Wes,
   You raise some intriguing questions there, and they are as 
provocative as they are challenging. I expected nothing less, Agent 
Britton.
   Well, I don't think the answers are supposed to be simple or 
simplistic. Certainly what's over the line to some wouldn't be to 
others, and we all draw our lines differently. In fact, as you suggest, 
we draw different lines for ourselves in different settings. You might 
happily share a blue joke with a group of old school chums, but suppress 
it when Aunt Martha and her sewing circle are in the room. There's no 
danger to free speech. You're not being a hypocrite. You're just being 
smart enough not emerge from the room with a knitting needle sticking 
out of the base of your neck.
    All right, that's an oversimplification. And if the postings of the 
last two days have proven anything, it's that there are no easy answers.
   Still, foolish as it may sound, let me take a swing at this. And let 
me stress that, just as when I'm writing reviews for the newspaper, I'm 
only speaking for myself. This is the way I see it, and I'm not 
suggesting this be the philosophy for the Forum, the classroom or the 
world of Twain scholarship. Your concerns are well-stated, Wes, and 
point to the proper introspection. But reading and re-reading your 
posting, I can see a great deal of common ground.
   As you well know, I work for a newspaper covering the television 
industry ("Hey, how did he get in here, anyway?!"). Many of you on this 
forum draw their daily bread from the world of academia. None of us is a 
stranger to the often-chilling effects of political correctness. We've 
seen our share. But I hasten to add (watch me haste) that I don't 
believe this is an example of political correctness gone kafloohey.
   Yes, we teach students to look beyond "hurt feelings" when dealing 
with literature, but we also teach them to use words carefully. They are 
powerful. So we teach them not to use words wantonly and recklessly.
   We also teach them context. We teach them to look beyond the 
incendiary stuff to the greater messages, themes, techniques and 
intentions. I believe the members of this Forum are tremendously good at 
that. No, I take that back. I know they're tremendously good at that. 
The concerns voiced from all quarters over the last few days were not 
simply about words; they were about struggling to put those words into 
the context of a greater discussion. At least, that's the way I would 
characterize it. I see no contradiction between this discussion and the 
ongoing efforts to understand Twain's controversial choices in 
"Huckleberry Finn" (although conclusions may and will vary).
    I'm not a teacher, but I suspect those of you who are also stress 
respect for other individuals and viewpoints in the classroom. As you 
say, Wes, there are rules in the classroom, just as there are in debate 
or reasoned conversation. It's not an anything-goes situation. No one 
would defend the hurling of a racial epithet at a student, following it 
up with the suggestion they just look beyond "hurt feelings." We provide 
students with rules. Somewhere along the line, we've started equating 
rules with censorship. But rules are like anything else; they come in 
all shapes and shades, good and bad. The good ones are guides, showing 
us the way to communication and understanding. And I'm talking about 
understanding here, not agreement.
   Look, as a critic, I deal with debate and disagreement every day -- 
from readers, from the targets of criticism, from other critics. I 
encourage it. I think you're a poor critic if you believe your job is to 
make up somebody's mind for him or her. The expression I shoot down 
immediately is, "I hate to disagree with you. . . " By all means, 
disagree with me! Please disagree with me! I'm not here to do your 
thinking for you. You're taking up valuable resources on this planet -- 
water, air, food. You make up your own mind. It's a well-practiced rant, 
but effective.
   I think that arguing about literature and art should be as raucous 
and fun as arguing about sports. We can have at least as much fun as two 
guys arguing about whether or not the Sox should have traded a young 
infielder for an aging pitcher. It can rough. It can get as 
controversial in interpretation and analysis as you want. But I have one 
rule. I'll respond and engage and respect, as long as there's respect 
coming from the other side. You get personally offensive with me. . . 
oh-oh, guess what? We're done. I'm not going to go there with you, and 
you're sure not going there with me -- not for long. Sorry, you're 
dealing with an individual, and that's what makes all this give and take 
stuff so darn puzzling. So many individuals, so little time. But isn't 
that our ongoing challenge as a community, a society? We're allowing for 
this all time, and it ain't a bad thing.
    And I'm not proposing respect in a hallowed, English tea cup, 
stiff-upper-lip kind of old school way. I'm not talking some scholarly 
ideal. It's a bit more basic than that.
    Wes, you write that the point of the "Columbine" assignment "is to 
explore the content, tone, style, and execution of the movie -- if it's 
offensive, why?" I would contend that's precisely the approach being 
taken by the vast majority of Forum members on a vast majority of topics.
   And I agree that not every verbal gaffe should be treated as a high 
crime. As I wrote in the last posting, the overreaction to misstatements 
or ill-chosen words typically is worse than the gaffe. Tolerance is a 
two-way street, as is understanding (or at least it should be). But, as 
Kent just wrote, I don't think that's the issue here. I can hear you 
smiling, Wes, which probably means you disagree. As already stated, got 
no problem with that.