'Inclusive' speech campaign

Isn’t it strange how campus liberalism has evolved from a free-speech, tradition-defying, I-am-woman, youth-led movement to a speech-suppressing, narrow-minded, prudish crusade led by grandchildren of the earlier generation? From campus speech codes to California’s Yes Means Yes sexual consent law, the political correctness is odd, even to this Christian who doesn’t like name-calling (though I’ve done it, I confess) and believes fornication is a sin.

The University of Michigan started the “Inclusive Language Campaign” (ILC) to pressure students to avoid using words like “crazy,” “retarded,” “fag,” “tranny,” and “ghetto.” In an email to The College Fix website, university spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said the campaign, which he calls “educational, not regulatory,” seeks to “address campus climate by helping individuals understand that their words can impact someone and to encourage individuals to commit to creating a positive campus community.”

So much for free speech. I wonder how much time leftists on campuses in the 1960s spent worrying about hurting people’s feelings. Remember, the University of Michigan is a public school. A government school. Can you imagine liberal college students back in the day, when the civil rights movement and Vietnam War protests were going on, submitting to the school administration’s list of words to avoid?

To see this in context, check out the chart from an ILC flier at right that shows the word usage. Calling a homosexual “gay” is OK. Saying “That’s so gay!” is not. Referring to a man pretending to be a woman as a “tranny” is offensive. Calling a ghetto a “ghetto” is unacceptable. Using the term “illegal alien” to describe an illegal alien isn’t inclusive.

Although the inclusive words campaign isn’t mandatory, I hope that most of the students find it either alarming or mock-worthy. The College Fix asked Fitzgerald if he thought the campaign stifled speech. He said, presumably with a straight face, “We believe this program has just the opposite effect. … It will make discourse more constructive by respecting the views and perspectives of others.”

Yeah, right. The more “diverse” and perverted society becomes, the more freedom people are willing to give up. Where will it end? The next thing you know, individuals saying the wrong words will end up testifying before some congressional committee about their political and religious affiliations. We’re not that far away from the government suppressing the kind of speech some call “homophobic” or, even “transphobic.” Two ugly words for two absurd ideas. If you don’t accept deviancy, you’re a scared religious bigot. How about a Bible-believing, salt-and-light, saved sinner whose living God frees His people from slavery to their depravity? Christians on campuses, heads up.

My point isn’t whether the words on the list are good, bad, or indifferent. As a Christian, I don’t advocate calling anyone names intended to be derogatory. But I do advocate calling a thing by its name. If I were a student, I’d be wondering why my school’s administration was telling me what I should or shouldn’t say. One of this country’s founding principles is protecting unpopular speech, offensive speech, from government suppression. Why else would the First Amendment exist?