The Language Debate: To Be PC or Not to Be PC?

The English language has evolved in a profound way through the centuries of its existence. From the old ancestral English, like “hus” for house; to the Shakespearean English, such as “ere” to mean before to the present day English we’ve all come to know and love, including words like “selfie” and “blog.” However, this modern language of ours doesn’t come without its flaws though. The recent controversy surrounding political correctness has English users divided: Should political correctness be strictly enforced or should it be taken leniently? Some say that political correctness is mandatory in an increasingly sensitive world in which small phrases or "microaggressions" can have great implications. Conversely, others say that the strict enforcement of political correctness restricts the right of free speech and excludes staple words and phrases from the language. Although certain words or phrases may be offensive to particular individuals and groups, efforts to eliminate hurtful terms from the English language are impossible because interpretation is inherently subjective. One example which illustrates the debate over word choice is the attempt by some educators to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from English curricula because of Twain’s use of “nigger.” Now, I can understand why this term may offend black students, but Twain’s book captures the language of the period and region accurately; moreover, the main black character, Jim, is morally superior to the white characters around him. If all English programs were to apply the logic of eliminating books from the classroom due to offensive language, many of the literary masterpieces and their numerous life lessons would never be taught again. On the other hand, one thing that must be acknowledged in the offensive language controversy is the power of words to evoke painful experiences and emotion. For example, individuals who have experienced painful situations such as war and prison might get offended from reading phrases like “it’s an uphill battle,” “hit them where it hurts,” and “shoot yourself in the foot.” Reading or hearing such phrases that meant life or death on the battlefield may be irritating or discounting when they are used in such a causal manner in everyday speech. Now just because these ubiquitous idioms might emotionally impact a few unfortunate individuals, these everyday phrases are simply not just going to be eradicated from the English language; they have become an essential component of the language itself. Even if one is eliminated, others will still appear in its place. The NCAA’s position on Native American name use for teams and mascots clearly demonstrates this phenomenon. Just by banning the use of “racist” Native American names as sports teams or team mascots will not solve the problem of racism because many other modes, such as automobiles like the Jeep Cherokee, are available for which racism can present itself in. Perhaps the only way to eradicate exclusion is exclusion itself.