I haven't looked to see whether the language 'mavens' like William Safire
have determined when the term 'politically correct' came into American
parlance . . . and I'm not necessarily suggesting that its etymology
tracks to the faculty dining room of the Scarborough Campus of the
University of Toronto in the early 70s . . .  but I DO remember the
precise situations in which I first heard the term used :
   As a grad student at UT during the early 70s I traveled to the
Scarborough campus as a Teaching Assistant once a week.  I always had
lunch with the two History profs who taught the survey for which I was
TA and a third from Political Economy. Two had tenure (both assoc
professors at the time) and one didn't (an assistant prof).
   On various occasions especially in the 71-72 academic year, when the
assistant prof was being considered for tenure, conversation would turn
to any of the various topics upon which the faculty senate was
deliberating. Most of the discussion candidly focused on the merits of
any given issue, but once some consensus among the three had emerged on
the merits, the younger prof, mindful of his quest for tenure, always
asked the other two what the "politically correct" position might be.
In that context, he meant that if he was pressed to advocate an
opinion, what was the safest opinion for someone who wished to not to
alienate those empowered to decide upon his tenure. The phrase struck
me as novel in 1971-72 (as did 'waffling" which was current in Canadian
politics in the Trudeau years as a descriptor for indecision or
"flip-flopping").
   In that context, the term was NOT associated with any particular point
of view or ideology, but rather with what was least likely to raise
anyone's hackles . . . .  I have no clue as to whether this situational
dynamic is applicable subsequent uses of the term - but it has always
struck me as an interesting wrinkle in the language.  The younger prof
was a good teacher, and good scholar, and he did get tenure.

Jon Kukla

PS: I associate the term "Radical Chic" with Tom Wolfe's piece on
Mau-Mauing the Flack-Catchers, but he may have picked it up from
somewhere....


> Indeed.  And like so many buzz words, it means different things to
> different people.
>
> In my experience, such as it is, PC is a club used by people of various
> different political ideologies to beat up on their opponents.  Its
> rare--again, in my experience--to see the term used by non-ideological
> people and for non-ideological purposes.  For that reason, I don't think
> it has a lot of analytical (as opposed to rhetorical) value.
>
> PC is just a label.  Much better to talk about particular instances, as
> they crop up.  Like most labels used for ideological purposes, I find that
> it tells us much more about the person using it than it does about the
> particular phenomena it allegedly represents.
>
> For saying this, of course, I will no doubt be accused of being "PC."
>
> All best,
> Kevin
>
> ---- Original message ----
>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:10:30 -0700
>>From: Anita Wills <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: The Trajectory of PC
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>It is a buzz word like, Radical Chic, a term thrown around in the 70's.
>>
>>Anita