Editor’s note: This letter is in response to the editorial column printed on Feb. 12.
Ross Beroff’s editorial column from last week required enough clarification that I felt a response was necessary. His primary argument was that political correctness is being used to “end all debate” and declare one position the only correct one.
Beroff wonders why some consider the phrase “illegal aliens” inappropriate. The use of illegal as an adjective to describe a person tends to be reserved for the immigration debate, not for crimes committed by US citizens. Journalist Jose Antonio Vargas captures this when he says “if someone is driving a car at 14, we say ‘underage driver,’ not ‘illegal driver.’” The action is illegal, not the person. Calling someone an alien is dehumanizing and implies someone is so different they can never belong.
Beroff adds, incorrectly, that “undocumented citizens” is the only acceptable term for use in debate. While he accurately points out that this is an oxymoron, he also leaves out the more commonly used “undocumented immigrant,” which does not suffer the same pitfall. He assumes that those who choose to use “politically correct” vocabulary are ignoring the issue of illegal immigration. However, “undocumented immigrant” conveys the same meaning, avoids reducing an entire group of people and does not bar the possibility for debate from either viewpoint.
Other claims, such as the one about Native Americans and “singlism,” appear to lack the evidence necessary to show that they weren’t created solely for the purpose of his argument. In fact, the signs of little to no research are visible throughout the piece, culminating in a misinformed explanation of microaggressions.
Microaggressions are everyday actions or words that send derogatory messages to members of marginalized groups. They appear to be innocent or even positive on the surface but have negative undercurrents. This is the reason why they are most often committed subconsciously.
One commonly reported example, which I have also experienced, is when someone says, “You’re so smart! You’re the whitest black person I know!” The hidden implication is that this intelligent person of color is the exception to the rule. It equates being uneducated with minority status and intellect with whiteness.
The term wasn’t created recently to “curb free speech,” either. In fact, it was coined in 1970 by Chester M. Pierce, a Harvard University professor and psychiatrist. It remained primarily within discussions in the field of psychology until Professor Derald W. Sue utilized the phrase in his publications in 2007.
One of the lines that stands out most in Beroff’s criticism is when he says, “I cannot offend someone … it is the individual whom my actions or words affect that makes the decision to feel offended.” He attempts to shift the entire burden of responsibility away from the speaker and onto the listener. No matter what topic is being discussed, the speaker of a message always has some responsibility to choose words that can get their point across effectively without being unnecessarily antagonistic. There is no free pass in the world of proper communication, and both parties have responsibilities that keep a healthy debate from descending into personal attacks.
-Jacqueline Ali is a sophomore computer science major.
