THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 1 RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 2RECENT ACTIONS BY THE COUNCILOF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE ANDTHE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCILAND STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENTCOUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATEAND COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL ACTIONSJanuary 24, 1969UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOCOUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATEThe University has received the following communication, dated January 23, 1969:There has been no positive response by theUniversity to the demands of the open studentmeeting of Friday, January 15, that ProfessorMarlene Dixon be rehired and that students haveequal control with faculty in all decisions onhiring and rehiring of faculty.We regard the formation of the Gray Committee as an inadequate response to these demands.It is an excuse to wraste time and to divert attention from the main issues. Further, it was improperly constituted.We demand that 1) Marlene Dixon be rehiredjointly in Sociology and Human Development,and 2) the principle of equal student controlover hiring and rehiring of faculty, be acceptedby the University no later than 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, January 29.Unless these demands are accepted by thistime, we will take militant action.Committee of 85The President of the University has called thisstatement to the attention of the Council for suchresponse as the Council may wish to make.With respect to principles and procedures governing the employment, retention, and promotionof faculty, the Council of the University Senateaccepts and endorses the statement by the academicdeans which was circulated among the faculty underdate of January 21, 1969. That statement is asfollows :The relevance of student viewTs on educationalmatters is clear. Students can bring to an under- CONTENTS / March 14, 19691 Recent Actions by the Council of the University Senate and the Committee of theCouncil and Statements by the President7 Subcommittee on South Campus InterimReport9 Report of the Student Ombudsman13 Kalven Committee Report on DisciplinaryProceduresstanding of academic issues knowledge that isoutside the direct experience of the faculty, viewpoints that may counteract attitudes or unexamined premises that age and institutional factorstend to perpetuate in a university, and ideas thatmay have escaped even the most inventive offaculties.Faculties within this University have alwaysrecognized, of course, the pertinence of studentviews in educational discussions, and through informal channels have availed themselves of thisresource. They have taken into account studentjudgments and ideas on a wide range of academicmatters, including programs, requirements, andthe performance of faculty members. Decisionson such matters have often been importantly influenced by what has been learned from students.Recognizing that the purpose of student consultation is to improve the quality of educationat The University of Chicago, and believing thatthis purpose is best served by rational discussionand regular communication, we urge adherenceto the following principles writh respect to studentparticipation in the processes by which academicpolicies are determined:1. The most appropriate and most productivemodes of eliciting student views, and indeed theextent to which these views can contribute to thewise governance of the University, will vary fromarea to area within the University, dependingupon the size, traditions, and procedures withineach area and the nature of the problems withwhich it is confronted at particular times in itsdevelopment. Accordingly, the kind of student1participation should reflect the educational situation within each Division, School, or other academic unit of the University.2. We endorse the policy of the President toencourage the election within each academic unit(including, where relevant, departments or degree-recommending committees) of a studentcouncil or advisory group to meet regularly witha committee of the faculty. We urge the severalfaculties to develop these arrangements into significant instruments of educational policy. Although no single instrument or mode of faculty-student communication should be seen as exclusive or as sufficient in itself, we believe thatthe existence of such councils can (1) providecontinuity and responsibility in student counsel,(2) deepen student understanding of educationalproblems confronting the University, and (3)offer accessible channels for the expression ofdiverse student opinion.3. Recommendations on academic appointmentare the responsibility of the several faculties. Inreaching decision on such a recommendation, theextent to which student appraisal of the effectiveness of a faculty member is taken into account should be determined by the particularfaculty making the recommendation. Use of theevidence provided by student appraisals is whollyconsistent with the established appointive processes of the University. To enhance the objectivity of this evidence, the faculties should informthemselves of student appraisals of individual instructors on a continuing basis rather than in thecontext of an immediate decision. This procedureshould be an institutionalized part of the process.4. In making use of the consultative processesdescribed above, or any others, each faculty asa Ruling Body remains responsible under theUniversity Statutes for the determination of academic policies within its jurisdiction.As the foregoing