意大利施恩德岩板：历史与现代融合的缔造

施恩德岩板，一个名字让人联想到意大利风情和神州奇迹。这座巨石堡在中国河南省临泽地区建立，并因其独特的地理位置和历史故事而赢得了世界的好评。

1. 历史与名字的交错

意大利施恩德岩板，在古代名为施盈石之后命名来源于伊斯兰圣心赫里安德·特斯(Thaddeus)的传说。据说这位基督教教长在13世纪前期间帮助受捕中国的清真徒们，因而得以称为“施”之名。然而，近年来，意大利施恩德岩板更多被赋予一个具体地理和文化背景。

2. 地理位置与作用

施恩德岩板位于中国河南省临泽地区，位于黄河流域的边缘，形成了一个蓬大而独特的水利工程。这座岩堡因其极其重要的地理位置被用作当地风水计划的主体。由于临泽的河流通向黄河，施恩德岩板找了解决水危害问题，保持了荒漠中的生态平衡和土地利用效率。

3. 现代与古典的结合

尽管这座岩堡的起源有其神话色彩，但现在更多关注于施恩德岩板作为一个世界级文化遗产。当地居民们和国际访问者都能感受到这座古老石堡的庄重与智慧，同时也看到了它对现代社会的影� Written in 2015, this essay was originally published on the Harvard University Press blog.

At a time when political correctness has become something of a dirty word in public discourse in America and beyond, it is worth taking stock of what its rise means for our democracy. There are good reasons to be concerned about an environment that allows hate speech and bigotry unchecked: not only because these attitudes can harm those who suffer from them but also because they might contribute to the growth of political movements that reject basic tenets of liberal democracy, such as tolerance for diverse views on social policy.

Political correctness has become a battleground in today’s public debate about free expression and its limits—a topic whose centrality is reflected by how often it appears in newspaper headlines: “College professor fired over ‘politically incorrect’ comments,” “‘The Godfather Returns’ Is Political Correctness at Its Worst” or “Can You Say …? The Battle of P.C.”

For some, political correctness represents the last remaining vestiges of a 1960s liberalism that sought to police not just language but also personal behavior. For others, it is an effort by left-leaning academics and politicians to silence dissent—particularly from conservatives, who have long felt they are under siege in American universities.

Yet political correctness can be understood as more than a fight over the limits of free expression: It is also a struggle between two competing visions of democracy. And this understanding may help us find ways to improve our public discourse, not just by restricting language but also through other means—such as making it easier for students and workers from diverse backgrounds to speak up in university classrooms or at work.

The most common way that political correctness has been described is with the term “political liberalism.” According to this view, politics are about achieving fair outcomes rather than protecting individual rights. For liberals, political speech and behavior must be restricted if they promote prejudice and social harm—as when someone expresses an intolerant belief or action against a protected group.

But critics of political correctness see it as part of a broader campaign to stifle free expression in the name of liberal democracy. They believe that those who defend such limitations on speech, whether motivated by concern about harm or simply fear of offending others, ultimately seek to silence dissenting views—including from conservatives, socialists and other groups whose political opinions challenge their own.

This interpretation may seem more sympathetic to the concerns of many in America’s college classrooms than does a view that emphasizes liberalism over liberty; however, it is important to remember that not all critics of political correctness are motivated by ill will. Many believe they have an obligation to uphold democratic ideals and civil liberties—including freedom of expression—even when doing so results in discomfort or offense for some members of the public, particularly those with more conservative views.

Yet critics argue that political correctness has gone too far: The problem is not simply disagreement on how to address prejudice and social harm but also a broader trend toward authoritarianism in our society—one where people are afraid of speaking out against the prevailing wisdom because they fear retribution.

Political correctness, critics argue, has been weaponized by political elites as an instrument for silencing debate on issues such as immigration and race relations. Indeed, some observers have seen it evolve into a form of cultural Marxism: a means for liberals to assert their dominance over conservatives in public discourse—a struggle that they claim has intensified in recent years with the rise of identity politics and cancel culture.

This interpretation is not without support among many who find themselves on the other side of political correctness. A recent study found that 63 percent of Americans believe there should be limits to free speech, even if doing so “risks offending someone.” That number rose to 80 percent in a separate Gallup poll conducted last year, which also found that nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed with the statement that people who express views contrary to their own are simply not welcome.

