Politically (in)correct: The relationship between language, power & American social-political movements Hannah Levy Senior History Thesis 12/2014 Red Riding Hood walked along the main path. But, because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the wolf knew a quicker route to Grandma’s house. He burst into the house and ate Grandma, an entirely valid course of action for a carnivore such as himself. Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist notions of what was the masculine or feminine, he put on Grandma’s nightclothes and crawled into bed.1 A familiar childhood fairy tale re-told with a twist, the Wolf might not seem so unjustified making a meal out of Grandma when politically correct language is embraced. Political correctness (PC) has evolved into an abstract phenomenon that is embedded within our normative colloquial culture. The term itself is widely applied, used as a callout against language that reflects oppression with a mention of “that’s not PC” amongst conversers as a frequent occasion. Those who engage with and defend PC would argue it is a compassionate means of extending inclusivity to groups whose voices are silenced. Ask those who oppose PC and it is alternatively characterized as an infringement on free speech by the “language police.” PC functions primarily as an attack by the conservative Right to reinforce what are perceived as “traditional” values. However, PC has been adopted by social-political movements to discuss the frameworks by which they operate. In this sense, social-political movements have played the central role in defining the parameters of political correctness. With the development of PC language comes the evolution and devolution of terms and phrases that reflect the political and social philosophies of the moment. Personal identity is intimately bound to the use of language, our most primary form of social representation. Language is the means by which we create the substance of society, directly reflects our human nature and engineers our societal norms. Identity is intrinsically 1 James Finn Garner, Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994), 2-3. 1 tied to the politics of power with language serving as an instrument for exploration and definition of personal identity. Identity politics are crucial to social-political movements with discussions of PC and identity populating conversations amongst movement leaders for decades. Race, gender, class, sexuality and a variety of factors contribute to the facets of a person’s identity and subsequently the privileges associated with their experiences in society. Social-movements of the late ‘60s and ‘70s became heavily focused on the role of identity in the politics of their own goals for social reform. The black liberation and women’s liberation movements contributed a powerful new idea to the developing theory of identity politics: “the personal is political.” A concern for identity and intersection of oppressive and privileged experiences emerged out of a political movement’s concern to be intimately tied to personal experience. The PC phenomenon represents a direct application of this idea, that one’s personal and political contributions could be measured by degrees of inclusivity or radicalism, “it could, ironically, lead activists to embrace an asceticism that sacrificed personal needs and desires to political imperatives.”2 While language bore the brunt of the application of PC, PC did not singularly evolve out of a concern for correct terminology. PC extends past its common perception as “language correction” and has a sophisticated historical relationship with social movements of the ‘60s, 70s and ‘80s. Actions, philosophies, bodies and speech have all been the subject of PC debate. These dialogues concerning PC practices and inclusive movement politics represent a shift towards close examination of American culture as a means of arguing for institutional changes. 2 Marcy Darnovsky, Barbara Epstein and Richard Flacks, Cultural Politics and Social Movements (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), 120. 2 Social-political movements directly reflect the purpose of the American democracy, their presence signaling that there is at least a semblance of collective desire to reform social and political practices. However, the active and necessary role of radical movements within a democracy has its inherent flaws. Internal to a movement are many conflicting dichotomies, “social movements appear to be simultaneously spontaneous and strategic, expressive (of emotion and need) and instrumental (seeking some concrete ends), unruly and organized, political and cultural.”3 The tension within social-political movements associated with these dichotomies illuminates the incongruence that can confuse the understanding of PC. Movements criticizing a system for its exclusion or oppression of certain groups inevitably encounter the same problem of exclusion. While the Right accosts radical movements for perpetuating an unproductive PC agenda, radical movement participants criticize the less radical liberal participants for imposing a misrepresentative PC conforming agenda upon movement goals and actions. A desire to find unity within social-political movements that seek to de-center dominant narratives has been one the predominant struggles of radical movements since the 1960s. Analysis of the recent history of PC reveals discourse concerning the role of language and personal politics in American culture. I seek to examine the role of PC philosophies within social-political movements of the 1960s-80s and how subsequent development of the PC phenomenon impacted the way Americans think about the role of language today. Political correctness plays a historically significant role in the development of American conceptions of language and identity. I argue that political correctness includes 3 Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks, Cultural Politics and Social Movements (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), vii. 3 the critical analysis of language and has been expanded into examinations of action and personal politics. Through examination of Stokely Carmichael’s establishment of the Black Power movement, the conservative reaction to Affirmative Action and the Barnard Conference on Sexuality and subsequent reactions to each event I will establish that political correctness is not simply a conservative applied philosophy to movements of the left, but that it is utilized internally by movements to radicalize intentions and outcomes. A historiography of PC Political correctness evolved during the 20th century into a charged and prevalent term. While its roots in Marxist language philosophy and popularization through conservative rhetoric have undeniably created negative associations for PC behavior, 4 the origins of the term “political correctness” reflect an inherent American cultural investment and concern regarding the relationship between language, identity and power within egalitarian society. Striking a common nerve amongst conservatives, liberals, academics, politicians and social activists, the exponentially increasing popularity of the term “political correctness” brought about a new lens through which social-political movements were criticized and radicalized. It is the political Left that is responsible for the birth of the colloquial use of PC, but the political Right that constructed its public definition. Leftists originally used the term as a means of criticizing excessive radicalism within the party and mocking, “supposed centralisms of the official parties, even of party discipline itself.”5 Exercising use of the term 4 Harold K. Bush Jr., “A Brief History of PC, with annotated bibliography,” American Studies International 33, no. 1 (1995): 2. 5 Tim Brennan,“‘PC’ and the Decline of the American Empire,” Social Policy 22, no. 1 (1991): 2. 