Job Discussion Forums

[Larry Paradine]

I'm sure we are all aware of, and try to abide by, contempoaray precepts concerning classroom discussion of sensitive and emotive matters such as race, religion, sex, skin colour and personal appearance, and the standard EFL textbooks go to sometimes absurd extremes to accommodate the demand for political correctness in all things great and small (especially noticeable in the ubiquitous use of the gender non-specific plural pronouns when referring to one person, puzzling perceptive students who embarrass their teachers by asking why textbooks published under hallowed names like Cambridge abound in passages that are contrary to the rules of grammar and common sense alike), but even the vigilance of the Dave Spart scrutiny committee fails to stop some irreverance getting through the net. As an example, I cite the new (well, newish) edition of English File Upper Intermediate. Last December, I was handed the book a few hours before taking a class of people I hadn't met before. A quick scan through the material scheduled for the lesson revealed nothing alarming, the theme being those comically pathetic people called hypochondriacs. Perhaps I should reproach myself for not being more intuitive: at any rate, we were nearly 20 minutes into the lesson before I sensed that something was amiss. The text was intended to amuse, but the manifestations of mirth were of the snickering kind that teachers of children will immediately recognise as communal mockery of a classmate. My students were all adults, but adults who work together and well know each other's foibles (the lesson was in-company) and, once the penny had belatedly dropped, I realised that one student was plainly not amused and suffering agonies of embarrassment; he was, as I afterwards learned, a respected and capable worker in his field, but known for his hypochondria.

The publishers of English File deserve a rap over the knuckles for this gaff. Has anyone come across any other insensitively compiled material in standard textbooks?

[soapdodger]

PC is a very interesting thing which deserves some analysis. Firstly, the name is quite nonsensical, as are many terms concocted these days to satisfy the intellectual aspirations of those devoid of any actual intelligence. �Politically correct� - what on earth does the term mean? My own interpretation is that most people would agree that politicians are inveterate liars, so to do what politicians do, lie, is correct or acceptable. Acceptable lying would therefore be a fair definition. It is human nature to be prejudiced in some way or another and �political correctness� is basically lying to hide your prejudices. In some cases �prejudice� may be too strong a word, �opinion� may suffice. PC is often about lying to hide one's opinions as well. Considering that most people's opinions about something are bound to offend someone, this is effectively an invitation to stop holding opinions altogether, or at least stop voicing them, and if an opinion can never be voiced it might as well not be held at all. This is a large part of what PC is really all about � stopping people from expressing themselves as they want.
Of course using terms for people, races, and so on that are obviously offensive � and are intended to be so � is wrong. It is common sense and clear to even the most uneducated of people, but PC is an entirely middle-class preserve. Do you think that a poorly educated working class person is going to sue another poorly educated working class person for offending them? Of course not � there is no money in it, but a middle class person or a company??? In this respect PC is part of the flight from reality which is being forced upon people. Equality does not exist, and it never will however much wishful thinking is done. There are always going to be people who will be offensive because they want to, regardless of whether their common sense tells them it is wrong, and no measure of education is going to change this. These people are actually outside the parameters of PC, and always will be, unless of course they seek to use it for their own financial benefit: they actually represent the majority and always have done.
The right not to be offended..... where does it stop, where does it start, is it actually a right? Taking offence can be seen as offensive. Considering that taking offence is an entirely personal thing, a personal decision, which is going to have a negative effect on the person perceived to be giving offence, is it not entirely selfish and actually offensive to take offence over trivialities ( which is after all what a great deal of PC is all about), and to constantly be actively seeking evidence of offensiveness? I definitely think so. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me....playground wisdom which has all but disappeared, the real meaning of which is � view serious matters seriously but don't waste time or energy on inconsequentials�. This is another major purpose of PC: to direct people into meaningless squabbles about entirely unimportant things, and fits in nicely with the relentless diminishing of peoples actual intelligence ( as opposed to their own perception of how intelligent they are).
PC is a disease of the chattering classes, who I personally think deserve it wholeheartedly, but it is much more dangerous than people would like to think, and I'm sure a lot of people really would like to think, if they could only filter out the nonsense that gets in the way.

[johnslat]

Dear soapdodger,
Now that was a fascinating post and one that inspired me to do a little research. A topic of an earlier thread here, Wikipedia, has a very interesting article on "political correctness":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

I learned quite a lot from it.

