Student Opinion SurveyMajority Opposes Sit-InBut Supports AmnestyBy William Ouchi and Ellen FriedCopyright 1969 William Ouchi and Ellen FriedIntroductionThe survey of student opinion describedin this article was undertaken by a groupof graduate students in various fields andprofessional schools who are studying thetechniques of survey research. The im¬petus for this research came from the edi¬tor of the Maroon, Roger Black, in theform of a request that someone conduct anopinion survey that would shed light on theopinions of various groups within the Uni¬versity community on the issues broughtforward by the current sit-in. The authorsof this paper agreed to undertake such aproject under the conditions that they: 1)have complete and autonomous controlover the survey from the writing of ques-tionaire items and selection of the sampleto carrying out the interviews and analysisof the data; 2) be solely and completelyresponsible for writing this article, andthat it be printed in the Maroon as it waswritten by the authors, with no changes ofany kind. The Maroon agreed whole-heart¬edly to accept these conditions.In the planning and execution of thisproject, every attempt was made to securean impartial and unbiased description ofstudent opinion. The authors, both of whomare training fellows at the National Opin¬ion Research Center, were assisted in eachphase of this project by other training fel¬lows as well as by other graduate and un¬dergraduate students from various aca¬demic areas. Interviews were conductedexclusively by student volunteers and thewife of one of the authors. On the technicalquestions involved in sampling procedure,we received assistance from ProfessorsRalph Underhill and Benjamin F King, Jr,both of whom hold appointments in the graduate school of business and at the Na¬tional Opinion Research Center, and fromProfessor William M Mason of the gradu¬ate school of business. The analysis of thedata and the writing of this article wereentirely the work of the authors, who ac¬cept full responsibility for it.MethodologyIn order to obtain an accurate represen¬tation of the opinions of the student bodywithout having to ask every student for hisopinions, we drew a systematic randomsample of 679 students by taking everythirteenth name from the student directorybeginning with the eleventh name. No sub¬stitutions were made, and respondents whocould not be reached are reported here as“not available.” Of the 679 students whohad been chosen as respondents we calcu¬lated on the basis of sample data that 54were no longer registered in the Univer¬sity. These were dropped from the sample.Of the remaining 625 registered students84.8 percent were successfully interviewed,1.9 percent refused to be interviewed and13.3 percent were not available. Studentswho were suspended due to sit-in activitieswere counted as “registered” and were in¬cluded in the sample.The interviewing of respondents tookplace on February 5, 6, 7 and 8. While it ispossible that opinions on the relevant is¬sues changed during that time, a com¬parison of interviews completed during thefirst half and the second half of the fieldperiod revealed no substantial differencesin those opinions.All interviews were conducted by tele¬phone, with interviewers reading the ques¬tionnaire to the respondents verbatim. Theactual questions and possible responses arereproduced in full below.Continued on Page FourFACULTY DISRUPTIONS: Unidentified faculty member meets opposition as hetries to force his way over the first floor of the ad building. Jim Haefemeyer, WOUNDED STUDENT: Demonstrator displays evidence of Saturday night's raidll on ad building.THE MAROOVolume 77, Number 38 The Chicago Maroon UNIVERSITY■ a. — _ \Jlrduv2S /Violent Acts Disrupt Peaceful Sit-InMonday,By Caroline HeckEvents in the current administrationbuilding sit-in crisis took a violent turn thisweekend as students, faculty, and non-Uni-versity intruders clashed in separate in¬cidents around campus that resulted inblack eyes, stiches, and bitter words.A brief bomb scare Sunday night endedwhen detective Frank Kasky of the Chi¬cago bomb and arson squad removed aone-hour oven timer from the top drawerof a locked file cabinet on the third-floor of¬fice of development in the administrationbuilding.At 7:30 pm a campus operator receivedan anonymous bomb threat. Campus secur¬ity was notified, and at 7:50 discovered aticking noise in the locked file. The bombsquad was called, and about 100 personsi all occupants above the first floor ex¬cepting security) evacuated the building.Detective Kasky arrived at 8:40 and fifteen minutes later removed the “bomb.”By 9:30, switchboard operators told aMaroon reporter, the operator who had re¬ceived the threat had gone home. Asked ifthey were scared, another operator said,“Oh, no. We’ve had this before. We’re usedto it.”A scuffle among students and newsmenat the law school Saturday morning, afight in the lobby of the administrationbuilding that evening, and new tactics ofdistributing disciplinary summonses to stu¬dents reflected a mood of increasing ten¬sion and militance on both sides.The most physically violent incident in¬volved eight to ten men who forced theirway past student security guards at theadministration building at 9 pm Saturdayand fought with students in the lobby. Dur¬ing the scuffle, one intruder threw a type¬writer across the registrar’s office. One se-cur;ty officer was kicked in the groin and another was knocked down and struck inthe face with a broom handle by an intrud¬er.Three of the intruders were captured bya joint effort of demonstrators and Univer¬sity security police who were stationed attheir makeshift security office in the infor¬mation area of the first floor. The threewere questioned by security police and lat¬er released. They were identified