4 PC wasn’t so much a statement as it was a symbol of asserting distance from Leftist radicalism.6 A double-edged sword, this phrase intended for internalized party criticism was quickly picked up by the Right and popularized as a way of negatively characterizing Leftist radicalism.7 Reframing PC into a strictly negative context, conservatives are responsible for our understanding of the term today; intolerance of the Left as it pertains to control of thoughts, language and actions:8 During the 1980s conservatives began to take over this leftist phrase and exploit it for political gain, expanding its meaning to include anyone who expressed radical sentiments… And conservatives not only appropriated politically correct for their own attacks on the radical Left, they also transformed it into a new phrase – political correctness. The liberals’ original “I’m not politically correct” was an iron defense against those who took extremism to new extremes, who demanded absolute consistency to radical principles. The conservatives warped this meaning to convey the image of a vast conspiracy controlling American[s].9 In light of this new conservative political attack strategy, it is with the dawn of the 1990s that an eruption of written debate materialized and established PC’s time in the spotlight of popular discourse through enthusiastic analysis. In 1991, Dinesh D’Souza published Illiberal Education, a text that provides an onslaught of anecdotal evidence to argue for the inefficacy of Affirmative Action, the decline of the Westernized education and the censorship of speech as a result of accused of bigotry. Though D’Souza’s thorough research is evident, the bias of his conservative beliefs creates a sense for the reader that they are embedded in a persuasive diatribe. The reactionary assault portrayed in Illiberal 6 Brennan,“‘PC’ and the Decline of the American Empire,” 2. Bush, “A Brief History of PC,” 2. 8 Nancy B. Jones, “Confronting the PC ‘Debate’: The Politics of Identity and the American Image,” NWSA Journal 6, no. 3 (1994): 385. 9 John K. Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, The Conservative Attack on Higher Education, (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995), 4. 7 5 Education concerning the impact of PC in America sparked national debate, criticism and praise. Following suit, academics convened and began rapid-fire publication of edited volumes containing positional essays addressing the many approaches and opinions surrounding PC. Titles such as Debating P.C., Beyond PC, Our Country, Our Culture: The Politics of Political Correctness, PC Wars, and Political Correctness: For and Against were published solely between ‘92 and ’95. For the most part, professors wanted a stake in the debate, these volumes reflected a wide variety of departmental voices: English, American studies, American Ethnic Studies, African American studies, Women’s Studies, Sociology, Social Science, Popular Culture, Cultural Theory, Communication, Language, Philosophy, History, Law, Politics and Economics to name a few. Beyond PC and Our Country, Our Culture are slightly more diverse, also representing several senior editors of conservative and liberal publications, a chairman of the board of editors for Encyclopedia Britannica, assistant US Secretary of Education and mainly acclaimed columnists and authors amongst the influx of professorial voices. A significant commonality within the body of work that emerged in the early ‘90s is that a majority of position pieces revolve specifically around the topics of censorship, multiculturalism, higher education and identity politics. Expanding PC from analysis of past social-political movements and projecting the role of PC as it related to current events of the time was a recurrent focus amongst the authors. PC has both its own historiography and has subsequent influence upon the historiographical trends of many recently resurrected social histories. Within the literature addressing the impact of PC, it is a prevalent argument that the social-political movements of the 1960s and 1970s greatly influenced the course of academics and spurred a re- 6 evaluation of much of what had been traditionally taught. The evolution of PC conscious institutions of higher education, despite controversy, has notably impacted the practice and study of history. Historian, David Gordon argues, “never has the profession been so threatened. Political correctness has both narrowed and distorted enquiry… Most ominously of all, changes in college curricula across the nation threaten to severely reduce the place of history in liberal arts education.”10 While these Western histories are still undergoing thorough re-evaluations in attempts to de-center white narratives, this may temporarily impact the role of history in the classroom at a university level. However, with the evolution of social-political movements that evaluate dominant roles in society came a parallel examination of social histories by historians of the 1970s onward. PC conscious historians discovered that the histories of groups that are traditionally silenced presented sophisticated and important context within American studies. Women’s, racial and ethnic histories all experienced a huge surge in study as a result of the influence of social-political movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s.11 Historically, this study contributes to the understanding of PC’s preceding philosophical history and its adaptation within the internal circles of movements; however, the historiography of PC is still in a state of important development. As the term was popularized in the early 1980s, initially examined in the 1990s and still considered a topic of debate today there is much more work to be done in examining the impact of this phenomenon upon American history. “Black Power” A slogan changes the direction of movement history 10 David Gordon, “The Joys and Sorrows of Diversity: Changes in the Historical Profession in the Last Half Century,” Society 50 (2013): 140. 11 Gordon, “The Joys and Sorrows of Diversity,” 143. 7 “This is the twenty-seventh time I’ve been arrested. I ain’t going to jail no more. The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin’ us is to take over. What we gonna start sayin’ now is Black Power!”12 In June of 1966, Stokely Carmichael13 coined the slogan, “Black Power,” a phrase that would rattle the previously unified front of the Civil Rights Movement and change the course of the movement’s history. The call for Black Power reflected a break up between liberal integrationists and a more radical faction of movement participants. Carmichael fueled the popularization of the slogan characterizing it as the start of a radical and powerful movement, “This is 1966 and it seems to me that it’s ‘time out’ for nice words,” he said during a Chicago speaking tour.14 Black Power sparked an almost immediate media driven response labeling Carmichael’s cry for a more radical movement as a move towards black militancy. Major news outlets published sentiments that reflected white concerns, expressing fear of potential reverse discrimination and looking to the moderate activists for reassurance. 15 The media continued to fuel negative reactions and provoked anger from white citizens across the country but Carmichael held that the Black Power movement was necessary for just this reason: An organization which claims to speak of the needs of a community – as does the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee – must speak in the tone of that community, not as somebody else’s buffer zone. This is the significance of Black Power as a slogan. For once, black people are going to use the words they want to use – not just the words whites want to hear. And they will do this no matter how 12 Peniel E. Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, A Narrative History of Black Power in America (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006), 142. 13 Stokely Carmichael is also known as Kwame Ture, for the purpose of continuity and relevance to the period in which he is discussed he will be referred to by the former name. 14 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 152. 15 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 146. 8 often the press tries to stop the use of the slogan by equating it with racism or separatism.16 In the wake of public unrest and internal disunion, former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) chairman John Lewis renounced his membership from the group.17 Falling victim to the all too familiar exclusion of voiceless parties, participants in the Civil Rights Movement found themselves at a crossroads, “if King and the SCLC represented a movement that expressed, with quiet dignity and social reserve, an unwillingness to wait for racial justice, Carmichael and SNCC portrayed the impatient face of political anger.”18 The focus of Black Power was not simply to oppose white oppression, but to challenge the traditional approach of nonviolent resistance: Integration is absolutely absurd unless you can talk about it on a two-way street, where black people sit down and decide about integration. As you know, the Black Power movement that SNCC initiated moved away from the integration movement. Because of the integration movement’s middle class orientation, because of its subconscious racism, and because of its nonviolent approach, it has never been able to involve the black proletariat.19 With Carmichael serving as the new chairman of SNCC, a divide amongst the group arose out of debate over the future of the committee’s organization. In efforts to embody Black Power, it had been proposed that the group only have black members and purge itself of its members who were white. Those opposed acknowledged the loyalty and previous contributions of many of SNCC’s white members, resulting in a compromise that permitted a small number of white veteran members to remain active with the organization.20 16 Stokely Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, From Black Power to Pan-Africanism (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1965), 18. 17 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 146. 18 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 146. 19 Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 88. 20 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 161. 9 Carmichael was primarily concerned with the compromises that accompanied an appeal to white liberalism within the Black Power movement. In accord with the radical nature of Black Power, Carmichael aligns the liberals with the oppressor, “confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than the oppressed.”21 Considering the radical stance of the Black Power movement and the positions of power occupied by different racial groups, Carmichael’s response to white involvement in SNCC was in line with his philosophies. This in no way lessened the reaction of the condemnation received from critics of Black Power, well known nonviolent leader Bayard Rustin was quoted on Black Power saying it was, “simultaneously utopian and reactionary.”22 Carmichael’s reactionary response to the nonviolent movement did not stop with discussion of movement organization. In a speech addressed to the students of the University of California, Berkeley, Carmichael directly addresses the role of the language and the Black Power movement: We are now engaged in a psychological struggle in this country about whether or not black people have the right to use the words they want to use without white people giving their sanction. We maintain the use of the words Black Power – let them address themselves to that. We are not going to wait for white people to sanction Black Power. We’re tired of waiting; every time black people try to move in this country, they’re forced to defend their position beforehand.23 The commentary on language that resulted from the Black Power movement was a revolutionary step towards the development of identity politics in the 1960s. Responses such 21 Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 170. Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 162. 23 Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 49. 22 10 as these from Carmichael address both the white oppressor and the traditionally nonviolent participants of the Civil Rights Movement. Carmichael was a voice for those to the left of the liberal nonviolent participants representing, “dissent on the part of voiceless Americans of all colors.”24 Reinforcing the rationale for dissent, Carmichael discussed the intentional use of the racial identifier, “Black” in his speech at UC, Berkeley: This country knows what power is. It knows what Black Power is because it deprived black people of it for over four hundred years. White people associate Black Power with violence because of their own inability to deal with blackness. If we had said “Negro power” nobody would get scared. Everybody would support it. If we said power for the colored people, everybody’d be for that, but it is the word “black” that bothers people in this country, and that’s their problem, not mine.25 This was a radical shift in language at the time and the documentation of Carmichael’s speeches and essays demonstrates that discussion of language was integral to the development of the Black Power ideology. Arguing for a shift to the term “black” instead of “Negro,” Carmichael cited the term Negro’s history with enslavement and colonization of African people. To identify oneself as black was to see oneself as a part of a “new force,” it was to reject the “meaningless language so common to discussions of race today.”26 Well aware of the interference his call for Black Power had upon the previously unified front of the movement, Carmichael urged unity amongst participants, “we say that every Negro is a potential black man because if we’re talking about unity we have to believe that it is possible for all of us to be united…if we have an undying love for our people, we 24 Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, 181. Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 57-58. 26 Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 97. 25 11 are willing to take the time and patience with them.”27 This call for understanding and meeting movement participants where they were in their acceptance of radical philosophies was a strategy Carmichael reiterated throughout many of his speeches. While the Black Power movement preceded the popularization of the term PC, it demonstrates inspiration for the use of PC attacks and embodies many of the characteristics of a radical internal separation as a result of liberal PC narratives. Carmichael’s revolution established that a fundamental concern for language could redirect the course of a socialpolitical movement, “the power to define is the most important power that we have. It is he who is master who can define… We must begin to define our own terms and certainly our own concept of ourselves and let those who are not capable of following us fall by the wayside.”28 Affirmative Action & the PC attack on Higher Education It is arguable that the popularization of PC debate emerged out of the opposition to the installment of Affirmative Action on college and university campuses throughout the ‘60s. With its creation embedded in the desire for equality, the implementation of Affirmative Action was instantly correlated with PC philosophies. The relevance and efficacy of Affirmative Action as a promoter of on-campus diversity quickly translated into a conversation on both the usefulness and uselessness of politically correct ideals. In immediate response to the intentions of Affirmative Action, conservatives claimed that students were being held subject to the whims of professors who crowd their syllabi 27 28 Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 151. Carmichael, Stokely Speaks, 66. 