Politically correct

Political correctness has strong-armed free speech.

Afraid to walk the non-conformed line of rejection, we have become a nation of quickly offended.

The Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee’s resignation a few months ago was warranted, but it draws attention to a larger epidemic in America.

Can one express a personal opinion without it being considered a personal attack?

We should be accepting of any person’s opinion and even more so when supported by fact.

Gee’s first gaffe was when he disparaged the football schedules of the likes of Boise State and TCU, stating Ohio State doesn’t play the “Little Sisters of the Poor.” Immediately causing a national controversy, critics demanded an apology. One was eventually granted.

I struggle to find the part worthy of an apology.

Would any objective sports fan be able to support the conclusion that Gee is wrong in assuming Boise State’s and TCU’s schedules are weaker? ESPN’s algorithmic strength of schedule and journalists would concur. And if “Little Sisters of the Poor” University does manage to produce an annual football team, I can’t imagine it would be so disillusioned to be insulted by the insinuation that it’s beneath Ohio State in terms of football pedigree.

More recently, when asked a question regarding the Big Ten’s expansion plans and specifically, Louisville, Gee controversially responded with “make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity. So you won’t see us adding Louisville.”

It’s a candid response, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate. At this point in time, most educators would acknowledge Louisville is not academically on par with many Big Ten institutions. Having graduated from a Big Ten university and attending graduate school at another, I appreciate the president’s desire to maintain the academic prestige of the league.

If, during the gathering of two close friends they were to imply they chose Harvard Business School, an Ivy League university, over Kelley School of Business and the Big Ten on the grounds of academic reputation — while I may personally object — I wouldn’t find the statement worthy of an apology nor find the conclusion unfounded.
I can distinguish between their personal view, one factually supported and an attempt to be crude or offensive.

The Ohio State president supported his university, and in doing so, brought up some inconvenient truths. Just because someone prefers to neglect the truth, doesn’t make it offensive or wrong for someone else to tell the truth. I wish Gee would have said, “I stated my opinion, supported by facts, and I don’t think an apology is warranted.”

Gee, by any measure, dug his own career grave with the continual escalation of publicly offensive comments, but his resignation makes me wonder if political correctness has overshadowed individualism.

To refrain from offending, one must avoid speaking beyond majority consensus. That alone is an infringement on a person’s right to free speech.

We must not become an emotionally fragile country. Prior to deeming someone or something offensive, we must temporarily suspend judgment and take the time to properly deliberate.

­— jhollfel@indiana.edu
Follow columnist John Hollfelder on Twitter @jhollfelder.