The divisiveness of diversity: President Bush's University of Michigan commencement speech as an example of the linguistic "turnaround."

• Author: Palczewski, Catherine Helen

Diversity, multiculturalism, and women's studies, all under the label of "political correctness" (PC), have become a hot topic on college campuses. Attempts to increase diversity, recognize and integrate multicultural approaches to education and class content, and understand gender subordination are offered to counter non-codified, non-legalistic forms of discrimination on campuses.(1) Productive debate proceeds concerning the specifics of multicultural education, gender studies, speech codes and affirmative action in admission and hiring. However, opponents have grouped all of these approaches under the heading of political correctness (Gross 105, O'Keefe 123), with speech codes labeled as the most heinous assault on higher education (Cockburn 690). Two patterns of argument follow from this collapsing of issues. First, because the "discussion has been framed in a way that allows a broad group of issues to be haphazardly placed on the intellectual table" (Asante 141), debate about specific concerns is diverted and the discussion of "genuinely important issues" is lowered (O'Keefe 125). Second, once the PC label has been affixed, opponents are better able to turn the fight against racism and sexism and for diversity into prime examples of efforts against diversity and hence for racism and sexism. The move to more abstract levels of framing the discussion allows the opposition not only to reject campus speech codes, but also other multiculturally focused attempts at increasing diversity. This strategy is embodied in former President George Bush's 1991 University of Michigan commencement speech in which he executes a linguistic "turnaround," set up by his collapse of PC and speech codes, in order to transform advocates of diversity into the destroyers of diversity.

The "turnaround" is firmly ensconced as an accepted form of argument in academic debate, yet, little work has been done on the use of the argumentative turnaround in political discourse.(2) In academic debate, a link turnaround refers to when one team proves that an act advocated by the opposing team is counterproductive or when one team proves that it prevents, rather than causes, a negative impact. An impact turnaround refers to when one team proves that a presumed negative result of a policy action is actually positive, or that a presumed positive is actually negative. Strategically, the turnaround provides a way to coopt an opponent's position, either by accepting the link arguments as true and reversing the impact or by accepting the impact arguments and reversing the link. Both the time and evidence tradeoff are to the benefit of the team executing the turnaround due to the lessened burden of rejoinder. As a result of the turnaround's prominence in debate, argument scholars have developed standards for its evaluation and use in that forum (e.g. Hollihan, Ulrich). Turnarounds are valid when they, through superior evidence and stronger warrants, link a chain of events together more tightly or present an assessment of effects that is more convincing (Hollihan 50-1).

Although not an explicit analysis of the turnaround, Hirschman's (1991) exploration of the way reactionary rhetoric divides itself in public discourse provides some insight into the parallels between public argument and academic debate. Hirschman finds that reactionary rhetoric falls into three categories, categories that, interestingly, are analogues to the arguments one finds in an academic debate. He divides reactionary rhetoric into three theses: perversity, futility, and jeopardy. These, respectively, parallel academic debate's link turnaround, solvency argument, and disadvantage.

The perversity thesis argues that the debated action "will produce, via a chain of unintended consequences, the exact contrary of the objective being proclaimed and pursued" (11); such an argument is an analogue to academic debate's link turnaround. The futility thesis argues that "any alleged change is, was, or will be largely surface, facade, cosmetic, hence illusory, as the 'deep' structures of society remain wholly untouched" (43); such a position resembles academic debate's solvency arguments. Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that "the proposed change, though perhaps desirable in itself, involves unacceptable costs or consequences of one sort or another" (81); this argument finds its parallel in debate's disadvantage. One academic debate argument lacking from this analysis is the "impact turnaround", where the presumed negative is actually positive.(3) The reason for this may not be a failure on Hirschman's part, but instead such an argument may simply be absent within the reactionary rhetoric he studies.

In addition to the link turnaround (what Hirschman calls the perversity thesis) and the impact turnaround, another form of turnaround is executed in political discourse. This turnaround is not the evidentiary proof of counterproductivity or the discovery of a non-presumed positive, but instead is a linguistic play. With the linguistic turnaround, the speaker does not coopt half of his or her opponent's argument, but instead coopts the opponent's terms. The existence of such a strategy is supported by Bart and Pfau's (1989) study of a U.S. senatorial race in South Dakota. They argue that political turnarounds often move "the dispute to a higher level of abstraction" in which the candidate attempts to flee to "higher ground when confronted with a strong argument" (22). Accordingly, these instances of turnarounds in political discourse are not arguments where evidentiary superiority establishes the "winner," but instead are linguistic tactics that alter or redefine political terms and that enable the seizure of an opponent's terministic ground, hence contesting symbolic strength.(4)

A president's use of such a device is predictable given the institutional transformation of the office into the "rhetorical presidency" and the concomitant erosion of the deliberative process (Tulis 7, 178). Tulis argues that "the rhetorical presidency enhances the tendency to define issues in terms of the needs of persuasion rather than to develop a discourse suitable for the illumination and exploration of real issues . . ." (179). Accepting Tulis' description as a premise, one could argue that the linguistic turnaround is simply a unique argument form that is an identifiable manifestation of the rhetorical presidency, the study of which increases understanding of the dynamics of the rhetorical presidency (as well as other political discourse) and its process of coopting terminology instead of arguing policy.

In order to explore the use and validity of the linguistic turnaround, this article focuses on George Bush's commencement address to the University of Michigan class of 1991. This focus is justified not only by Bush's predilection for the linguistic turnaround, but also by the consistent use of the linguistic turnaround by the opponents of diversity and multiculturalism policies. Gross (1992) implies that the strategy we label the linguistic turnaround is an important technique in the Bush arsenal, where the political effectiveness of Bush (and Reagan) "seems to derive from their ability to define the terms in their favor. The techniques that stood them in good stead in national politics have also been applied to the struggle to control the nation's culture" (110). In like manner, Gross notes the particular tendency for linguistic exaggeration present in the PC debates:

Boldly asserting a falsehood or shamelessly exaggerating a small truth is not only a tactic familiar inside the Beltway but also the trademark of the highly visible propaganda offensive mounted by the Right against a trio of ivory tower bogies: PC, multiculturalism, and the victims' revolution. Although these labels have been chosen as weapons in a war of images, they refer to actual, if exaggerated, rumblings and skirmishes on the nation's campuses. (105)

Gross believes that the "attacks on PC and multiculturalism represent a conscious effort to reverse the tide of social change that began in the 1960s" (110). The reversal is not only targeted at "tangible outcomes" such as jobs, careers, and control of institutions, but also represents "in many ways . . . a war of words, a struggle for mastery over symbols" (Gross 110). The linguistic turnaround we identify is not merely "false assertion" or "exaggeration" but is, instead, a broader argumentative strategy of redefinition or alteration of the political dialectic.

President George Bush's commencement address to the University of Michigan is an excellent example of the use of the linguistic turnaround, which operates as a corollary to Bart and Pfau's "move to higher ground." Bush turns advocates of diversity, whom he labels the politically correct (PCers), into the enemies of diversity, the creators of prejudice, and the bullies who employ force in the place of ideas. As operationalized by Bush, the linguistic turnaround reconfigures the image and goals of advocates of diversity through dissociation of diversity from its goals and mechanisms. Bush turns battles against racism into acts of racism, not by proving the battles are counterproductive (he offers no evidence, examples or otherwise, of how PC decreases diversity and increases prejudice), but by using language that changes the dynamics of the battle, allowing for the association of those who advocate diversity with those who are racist.

THE SITUATION

On May 4, 1991, President George Bush delivered a speech at the University of Michigan's Commencement Ceremony in which he attacked the recent moves...