12 with influential liberal content.29 As radical movements gained their foothold in the ‘60s, conservative youths on university campuses across the nation convened to establish themselves as the self-appointed ousters of liberal indoctrination in the classroom.30 Groups including Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and Accuracy in Academia (AIA) identified professors whom they believed to be asserting a liberal agenda within the classroom and publicly criticized them. In one such case, AIA member Mark Scully targeted professor Mark Reader of Arizona State University claiming he spoke, “‘for his comrades in the political science department, for the sweeties in the Women’s Studies Department- for every puffed up pedagogue on this campus who just wants to do his own thing.’”31 Reactionary tactics became the hallmark strategy of the conservative movement in its initial response to Affirmative Action within higher education. Liberals identified the true motivation of conservative backlash as efforts to silence emergent progressive voices in the classroom and perpetuate Westernized, male principles.32 As Affirmative Action graduated out of its fledgling stages during the ‘60s, critical analysis of its usefulness became the new strategy of the political Right. Published in 1991, Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education became a centerpiece for discussion of the impact of Affirmative Action on higher education. On the very first page of his book, D’Souza outlines a pattern of behavior in higher education he credits throughout the work to be a result of pressures to remain PC: Yet in the past few years, the American campus appears to be stirring again. University outsiders have been shocked to hear of proliferation of bigotry on 29 Pam Chamberlain, “The Right v. Higher Education: Change and Continuity,” Radical Teacher 77, (2006): 5. 30 Chamberlain, “The Right v. Higher Education,” 1. 31 Chamberlain, “The Right v. Higher Education,” 1. 32 Chamberlain, “The Right v. Higher Education,” 5. 13 campus; at the University of Michigan, for example, someone put up posters which said, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste-especially on a nigger.” Typically these ugly incidents are accompanied by noisy protests and seizures of administration buildings by minority activists, who denounce the university as “institutionally racist.” Both bewildered and horrified, the university leadership adopts a series of measures to detoxify the atmosphere, ranging from pledges to reform the “white male curriculum” to censorship of offensive speech.33 D’Souza’s work is a well-known work within the body of literature addressing the implications of political correctness and is referenced recurrently within subsequent literature. The book serves to rekindle the arguments of the conservative youths of the ‘60s, charging professors with creating dogmatic classroom atmospheres in which traditional core curriculums are “displaced or diluted.”34 Claiming that the American university is the, “birthplace and testing ground for this enterprise in social transformation,” D’Souza establishes that higher education underwent an academic transformation as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and the implementation of Affirmative Action policies. 35 Responsive to the Right’s claims of the plight of the white male under Affirmative Action, John Wilson published The Myth of Political Correctness in 1996. Wilson addresses the “myth of reverse discrimination,” speaking specifically to the difference between reality and perception of the effect Affirmative Action has upon higher education. Wilson substantiates that conservatives have, “created the legend of the lonely white male Ph.D. who…wanders the frontiers of academia, seeking any work he can find in the unfair and arbitrary world of faculty hiring while women and minorities race up a magic path to the 33 Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education, The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: The Free Press, 1991), 1. 34 D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 5. 35 D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 13. 14 top.”36 Wilson reassigns validity to Affirmative Action by citing demographic breakdowns of full-time faculty: The statistical evidence strongly suggests that white males are not the victims of reverse discrimination. A 1992 survey of full-time faculty found that women and minorities fill the ranks of less prestigious colleges. The faculty breakdown at research universities was as follows: white males, 66.5 percent; white women, 21.0 percent; African Americans (both men and women), 3.2 percent, and Hispanics (both men and women), 1.9 percent.37 Accordant with an argument in favor of Affirmative Action, Wilson asserts that political correctness debates have diverted from the real questions of equality and justice through wrongful accusation and silenced minority voices. Minority populations who have been systematically disadvantaged had been subject to “de facto” segregation before Affirmative Action was in place and its installation, while imperfect, seeks to restore equity to higher education.38 Faculty members David Gilman and W’Dene Andrews of Indiana State University (ISU) co-conducted an analysis of the Affirmative Action office’s efficiency and impact at their own institution. Gilman and Andrews, self identifying as a white, liberal, Democrat, male and Black, conservative, Republican, female respectively, approach the report with two distinct yet connected views on the usefulness of Affirmative Action and its relationship with political correctness.39 Gilman identifies PC as a fine line between protecting the well being of the professoriate and censorship, noting that “it usually happened that the pronouncement of policy and monitoring of faculty came from the University’s [ISU’s] 36 Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, 136. Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, 138. 38 Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, 157. 39 W’Dene E. Andrews and David A. Gilman, “Affirmative Action Anomalies in Academe,” Contemporary Education 68, no. 4 (1997): 2. 37 15 Office of Affirmative Action.” Andrews defines PC as a “triple-threat,” consistent with money, media domination, and governmental regulation; she insinuates that the institutional pressure upon faculty to remain PC blurs the lines of faculty members right to express personal opinion without fear of losing their job.40 Both Gilman and Andrew agreed based on the findings at their own institution that Affirmative Action was not a successful model to improve diversity on campus but for differing reasons: Gilman because of divide between the treatment of faculty hiring versus administrative hiring and Andrews because of a belief that the policy itself is redundant as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.41 In a section detailing attempts by the Office of Affirmative Action to censor faculty, Gilman and Andrews note, “it appeared that our faculty could be run over rough shod in the name of political correctness or Affirmative Action.”42 In the case of ISU, it is apparent that the Office of Affirmative Action was an instrument of civil rights that acquired the reputation of the “PC police.” The results of radical movements of the 1960s had prompted a conservative backlash against changing traditions within the workforce. Affirmative Action represents the first significant application of the PC attack from the Right after the popularization of the term. A hot button issue, Affirmative Action received the limelight as academics took their turn having a say in the matter. The essays, books, editorials and studies concerning Affirmative Action served to propel PC further into the public spotlight and simultaneously accost the actions of the Left. The strategies of the Right worked in the attack of Affirmative Action, 40 Andrews and Gilman, “Affirmative Action Anomalies in Academe,” 3. Andrews and Gilman, “Affirmative Action Anomalies in Academe,” 5-6. 