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