as JohnSchuman, Thomas Conway, and TerryWeligora. No charges were pressed.About the time that the intruders arrivedon campus, literature signed “the Minute-men” started appearing on bulletin boards.One such leaflet was found on one of theintruders, but Captain Francis J Delaney,director of University security, said thatduring interrogation the men denied hav¬ing brought the literature with them. Theytold Delaney that they found the literaturein the administration building.Delaney also reported speaking with ademonstrator, whom he could identify onlyas “Barbara”, who said to him, “yes, thatliterature was here before they ever gothere.” The hand lettered leaflet in questionstates “Traitors beware. If you continueyour treasonous activities you will betreated as traitors. Even now the cross¬hairs are on the backs of your necks. Min-utemen. ‘We shall never surrender.’ ” The demonstrators have tightened secur¬ity at the administration building since theincident. Both the inner and outer doors tothe lobby are now barricaded and guardedby students. In order to pass either door,visitors must show University identi¬fication.Faculty moves inStudents were perhaps more upset by theactions of faculty and administrators inhanding out summonses. Some 75 studentshave been suspended since Friday morn¬ing, when two dozen faculty members en¬tered the administration building and triedto hand out summonses. Students refusedto give their names but several were iden¬tified by faculty members who were ac¬quainted with them. A document later pub¬lished by the demonstrators identified 13faculty members as participating in theFriday morning action.The document states “If any of thesemen deny their participation, don’t believethem without checking first with the sit-iners (sic). Cops don’t always tell thetruth, and we have people who identifiedthem — although we may have been mis¬taken in an instance or two.” The docu¬ment identified: Joseph J Ceithaml, profes¬sor of biochemistry; Stanley L Fischer, in¬structor in humanities; Everly Fleischer,Continued on Page FourDiscipline Com mittee Calls Sit-In DisruptiveBy Leslie StraussThe University disciplinary committeehas decided that it has the authority to actand that the administration building sit-inis a disruptive act.The committee, in a statement issuedSaturday, also concluded that “Dean ofstudents Charles O’Connell acted withinthe appropriate discretion of his office indeclaring that the demonstration in the ad¬ministration building was disruptive.”The decision was reached after the com¬mittee considered testimony of O’Connellaft what they called a “semi-public” meet¬ing of the committee Saturday. Accordingto Michael Denneny, a student observer,the four student observers registered theirdissent when the vote was taken.The public hearing Saturday morningwas cancelled after demonstrators fromthe administration building held their ownmeeting in the room the committee wastrying to use. After ten minutes of turmoil, committee chairman Dallin Oaks declaredthe proceedings adjourned.An hour later, the committee reconvenedin an off-campus building with themselves,the defendants, and their counsels, DeanO’Connell, two witnesses, and a Maroon re¬porter.The hearing had been scheduled in re¬sponse to a motion by the defendants andtheir counsels that the person who de¬clared the action at the ad building dis¬ruptive be present to discuss the criteriaand authority he had for making his deci¬sion. The committee invited O’Connell.The student counsels emphasized thatthe only definition of a disruptive actionavailable to students is in the studenthandbook which defines a disruptive act tobe one which impedes civilized discourse.The students argued that the demonstra¬tion has in fact fostered civilized discourseand discussion at this University. RobDavid TravisLAW SCHOOL: Students and newsmen attempt to enter disciplinary hearings inlaw school courtroom on Saturday.Stagnating Sit-In SlowlyLosing Moderates' HelpModerate (that is non SDS) students whohave taken part in the administrationbuilding sit-in have begun pulling out ofthe demonstration.The sit-in is not moving in a constructivedirection and should end, asserts graduatestudent and former demonstrator MichaelBarnett.Several moderates who have left the ad¬ministration building and several facultymembers have formed what they call theCoalition for a Radical University (CRU).Students still*in the building, however,have vowed to continue occupation. Theyalso plan to picket the social science build¬ing Tuesday. Demonstrators say they hopethe picketing will cause other students toquestion their own education. The sit-inhas been successful in uniting students andpromoting constructive discourse, theysay.Some 150 to 175 students are usually inthe ad building daily, although none are allthere at the same time. Demonstratorsmaintain a constant body of about 30people for security. Students who are noton security shift do not stay in the build¬ing. Turnouts are usually large for massmeetings. They have ranged from 110 stu¬dents Saturday night to about 250 Thursdaynight.Most of the moderates who have left thesit-in feel that the sit-in is stagnating —“not dying but not going anywhere.” Ac¬cording to Barnett, moderates first enteredthe ad building in hopes of winning thesupport of students on campus.Several of the tactics which moderatesprotest are the demonstrators’ proposeddisruption of classes, their added demands, and their scuffle with the disciplinary com¬mittee Saturday.Students who are still left in the adbuilding say they feel that their actionshave been successful, and will continue tobe. “The problems we face can’t be dealtwith effectively and moderately at thesame time,” one spokesman said.At a press conference announcing forma¬tion of the CRU