responsibility to promote equality andnjustice.” Anyone directing remarks atn”another’s race, sex, religion, nationalnorigin, age, or sex preference” is in forntrouble.nSimilar regulations are in force atnthe University of Michigan in AnnnArbor and at Emory, and others arenunder review at Stanford. As one of thenheads of Stanford’s student government,nCanetta Ivy, put it, “We don’tnput as many restrictions on freedom ofnspeech as we should.” The Afro-nAmerican studies major who hopes tongo to law school told The New YorknTimes further that “What we are proposingnis not completely in line withnthe First Amendment. I’m not sure itnshould be. We at Stanford are trying tonset a standard different from what societynat large is trying to accomplish.”nThe regents in Wisconsin have rejectednan emergency measure, introducednin the Assembly by. MilwaukeenDemocrat Rep. G. Spencer Coggs,nthat could have put their rule intoneffect as early as the summer session.nAt press time the House had approvednthe bill unanimously, while the Senatenhad as yet to vote. Coggs says thatnwhile he agrees “that divergent philosophiesnshould be allowed on a collegencampus,” still, “You cannot yell fire inna crowded theater. You cannot cause anhostile atmosphere on campus.” Henseems to see no difference between thenimmediate threat to life in the formerncase, and the immediate threat to hurtnfeelings in the latter. After all, none ofnthe proponents of these muzzling ordersnis talking about physical abuse,nwhich is of course illegal and a matternfor the police. They are talking aboutnspeech.nWisconsin’s regents want to leavensome time for the public to debate thenmatter—and if you want to arguenyou’d best do it quick, while suchnarguments are still permissible. Thenstudent-faculty senate at Madison sidesnwith Mr. Coggs, and thinks things arenmoving too slowly. So much for outspokennyouth. So much for the slownvictory of sensitivity — and censorshipn— over the First Amendment. (KD)nJUDICIAL TYRANNY is a familiarnphenomenon as judges routinely takencharge of school systems and strikendown state laws on abortion, pornogra­n6/CHRONICLESnphy, and murder. Recently, one federalnjudge has even changed the propertyntaxes in Kansas City, MO, while anfederal district judge in Des Moinesnupheld the right of convicts in Iowa tonread dirty books and magazines. Thenmost interesting case, however, involvesna Vermont Supreme Court justicenwho has apparently set out to testnthe old definition of tyranny, the maximnthat no man can be the judge of hisnown case.nJudge Louis Peck is 70 years old,nand according to the Vermont Constitution,nhe is required to retire. While itnmay seem cruel and counterproductivento force judges into retirement, ournexperience with sickly and superannuatednjudges on the US Supreme Courtn— William O. Douglas, most prominentlynin the past, and Thurgood Marshallnand William Brennan on thenpresent court—indicates the wisdomnof Vermont lawmakers. Judge Peck notnonly disagrees, but he continues to sitnin open defiance of the state constitution,nbecause a 1986 amendment tonthe federal Age Discrimination in EmploymentnAct removed the upper limitn(which had been set at 70). Judge Pecknstands by the federal law, and in 1987nthe attorney general of Vermont expressedna written opinion that federalnlaw must prevail.nIn any contest between state andnfederal law, justice or constitutionalitynis rarely the issue. All that matters is thensuperior power of the federal government.nIn this case, however, the opinionnof the state attorney general is onlynadvisory and does not have the force ofna court decision. Rather than step asidenand wait for the courts to decide. JudgenPeck has preferred to present thenamusing spectacle of the drunkard whonrefuses to leave when the party is over.nHe brings the laws of his state intongeneral contempt and displays oncenagain the arrogance and despotism wenhave come to expect from all too manynjudges. (TF)nIMMIGRATION IS increasingly becomingna major subject for concernnamong Americans. In a recent reportnreleased by FAIR, 51 percent of 800nCalifornians surveyed thought the USnwas accepting “too many” legal immigrants,nwhile only 35 percent repliedn”too few” or “about right.” Sixty-ninennnpercent thought there ought to be anlimit, as opposed to only 26 percentnwho favored the “education/skill” criterianadvocated in the March Chronicles,nalmost twice the number whonwanted “family connections” to be thenprimary emphasis.nWhen the questions got around tonillegal immigration, an even clearernpicture emerges: 63 percent considerednit a very serious problem, 21npercent somewhat serious, and only 13npercent no problem. Only 9 percentnthought the government was doing angood or excellent job of controlling thensituation. If Richard Marin of thenWashington Post had seen the survey,nhe might have included it in his defamatorynstory on “The Emerging Signs ofnthe New Xenophobia.” Xenophobia,nin the Post’s vocabulary, turns out tonmean any concern for the nationalninterest as opposed to the salvation ofnthe world or the global economy.nIf the globalist frenzy were restrictednto that leftist fringe that considers illegalnimmigration “no problem,” andnthe nation state an outworn bit ofn19th-century political theory, onenmight have grounds for hope. Butnrecently political liberals have tendednto take more sober positions on questionsnof national interest. It is “conservatives”nwho now favor policies ofnmissionary democratism, pander tonmultinational corporations, and opposenany restrictions on foreign ownershipnin the US, as Walter Mossberg wrotenin a perceptive piece in The Wall StreetnJournal (April 3). Pointing out that thenone-world concept has fallen into disreputeneven in the Soviet Union, hendescribes the new conservative oneworidersnas “economists and academicsnwho believe that in a global economyn. . . the economic fortunes of individualncountries aren’t important anynmore.” Rejecting extremist calls fornvindictive, protectionist legislation,nMossberg concludes that it is simplyn”dreamy” to imagine “that the genuinenand legitimate political interestsnamong nations can be wished awaynwith visions of an all-encompassing,nmutually beneficial world economy.”nThe same prudence applied to immigrationnwould dictate a rational plannbased primarily on considerations ofnnational interest and a frank recognitionnthat we are culturally a Europeanncountry. Family ties and political con-n