Decoding College Campus Dynamics: An Assessment of Political Correctness’s Affect on the Learning Experience Dana Frenkel Political correctness, also known as PC, is a progressive American speech code that regulates speech and actions in efforts to avoid offending certain categories of people. The term has been a point of heated contention since the 1990’s, however, little empirical research has been conducted, particularly on the effects it is having on the current generation of students born into an age of PC. This study seeks to describe a speech code on Baruch College’s highly diverse campus, whether PC is a feature of that code, and what this code reveals about classroom dynamics and the experience of learning. I intended to interpret the meaning ascribed by those who produce codes and furthermore ascertain whether or not the speech code contributes to students’ apprehension in engaging in intercultural classroom discussions. ANOVA (1)-Multiple Comparisons Correlations Mean (I) What is your (J) What is your Difference Std. current class year? current class year? Error (I-J) -1.792 1.083 Sophmore Freshman -1.792 .947 Junior Sophmore Junior Senior Hypothesis: Heightened intercultural apprehensiveness is positively correlated with the use of political correctness as a speech practice. Sig. .626 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound -4.77 1.18 .385 -4.39 .81 Senior -2.775* .933 .027 -5.33 -.22 Freshman 1.792 1.083 .626 -1.18 4.77 Junior .000 .910 1.000 -2.50 2.50 Senior -.983 Freshman 1.792 .947 .385 -.81 4.39 Sophmore .000 .910 1.000 -2.50 2.50 Senior -.983 .724 1.000 -2.97 1.00 Freshman 2.775* .933 .027 .22 5.33 Sophmore .983 .895 1.000 -1.47 3.44 Junior .983 .724 1.000 -1.00 2.97 .895 1.000 -3.44 ANOVA (2) Qualitative methods enabled me to document behaviors, attitudes, values, motivations, and beliefs about communication operating within college student’s interactions. In order to identify and understand the speech norms on college campuses, I employed ethnography of communication (EC). I followed Carbaugh and Hastings (1992) three broad stages of EC: (1) prefield work, (2) fieldwork, and (3) postfield work. (1) Prefield work entailed extensive reading on three distinct, yet related concentrations: (a) ethnographic theory and methodology, (b) particular intellectual issues derived from my research interests, in this case: PC, communication apprehension, and intercultural communications, and (c) local communicative patterns, on U.S. college campuses and particularly Baruch College. Through the prefield work process, I was situated within a general approach, concerning focused intellectual interests in the context of a particular communicative code. (2) Fieldwork activities then included generating data through participant observation in 10 different Baruch College courses, and interviews with students and a professor in the Communications Studies department with an expertise in intercultural communication. I documented all observable instances of speech behavior in Baruch, as well as communicative styles and codes operating outside the college, for students may have reported a "change" in communicative style when entering the college campus, including its occurrence or non-occurrence, where it occurred, with whom, in what language (s) and dialect(s), in which verbal forms, about which topics, as part of what interactional sequences, and with what observable consequences. I went on to analyze the recorded data, while continuously reverting back to the readings. (3) Postfield work improved on the initial analysis during the fieldwork phase as I formulated it into written work intended for an audience (Carbaugh & Hastings, 1992). Political correctness is right N 1.47 Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups 9.540 2 4.770 Within Groups 71.793 51 1.408 Moderate CA Apprehension F Sig. High CA Apprehension 2% 3.389 .042 34% 64% Total 81.333 1 .417** 53 Social constructs morph a structured system of cultural speech codes that S1: Let’s come up with a hypothetical. She-No, he is a bit talkative. attribute value to communicative actions and reflect its belief system S2: Why not “she”? (Philipsen, 1995). S1: I don’t want to come off sexist. I tend to get myself into a tight corner. “Knowledge of, and ability to participate in, a particular community’s “I’m a feminist, but practically speaking women have to take off spoken life are not only resources for information transmission but are if they want to have children.” resources for communal identification, and communal being as well” “Not to sound racist, because I’m not, but black communities (Philipsen, 1995, p. 14). tend to be poorer” “As diverse opinions are presented, interlocutors are asked to ‘tolerate’ a “Frankly, to me, intercultural communication is advocacy and range of views. This is often accomplished with prefatory comments like: you can teach it or look at it differently if you want to, but why ‘I’m not going to argue with anyone’s morals but if that’s what you not just add a little word that would make it possible for believe fine,’ ’You’re entitled to your opinion…(and here’s mine),’ ‘You students to have an accessible intercultural communications have a right to your feelings’” (Carbaugh, 1987, p.41). master?” “If I can speak freely, it was created for the reject students.” “It sounds bad, but get over it. You won’t always like what you hear.” “There is an implicit paradox here …between the the ‘right’ to speak “He said, ‘I don’t know about advocacy. It might get us in trouble opinions freely and the proper stating of them in a non-impositional way. with free speech.’ What he meant was that if we have a program in In a sense the paradox involved an interaction of legal and cultural codes: advocacy we’ll attract activist type students who might advocate the legal code giving American citizens a relatively unconstrained ‘right’ for something he doesn’t feel comfortable with. He doesn’t want to free expression; and the cultural code offering moral guidance for any headlines about this nice college that could get him as an expressions deemed most proper within American society life. In the administrator into trouble.” Donahue scene, the cultural code constrains the practice of its legal counterpart through the rules of ‘respect’ and non-imposition” (Carbaugh, 1987, p. 45). 