tenure or currieulum decisions. This isrnthe man praised by Craycraft for hisrn”devastating salvo against liberal intolerancern—Jonathan ChavesrnChairman, Department of East AsianrnLanguages and LiteraturesrnGeorge Washington UniversityrnWashington, D.C.rnKenneth R. CraycraftrnReplies:rnProfessor Chaves says that a “basic unacknowledged”rnpremise of deconstructionistrnthought is that everything isrnalways political. Wrong. At least, insofarrnas Stanley Fish might be loosely called arndeconstructionist (a dubious premise),rnhe fully and explicitly acknowledges thatrneverything is always political. ProfessorrnChaves announces this as though it selfevidentlyrnis an evil doctrine (he seems tornbelieve that there are all sorts of selfevidentrntruths, something that is notrnself-evident to me) that necessarilyrndenies the reality of truth which transcendsrn”cultural context.”rnI don’t know about Fish, but I mostrnemphatically affirm the reality of objectiverntruth that transcends particular politicalrnor cultural contexts. But so what?rnTo acknowledge this is to acknowlegernthat any expression of that truth is necessarilyrndetermined by the habits, mores,rnmanners, customs, morals, grammars,rnand idioms of particular communities.rnIn short, all language that points towardrntranscendent truth is political. This is anrnidea as old as that great postmodernistrnSt. Augustine of Hippo, as expressed inrnthat subversive deconstructionist tractrnDe Doctrina Christiana.rnProfessor Chaves confuses the signrnwith the thing, as though he has immediaternknowledge of transcendent truth,rna plain contradiction. All truth is mediatedrnthrough language, and all languagernis an expression of particular politics, includingrnthe (largely and broadly discredited)rnEnlightenment liberal democraticrnepistemology of Professor Chaves. SaintrnPaul, John Henry Newman, and I seernthrough a mirror darkly, “according tornour present lights,” until that time beyondrntime when we will know in full.rnThe “interpretive community” to whichrnI belong docs not originate the truthclaim;rnit receives it. But its expression ofrnthe truth-claim is always strongly embeddedrnand never exhaustive. If Fishrnbelieves that all interpretive communitiesrnare created equal, I strongly disagree.rnBut that does not change the reality thatrnany expression of truth is particular tornsuch communities. Moreover, since Irnam not a conservative but a RomanrnCatholic Christian, I do not share ProfessorrnChaves’ interest in upholding individualism,rnrobust or otherwise.rnFish is, of course, very critical of thernNAS, as am I. The NAS is composedrn(principally) of a bunch of liberals whornare whining and moaning because theyrngot what they wanted: a university basedrnupon the suspension of particular truthrnin the name of a “universalist” rationalityrnand free speech. In such a university,rnall that remains are will and power. Irnprobably disagree with Professor Fishrnabout the particular truth to be defendedrnin the university against free speech.rnBut I agree completely with him that arnuniversity should presume and defendrnparticular truth against an ideologyrnof free speech that ends in assertionsrnof raw power. Ironically, the NAS stillrnbeats the very free-speech drum that gotrnthe university into this mess in the firstrnplace.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnT H E TERM LIMIT issue has beenrnsweeping the country. Since 1990, votersrnin 15 states have used the petitionrnand referendum process to impose termrnlimits on their state legislators.rnEarlier this year in Illinois, term limitrnsupporters filed 437,088 petition signaturesrnfrom almost every county callingrnfor a statewide referendum on term limits.rnThe proposed “Eight is Enough”rnconstitutional amendment would limitrnstate legislators to no more than eightrnyears in the General Assembly.rnIllinois voters are fed up with the callousrnunresponsiveness of entrenched politicalrninsiders. At a time when the staternhas monumental budget problems andrnis in serious need of meaningful taxrnreform, most Illinois General Assemblyrnmembers are more concerned with givingrnthemselves a pay raise. Illinois SenaternPresident James “Pate” Philip, a 28-yearrnincumbent earning $55,420, was quotedrnby the Associated Press as saying, “Wernare so grossly underpaid it’s unbelievable.”rnWith Philip’s support, most lawmakersrnvoted to award themselves a 9rnpercent pay raise, in addition to costof-rnliving allowances. This is the kind ofrnpolitical-insider government we can dornwithout in Illinois, and voters who supportrnlimiting elected officials to no morernthan eight years in the same office do sornas a rational means to get new peoplernwith fresh ideas in government.rnIn a statewide opinion poll publishedrnrecently by the Chicago Tribune, nearlyrn70 percent of voters said they would voternin support of the term limit amendmentrnif it appeared on the ballot in November.rnBut in the midst of all this support forrnchange, the Chicago Bar Associationrn(CBA)—a registered lobby group ofrn21,000 lawyers—rushed forward tornprotect the political status quo. ThernCBA filed a lawsuit to block the Eightrnis Enough term limit referendum fromrnappearing on the November 1994 ballotrnstatewide.rnInterestingly, the CBA also lobbiedrnthe General Assembly in support of arnpay raise for judges. On the same dayrnthat the legislators approved the judicialrnpay raise, the Illinois Supreme Courtrnagreed to hear the CBA challenge to thernterm limit referendum. Six weeks later,rnon August 10, in a 4-3 split decision, thernIllinois Supreme Court denied voters thernchance to vote on the term limit referendumrnthis November. In a cowardly action,rnthe court refused to explain why itrnwill not allow Illinois voters the chancernto participate fully in the democraticrnprocess.rnIllinois is the first state in the nation tornreject term limits before the people havernhad a chance to vote on the issue. ThernIllinois Supreme Court’s ruling againstrnthe Eight is Enough referendum is a slaprnin the faces of more than six million votersrnand is an insult to the highest idealsrnof democracy. The court’s majority rulingrnignores the fact that the Illinois Constitutionrnclearly gives voters the right tornreform their legislature. The constitutionrnprovides citizens with the power ofrninitiative and referendum. The authorsrnof our state constitution wanted voters tornbe able to propose changes to the legislaturernin cases where, through self-inter-rnNOVEMBER 1994/5rnrnrn