnings and material re-
strictions as not only illiberal but also unreasonable. Their most crucial arguments are as
follows. First and foremost, a teacher cannot predict with any degree of certainty which
particular subject is triggering to a particular student as they have no detailed
knowledge of their life story and traumatic events they may have experienced. Further-
more, research on post-traumatic stress disorder is inconclusive on the matter of the
psychological mechanisms of triggers – sometimes seemingly disconnected element, a
smell or a color, can trigger a traumatic flashback. Secondly, and institution of higher
education is primarily concerned with dissemination of knowledge and it cannot con-
cern itself with protecting the feelings of students at the expense of its essential func-

52
tion. Thirdly, faculty members cannot be expected to be versed in dealing with sufferers
of post-traumatic stress disorder, as it is the job of trained psychologists. People affected
by such ailment should seek professional help. Finally, the professors believe, that cen-
sorship of uncomfortable topics may create a dangerous illusion that the issues of rac-
ism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination and violence on campus have been
solved while the opposite may be true. Similar views are shared by other academics
who are willing to speak against PC culture, such as Laura Kipnis (as quoted in Sexton
2015), who once found herself under attack from students as a reaction to her controver-
sial article on student-teacher relationship. She is quick to condemn such oversensitivity
as child-like and uncharacteristic of students of a university, who should be able to tack-
le difficult topics and analyse them with logic and critical thinking. “It’s astounding
how aggressive students’ assertions of vulnerability have gotten in the past few years.
Emotional discomfort is regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have
to be remediated.” (Kipnis, as quoted in Sexton 2015). She further writes about the per-
ceived end-game of the college PC crowd that is also given much thought by Lukianoff
and Haidt (2015), namely the establishment of college as “safe space” where students
are shielded from disparaging thoughts and ideas, potentially hurtful words, and contro-
versial subjects.
All authors agree that such a plan stands an antithesis of everything academic
institution should be about – a marketplace of ideas, where students’ beliefs are chal-
lenged and their preconceptions tested. Such a setting is impossible if the freedom to
discuss certain topics is limited and if teachers are terrified of upsetting students. Many
academics, such as Suk (2014) and Roff (2014), notice a new shift in student-teacher
dynamic in American academia where the latter is expected to assume a parent-like role
in protecting the student from emotional harm. Laurie Essig (as quoted in Leff 2014), an
associate professor at Vermont Middlebury College, calls such a state of affairs “ridicu-
lous” and further writes "I'm treating college students like the adults they are, and insti-
tutions increasingly treat college students like medicalized children.” Lukianoff and
Haidt (2015) concur in their condemnation of prevalent hypersensitivity among stu-
dents, blaming it on the higher education institutions lending validity to emotional rea-
soning. As the authors claim, the perception of reality based on feelings rather than facts
is now beginning to dominate academic debates and discussions. “A claim that
someone's words are offensive is not just an expression of one's own subjective feeling

53
of “offendedness”. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something
objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some
authority for committing an offence.” (Lukianoff and Haidt 2015)
Thought-provoking is the story of Keith John Sampson (as reported by Parker
2008), a student-employee at Purdue University, Indianapolis. During his break hours
Samson was reading a book. The book was “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the
Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan” by Todd Tucker, an account of how domi-
nant force of the racist organization was defeated and driven out of town by courageous
university students. The cover of the book, depicting a KKK rally, caught the attention
of one of the students who reported Sampson to faculty for racial harassment. In a thor-
oughly Kafkaesque proceeding, the affirmative action officer found him guilty of re-
peated racial harassment and showing disdain for fellow students without every listen-
ing to the defense of the suspect or inspecting the contents of the book. If not for
extensive media attention Sampson could have lost his janitorial job as well as his posi-
tion among the students, all because someone literally judged a book by its cover.
When the faculty institutions are of no help, offended students take the matters
into their own hands. According to Cait (2014), in December of 2014, a Muslim student
of the University of Michigan, Omar Mahmood, had his apartment vandalized by a
group of students offended by a satirical piece he had published in the school newspa-
per. In the article he mocked in rather jovial tone the victimhood culture prevalent on
campus. The students, enraged by defense of freedom of speech, threw eggs in his
doorway and glued copies of the text to his door, all while chanting their pleas for Mr.
Mahmood to stop expressing his opinion and embarrassing them. Later on, the editor of
Michigan Daily, where Mr. Mahmood also worked as a columnist and critic, informed
him that his article created a hostile environment and demanded that he write an apolo-
gy to the staff. When he refused he was promptly fired. While many student activists
fight tooth and nail to cleanse the language of academia of microaggressions and trigger
words, some seek to enrich it with new forms to accommodate for alternative gender
identities. With the rise of the LGBTQ+ movements and, what follows, their increased
efforts to promote tolerance towards diverse sexual orientations, the issue of gender-
specific pronouns has become a major bone of contention on campuses. According to
Blinkey (2015), students of Harvard University can now pick their preferred pronouns
during the registration process, the available choices being: ‘He’, ‘She’, ‘They’, ‘Ze’,

54
and ‘E’. Cornell University, MIT, and Ohio State followed this example, adding sets of
alternative pronouns, along with guidelines on how to spell them and how to ask about
one’s preferred pronouns without offending him or her. The University of New York
announced that it is currently working on a tool to allow students to choose from 7 dif-
ferent gender identities, such as ‘genderqueer’ or ‘trans-man’. As Audia (2015) reports,
the University of Michigan has put in motion a 16 thousand dollars campaign to pro-
mote inclusive language and according to Scelfo (2015), University of Vermont shall
henceforth recognize a third, neutral, gender. Proponents of such developments call
them “long overdue” and invaluable in the efforts of "(...) embracing of everybody in
the community." (Blinkey 2015) Those who renounce them, such as the Tennessee state
legislators, who opposed the local university encouraging all students to use pronouns
such as “Xe” on their official website, are vilified as enemies of progress. Similar is the
case with grammarians, who call into question the validity of alternative pronouns and
arbitrary nature of their assignment.
Faced with what many consider absurd demands made by the PC circles within
American academia, some might feel inclined to roll their eyes, disregarding cited in-
stances as examples of sheltered kids making mountains out of molehills. However, the
consequences of their activism are undeniable and indicative of an alarming direction
the institution of college in the United States is headed; a direction characterized by
continuous efforts to replace idiosyncratic qualities of higher education: the plurality of
ideas and the ability to freely exchange them, with singular narrative, reduced to com-
pliance what is deemed acceptable by those who scream the loudest and appear the most
offended. The thoughts of the critics of such a state of affairs are perhaps best encapsu-
lated in the words of Dr. Everett Piper (2015), president of Oklahoma Wesleyan Uni-
versity:

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested
in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model in-
terpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content
of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that
you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warn-
ings” […] Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn
that life isn’t about you, but about others; […]This is a place where you will quickly
learn that you need to grow up. This is not a day care. This is a university! (Piper 2015)

PC students eagerly engage in glorification of conformity and misinterpreted

tolerance, where one’s rights end where other person’s feelings begin. Their ul-

55
timate goal – turning a university campus into a “safe space” through what Luki-
anoff and Haidt (2015) refer to as “vindictive protectiveness” is impossible
without a redefinition of the very concept of an institution of higher education,
without shifting the focus from the Socratic idea of teaching students how to
think into merely telling them what they want to hear.

3.2. PC in American politics

Recently, the issue of PC is back on the lips of American politicians. Officeholders can
no longer stand idly while the PC sentiment is continuously gaining notoriety in public
and political sphere, and with the upcoming presidential elections it is quickly becoming
one of the hottest topics among the candidates. "Political correctness is just absolutely
killing us as a country." claims Donald Trump (as quoted in Meadors 2015). One cannot
hold an opinion and be able to freely express it, the billionaire continues, without some-
one taking offense and demanding an apology. His observation are echoed by his rival
for the republican nomination, Dr. Ben Carson (2014), who remarks in an article for
Washington Times that “Political correctness is antithetical to our founding principles
of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Its most powerful tool is intimida-
tion.”
PC operates on the reward and punishment principle, wherein those who abide
by its principles receive praise and acknowledgement from the progressive circles,
while those who refuse to follow the trend face exclusion from public life. As such, ac-
cording to Dr. Carson (2014), the phenomenon imposes upon the political sphere forced
conformity and oftentimes diverts the attention from actual issues. In 2013, as Sullivan
(2013) reports, Dr. Carson found himself in hot water after he referred to the Affordable
Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, as the worst thing to happen to America
since slavery. He further elaborated on the comparison, claiming that the aforemen-
tioned healthcare act takes away from taxpayers the ability to choose, placing the gov-
ernment in the position of a master, rather than an institution that serves the people. In
yet another instance of politically incorrect remark, Dr. Carson (as discussed in Bobic
2014) in his criticism of silencing dissenters by governmental agencies drew a parallel
between the current state of the United States and the early years of Germany under the

56
Nazi regime. In both cases, the rising republican star refused to retract his statements
despite substantial pressure, condemning the critics for taking his words out of context
and focusing on semantics rather that the issues at hand. “You are just focusing on the
words Nazi Germany and completely missing the point of what I said. […]And that's
the problem right now. That's what 'PCism' is all about. You may not say this word re-
gardless of what your point is because if you say that word, I go into a tizzy.” (Carson
as quoted in Bobic 2014). Invoking an old Leninist term he refers to the PC crowd as
“useful idiots”, who in a manner reminiscent of a horse in blinds appear unable to look
past individual words and onto the bigger picture, thus effectively blocking public dia-
logue (Carson 2014).
Dr. Ben Carson is not alone in his condemnation of PC practices. In February
2015, Texas senator Ted Cruz criticized President Barack Obama for referring to Islam-
ic terrorists simply as “radicals”, without the mention of religion, in an instance of what
he called “bizarre, politically correct doublespeak” (Clyne 2015). He further remarked
that an enemy cannot be defeated unless it is first identified. Of similar opinion was
former senator Rick Santorum (as discussed in Obradovich 2015), who blamed the rise
and continuous existence of ISIS on Obama’s refusal to identify and publicly character-
ize the conflict as a clash of religions and cultures. Yet another republican candidate for
the Republican nomination, Carly Fiorina, slammed PC for suffocating public dialogue
and introducing an atmosphere of insincerity (Tysver 2015). A libertarian politician
Rand Paul alluded to PC in the abortion debate, lamenting its adverse influence on
lawmakers, who have “been pushed, […] bullied and […] beaten down” for their views
on the issue (Boguhn 2015).
Notwithstanding, it is the current GOP frontrunner, the aforementioned real es-
tate tycoon Donald Trump, who has garnered immense popularity owing to his boldness
and disdain for PC conventions. So far in the course of his still ongoing campaign
Trump has been accused of nearly every transgression found in the “PC rulebook”. In
August 2015, he took part in a republican debate hosted by Fox. Afterwards, he ex-
pressed his dissatisfaction with the attitude of one of the moderators, female Fox News
anchor Megyn Kelly, whom he criticized for asking meaningless questions. The same
night, according to York (2015), he extended the attack in a lengthy twitter rant, where
he referred to Kelly as “bimbo” and “the biggest loser of the debate”. What followed
was a huge media backlash, with The Guardian (Epstein 2015) and CNN (Yann 2015)

