the College Democrats, for example,nwas quoted as saying, “An anti-discriminationnpolicy deals with the problemnafter it happens; if you want tonhandle the problem, you have to go tona deeper, tougher level.”nBut the most fervent opposition tonthe university’s efforts has come fromnthe student government. The ConservativenCoalition Party, which controllednthe Michigan Student Assemblynduring the 1989-1990 school year,nactively opposed an anti-discriminationnpolicy as a solution to tension onncampus. As Alan Charles Kors notednin the Wall Street Journal last October,n”Free Speech,” “Question authority,”nand “Leave us alone” are now battlecriesnof the right.nThe Conservative Coalition, however,nlost last April’s student assemblynelections to the liberal Action Party,nwhose stance on the issue is less clearcut.nNewly-elected Michigan StudentnAssembly President Jennifer Van Valeyn(an Action member) campaigned onnthe following statement: “Students arenadults — they can handle themselves asnadults. The Code will only strengthennthe oppressing arm of the administration.n. . . We will never sitndown and negotiate a Code with thenadministration. We have nothing tonlose by not sitting down. If we sit downnto talk, we’ll have a code in a second.”nYet this same Jennifer Van Valey wasnco-chair of the student advisory committeenthat University PresidentnDuderstadt established to review theninterim guidelines, and two weeks afternher campaign promise to oppose thencode. Van Valey reportedly stated thatn”Rascist speech is not free speech. . . .n[I]t’s not our purpose to come up withna policy that will get by a court . . . butnto create one that stops harassment.”nThe student advisory committee hasnsince withheld its recommendationsnfrom the administration, informing thenregents that it refuses to negotiate withnan administration that has, in its opinion,nconsistently ignored student input.nBut Van Valey has rejected the idea ofna code only insofar as it strengthens thenadministration at the expense of thenstudents; she believes that a similarnpolicy implemented and administerednby students would be “ideal.”nWhether or not the student governmentnapproves, the University ofnMichigan’s administrators will haventheir anti-discrimination policy. Butnwhether or not the policy that thenuniversity finally implements will standnup in court, the administration is indeednmisguided. For Michigan’s policyn(like those at the University of Pennsylvania,nthe University of Connecticut,nand the University of Wisconsin) isnmore than a radical attack on freenspeech — it is a bad solution to thenuniversity’s troubles. Word changesnand specifications cannot mend thenfatal flaw in the university’s policy:nregardless of its form, such a policynsuppresses discussion of the underlyingnproblem even as it smooths things overnon the surface.nMichigan’s distinguished demographernReynolds Farley illustrates thisnpoint. Farley discontinued his popularnundergraduate course in “race andncultural contact” after a column in thenMichigan Daily cited examples of socallednracially insensitive statementsnthat Farley had made. Several Michigannfaculty members have consequentlyninformed Farley that they, too, areneliminating discussion of race-relatednissues from their courses, in the fear ofnbeing singled out by the “Speech SuppressionnMovement,” as Fortune’snDaniel Seligman has termed it. Thenadministration’s approach to problemsnof discriminatory harassment is suppressingnthe very dialogue it must promotenif a “rainbow” of races, religions,nand creeds are to coexist on campusnwith a minimum of friction.nAs Judge Cohn noted in his decision,nThomas Cooley, a 19th-centurynjustice of the Michigan SupremenCourt and a professor at Michigan’snLaw School, recognized eady on thatndebate is preferable to sanctions wherenoffensive speech is concerned. AsnCooley argued in 1868, even if speechn”exceed[s] all the proper bounds ofnmoderation, the consolation must benthat the evil likely to spring from thenviolent discussion will probably be less,nand its correction by public sentimentnmore speedy, than if the terrors of thenlaw were brought to bear to prevent thendiscussion.” Unfortunately, it does notnappear that the University of Michigannhas taken this advice to heart.n-Christine HaynesnO.B. HARBISON, JR., distinguishednscholar, critic, and former di­nnnrector of the Folger Shakespeare Librarynin Washington, died on Augustn5. Mr. Hardison had taught at Princetonnand the University of North Carolina,nand was University Professor ofnEnglish at Georgetown. He had receivednscholastic and literary honorsnfrom more than twenty universities andnsocieties, including Italy’s CavalierenUfficiale in 1974 and the Order of thenBritish Empire in 1983. Mr. Hardison’snarticles in our September issue,n”Stratford 1990″ and the “Shaw Festivalnat Niagara,” were the first of whatnwere to be a series of pieces on NorthnAmerican drama for Chronicles. Hisninsights and erudition will be greatlynmissed.nWe wish also to note the careernchanges of several friends of Chronicles.nWilliam R. Hawkins, a regularncontributor to the magazine, is runningnas a Republican for the U.S.nSenate seat in Tennessee currentlynheld by Albert Gore. He is backed bynthe Tennessee Conservative Union.nBill moved to Tennessee from Illinoisnin the mid-1970’s, when the GOPncontrolled the governor’s mansion,nboth Senate seats, and a majority of thenHouse; it can now claim only threencongressmen. Also entering the politicalnarena is John K. Andrews, formernpresident of the Independence Institute.nAndrews is running as a Republicannfor the governorship of Colorado, anconservative state represented by radicalnpoliticians. Finally, NYU DeannHerbert London is the ConservativenParty’s nominee for the governorshipnof New York. Dean London has beenna frequent contributor to our pages,nand his campaign will, at the very least,nhave a wholesome influence on thenlazy New York Republicans who routinelynsell nominations to the highestnbidder. Finally, we wish to announcenthe publication of a monthly newsletternby historian and biographer Otto Scott,nCompass. Mr. Scott is a rare bird, anChristian conservative who is also angreat raconteur and a man of thenworld. Covering “books, plays, movies,npersons, and events worthy of notice,”nthe first issue appeared last month;nsubscriptions can be ordered by writingnCompass, P.O. Box 1769, Murphys,nCalifornia 95247.nOCTOBER 1990/9n