Chances
are you’ve never heard of Goldonna, Louisiana. Chances are you might
not be able to pronounce the name of the Louisiana parish it’s in. But
you can almost certainly believe they’ve felt the sting of political
correctness in recent weeks.
GOLDONNA –The
recent 10-day suspension of a Natchitoches Parish school principal
because of a student-led prayer during a Christmas program was the
catalyst for 200 or more people gathering here late Monday afternoon
for a prayer rally.
[...]
Natchitoches
Parish schools Superintendent Dale Skinner, interviewed separately
earlier in the day, expressed support for the rally, but said he hoped
everyone understood his decision to discipline the principal was not
“personal.”
All
Natchitoches Parish principals have been reminded on different
occasions about the federal law that prohibits school officials from
participating in or soliciting prayer at a school event. Skinner fell
back on personal experience as the former principal of Natchitoches
Central High when he was on the receiving end of a complaint of prayer
there.

The
issue at hand is a Christmas program held at the Goldonna school, in
which a student-led prayer was held and items that are symbolic in
Christianity were displayed. School administators have been told
repeatedly what they can and can’t do with regard to prayer in school.
The key rule is that prayer must not be “solicited.” According to
Skinner, the prayer was listed in the school program, and therefore
violates the rule.
See, these rules come up because groups who profoundly misunderstand
the meaning of the First Amendment sue schools whenever a prayer is
held. And they win. Under the banner of “Thou Shalt Not Offend,” these
groups enforce their beliefs on those that they accuse of enforcing
their beliefs on others. We have to be politically correct and not
offend anyone, despite the overwhelming support for prayer in schools.
This brings me to the kids at Vox (trigger warning: actual text from a
Vox article):
First
things first: there’s no such thing as “political correctness.” The
term’s in wide use, certainly, but has no actual fixed or specific
meaning. What defines it is not what it describes but how it’s used: as
a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather
than a real issue.
[...]
It’s
understandable that Chait, and the many others who agree with him, find
it so upsetting to be on the receiving end of what he refers to as
“P.C.” criticism. These critiques basically accuse their targets of
being oppressors, or perpetuating injustice, and that’s a deeply
hurtful accusation. Indeed, that kind of criticism hurts most if you
are someone who cares about social justice, or do think that
discrimination is harmful when it’s implicit as well as when it’s
explicit.
But
avoiding that discomfort by dismissing criticism as mere “political
correctness” is no way to protect the marketplace of ideas whose fate
so concerns Chait. At best, it replaces a relatively weak burden on
free speech (Jonathan Chait has to listen to people scolding him on
Twitter) with a similarly weak one (other people have to listen to
Chait and his supporters scolding them for their “political
correctness”).
This writer, hilariously enough, proves Jonathan Chait’s point by
shutting his argument down and claiming he is simply exercising
privilege. Or, rather ...
[continue]