Search results

In this article, I seek to show how invocations of political correctness still work in nuanced ways to close down debates and trivialise issues, and effectively slow down progress towards achieving an anti‐racist society. I also begin to identify the typologies of the myriad ways in which it presents.

It is an autobiographical account, with evidence gleaned from personal experiences as an equalities trainer and from discussions arising as part of supporting and mentoring other trainers.

Political correctness has not gone away: it is still invoked by politicians, the media and individuals within organisations to attack anti‐racism and anti‐racist learning.

The research is limited by its autobiographical and inevitably subjective nature. However, the standpoints of resistance that I have chosen to discuss are those that have arisen frequently and repeatedly and from across a range of public sector and quasi‐public sector organisations.

Despite its limitations, the article clearly demonstrates that political correctness remains an important topic for academic and practitioner debate, and it also identifies the need for further work in developing training to combat its destructiveness.

An original and firsthand account of anti‐racist training from the front line is provided. Its value lies in its experiential origins and its potential as a basis for further work.

It is the contention of this paper that the state of siege on the part of students against academics and administrators of the 1960s has been replaced by one led by university administrators who are now waging a war of “political correctness” against students and faculty. These administrators were in large part the radicals of the 1960s. The present paper attempts to analyze the effects of government involvement in this industry on this phenomenon and the role of free speech rights in the presence and absence of marketplace considerations.

Discusses political correctness and the economics of higher education.

The contention is that competition brings about a better product at a lower price, and that the educational sector is no exception to this general rule. If free enterprise were allowed to operate in this context, much of these difficulties would disappear.

The paper offers insights into today's higher education industry and how economic analysis can explain the current “state of siege” on university campuses.

Transgender people have received substantial attention in recent years, with gender identity being a focal point of online debate. Transgender identities are central to discussions relating to sex-segregated spaces and activities, such as public toilets, prisons, and sports participation. The introduction of “gender-neutral” spaces has received criticism because some argue that there is an increased risk of sexual violence against women and children. However, little is known about the implications that these constructions have for whom is able to claim a “victim status.” In this chapter, I provide a critical analysis of the techniques used by individuals to align themselves with a “victim status.” These claims are presented and contextualized within varying notions of victimization, from being victims of political correctness to victims of a more aggressive minority community. This feeds into an inherently transphobic discourse that is difficult to challenge without facing accusations of perpetuating an individual's “victimhood.” Transphobic rhetoric is most commonly expressed through constructing transgender people as “unnatural,” “sinful,” or as experiencing a “mental health issue.” This chapter argues that the denial of transphobia and simultaneous claims of victimization made by the dominant, cisgender majority are intrinsically linked.

The slogan ‘not in my backyard’ became a symbol of a successful campaign in a psychological war waged by the Soviet Union against the United States and the NATO allies. Russians have already placed their cruise missiles in firing positions, but tried to prevent the US Army from doing the same on the other side of the Iron Curtain, namely in the NATO countries. Misguided citizens of the welfare states on the western side of the Iron Curtain demonstrated for disarmament in spite of Soviet secret build up of the missile stockpile. The EU citizens and their intellectual elites never dealt with the Russian communist genocide and underestimated hidden injuries of the Cold War. Today, when Soviet secret decisions leaked out due to a temporary access to the communist archives in Moscow, even carefully orchestrated campaigns in social media cannot change facts and wipe awareness out. This time it is the financial level of military expenditures, which is questioned by Russian trolls in the social media of the Dutch, German or French populations. Apart from military expenditures of NATO member states, Russian troll campaigns are also directed towards the support of multicultural ideologies and welcoming all immigrants. At first sight, they are as successful with the immigrants as they were with the cruise missiles. Most respondents in the Netherlands claim that immigrants are welcome – provided they settle down somewhere else – anywhere, but not in my backyard. Perhaps in my neighbour's backyard, behind national borders? In Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Spain – anywhere (but not here)? This is the message defining the subtle brand of a Dutch xenophobia, phrased in a politically correct way. Nobody, except extreme right (e.g., Wilders) or extreme libertarians (e.g., Baudet), dares to spell it out – and yet it haunts all political debates. A spectrum is truly haunting Europe – a spectrum of mass migrations. Are all forces uniting against it? No, but even the most ardent believers in welcoming Third World masses in the first world infrastructures conclude that good fences do good neighbours make or that a sound democracy requires solid territorial borders. Or does it? And what does this turn of political mind tell us about the values of Enlightenment?

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of internet censorship, which is represented by the Great Fire Wall, on Chinese internet users’ self-censorship.

A 3×2 factorial experiment (n=315) is designed. Different patterns of censorship (soft censorship, compared censorship, and hard censorship) and the justification of internet regulation are involved in the experiment as two factors. The dependent variable is self-censorship which is measured through the willingness to speak about sensitive issues and the behavior of refusing to sign petitions with true names.

The results show that perceived internet censorship significantly decreases the willingness to talk about sensitive issues and the likelihood of signing petitions with true names. The justification of censorship significantly decreases self-censorship on the behaviors of petition signing. Although there are different patterns of internet censorship that Chinese netizens may encounter, they do not differ from each other in causing different levels of self-censorship.

The subjects are college students who were born in the early 1990s, and the characteristics of this generation may influence the results of the experiment. The measurement of self-censorship could be refined.

The study contributes to the body of literature about internet regulation because it identifies a causal relationship between the government’s internet censorship system and ordinary people’s reaction to the regulation in an authoritarian regime. Unpacking different patterns of censorship and different dimensions of self-censorship depicts the complexity of censoring and being censored.

The purpose of this study is to examine the politics, political economy, and fallout of hawkish regulatory policy on prescription drugs in Nigeria. Hawkish regulatory policy on prescription drug in Nigeria, such as opioid analgesics, is a very complex and multifaceted one, which usually involves the interplay of many factors and parties.

Policy manuals, official government gazettes (legislations, regulations, Acts and decrees), academic literature and a direct ethnographic observation of events surrounding the regulation of prescription drugs were reviewed and engaged.

The results revealed that Nigerian and global political economy and politics interface to define the direction of the new restrictive opioid policy, with resultant friction between prohibition and consumption. The reviews showed that the overarching “get-tough” and “repressive” policy are not necessarily founded on empirical evidence of an increase in prescription drug sales or use, but more as a product of the interplay of both internal and external politics and the prevailing socioeconomic order.

Instead of borrowing extensively from or being influenced by repressive Western drug laws and perspectives, Nigerian policymakers on prescription opioids should take control of the process by drawing up a home-grown policy that is less intrusive and punitive in nature for better outcomes. A mental sea change is required to understand the intrigues of Western power in Nigeria’s politics and political economy to avoid the continuous symptomatic failure of drug policy.

The politics and economic influence of the United Nations, USA and Western powers, as well as the axiom of moral panic of prescription drugs scares within the Nigerian environment, are particularly significant in the making of the emerging hawkish policy on prescription drugs in Nigeria.

Political correctness, also known as “PC,” has generated much discussion on both the Right and the Left. The greatest debate comes from college campuses. Political correctness derives from the principle that ethnic diversity, i.e., multiculturalism, can and should be preserved and protected. Ironically, the term originated in the Marxist era, when it was used to enforce conformity in the advancement of a particular Marxist view. The term became obsolete until it was revived in the 1980s (D'Souza, 1991).