The text is by Valentina House published in The Michigan Daily in 2020.

Valentina House is
a contributor at The Michigan Daily who has a degree in political science. In this opinion
article, the author explains about the issue of political correctness in regards to freedom of
speech. The target audience for this opinion article is educated readers of the newspaper,
especially university students. In recent years, American people and people around the
world have witnessed a shift towards a more combative and direct tone of political dialogue,
so the issue of political correctness is currently in the spotlight. People discuss and argue for
and against the ideas of ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘political correctness’: On one hand, some
support their right to express opinions in any kind of language, whether or not their words
cause offense. Others believe that with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use
language carefully. Valentina House’s opinion article strongly argues the former: that the
words used don’t matter as long as the intention behind the words is good. In her opinion,
people should be judged by their actions, not by their words.

The structure and format of the article helps to assert this opinion strongly from the very
start. Before the article, there is a pull-quote printed in large font with design features around
it. These features both draw attention to the main point of the article and help to give
Valentina’s strong opinion extra weight. The key argument is that ‘those who are politically
correct can be just as bigoted… than those who aren’t.’ Valentina makes an important point
about politically correct and euphemistic language: that it not just softens the rough edges of
reality but conceals the truth about the world. She phrases this act of concealment as ‘the
lack of transparency.’ Opening her piece with a strong argument is a good way of getting
readers onside right from the very start.

In her opinion article, House uses modality to strengthen the force of her arguments. An
example can be seen in the sentence “......mob will shame you into submission and
silence, ensuring you will always watch your tongue and ‘speak right’.” The sentence implies
how House is certain that if one is being politically incorrect, he/she will be intimidated.
Another sentence is “actions will always shine through and mirror one’s character.” The word
‘will’ combines with the word ‘always’ to make her tone highly assertive, as if her opinion on
the matter must be right. Words like ‘permanently’ in the second paragraph and ‘virtually’ in
the first create a similar effect. Perhaps the most egregious use of the word ‘always’ is in the
last paragraph: ‘the end result of political correctness is always an approved form of speech’.
Again, the writer asserts her argument in a very confident way that it comes across as an
unassailable fact rather than a position in a debate.

The author alludes to the famous proverb ‘action speaks louder than words’ meaning that
what people do is more significant than what people say. She includes the comparison and
contrasting of the two political figures from the 2016 USA presidential election: Donald
Trump and Hillary Clinton. Trump is seen as a racist by many people mainly because of his
words in his political speeches but he has contributed a fair share to make the Black
employment rate low. Whereas Hillary Clinton, who is believed to be politically correct, used
the word ‘superpredators’ to refer to young black criminals. This allusion points out that
‘speak right’ can be deceiving, that those who are politically correct can disguise people as
well as challenge the beliefs of the readers who believe in Hillary Clinton for her political
correctness. House argues that one might not be articulate and appropriate in wording out
himself/herself or his/her ideas, but his/her actions should be what defines him/her.

Later in the article, House reasserts her argument on the topic by recounting her experience
with political correctness through an anecdote about her friend. She explains what has
happened in her creative writing class, how the professor judged her friend’s piece of writing
purely on the basis of its lack of a ‘politically correct’ storyline and not the actual creative
work content. In the paragraph, Valentina uses strong language to discredit the professor,
saying he was ‘ripping my friend’s story apart.’ As in the example of an angry mob,
Valentina’s own use of language paints a picture of her opponents in this debate as
aggressive, attacking others on the basis of their own biases and prejudices. It’s a clever
way of swinging neutral readers onto her side.The anecdote is brought up to show the
negative impact of political correctness, which is how even an educator can place excessive
emphasis on it rather than the actual teaching-learning process in his subject. Furthermore
the anecdote also builds an appeal to pathos as it engages the readers’ emotions as they
would feel angry towards the aggression of the professor towards House’s friend. The
readers might also feel the disappointment and sadness House’s friend would have felt
because the creative work he/she has worked for a long time is overlooked because of
imperfect delivery. The situation might also be something relatable for the readers.

In conclusion, Valentina House’s article is cleverly written to convince the reader that her
subjective point of view on the issue of politically correct language is right. At one point she
actually offers the concession that ‘political correctness in general is subjective’ – a sentence
which admits that other people’s opinions can be equally valid. However, in the same
paragraph she quickly returns to her own line of reasoning, arguing that ‘it is more fruitful to
look… to people’s underlying intentions.’ And the readers need look no further than the final
line of the extract to exemplify the strong and assertive way in which she conveys her
opinion overall: ‘the only way to combat ignorance is to let people speak freely.’ House has
been consistent in being assertive in her elaboration. The use of assertive tone throughout
the text, modality, allusions and an anecdote benefit her in a way that her standpoint is
clearly expressed so the readers can easily understand her point and those who stand in the
opposite side might sway their belief.