57
labeling Trump a sexist and misogynist. Furthermore, he was disinvited from the up-
coming Red State Gathering debate for “crossing the lines of decency” and criticized by
his republican colleague Carly Fiorina, who also expressed her support for Kelly.
Trump is also no stranger to accusations of racism towards virtually every racial
minority. According to Baylen (2013), he was branded an anti-Semite after he com-
mented on the host of The Daily Show, John Steward, using his birth name, Jonathan
Leibowitz. Some saw in this statement a deliberate attempt to “out” Steward, as if he
was hiding his Jewish identity due to shame. More recently, in early November 2015
Trump came under heavy fire as a result of his strong opposition against proposed refu-
gee quotas as well as general wariness and distrust towards Muslims. According to
Voorhees (2015), who writes about “Trump’s Week of Fearmongering and False-
hoods”, the billionaire candidate is guilty of islamophobia and discrimination when he
says that in order to combat domestic terrorism, he would strongly consider closing
down mosques, establish a Muslim registry, and bring back the infamous waterboarding
as a way to gain intel. Kevin Drum (2015) of Mother Jones accuses Trump of racism
against African Americans after he re-tweeted an infographic showing crime statistic,
according to which blacks kill whites over 5 times more often than the other way
around. The picture in question was later proven partially incorrect, which only added
more fuel to fire. Furthermore, Donald Trump is well known for his very strong stance
on illegal immigration and security of the southern border. His plan to replace the mea-
sly fence that stands between USA and Mexico with the Great Wall of China look-a-
like has become somewhat of a joke in the media. But to many this is not a laughing
matter but rather a testament to dangerous xenophobia and anti-Latino rhetoric that
should never come from the mouth of a presidential candidate. As Huffington Post
(Moreno 2015) reports, amongst other Trump accused Mexican immigrants of being
criminals, thugs, drug dealers, and rapists and of brining infectious diseases to Ameri-
can soil. Moreover, he implied that Mexican government is partially behind the wave of
illegal immigration to the US and took jabs at his rival, Jeb Bush, claiming that his leni-
ent stance on illegal immigration stems from his wife being a Latina-American. Trump
himself is far from benign for the Mexicans residing in the US illegally. He has famous-
ly claimed that he is in favor of deporting every single undocumented alien outside of
the US border. According to BBC (Zurcher 2015), which estimates the number of ille-
gal immigrants in the US at 11.3 million, such an undertaking would cost up 111 billion

58
dollars and put a huge strain on American economy to which illegal immigrants con-
tribute significantly.
As Moreno (2015) claims, Trump’s disrespect for the Latino community has
cost him several business partners and brought him criticism of prominent public fig-
ures of Latino descent, such as America Ferrera and Ricky Martin, who called his
comments racist, ignorant, and bigoted. However, Donald Trump does not seem to care
and, according to recent polls, neither do voters. He is winning, or at very least drawing
with Carson in republican estimates and, should he be appointed as the front runner of
GOP, he may be a very serious contender for presidency. With numerous public faux-
pas, and having antagonized so many significant social groups, Trump appears to be
gaining following and acclaim over time. Regardless of whether one might believe that
he will indeed return the US to its former glory3 or consider him a crass, ignorant hot-
head his popularity is undeniable.
Psychologist Melanie Tennanbaum (2015) claims to have found the source of
this phenomenon in the allure of defying PC. The implication is clear - there are a lot of
people who are tired of the language of PC. These people associate politically incorrect
statements with honesty, veracity, and straightforwardness. Even if the content of an
assertion is not necessarily in line with the sociopolitical views of the recipients, the
way the argument is framed linguistically has immense significance. The language of
euphemisms and circumlocutions seems to be deliberately circling around the issue,
avoiding a clear-cut answer. Those who break away from this model are perceived as
confident in their convictions, as genuine and positively un-politician-like. This image
is further fortified if the speaker expresses non-normative statements, in this instance -
declarations that the audience would not expect from normal, run-of-the-mill politi-
cians. As Chandler (2015) aptly points out, in such cases “There is an air of authenticity
that feels like the antidote to the pandering politician. We may not agree with him, but
at least we know he actually believes what he’s saying. Right?”. Ramos (2015) shares
the sentiment, referring to the GOP race as a campaign against political correctness. “If
there’s anything Donald Trump supporters love, it’s their candidate’s embrace of the
politically incorrect. They are happy — eager — to denounce what they see as hyper-
sensitivity about race and gender, especially by the political left, “elites,” and the me-

3
‘Make America Great Again’ is the official slogan of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign

59
dia.” Furthermore, Ramos (2015) believes the other candidates, seeing thousands at
Trump rallies and their own numbers falling, are starting to take example from the bil-
lionaire entrepreneur and consciously trying to be politically incorrect for the sake of it.
The effectiveness of this strategy is yet to be proven, but building his political
persona around anti-PC attitude worked exceptionally well for the man himself. Japan
Times (2015) provides several quotations from supporters of Donald Trump which
seem to confirm this theory. “Politically correct is just destroying us,” says Matthew
Weiner, a defense contractor. “Trump’s rivals see politics as a job. As for Trump, he’s a
statesman. That’s the way our country started, states-people.” asserts a real estate agent
Terri Brennan. As it appears, the prevalence of PC in American sociopolitical life has
resulted in a strong backlash and flaunting politically incorrect sentiments has become a
powerful tool for politicians to garner support, especially from within the conservative
circles.
When it comes to liberal politicians, unsurprisingly, they mostly remain rather
silent on the issue of PC running rampant in the US. When their names do appear under
headlines related to PC it is usually in the context of accusations of indolence when
faced with crucial issues. “The [Democratic] debate was a classic example of how the
American left lives in a hermetically sealed bubble” writes New York Times (Klein
2015). The convent took place a couple of days after the tragic attacks in Paris when the
topic of the threat of terrorism could not have been more relevant. Of course, all the
candidates expressed their utmost concern regarding the growing influence of ISIS but
when asked about reliable ways to deal with the issue none of the presidential candi-
dates were able to provide a satisfying answer. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders was
quick to condemn the attack as barbaric and to say the threat of terrorism has to be elim-
inated but instantly followed up with a reference to a far greater, in his opinion, danger
to the US – global warming, which he claimed causes terrorism. Hillary Clinton was
similarly reluctant in addressing the issue. She even failed to properly name it, opting
for a dubious term “jihadism” when talking specifically about the rise of the Islamic
State. As Klein (2015) concludes “[…] the left, and its solipsistic insistence on political
correctness, is having an undue influence on the Democrats’ presidential candidates in
2016. [PC] makes it impossible for Democrats to face, head on, by name, the essential
problem.” While Bernie Sanders (as quoted in Nothstine 2015) in his speech at Yale did
condemn overt adherence to PC as a threat to freedom and instead emphasized the role

60
of dialogue, his words could have been difficult to take seriously after the events of pre-
vious month. In October 2015, Sanders had his rally in Seattle shut down by two activ-
ists of the Black Lives Matter movement, who blocked the microphone, enforced a mi-
nute of silence for Michael Brown, a black teen who was shot after attacking a police
officer, and engaged in a shouting match with the crowd while Sanders stood there idly
until the event had to be called off. “Is this what dialogue looks like?” ask Friedersdorf
(2015) in The Athlantic. Even thoroughly liberal pundits, such as Bill Maher, are turn-
ing away from Democrats, citing their collective inability to tackle problems head on.
“Where’s their big vision for America? It somehow got lost in the weeds of political
correctness.” says Maher (as quoted in Chumley 2014).
Indeed, the rhetoric of the democrats can be characterized in terms of weakness
and uncertainty. While Donald Trump is ranting about the dangers of illegal immigra-
tion, Hillary Clinton apologizes for using the term ‘illegal immigrants’ and vows to
never utter it again. (Merica 2015) As Meadors (2015) aptly notices, it often seems as if
democrats and republicans speak two different languages. The politically correct term
for an illegal alien is now “undocumented worker”. Liberals scorn at the use of the pop-
ular phrase “death tax” when referring to inheritance levy and “anchor baby”, referring
to children deliberately birthed on the US soil by immigrants to obtain citizenship, is, to
some, inherently offensive and dehumanizing. As Lakoff and Wehling (2012) claim,
there is a significant difference in willingness to employ PC-friendly language between
the two major political schools of thought: "Conservatives use language more effective-
ly than liberals in communicating their deepest values. […] Liberals present the facts
and offer policies, Republicans, by contrast, go straight for the gut.” Furthermore, as
Joseph Romm (as quoted in Lexington 2015) argues, republicans are far more straight-
forward and to-the-point in their use of language.

When Republicans and Democrats use different terms for the same thing, the Republi-
can phrase is nearly always shorter and more concrete, observes Joseph Romm, the au-
thor of “Language Intelligence”. He has a point. When arguing about abortion, Republi-
cans favour “life” (evocative) while Democrats talk about “choice” (abstract).
Republicans talk about “taxes” and “spending” while Democrats want to raise “reve-
nue” for “investment”. George W. Bush had the “Patriot Act”, whereas Mr Obama has
the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. The former is an awful law that is
hard to oppose; the latter an awful mouthful that is hard to remember. (Joseph Romm as
quoted in Lexington 2015)

61
Perhaps more than ever, PC is now an issue of critical significance for the American
political scene. Whether it is the open rejection of its tenants, brandished like a weapon
by the republicans, or silent acceptance of it out of necessity and fear by their liberal
counterparts, there is no doubt PC is continuously exerting its more or less subtle influ-
ence on public dialogue. For as long as this perversion of liberalism has its place within
the sociopolitical sphere, there will be politicians frightened to deal with issues that
might make some people uncomfortable, and there will be shrewd demagogues gaining
underserved support with their deliberate use of politically incorrect tone masquerading
as honesty and confidence.

