Commentary
Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Page 5
Don’t beat around PC bush
There’s a dark cloud hanging
over North America. Years of
sensitivity training have honed our
injustice sensors to a razor-sharp
finish. In the past few decades,
most notably in the past 10 years or
so, we have changed the way we
act and the way we think. More
than anything else, however, we
have changed the way we talk.
Linguistically speaking, we’re
turning into a bunch of wimps.
Political correctness, for all of
its good intentions, has begun to
destroy the English language. For
years we have edited ourselves in
the name of “kinder, gentler” and
less offensive discourse. All we
have accomplished, sadly, is
oversensitivity and muddled
communication.
It used to be that the goal of
communication was to share ideas
clearly and efficiently. “Say what
you mean,” people used to say.
Nowadays, the catchword is hot
“say what you mean,” but “say
something as close to what you
mean as possible while eliminating
any chance that someone might be
offended by it.” The result is
confusion, hesitance and self
censorship; it does much to hinder
communication and almost nothing
to improve it.
Think about it: “mankind” is
off-limits. So is “janitor” (it’s now
sanitation engineer). I don’t say
“talk about the pot calling the
kettle black” anymore, because I’m
afraid I’ll be misunderstood and
wind up in court. It’s tough to
make it through an average day
without stopping in mid-sentence
and censoring myself — not
because I find what I want to say
offensive, but because someone
else might. In short, we are gagging
ourselves.
Every so often, the war over
Doug Peters
words advances to another level,
and each subsequent step becomes
a little more preposterous. A few
years ago, the battleground was
“fighting words” policies on
university campuses. Now it seems
that the debate has moved to new,
more ridiculous levels.
The March issue of Details
magazine describes a pamphlet
published by the North York
Women Teachers’ Association,
which is based near Toronto. The
pamphlet, titled “Nonviolent
Language,” suggests alternatives to
today’s violence-glorifying idioms.
According to the pamphlet,
“seemingly inoffensive expressions
may evoke violence.” It continues,
“If we were to stop and visualize
the literal meaning of cliches,
colloquialisms and common
phrases, would we use them?”
Some of the offending phrases
may surprise you.
Rather than “hitting” the return
key on your computer, the pam
phlet urges readers to “tap” the
key. Instead of “killing two birds
with one stone” we are implored to
“get two for the price of one.”
Substituting “in serious trouble” for
“dead meat” and “go uninvited” for
“crash the party” is another way to
keep verbal testosterone levels
down, according to the pamphlet.
The list goes on.
To allow our language to be
diluted in order to remove any
references to acts of even remote
violence would be another giant
step down the path to cultural
oblivion. The language of America
has already lost altogether too
much of its flavor. As a culture, we
have already managed to put
together a sizable list of “red-flag”
words and phrases. It doesn’t need
to get any longer.
If the ladies of the North York
Women Teachers’ Association
want to do something to decrease
violence in our society, they should
be looking somewhere other than
our language. Because, after all,
there are different ways to solve a
problem, or, for the verbally
unenlightened, “there’s more than
one way to skin a cat.”
I think I’ve made my opinions
pretty clear, and I don’t want to
“beat a dead horse,” but if the
language police get ahold of this
nonviolence thing, they’ll be
“getting away with murder.”
Fortunately, it seems as if institut
ing these changes will be an
“uphill battle.”
But stop to think about the
dangers these kinds of movements
pose, and when you speak, say what
you mean — don’t “beat around the
bush.” In the meantime, I’ll stop
“rattling my saber” and let you “kick
the idea around” for a while.
In closing, if any of you have
taken one too many “I’m O.K.,
you’re O.K.” seminars and are truly
offended or disturbed by these
terms, my advice is to “bite the
bullet.”
I hope I presented this issue in a
clear and understandable manner. If
I didn’t, I apologize.
At least I took a stab at it.
Peters is a graduate student and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
College life is high-stress job
The front cover of a recent
Newsweek magazine talked about
stress and how different people
these days are dealing with it and
those who are finding themselves
exhausted by their workloads.
The listing of these particular
jobs is rather interesting, too,
because there are the usual ones
that everybody expects to be there,
like air-traffic controllers, doctors
and lawyers. But some of the others
on the list are also interesting
professions.
jods as inner-city teachers,
journalists, coaches, interns and
nurses also are listed as high-stress.
Then there is also the one that
everybody will probably agree on
being the highest-stress job, but
also the most fulfilling — the
working mom.
All of these listings are fine and
dandy, and I’m sure that a consid
erable amount of time and govern
ment money was wasted in the last
40 years to come up with these
findings, but I don’t think they are
complete.
1 would like to add to these
ranks the profession of the college
student.
I’m not sure that this is a full
blown profession, even though I do
know many individuals who have
been in college since Reagan’s first
term in office. But how can those
individuals who tabulated this list
overlook the sorry plight of these
individuals?
Granted, those professions listed
earlier do present their own cases
for being die worst, but the case for
the collegians should be looked at
closely.
The very essence of the case is .
the sad reality that most college
kids need to have a secondary job
to help pay their way through
school. They don’t have the luxury
of realizing that after a particularly
tough week on the job, they can
look forward to a hefty paycheck.
So after fretting all week over
books to prepare for tests and
papers, they’re expected to go out
and be part of the work force,
earning somewhere near five bucks
an hour, and feel good about
knowing that their current job
probably serves no purpose toward
their hopeful future profession.
