I suppose my question regarding this Forum's current debate is-when will
discourse be sterile enough to accommodate all those who might be
offended by either intentional or unintentional utterances? When did it
become the cultural norm to ensure every term and phrase doesn't end up
disturbing or angering a potential audience?


One case in point, of course, is all the debate over Xmas
symbology-oops-dare not use that contraction as I know those who are
offended by it. There are those opposed to public Christmas trees
because they're too Christian and those offended because they're not
Christian enough. Perhaps you've seen the rather comic, and likely
apocryphal, e-mails from a frustrated office manager trying to arrange a
holiday party. After going through all the complaints about what might
be included and what wasn't acceptable to one group or another, she
threw up her hands and gave up. Very much in the spirit of the airport
who decided to pull all Christmas decorations not for who might be
offended by them, but as there were those offended by what wasn't given
equal time.


Presently, this is part of a major war at the college where I teach. The
administration wishes to impose "Free Speech zones" on campus where
"outsiders" can present their possibly offensive speech in one area
that's on college grounds, but far enough away from most student
activity so the tranquil atmosphere won't be disrupted by disagreeable
groups, whomever they might be. Faculty and students are strongly
opposed to the concept, feeling the very idea is an oxymoron. But the
admin-and parents-don't want the "educational climate" to be disturbed.
They don't want anyone to be offended and stir up bad PR for the school
or worse-find us entangled in a lawsuit from those, well, offended.


Faculty feels this in our classrooms. We had one senior English teacher
who played a popular M&M song to stimulate discussion during a Free
Speech unit. One student was offended and then her parents and the
president felt moved to find some means to punish the teacher for a
public "pound of flesh." Her desire was not well considered, to put it
mildly. But we in the adjunct community were well aware of one aspect to
this controversy-do not rock any boats. See no perceived evil, say no
evil, or your job may vanish quicker than you can utter a four-letter
epithet.


So  I know those who walk on proverbial egg-shells not to incur the
wrath of the Powers That Be. But how does one avoid being offensive?
Well, there are those who don't like the faces of slave-holding
presidents on our money and those who don't like religious phrases on
the same bills. My Mother is offended by every term that wasn't common
parlance during the Eisenhower administration. We had the ironically
titled TV show Politically Incorrect cancelled when the host uttered
something offensive. It was replace by a show that recently honored "Mr.
Warmth" Don Rickles who has made a career of making the obnoxious funny.
For some-I never got it. Well, apparently he gets a special
dispensation. After all, he was buddies with Frankie and the boys.


Anytime a celebrity or radio shock-jock says something offensive-for
some groups, not all by a mile-they're either in need of rehab or must
make a round of mea culpa media appearances. What worries me most is
that all this drives the offensive thoughts underground. Some years
back, during a discussion at a North Texas forum on racial issues, one
teacher made the mistake of publicly stating one problem was a tendency
of many African-American students to pointedly come to class late. As it
happened, this was a topic widely discussed in faculty lounges in a
number of schools-this was something quite noticeable. But one dare not
state this observation publicly-he was branded racist and there was a
cry for some measure of censure. During that controversy, I saw one TV
talk show host on BET repeatedly calling for more public debate over
racial problems. Impossible, thought I, if one were to be threatened
with denunciations if your point-of-view didn't jive with the party
line.


Certainly, some speech is starkly offensive-nooses and swastikas being
center stage, and it would take a wide leap for anyone not to interpret
these as intentional means to create fear. Public space is no place for
Confederate flags-I don't know about private homes. There are indeed
those who don't construe the symbol as a reminder of "slavery times" but
rather of Southern pride. Their intentions are not to offend-the
question is how far do we go saying we interpret your speech this way so
you must conform to our expectations?


Well, all this is a no-win discussion. If we are going to be obsessed
with not being offended, then let all unpopular speakers be relegated to
the Free Speech Zones out there away from those who wish to hear only
certain thoughts, certain terms, and concepts expressed drained of any
potential interpretations other than what is deemed acceptable.


I'm speaking on behalf of no one, am defending no one, but am certainly
offending someone. I admit being offended myself and am considering
getting off this list. If the best we can do is delve into personal
attacks to this degree, this isn't the sort of Free Speech I find useful
or enlightening.


Wes Britton