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