The challenge: You tell me what "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" means in 15 (fifteen) words or less. By the way, there is a right answer. There's no limit to the number of entries per organism, so this will clearly fill up the dead space in your weekend while you're waiting for that inappropriate love-object to call. There are also no meaningful restrictions on who or what can enter (but please, no explosives). And, of course, there's nothing to buy . . . because there's nothing to buy. Send your shattering rays of light to: "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" Death March c/o Steven Ochs Editorial Page Editor 4015 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Fax: (215) 898-2050. The deadline: ASAP, but entries received after Octorber 14 will not be considered. The carrot: I can hear you now panting with anticipation to learn about the boundless array of prizes offered. But what I offer is no cheesy googaw, no vulgar conceit. What this contest provides transcends any concept of monetary value. What is at stake here is a priceless attribute, to wit, fame. That's right, fame (it's lowercase, so it's not the movie). It will be fleeting fame, of course, on the order of a nanosecond, but it will be fame nonetheless. You see, the "best" explanations of the ubiquitous phrase "No Mayonnaise in Ireland" (selected by the "judges'" wholly arbitrary criteria) will be published in this column in two weeks (count 'em down, kids). If you really want to make the most of this, you should provide your name, or some plausible facsimile thereof, and your phone number along with your entry. Don't worry; the "name" does not count towards the 15 (fifteen) words. The first person to provide the correct answer will probably get something really weird, but this prize has not yet been cleared with legal counsel, so don't count on it. And the first-place winner will have his or her photo published in the place of mine in the above space. Remember, the utterly capricious decisions of the "judges" are final. You should never assume that DP stands for "due process." Let's make sure we understand one another: THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!! Your personal life, religious beliefs, vocational aspirations or political views may be a joke, but this baby is for real. No whining that you didn't send something in because you thought this was a ruse. For our next nonsequitur . . . Today's commentary: There have been a number of salvos fired across these pages about the "politically correct" pall that hangs over this society, or at least over major educational institutions. I have wanted to enter the fray for some time because my agent said it might lead to a movie role or an assassination attempt, so here I am. A frontal attack on the inelegant (at best) terminology ("Lookism"? Give me a break.) employed in this whole nutty P.C. thing seems an exercise in the obvious. In my view, the interesting question here is what does the P.C. debate mean about the values ostensibly "cherished" in this society. To restate the matter in constitutional terms, the rancor over what constitutes the politically correct represents a head-on collision between the principles of free speech (i.e., the First Amendment) and those of nondiscrimination or equal protection (i.e., the Fourteenth Amendment). A moment's reflection will point out that there is considerable (and, to some, irreconcilable) tension between these two ideals. For example, an individual has the "right" to speak his mind on virtually any subject. In speaking his mind, however, he may be promoting or advocating invidious viewpoints, thereby violating the "right" to nondiscrimination held by others. So, who trumps? The "action for the greater good" argument implies the speaker should be suppressed. This has been the position advanced by the supporters of P.C., at least when they string together a coherent argument that goes beyond the usual infantile ad hominem attack. The central tenet of modern free-speech jurisprudence, however, has been that the individual cannot be silenced simply because he offends others. Indeed, he may be silenced only when his speech directly threatens to cause -- not just to call for -- illegal action by others. It should be remembered that the Supreme Court's most rigorous articulation of the "clear and present danger" standard came in a case involving threats of racial violence. How odd, then, that supposedly more enlightened institutions such as this nation's universities, would promote policies that impose a muzzle a priori as a matter of course. This is the agonizing irony of the P.C. debate. When certain groups did not hold positions of power or prominence, they vehemently argued that their free-speech rights allowed them to discuss with impunity what were then viewed as unpopular, misguided, offensive, or even subversive, positions. Theirs was a valiant fight, to be sure. And all of us have reaped benefits either directly or indirectly from the sacrifices they made to ensure that the First Amendment was and remained a fundamental guarantee. When these same groups are in a position to determine policy within certain social institutions, they seek to suppress speech that they view as unpopular, misguided, offensive, or even subversive. This change in strategy now strongly suggests that their past position may have been no more than posturing. They sought refuge in the First Amendment only to the extent that it could advance their immediate goals. Because the free-speech principles they formerly trumpeted now permit speech of which they do not approve, these groups seek to eviscerate those same principles in the guise of the "politically correct." The impression this leaves is unsavory. It indicates that the P.C. advocates are not doing what is correct, but simply expedient for their aims. Was their free-speech rhetoric of old just so much idle (yet constitutionally protected) chatter? In my view, the advocates of the politically correct cannot hope to be taken seriously until they can explain this self-serving, insecure, and myopic mutilation of free speech. And this probably means I am guilty of "Integritysm." John Cooke is a former lawyer from Washington, D.C. He is currently a post-baccalaureate student studying a pre-medical curriculum. No Mayonnaise In Ireland appears alternate Fridays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
