message to Congress that reform isnneeded. It is for the several states tonmandate a “None of the Above” boxnon every ballot. Let’s say your choicenis, as here in Illinois in the governor’snrace, between Neil Hartigan, thenDemocrat (or presently the “Outs”nparty candidate, in terms of the governor’snmansion), and Jim Edgar, thenRepublican (or “Ins”) candidate. Thenbiggest issue of the campaign is taxesn— and both men are pro-tax, arguingnonly about how much of the two-yearn”temporary” tax hike of 1989 shouldnbe made permanent (nothing is sonpermanent as temporary change, especiallynwhen the change ups your taxes)nand at what rate other taxes need tonrise.nFor those citizens who are, wistfully,nof the “read my lips” school of taxpayernsatisfaction, it’s hard to get too excitednabout either man. Given that kind ofncontrariness, next November 6 thosenIllinoisans are going to stay home,nclean their ovens, and join the swellingnranks of apathetic nonvoters.nGive them a “None of the Above”nbox, however, and they would suddenlynhave a vote to cast whether or notnthe Ins and Outs had fielded an appealingncandidate.nTo work, “None of the Above”nneeds to be more than a message: itnneeds some teeth. Should “None ofnthe Above” win the most votes, noncandidate could be returned. No mandate,nnobody in the seat. My predictionnis that in the first year of thisnreform (should it catch on nationally)nnobody would occupy a good third ofnthe House seats and a quarter of thenSenate. The joke for years has beennthat your local congressman is at hisnbest when he’s on a junket to Bimini ornlegislating Grandparents’ Day and NationalnGranola Week, and that we arenmost in trouble when he actually turnsnhis attention to what is supposed to benhis job. Here is the voters’ chance tonhave Nobody for Congress, who canndo nothing at all. Given the nature ofnour representatives today, “taxationnwithout representation” is looking verynattractive.nI am talking here about a fed-upnpublic going on strike; not leaving thenUnion, quite, but seceding from thendirty business of government for a termnor two (or more — why not?) in anneffort to communicate to the nationaln8/CHRONICLESnparties that their men of so-called sterlingncharacter look more like nickelnsilver. Having a choice between Tweedledumnand Tweedledee, who havenmade a nice interparty gentleman’snagreement not to use the snuck-onthroughncongressional pay raise as ancampaign issue, is no choice. Whatnevery state, county, city, and townshipnneeds is the power of the Great Nay.nJust think of it: Nobody in thenSenate messing around with the Bill ofnRights, Nobody in the V.P.’s officenflying by Air Force Two to attend thenfuneral of some Latin Americannstrongman the voters have never heardnof. Nobody in the House moving tonsend pots of money to a country thatnonly last week was our sworn bloodnenemy. Nobody teasing his hair ornpowdering his nose for his appearancesnon C-SRN, Nobody, to rewrite AlexandernHaig here for a minute, inncharge. As Jerry Rubin put it—whonfor all his many faults once understoodnthe crying need today for prachcalnjokes in public life — the power tondefine the situation is the ultimatenpower.n-Katherine DaltonnTHE UNIV. OF MICHIGAN hasnnot given up. Federal District CourtnJudge Avern Cohn’s August 1989 rulingnthat Michigan’s anti-discriminationnand discriminatory harassment policyn(inaugurated in April 1988) was unconstitutionallynvague and overbroadnmerely sent administrators back to theirndrawing boards. After implementingnan interim policy last September, UniversitynPresident James Duderstadt assemblednthree committees (representingnstudents, staff, and faculty,nrespectively) to advise him on thenformulation of a new permanent policy—na policy that, while still not finalizednat press time, promises to be littlendifferent from the old.n, Indeed, by merely throwing out thenunconstitutional terms of the originalnpolicy, which prohibited “stigmatizingnor victimizing” individuals or groups,nand replacing them with rules that (asnstated in the’ interim policy) forbidn”physical acts or threats or verbal slurs,ninvectives or epithets . . . made withnthe purpose of injuring the person tonwhom the words or actions are directednand that are not made as part of annndiscussion or exchange of an idea,nideology or philosophy,” the Universitynof Michigan is demonstrating that itnhas missed the point. Judge Cohn’sndecision may stop Michigan from banningnsuch remarks as “Women justnaren’t as good in this field as men” (annexample of sanctionable conductnprovided in a policy guide that Michigannhas since withdrawn). But who’s tonsay that the university’s new policynwon’t still prohibit such acts as neglectingnto invite a suspected lesbian to anresidence hall floor party or displayingna Confederate flag (other no-no’s accordingnto the now-defunct guide)?nSimilady, while Michigan may nownhesitate to initiate a formal hearingnagainst someone like the School ofnSocial Work graduate student whonopenly stated his belief that homosexualitynwas a disease (as happened innJanuary 1989), it is unlikely that thenadministration will stop persecutingnstudents like the one who read annallegedly homophobic limerick duringnclass and was subsequentiy “persuaded”nto attend an educational “gay rap”nsession (“reeducation” is a favoritensanction of policy administrators),nwrite a letter of apology to the MichigannDaily, and apologize to his class.nMany students feel the administrationnis wrong to focus its attention onnthe guidelines. In fact, it was a Michigannpsychology graduate student whon(with the Michigan ACLU) filed thensuit that ultimately struck down thenuniversity’s original policy. Proceedingnunder the pseudonym “John Doe” fornfear of adverse publicity, the studentnclaimed that the policy impermissiblynchilled his right to freely and openlyndiscuss controversial theories positingnbiologically-based differences betweennsexes and races.nMost Michigan students join Doe innharboring no illusions about the administration’snproposals. In an Octobern30, 1989, article in the Michigan Daily,neach of ten student groups interviewed—nfrom the College Republicansnto the Lesbian and Gay RightsnOrganizing Committee — said the interimnpolicy was not the answer tondiscrimination. Although four of thengroups favor a stronger policy andnmore student input, both the CollegenRepublicans and the College Democratsn(among others) realize that anynsuch code is wrong. The president ofn