Saturday, Barnett said,“We see the choice as between a betteruniversity and no university — and that’san easy choice.”The purpose of the coalition, accordingto Barnett, is “to get talk going.”Among the faculty members supportingthe coalition are Sheldon Sacks, professorof English, and Jerome McGann, assistantprofessor of English.The weekend brought both a studentanti-sit-in rally, Friday in front of Rosen-wald, and a community march in favor ofthe demonstration, Saturday.The anti-sit-in, organized by CarvilleEarle, graduate student in the social scien¬ces, encouraged students to “apply moralpressure to the demonstrators to come outof the ad building peacefully.” About 300people were at the rally.Earle called for discussions in a calmTuesday between 11 a m and 2pmatmosphere at Harper library today andOn Saturday, about 65 residents of thecommunity marched from Harper Court tothe ad building. Marchers unanimouslysupported the demands of the demonstra¬tor^ and the sit-in itself. The group wasorganized by Max Primack, a teacher atIllinois Institute of Technology and a resi¬dent of Hyde Park. Cooley, graduate student in the committeeon social thought, and a member of theMaroon news board testified that all buttwo of the departments he had contacted“have had meetings in which University¬wide and departmental issues came up.“Had the sit-in not occured, many ofthese discussions would not have occured.Far from hindering discussions, it has defi¬nitely fostered them,” he said.O’Connell said that he felt that “substan¬tial interference with the University’s ad¬ministrative services” also constitutes dis¬ruptive action, because the educational, re¬search and service activities of the Univer¬ sity are dependent upon the normal oper¬ation of the administrative facilities of theUniversity.Another issue raised at the hearing wasthe fact that as the University now stands,there is no body to determine whether anaction is disruptive. For example, if a fac¬ulty member declares that a person sittingin the quadrangles is being disruptive,there is no one that student can appeal tofor an immediate decision if he feels hewas not being disruptive.At the request of the counsel, a tran¬script of the hearing will be made public,probably by Tuesday, a spokesman said.The MarleniadThe Gold Apple of DiscordOr Parris J. The Levite Makes a ChoiceO Muse who sings of human bliss andpain,Allow this pen to hold my teeming brain.If it be war you dictate or dear peace,Bring with your words transfiguring re¬lease.Three candidates there stood upon theplain,Fair Aphrodite, Juno and Lily Marlene.Before good Parris paraded they theircharmsNone of them aware of low alarms.Aphrodite (Morgenshils by name)Offered the beauty of worldwide acclaim.Juno Oldhatter promised sweet repose,The youngest, Marlene, said “Followthee my nose,I know a map of fabulous old treasure.Bestir thyself and take my ample mea¬sure.”In secret session of sweet silent thoughtParris debated in his inner court.Weighed bribes and beauties both, and inhis wise,Handed to Aphrodite the gold prize.Aphro, the Fair, did clutch the goldensphere,Preened with it, strutted and subdued aleer.Not so the spumed. They growled andmuttered,Imprecations hurled and harsh words ut¬tered.Then Juno Oldhatter beat a slow retreatTo pentagonal Olympus for her middayeat.Lily Marlene, howe’er, was stiff inthought.And then it struck her, “Turd Parris hasbeen bought.”Back to her myrmidons this thought shecarried,“Parris the Turd has with the Devilmarried.His mind is mastered by his foul role.He seems objective, but his candor’scoal.Regard the beauty standard he haschose.Aphrodite’s roman to my pear-shapednose,Or Aphrodite’s curving ins-and-outsTo the opulence of my fine goutsLook, I’ll even grant him this, her faceseems fair,She’s made it with the researched tricksof care.The point is this: behind my face is oneThat in a few years time will match thesun.Besides, my ducklings dear, he weighednot youWhose every future beauty is my due.Does not the bird asquat the eggy nestRank with the eagles in their cruelquest?Who dares assert that warts andunarched feetAre in true realms of beauty not somete?”Sir Parris, who soon learned these obser¬vations,Accepted some of them with reserva¬tions,Granted her brassy tvarts and flattenedfeetMight set in some clime somewherehearts abeat. But Lily Marlene was not satisfied,“Raw eggs is one thing, and anotherfried.Enough of sophistry, enough jaw-jaw,We come to change the world, and thatmeans war.”Dulled with dull times and unutopianends,Her gentle and gentle-minded littlefriendsLeapt then upon the startled Parris J.Grabbed his dear orbs to force a cry ofnay.“These will we hold in trust until thisloutAcknowledges what this thing is allabout.Undoes the foul decision he did render.After all, we feed on the same clover.”Pained, though a bit excited too,Sir Parris said, “I see the point of view.Unhand my parts, and we can talk itover.After all, we feed on the same clover.”“Ah ha,” they said. “This scum-bird’s sobenightedHe does not even know why he wasknighted.The titans of legitimacy are alike,True power cometh only after strike.Freedom,” went they on, “is properchoice,Choosing the proper choosers to be voice.Freedom’s the choice of this and futurequeensBy those of us who know these fair Mar¬lenes.Parris has only seen, we have caressedher rear,This is the reason we have grabbed hisgear.”“I see,” said Parris, but he saw in pain.(He could not get their nobleness in hisbrain.)