42 Andrews and Gilman, “Affirmative Action Anomalies in Academe,” 4. 41 16 any form of a Leftist reaction to the conservative onslaught of PC attacks would only serve to further fuel the negative reputation that the Right had constructed about radicals. Barnard and the Sex Wars In 1981, feminist and sociologist, Carole Vance, distributed a letter to her colleagues that signaled the beginning of a sexuality revolution within the feminist movement: I invite you to join with the planning committee and the Barnard Women’s Center in work on the “The Scholar and The Feminist IX” conference. Our purpose in the first and subsequent meetings is to explore “sexuality” as this year’s theme, and through discussion, to identify the most pressing concerns of feminism. Be refining the theme, defining questions and topics, and selecting appropriate speakers and workshop leaders, we hope to put together a conference which will inform and advance the current debate.43 This letter invited a diverse range of contemporary feminists to engage in the planning and execution of the conference and produce new scholarly thought on a topic that was becoming increasingly divisive amongst feminists: sexual agency.44 The subsequent concept paper advertising the conference revealed there would indeed be discussion of the developing disunion within the feminist movement between radical feminists and sexradical feminists. It stated that feminists needed to revisit internal thought amongst members and give voice to sex-radical feminists: This dual focus [restriction and exploration of sexuality] is important, we think, for to speak only of pleasure and gratification ignores the patriarchal structure in which women act, yet to talk only of sexual violence and oppression ignores women’s experience with sexual agency and choice and unwitting increases the sexual terror 43 Hannah Alderfer, Beth Jaker and Marybeth Nelson, “Diary of a Conference on Sexuality,” Conference Documents, (Barnard, N.Y., 1982), 1. 44 Jenna Basiliere, “Political is Personal: Scholarly Manifestations of the Feminist Sex Wars,” Michigan Feminist Studies 22, (2009): 4. 17 and despair in which women live. This moment is a critical one for feminists to reconsider our understanding of sexuality and its political consequences.45 Notably excluded from the planning committee were anti-pornography and antisadomasochism feminists who were credited by the committee as having contributed to the dominant narrative of the feminist movement throughout the 1970s.46 Organizers maintained that were they to invite the dominant views of anti-pornography feminists to present in the conference, the conversation on sexual diversity would become overshadowed and a potential for productive forum would turn into ideological confrontations.47 What evolved out of the planning and preparation for the Barnard conference was an internalized movement debate that reflected larger structural questions regarding the relationship between political correctness and movement ideology.48 Barnard is a pivotal example of the deep relationship social-political movements have with ideology and language. Feminist opposition to Barnard emerged because of a dominant disdain for prosadomasochist (s/m) and pro-pornography organizations.49 Conference organizers had made their statement through the exclusion of dominant feminist viewpoints, now organizations such as Women Against Pornography (WAP), Women Against Violence Against Women (WAW) and New York Radical Feminists cried out against the conference. Two days prior to the conference, all 1500 copies of the conference’s manifesto, Diary of a Conference on Sexuality, were seized by Barnard University administration. It was soon revealed that this confiscation was in response to public outcry by WAP and was an attempt to remove any 45 Alderfer, Jaker and Nelson, “Diary of a Conference on Sexuality,” 38. Basiliere, “Political is Personal,” 1. 47 Context of Between Pleasure and Danger, 36. 48 Basiliere, “Political is Personal,” 1. 49 “Notes and Letters,” Feminist Studies 9, no. 1 (1983): 180. 46 18 affiliation of Barnard University’s name with sex-radical politics.50 The outcry also affected conference funding, the Helena Rubinstein Foundation withdrew all funding from future conferences as a result of the controversy.51 The politically incorrect status of the topics to be discussed at the conference were seen as a potential threat to public image by the university. Protest activity escalated on the day of the conference, WAP supporters circulated leaflets opposing the planning and execution of the conference as ideologically exclusive52 while wearing shirts that read, “For feminist sexuality” and, “Against s/m.”53 The leaflet singled out sadomasochist and pro-pornography organizations and movement leaders as the perpetuators of patriarchy and sexual violence. It criticized conference organizers for the, “promotion of one perspective on sexuality and its silencing of the views of major portion of the feminist movement,” and expanding, “that this conference is undermining that record [of The Scholar and the Feminist] by endorsing a tiny offshoot of the women’s movement that is part of the backlash against radical feminism.”54 Despite the public outcry, confiscation of materials and the WAP demonstration the conference went on to host over 800 women55 and offered 18 afternoon workshops for attendees.56 Amongst these workshops was, “Politically correct, Politically Incorrect 50 Lynn Comella,“Looking Backward: Barnard and its Legacies,” The Communication Review 11, (2008): 203-4. 51 Lisa Duggan and Nan D. Hunter, Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture, (New York: Routledge, 1995), 24. 52 Elizabeth Wilson, “The Context of ‘Between Pleasure and Danger’: The Barnard Conference on Sexuality,” Feminist Review 13, (1983): 36. 53 Duggan and Hunter, Sex Wars, 24. 54 “Notes and Letters,” 180. 55 Duggan and Hunter, Sex Wars, 24. 56 “Program: The Scholar and the Feminist IX: Towards a Politics of Sexuality,” 2-3. 19 Sexuality” hosted by Dorothy Allison, Joan Nestle, Muriel Dimen and Mirtha Quintales.57 Allison and Nestle had both learned of their identification in the WAP leaflet that day, Allison had been singled out as the founder of the sadomasochist organization Lesbian Sex Mafia (ls/m) and Nestle as the a “champion [of] butch-femme sex roles that are the psychological foundation of the patriarchy.”58 In an off the back article discussing the workshop the women are identified to share, “a heartfelt contempt for the notion that sexuality could be drawn and quartered and filed into boxes and labeled politically correct and politically incorrect.”59 Dimen opened the workshop, navigating PC alongside the workshop attendees: 1) What is politically correct? Answer: I don’t know; anything/everything. 2) Why would one want to be politically correct? Answer: It’s attractive; it starts from a perception of political oppression. 3) What is good about politically correct? Answer: it’s empowering; it dispels the sense of victimization; it allows one to be connect with the collectivity. 