I agree that we all have prejudices, but can using "politically correct" terms then be accurately described as "lying?" That would depend, I suppose on one's definition of a "lie." If, for example, my wife were to ask me whether a certain dress made he "look fat", and, while I thought it did, I replied, "Why, not at all, dear.", would that be a lie (or a survival tactic?)
I also agree that "equality" doesn't exist (except, perhaps in the "Eye of God", where we are presumably all regarded as being equally stupid), but I also think that the playground rhyme (Sticks and stones, etc.) is mainly a defensive ploy used to disguise the real hurt that insulting words can cause. I came across an interesting study:

http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/spring00/hurtfulwords.html


In the initial studies, children between the ages of eight and 12 were shown videos of someone being teased and were asked to judge the effectiveness of different responses to the teasing, for example, ignoring the teasing, becoming hostile, or deflecting it with humor. Milich was able to use the results of the studies as a basis to help children decide on the best way to cope with being teased; then they practice their reactions.
That's right: practice. "It's like any other skill. It's like baseball�you have to work at it," Milich says.
Five years and many studies later, the research program has grown to include a study on college students' personality types and how personality affected their response to teasing and to seeing others being teased.
"We were surprised by how strongly some people recalled their teasing and how strongly they felt about teasing others," says John Georgesen, a doctoral student in social psychology who worked on the project.
The study showed that personality does influence teasing behavior and also affects responses to teasing, Georgesen says. The researchers found that individuals who are emotionally overreactive tend to think hostile responses are more appropriate; of even greater significance, they are also less forgiving of teasers, even years later.
Highly extroverted individuals tend to be more assertive and talkative, and tease others more often. They have less empathy toward those they tease.
"They don't think teasing is that big of a deal," Georgesen says.
People who aren't very confrontational tend to feel more remorse for teasing and tease others less, Georgesen says. "They find hostile responses inappropriate."
Milich says that children who are repeatedly teased feel there is no way to stop it and that they have no recourse. In fact, being teased relentlessly was a common factor in many of the recent school shootings, such as those at Paducah, Kentucky, and Littleton, Colorado, he says.
(my emphasis added)
The results of another recent study may help explain why victimized children feel helpless in response to repeated teasing. This study examined how teachers thought children would respond to teasing. "It was clear that teachers just were not aware of how upset kids get," says Kern.
Children have no escape at school, Milich says. "The results of this study raise the whole issue of school officials being sensitized to how upsetting teasing is," he says.
And these psychic bruises may not heal for years, if ever.
"Just because there are no punches thrown doesn't mean it's not serious," Kern says."

So, I think the bottom line is that, while the term "politically incorrect" is probably politically incorrect, we need to try to remember the "Golden Rule" (and no, not the one that says. "The ones that have the gold make the rules.) As my "signature" here used to say (before it mysteriously disappeared:)

"Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind." Henry James

Regards,
John

[arioch36]

Slat, as always, excellent for digging up ggood relevant research.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Surely should be known for what it is, a defensive lie. Brolen bones heal, and we forget about them. Words stay with us through out our lives. Words damage us, break us,

I am strongly anti PC. But learning to be sensitive to others feelings, and then learning to control our tongue, so our words bring healing, not pain, is a highly desirable trait. I wish I could remember some of the descriptions the bible uses about the tongue, poison, etc. mastering the tongue is a high skill

So in my mind I catergorize something being PC if it is done for personal convenience ... that is to get out of talking about a subject you want to avoid... that's not a very good explanation
And it's good old-fashioned kindness to be aware of the power, the hurt unthinking words can bring
Which creates a large grey area

[soapdodger]

I knew the quotation of sticks and stones would be homed in on ... not the explanation that followed. Childhood taunting, even adult taunting, is a part of growing up and actually developing tolerance. It is a bit like subjecting trainee soldiers to cs gas so that they can deal with it better, unpleasant, but ultimately helpful. That it is being removed is having consequences.

What is worse in education is the PC driven concept that no-one fails. Yes, encouragement is a thousand times better than sarcasm,but allowing people to believe that the substandard is acceptable is having dire consequences. This is where the trend on this site of people whose English is clearly abominable getting very hot under the collar when criticised for it has come from. How dare you criticise me, it is my right to be a moron and more than that I am proud of it, you can't take my right to express my stupidity away from me! Such is the mantra of today's (under) educated masses. Strangely enough, when I was at school I don't think I was alone in finding that humiliation for failure ( as long as not taken to extremes) was far more effective in improving performance than praise [ Praise can have negative effects. I remember my class being told to write a poem. I banged something off in 5 minutes, and when the teacher read it he went on about how fantastic it was and had it put in the school magazine. I wasn't fooled. It had taken precisely zero thought, and I haven't had a very high opinion of most poetry ever since. One sentence which makes my skin crawl is " Would you like to read my poetry?", only beaten by " Would you like me to read you some of my poetry?" !!!]