“It’s not only of Marlene that we do talk.It’s of our youth whose loveliness youstalk.,Be grateful we have foiled your loath¬some plan,You’ll find you’ll end up here a betterman.”Many a word exchanged they in thesehours,Parris the Levite and these genial flow¬ers.Then thunder rumbled low and dark itgrew,A sword of lightning slashed the mid¬night blue,Rain did it then, rain and rain and rain,Till drenched was Parris J. and Lil Mar¬lene,Soaked were the young and soaked fairAphrodite,Bent they to the freezing rain so mighty,Chilled they and weakened, sick andharsh of breath,Rain evened up their features in its rainof death.One though survived.Juno OldhatterAte from her fish and chicken liver plat- jter.Rains did not enter the pentagonal roof,and Juno was snug and warm in thisluxurious proof.Rent from the Greek byOMero G Stern2/The Maroon/February 10, 1969Joint Student CouBy Rob CooleyA joint meeting Sunday afternoon of theUniversity student councils decided againstcalling a strike or supporting a strike oncampus at this time.The latter decision was by plurality only.Discussion of a strike followed reports onSaturday refusals by president Levi andthe committee of the council of the Univer¬sity senate to consider during the crisisproposals of a joint councils meeting Fri¬day morning.Those proposals included requests thatstudents have voting participation in allUniversity decisions, and that the facultydisciplinary committee be reconstitutedwith “a majority of elected voting studentrepresentatives,” and take no action untilit is.Four students took the proposals to Levion Saturday morning and to the committeeof the council Saturday afternoon. Theysaid discussions in both cases lasted about40 minutes.John Cunningham, law student, told theSunday joint councils meeting that Levi“said he was happy to see us and hopes tocommunicate seriously with us in the fu¬ture. But when he saw the proposals,”Cunningham said, “Levi said that I don’tknow if you really mean this, but if you do,this is impossible.”As to the request that the disciplinarycommittee be reconstituted, Lowell Liv-ezey said that Levi said that this dis¬ciplinary committee is dealing with ulti¬mate matters pertaining to the essence ofthe nature of the University. Therefore,Levi reportedly said, students could not beallowed on the disciplinary committee be¬cause, in an ultimate matter of this type, itis not the prerogative of students to decidethe nature of the University.(Levi Sunday evening told Maroon editorRoger Black he would not issue a state¬ment of his response to the proposals.)The four students reported that the dis¬cussion with the committee of the councilhad similar results.Wednesday night Edward Rosenheimspokesman for the committee of the coun¬cil made the following statement to theMaroon on that discussion:“We were delighted to meet with these again if they wish to meet with us. Weremain uncertain as to precisely whomthey represent, and the extent to whichthey can be regarded as speaking for thestudent body. Mr Levi has said that heencourages the institutionalization of chan¬nels of communication. This group appearsto be approaching such a channel. Thecommittee of the council, after all, has tospeak, whether accurately and wisely orthe contrary, for the faculty.“In this instance our meeting was, wethought, congenial and helpful, but at cer¬tain points we were compelled to adhere tothe principle which we have repeatedly af¬firmed: that we shall not discuss demands,proposals or concessions which can be re¬garded as negotiations with respect to thepresent disruptive sit-in.”A motion to call a student strike on thebasis of those administrative actions wastabled until the next meeting of the jointcouncils by a 28 to 18 vote.The next meeting is scheduled for 9 amWednesday.A later motion to support the strikecalled against the social sciences buildingTuesday by the sit-in demonstrators failedby plurality: 23 against, 16 for, six absten¬tions.Opinion on a strike varied widely at theSunday meeting.Law student Jim Walsh, referring to thereport on the talks with Levi, said “I thinkthat’s an outrageous response to the kindof action we tried to propose.” Walsh saidthat he hasn’t felt that militant action wasjustified in the past, but believes that somesuch action should now be taken.Geography student Demi Miller told thegroup that if it called a strike and didn’t getsubstantial support, it would lose its credi¬bility as a force in University affairs. If itdid get substantial support, he predicted,the faculty response would be to quit enmasse, to call for police action, or, at best,to continue to do nothing.Another student suggested that a strikeshould be general, for a specific period oftime (one or two days) and not attached toany demands. That, he said, would be asdisruptive as a sit-in, would not “coerce”the faculty into action, but would provide a“show of strength” for student proposals.gentlemen. We want to meet with them Prior to the discussion of a strike, theOccupation Violates Fire RegulationsStudents at the occupied administrationbuilding are violating city fire laws.Arthur Huntington, acting chief of theEighth Fire Battalion, said in an interviewI Hi: CHICAGO MAROONEditor: Roger BlackBusiness Manager: Jerry levyManaging Editor: Jolui RechtNews Editor: Caroline HeckPhotography Editor: David TravisDay Editor: Mitch BobkinNight Editor: Sue LothNews Board:Ad Building: Wendy GlocknerFaculty: Sylvia PiechockaGraduate Students: Rob CooleyAdministration: Richard ParoutaudDisciplinary Committee: Leslie StraussProduction Staff: Mitch Bobkin, Robin Kauf-man, Leslie Strauss, Robert SwKt, MitchKahn.Ad Building Bureau: Wendy Glockner (bureauchief), Jim Haefemeyer, Bruce Norton,Paula Szewczyk, Leonard Zax.Contributing Editors: John Welch, Michael Sor-kin, Jessica Siegel, John Moscow, RobertHardman, Barbara Hurst, David Aiken.News Staff: Marv Bittner, Debby Dobish, ConHitchcock, CD Jaco, Blair Kilpatrick, SteveCook, Gerard Laval.Photography Staff: Phil Lathrop, Paul Stelter,Howie Schamest, Steve Aoki.Sunshine Girl: Jeanne Wikler yesterday that all doors without fire-panicbars in an occupied building should beunlocked.Only one of the three glass doors on thebuilding’s south side is unlocked. A boardto block unwanted outsiders is often slidinto place to lock this door.Two doors, one on the east side and oneon the west side of the building, have panicbars. The one on the west, however, isblocked. The south fire door is barred fromthe inside; a north exit is locked.Capt Michael Delaney, the University se¬curity man in charge of the building, saidhe has men at the doors all the time. Headded, however, that there is always adanger of fire in circumstances such asthose at the administration building.