Isn’t it a paradox to use your own freedom of speech to tell someone they should limit their vocabulary? Where can we draw the line between being respectful and being overly sensitive? Lately, I have been concerned about the lengths some are willing to go in order to end “incorrect speech.” It seems to me that the list of words labeled “politically incorrect” is growing with each passing year. Which begs the question: do personal feelings really hold more sway over First Amendment rights?

Radio host Don Imus calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team a group of “nappy-headed hos” is the perfect example of being politically incorrect. He said a deplorable thing on the air and those women had every right to be upset. However, Imus was, by contract,

supposed to be politically incorrect. As a talk show host, his career is based on outrageous rhetoric.

The college, instead of just calling him out on being a racist SOB, fought to get him fired and sought monetary compensation. Is this really a precedent we want to set?

I know what you are thinking: “Is this guy really defending Don Imus?” Well, hear me out and ask yourself this – should we fine and fire everyone who is politically incorrect before we have an accurate definition of what being politically incorrect means? Imus’s case may have been cut-and-dry racism, but not everything falls into such clear

categories. Who has the right to decide what is inappropriate for everyone else?

When a word or phrase is banished, it is only given more power. The ability to hurt someone with that language intensifies. I propose endorsing all hate speech in order to finally end our sensitivity to it.

If you can imagine a post-racist, sexist, anything-ist society, do you really think it would include a list of no-no words? Let’s grow thicker skins, stop playing the victim and confront stereotypes through open and honest conversation.

What if instead of being fired, Imus was given a choice between losing his job or having to look into the eye of each woman and call her a “nappy-headed ho” to her face? He could then have chosen his own unemployment or confronted how hurtful and wrong his statements were. I bet $1,000 that his apology afterward would have been completely sincere.

The idea that you can end the stigma behind phrases by outlawing them is absurd. I don’t want to live in a world where the only thing keeping someone from calling me a honky-cracker-jack-vanilla-faced-weto is the possibility that they might get sued for doing so. Personally, I would rather hear the person express their true feelings about me than pretend to accept me as I am.

To end incorrect “isms,” we do not need legislature, policies or punishments. What we need to do is recognize that everyone is prejudiced and ignorant to a certain extent. That’s right, I said it! Everyone is prejudiced. Seriously, whenever I hear someone say that they do not see color, sex or affiliation, it makes me want to gag. I see color, sex and affiliation all the time and I love it. Only when a stereotype is spoken aloud in the presence of the stereotyped can it be proven ridiculous and incorrect.

I truly believe in the idea of equality for all. But I also believe that the road to absolute equality is paved with honesty and communication, not censorship and punishment.