3.3. PC in American science and medicine

An average American, when asked who is more anti-scientific – democrats or republi-

cans, would probably point to the latter. After all, as Chris Mooney (2005) writes in his
hugely popular book, conservatives, from high-ranking office holders to ordinary citi-
zens, have a long tradition of waging war on scholastic research. It is difficult to disa-
gree with that notion; right-wing leaning individuals are far more likely to be opposed
to stem cell procurement and therapeutic cloning on moral and ethical grounds. Accord-
ing to Newport (2012), 46% of Americans, nearly exclusively conservative Christians,
hold creationist view of human origin, which entails a denial of evolution. Instances of
blatant disregard for science committed by right-wingers are well documented and
abundant in the media. However, as Berezow and Campbell (2012) argue, the left is not
without sins. The authors accuse progressives of waging an undeclared war on science
that is far more insidious in its character and effects. In the opening words of the book,
Berezow and Campbell (2012) define ‘progressives’ as a group distinct from liberals,
though they do like to portray themselves as such. For all intents and purposes, the fac-
tion described is indistinguishable from typical foot soldiers of PC. They are the people
who prioritize the feeling of moral superiority to those they disagree with over dialogue
and compromise. To achieve this they claim to be on the side of science to differentiate
themselves from ignorant, uneducated masses. As the authors point out, most of the
time this is not the case. Krause (2013) chimes in, commenting with amusement on how
the enlightened progressives get caught in word traps. People who would pay twice the

62
amount of money for a granola bar if it had ‘organic’ slapped on it will be the first to
decry GMOs as an environmental and personal threat. Despite the American product
labeling system being unclear at best and scientific consensus on GMOs showing that
they are as healthy and nutritious as their natural counterparts, the affinity for particular
words and hatred towards others trumps scientific evidence. Wooster (2015) is dissatis-
fied with such a state of affairs, calling for an end of a “stupid and wasteful” war on
GMOs. “World Health Organization, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the Food and Drug Administration—has said that genetically modified foods
are safe to eat […] supporting good science is more important than reflexive political
correctness.”, he adds.
But the distinction between good sciences and bad science appears to mean
something different to the PC crowd, and it has little to do with the quality of research
or availability of empirical evidence. As Kanazawa (2010) argues, in progressive circles
science is only sound “[i]f the Message Is Politically Correct”, while any study that goes
against the PC principle is a priori assumed to be bad science. This issue is more closely
inspected by evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban (2010) in his review of an arti-
cle about sex differences which appeared in The Guardian (Bunting 2010). Kurzban
(2010) mercilessly identifies glaring scholastic sins committed by the author, most no-
tably overgeneralization and drawing far-fetched conclusions from trivial details. Bunt-
ing (2010), quite obviously wrote the article with an agenda of downplaying inherent
differences between sexes and bent the science to fit her position on the issue; and her
stance corresponds with the PC-favorite narrative of absolute equality. Kanazawa
(2010) is highly critical of such perversion of scientific method. “No scientific conclu-
sions can be good or bad, sexist, racist, offensive, reactionary, or dangerous; they can
only be true or false. No other adjectives apply.”, he adds.
A counter example would be a study that goes against the PC narrative, with
findings leaning closer to genetic determinism rather than the ideal of free will. Such a
case is brilliantly described and analysed in Genetic Literacy Project (Entine 2012). In
October 2012, CNN published an article discussing a yet-to-be-published study con-
ducted by a social psychologist Kristina Durante. According to it, while many politi-
cians try to appeal to female voters by conventional means, they fail to take into consid-
eration a powerful mechanism governing decision making of women – their hormones.
Apparently, during ovulation, women are more likely to lean closer to liberal attitudes,
especially on issues such as abortion and marriage equality. The article was quickly

63
decried sexist after massive backlash and pulled from the CNN website. Karen Tumulty
(2012) of Washington Post bashed the study for insinuating that women think with their
privates rather than their brains while Feminspire (Payne 2012) mercilessly mocked the
author with pictures of dismayed cats. Curiously enough, only one outlet attempted a
serious rebuttal of the underlying science behind the text. Daily Kos (Gray 2012) re-
posted the deleted article with their own commentary. One of the more interesting ex-
cerpts includes the opinion of Susan Carroll, instructor of political science and women's
and gender studies at Rutgers University, who claimed that: “There is absolutely no
reason to expect that women's hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a
reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in
the debate performances of Obama and Romney.” However, according to Entine
(2012), the distinguished professor is wrong in this regard. As the author points out,
scientists do recognize the pivotal role testosterone plays in nigh every aspect of being
male as well as obvious links between hormones and behavior. The author ends the arti-
cle by mourning the downfall of scientific literacy and standards of public debate at the
cost of PC sentiment.
Sex research proves to be a dangerous territory for those who go against PC nar-
rative. According to Conway (2009), in 2003 J. Michael Bailey, professor and chairman
of the psychology department at the University of Northwestern published a highly con-
troversial book titled “The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-
Bending and Transsexualism”. In it, he denied the existence of alternate gender identi-
ties and proclaimed that men who transition into women are either homosexuals who do
so to have sex with a greater number of men or mentally ill individuals who derive sex-
ual pleasure from pretending to be female. His work was criticized as, among others,
homophobic, transphobic, and cruelly defamatory (Roughgarden 2004). As Conway
(2009) reports, it caused a storm within the transgender community, leading to massive
protests and formal complaints to the Northwestern faculty. Ultimately, Bailey stepped
down in 2004. Far less controversial was the rhetoric of Lawrence Summers (as dis-
cussed in Usborne 2011), notable economist and president of Harvard University. At the
conference titled ‘Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce’, Summers tack-
led the issue of women’s comparative lack of interest in Science, Technology, Engi-
neering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. As Postrel (2005) points out, he prefaced his
speech by claiming that his take on the issue is deliberately somewhat provocative to
stimulate discussion. Subsequently, he identified three main hypotheses regarding why

64
women avoid STEM. The first one claimed that for whatever reason females are less
likely to pursue jobs requiring from them substantial time commitment. Secondly, he
referred to statistical data to argue that the highest level of aptitude, men usually outdo
women in science and engineering, which translates into greater pool of potential male
candidates. Finally, he admitted that women may be discriminated against by admission
centers or socially pressured to pursue different fields of study. His remarks sparked an
outrage, with one of the chief advocates for women quotas in STEM walking out of the
conference, telling reporters: "I felt I was going to be sick." (Postreal 2005). According
to Bombardieri (2005), Summers was accused of sexism and misogyny for downplaying
the role of discrimination in the issue at hand. Despite the support from his female stu-
dents, who claimed he was always an advocate of their cause and regardless of his plen-
tiful apologies, Summers resigned his position as president of Harvard shortly after.
Furthermore, if Usborne’s (2011) speculations are to be believed, the controversy also
cost him the job as Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration. “Summers learned
the hard way that the feel-good fallacies of progressive thought are stronger than the
values of free inquiry and the primacy of the scientific method.”, assert Berezow and
Campbell (2012: 175). Krause (2013) concurs, adding “[…] where was the intellectual
debate before Summers’ resignation in 2006? Is it really so improbable that different
genders evolved or learned different talents? Or is it more likely, perhaps, that academ-
ics have been bullied into the “gender equality” camp with threats of being branded as
sexist?”
Those who wish to raise the issue of race in their scientific work should also be
wary of the PC police. As Bonham (2013) reports, in 2013 the Heritage foundation, a
conservative think-tank published a dissertation by Jason Richwine. The conclusion can
be narrowed down to a claim that Hispanic immigrants have, on average, lower IQ than
natives and because of that an overly lenient immigration policies will result in damage
to the US economy. Bonham (2013), who freely describes himself as a liberal admits,
that he finds the content of the paper disturbing and the insinuation that racism and big-
otry should govern public policies foolish. However, as an academic, he feels compelled
to defend the author against the backlash he experienced. Richwine was dropped by the
foundation almost immediately after the publication but the dissertation granted him a
PhD nonetheless. This fact enraged some critics, such as Wiener (2013) and Siegel
(2013), who assert Harvard made a mistake granting a degree for a paper so vile and
prejudiced. While Bonham (2013) agrees with some of the points raised by his col-

65
leagues, especially regarding questionable research methods, he points out that the dis-
sertation had to be signed off by three faculty members. Wiener (2013) also discusses
this fact but in a thoroughly negative tone. He singles out one of the commission mem-
bers, expressing his disappointment that a person who had in the past made such great
contributions to research on inequality, would approve such a paper. He further calls
said person “a big surprise and a big problem”. Bonham (2013) is quick to retort; he
turns Wiener’s (2013) argument against him, claiming that it is in fact a success that the
academic in question did not let his personal political agenda get in the way and instead
allowed for views drastically different from his own to be freely expressed. Indeed, he
further argues, it is a major problem for academic research where the opposite is the
case, adding “The best defense against offensive scholarship is not to silence it, but is
instead more scholarship.”
While to some, the aforementioned examples may seem relatively inconsequen-
tial to society at large and only hold relevance to academic circles, the PC sentiment in
the field of medicine is an undeniable threat to general public. “PC medicine puts ideol-
ogy before patients”, claims Sally Satel (2000) in her groundbreaking study of medicine
and society. Daniels (2001) points out that, at first sight, a field as evidence-base as
medicine might appear as an unfertile ground for PC to take root. After all, a broken leg
is a broken leg and the mission of a doctor has been very much the same since antiquity.
Upon a closer look, however, this seems not to be the case. Following the example of a
broken leg, in the context of medicine twisted by PC the proposed approach to such
injuries would be drastically different. Instead of administering a plaster cast, the ‘In-
doctrinologists’ as Satel (2000) calls them, ponder the root of the problem of broken
legs, which always appears to be found in social inequality. Poor people, they assume,
tend to break their legs more often because of the circumstances imposed upon them by
living in poverty. Therefore to fix the problem of broken legs the unjust system needs to
be changed. In this novel idea of medicine bandages and pills are only temporary solu-
tions to an underlying public problem. This is precisely the issue Satel (2000) condemns
in her book, the superfluous and, ultimately, harmful incorporation of social justice into
medicine. As she claims, fighting inequality at large, while laudable, is hardly a job de-
scription of a doctor. Unfortunately, both the practitioners of medicine as well as re-
searchers within the field will often go to absurd lengths to paint themselves as para-
gons of social progress.
As Satel (2000) writes, for some time, medical practitioners observed a peculiar

66
trend where African Americans were two or three times more likely to be affected by
high blood pressure than whites, even when accounted for diet and exercise. While
some theories appeared, most of them ascribing it to genetic predisposition, there was
no scientific consensus on the issue until Kriegcr and Sindey (as discussed in Satel
2000: 23) came forward with a daring hypothesis. The researchers linked the inexplica-
ble discrepancy to racism. According to their study, the stress connected with being a
black American in oppressive white culture caused hypertension. The study gained
great popularity, notably being cited by President Clinton in his Initiative on Race re-
port, as well as appearing in an article in New York Times under an eye-catching title
“Death by Discrimination? Of Prejudice and Heart Attacks”. Such was the acclaim of
the work of Krieger and Sindey that their findings became a medical truism. However,
as Satel (2000: 23-25) argues, the study falls apart under scientific scrutiny. Among
several errors in their research methods (such as not taking salt intake into consideration
while examining dietary habits of participants) the most glaring blunder appears to stem
from adherence to PC. When interviewing the participants, Krieger and Sidney asked
them about their experiences with racial discrimination, how many times they have ex-
perienced it and what their reaction was. However, when some of the African Ameri-
cans replied that they had not experienced discrimination, the researchers assumed that
they underreported the instances of prejudice they were faced with due to internalized
oppression, memories too painful to share. At the same time the possibility that some of
the subjects were overreporting episodes of discrimination was not taken into considera-
tion. Thus, it was quite easy for the researchers to establish a link between passively
experiencing discrimination and high blood pressure from date that could have other-
wise been inconclusive.
Gottlieb (2001) discusses a similar example. A study published in the New Eng-
land Journal of Medicine found that a discrepancy in treatment of lung cancer between
black and white patients, where the former were less likely to undergo surgery and sur-
vive. While the authors of the study proposed that the cause might be related to blacks
being afflicted by more aggressive cancers or the illnesses presenting themselves in lat-
er stages, the medical community still found itself under storm of accusations of prefer-
ential treatment of whites in relation to blacks. Yet another study presented by Gottlieb
(2001) found that white patients were 40% more likely to be referred for cardiac cathe-
terization than blacks. Again, massive backlash ensued. When six months later the study
was retracted due to “misleading use of statistics”, however, the fact was largely ig-