Yet such attitudes reflect broader shifts in American culture rather than an insurmountable challenge for liberal democracy. After all, political correctness was born out of a desire to make our society more inclusive and respectful—a goal that is still valid today as we confront issues ranging from economic inequality to racial justice.

The key question remains whether or not it has achieved this end in the manner originally intended: To promote understanding across societal divides without curtailing the freedoms essential for a healthy democracy. In recent years, there have been encouraging signs that political correctness can serve these goals without impeding freedom of expression.

Consider two examples from university classrooms. At some elite liberal arts colleges, professors are being required to give students advance notice when they plan to cover topics such as race or gender issues in their classes. These “cultural sensitivity” requirements—which began appearing more than a decade ago and have been implemented at several universities across the country—were intended not just to protect against offensive content but also to provide students with opportunities for self-reflection on topics that they may find uncomfortable or even traumatic.

A recent study found no evidence of these policies causing students to avoid courses in which they might feel their views challenged; instead, it revealed a positive impact on the diversity of course enrollment at schools where such guidelines were put into place. According to research conducted by sociologists Yael Hochman and Sarah Gaither: “The effect is consistent across race/ethnicity for all students except Asian Americans … The results suggest that when professors are more transparent about the issues they will cover in class, undergraduates from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds take courses where their presence is not statistically different than other students.”

A second example of an effort to promote civility in college without limiting free expression can be found at Harvard University. In response to recent controversies over campus speech and behavior—including the 2017 protest that shut down a speaker on race relations and last year’s uproar over comments made by conservative commentator Charles Murray—Harvard administrators have introduced new measures intended to encourage civil discourse while protecting academic freedom.

For instance, they launched an initiative called “We the Students” designed to help students learn how to engage with others who hold different beliefs than their own on a wide range of issues. The program was inspired by student protests over Murray’s appearance at a conference held in Harvard Yard; it includes workshops on listening, speaking and other skills for creating respectful dialogues across the ideological divide.

As part of this effort to foster more civil discourse, Harvard administrators also implemented a new system that allows students—and faculty and staff members who witness questionable behavior or speech—to report incidents confidentially via an online portal known as “Issues Reporting & Response.” Students are encouraged not only to submit concerns about offensive content but also about perceived violations of policies on things such as harassment, discrimination and free speech.

Harvard officials say this reporting system is intended not just to identify problematic incidents for disciplinary action but also to help the university understand more fully students’ views regarding campus culture—including their perceptions about issues involving political correctness. In doing so, Harvard hopes it can address concerns without punishing people simply because of how they express themselves in class or on campus.

A similar approach is being pursued by some employers with regard to workplace speech and behavior: The goal isn’t to suppress dissent but instead to promote a climate where employees feel free to contribute their perspectives—even if those views are controversial or offensive. That includes initiatives such as the “Respect at Work” program implemented by Microsoft Corp., which is intended not just to address complaints of harassment and discrimination but also provide opportunities for people who hold different opinions on sensitive issues to learn how to engage with each other productively in a professional setting.

While these initiatives don’t directly confront the issue of political correctness, they do demonstrate that efforts can be made within our society—including our universities and workplaces—to foster greater mutual understanding without suppressing free expression. That includes both providing people with opportunities to engage in civil discourse on contentious issues as well as encouraging them to speak up when others’ remarks or actions are hurtful or offensive.

If we can find ways to help students and workers become more comfortable raising difficult questions, even if they believe they may face criticism for doing so—then perhaps our democracy can thrive in a way that respects both the rights of all individuals as well as their obligation to serve the greater good. Political correctness is not just about suppressing speech; it’s also about promoting civility and creating spaces where people feel free to engage with each other—even if they disagree on fundamental issues such as how our society should address inequality, crime or immigration.

If we can achieve that balance—which requires careful consideration of both political ideologies and the First Amendment—we may have a chance to realize more fully one of America’s founding principles: an open society in which people are encouraged not just to speak their minds but also listen carefully, think critically and act responsibly toward one another.

This piece was published with permission from Politico. The article can be found here.