“The message has been conveyed to thestudents in the building that these lawsconcern their safety,” Delaney said.Acting fire chief Huntington said that un¬less a complaint is filed with the city’s fireprevention bureau inspectors would prob¬ably not take action at the administrationbui’ding.BULLETIN OF EVENTSMonday February 10Founded in 1892.lished by University Pub-oftv Chicago students daily dur-ing revolutions, on Tues-\ 7:3 days and Fridays through-out the regular schoolyear and intermittently-ax y^-, throughout the summer,except during examination... periods. Offices in Rooms304' and 305 in 'da Noyes Hall, 1212 E.ino Chicago, III. 60637. Phone Midway•i-0800, Ext. 3269. Distributed on campus and inme Hyde Park neighborhood free of charge.Subscriptions by mail $7 per year. Non-profitpostage paid at Chicago, III. Subscribers toCollege Press Service. LECTURE: "Mahabharata: The Great Epic of India",A K Ramanujan, Social Science 302, 8 pmLECTURE: "Sounds of Literacy: Popular Culture inthe Electronic Age," Walter J Ong, Cobb Hall, 8:30.Tuesday, February 11MEETING: University Council, Business East 106, 3:40.SEMINAR: "Proinsulin and Insulin Biosynthesis", Bil¬lings Hospital M-137, 4:30.LECTURE: "From the First Electronic Computer tovon Neumann's Theory of Self-Reproducing Auto¬mata", Arthur Burks, University of Michigan. Re¬search Institutes C-117, 4 pm.LECTURE: "An Experimental Study of Negative In¬come Tax", Mr Albert Rees, Princeton, Business East106, 8 pm.DOC FILMS: "Fallen Angel", Cobb Hall, 8 pm. joint councils continued earlier discussionsof their legitimacy as a collective body.The group was first called togetherThursday morning by a number of stu¬dents who contacted as many as possibleof the members of the divisional andschool student councils. bers of the steering committee of the JointStudent Councils presented the followingstatement of student position to PresidentEdward Levi. That afternoon, we met withthe Committee of the Council of the Uni¬versity Senate to present the essential ele¬ments of the statement. That statementAt a second meeting Friday morning,when the proposals were passed by thegroup, more than 40 students werepresent, representing most divisions andschools. The only major gap was in repre¬sentation of the collegiate divisions.Some representatives have said that thebody is in no position to take any sort ofaction until it has a constitution, approvedby referendum, and representatives elect¬ed specifically to it on a carefully appor¬tioned basis by all departments.Others have pointed out that such a de¬velopment would take nearly a month.They have maintained that as a body con¬sisting of representatives mainly electedby the students, and which has membersfrom all divisions and schools, the bodyshould consider itself official and act assuch until timep ermits the writing and ac¬ceptance of a constituon. was:We of the Joint Student Councils, speaking as the offi¬cially elected or appointed student respresentatives of allthe grad & undergrad divisions, departments, andschools of the University of Chicago, wish to presentthe following statement:The decision-making structure of this University ispresently being seriously challenged. We believe thatrational discussion of the nature, purpose and structureof the University must go on among all members ofthis intellectual community. As student members ofthe community, we believe that students are entitledand qualified to be voting participants in the makingof all significant decisions in the University. We believethat this participation should be institutionalized onthe departmental, divisional, and University-wide levels.The following proposal would constitute a constructivefirst step toward this goal:Since disciplinary decisions vitally affect the interestsof the students ,of the University of Chicago, studentsshould participate significantly in such decisions. Ac¬cordingly, we affirm the principles of due processstated in the student handbook and propose that theadjudicating board sitting on University disciplinarymatters, both now and in the future, be constitutedwith a majority of elected voting student representa¬tives.In light of the present disciplinary situation and thequestionable legitimacy of the Oaks disciplinary com¬mittee under the University statues, we affirm thatall disciplinary actions in regard to the sit-in in theAdministration Building be set aside until a properlyconstituted committee can be instituted. We urge thefaculty to implement such a structure in co-ordinationwith us at once.In practice, most of the representativeshave so far agreed by consensus to contin¬ue to act, with the clear understandingthat they do so only in the sense that theyare a collection of individuals who are rep¬resentatives (elected in most cases) ontheir divisional and school student coun¬cils.Statement of the joint student councils(Sunday, Feb 9)On Saturday morning, February 8, mem- Both President Levi and the Committe ofthe Council stated that it was not possibleto discuss the substance of this proposalduring the present University crisis. Rath¬er than risk misrepresenting their re¬sponse, we have asked that both PresidentLevi