"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances11--Amendment I to the Constitution.

In 1993, a college student named Martin Lask laughed when one of his friends shouted "faggot" during an argument with his former roommate. The university charged Mr. Lask with discriminatory harassment and required him to spend 10 hours doing garden work and write a paper on a video about homophobia. At the University of Maryland, nine women posted the names of randomly selected male students around campus, labeling them "potential rapists." And the New York University Department of Performance has an opening for an assistant professor who specializes in Hispanic/American Indian performance or "gendered performance: drag, transvestite performance and queer theories." Any takers?

A movement on college campuses these days threatens to rob students of the right to debate issues, express contrary opinions, and exercise free speech. This campaign to stifle intellectual freedom is known as "political correctness." In order to show how this way of thought is counterpoised to the First Amendment and common sense, we should take a look at libel laws, using the First Amendment as our guide, because one of the most frequent targets of the "politically correct" doctrine are campus newspapers. We should next examine the rise of conservative publications at today's universities, and then look at how PC (as it is commonly called) has limited speech and impacted at Clarion.

Nearly 95% of all libel suits against publications result from ordinary news stories, such as those charging criminal activity, immoral conduct, or incompetence. When a person or an organization does make these charges, it is best to include a response or statement from the person(s) being accused. Most causes of libel stem from carelessness, a misunderstanding of the law, or limitations of the privilege defense. The definition of libel is injury to one's reputation, in which a person is exposed to ridicule or shame. There are several defenses to the charge of libel. One is when the facts stated are probably true or can be proven. Also, public officials have the privilege of saying whatever they want to, though they must deal with the consequences of their statements by public opinion. Another libel defense is known as fair comment. The publication of defamatory material made up of opinion on public matter is not libelous, although any facts in the piece must be accurate. The court stated, in Hoeppner vs. Dunkirk Printing, that:

"Everyone has a right to comment on matters of public interest and concern, provided they do so fairly and with an honest purpose. Such comments or criticism are not libelous, however severe in their terms, unless they are written maliciously. Thus it has been held that books, prints, pictures and statuary publicly exhibited, and the architecture of public buildings and actors and exhibitors are all the legitimate subjects of newspapers' criticism, and such criticism fairly and honestly made is not libelous, however strong the terms of censure may be."

There are also rules that regard the covering of public and private figures. The press has much protection when covering public affairs; for instance, public officials have to prove malice when suing. Public figures are defined as prominent individuals or those involved in a controversy trying to sway its outcome. Private figures are merely explained as being a non-public figure. For them, most states just require some proof that there was negligence on the part of the media organization. In addition, anybody who is somehow involved in a news event or a matter of public interest loses their right to privacy.

With the legal limitations to free speech as our background, we next turn our attention to campus concerns. Gross states that conservatives believe that PC speech conflicts with the First Amendment in favor of itself. He offers some reasons for that by saying that colleges should provide a welcome and tolerant environment for its students, that there are incidents of bigotry on campus which should be stopped, and that colleges have been pressured to apply sexual harassment laws to their students. He does acknowledge that administrators have tried to solve social problems with codes of conduct, which seems to have sparked this concern over undue limitation of free speech. Those worries could account for the increasing popularity of conservative campus publications. Smith believes that students involved in these publications tend to think that their education is being diluted by multiculturalism and increased attention on women and homosexuals. Not everyone shares this view. Media Law Lecturer Joan Lowenstein observes that:

"Students...who (believe) that any criticism is related to the issue of political correctness...can't take criticism at all, so when they receive any, they're quick to say, 'This just proves...political correctness exists.'"

Perhaps the best explanation can be provided by Chris Long, the national director of InterCollegiate Studies Institute:

"In the 1960s, students rebelled against conservative administrators. Students now are rebelling against faculty and administration...who have overstepped the bounds of radical multicultural orthodoxy. Today's students don't like speech codes and...mandatory sensitivity training." In an annual survey of college freshmen, 40% reported that they had participated in a demonstration, twice levels recorded during the 6Os.

One type of speech under attack is known as group defamation. Laramee defines it as "...any oral, written, or symbolic speech that...degrades members of a group on the basis of a characteristic that is allegedly common to the group." He further goes on to define groups as "...people identified by common race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference." It is difficult to see the usefulness of such speech, though Laramee offers an interesting hypothesis when he says:

"Extremists often represent a paradigm of the intolerant mind at work and thus illustrate the very qualities that principles of free speech are committed to...avoiding."

For example, a brawl started at the University of Massachusetts over T-shirts worn by some students reading, "Aryan By the Grace of God." Also, two administrators at the University of California at Riverside agreed to take First Amendment training after they attempted to ban the fraternity Phi Kappa Sigma because they distributed T-shirts on which was the picture of a man drinking beer dressed in a serape wearing a sombrero. The fraternity sued over freedom of speech, and won.

Another example of punishment of speech would include professor J. Donald Silva. He was charged with sexual harassment, reprimanded, and suspended after he used the following simile in class: "Belly dancing is like Jell-O on a plate-with a vibrator under the plate." And then there is the interesting announcement from the University of California at Davis Law Review: "The U.C. Davis Law Review follows the convention of using female pronouns. This article follows that convention except when referring to a criminal defendant, where male pronouns are used. Federal criminal defendants are overwhelmingly male."

Political correctness does not seem to exist to a large extent at Clarion University. The newspaper, instead of censoring views, provides an open forum where people may discuss and argue whatever they like. Indeed, even profanity has been published (the word "jackass" to describe a student who expressed concern over stapling trees). There continues to be disturbing incidents of graffiti in which the word "nigger" have been used, or messages promoting the odious organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. The only changes to Clarion, it seems, is that courses on women and black studies have been added. Only student demand and interest in such courses will continue their being offered.

This research has merely strengthened my two core beliefs regarding this issue. The first is that PC's main effect is to limit speech and debate, and has been used to stifle highly unpopular opinions. My second belief is that thinking or speaking in terms of groups promotes groupism. I am far more interested in how racism and hate speech affects an individual than how it affects the group. This country does not recognize group rights based on ethnicity or gender, and to try to do that is dangerous. Individual rights must and should be protected at all times, which would eliminate any claim to special group rights.

Using the law as our guide, we have examined political correctness as relates to campus publications, group defamation, college punishments of students and organizations, and impact at Clarion. PC continues in our culture and language, rewriting history, and stifling debate. It seems, though, that something of a backlash is growing against this loony liberal way of thought. As long as legal protection exists and used to protect First Amendment rights, freedom of speech on campus will continue to be an asset--not a liability.