I think one of the best ways to learn to be sensitive to others is to experience a measure of hurt yourself...obviously other methods would be preferable, but in reality it takes an already-developed psyche to empathise, and if that is in place then there is not much need to learn empathy. Here's another quote for people to home in on! " What doesn't kill me makes me stronger"

[gaijinalways]

[soapdodger]

Sadly ( ? ) that poem is long gone. I think the theme we were forced to write about was "Time" or some such, and I know my effort was nowhere near as good as D. Bowie's "Time is flexing like a wh*re, falls w*nking to the floor.." which was out around the same time. The only poem I really like is Eskimo Nell, I haven't found a classroom application for it yet......but I'm working on it.

[johnslat]

Dear soapdodger,

Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger. Ah, Nietzsche, from Ecce Homo (or is it from Goethe - there seems to be some s dispute as to the source.) However, let's say Nietzsche - mainly because his death, frequently diagnosed as a result of a syphilitic infection, rather neatly illustrates how a "whatever" (in this case syphilis) can certainly inflict great harm on one (and certainly not make one stronger) on the way to speeding one's demise.
So, not necessarily - as the excerpt from my previous post illustrates:

"Milich says that children who are repeatedly teased feel there is no way to stop it and that they have no recourse. In fact, being teased relentlessly was a common factor in many of the recent school shootings, such as those at Paducah, Kentucky, and Littleton, Colorado, he says."

Whatever does not kill me (but hurts me badly) may just drive me bonkers.
Not to mention accidents that leave one in a vegetative state. Not dead, mind you, but not, I feel safe in saying, stronger, either.
Not everyone "develops tolerance" by being subjected to taunting. It's not like getting an inoculation against a disease (though even those can sometimes fail as well.)
However, I agree with you completely on the "no-one fails" concept. That is definitely PC run amok. If a student has failed, he/she (whoops - please pardon my PCness, there) needs to know, and what's more, needs to know why he/she has failed. Otherwise, there can be no improvement.
But I think teachers should be encouraging and positive in such situations
(rather than telling such a student, for example: "Yup, you failed because you're an idiot, a world-class moron.") I think you have to be sincere and truthful, but it's not just what you say but also how you say it that matters. False praise is not only useless; it's dangerous. But I believe that sincere praise is usually, if not always, productive rather than destructive.
And yes - I also agree with this:
" . . . one of the best ways to learn to be sensitive to others is to experience a measure of hurt yourself."
But, of course, that's not foolproof, either. All too often a person who has been hurt can become insensitive and callous rather than empathetic. I'd say a good case in point is how the Israelis, who experienced such horrific treatment under Hitler, don't seem to have much empathy for the Palestinians. I suspect that empathy is either an inborn trait or one that is somehow acquired very early in life (or not.) So, the same hurtful experience can touch the empathy of some while it finds nothing to touch in others.
And finally, since your poem is unfortunately lost, here's one about empathy:
The Other

I saw a flower in the dirt,
lying where it once had grown
and wondered why I should feel hurt
for something I had never known.

I saw a fish upon the land;
it struggled and it fought for breath
then, when its mouth was stopped with sand
I seemed diminished by its death

I saw a bird upon the wing
fall suddenly out of the sky
its death seemed such a little thing
until I felt my own self die

I saw another cry in pain,
it made me turn away to run
but then I stopped to look again
and saw I was the other one.

Regards,
John

[soapdodger]

Yes John, as is often the case I think we tend to agree on the essential points. One thing that really irritates me about PC is the sheer inanity of it, and the people who push it. A couple of examples that spring to mind from my own experience in EFL. When I did my Cert a long, long time ago at what was then a Polytechnic in the UK, the course teachers went to great lengths to tell us that we weren't "students", but "course members". One day I was having an interview with one of these goons ( I could explain why I call them that, but it would take a very long time by the end of which you would realise I was being rather generous) when the phone rang. I couldn't help smirking when she picked it up and said "I'm with a student at the moment".
On another occasion in a staffroom there was a conversation going about haircuts and I mentioned that in the town where I worked in Sudan there had been a blind barber. I then said that it didn't pose much of a problem because the curly nature of black people's hair made it quite easy to cut by touch. The centre director said "That's not very politically correct" in a very indignant tone, to which I rolled my eyes and replied " I was actually told that by an African", whilst thinking "and go and f888 yourself, you've got a damned cheek even beginning to suggest I am a racist or that that was a racist comment". I'm quite aware of why a certain type of person is attracted to PC - precisely for its ability to raise people's hackles.