and Mr Edward Rosenheim, spokes¬man for the Committee of the Council, re¬port their reaction to the statment.Alan Stone John CunninghamLowell Livezey Sidney F. HuntetStudents Discuss Class StrikeA mass meeting of social science stu¬dents has been called for Monday to con¬sider a Tuesday strike against social sci¬ence classes.The meeting is scheduled in Quantrellauditorium at 4 pm.It was called by a representative on thegraduate council of the social sciences.Administration demonstrators called fora strike last week following a proposalThursday night by Howie Machtinger.They are now planning their strike forTuesday also.The representatives met Sunday morningto discuss the matter and decided at a sec¬ond session in the afternoon to call theMonday mass meeting.The representatives issued the followingstatement:“We recommend the social science stu¬dents call for a strike against social sci¬ence classes starting Tuesday, Feb 11, huorder to express their militant support for:• The principle of full and equal studentpower in all areas of University decision¬making• A consideration of the Marlene Dixoncase according to the principle of studentpower in decision making; in this case, fif¬ty-fifty voting participation, as we havecalled for in the past meetings.• Amnesty for sit-in people as explainedSix Protestors EvictedFrom UC DormitoriesSix undergraduate students suspended bythe disciplinary committee are beingevicted from the University residencehalls.Dean of students Charles O’Connell saidthat expulsion from the residence halls iscommon procedure in all suspension cases.Copies of the letter signed by EdwardTurkington, director of University housingwere also sent to the resident head of the'dormitory and to O’Connell.The letter stated “Your room contractwill be cancelled on Friday, Feb 14. Apro-rated refund of any room and boardcharges paid beyond that date willmade to you by the Bursar.”Suspension, according to O’Connell,means that the student is no longer en¬titled to any of the privileges available toUniversity students, including living in theresidence halls. in our earlier resolution called ‘DeclarationAgainst Disciplinary Procedures’.”The statement further stated that “wewish to demonstrate through this strike thesolidarity of all students in the social sci¬ence division in their individual depart¬mental efforts to gain significant studentparticipation in departmental decisionmaking. We recognize that in some depart¬ments these efforts are proceding fairlywell, but even in these departments thereis still much to be done. In other depart¬ments, at the divisional! level and at theUniversity-wide level, next to nothing hasbeen accomplished. We see this strike asdemonstrating the solidarity of the stu¬dents of the social science division in theirsupport for significant student participa¬tion at these three levels.”Gray AnnouncesDecision TuesdayThe Gray committee report will be givento dean of faculties John Wilson and deanof the social science division D Gale John¬son Tuesday afternoon, says committeechairman Hanna Gray.The report, which is to give a recom¬mendation on whether to renew Mrs Mar¬lene Dixon’s teaching contract, will becomprehensive. Mrs Gray said Sunday itwill deal with the specifics of the case, thesuspicions that have arisen from it, andwhat she called general issues brought be¬fore the University community.The report will be written as a publicdocument, she said, but it will be up to thedeans to decide when it should be madepublic.The committee has attempted to get stu¬dent and faculty reaction to Mrs Dixon’steaching ability by conducting interviews,a sample survey, and by allowing otherswho weren’t in the sample to appear be¬fore the committee hearings, Mrs Graysaid.Many faculty members have ’ also ap¬peared before the committee. Among therepresentatives were Marlene Dixon, ontwo occasions, Morris Janowitz, chairmanof the sociology department, William Hen¬ry, chairman of the committee on humandevelopment, D Gale Johnson, dean of thesocial science division, and representativesof the sociology department.February 10, 1969/The Chicago Maroon/3n.Am, Ml. .Mf «••••u dentsfrom Page Onessible Sources of BiasUNtjfrf cbrtdiicting a survey such as this one,\Or rious possible sources of bias\ iwoiA) Sampling bias: it is possiblethat the sample of respondents does notaccurately reflect the composition of theoverall student body; 2) Response bias: itis possible that those who were interviewedare not truly representative of the studentbody because the more actively involvedstudents were not at home and could notbe reached for interviewing. If this werethe case, the opinions of active studentswould be underrepresented in the data. Wewill examine these possible biases.-As for the first possible source of bias, acomparison of the sample population to theactual student population revealed that 1)the sample accurately reflected the propor¬tion of undergraduate to graduate stu¬dents; 2) it accurately reflected the pro¬portion of graduate students in each of thedivisions and professional schools; 3) it ac¬curately reflected the proportion of womento men: overall, within the undergraduatepopulation, within the graduate studentpopulation, and within each of the gradu¬ate divisions and professional schools.Considering the second possible source ofbias, that those who responded might sys¬tematically represent different opinionsthan those who refused or were not avail¬able, we cannot tell from the date whetherthe 1.9 percent who refused to be inter¬viewed and the 13.3 percent who were notavailable were representative of a specialgroup of students or not. Reasons for re¬fusing to be interviewed were given by for¬eign students who felt that their status asvisitors constrained them not to expressopinions on controversial matters