4) What is bad about politically correct? Answer: When a radical becomes politically correct, she becomes conservative, orthodox, conformist, controlled.60 Nestle built on these ideas of the limitations of PC arguing, “curiosity is the respect one life pays another” implying that correctness prevents movement inclusivity and leads to generalization. Identifying that the women had had no say in the title of the workshop, Quintales added, “correct is irrelevant, it is a label imposed from the outside.”61 While the workshop did not address issues of racial intersectionality with sexuality in its discussion of PC, Quintales shared a personal reaction to the parameters imposed by the PC agenda, “as a 57 Fran Moira, “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality,” Off Our Backs 12, no. 6 (1982): 22. 58 “Notes and Letters,” 181. 59 Moira, “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality,” 22. 60 Moira, “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality,” 22. 61 Moira, “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality,” 22. 20 Latina lesbian feminist, I have been a recalcitrant observer… You folks are worried about condemning and being condemned; I am worried about omission.”62 During the workshop Allison had advertised a Lesbian Sex Mafia speakout on “politically incorrect sex” that would be taking place the next day. At the speakout women spoke about their experiences attending the conference in light of the WAP protest against sadomasochism, many women identifying that they felt persecuted on account of their sexual identity. Quintales commented on the issue she believed to be truly at hand, “we need to have dialogues about S&M issues, not about what is ‘politically correct, politically incorrect.’ We are forced to spend all our time defending and celebrating deviance rather than exploring, analyzing what it is all about and our diversity.”63 Fran Moira, the author of the off our backs article reporting on the l/sm speakout added her own perspective, “there was disclosure and affirmation of the sexual lives of women whose sexual behavior is considered antithetical to feminism…I am glad there was such a speakout, that women are refusing to deny their sexual beings for fear of being sneered at or villified.”64 The speakout represented a rejection of PC lenses by dominant feminist groups and is a pertinent example of the engagement the feminist movement had with PC ideology amongst their own ranks. In this spirit, Moira left her readers with the final sentence, “I can live with you who call yourselves outlaws, but I cannot agree with – or have sex with you. Can you live with me?”65 The internal divide and disunion of PC ideology radical and sex-radical feminists engaged with the Barnard conference demonstrated was a harbinger of the sex wars that 62 Moira, “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality,” 22. Fran Moira, “Lesbian Sex Mafia [“l/sm”] Speakout,” Off Our Backs 12, no. 6 (1982): 24. 64 Moira, “Lesbian Sex Mafia [“l/sm”] Speakout,” 24. 65 Moira, “Lesbian Sex Mafia [“l/sm”] Speakout,” 24. 63 21 would last into the early ‘90s.66 In a collective response to the leafleting and protest of the Barnard conference, the organizers and supporters of sex-radical feminism submitted an open letter to the journal Feminist Studies stating in part: We are signing this letter to protest these and all such attempts to inhibit feminist dialogue on sexuality. Feminist discussion about sexuality cannot be carried on if one segment of the feminist movement uses McCarthyite tactics to silence other voices. We reaffirm the importance and complexity of the questions feminists are now beginning to ask about sexuality and endorse the Barnard conference for its effort to explore new territory. In an age of reaction, we believe it is important for feminists to resist the impulse to censor ourselves, as strongly as we resist the efforts of others to censor us.67 The Barnard conference leaves two distinct legacies, one being the impact on contemporary feminist discourse by fostering space for sex-radical discourse and the second is an historically rich understanding of the role PC played in a major American socialpolitical movement. Internal tumult within the feminist movement resulted in a shifting of goals, practices and even ideologies over the course of the ‘80s. In the case of Barnard, feminists who identified as supporters of sex-radicalism used the rejection of PC culture and dominant narratives to empower the voices of sadists, the role of pornography and the sexuality of youths. Political incorrectness was utilized as an external criticism by dominant feminists upon the Barnard conference and in turn employed as a double-edged sword by sex-radical feminists to analyze the internal disunion of the maturing 2nd wave feminist movement. In efforts to advocate for their own voice within the conference, PC adhering groups such as WAP inevitably created a greater divide amongst feminists. This division emerged out of a long-standing repression of the voices of sex-positive feminists and ended with a deep divide amongst the feminist movement. 66 67 Duggan and Hunter, Sex Wars, 29. “Notes and Letters,” 179-80. 22 Heralding the Sex Wars of the 1980s, the controversy of the Barnard Conference established a sophisticated relationship between sexualities and internal PC practices. Vance identified the root of the debate on sexuality eloquently in her final note in the Diary of a Conference on Sexuality, “The Scholar and Feminist IX planning committee met steadily from September 1981 to April 1982, during which time we reaffirmed that the most important sexual organ in humans is located between the ears.”68 Analysis The role of PC within the social-political movements of the 1960s-1980s created a notable impact on the way American’s perceive and utilize language today. The modern understanding of PC from a liberal perspective is to use language that is inclusive and compassionate to an array of identities. This modern liberal understanding challenges the traditionally negative connotation PC has embodied as a result of its popularization by the political Right. In the politically charged atmosphere of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s to use PC language and exercise PC philosophy was controversial despite a political affiliation with the Left of the Right. This incongruity between Left and Right can be explained as a dichotomy between the usefulness of PC internally and externally: internally as a means of establishing movement objectives and externally as a means of challenging normative philosophies of “correctness” through politically incorrect actions or language. Internal discussion of PC arises when a liberal movement experiences division as a result of radicalized thoughts, actions and language by its members. The results are accusations of PC being enforced upon radically inclined members by the liberal members within the movement. Essentially, those positioned to the left of the Left become “politically 68 Alderfer, Jaker and Nelson, “Diary of a Conference on Sexuality,” 72. 