statement makes clear, the University attaches, and will continue to attach, serious importance to the opinions of its students, andit encourages their expression under all circumstances compatible with the continuing proper functioning of the University and the individual freedom of its faculty, students, and staff. However, forthe benefit of those who are new to the University,the Council wishes to point to the University'slong-standing policy that disruptive acts which gobeyond the legitimate means of communication orpersuasion are prohibited, and that students engaging in such acts are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. The Secretary of the Faculties is asked to publish this statement of the Council to students andfaculty of the University.February 1, 1969TO: Students and Faculty of The University ofChicagoFROM : The Committee of the CouncilIn May, 1966 the Council of the UniversitySenate reaffirmed the University's long-standingpolicy that disruptive acts which go beyond legitimate means of communication or persuasion areprohibited and that any student who engages insuch an act be subjected to appropriate disciplinaryaction, not excluding expulsion. This policy was reaffirmed by the Council as recently as January 24,1969.The Committee of the Council on January 29appointed nine members of the faculty to a University Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr.Dallin Oaks of the Law School. Other members ofthe Committee are: Dr. Louis Cohen, Dr. AlexanderGottschalk, Mr. Gwin Kolb, Mr. Arthur Mann,Mr. Anthony Turkevich, Mr. Peter Vandervoort,Mr. Karl Weintraub, and Mr. Lennard Wharton.As has been done in the past, student observerswere also appointed to the Committee: Mr. JohnBremner, Mr. Mark Gilford, -Miss Bertha Joseph-son, and Miss Mary Sue Leighton. All four of thesestudents had been appointed as student observersfor other disciplinary committees by the Presidentof Student Government in recent years. Mr. Gilfordand Miss Josephson subsequently resigned as observers from the University Disciplinary Committee and, upon the recommendation of the Presidentof Student Government, the Committee of theCouncil appointed two replacements who are nowserving: Mr. Jonathan Dean and Mr. MichaelDenneny.The Committee of the Council is convinced thatthe Disciplinary Committee which it has appointed,and which is now sitting, is adhering to the principles published and affirmed by the University Council and is executing its charge in a just, systematic,and responsible fashion.Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Morris JanowitzWilliam H. KruskalPhilip B. KurlandDr. Richard LandauNorman Nachtrieb2February 4, 1969TO : The Faculties of The University of ChicagoFROM : The Council of the University SenateThe Council of the University Senate met onTuesday, February 4, and adopted the followingstatement:As elected representatives of the Faculty Senateof The University of Chicago, the Committee ofthe Council wishes once again to call the attentionof faculty and students to the statement, datedJanuary 29, by President Edward H. Levi. It is astatement which the Committee endorses in ever>particular.Free and open discussion between faculty andstudents on issues of common concern is indispensable to the conduct of an academic community.The Committee joins with the President of theUniversity in the affirmation of this principle andin the determination that discussion of this character will continue. At the same time, it insists on thedistinction between free and open discussion, onthe one hand, and, on the other, "bargaining," conducted under coercive, threatening, or disorderlycircumstances. The Committee will not engage inthe latter kind of discourse.February 7, 1969TO: Students and Faculty of The University ofChicagoFROM : The Committee of the CouncilIn this moment of crisis, the Committee of theCouncil wishes to make entirely clear its positionwith respect to two questions of central concern.The first question involves the University's response to coercive pressures regarding issues of academic policy. The Committee regards it as unthinkable that an institution whose dedication is to theexercise of reason and judgment should become anarena for the use of coercive tactics. The Committee will not entertain any demand predicated uponthe manipulation of coercive force.The second question involves the ability — andthe right — of the University to govern itself. Thisself -governance includes those disciplinary procedures, established and repeatedly endorsed by theacademic Council, by which the rights of individualsand the unimpeded pursuit of academic goals canbe protected. There is some sentiment within the University community that this protection can nolonger be provided by resources and procedureswithin the University itself, and that the presentdisruptions should be terminated by invoking thecivil authorities. This is a possibility that cannot beforeclosed so long as personal security, property,and the very existence of the University remain indanger.The Committee believes, however, that it reflectsthe overwhelming sentiment of the University whenit reasserts its faith in the justice and propriety ofthose disciplinary procedures which remain in thecontrol of the University itself, and which are ofcrucial importance to the University's independenceand integrity.Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Morris JanowitzWilliam H. KruskalPhilip B. KurlandDr. Richard LandauNorman NachtriebFebruary 11, 1969TO: Students and Faculty of The University ofChicagoFROM: The Committee of the Council and theDeans of The University of ChicagoThere is one overriding issue in the present situation which must be recognized by all who aregenuinely concerned for the present life and futureof this University: namely, that the University'sprimary commitment to the pursuit and communication of knowledge must be maintained.All other issues are secondary to this centralconcern. Even problems of security and order andthe termination of the occupation of the Administration Building cannot be allowed to divert ourattention and energies from the major issue.Clearly, a university committed to the pursuitand communication of knowledge must be able togovern itself in adherence to its own declared principles and practices.To govern itself wisely, the University must takeinto account the ideas and attitudes of its students.For many months efforts have been made to establish and strengthen channels through which theseideas and attitudes can be communicated freely andproductively. On many topics, student views mayindeed be conclusive, and in many areas of common concern they may effect fundamental change.3Thus, the channels for this kind of communicationare open, and will remain open.However, it is entirely clear that, on a relativelysmall number of issues which involve this University's distinguishing mission and indeed its verylife, the faculty must accept full responsibility.Thus, whatever weight — and it should normally beconsiderable — is given to student opinion regardingfaculty appointment and reappointment, ultimateresponsibility on decisions of this character mustbe assumed by the faculty. For example, the GrayCommittee — which, it should be noted, was appointed prior to the current disruption — is an entirely appropriate exercise of this responsibility.Similarly, when the University's exercise of itscentral function is threatened, the faculty mustaccept full responsibility for carrying through disciplinary procedures which protect the Universityand its freedom. This is what is now being done inaccordance with principles formulated and repeatedly affirmed by the Council of the Senate.To disregard these principles would be an abdication of faculty responsibility. We are confident,however, that the faculty will meet this responsibility.The Council of the University Senate at its meetingof February 23, 1969 passed the following resolution unanimously.In light of the public threats of tactics ofharassment and disruption, following those ofthe sit-in, and of recent resort to such tactics,including classroom disruptions and the harassment of the Disciplinary Committee, the Council of the Senate thinks it appropriate to restateonce again its long-standing policy. The University will vigorously defend the rights of all members of its community to dissent and protest. Butdissent and protest cannot be deemed to includeharassment or coercion of individual membersof the University community or other activitieswhich interfere with the normal operations of theUniversity. Such tactics are especially repugnantin an academic community and are prohibited inthis University, whether they take the form ofinvasions of the freedom, security, or the privacyof members of the University community or theirguests, or of noise, tumult, and other activitiesthat can reasonably be expected to interfere withthe operations of the University. Participantsin conduct violating this frequently announced policy will subject themselves to disciplinarymeasures.February 26, 1969TO: Faculty and Students of The University ofChicagoFROM : Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilThe following statement was adopted unanimously by the Council of the University Senate onFebruary 25, 1969:The Council is compelled to take note of continuing acts directed against the privacy andsafety of members of the University and againstthe University's proper conduct of its mission.These acts have included an assault upon thePresident's house and upon the persons of twomembers of the University, as well as the invasion of the Quadrangle Club — all of whichoccurred on February 24, 1969. Moreover, thoseparticipating in these acts included a number ofpersons who had previously been suspended bythe University's Disciplinary Committee.It is increasingly likely that the security ofthe University can be reestablished only by invoking civil authority — a course that is particularly suitable when, as has occurred, the University's own disciplinary procedures are defied.It is a course which is always open and is entirely appropriate as long as the University liesunder the threat of violence and coercion. Beforeresorting to the civil authorities, the Universitywill seek once again to deal with present disorders through disciplinary means lying in itsown jurisdiction. It must be recognized, however,that circumstances— including the refusal of persons concerned to submit to University disciplinary action — may at any time make civil actionnecessary, and the Council reluctantly acceptsthis necessity.In the light of the foregoing facts, the Council of the Senate joins with the Committee ofthe Council in the following recommendation tothe Dean of Students. The behavior of thosepersons, known to be under suspension by theDisciplinary Committee now sitting, and identified as having participated in the disruptiveevents of February 24, appropriately calls forimmediate expulsion. Accordingly, these personsshould be summoned to appear before a Univer-4sity Disciplinary Committee, to be appointed bythe Committee of the Council, and there to showcause why they should not be expelled forthwith.Summonses to this action should be issued immediately. Recipients of these summonses shouldbe required