and byother students who felt that the survey wasnot useful or who were simple satiatedwith discussion concerning the sit-in. Asfor those who could not be reached for in¬terviewing, 21.5 percent were under¬graduates while 78.5 percent were gradu¬ate students. It is possible that those stu¬dents who were most actively participatingin matters related to the sit-in were notavailable, although we know that many ofthese students were interviewed. In anycase, the number of students who could notbe reached and who refused to be inter¬viewed was only 15.2 percent of the totalsample, so that even if their opinion wereunanimously in favor of one or another po¬sition on any given question it would affectthe data by no more than a few percentagepoints. For example, on the question ofamnesty which is discussed just below, ifall those who were not available or whorefused to be interviewed had been for am¬nesty would change from the actual 58.3percent to 64.6 percent, which is a changeof 6.3 percentage points.The authors hope that readers will care¬fully consider whether or not this surveyaccurately reflects student opinion. Morecomplete statistical information is avail¬able to interested parties on request to theauthors.Marlene DixonOn the issue of whether Mrs. Dixonshould be rehired or not, we asked stu¬dents the following question:“Let's talk about Marlene Dixon. Do youthink that Marlene Dixon should be re¬hired in some faculty capacity?'’Yes No Unc. Ref. TotalTotal Student Body 37.0% 10.*% 48.5% 3.4% 100% (503)Undergraduates 46.2% 13.1% 40.0% 0.4% 100% (140)Graduate Students 32.7% 10.0% 52.4% 5.0% 100% (341)The results show considerable uncertain¬ty over whether Mrs. Dixon should be re¬hired or not. About half of the students,48.5 percent, expressed this uncertainly. Ofthose who did respond “yes” or “no,” how- Surveyed about Sit-In Issuesever, a clear majority favored rehiringMarlene Dixon, 37.0 percent to 10.9 per¬cent.It is interesting that women were nomore likely than men to favor rehiringMrs Dixon. If women’s rights are a majorissue of the sit-in, there is no evidencehere that women see the rehiring of MrsDixon as a key part of that issue.There are substantial differences of opin¬ion between graduate and undergraduatestudents, with undergraduates more in fa¬vor of rehiring Mrs Dixon (46.2 percent)than graduate students (32.7 percent). It isalso interesting to note that graduate stu¬dents are more likely to express uncertain¬ty on this question (52.4 percent) than areundergraduates (40.0 percent).Although graduate students overall areless likely to favor rehiring Mrs Dixon, inthe graduate division of the social scien¬ces, where she has her appointment, stu¬dents are more likely than the average tofavor her reappointment, with 51.1 percentin favor of rehiring vs. 37.0 percent of thestudent body overall who take that posi¬tion.Amnesty and the Sit-InStudents held what may seem at firstglance to be inconsistent opinions on theissue of amnesty vs approval of the sit-in,with a majority of students favoring am¬nesty and a majority of students feelingthat the sit-in should not have taken place.A closer examination of the data may helpthe reader to arrive at a judgement ofwhat this inconsistency means. The issueof amnesty was examined with the follow¬ing questionnaire item:"A lot of people have talked aboutamnesty. The way things are now, doyou favor amnesty for the studentssitting in?"“Regardless of how you feel about thegoals of the sit-in, do you think thestudents should have started the sit-in?"Yes No Unc. Ref. TotalTotal Student Body 58.3% 33.2% 7.7% 0.8% 100% (530)Total Male 54.8% 34.8% 7.*% 0.5% 100% (347)Total Female 44.3% 25.2% 7.4% 1.2% 100% (143)Undergraduates 43.1% 30.4% 4.2% 0.0% 100% (140)Graduate Students 54.2% 34.3% 8.3% 1.1% 100% (341)A clear majority of students felt thatamnesty should be granted, with 58.3 percent in favor of amnesty and 33.2 per centopposed. Female students were more likelyto favor amnesty than were male students,with 66.3 per cent of females in favor and54.8 per cent of males in favor. Under¬graduates were more likely than graduatestudents to favor amnesty, by 63.1 per centto 56.2 per cent. In every sub-part of thestudent body examined in this survey, themajority was in favor of amnesty, so thatstudent opinion on this issue is very clear.Although students clearly favor amnestyfor the sitters-in, they just as clearly feelthat the sit-in should not have started.Readers should be cautioned that the datain this case refer to whether studentsthought that the sit-in should have startedand not whether or not they think that itshould continue. The questionnaire itemwas as follows:Ye* No Unc. Ref. TotalTotal Student Body 33.3% 58.2% 7.4% 1.1% 100% (529)Total Male 32.4% 40.2% 4.0% 1.4% 100% (347)Total Female 35.2% 53.7% 10.5% 0.4% 100% (142)Student opinion expressed disapproval ofthe sit-in, with 58.2 percent who felt that itshould not have started versus 33.3 percentwho felt that it should have started. Fe¬male students were slightly less likely tobe opposed to the sit-in than were malestudents, while the difference of opinionbetween undergraduates and graduate stu¬dents was, in our opinion, too small to re¬port. This similarity of opinions betweenthe sexes and between undergraduate vs. graduate students is quite different fromthe responses to the question of amnesty,where females and undergraduates differ¬ed substantially in their opinions frommales and graduate students. This differ¬ence suggests that while the status of fe¬maleness and of being an undergraduatemakes students more likely to favor am¬nesty, it has no bearing on their approvalor disapproval of the sit-in.Student PowerOne of the issues raised by the sit-in isthe part that students should play in deci¬sions concerning faculty' appointments. Thefollowing tables show the responses onquestions dealing with the hiring of newfaculty, retaining faculty for non-tenure po¬sitions, and retaining faculty for tenure po¬sitions.