On January 8th, a Muslim female flight attendant attending a Trump rally was wearing a shirt reading, “Salam, I come in peace,” and badges which proudly labeled herself as “Muslim.” She was forced out of this Trump rally after being barraged by vocal epithets. One of Trump’s points of discussion at this rally was political correctness; political correctness, or PC, is one of the trendy topics in the 2016 race. Yet, does the harassment of the woman at the Trump rally not suggest that many Americans are far from over-utilizing political correctness, but rather should be more politically-correct?

The term “political correctness” has a complex and vague beginning.  It was coined in the 1987 by Allen Bloom in his book, “The Closing of the American Mind,” although early use of the word had pre-dated its publication by decades. PC was a term originally used by right-wingers to attack liberal rhetoric, and it has since resurfaced at the center of the 2016 race, and even around the world.

Trump and Carson may have popularized political correctness for this campaign season, but anti-PC movement seems to have spawned out of the re-immersion of race and gender issues in America the past several years. Issues such as the Michael Brown shooting and the legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court have forcefully re-surfaced the issues of human rights that have mostly laid dormant since the end of the Civil Rights Movement. The resurgence of these issues is essential to the progression of a diverse society, yet they are experiencing embarrassingly strong resistance from the anti-PC movement. Fighting PC while sweeping social inclusion back ‘under the rug’ would be a sad stain on the cloth of the American flag.

Political correctness, which once isolated politicians from the majority of voters, is cleverly and successfully being incorporated into American political campaigns. However, candidates are not using PC, but rather fighting it, accusing it of distracting and smothering discussion. Leading GOP candidates Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz have adopted anti-PC rhetoric as a mantle piece for their 2016 race. Carson shares that he is “not ready to give away American values and principles for the sake of political correctness.” With the success of both campaigns, anti-PC rhetoric is now masqueraded by most GOP candidates, a dance that has received strong support in public opinion polls.

Support for the war against PC has extended beyond both political and race barriers.

A survey conducted by The Washington Post on January 4, 2016, found that 68% of Americans feel that “a big problem this country has is being politically correct”; 81% of Republicans agree, and 61% of Democrats agree. Also, 72% of whites and 61% of non-whites thought it was an issue. Political correctness is now one of the few bipartisan issues of the country.

The unexpected bipartisanship in the polls proves a key social victory for Republicans in the PC war. The mere fact that we call PC by its name and do not consider it merely “correctness” is a victory for republicans within itself. The mere association of the word “politics” in educated, appropriate debate implies a restriction to intelligent discussion only in politics, and not discussion in society as a whole. What may be even worse is the negative connotation that PC is giving to intellectualism in America, a sound that is too easily drowned out by the noise of a presidential race.

Many believe that political correctness gets in the way of forward moving discussions and political action, when really it does the opposite, if used in its optimal way. Words often carry more meanings than we realize; therefore, speakers are likely to unknowingly use words that are offensive to people. PC as a speaking point makes people aware of these words thus creating open, inclusive and progressive dialogue. Javier Ergueta, History and TOK teacher at WFS, outlines this point clearly offering that, “political correctness as an ideal highlights negative connotations to words that otherwise may go unnoticed as offensive”. PC makes people more diverse and cultured. It seems, however, that a majority of Americans are reluctant to be cultured.

GOP and Democratic candidates alike are not completely wrong on this issue. The recent movement amongst college students for their university to be a safe space is an undoubtable example of the overreaching of political correctness. The role of political correctness is to enhance discussions, not hinder them by standing against free speech.

It is possible to be over-sensitive – just because you are offended does not mean you are right. Like death and taxes, being minorly offended is an unavoidable part of life that cannot practically be combatted.   Creating ‘safe spaces’ where overreaching PC shelters people from anything offensive allows the same negative consequences of socially progressive discussion under the rug.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a role model in any socially progressive movement, once quoted Socrates about the need for uncomfortable discussion in any society to reveal “half-truths”. “Safe spaces” represents a dying of intellectualism even on college campuses in that it runs from thought provoking discussions, which typically are the meaningful ones. Colleges must stand to free speech over anything else, and encourage PC language in free speech debates.

PC is neither the cause nor single solution to any of America’s problems, but it does hold the benefit of inclusive dialogue and, at least in perception, diversification. The future of PC will be decided by the immigration and civil-right issues of today. Like almost every issue, PC needs to be held in balance.  Free speech and political correctness can co-exist – and they should. PC does not thwart a nation’s abilities to lead into the future, but enriches it. Americans must realize this and accept PC into its proper, moderate role in American politics.