Sheer numbers alone should be
enough to make a point for the
stress level of the student. If you
take the basic equation of adding
the number of hours of course
work, plus adding two hours of
homework per week for each credit
hour, an individual taking fifteen
hours is working a 45-hour job.
When we add in the suggested
amount of work time to be no more
then 20 hours at their SECOND
job, meaning besides school, then
that’s 65 hours already a week.
And then there’s the truthful reality
that many students are working to
the upwards of 30 to 40 hours a
week, yet still maintaining above
average grades.
When some individuals work 70
to 80 hours a week, do they really
need to be told how easy life is in
college and how stress-free the
environment is?
Since the amount of time that
college students put into their
average work week has been
established, let’s look at what they
are doing.
The one thing that is most
interesting about all of the profes
sions that I listed above was the
fact that they were in fact profes
sions, meaning those people had
earned those jobs already. But
college students are still working
toward those dreams.
Isn’t it a fact that most people
feel more secure about themselves
if they know they have a job? Yet
as students, we don’t have that
luxury, because we’re still working
toward our chosen careers. One
mistake or bad test in a particular
class could possibly eliminate an
individual’s hopes and dreams
about becoming a doctor, lawyer or
teacher.
The point that needs to be made
here is that too many people are
viewing college students through
the panels of bar windows. Sure,
college life is fun and a good time,
but a lot of stress is heaped on
students these days to succeed.
Then students must figure out how
to pay for that success.
College life is full of great
memories, and it is usually only
those memories that people tend to
recall, because the reality of
cramming for four comprehensive
finals over three days is too painful
a thought.
So the next time somebody says
that college students have easy
lives, sit down with that individual
and explore the differences in their
perception and basic reality.
GofTb a senior secondary education ma
jor and a Dally Nebraskan columnist
‘Converted’ senator
Democrat at heart
The “conversion” of Colorado
Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell
from Democrat to Republican is
not good news for the GOP.
While it widens the numerical
majority in the Republican
Senate to 54 votes, Campbell’s
presence in the Republican Party
further obscures what Republi
cans stand for.
As many of his former party
colleagues have said, Campbell
votes with Democrats on most
issues of substance. As a Demo
crat, Campbell supported
President Clinton’s 1994 budget,
which included the biggest tax
increase in recent history. He is
“pro-choice” on abortion and
voted to lift the longstanding ban
on federal funding to pay for
most abortions for poor women.
He supported the president on
j>ays in the military by voting
not to enshrine the gay ban into
law.
Add to this his strong support
of organized labor and his vote
to ban “assault weapons,” and
you have a Democrat that has
merely changed his label, not his
mind. That there is room for him
in the rapidly expanding GOP
“big tent” says something about
the dilution of Republican
ideology and the apparent
unimportance of ideas to those in
the party who are embracing this
defector.
The same day that Campbell
announced his switch, Indiana
Republican Sen. Richard Lugar
said he was going to run for
president and broke with his
party’s orthodox line favoring
tax cuts. Following the defeat of
the balanced-budget amendment
to the Constitution, Lugar said
“to cut taxes in the face of that
situation is simply to increase
the pain down the road.”
Campbell’s Colorado col
league, Republican Sen. Hank
Brown, said Campbell’s switch
would change the GOP image.
“The Republican Party has
become the working party,” he
said. What does that mean? The
Republican “image” was good
enough last November to win the
House and Senate for the first
time in four decades. What’s to
change? This sounds like the
class warfare game Democrats
play when they claim their party
represents “working people,”
/ implying that Republicans don’t
work, or that people who make
more than a certain amount of
money haven’t legitimately
earned it.
The Republican Party, so
close to winning it all in next
year’s election, could blow it all
unless it sticks to a clear iden
f Newt thinks the '
Senate a bitch-- ,
uiui*
iSEMAH REJECTS I
m BALANCED BUDGET I
11 ^amendment, |
Mike Luckovich
Cal Thomas
tity. What does it stand for? Who
is a Republican? Should the
party have certain principles, the
violation of which means one is
not a Republican? Or, has the
tent grown so large that anyone
can seek admission without
demonstrating commitment to
anything but a label?
This is not the party that was
founded in 1854 by people who
took a principled position against
the extension of slavery. No big
tent there. No compromise.
Compromise was what the
Whigs did. The Whigs thought
they could build a “big tent” in
their day. By fudging on a matter
of principle, the Whigs sealed
their doom.
The new Republican Party
lost its first presidential election
in 1856, but because it stood on
principle, Republicans emerged
from the Civil War with enor
mous political strength, allowing
the party to control the national
government for 72 years, with
the exception of 16 years during
which Grover Cleveland and
Woodrow Wilson were in the
White House.
A great social force was
behind the creation of the
Republican Party, and it was
greater than party loyalty. That
social force reshaped American
politics. Republicans rode that
force to victory after victory
because they stood for what was
right, not what was expedient.
Now the party of Lincoln is
faced with a similar challenge. It
must not allow anyone to wear
the Republican label. It must
articulate certain fundamental
principles in which it believes.
It is not enough to be against
President Clinton. Republicans
must be FOR something. If they
fail to set forth certain funda
mental principles, they run the
risk of going the way of the
Whigs. But that wouldn’t
necessarily be a bad thing. A
new party could emerge that
would be built, not in a big tent,
but on a solid rock.
© 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate
I