To speak out publicly in support of justice, human rights, equality or sustainability is to run the risk of being laughed at and generally dismissed. 

To advocate for such values and issues is seen as a weakness or the preserve of losers or those who can’t ‘hack it’ in the ‘real world’. 

Typical ‘putdowns’ include claims of idealism, naivety, ‘political correctness' or just plain silliness. 

The useful thing about such putdowns is that they require little explanation; all that is required is some catch-all phrase, a little mudslinging, a bit of name calling and the inevitable playing to the gallery. 

It’s also useful to throw in a little supposed humour and a dash of cynicism.  That mix sees off the ‘do-gooders’.

Challenging specific cases of injustice or the abuse of rights qualifies for a higher level of disdain. This is especially true on proclaimed ‘sensitive’ issues such as Palestine, women’s rights and misogyny, migrant abuse and discrimination or environmental activism.

Typical responses here include those of ‘political correctness gone mad’, ‘woke or cancel culture’ and, of course the favourites ‘groupthink’ and ‘looney lefty’.

The aim seems to be to shut down effective discussion and debate on such issues and to pillory anyone who deems them important topics for analysis or action.  To me it is but another strand in the agenda to dumb down critical thought in society, to ensure political conformity to the status quo and to isolate and marginalise critics.

Moving up a level, to introduce historic topics such as slavery and its impact, colonialism and its worldview, imperialism with its direct and indirect violence or movements such as #metoo or Black Lives Matter and the venom and vitriol really get going.  These are ‘red button’ issues.

Those who need or would wish to explore such topics are accused of ‘rewriting or distorting’ history, hatred, indoctrination, and even racism. 

Hugely relevant and immediate subjects such as empire, racism, hate speech, ethnocentrism etc, are seen to be dangerously ‘political’ and ‘ideological’ in the hands of certain groups (usually their victims) and generate howls of protest at their mere mention. 

In this latter context, it is as if history (‘herstory’ – more howls?) can be reduced to just one single story.  It is as if history and politics can have only one possible frame of reference.

Yet, imagine a history of slavery told only from the perspective of slaveowners or a history of the suffragette movement told only by men, or the history of India (or Ireland or Malta) told only from a British perspective. 

Such ‘history’ would make no sense whatsoever and would amount to utter nonsense. Despite this, many continue to stridently promote such nonsense (even in the pages of that liberal platform the Times of Malta). Many media empires worldwide also promote similar distortions of history and of life.

It is sadly a sign of our times. It has become the branding of many a dominant populist and right-wing politician across the globe. It is even a key strand in the banal politics around the current ‘election’ of a new British PM. 

It remains the stuff of tabloid demagoguery on the airwaves, in print or on the web.

If to be ‘politically correct’ means directly confronting abuse or discrimination; if highlighting racism, inequality, world hunger or corporate criminality is ‘going too far’; if seeking to analyse key moments in history which have been buried or ignored is deemed ‘hostility’, then, without hesitation I admit my guilt.

As a teacher, my job is to open up discussion and debate, not to close it down. 

As a teacher it is my job to promote mental, moral, and aesthetic capacity in society, not to dumb them down. 

As a teacher, it is my job to encourage a set of ‘dispositions’ towards respect, justice, equality, inclusion, and human dignity for all and not just some.

So, hands up, I hope I am guilty of being a teacher.