23 incorrect” from the perspective of the dominant movement members. PC can be useful to a movement internally if it results in expansion of movement goals towards supported desires for social reforms or institutional change. Externally, a movement, despite potential conflict between liberal and radical members, can oppose the Right’s attacks and belittling of PC behavior by reinforcing its goals of inclusion and social reform. In relation to the political Right, liberals and radicals are a united group to be attacked as PC. PC can be measured for usefulness from the external perspective by considering the outer success of the movement’s application of norm-challenging actions, language or philosophies. If the movement’s impact on the public was significant enough to prompt a change in public opinion despite an onslaught of conservative attack there is validity to the use of PC by those guiding the movement. To analyze the significance of the role of PC within a social-political movement or event it must be considered from an internal and external perspective. Additionally, one must consider PC outside of the conservative imposed negative view. PC is not limited to a definition of narrow-minded and exclusive radicals; it can as easily be interpreted as an open-minded and inclusive application of language, action and personal philosophy. The lens which through which an individual examines PC and its role in shaping history can distinctively alter the outcome of analysis. As was evidenced with the heated debates throughout the 1990s, PC is a controversial and historically relevant topic when discussing the American concern for PC and language. The Black Power movement changed the course of history when it prompted an ideological division amongst Civil Rights activists. Radicalism of language and philosophy resulted in an impactful shift in the practices and priorities of many participants in the Civil 24 Rights Movement. Stokely Carmichael’s leadership and rhetorical savvy in developing the Black Power movement was integral to its internal success. The reclamation of the “black” identity resulted in an influential shift in language that has lasted to this day. While the introduction of this new racial identifier was met with resistance, Carmichael charged Black Power supporters to meet their fellow activists where they were and to accept that all “Negroes” had the opportunity to become black Americans. Carmichael’s insistence on acceptance and patience relieved some of the exclusive tendencies that accompany radical movement shifts and improved the internal shift in participant alignment. Externally, Carmichael prompted an enraged response from white Americans who believed they were experiencing reverse racism. The Black Power movement’s propensity for unruly action as its own form of internally resisting nonviolent forms of activism led to a perception of danger and unpredictability by the media. This public perception resulted in lessened opportunities for coalition building and trust from liberal supporters of the Civil Rights Movement. While the movement made daunting strides in black history, it did not successfully gain public acceptance as a result of extreme radicalism. Much of the popularization of PC was a result of reactions to outcomes of the Civil Rights Movement, Affirmative Action taking the spotlight for PC criticism. Affirmative Action is unique in that it was born out of motivations to improve equal opportunity in the workforce and subsequently created an influence specifically upon institutions of higher education. The reactionary result to what was perceived as a PC infringement on the classroom became a debate that was somewhat removed from the institutions themselves. While conservative groups protested on campuses, the bulk of the reaction came through the published literature of the 1990s. The Right used catchy titles and a mass of anecdotal data 25 to reinforce the idea that PC was not an effective internal form of improving the classroom and was instead responsible for the deterioration of a quality higher education. This established the predominant negative connotations with PC and contributed to the ongoing cynicism and mockery with which PC is viewed today. The course of events that took place at the Barnard Conference on Sexuality was similar in nature to the emergence of the Black Power movement in the 1960s. PC played a predominant role in the conversations on sexuality at the conference and constituted much of the reaction by sex-radical supporters to WAP protestors. The conference serves as a microcosm that represented the coming historical shift in the feminist movement during the 1980s. The conference planners indicated that they were interested in progressing the internal goals of the movement by hosting a conference strictly addressing non-dominant views of 2nd wave feminism. This was the first step towards an internally successful application of PC. While the direct discussion of PC language wasn’t as prevalent, it was the discussion of PC philosophy and of PC bodies that defined the desires of feminist radicals at the conference. The protests and subsequent reaction polarized the radical and liberal movement ideologies, resulting in a division within the movement that allowed for clearer goals and for the voices of non-dominant identities to be heard. Externally, this movement was successful in creating public discourse and press attention regarding the division amongst feminists. However, the radicals perceived their liberal counterparts to closely aligned with the PC imposing oppressors of the Right as a result of financial and institutional support for the whims of the protestors. This distinct opposition by radicals of liberals weakened any opportunities for talk of identity inclusion or collaboration between individuals concerned with feminism. The start of the Sex Wars was 26 in part a result of this conference and associated PC with strict external divisions as a result of internal debates. These movements are not the sole representatives of the evolution of PC, however, their discourse and debate is characteristic of the internal and external applications of PC. The movement leaders, both of the radical and conservative movements, passionately argued for their understandings of the role of PC within their movement. Identity politics and radical movements instilled an American desire to engage with the language that dictates the norms and deviants of society. It is this concern and passion for disputing PC that reflects a value for language and its modern use. Conclusion The social radicalism that dominated the 1960s-1980s was incredibly impactful on the American perception of the role of language. It cannot be disputed that identity politics and “the personal is political” emerged as a result of discussions of intersectional movement goals and the subsequent silencing of oppressed voices. With the stage set for discussion of political ideology it comes as little surprise that the public jumped at the term, “in only a few years, the term political correctness had grown from obscurity to national prominence.”69 The tumultuous years of resistance during the 1960s resulted in significant institutional changes throughout the 1970s, including Affirmative Action. The immediate fad that was the term “political correctness” created an avenue for conservatives to react to the political disruption that was social-political unrest. With the establishment of the term PC came opportunity for political radicals to challenge yet another dominant, constraining and normative form of culture that was being applied to them. 69 Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, 3. 27 PC allowed a conservative disdain for language policing and functioned to assign absurdity to the ideas of political radicals, “by expanding the meaning of political correctness to include any expression of radical ideas, conservatives distorted its original meaning and turned it into a mechanism for doing exactly what they charge is being don to them – silencing dissenters.”70 However, in light of this application of a negative PC lens, leaders of social-political movements were able to use PC for the benefit of their own movements. By examining the internal workings of a movement, radicals were able to define their own political incorrectness as a way of resisting dominant liberal narratives. This assigned meaning to the power of language, action and philosophy, which consequently reinforced the idea that there is significance to PC. In a way, PC becomes double-sided, allowing the conservatives to assign absurdity and the radicals to demand inclusion. Both the Left and the Right benefit from use of PC as a political strategy, it allows each to distance themselves from the undesirable political views of their counterparts. PC prompted extended discussions of identity politics within the literature addressing its application upon social-political movements. With increased debate of identity politics came opportunity for academics to embrace and understand concepts of intersectionality, as well as further understand the impact that PC could have on future opportunities for social-political movements to advance their causes: One may be female but white, or black but male; virtually everyone is vulnerable to some charge of privilege. The language of “political correctness” is saturated in guilt – from which no one is immune. In a world of shifting identities, emphasizing one’s difference from others can give organizations, and people, a sense of security. But it can also get in the way of efforts to find common ground for action… a politics that is organized around defending identities based on race, gender, or sexuality forces people’s experience into categories that are too narrow and also makes it difficult for 70 Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness, 6. 