This oversensitivity is well intentioned. Those restricting their comments for political correctness — any measure taken to avoid offending or disadvantaging members of a particular group — often do so to respect and uplift marginalized communities. However, when taken to an extreme, this approach often does the opposite: When people push for extreme political correctness, to the point where they censor and restrict ideas, they limit the potential for meaningful conversations, promote binary thinking and exacerbate polarization.

Although inclusivity increases when people feel safe and respected, it also drops when they fear challenging ideas. For instance, trigger warnings — originally intended to help vulnerable individuals prepare for and avoid traumatizing material — have since become common online, even in arguably unnecessary contexts, such as discussions about racial discrimination or instances of hateful language.

In fact, in an Atlantic article, author and attorney Jill Filipovic writes that trigger warnings often seem to be “more about emphasizing the upsetting nature of certain topics than about accommodating people who had experienced traumatic events.” The effect of trigger warnings has evolved into labeling controversial and uncomfortable topics as “dangerous.” This shift promotes ignoring distressing issues rather than learning to listen and work through them.

Additionally, political correctness makes differentiating between hate speech and controversial opinions difficult. By prioritizing limiting offense over understanding different viewpoints, oversensitivity can further create polarization and conflict.

Amid the Israel-Hamas war, for example, the conflation of hate speech and controversial speech has become especially visible: Criticism toward Israel is sometimes taken as antisemitism, and pro-Palestinian points of view are sometimes quickly classified as pro-Hamas. Such generalizations erase layers of important nuance in a complex geopolitical conflict, precluding understanding on both sides and exacerbating polarization. Thus, even if people disagree with certain opinions or find them to be hurtful, they must remain respectful toward one another and listen with the intent of thinking critically about the issue at hand.

In higher education, political correctness has made college students — who will play key roles in shaping the future of the U.S. — afraid to engage in meaningful discourse. According to a September 2021 survey by Intelligent, an online magazine serving students, 52% of college students say they “always” or “often” hold back from expressing views on political and social issues in classrooms out of concern for being shamed or other potential consequences.

College campuses are meant to be bastions of free speech, allowing students to engage with ideologically complex material with thoughtfulness and empathy. If students feel unable to voice opinions regarding controversial topics, they cannot learn. Moreover, these habits only become more entrenched later in life, discouraging students from advocating controversial or unpopular views beyond school as well.

Ultimately, oversensitivity to the point of extreme political correctness restricts discourse more than it protects people. Respect toward one another shouldn’t need to come at the expense of intellectual inquiry and necessary — if uncomfortable — conversations. When people use their differences in belief as an invitation to better understand themselves and others, they improve trust and their relationships. Nuanced discourse, built on dismantling extreme political correctness, renders a tremendous service to society. It is the first step toward a more inclusive world.

Recent statistics from the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations highlight the urgency of addressing antisemitism and Islamophobia in schools. According to the ADL, U.S. antisemitic incidents reached their peak after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, a 337% increase from the year before. Similarly, in the four weeks following Oct. 7, CAIR received over 1,000 reports of anti-Arab and Islamophobic behavior, a 216% increase from the previous year.

Teachers play a crucial role in fostering analytical and critical-thinking skills as students try to grapple with complex geopolitical conflicts. Acknowledging this, PAUSD Board Policy 6144 mandates that instruction be presented in a balanced manner, addressing all sides of an issue without bias or promoting a particular point of view. While total objectivity may not always be possible, through presenting facts from a variety of reputable sources and holding space for informed discussions, teachers can allow students to form their own opinions while respecting others’.

The challenge, however, lies not in the absence of resources — materials were provided to teachers post-Oct. 7 to guide discussions on the war — but in the confidence and preparedness of teachers to engage with these topics openly and effectively, according to social studies teacher Tara Firenzi. Alongside being able to understand the conflicts themselves, teachers must be able to appropriately confront hate in the classroom. PAUSD has already implemented several equity and wellness trainings for teachers, including the New Hire Equity Training, which explores race, diversity and tolerance. However, the training fails to explicitly cover Islamophobia and antisemitism in the context of events in the Middle East, including the Israel-Hamas war — an incredibly complex subject that cannot be navigated simply with knowledge from general equity trainings. The complexity arises not from the conflict being more important than others, but from its deeply rooted history and the multifaceted political, religious and cultural tensions unique to the Middle East. This omission can lead to scenarios in which educators find themselves ill-equipped to navigate such a sensitive subject in the classroom. As a result, students may feel uncomfortable, unsafe or unsupported in their learning spaces. A staffwide antisemitism and Islamophobia education training that teaches staff how to identify microaggressions and biased learning materials will equip teachers with the necessary tools to discuss current events with students who are both deeply impacted by them and those who may just be curious.

This doesn’t mean that educators have to deviate from their planned curriculum to address current events. While all teachers should have the resources and training to discuss global events if they choose to, it is equally important for those who may not feel it is within their purview — including non-humanities teachers — to communicate their support to students. It is most essential to create an atmosphere of understanding, in which students know they have supporters among faculty who are prepared to assist them in navigating complex discussions and emotions.

This dual approach — equipping teachers with the necessary tools to address sensitive issues directly when possible, and fostering an environment of support regardless of the curriculum — ensures that all students feel seen, heard and valued in their educational journey at PAUSD.

In many ways, teachers are on the front lines of combating discrimination in classrooms, including tackling subtler microaggressions. PAUSD’s messy response serves as a call for a change in how its schools should approach the teaching of global conflicts as they arise. By equipping educators with the necessary tools to address sensitive issues like Islamophobia and antisemitism thoughtfully, PAUSD can foster a more empathetic and informed student body.