from the Crow's Nest
Reflections on Toronto-Part I
Political Correctness, Parliament and Princeton
by Fritz Wagner
The Eric Voegelin Society annual meeting in Toronto featured no fewer than thirteen panels, some of which this observer found noteworthy. First to be mentioned is the panel on “Political Correctness,” more formally styled “Conscience, Expression & Liberty: Pitfalls of Political Correctness.” A great deal was said about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, a subject which has already been considered at VoegelinView in a John von Heyking book review and in an analysis of the Kafkaesque enforcement machinery constructed alongside and parallel to normal law.
More interesting to this observer would have been a discussion by the panel of the psycho-social environment (to paraphrase Juergen Gebhardt) which made such a law possible. Sitting near Barry Cooper at dinner later that evening I wondered out loud if the political enforcement of superficial unity of public manners was accepted by Canadians because of an unintended consequence of Parliament’s expansive (keep up with the U.S.) immigration policy that results in a thinning out of the social substance? After all, it is rather difficult to become a Canadian by mere conscious effort if one comes from somewhere else. Being Canadian involves a complex and rather subtle set of attitudes not evoked by uttering the names of great mythical figures and events, so ably described by Juergen Gebhardt in Americanism: The Genesis of a Civil Theology (excerpted here at Vv). It at least suggests a fruitful area of inquiry by one of the several Voegelinians who might look into this sort of thing. But perhaps not Canadians. Juergen G. has shown how important distance can be when examining a culture. Perhaps it should be examined by someone who doesn’t have to live with the hard stares of his neighbors!
David Warren, columnist for the Ottawa Citizen, looks like a great unmade bed, a cross between H.L. Mencken and Evelyn Waugh. He told me a tale to illustrate a Canadian penchant for rather mindless kow-towing to authority (one sort of “political correctness”). He recalled to me his being ordered off a streetcar along with all other passengers by an ignorant and disgruntled operator who declared the car unavailable for public service. When Warren remonstrated with the operator, he was threatened with arrest. The other passengers, stranded on the pavement with no means of transportation, then turned on Warren and berated him for causing trouble! (I think you had to be there to appreciate the comedy!)
Of particular interest and most amusing was the presentation by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, a leader in the new natural law movement. He spoke about political correctness in the university and the necessity for acting against it, even at some personal risk, which must always be taken into account.
George argued that Freshmen need to be cleansed after their freshman orientation brain washing by telling them it is OK to think for themselves and to refuse to adopt the values which the administration attempts to impose on them. They are most grateful to learn this! The establishment is always shocked when anyone resists and the powers that be don’t know how to meet resistance through rational argument. But "we are Christians" so how are we to resist institutional evil? A bit tongue in cheek, perhaps, George suggested: “Forgive them. Then retaliate!” Thereupon came the week's loudest laughter!
Professor George then reminded us that of course the fight never ends because administrators are patient. They know that classes graduate and the status quo ante will return eventually.
When it was proposed that it was difficult to discuss “political correctness” without having a workable definition, “Robbie,” as he likes to style himself, replied, quoting Justice Potter Stewart, ‘I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it’ (a reference to pornography in his concurring opinion in the US Supreme Court opinion Jacobellis vs. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 [1964]).
During the question period something quite remarkable and amazingly pointed, not to say hilarious, happened. A member of the audience brought up the subject of police prejudice against minorities and gave as an example a black man being stopped by police in a wealthy white suburb, and all the racial stereotyping and prejudice that that implied. EVERYONE fell all over themselves to assure EVERYONE that they deplored such police conduct! I bit my tongue. I didn’t wish to be remembered as the person who was a racist! I should have stood up and said, “As a former elected city Attorney I can tell you why police stop certain people and I thank God they do. And I could tell you something about the sociology of the family if that would help explain risk factors leading to social disorder.” But no. I sat there in cowardly silence. The speaker had achieved his object, whether a conscious or an unconscious object I could not say: he had momentarily become the symphony conductor, and everyone was playing his tune to his beat! Quod erat demonstrandum!
A couple of notes. If political correctness is required on most college campuses, might the present US administration view the whole of the US as one great campus to be trained in political correctness? Victor Davis Hansen has a most intriguing article on the web expounding this view. It makes the administration seem laughable, which perhaps we need after eight months.
We provided Hansen with a copy of the Voegelin in Toronto DVD and we hope he found time to watch it. After the panel concluded I went up to the front and asked Professor George if he had received the same DVD which a mutual friend had sent to him. He replied with enthusiasm "Yes! I have watched it many times!"
More comments later in the week. 
|