[johnslat]

Dear soapdodger,
Yup, I agree that we agree on the essential points. After all, great minds, etc., etc.
If you'd like to see some examples of PC run amok, try this link:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/05/political_correctness.html

An interesting point is that, while most see "political correctness" as a "liberal" creation (mustn't offend the minorities, you know), conservatives seem to have also jumped on the bandwagon when it has suited their purpose.
Here are some examples from USA politics:

"The new conservative political correctness actually goes back at least to the battle over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination. When Thomas was fighting charges that he had sexually harassed an employee, he declared his opponents guilty of a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves." Whatever you thought of the mess that surrounded Thomas' nomination, could he have chosen a more racially charged metaphor?
Just a couple of years ago, Democrats who opposed the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were accused of being anti-Hispanic in almost exactly the same terms invoked last week in the Gonzales battle.
To reject Estrada, said Sen. Charles Grassley, the normally mild-spoken Iowa Republican, "would be to shut the door on the American Dream of Hispanic-Americans everywhere." Estrada, of course, was one of several of President Bush's court nominees opposed by Democrats largely on philosophical (or, if you prefer, ideological) grounds.
Hatch neatly mixed the ideological and the ethnic. If Estrada were rejected, Hatch said, it would close the door to any nominee who was "number one Hispanic, number two Republican, number three possibly conservative, and number four, may have some ideas of his or her own."
This was too much for House Democratic Caucus Chairman Bob Menendez. "Republicans and Senator Hatch in particular can't have it both ways," Menendez said at the time. "They can't blatantly call for the end of affirmative action by characterizing it as a quota system while, at the same time, demanding that we support all Hispanic nominees simply because they are Hispanic."
More recently, Bush has invoked racial considerations in support of his plan to privatize Social Security. "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said at a White House Conference on Social Security in January. "That needs to be fixed."
First off, the thing that "needs to be fixed" is that "African-American males die sooner than other males do." Moreover, Bush's underlying claim has been largely discredited. Precisely because of those death rates, African-American families are especially reliant on Social Security's survivors' benefits, and African-Americans need and draw on Social Security's disability benefits at a higher rate than whites. They are also more likely to rely on Social Security payments to stay out of poverty in old age.
But put all that aside. Isn't Bush playing the very "race card" here that liberals are perpetually accused of using as a trump? Why is it wrong for liberals to invoke the injustices of race (or class) when they talk about heath care, child care and taxes, but just ducky for Bush to make similar arguments on behalf of Social Security privatization?
No political camp in our country can claim utter innocence when it comes to racial politics. But is it too much to ask that those who constantly accuse their opponents of using "politically correctness" as a bludgeon at least be a trifle embarrassed over how often they wield it themselves?"


Regards,
John

[Mr. Kalgukshi]

From our Index:

"General Discussion
A general discussion on teaching around the globe. Non-teaching/job-related postings will be deleted"

If this thread does not quickly relate to teaching and job issues, it will no longer be available.

The General Discussion Forum does not exist for political or philosophical discussions or other topics unrelated to teaching/job issues.

The thread is now unlocked with the understanding that a continuation of non-teaching/job-related postings will signal its demise.

[Larry Paradine]

I'll try again. Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion, but you really were way off topic. The fault was mine, I should have added "in the classroom" after the original title. I remain very interested in teachers' views on the matter, please feel free to comment, MOD EDIT

[ecocks]

I seem to feel obligated to try to clarify the various tags that people hang on jobs and descriptions. For instance, when you see Chairman in the lesson, I usually manage to bring up that it could also be a Chairperson OR, if a female, Chairwoman. Honestly though, depending on the student it occasionally confuses them with too much info. Most of my situations are gender-related and occasionally ethnic. Policeman/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server, black/colored/negro, etc. A couple of days ago, I did "significant other" and the students thought it was an interesting concept. They also were thrown by the "Green" label on companies with regard to the environment.

[elamericano]

I teach my students about political correctness through discussing traditional and newer versions of terms, specifically in the US which is the culture I talk about most in class. Such changes in the language represent an attempt at inclusivity, which has often tended to cause conflict, hence the ritualized complaints about it which the students already tend to be familiar with anyway. In fact, the very preponderance of anti-PC sentiments whose proponents claim persecution gives me a chance to introduce the adjective 'Orwellian'.

Discussing just what exactly 'political incorrectness' is can also be revealing. If it was allowed, I'd bring in some old Andrew Dice Clay VHS tapes I have from the early 90s, but the format doesn't work in Europe.

Once most students understand the reasons that other people are politically correct, they take a neutral or positive tack. Spain's culture also has some examples such as the use of the arroba symbol (@) at the ends of nouns and articles in order to reduce gender distinctions.

[soapdodger]

I have resolved to tell my students, if asked, that PC stands for Polluted Communication.