If you have a career in which you have to deal with political activists or special interest groups, you will be constantly aware that they might turn against you at any time if you do or say something they disagree with, and they will attack you with a loudness and viciousness quite out of proportion to the cause. You will be aware of which activists are most prone to behave this way, and which are the most powerful and virulent.
Given that such activists very often destroy careers and lives when provoked, and love to do so, your natural tendency is probably to avoid provoking them. However, these activists are constantly primed and looking for opportunities to attack someone. They are full-time umbragists, ever at the ready to exploit any excuse to take umbrage, because each time they take umbrage and intimidate someone into making a humiliating apology or other gesture of submission, they enhance their power by instilling fear in other potential victims.
Umbragists start by being a minor annoyance, exploiting the well-meaning chivalry of the powerful to get small favours and privileges, but each time they succeed in winning favours by behaving obnoxiously, they are emboldened, and demand more. Their power grows and grows until it becomes great enough to disrupt the work of large organizations and destroy the careers of prominent individuals. Once this happens, appeasement of the umbragists becomes automatic, and even a matter of policy, so the mere concern that someone might take offence at a particular word or phrase or deed is enough to cause the word, phrase or deed to be banned by senior management as a pre-emptive measure. Chivalry has turned into pusillanimity, and noble generosity into cowardice.
Officials then compete to prove their conformity to the rule by enforcing it strongly, and nosily, publicly condemning anyone who disobeys it. Cowardice now begins to have the effect of law, and the umbragists have won. They have got everything they wanted, and more. But, of course, the umbragists do not stop. Why would they stop, when they are so obviously on a roll? They will keep on demanding more and more until either they gain supremacy, or someone plucks up the courage (of which a great amount is required, since it is not only the umbragists, but the established convention, which must now be defied) to hit back with the necessary force.
The umbragists, especially in this later stage, typically know perfectly well that their demands are unjust. They are nothing but cynical opportunists, but everyone is so keen not to offend them, that this cannot be said. As the whole of society is bending over backwards to give the umbragists what they want, clinging to the fiction that umbragists are victims. Umbragism becomes a lucrative career, and few, if any, of those and those enforcing and obeying the doctrines by which the umbragists are empowered sincerely believe that the doctrines are true. They, too, are thinking of their careers. Everyone involved is either a bully or a coward, and all are, one way or another, careerists.
Now, we reach the final stage of political correctness: everyone, not just the umbragists themselves, knows that the umbragists are making unjust demands, and are even inventing fictional grounds upon which to take umbrage, but everyone is unwilling to say so. Blatant fraud is committed, and the criminals are rewarded, because no-one dare challenge the myth that the umbragists are victims. The whole of society has been cowed into submission. The umbragists reign supreme, but they reign over a degraded society.
The crazy thing is, all it takes to defeat this nonsense is a change of attitude. From the start, the powerful should have treated the umbragists with dismissive contempt, and the metastasis would never have occurred in the first place. The cure is the same as the prevention: treat the umbragists with absolute contempt. Ignore their demands. Ignore them. If they demand attention, sneer at them. State with unchallengeable confidence that they have no right to be offended, and if they still complain, move from dismissive contempt to aggressive contempt. Never speak to them as equals. Never let them doubt that, at least as far as you are concerned, they are inferior and wrong, and you are superior and right. If they complain about it, take offence. Get angry. Be absolutely clear about what the rules are, and who is boss. Threaten them with dire punishments. Implement those punishments if immediate compliance does not follow. Be publicly ruthless. Make sure everyone knows how harsh you are willing to be. It will not take long before peace reigns again.
Human beings are pack animals. They need society, and they need society to be hierarchical. They need to know who is in charge, and they need clear rules. If it feels to them as if there is no-one in charge, they will try to take charge themselves. In the animal kingdom generally, taking charge means achieving dominance by enacting or threatening physical violence. With human beings, verbal bullying serves equally well most of the time. Umbragism are a bid, by verbal bullying, to seize power in an apparent power vacuum. The policy of “politicial correctness” that umbragism produces amounts to a capitulation to petty tyranny. This disaster is a direct, though unintended, consequence of naïvely idealistic egalitarianism.
The recent embarrassing episode at Yale illustrates how treating inferiors (in this case students) as equals, and encouraging them to think of themselves as such, does not result in a stable equality, but in the students asserting supremacy over the staff. Video (here and here) reveals unmistakably, through the body language and manner of speaking employed by students and staff, who is the real boss. It should not surprise anyone to learn that the professor shown in those videos went on sabbatical soon afterwards, and the other professor involved in the episode has vowed no longer to teach at Yale.
Egalitarianism in all its forms is a dangerous mistake. Any human group involved in any complex, collective task needs a leader. The larger the group is and the more complex the task, the more important it is to have clear leadership, but even dyads are generally better off if there is an acknowledged leader for the duration of the task. Wherever possible, leaders must have discernible merit (e.g., relevant expertise), but if merit cannot be identified, an arbitrarily chosen leader is nearly always better than none. Once selected, leaders should lead, and should not pretend to be mere equals. This is for the good of all.