67
nored.
Both Daniels (2001) and Satel (2000: 88-90) are highly critical of the contempo-
rary state of nursing training. An apprenticeship system quite recently turned into an
academic discipline, nursing has been “taken over by ideological entrepreneurs and ca-
reerists.” As such, as Daniels (2001) claims, the field is now full of pseudo-scientific
feel-good quackery. Satel (2000: 88) adduces a story about a group of nurses at the
University of New England. The group was approached by the groundkeeper, who in-
formed them that he was feeling faint. He further confessed that he had suffered a blow
to the head earlier that week. Trained professionals that they were, most of the nurses
started waving their hands over the body of the groundkeeper, trying to assess his ener-
gy field, while another one informed him that he simply needed a good cry. Only one of
the nurses was quick enough to assess the symptoms and correlate them with janitor’s
head injury, deducing that a blood clot must be forming around his brain. The man was
rushed to ER and saved from potentially fatal condition. Satel (2000: 89) recognizes in
this peculiar situation influence of thoroughly postmodern rejection of medicine at the
cost of holistic healing.

To stake out their own expertise in protest over physicians' "privilege” and vast store of
technical knowledge, postmodern nurses have decided to champion non-Western heal-
ing techniques, like TT [therapeutic touch]. They have assailed researchers who ques-
tion 'TT'S effectiveness, accusing them of simply wanting to preserve control over med-
ical practice in general,and over the predominantly female nursing profession in
particular. In their journals, PC nurses challenge the very idea that medical knowledge
should be obtained in an unbiased, repeatable and controlled fashion.

Daniels (2001) shares Satel’s (2000) dissatisfaction with this worrisome trend, adding
that the syllabi of nursing courses are now full of “resentment studies”, subjects with
thoroughly feminist tint that instill in students a view on the medical field as a male
dominated, patriarchal environment. As a result, students drop out en masse, leaving
hospitals severely understaffed.
The PC-favorite issue of offensive terminology also makes an appearance in the
field of medicine. As Carone (2011) reports, according to researchers it is now undesir-
able to use the terms ‘obese’ and ‘morbidly obese’ as they are “stigmatizing, blaming,
and the least motivating to lead one to lose weight”. The author is highly critical of it,
seeing as these are valid medical terms. He agrees, that a professional should avoid us-
ing colloquialisms, such as ‘fat’ or ‘plump’, but the fashion for substitution of euphe-

68
misms for scientific terminology has an adverse effect on the patient, as it deemphasizes
the seriousness of a problem. Furthermore, Carone (2011) wonders how the individuals
on the opposite side of the spectrum should be treated. Surely, anorexic people should
not be simply referred to as “too skinny”. Nobody likes the stigma of being a cancer
patient but it would be asinine to diagnose them with “really bad cells”. So diluted, the
author argues, has the language of science become, that fat people are now called “per-
sons of size”, which is completely meaningless as technically every person is of size.
Washington Post (Rabin 2008) reports that people of substantial size are routinely dis-
criminated against by doctors but one cannot help but look in disbelief at the examples
of discrimination, which include telling them their weight might have adverse effect on
their health and prescribing weight loss medicine to people with joint damage induced
by the extra weight they carry.
In New York Times, Zuger (2012) calls for an end of grouping patients accord-
ing to race, seeing in it a remnant of racial segregationism. She argues that the concept
of race is purely a social construct and holds no validity to medicine. Miller (2013)
claims this could not be further from truth, adding that “Such uncompromising state-
ments appear to owe more to political correctness than to human biology […]”. While
race may indeed be too nebulous a term, for the time being it serves as “a useful surro-
gate” for the current lack of precision in connecting particular genes with corresponding
afflictions. For instance, sickle-cell anemia is found predominantly in blacks and there
is a whole group of genetic tests that screen for diseases found overwhelmingly in Ash-
kenazi Jews. Miller (2013) further cites an example of a cardiac drug called BiDil that
was approved in the US specifically for black patients. While the initial testes of the
medicine showed little promise, it was noticed that black participants respond very well
to it. The trial was repeated on blacks only and the results were striking – “43% reduc
tion in mortality and 39% decrease in hospital visits among patients who received Bi-
Dil”.
As Bonham (2013), and many of the scholars and columnists cited above agree,
disciplines so concrete and deeply rooted in reality cannot fall victim to ideological bul-
lies. Scientific theory should only be concerned with the pursuit of truth and never be
contorted to serve a particular narrative. Medicine should focus on helping a person in
need, not saving the world from racism and poverty. In 2001 Daniels wrote “The medi-
cal tradition can withstand the onslaught, but only if someone defends it.” Fifteen years

69
have passed since Satel (2000) took a stand against ‘Indoctrinologists’. Nearly a decade
ago Roberts (2006) identified “[…] the advent of a new breed of scientist and scholar to
whom ideological or political agendas are more important than truth.” And yet the PC
machine shows no signs of slowing down.

3.4. PC in American popular culture

Early 1990’s was when the controversy around PC was only starting to brew. At that
time, in December of 1992 to be exact (as discussed in Ross et al. 1993), a symposium
was held by the Modern Language Association. Before the distinguished guests, hailing
from all areas of entertainment business, a question was posed: “Can popular culture be
politically correct?”. Back then, when PC was still in its years of relative innocence, it
might have been a thought-provoking inquiry. Nowadays, it is safe to assume that no-
body is under any illusion that PC has fully infiltrated every facet of pop culture, from
comic books to hundred million dollars Hollywood productions. Public figures within
entertainment business are under constant scrutiny of language police, facing merciless
criticism for every slipup.
“I would propose that the God of Hollywood is political correctness, and they
are going to line up with whatever the politically correct view of the day is.”, claims
Alex Kendrick (as quoted in Bond 2015), writer and director of relatively low budget
productions with heavy emphasis on a Christian viewpoint. He speaks extensively about
anti-Christian bias within American media as an extension of progressive agenda the
broadcasting industry has assumed in recent decades. In 2013, a controversy arose
around Phil Robertson, one of the stars of a popular reality show Duck Dynasty, cen-
tered around a southern family who made a business of duck hunting. In an interview
for GQ magazine (Drew 2013) Robertson, a devout Christian and self-described bible-
thumper, when asked about his take on the concept of sin and sinners, he mentioned,
among others, homosexuality. His remarks sparked an outrage in the gay community,
which branded him a bigot and a homophobe. As a result, representatives of A&E, the
television channel hosting Duck Dynasty, expressed their deep disappointment in Rob-
ertson’s comments, stating that his personal beliefs are in no way reflective of the A&E
networks, who have always been supporters of the LGBT community. (Hibberd 2013)

70
Subsequently, the show which routinely pulled over ten million viewers per episode was
cancelled, and Robertson’s major business partner, Cracker Barrel Company, cut the
ties with the family.
Accidental or not, homophobic remarks expressed in public seem to be a sure
way to severely damage one’s career. A popular Hollywood actor Jonah Hill found out
about this the hard way. As Time (Gillespie 2014) reports, in 2014 Hill was on a walk in
Los Angeles when a paparazzi started following him around, asking questions and mak-
ing comments about his outfit. Calm and collected at first, Hill finally lost his compo-
sure and yelled a sexually charged slur at the paparazzi. The exchange, recorded on vid-
eo, quickly gained popularity in the media, causing quite a shock, especially considering
that Hill was a vocal supporter of gay rights. Soon thereafter, the actor appeared on
Jimmy Fallon show, where he profusely apologized for his poor choice of language and
following up with a short lecture about how words can hurt. Gillespie (2014) urges his
readers not to accept Hill’s apology, deeming it dishonest, shallow, and a mere attempt
to fix his public image. Whether or not Hill was sincere, teary-eyed apologies in popular
talk shows following PR blunders have certainly become somewhat of a ritual for dis-
graced celebrities. Michael Richards, famous for his role of Cosmo Kramer in a cult
classic “Seinfeld” seems to have set a precedent in this regard (Fahri 2006).
In 2006 Richards, also a stand-up comedian, was performing at Laugh Factory in
Hollywood. When a group of African-American patrons refused to be quiet after repeat-
edly being told to do so, Richards lost his temper and called one of them the n-word. A
violent, verbal exchange ensued where Richards used several more racial epithets and
finally left the stage. The next day saw extended protests around the clubhouse. "Once
the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African American, then
you have a whole lot of explaining," said fellow comedian Paul Rodriguez (as quoted in
Fahri 2006), "Freedom of speech has its limitations, and I think Michael Richards found
those limitations." Three days later, Richards appeared unscheduled on the Letterman
show and apologized, claiming: "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this" (Fa-
ber 2006). While African-American civil activists, such as Al Sharpton demanded more
than an apology and one of the patrons insulted by Richards ended up suing him, he
managed to somewhat salvage the situation and save his career. A former NBA club
owner and businessman Donald Sterling was not so lucky.
As Coscarelli (2014) reports, in 2014 a celebrity gossip website TMZ released a

71
recording of a conversation between Sterling and his female friend V. Stiviano. In it,
frustrated Sterling expresses his dissatisfaction about Ms. Stivano frequently appearing
in pictures with black men. His remark sent a shockwave through NBA, a predominate-
ly African-American league. According to Greenberg (2014), the club owned by Ster-
ling, The Los Angeles Clippers, briefly considered boycotting their next game but ulti-
mately ended up playing with their shirts worn inside-out, as in to cover the team logo.
Many players have weighed in on the issue, all condemning Sterling for racism and big-
otry. President Barack Obama referred to the recordings as “incredibly offensive racist
statements”, adding that “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you
don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk.” (Branch 2014). In a punish-
ment of unprecedented severity announced on 29th April 2014 Sterling was banned for
life from the league, fined 2.5 million dollars, stripped of any authority over Clippers,
disallowed from entering any Clipper facility, and banned from ever attending any NBA
games (Hirschhorn and Gregory 2014). While most of the players and club owners in
the NBA appeared to be satisfied with this decision, some media critics raised concerns
regarding the diminishing value of privacy in the US. “When does newsworthiness
trump privacy? Is nothing private anymore? Whether you're not at all public or you're
the president of the United States, does this mean that everything you say is potentially
reportable on TV, on radio, online? What about in your home? ”, asks Journalist Al
Tompkins (as quoted in Folkenflik 2014).
Similar fate met Paula Deen, a celebrity cook and a restaurant owner. According
to Bynum (2013), in 2012 Deen was sued by former employee for workplace harass-
ment. The plaintiff claimed she was forced to work in a hostile environment full of sex-
ual innuendos and racial slurs. An example she gave was Deen’s plan to organize a
wedding with a southern plantation theme and all-back servers. In 2013 transcripts from
the court proceedings surfaced in the media. One of the questions asked by plaintiff’s
attorney that captivated public attention was whether or not Deen has ever used the N-
word. She admitted to having used it in the past, for instance in reference to a black man
who robbed a nearby bank. Deen’s confession resulted in a wave of criticism in the so-
cial media. Despite multiple public apologies, as Lynch (2013) reports, Food Networks,
the channel hosting Deen’s cookery shows, cancelled her program as well as endorse-
ment contracts and publishing deals. She was also boycotted by several of her business
partners, such as Walmart and J.C. Penny.

