The Case for Being Insensitive; W. B. Irvine

This charge of insensitivity has been thrown around quite a bit in the last few years. Indeed, it is one of the main tools used by those who seek to impose "Politically Correct" thinking on Ameri ca's college campuses and elsewhere. It is curious that Americans, who with each passing year become less concerned about good manners and etiquette, become ever more con cerned with sensitivityin speech. It is okay to be a slob at the dinner table. It is okay to go out in pub lic half dressed. It is even okay-some would have us believe-to use four-letter words in mixed com pany. But never, never say something political that will hurt the feelings of another human being. Racist and sexist remarks certainly are morally offensive. But what about remarks that are merely insensitive? Should the members of a free society attempt to suppress· these remarks or condemn those who make them? Before we can answer these questions, we must first inquire into exactly what sorts of remarks, in today's political climate, count as insensitive.

To be guilty of insensitivity, you must first say something that hurts someone's feelings. If people don't mind what you say, you are a sensitive indi vidual; and if what you say makes people feel good Professor Irvine teaches philosophy at Wright State Uni versity in Dayton, Ohio. about themselves, you will count as a wonderfully sensitive individual. But hurting someone's feelings alone won't make you guilty of insensitivity, for it matters whose feelings you hurt. If, for example, the above-described dean had announced that his feelings had been hurt by being accused of racism, no one would have rushed to charge his accusers of insensitivity. As it turns out, for a remark to count as insensi tive, the person whose feelings get hurt must be long to a "protected" group. Some of these groups are defined by their minority status. For example, it is insensitive to hurt the feelings of a black or a female. (On the other hand, people with Scottish sounding surnames are in a minority group, but not a protected minority group; it is therefore not, in today's political climate, considered insensitive to say things that hurt their feelings.) Other pro tected groups are defined by lifestyle.For instance, it is insensitive-as Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes fame found out-to hurt the feelings of homo sexuals, since homosexuality is a protected life style. No one will charge you with insensitivity, however,ifyou attack the heterosexual proclivities of bachelors; their lifestyle isn't protected.

One other thing to realize about the charge of insensitivity is that remarks need not be false to count as insensitive. Indeed, most of the remarks that get labeled insensitive are arguably true. (The dean's remark, for example, that the black faculty member gets paid as much as he does because he is black might well be true. Indeed, given the chaotic state of affirmative action in America, it is possible that the black faculty member wouldn't even have been interviewed for his job if he hadn't 334 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1991 been black.)Generally,peopleaccusesomeoneof being insensitive only when they are unable to convicthim of the more seriouscharge of being wrong. Thus, it would appear that when someone accuses someone else of Ill.akingan insensitive remark,what he is reallydoing is accusingsome one ofmakingan arguablytrue remarkthat mem bersofacertainprotectedgroupdon'tcareto hear.

Why do people accuseothers of insensitivity? No doubt because they have found that it is an effective way to intimidate their critics into silence-much thesamewaythatinthe19508Sen ator Joseph McCarthy intimidated many of his criticsinto silenceby labelingthem Communists. Notice,too,that it is far easierto provethat some oneis insensitivethanto provethathe is mistaken; for to proveinsensitivity,all you haveto do (if you are in a protected group) is announce that your feelingshavebeen·hurt. Is it, then, wrongto make insensitiveremarks? Not if we valuethe truth. The charge of insensitivity,if Americanstake it seriously,threatens to undermineour freedom of speech. For if we concern ourselveswith the sensitivityofwhatwe say,we bringinto existence a multitude of censors-namely, ourselves. Beforewe open our mouths,our concernwillnot be, "Is whatI am about to saytrue?" but instead, "Do people want to hear what I am about to say?" Of course,what makesfreedomof speech valuableis that it protects our right to say things that people don't want to hear. Our right to say thingsthat people do want to hear will never be in danger.

Whendiscussingtheissuesoftheday,we should not worry about being "insensitive."Conversely, whensomeonesayssomethingpoliticalthat hurts our feelings, we should stop and ask ourselves whetherhis criticismis valid. If it is, he probably has done us a favor in speaking.And if it is not, we shouldn't sit there whimpering about the critic's insensitivity; instead we should defend ourselves by vigorously demonstrating to him why he is wrong. We will both be better for the experience. D 335 GovernlDent's Assault on Freedom to Work by Thomas J. DiLorenzo T.his essay sugges~s ways of thinkin~ about .one of the most ImportanteconomICfree doms-the freedom to earn a living.Eco nomic freedom may be defined generally as the freedom to trade or to engagein any consensual economicactivity.!In the contextofthe labormar ket' economicfreedom means the freedom of an employee or a group of employees to "trade"