“What voice do you think studentsshould have in the hiring of newfaculty?(No formal voice, Formal voice but novote, ^ vote, but not equal to that of thefaculty, A vote equal to that of the faculty,Uncertain, Refuses to answer question)No Form. Vote Vote Unc. Ref. TotalForm. Voice Not EqualVo<ce EqualTotal Student 14.2% 3*.8% 33.4% 10.4% 0.9% 0.9% 100%Body (510)Total Male 15.0% 41.7% 33.2% 9.5% 0.8% 0.8% 100%(347)Total Fern. 12.3% 35.4% 34.8% 12.9% 1.2% 1.2% 100%(143)“How about the decision to reappointfaculty, but not for tenure. What do youthink the voice of students, should bein this case?"(No formal voice, Fomral voice but novote, A vote, but not equal to that of thefaculty, A vote equal to that of the faculty,Uncertain, Refuses to answer question)No Form. Vote Vote Unc. Ref. TotalForm. Voice Not EqualVoice EqualTotal Student 15.5% 34.8% 33.5% 11.3% 3.8% 1.1% 100%(529)Total Male 14.5% 38.5% 32.5% 9.3% 4.4% 0.8% 100%Total Fern. 17.8% 24.4% 35.4% 10.0% 2.5% 1.8% 100%“And what about tenure? What voice doyou think students should have in thetenure decision?"No Form. Vote Vote Unc. Ref. TotalForm. Voice Not EqualVoice EqualTotal Student 4.2% 33.4% 38.1% 19.2% 2.3% 0.8% 100%Bcdy (530)Total Male 5.4% 37.4% 34.5% 18.3% 1.4% 0.5% 100%(347)Tolal Fern. 8.0% 23.9% 41.7% 21.5% 3.7% 1.2% 100%(143)Continued from Page Oneassociate professor of chemistry; Sol Kras-ner, dean of students in the division ofphysical sciences; Norman Nachtrieb,chairman of the department of chemistry;Dan (Skip) Landt, director of student ac¬tivities; Edward Turkington, director ofstudent housing; George Playe, dean of un¬dergraduate students; James Vice, assis¬tant dean of students and dean of fresh¬men, Robert Stein, assistant professor ofEnglish: Ole Kleppa, professor of geophy¬sics and chemistry; and Paul Moore, assis¬tant professor of geophysical sciences.Another means of identifying studentshas been via photographs of the sit-in.James Vice confirmed this tactic and alsosaid participators were being identified bytelevision appearances and signed docu¬ments.Law School SkirmishAn incident of violence that receivedwidespread coverage in the city press in- They show that over 80 percent of therespondents favor at least some in¬stitutionalized advisory role for studentsThe majority of the students favor either aformal voice but no vote or a vote but notequal to that of the faculty. Students clear¬ly feel that their opinions on faculty ap- !pointments should be formally taken intoaccount.On all three of these questions femalesare slightly more likely than males to feelthat students should have some vote. Un¬dergraduates differed from graduate stu¬dents on the question of reappointments tonon-tenure positions. A larger proportion of 'undergraduates (65.6 percent) than gradu¬ate students (54.0 percent) said that theythought students should have a vote in thisdecision. Thus where there are differences 1females and undergraduates tend to favor \more student participation on questions of |faculty appointments than do males andgraduate students.There were differences in student opinionconcerning the separate decisions on hiringnew faculty, retaining faculty for non-ten- *ure positions and appointments to tenurepositions. While the majority of the studentbody (57.3 percent) favor at least somevote for students on the question of reap- ,jpointment for non-tenure positions, on theissues of hiring new faculty and tenure ap¬pointments less than a majority of re¬spondents feel that students should have avote (44.2 percent) and (44.8 percent re¬spectively).The results on these three questions in¬dicate that students are not satisfied withthe role that they have been playing indecisions concerning faculty appointments:that is they have had no formal voice atall. Students also feel that they should 1have more power in the case of non-tenureappointments than in hiring new facultyand tenure appointments.SummaryIn summary, we can say that a largemajority of students favor amnesty for theparticipants in the sit-in but a majorityalso feel that the sit-in should not havetaken place. On the issue of the reappoint¬ment of Marlene Dixon, a plurality of stu¬dents expressed uncertainty, whil£ of thosewho were willing to take a “yes” or “no”position, those in favor of rehiring clearlyoutnumbered those who were opposed. Fi¬nally, on the issue of student power in fac¬ulty appointments, the majority of studentsfavor some kind of student vote and theother half do not feel that students should ^have any vote.volved a shoving match between studentsfrom the sit-in and student bailiffs. Thedisciplinary committee planned a publicmeeting Saturday morning. Steve Roth-krug, a student participating in the sit-in,stated that the demonstrators came to thatmeeting with the intention of disrupting thecommittee’s meeting and “discussing polit¬ical suppression.” Dallin Oaks, professorof law and chairman of the disciplinarycommittee, was not able to conduct themeeting because of shouting, clapping, andwhistling, and after ten minutes declaredthe proceedings adjourned for the day.The shoving occurred as students tryingto leave the room to follow Oaks clashedwith reporters trying to enter and with lawstudents acting as bailiffs who were block¬ing the doorway. Several persons werestruck: Rothkrug got a black eye, a report¬er from the Tribune was allegedly kickedin the groin, and according to a statementreleased by Universitv officials, a reporterand a University employee were treated atBillings and later released.Profs Hand Out SummonsesAs Students Crash Hearings4/The Chicago Maroon/ February 10, 19694