28 us to speak to one another across the boundaries of these identities – let alone create the coalitions needed to build a movement for progressive change.71 The balance between secure space for identity and isolation of a movement from intersecting social or political issues is a question that remains relevant in light of today’s contemporary social-political movements. Democratic movements allow for healthy divisions in philosophy and if the movement can avoid a complete disunion there is opportunity for productive discourse concerning PC practices that could create lead to stronger movement inclusion. The dichotomy between “correct” and “incorrect” does not have to be the ultimate line; there is opportunity to forge inclusion if leaders of the movement are capable of such discussions. Alternatively, disunion can also prove the best course for a movement if it will create opportunities for radicals and liberals to separately promote their goals more effectively instead of working in tandem ineffectively. Considering the present interpretations and uses of PC, there is opportunity to reform the majority opinion on its application and practice. History has revealed that PC was used as a means of attack and distancing from undesirable political views, however, when the definition of PC is simplified there is opportunity for positive use. As active citizens in a democracy, our society is subject to perpetual change that ideally reflects the majority desires of the nation. Language structures our understanding of personal identity, political beliefs and societal norms. With the power to wield language there is an opportunity to remain accountable to others. To adjust personal language and action as a means of signaling inclusivity to under-represented, misunderstood or emerging voices is perhaps an opportunity to extend generosity to fellow Americans. 71 Darnovsky, Epstein and Flacks, Cultural Politics and Social Movements, 12. 29 The future of PC is up to the leaders of the coming revolutions and the participants in those movements. To play a role in the definition of language is a powerful responsibility as history has demonstrated. Employing PC as a means of exercising democratic expansion of radical ideas represents the constant progress activists are making towards ultimate inclusivity and equality. With each new politically incorrect identity will come a movement that challenges oppression. 30 Bibliography Andrews, W’Dene E. and David A. Gilman. “Affirmative Action Anomalies in Academe.” Contemporary Education 68, no. 4 (1997): 227-234. Alderfer, Hannah, Beth Jaker and Marybeth Nelson. “Diary of a Conference on Sexuality.” Conference Documents, Barnard, N.Y., 1982. Aufderheide, Patricia. Beyond P.C., Towards a Politics of Understanding. Saint Paul, M.N.: Graywolf Press, 1992. Basiliere, Jenna. “Political is Personal: Scholarly Manifestations of the Feminist Sex Wars.” Michigan Feminist Studies 22, (2009): 1-25. Berman, Paul. Debating P.C., The Controversy Over Political Correctness on College Campuses. New York: Dell Publishing, 1992. Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind, How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Brennan, Tim. “‘PC’ and the Decline of the American Empire.” Social Policy 22, no. 1 (1991): 16-29. Bush Jr., Harold K. “A Brief History of PC, with annotated bibliography.” American Studies International 33, no. 1 (1995): 42-65. Carmichael, Stokely. Stokely Speaks, From Black Power to Pan-Africanism. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1965. Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton. Black Power, The Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Random House Publishing, 1967. Chamberlain, Pam. “The Right v. Higher Education: Change and Continuity.” Radical Teacher 77, (2006): 2-6. Choi, Jung Min and John W. Murphy. The Politics and Philosophy of Political Correctness. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1992. Comella, Lynn. “Looking Backward: Barnard and its Legacies.” The Communication Review 11, (2008): 202-211. D’Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education, The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: The Free Press, 1991. 31 Darnovsky, Marcy, Barbara Epstein and Richard Flacks. Cultural Politics and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. Duggan, Lisa and Nan D. Hunter. Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture. New York: Routledge, 1995. Friedman, Marilyn and Jan Narveson. Political Correctness, For and Against. Lanham, M.D.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1995. Garner, James Finn. Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994. Gordon, David. “The Joys and Sorrows of Diversity: Changes in the Historical Profession in the Last Half Century.” Society 50 (2013): 140-151. Jackson Jr., John L. Racial Paranoia, The Unintended Consequences of Political Correctness, The New Reality of Race in America. New York: Basic Civitas, 2008. Jones, Nancy B. “Confronting the PC ‘Debate’: The Politics of Identity and the American Image.” NWSA Journal 6, no. 3 (1994): 384-403. Joseph, Peniel E. The Black Power Movement, Rethinking the Civil Rights – Black Power Era. New York: Routledge, 2006. Joseph, Peniel E. Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour, A Narrative History of Black Power in America. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006. Kurzweil, Edith and William Phillips. Our Country, Our Culture, The Politics of Political Correctness. New York: Partisan Review, Inc., 1994. Maranto, Robert, Richard E. Redding and Frederick M. Hess. The Politically Correct University, Problems, Scope, and Reform. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press, 2009. McElroy, John Harmon. Divided We Stand, The Rejection of American Culture since the 1960’s. Lanham, M.D.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Moira, Fran. “Lesbian Sex Mafia [“l/sm”] Speakout.” Off Our Backs 12, no. 6 (1982): 23-24. Moira, Fran. “Politically Correct, Politically Incorrect Sexuality.” Off Our Backs 12, no. 6 (1982): 22-23. Newfield, Christopher and Ronald Strickland. After Political Correctness, The Humanities and Society in the 1990s. Boulder, C.O.: Westview Press, 1995. “Notes and Letters.” Feminist Studies 9, no. 1 (1983): 177-189. 32 “Program: The Scholar and the Feminist IX: Towards a Politics of Sexuality.” Conference Program. Barnard, N.Y., 1982. Schwartz, Howard S. The Revolt of the Primitive, An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2003. Warner, Michael. Fear of a Queer Planet, Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Williams, Jeffrey. PC Wars, Politics and Theory in the Academy. New York: Routledge, 1995. Wilson, Elizabeth. “The Context of ‘Between Pleasure and Danger’: The Barnard Conference on Sexuality.” Feminist Review 13, (1983): 35-41. Wilson, John K. The Myth of Political Correctness, The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995. 33
© Copyright 2024