For Frey and Palmer (2014), communication activism pedagogy (CAP) "teaches students how to use their communication knowledge and resources (e.g., theories, research methods, pedagogies, and other practices) to work with community members to intervene into and reconstruct unjust discourses in more just ways." The author of this response essay supports this endeavor, but worries that this interventionist model--as currently presented--is too narrow. Does every CAP-related activity or course necessitate "direct intervention?" This critique of what the author perceives to be a narrow interventionism can be jettisoned by developing CAP's learning rubrics: (1) theoretical/conceptual; (2) strategic/tactical; (3) practical/performative; and (4) communicative/rhetorical. To maintain the integrity of communication "activism" pedagogy, each of these rubrics should work within the interventionist model espoused by Frey and Palmer. Different courses and assignments can then emphasize any combination of rubrics depending on the wants and needs of individual instructors and students. [Other articles in this forum include: Communication Activism Pedagogy and Research: Communication Education Scholarship to Promote Social Justice (EJ1142582); Look to Our Campuses for Focus and Inspiration (EJ1142583); A Call for an Ethic of Transformation in Communication Activism Education (EJ1142584); Beyond the Charity-Service Paradigm: Building Ethical Platforms for Social Justice Education with Those Most Affected (EJ1142585); Long-Term Impacts of Communication Activism Pedagogy: Guiding Principles for Future Research (EJ1142586); Critical Pedagogy Meets Transformation: Creating the Being of Communication Activists (EJ1142588); Turning Communication Activism Pedagogy Teaching into Communication Activism Pedagogy Research (EJ1142589); and Four Typologies of Communication Activism Pedagogy (EJ1142590).]