correct *Politically Correct” in The Canadian Yuin (Sept, 1991) by T. McCormack fora PC argument in favour of the new curriculum). Mean- while, the works of Shakespeare and Plato have to be **deconstructed’’ (have all the patriarchal or discrimi- natory basis of the works exposed and then elimi- nated) in order for ‘‘equality’’ to be possible. In addition, books such as Herman Melville’s Moby- Dick must be completely removed from all curricu- lums because ‘‘There’s nota woman in his book, the plot hinges on unkindness to animals, and the black characters mostly drown by chapter 29.’’ As well, such fields as Psychology, Sociology, English, Law, Philosophy, and even Biology and Physics are part of his patriarchal hegemony, and must be countered bya lew politically correct curriculum. This means not nly the creation of new courses within these fields (a Psychology/Religious Studies course taught at UPEI will be looked at later), but also the creation of new dolitically correct fields. The most notable of these, ven on this campus, is Women’s Studies. This field s highly political in nature, anyone who has taken iny Women’s Studies courses on campus may have loted just a wee little bit of feminist doctrine. The ‘oncept behind Women’s Studies is to havea field vhich serves the interests of women (as politics is neant to make gains for group interests of, and ulti- nately gain at least some amount of power to secure ese interests), and the proponents of Women’s studies by no means deny this (i.e., see ‘‘The Uneasy \lliance of Feminism and Academia’’ by Marian owe and Margaret Lowe Benston inA Reader in feminist Knowledge). For those who may feel this is ot so, ora little paranoid, note that Lowe and fenston argue

eminist and women's studies both came, of course, lirectly out of the women’s movement.... Work

tyles within universities are based on the ideal of the ompetiti ve meritocracy, with its accompanying hier- rehy and elitism. ... the lack of women and minori- jes i in most no fexsions, act to reinforce the norms of he outside world. Scholars working within this mework are able to produce work that rationalizes d stabilizes social structures and protects various iterests, including patriarchal ones, while still etaining the illusion that they are doing impeccably biased, objective work. ... If, as part of our itical programme, we are in the university at all, it yecause we recognize the resources of academia ‘producing knowledge. We need to take full advan- re of our opportunities to generate the knowledge need (p. 48, 52, 57).

- 8 concludes a look atsome of the objections PC

life in order to determine what ‘‘

January 16, 1992

has to our society and universities. Next willbea look at some of the objections that have been raised to PG. : The Politically Incorrect Objections

Here we will look at some of the theoretical arguments that have been used by opponents of PC (the editors obviously consider themselves oppo- nents). Some of the more serious problems at PC willbe looked at later. The traditional scholar that has spoken out against PC (most, not being used to the intermix of politics and academics have remained on the sidelines) will not deny, and acknowledge that white males have tended to hold positions of power in Western society. In addition, they will acknowledge that white male scholars have tended to study subjects of interest to them (although it remains to be seen--as opposed to ASSUMED--that the REASON for their interest was noted in their race sex, cultural origin or sexual orientation), and that research of interest to other groups may not have received the attention that other research has. The difference in opinion comes in regards to the political nature that proponents of PC have been advocating as a method of rectifying this. The proponents of PC have argued that truth is relative (if it exists) to the demographics (cultural makeup) of the individuals searching for truth; that is, academics is an exercise in power politics. Tradi- tional scholars argue that there IS an absolute truth that can be found, and this truth that is out there will be the same for everyone NO MATTER WHAT THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN OR THEIR SEX! Even politics can be discussed in an objective manner, even this article can be presented in an objective manner-- though it isn’t, out of necessity to make a political statement. But we are not teaching university courses. The major point of the opponents of PC is the ‘‘politically correct’’ are trying to (and succeed- ing) in turning the university from an institution devoted to the search for truth to a battleground where **truth’’ isacynical power-grab for one’s own self- interests. In addition, to be able to construct such concepts as ‘‘false consciousness’’ based on accepting a situation notin one’s ‘‘true interests,’’ the propo- nents of PC have obviously discovered the meaning of true consciousness’’ and ‘‘true interests’’ are. Perhaps the politically correct should step back and realise that their politics is as much a matter of faith as any religion (the difference being that religious people are honest and admit religion is a matter of faith). Yet, according to the politically correct, our courses should be taught from this perspective. The truth may not always be **idealistic,’’ but does that mean we hide undera politically correct rock? (How many students in any

Page |]