Aggressive voices don’t need protecting

Last week, Jesse Horowitz ’19 wrote a col­umn for the Opinions section that critiqued the pervasive “political correctness” of discussions on Vassar’s campus. He argued that we need to stop being so concerned with offending anyone who possibly might be offended.

Working for the Miscellany for four years, I’ve encountered more than one column that expresses these sentiments. On a basic level I can see how this frustration arises. No one wants to double think everything they say. Shifting your discourse can be tiring. But you need to do it.

Let’s make one thing clear right off the bat. Jokes that make light of oppression or play off of identity-based struggle aren’t harmless. Microaggressions aren’t harmless. We need to put an end to this narrative that targeting someone for who they are and who they have struggled and fought to be isn’t always an attack.

There are real consequences to language, even if the language isn’t explicitly, overtly, completely 100% obvious-enough-for-some­one-who-isn’t-paying-attention problematic. And what’s more, these consequences aren’t just hurt feelings or awkwardness.

Being forced to contend with words that attack one’s identity isn’t the same thing as discovering someone disagrees with you. Op­pressive language is not about feelings. It isn’t about being uncomfortable. It’s about violence.

As writer Ngoc Loan Tran wrote, “Oppres­sion is not a feeling. Reducing it to how a com­munity ‘feels’ they are being treated minimiz­es the violences that are enacted upon them, makes structural injustices a matter of per­ception of individual acceptance or rejection of oppressive conditions. Oppression creates feelings, definitely. It creates trauma, internal­ized conflict, dissonance, confusion. but op­pression is not a feeling” (Black Girl Danger­ous, “It’s Not About Feelings”, 11/4/13).

These critiques of the suffocation of so-called “political correctness” on campus usual­ly feature the same argument. Being hyper-crit­ical of our own language prevents meaningful exchange. We can’t be so worried about offend­ing someone because if we are, we won’t have the kinds of conversations that lead to learning.

Here’s the thing. I am all for meaningful discussion and learning opportunities. And when someone says something that creates problems, I think it is critical that they learn from that moment. However, that doesn’t mean that we, as community members, should forget about those around us, about their identities and their own personal narratives. People make enough mistakes even when they are ac­tively trying not to use aggressive language.

Using this kind of language that disregards marginalized people effectively pushes them out of the conversation. When someone says something targeted, they are preventing dia­logue, not supporting it. And having a conver­sation that is accessible, one in which everyone feels as if they are able to participate isn’t about leftist ideology.

Political Correctness is, or should be, apo­litical. Frankly, not being terrible shouldn’t put you in conflict with anyone other than terrible people.

To get into more of the specifics, Horowitz mentions a joke that he wanted to tell as part of a standup routine but felt he couldn’t because of possible sensitivity to it. I’m not going to re­print the joke here, but you can find it easily by looking at the archives on the Miscellany’s website.

The theme of the joke is Donald Trump’s narcissism but of course, the good part, that part that really puts the zing into the air re­fers to sexuality, Horowitz objects to possible criticism. It isn’t homophobic, he confident­ly claims. Leaving aside the fact that it isn’t a great joke, my objection here is two-fold.

First, it isn’t up to him to decide that. He doesn’t get to prescribe how people who might be alienated by the joke feel. Even if some peo­ple who fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella aren’t bothered by it, if some do feel targeted, then he has to respect that. If people are concerned with the joke, don’t tell it. Second, it is literally a joke. Comparing the alleged injustice of polit­ical correctness that would prevent Horowitz from telling his joke to the oppressive forces that make every day a battle for some margin­alized communities puts things into stark con­trast.

Who ultimately stands to suffer more? The would-be comedian or the queer folk who could add that to their ever-extending list of daily injustices?

Finally, maybe, as a thought experiment, it could be useful to consider what it would mean for what PC critics argue to be true. What if Vassar really is a place that needlessly checks its language?

What if the people we risk “offending” don’t really deal with the oppressive forces that they claim fuel anti-political correctness? Taking a moment to listen to the grievances of so many marginalized communities at Vassar, yes even at Vassar, would disprove this theory in a sec­ond.

But even if the theory were true, even if Vas­sar overprotected some and favored marginal­ized voices over everyone else, I wouldn’t see a problem.

Because you only need to take a few steps off campus to understand that the small moves Vassar has made to protect oppressed people pale in comparison to the forces out there that want to keep systems of oppression bulldoz­ing forward. Ultimately, really, whose voice is more supported?

—Noble Ingram ’16 is an English major.


  1. Excellent article, I thoroughly enjoyed it. This provides an un biased insight into the battle between offensive and oppressive.

  2. Of course no one can tell you whether to be offended. We will still have to decide what it reasonable, and that’s the point you seem to be missing. When we focus on Meryl Street’s shirt, most people will say that focusing on it is ridiculous. And then we lose them. That has real consequences when we really need people, but their likely to be turned off by social justice causes. I’m all for educating people, but this desire for what I call “full time political correctness” is not helping. We have much worse things to focus on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Miscellany News reserves the right to publish or not publish any comment submitted for approval on our website. Factors that could cause a comment to be rejected include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, inappropriate language, statements or points unrelated to the article, and unfounded or baseless claims. Additionally, The Misc reserves the right to reject any comment that exceeds 250 words in length. There is no guarantee that a comment will be published, and one week after the article’s release, it is less likely that your comment will be accepted. Any questions or concerns regarding our comments section can be directed to