72
 In 2015, according to Rawden (2015), a Hollywood A-listers Jeremy Renner and
Chris Evans got in trouble with the PC police following an interview about Avengers:
Age of Ultron (2015), a movie they were starring in. During the interview they were
asked about their opinion about a female character from the movie, Black Widow
played by Scarlett Johansson, who flirts with both of their characters but ends up with
another man. Renner responded by jokingly calling Black Widow “a slut”. Evans, great-
ly exhilarated by that remark, added "She's a complete whore." The female interviewer
seemed to share actor’s amusement, agreeing that the character in question was indeed
quite far from virtuous. Nonetheless, the comments made by the actors resulted in a
digital backlash, with many fans accusing them of sexism and misogyny. The following
day Renner issued an apology, stating that: “I am sorry that this tasteless joke about a
fictional character offended anyone. It was not meant to be serious in any way, just pok-
ing fun during an exhausting and tedious press tour.” (Dornbush 2015). However, dur-
ing his appearance on the Conan O’Brien show, he defended his comment claiming that
people simply took a joke too seriously. But PC does not seem to have a sense of hu-
mor.
“Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy”, claims comedian Jerry Seinfeld
(as quoted in Mikelberg 2015). As a vocal critic of “PC-nonsense”, Seinfeld asserted
that comedians are now forced to make careful calculations before telling a potentially
offensive joke and called it “anti-comedy”. He’s not alone in that sentiment. Chris Rock
(as quoted in Rich 2014) said that PC in the US is now stronger than ever. He confessed
that he stopped giving shows at college campuses due to students being too conservative
– not in their political affiliation but in their social views and willingness to take of-
fense. “You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’
You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.”, he added, claiming that
such a tendency forces performers into self-censorship and results in overly safe, tepid
humor. He is joined in this opinion by Daniel Lawrence Whitney (Larry the Cable
Guy), a comedian and actor best known for his stand-up routine where he impersonates
a stereotypical blue collar worker. According to Silman (2015), Whitney also refuses to
play at colleges, stating that PC has gotten out of control and some people need to grow
up and learn to take a joke. Vocal criticism of PC in comedy circles was graced with a
response from the other side of the fence. In “An Open Letter to Jerry Seinfeld from a
'Politically Correct' College Student” Berteaux (2015) states that the raise of what many

73
see as PC is actually a sign of a new progressive zeitgeist that leads to a better, more
inclusive and respectful society. He follows up with a whole array of examples of how
provocative humor should be done. A wildly famous television pundit and entertainer
Bill Maher (as quoted in Ernst 2015) mocks the writer of the letter mercilessly for lec-
turing legends of comedy on how to practice their art. He calls the PC crowd “idiots”
and “hypocrites”, further stating that “The PC police aren’t saying you can’t make
jokes. You just can’t make them about protected species.”. Maher himself has been the
target of the aforementioned PC police following a television debate on Islamic radical-
ism. According to Carroll (2014), Maher’s harsh criticism of fundamentalist Muslims
led to a creation of a student movement to stop him from giving a commencement ad-
dress at Berkeley Campus. “Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect
for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for. In a time where cli-
mate is a priority for all on campus, we cannot invite an individual who himself perpet-
uates a dangerous learning environment.”, wrote the students in the opening words of
their online petition. In spite of it, Maher ended up giving a speech at the December
graduation.
From the instances discussed above a common theme emerges, a theme of the
imperative role of the internet in assisting the PC police in signaling their outrage to the
world and in reducing activism to online petitions or liking posts on Facebook. Even the
left is not fond of this not-so-active manner of social advocacy. Micah (2010) calls it
“clicktivism”, a lazy and uninspired form of protest. “Digital activists hide behind glo-
ried stories of viral campaigns and inflated figures of how many millions signed their
petition in 24 hours. Masters of branding, their beautiful websites paint a dazzling self-
portrait. But, it is largely a marketing deception. While these organizations are staffed
by well-meaning individuals who sincerely believe they are doing good, a bit of self-
criticism is sorely needed from their leaders.”, he asserts. On the internet, such activists
are known as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs, a term, which, according to The Wash-
ington Post (Ohlheiser 2015) has been recently added to the Oxford Dictionary to de-
note people very vocal in expressing their socially progressive politically correct views.
The term reemerged in the context of what came to be known as ‘Gamergate’, a wide-
spread controversy around the issue of ethics in gaming journalism. Owolade (2015)
condemns SJWs for imposing a false dichotomy, according to which people can be di-
vided into two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressors to them are the

74
people bestowed upon with privilege – not necessarily economical but also racial, sexu-
al, or related to gender identity. As such, white, straight people, especially men, are be-
lieved to be on the top of the food chain and thus oppress the marginalized groups by
simply existing. But the war with the modern day bourgeoisie no longer takes place on
the streets and is not fought with sticks and stones. The main weapon of SJWs is in their
pockets and on their desks. “Why bother with sit-ins and the risk of arrest, police brutal-
ity, or torture if one can be as loud campaigning in the virtual space?” asks Morosov
(2009), “Given the media’s fixation on all things digital — from blogging to social net-
working to Twitter — every click of your mouse is almost guaranteed to receive imme-
diate media attention, as long as it’s geared towards the noble causes. That media atten-
tion doesn’t always translate into campaign effectiveness is only of secondary
importance.” Indeed, the final words of this passage raise in important point. The goal
of internet activism seems to be the activism itself rather than a meaningful change. It
has become immensely fashionable to be socially conscious, and there is hardly a better
way to broadcast to the world one’s sensitivity to hardships of the marginalized than to
express one’s offense at mildly problematic yet immensely popular facets of popular
culture.
In 2014, as Gray (2014) reports, a new variant cover for the comic book Spider-
woman was released. The cover, drawn by notable artist Milo Manara, depicts the titu-
lar character in a typical superhero skin-tight spandex suit crawling a building on all
fours. Hundreds of thousands of SJWs took to twitter and Tumblr to declare their out-
rage at unnecessary sexualization of Spider-woman as an extension of inherent sexism
and misogyny within the comic book industry. Sinha (2014) claims that comic book
artists deliberately objectify female characters by drawing them in suggestive poses and
bestowing them with unrealistically perfect bodies. Such treatment, she argues, would
never be applied to male superheroes. Freidman (2014) concurs, writing: “imagine Spi-
der-Man in that position instead, and the concept would have never gotten this far.”
However, as George “Maddox” Ouzounian (as quoted in Peters 2014) points out in his
brilliant rebuttal to the whole controversy, it has already been done. On the cover of The
Amazing Spider-man #30 the main character is drawn in very much the same pose as
his female counterpart. Furthermore, Ouzounian argues, comic book superheroes, male
or female, inherently represent unrealistic body standards. It is simply an artistic direc-
tion characteristic for the genre. Regardless, the damage was already done. According to

75
Rife (2014), amidst the controversy Marvel decided to cancel two upcoming covers
commissioned from Menara and apologized.
Whether or not the object of the controversy is legitimately problematic is of no
importance. Rather than face the wrath of internet activists or argue their point, the ac-
cused parties prefer to apologize profusely, further convincing the PC crowd of their
righteousness. In his brilliant essay comedian Gilbert Gottfried (2014) asserts “If you
want to survive as a public figure in 2014, you have to treat the entire world as if it’s
your wife or girlfriend. Everything you do is probably wrong.” PC ruins not only the
openness of public dialogue but also lives and careers of the people who dared to tell an
inappropriate joke or were critical of a racial minority. In their efforts to combat oppres-
sion they themselves have become the oppressors, praying on those with disparate
thoughts, different worldview and sense of humor.

76
Conclusion

In a day and age when a dark skinned alien on Star Trek: Voyager is referred to as “Af-
rican-American Vulcan” (Malkin 2005) and an MSNBC host bashes the use of the term
“hard worker” for demeaning the slaves’ experience (Griswold 2015), one cannot help
but wonder how much further will this trend go. PC has come a long way since its in-
ception as a concept rooted in Marxist ideology. Due to the efforts of leftist thinkers it
has become both a weapon targeted at very fundamentals of western culture and civili-
zation as well as a vessel for their agenda. Same ideologists brought it with them to the
new continent where it had found a fertile ground for growth. Over the years, PC
evolved into an all-encompassing threat to freedom of public dialogue which employs a
whole array of linguistic structures to achieve its goals. The truth is obscured by eu-
phemisms and circumlocutions, words and expressions undergo ‘tabooization’, and new
compounds as well as stand-alone linguistic elements are being created to better serve
the narrative of fighting social oppression.
Rising acceptance for such language exerts profound psychological influence on
American population, encouraging avoidance of difficult topics and declarations of di-
vergent opinions. A nation that likes to pride itself on its first amendment allows PC to
continuously obstruct freedom of speech, to substitute honest and clear language with
absurd euphemisms, to effectively outlaw ideas and beliefs, and to devalue the function
of science. It has turned American campuses into singular narrative driven safe spaces
— devoid from challenging ideas or novel concepts. Once great marketplaces of ideas,
liberal universities are now more concerned with appeasing the ever-outraged socially
conscious students, giving in to their far-fetched demands. It has turned American poli-
tics into a farce, where the right is bending over backwards to appear increasingly more

77
anti-PC while the left is deathly afraid to take a clear stance on pressing issues lest they
should offend someone. It has turned science into a tool for the agenda-driven dema-
gogues and medicine into an indoctrination machine. Finally, PC has infected popular
culture, killing creativity and humour.
A famous television pundit and a vociferous critic of PC, Glenn Beck (as quoted
in Ball 2015) once said: “Political correctness doesn’t change us, it shuts us up.” A
closer analysis of the phenomenon reveals it to be true. The grandiose plan to cleanse
the language of prejudice and discrimination, while commendable in its intent and
scope, ultimately proves to be fruitless. The PC crowd barks at the proverbial wrong
tree. As illustrated by the example of euphemism treadmill discussed in the second
chapter, they attack mere labels rather than underlying concepts; the messenger instead
of the message. Social issues can only be solved through honest dialogue, one where
every side is able to express its opinion, however inconvenient it might be. But the way
to dialogue and, ultimately, consensus must start with an admission that PC is a direct
threat to freedom of speech and currently one of the greatest obstacles on the way to
mutual understanding above all divisions.
.