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% .005 43 43 Engaging in a group Pearson .417** 1 discussion with Correlation people from Sig. (2-tailed) .005 different cultures N makes me nervous. 43 55 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Low CA Apprehension Based on your experience, people are too sensitive to PC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Intercultural Communication Apprehension Measure Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between heightened intercultural apprehensiveness and the use of political correctness as a speech practice. Quantitative methodology allowed me to use measures to describe and explore relationships within the data. I conducted quantitative research through a) data collection and b) data analysis. First, I generated a structured survey to Qualtrics survey software to a research poll of human subjects made up of 75 Baruch College students. The survey attempted to gage general communicative behaviors, classroom communicative behaviors, level of comfort in intercultural setting, through an intercultural communication apprehension measure, and overall attitude towards PC. Using the data, I computed descriptive and inferential statistics on IBM SPSS. I contrasted subjects’ responses, established relationships in the data, and ultimately disproved my null hypothesis. Engaging in a group discussion with people from different Political cultures correctness makes me is right nervous. Dependent Variable: I have become more comfortable with intercultural communication through my college experience Bonferroni 45.0% People will judge me if I'm not PC People are too sensitive about words I view people differently when they are not PC Both the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that PC operates as a speech code on Baruch College’s campus. The survey reveals students’ belief that others highly value speech acts and words that are in line with PC. Although they might personally feel that others are overly sensitive, they too participate in the system as many admit to judging others who are not PC. While it seems that PC has become an intrinsic feature of general communicative behaviors, expectations for PC are heightened in Baruch College’s classroom discussions. It is unclear whether this trend contributes to or is a result of the overwhelming high and moderate levels of communication apprehension. While the first Anova test reveals that students do become relatively more comfortable with intercultural communication throughout their college experience, from freshmen to senior year, it is important to note that the levels of apprehension are still high as seen in the measure. This study does not determine a cause for this relative improvement; however, the second Anova test rejects the null hypothesis, which suggests that this improvement cannot be attributed to PC, considering that it is those with low intercultural communication apprehension who believe that people are too sensitive about PC in comparison to those with high intercultural communication apprehension. Correlation coefficients further show that subjects who believe that PC is “right” and strictly abide by the code tend to be more apprehensive in intercultural settings. This can compromise the learning environment if students are tense and hesitate to participate or contribute to classroom discussions. The EC data has proven in agreement with these statistical results. Participants are attuned to the weight of their words and partake in the speech code even if revealing discontent. There is an understanding amongst participants to adhere to PC if they want to be heard. This can be seen through prefatory clauses that justify their speech acts by constantly emphasizing that the words are the opinion of the speakers and that they are entitled to free expression. Furthermore, this speech code creates a heightened sense of sensitivity that causes speakers to feel insecure in how others will perceive them, which is also observable through prefatory comments. Speakers understand that their speech categorizes them, and they therefore often opt to selfcategorize themselves before others have the opportunity to evaluate them. These consequences highlight the American communicative paradox, which Carbaugh (1988) saw as a battle between cultural code and legal rights. This dialectical tension can be extended between cultural code and the premise of the university experience. American undergraduate schools emphasize deconstructing boundaries in pursuit of enriching and eye opening learning experiences, which is in part done through diversifying the student body and faculty. However, when the dialectic emerges in the ongoing discourse of the classroom, PC becomes a source of friction from the participants’ point of view, giving rise to conflicting reports on the effectiveness and satisfaction of the learning experience. Future research would explore the cause of this relative decrease in intercultural communication apprehension and determine alternative speech codes for managing a diverse student body and in particular conducting more effective classroom discussions, that would further decrease intercultural communication apprehension, and ultimately provide a more enriching learning experience. Carbaugh, D.A. (1987). Communication rules in Donahue discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 21(1-4). Carbaugh, D. A. (1988). Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany: State University of New York Press. Carbaugh, D.A. (1995). The Ethnographic Communication Theory of Philipsen and Associates. Cushman, D. P., & Kovačić, B. (Eds.). Watershed research traditions in human communication theory. (pp. 269-292). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. For an extended list of references, please contact researcher at danamfrenkel@gmail.com