I imagine the difference has everything to do with liability or the perception thereof. By this hypothesis, the educational infrastructure fears that presenting the original unexpurgated work may be taken as somehow endorsing the use of the word. And since all manner of interest groups have nowadays found their voices with respect to what they find offensive, the educational powers-that-be don't want to be found insensitive to the
The problem, in my mind, is that many of these interest groups have very narrow interests to match their narrow minds. It's not a problem restricted to the U.S. We had a huge commotion here when schools introduced books that showed families with both parents of the same sex.
The opposition ranged from outright bias to the idea that young minds shouldn't be "exposed to such ideas".
I thought about one of my daughters who, when she was very young, had a best friend whose parents were a natural father, who was gay, and his male partner. It was different than other parental couples my daughter was familiar with but she never thought there was something wrong. On her own she simply concluded that parents were just two people who loved one another.
I don't recall any of her other friends thinking differently. Apparently young minds "exposed to such ideas" are able to come to more rational conclusions that the adults who profess to be protecting them.
ryck