78
 References

[n.d]. 1982. The Chicago Manual of Style (13th Edition). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press
Aarts, Bas & April McMahon. 2006. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford,
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Adler, Jerry, and Mark Starr, Farai Chideya, Lynda Wright, Pat Wingert, Linda Haac.
1990. “Taking Offense: Is this the new enlightenment on campus or the new
McCarthyism?”, Newsweek, 24 December 1990.
Adorno, Theodor W., and Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford.
[1993] 1950. Authoritarian Personality. New York City, NY: W.W. Norton
Company.
Anderson, Perry. 1976. The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci.
(http://newleftreview.org/static/assets/archive/pdf/NLR09801.pdf) (date of ac-
cess: 16 Feb. 2015).
Ashby, Ruth & Deborah Gore Ohrn. 1994. Herstory: Women who changed the world.
New York City, NY: Viking Juvenile Publishing
Audia, Samantha. 2015.” Public university spends $16K on campaign to warn students
to watch what they say” (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21174/) (date of ac-
cess: 8 Dec. 2015).
Ball, Tim. 2015. “Political Correctness Replaces The Tyranny of the Majority With The
Tyranny Of The Minority”
(http://www.therebel.media/political_correctness_replaces_the_tyranny_of_the_
majority_with_the_tyranny_of_the_minority) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

79
Baylen, Ashley. 2013. “Donald Trump tweets anti-Semitic insult?”
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html) (date of access:
8 Dec. 2015).
Berezow, Alex and Hank Campbell. 2012. “Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies
and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left”
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610391640/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&ca
mp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610391640&linkCode=as2&tag=
skepticcom-20) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Berteaux, Anthony. 2015. “An Open Letter to Jerry Seinfeld from a 'Politically Correct'
College Student.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-berteaux/jerry-
seinfeld-politcally-correct-college-student_b_7540878.html) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Blinkey, Collin. 2015. “He? She? Ze? Colleges add gender-free pronouns, alter policy”
(http://bigstory.ap.org/article/48c986c722ba4e5bb8a5a4c1f1d31df1/he-she-ze-
universities-add-gender-pronouns-alter-policy) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Bobic, Igor. 2014. “Ben Carson Stands By Nazi Germany, Slavery Comparisons”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ben-carson-nazi-germany-
slavery_n_6263508.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Boguhn, Ally.2015.”Republicans Lament ‘Political Correctness’ for Hindering False
Attacks on Abortion” (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/11/24/republicans-
lament-political-correctness-hindering-false-attacks-abortion/) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Bombardieri, Marcella. 2005.”Summers' remarks on women draw fire.”
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_
women_draw_fire/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Bond, Paul. 2015. “War Room Filmmaker: "The God of Hollywood Is Political Cor-
rectness" (Q&A) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/war-room-
filmmaker-god-hollywood-823440) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Bonham, Kevin. 2013. “Science, Racism and Political Correctness.”
(http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-
correctness/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

80
Boven, Leaf van. 2000. “Pluralistic Ignorance and Political Correctness: The Case of
Affirmative Action.”
(http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/research/publications/vanboven_pol_psy.
pdf) (date of access: 07.08.2015).
Bronner, Stephen E. 2011. Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Buchanan, Patrick J. 2002. The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immi-
grant Invasions Imperil Our Culture and Civilization. London: St. Martin's
Press.
Bunting, Madeleine. 2010. “The truth about sex difference is that if men are from Mars,
so are women.”
(http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/women-men-
differences-science-stereotypes) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Bush, George. 1991. “Remarks at the University of Michigan Commencement Ceremo-
ny in Ann Arbor”. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19546) (date of
access: 1 May 2015).
Bush, Harold K. 1995. “A brief history of PC, with annotated bibliography”. American
Studies International vol. 33, 1: 42-44.
Bynum, Russ. 2013. “Paula Deen said she used slur but doesn't tolerate hate.”
(http://www.today.com/kindness/want-happiness-random-snacks-kindness-food-
truck-serves-good-cheer-t56826) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Cameron, Deborah. 2012. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge Linguistics Classics
Carone, Dominic A. 2011. „How political correctness interferes with healthcare.”
(http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/12/political-correctness-interferes-
healthcare.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Carrol, David. 2007. Psychology of Language. London: Wadsworth Publishing
Carson. Ben S. 2014. “CARSON: Political correctness and the slavery of Obamacare.”
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/carson-insidious-effects-
of-political-correctness/?page=all) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Chandler, Lori. 2015. “Science Knows Why People Love Donald Trump — and It's
Scary.” (http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/trump-and-the-psychological-allure-of-
not-being-politically-correct) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

81
Chumley, Cheryl K. 2014. “Bill Maher’s damning indictment: Dems ‘lost in the weeds’
of political correctness.”
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/12/bill-maher-democrats-got-
lost-in-the-weeds-of-poli/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Cixous, H. (1976) “The Laugh of the Medusa” Signs Vol. 1, 4: 875-893.
Clyne, Melissa. 2015. “Ted Cruz: Obama in 'Bizarre Doublespeak' on Radical Islam”
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-islam-terrorism-
isis/2015/02/19/id/625669/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Conway, Lynn. 2009. “Dreger's Defense of J. Michael Bailey.”
(http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Dreger/ASB%20paper/PeerComme
ntaries/Peer_Papers_Critical_of_Dreger.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Coscarelli, Joe. 2014. “Everything You Need to Know About V. Stiviano, the Woman
Who Recorded Donald Sterling’s Racism.”
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/v-stiviano-donald-sterling-
girlfriend-maria-perez.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Cummings, Michael S. 2001. Beyond Political Correctness: Social Transformation in
the United States (Transformations in Politics and Society). Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Dan, Merica. 2015. “Clinton says her use of term 'illegal immigrant' was a poor choice
of words.” (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/hillary-clinton-illegal-
immigration-undocumented-immigrants/index.html) (date of access: 8 Dec.
2015).
Daniels, Anthony. 2001. “Morality for solipsists.”
(http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/r-newcrit.html) (date of access: 8 Dec.
2015).
David, Folkenflik. 2014. “What About Donald Sterling's Right To Privacy?”
(http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308377827/racist-remarks-behind-closed-
doors-was-sterlings-privacy-violated) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Dawkins, Richard. 1998. “Postmodernism disrobed” Nature vol. 394: 141-143.

82
Dornbush, Jonathon. 2014. “Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner apologize for their derogatory
Black Widow jokes.” (http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/23/chris-evans-
jeremy-renner-black-widow-
slut?hootPostID=6d1a0f514e072c323881a727facd1103) (date of access: 8 Dec.
2015).
Drum, Kevin. 2015. “Donald Trump's Hatemongering Moves on to African Americans”
(http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/donald-trumps-
hatemongering-moves-african-americans) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
D'Souza, Dinesh. 1998. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus.
New York City, NY: Free Press.
Dubiel, Helmut. 1981. “The Origins of Critical Theory: An Interview with Leo Low-
enthal.” Telos vol. 49. Candot, NY: Telos Press Publishing.
Entine, Jon. 2012.” Political correctness alert: Science literacy collapses when
male/female genetics are debated.”
(http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/05/political-correctness-alert-
science-literacy-collapses-when-malefemale-differences-and-genetics-are-
debated/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Epstein, Kayla. 2015. “Trump responds to Megyn Kelly's questions on misogyny – with
more misogyny” (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/06/donald-
trump-misogyny-republican-debate-megyn-kelly) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Ernst, Douglas. 2015. “Maher: PC ‘idiots’ shouldn’t lecture Seinfeld, Larry the Cable
Guy on comedy.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/20/bill-
maher-pc-idiots-shouldnt-lecture-jerry-seinfe/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Fahri, Paul. 2006. “Seinfeld Comic Richards Apologizes for Racial Rant”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112
100242.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Fiamengo, Janice. 2014. “What's Equality Got To Do With It“ (Lecture given at the
University of Ottawa, Ottawa 27 March
2014.)(http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2014-03-28/news/mens-issues-
awareness-event-sparks-controversy/).
Flynn, Daniel J. 2005. Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for
Stupid Ideas. New York City, NY: Crown Publishing Group.

83
Folkins, John. 1992. “Resource on Person-First Language”
(http://hksnyder.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/5/0/42509269/resource_on_person-
first_language.pdf) (date of access: 06.08.2015)
Freeman Elizabeth and Nat Hurley, Homay King, Dana Luciano, Dana Seitler, Patricia
White. 2014. “Trigger Warnings Are Flawed.”
(https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-faculty-members-
about-why-they-will-not-use-trigger-warnings) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Freeman, Joe. 2004. “The Berkeley Free Speech Movement”.
(http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/sixtiesprotest/berkeley.htm)
(date of access: 3 May 2015).
Friedersdorf, Connor. 2015. “The Rise of Victimhood Culture.”
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-
culture/404794/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Friedersdorf, Conor. 2015. “A Conversation About Black Lives Matter and Bernie
Sanders.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-dialogue-
about-black-lives-matter-and-bernie-sanders/401960/) (date of access: 8 Dec.
2015).
Friedman, Megan. 2014. “This is what happens when men try to draw a female superhe-
ro.”(http://www.elle.com/culture/news/a15468/spider-woman-comic-book/)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Gaitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Un-
making of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gottfried, Gilbert. 2014. “A pre-emptive apology from Gilbert Gottfried.”
(http://www.playboy.com/articles/stop-saying-sorry-on-twitter) (date of access:
8 Dec. 2015).
Gottlieb, Scott. 2001. “Germs Are Bad Enough; Is Social Injustice Enough to Make
You Sick?” (http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/r-wsj.html) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Gray, Emma. 2014. “Spider-Woman's New Cover Sums Up The Problematic Way Fe-
male Superheroes Are Treated.”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/spiderwoman-male-female-
superheroes-sexism_n_5698337.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

