Dyson Michael Eric - Political correctness: Dyson and Goldberg vs. Fry and Peterson

Since we started the Munk Debates, my wife, Melanie, and I have been deeply gratified at how quickly they have captured the publics imagination. From the time of our first event in May 2008, we have hosted what I believe are some of the most exciting public policy debates in Canada and internationally. Global in focus, the Munk Debates have tackled a range of issues, such as humanitarian intervention, the effectiveness of foreign aid, the threat of global warming, religions impact on geopolitics, the rise of China, and the decline of Europe. These compelling topics have served as intellectual and ethical grist for some of the worlds most important thinkers and doers, from Henry Kissinger to Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens to Paul Krugman, Peter Mandelson to Fareed Zakaria.

The issues raised at the Munk Debates have not only fostered public awareness, but they have also helped many of us become more involved and, therefore, less intimidated by the concept of globalization. It is so easy to be inward-looking. It is so easy to be xenophobic. It is so easy to be nationalistic. It is hard to go into the unknown. Globalization, for many people, is an abstract concept at best. The purpose of this debate series is to help people feel more familiar with our fast-changing world and more comfortable participating in the universal dialogue about the issues and events that will shape our collective future.

I dont need to tell you that that there are many, many burning issues. Global warming, the plight of extreme poverty, genocide, our shaky financial order: these are just a few of the critical issues that matter to people. And it seems to me, and to my foundation board members, that the quality of the public dialogue on these critical issues diminishes in direct proportion to the salience and number of these issues clamouring for our attention. By trying to highlight the most important issues at crucial moments in the global conversation, these debates not only profile the ideas and opinions of some of the worlds brightest thinkers, but they also crystallize public passion and knowledge, helping to tackle some of the challenges confronting humankind.

I have learned in life and Im sure many of you will share this view that challenges bring out the best in us. I hope youll agree that the participants in these debates challenge not only each other but also each of us to think clearly and logically about important problems facing our world.

Peter Munk (1927 2018)

Founder, Aurea Foundation

Toronto, Ontario

Copyright 2018 Aurea Foundation
Michael Eric Dyson, Michelle Goldberg, Stephen Fry, and Jordan Peterson in Conversation by Rudyard Griffiths. Copyright 2018 Aurea Foundation.

Published in Canada in 2018 by House of Anansi Press Inc.
www.houseofanansi.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

All of the events and characters in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

House of Anansi Press is committed to protecting our natural environment. As part of our efforts, the interior of this book is printed on paper that contains 100% post-consumer recycled fibres, is acid-free, and is processed chlorine-free.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Political correctness : the Munk debates / Michael Eric Dyson,
Michelle Goldberg, Stephen Fry, Jordan Peterson.

(The Munk debates)
Issued in print and electronic formats.
ISBN 978-1-4870-0525-2 (softcover).ISBN 978-1-4870-0526-9 (EPUB).
ISBN 978-1-4870-0527-6 (Kindle)

1. Political correctness. 2. Freedom of speech. 3. Ideology. 4. Social history--21st century. I. Dyson, Michael Eric, panelist II. Goldberg, Michelle, 1975-, panelist III. Fry, Stephen, 1957-, panelist IV. Peterson, Jordan B., panelist V. Series: Munk debates

HM1216.M86 2018 323.44 C2018-904408-X
C2018-904409-8

Cover design: Alysia Shewchuk
Text design and typesetting: Sara Loos
Transcription: Transcript Heroes

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952735

We acknowledge for their financial support of our publishing program the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Government of Canada.

RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: Its our pleasure to speak with celebrated author Michael Eric Dyson. Hes got a couple of bestselling books under his belt, he teaches at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and hes a broadcaster on NPR, ESPN, and elsewhere. Michael, great to have you here in Toronto.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Thanks for having me.

RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: This is the big cultural debate of the moment. Im sure you dont subscribe to the entire canon of so-called political correctness, but what elements do you think are indicative of progress in our society?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Look, I think people tend to forget that the Left invented political correctness. Not its idea, but the notion that we should be careful and cautious, and not be so sensitive and hypersensitive and exaggerate or excuse certain things that were doing. So, the Left came up with the concept, but it got hijacked by the Right, and now it seems to mean that everything Im mad at but cant be bigoted about anymore is politically incorrect. I cant call you names, I cant talk to women the same way, I cant look at Jews or Muslims, and so on.

So, everything is so hush-hush and its so politically correct. Well, you want to be correct about a lot of things. If your cheque comes home mathematically incorrect, youre going to be upset. So, yeah, we want correctness in a lot of stuff. Now, theres no exact metric when it comes to politics, but I would say that Im from a people who have often argued against the mainstream, whove been outside of the parameters of protection of the mainstream. To us, political correctness sounds like people wanting to hold onto the same kind of useless bigotries that used to inform what we did as a nation.

The helpful part is to be self-critical, to take inventory, to examine ones own life, and to figure out ways in which we have indeed lost a sense of challenge. You know, I teach in the university, so Im critical of some of the moments where people are so sensitive that we cant deal with tough stuff.

Say were going to talk about something real, like police violence. Ill give a trigger warning: Here it is. Its coming. Lets grapple with it. I dont dismiss young peoples needs for safe space and trigger warnings, but I think the classroom is a robust centre of learning, and sometimes we have to confront ideas we dont like. I believe in more speech, not less. I believe people must counter speech with speech.

Now, that doesnt mean that some speech is not connected to hateful practices and by itself conjures those heinous and hateful practices, but for the most part I think confronting tough issues helps us make advances, and we can say, Well, thats some good stuff and we can build around it.