84
Gray, Kaili Joy. 2012. “Here's that story CNN doesn't want you to see about how ladies
vote with their periods” (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/24/1149741/-
Here-s-that-story-CNN-doesn-t-want-you-to-see-about-how-ladies-vote-with-
their-periods)(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Green, David G. 2006. We're (Nearly) All Victims Now! Davidson, NC: Civitas Publish-
ing.
Greenberg, Chris. 2014. “Clippers Players Stage Silent Protest Against Donald Sterling
With Inside-Out Shirts” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/clippers-
players-protest-shirts-red_n_5223017.html?utm_hp_ref=sports) (date of access:
8 Dec. 2015).
Griswold, Alex. 2015. “MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry: Don’t Say ‘Hard Worker,’
Because It’s Offensive to Slaves” (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-melissa-
harris-perry-dont-say-hard-worker-because-its-offensive-to-slaves/) (date of ac-
cess: 8 Dec. 2015).
Gumperz, John J. and Steven C. Levinson. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press
Harding, Sandra. 1986. “The Science Question in Feminism.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
He, Jing. 2011. “The Validity of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis—Rethinking the Relationship
Among Language, Thought and Culture.”
(http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/17/2012/201202178
5690609.pdf) (date of access: 03.08.2015)
Heirich, Max.1973. The Spiral of Conflict: Berkeley. New York City, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Heteren, Anette Gomis van. 1997. Political Correctness in Context: The PC Controver-
sy in America. Almeria: Editorial Universidad De Almería
Hibberd, James. 2013. “Duck Dynasty star suspended for anti-gay comments”
(http://www.ew.com/article/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil?hpt=hp_t2)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Hingston, Stan. 2011. The Euphemism Treadmill - replacing the "R-Word"
(http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill-replacing-r-
word.html) (date of access: 05.08.2015)

85
Hirschhorn, Dan and Sean Gregory. 2014. “NBA Bans Donald Sterling ‘For Life’ After
Racist Rant.” (http://time.com/81170/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-nba-
adam-silver/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Horowitz, David. 1998. “Up from Multiculturalism: Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribal-
ism”, Heterodoxy vol. 5. Los Angeles, CA: [n.d].
Howe, Neil. 2015. “Why Do Millennials Love Political Correctness? Generational Val-
ues.”(http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/11/16/america-revisits-
political-correctness/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Hughes, Geoffrey. 2009. Political Correctness - A History of semantics and culture.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hughes, Geoffrey. 2009. Political Correctness - A History of semantics and culture.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Humboldt, Willhelm von. [1836] 1988. On Language: The diversity of human lan-
guage-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press
Hurlburt Russell T. and Sarah Akhter.2008. “Unsymbolized thinking.”
(https://faculty.unlv.edu/hurlburt/hurlburt-akhter-2008.pdf) (date of access:
04.08.2015)
Irigaray, Luce. 1987. Sujet de la science, sujet sexué?. Paris: Centre National de Re-
cherche Scientifique.
Japan Times. 2015. “Politically incorrect perhaps but crowd-pleaser Trump finds fans in
1 in 4 Republicans.”
(http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/16/world/politics-diplomacy-
world/politically-incorrect-perhaps-crowd-pleaser-trump-finds-fans-1-4-
republicans/#.Vl8-eXYvfrd) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Jara, Rodrigo de la. 2007. “IQ basics”
(http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx) (date of access: 06.09.2015)
Jay, Martin. 1973. The Dialectical Imagination - A History of Frankfurt School and the
institute of social research. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
John, Branch. 2014. “Amid Uproar, Clippers Silently Display Solidarity”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/sports/basketball/with-uproar-around-
sterling-clippers-take-the-court.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

86
Johnson, Kirk. 2015. “Halloween Costume Correctness on Campus: Feel Free to Be
You, but Not Me” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/cultural-
appropriation-halloween-costumes.html?_r=0) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Jonathan Cait. 2014. “How the language police are perverting liberalism”
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Joseph, George Gheverghese. 1994. “The Politics of Anti-Racist Mathemat-
ics”.European Education vol. 26, 1: 67-74.
Judy, Faber.2006. “'Kramer' Apologizes, Says He's Not Racist.”
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kramer-apologizes-says-hes-not-racist/) (date of
access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Kamiura, Mina. 2008. “What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and how valid is it?”
(http://www.academia.edu/5139181/What_is_the_Sapir-
Whorf_hypothesis_and_how_valid_is_it) (date of access: 04.08.2015)
Kehl, D.G & Howard Livingston. 1999. “Doublespeak detection for English Class-
room.” (http://www.jstor.org/stable/822191?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
(date of access: 04.08.2015)
Kelchner, Jean C. 2004. Daughters of Eve: A Herstory Book. Kansas City, MO: 1st
Books Library
Kellner, Douglas. 2000. Marcuse and the Quest for Radical Subjectivity.
(http://www.dogma.lu/txt/Kellner-Marcuse01.htm) (date of access: 19 Feb.
2015).
Kennig, Chris. 2015.“Ramsey sombrero photo sparks outcry, apology.”
(http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2015/10/30/ramsey-sombrero-
photo-sparks-criticism/74825480/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Kimball, Linda. 2007. “Cultural Marxism”.
(http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html) (date
of access: 17 Feb. 2015).
Kimball, Roger. 1991. “Tenured Radicals”: a postscript.
(http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/-Tenured-Radicals--a-postscript-
5386) (date of access: 26 Feb. 2015).

87
Klein, John. 2015. “The Democratic Debate: Incoherent on
ISIS.”(http://time.com/4113665/democrats-debate-isis/) (date of access: 8 Dec.
2015).
Kohl, Herbert. 1992. “Uncommon Differences: On Political Correctness, Core Curricu-
lum and Democracy in Education”, The Lion and the Unicorn vol. 16, 1: 1-16.
Kosner, Edward. 1992. “Are you politically correct?”, The New York Times, 21 Januray
2002.
Krause, Kenneth W.2013. “The Progressive War on Science”
(http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-03-13/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Kurzban, Robert. 2010. “It’s Only “Good Science” if the Message is Politically Cor-
rect.” (http://epjournal.net/blog/2010/11/its-only-good-science-if-the-message-
is-politically-correct/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Lakoff George and Elisabeth Wehling. 2012. The Little Blue Book: The Essential
Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. London: Free Press
Lane, Alan. 1969. The naked Marx. London: The Penguin Press.
Lea, John. 2008. Political Correctness and Higher Education - British and American
Perspectives. New York City, NY: Routledge.
Leff, Lisa. 2014. “Trigger Warnings Become A Source Of Conflict In Higher Ed.”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/26/trigger-warnings-higher-
ed_n_5218838.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Limbaugh, Rush. 1993. The way things ought to be. New York City, NY: Pocket Books.
Limbaugh, Rush. 1994. See, I told you so!. New York City, NY: Pocket Books.
Lin, Hsien-Chuan.2010. “A Study of the Use of Politically Correct Language on the
Campus of A U. S. Midwestern University”
(http://ir.fy.edu.tw/ir/bitstream/987654321/1746/1/A+Study+of+the+Use+of+Po
litical-
ly+Correct+Language+in+the+Campus+of+One+U.S.+Midwestern+university+
1.pdf) (date of access: 04.08.2015)
Lind, William. 2000. “The Origins of Political Correctness”.
(http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/) (date of access:
17 Feb. 2015).
Loftus, Elizabeth F. & John C. Palmer. 1974. “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruc-
tion : An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory”

88
 (https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusPalmer74.pdf) (date of access:
04.08.2015)
Losey, Kay M. and Hermann Kurthen. 1995. The Rhetoric of "Political Correctness" in
the U.S. Media. (https://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/6379E14A-CC9D-548E
D342308923A1FBB5/kurthen/losey__kurthen__the_rhetoric_of_political_corre
ctness_in_the_u.s._media_1995.pdf) (date of access: 20 March 2015).
Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt. 2015. “Political correctness in US universities has
gone crazy.” (http://www.afr.com/leadership/management/business-
education/political-correctness-in-us-universities-has-gone-crazy-20150819-
gj2ek3) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Lynch, Rene. 2013. “Paula Deen fired by Food Network over use of racial epithet.”
(http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/news/la-dd-paula-deen-fired-by-food-
network-over-use-of-the-nword-20130621) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Magary, Drew. 2013. “What the Duck?” (http://www.gq.com/story/duck-dynasty-phil-
robertson) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Malkin, Michelle. 2005. “Dumb MSM euphemism of the day.”
(http://michellemalkin.com/2005/11/14/dumb-msm-euphemism-of-the-day/)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Malloy, Daniel P. 2006. Marcuse's Second Dimension: Negativity and Critical Theory.
Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Publishing .
Maloney, Evan Coyne (dir) . 2007. “Indoctrinate U”. On the fence films.
Mandelker, Steven. “The Radical Feminist Attack on Reason”
(http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/19/rp_19_4.pdf) (date of access: 2 May 2015).
Marcuse, Herbert. [1974] 1955. Eros and Civilization : A Philosophical Inquiry into
Freud. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. [1994] 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Ad-
vanced Industrial Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1965. “Repressive Tolerance”, A Critique of Pure Tolerance. 1997.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marx, Karl. 1848. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, 1969. Marx/Engels Selected
Works, Vol. One. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
McMillan, John and Paul Buhle. 2002. The New Left Revisited (Critical Perspectives on
the Past). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

89
Meadors, Marvin. 2015. “Is Political Correctness Really "Killing America"?”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/is-political-correctness-
_b_8026152.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Mendelbaum, David G. [e.d] Sapir, Edward. [1922] 1985. Selected Writings of Edward
Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality. Oakland, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press
Michaelis, Laura A. 2007. “Introduction to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis(AKA linguistic
relativity)” (http://www.colorado.edu/ling/courses/LAM3430/Whorflecture.pdf)
(date of access: 04.08.2015)
Mikelberg, Amanda. 2015. “Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting come-
dy.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jerry-seinfeld-says-political-correctness-is-
hurting-comedy/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Miller, Henry I. 2013. “Compromise Medical Care”
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/04/24/dont-let-political-
correctness-compromise-medical-care/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Mills, C. Wright. 1960. “Letter to the New Left”, New Left Review vol. 5. [n.d].
Mooney, Chris. 2005. The Republican War on Science. New York, NY: Basic Books
Moreno, Carolina. 2015. “9 Outrageous Things Donald Trump Has Said About Latinos”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-
said-about-latinos_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Morozov, Evgeny. 2009. “The brave new world of slacktivism.”
(http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism) (date
of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Nemecek, S. (1997) “The Furor Over Feminist Science” Scientific American 276, 62:
99-100.
Nerlich, Brigitte & Armin Burkhardt. 2010. Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of
Metaphor and Other Trope. Berlin: De Gruyter
Newport, Frank. 2012. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins”
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-
Origins.aspx) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

90
Nick, Gillespie. 2014. “Don’t Accept Jonah Hill’s Apology!”
(http://time.com/2838413/jonah-hill-homophobic-apology-2/) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Nohlen, D. and Philip Stöver. 2010 Elections in Europe: A data handbook. Nördlingen:
Nomos Publishers.
Norton, I. Michael and Sommers R. Sommers, Evan P. Apfelbaum, Natassia Pura, Dan
Areily. 2006. “Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction”
(http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/Papers/Other/pcgame.pdf) (date of access:
06.08.2015)
Nothstine, Ray. 2015. “Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders Propose Different Solutions as
Campus Activism Explodes.” (http://www.christianpost.com/news/ben-carson-
bernie-sanders-campus-activism-149966/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Obradovich, Katie. 2015. “GOP candidates blast political correctness
“(http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/kathie-
obradovich/caucus/2015/11/20/gop-candidates-blast-political-correctness-
family-leader-forum-iowa-caucuses/76059354/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Ohlheiser, Abby. 2015. “Why ‘social justice warrior,’ a Gamergate insult, is now a dic-
tionary entry.”
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theintersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-
justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Otero, Carlos [ed.]. 1994. Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments (Critical Assessments
of Leading Linguists) (Set 1). New York City, NY: Routledge.
Owolade, Tomiwa Adetayo. 2015. “Thoughts on political correctness and SJW.”
(https://tomowolade.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/thoughts-on-political-
correctness-and-sjw/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Parker, Kathleen. 2008. “Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong Book”
(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/223856/wrong-place-wrong-time-
wrong-book-kathleen-parker) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Payne, Rhiannon. 2012. “CNN Article on Female Voters and Ovulation – With Visual
Effects.” (http://feminspire.com/cnn-article-on-female-voters-and-ovulation-
with-visual-effects/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

91
Penfield, Joyce. 1987. Women and language in transition. New York City, NY: State
University of New York Press
Peters, Lucia. 2014. “Maddox's Response To the Milo Manara Spider-Woman Cover
Makes Some Legit Points, But It's Still Not OK.”
(http://www.bustle.com/articles/38735-maddoxs-response-to-the-milo-manara-
spider-woman-cover-makes-some-legit-points-but-its-still-not) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate. [n.d] Brilliance Audio Publishing
Pinker, Steven. 2014. The Language Instinct. [n.d] Brilliance Audio Publishing
Piper, Everett. 2015. “This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!”
(http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Postreal, Virginia. 2005. “Some Economists Say the President of Harvard Talks Just
Like Them.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/business/some-economists-
say-the-president-of-harvard-talks-just-like-them.html?_r=0) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).
Pushter, Jacob. 2015. “40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minori-
ties” (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-
with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Rabin, Roni Caryn. 2008. “Weighty Assumptions.”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/story/2008/01/28/ST20080128
01777.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Raehn, Raymond V. 1999. “The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”
(http://www.observations.net/marxism/C_chapter_two.pdf) (date of access: 16
Feb. 2015).
Ramos, Jill Terrieri. 2015. “In GOP race, a campaign against political correctness.”
(https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/08/gop-race-campaign-against-
political-correctness/Ypa1LkbwfdFAE0iANDum5M/story.html) (date of access:
8 Dec. 2015).
Rawden, Jessica. 2015. “Watch Jeremy Renner Brush Off The Black Widow Slut Con-
troversy On Conan.” (http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Watch-Jeremy-
Renner-Brush-Off-Black-Widow-Slut-Controversy-Conan-71699.html) (date of
access: 8 Dec. 2015).

92
Reich, Robert B. et al. 1999. “A solid investment: Making a full use of the nation’s hu-
man capital.”
(http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling2.pdf) (date of
access: 04.08.2015)
Rich, Frank. 2014. “In Conversation with Chris Rock”
(http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Rife, Katie. 2014. “Marvel cancels Milo Manara covers after Spider-Woman butt con-
troversy.” (http://www.avclub.com/article/marvel-cancels-milo-manara-covers-
after-spider-wom-209593) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Roberts, Craig Paul. 2006. “Political Correctness—In Science, Scholarship And Stat-
ues.” (http://www.vdare.com/articles/political-correctness-in-science-
scholarship-and-statues) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Roff, Sarah. 2014. “Treatment, Not Trigger Warnings.”
(http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/05/23/treatment-not-trigger-
warnings/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015)
Rory Carroll, 2014. “Berkeley students bid to ban 'blatant bigot' Bill Maher from com-
mencement ceremony.” (http://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2014/oct/28/berkeley-petition-bill-maher-commencement) (date of access:
8 Dec. 2015).
Rosa, Alberto and Jaan Valsiner. 2007. The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psy-
chology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ross, Andrew and Manthia Diawara, Alexander Doty, Wahneema Lubiano, Tricia
Rose, Ella Shohat, Lynn Spigel, Robert Stam and Michele Wallace. 1993. “A
Symposium on Popular Culture and Political Correctness.” Social Text No. 36:
39
Roughgarden, Joan. 2004. “The Bailey Affair: Psychology Perverted.”
(http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted
%20-%20by%20Joan%20Roughgarden.htm) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Russel, Bertrand. 1967. A History of Western Philosophy. New York City, NY: Simon
& Schuster

93
Sartwell, Crispin. 2015. “Should Miley Cyrus wear dreadlocks?”
(http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0927-sartwell-appropriated-
culture-20150927-story.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Satel, Sally. 2000. PC, M.D. How Political Correctness is corrupting medicine. New
York, NY: Basic Books
Satoshi Kanazawa. 2010. “It’s Only “Good Science” If the Message Is Politically Cor-
rect [a review]”(https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-
fundamentalist/201012/it-s-only-good-science-if-the-message-is-politically)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Scelfo, Julie. 2015. “A University Recognizes a Third Gender: Neutral”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/a-university-recognizes-
a-third-gender-neutral.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Seitz-Wald, Alex.2015. “Bernie Sanders event shut down by Black Lives Matter activ-
ists.” (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-event-shut-down-black-
lives-matter-activists) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Sennels, Nicolai. 2011. “Psychological Explanations of Political Correctness”
(http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/12/psychological-explanations-of-
political.html) (date of access: 07.08.2015)
Sexton, John. 2015. “Northwestern Professor: Faculty Now Fear Students Demanding
‘Safe Spaces’” (http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2015/05/29/northwestern-professor-faculty-now-fear-students-
demanding-safe-spaces/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Siegel, Ethan. 2013. “Weekend Diversion: Against Scientific Racism.”
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/19/weekend-diversion-
against-scientific-racism/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Silman, Anna. 2015. “10 famous comedians on how political correctness is killing com-
edy: “We are addicted to the rush of being offended.”
(http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/10_famous_comedians_on_how_political_c
orrect-
ness_is_killing_comedy_we_are_addicted_to_the_rush_of_being_offended/)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

94
Sinha, Smriti. 2014. “New Spider-Woman Cover Puts The Comic Industry's Women
Problem Right In Our Faces.” (http://mic.com/articles/96874/new-spider-
woman-cover-puts-the-comic-industry-s-women-problem-right-in-our-
faces#.gXX0mKUZT) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Sokal, Alan. 1996a. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Herme-
neutics of Quantum Gravity.”, Social Text vol. 46, 47: 217-252.
Sokal, Alan. 1996b. “A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies”, Lingua Franca
May/June 1996.
Sommers, Christina Hoff. 1994. Who Stole Feminism? New York City, NY: Simon &
Schuster
Spender, Dale. 1990. Man made language. London: Pandora Press
Staples, Brent. 2000. “Blaming Nixon”.
(https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/16/reviews/000116.16staplet.html) (date
of access: 26 Feb. 2015).
Stern, Sol. 2014. “The Free Speech Movement at 50” (http://www.city-
journal.org/2014/eon0925ss.html) (date of access: 26 Feb. 2015).
Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual
Orientation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Suk, Jeannie. 2014. “The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law”
(http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law) (date
of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Sullivan, Sean. 2013. “Ben Carson: Obamacare worst thing since slav-
ery”(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-
carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Tandon, Neeru. 2008. Feminism: a paradigm shift. Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Dis-
tributors Pvt Ltd
Tennanbaum, Melanie. 2015. “Decoding Trump-Mania: The Psychological Allure of
Hating Political Correcness.”
(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/decoding-trump-mania-the-
psychological-allure-of-hating-political-correctness-part-1/) (date of access: 8
Dec. 2015).

95
Trotsky, Leon. 1914. “The War and the International”
(https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1914/war/) (date of access: 16 Feb.
2015).
Tse-tung, Mao. 1929. “On correcting mistaken ideas in the party”, Selected works of
Mao Tse-tung. (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-
works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm) (date of access: 15 Feb. 2015).
Tumulty, Karen.2012. “CNN pulls report about ovulation and voting.”
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/25/cnn-
pulls-report-about-ovulation-and-voting/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Tysver,Robynn. 2015. “Fiorina in Iowa: Political correctness is now choking candid.
Conversation.” (http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/fiorina-in-iowa-political-
correctness-is-now-choking-candid-conversation/article_92d46040-05df-56cc-
86b0-ffec70132a80.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Usborne, David. 2011. “Summers' 'sexism' costs him top Treasury job.”
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/summers-sexism-costs-
him-top-treasury-job-1033373.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Veith, Gene. 2013. “The new left’s doctrine of “repressive tolerance” ”.
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/02/the-new-lefts-doctrine-of-
repressive-tolerance/) (date of access: 26 Feb. 2015).
Voorhees, Josh. 2015. Trump’s Week of Fearmongering and Falsehoods.
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/23/donald_trump_is_vile_on_
mosques_muslims_black_america.html) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Watanabe, Teresa and Jason Song. 2015. “The new face of bias on campus: mi-
croaggression” (http://www.sacbee.com/news/article44337501.html) (date of ac-
cess: 8 Dec. 2015).
White, Micah. 2010. “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism.”
(http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-
leftist-activism) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Wiener, Jon. 2013. “Why did Harvard give PhD for a Discredited approach to Race and
IQ?” (http://www.thenation.com/article/why-did-harvard-give-phd-discredited-
approach-race-and-iq/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).

96
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political
Significance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. [1922] 2007. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. New York City,
NY: Cosimo Classics
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. [1953] 2009. Philosophical Investigations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell
Wooster, Martin Morse. 2015. “War against GMOs is a stupid, wasteful fight.”
(http://www.philanthropydaily.com/war-against-gmos-is-stupid-wasteful-fight/)
(date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Wright, Rogers H. & Nicholas A. Cummings. 2005. Destructive Trends in Mental
Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm. London: Routledge
Yann, Holly. 2015. “Donald Trump's 'blood' comment about Megyn Kelly draws out-
rage”(http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-
kelly-comment/) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
York, Byron. 2015. “Trump sets off conservative backlash; 'disinvited' from RedState;
Fiorina defends Megyn Kelly” (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-
sets-off-conservative-backlash-disinvited-from-redstate-fiorina-defends-megyn-
kelly/article/2569866) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Younkins, Edward W. 2004. “Political Correctness Threatens Free Society”
(http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Political_Correctness_Threatens_
Free_Society.shtml) (date of access: 04.08.2015)
Zuger, Abigail.2012. “From Bang to Whimper: A Heart Drug’s Story.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/from-bang-to-whimper-a-heart-
drugs-story.html?_r=0) (date of access: 8 Dec. 2015).
Zurcher, Anthony. 2015. “Donald Trump wants to deport every single illegal immigrant
- could he?” (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34789502) (date of
access: 8 Dec. 2015).

97