to apply for an individual hearingbefore the Disciplinary Committee, this application to be in writing, sent by registered mail tothe Dean of Students of the University. Suchresponses must be postmarked no later than5:00 p.m., Thursday, February 27, 1969. Failureso to respond within the time specified shouldautomatically result in expulsion.TO: Students and FacultyFROM: The Committee of the Council of TheUniversity of ChicagoThe. following communication was received by registered mail on the morning of Saturday, March 1,1969. It is circulated herewith for your information.28 February 1969The Committee of the Council% Prof. Edward Rosenheim, Jr.5638 South BlackstoneChicago, Illinois 60637Sirs,A mass meeting of the Committee of 500+Against Disciplinary Procedures yesterday passedthe following resolution : v"The issue of discipline must be seen in context.The University's maintenance of its authorityis designed to protect what the Kalven Committee calls its 'mission.' This mission is to producethe skills and specialties — and to inculcate thepolitical and social orientations — useful to theruling groups in society, and to maintain thisorientation by any means necessary, includingstamping out opposition within the Universityand oppressing the people of the community surrounding it.Students may expect to participate in shapingUniversity policy only so long as they acceptthis mission, which is defined by the ruling groupswhich in fact control the University. If studentsdo not accept this mission, ipso facto, they are111 opposition to the University's power and authority. "We therefore demand:1. That the recent expulsions be rescinded.2. That all cases pending before the disciplinary committees be dropped and sentencespassed this quarter be rescinded.3. That the Kalven Committee report be repudiated and consigned to oblivion.4. That existing disciplinary committees bedissolved."Failure of the Committee of the Council to respond satisfactorily to these demands by Tuesday noon, March 4, will in and of itself constitute grounds for further militant action.Steering CommitteeCommittee of 500+ AgainstDisciplinary Procedures% Student GovernmentIda Noyes HallSTATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENTJanuary'29, 1969TO : The Students of The University of ChicagoSome students, called the "Committee of 85,"sent me a message last week containing certain demands on the University. Because these demandsin a central way concern academic matters, Ibrought the message to the attention of the Academic Council of the University for such responseas the Council might wish to make. The Councildid respond — and its response has been widely circulated. I agree with the Council's response, butI should like to answer the two demands specifically. I should also like to make the same personalplea to the students of the University which I madelast week to the members of the faculties.The first demand is that Mrs. Dixon be reappointed jointly in the Department of Sociologyand in the Committee on Human Development.As has been widely reported, the tenured membersof the Sociology Department voted unanimouslynot to recommend reappointment in Sociology. Itwould be a violation of a tradition with considerable history if the president or dean of facultiesat Chicago were to appoint someone to a facultyover the objections of the members of that faculty.The tenured members of the Committee on HumanDevelopment voted unanimously to recommend reappointment but differed on the length of the new5term. In this situation the Dean of the Division,who received these recommendations, decidedagainst reappointment.In the discussion of this case it has been suggested that the fact that Mrs. Dixon is a woman,or has certain political views, or approaches sociology within a certain political tradition might haveinfluenced the decision. It is also suggested thatsuperior teaching ability, and the response of students to that ability, might not have been givenadequate weight. Because I believe doubts of thiskind must be taken seriously, I was delighted whenDean Johnson asked John Wilson, the Dean ofFaculties, to appoint a committee to review hisdecision. This committee— in my view an excellentone — has as its chairman Mrs. Hannah Gray. Ithas already invited student organizations and individuals to present their views to it. This committee gives every indication of moving quickly andwith some thoroughness to look into the relevantissues.The "Committee of 85^ has indicated it does notthink much of the Gray Committee, believes it tobe an "inadequate response," an "excuse to wastetime and to divert attention." I hope the "Committee of 85,} is wrong in this evaluation.It would be a matter of the gravest concern ifa reappointment were not made because an assistant professor was a woman, or had certain politicalviews, or because superior teaching ability were notgiven considerable weight.My response to the first demand is that we mustwait for the report of the Gray Committee.The second demand is that the principle of equalstudent control over hiring and rehiring of facultybe accepted by the University. I do not endorsethis principle, and I cannot recommend its acceptance by the University. There is a difference between the role and responsibility of faculty andstudent because their function is different eventhough both must learn. The difference is for theirmutual benefit. I do believe that "the facultiesshould inform themselves of student appraisals ofindividual instructors on a continuing basis" andthat this procedure should be institutionalized. Ibelieve it is up to the faculty and students in thedivisions, schools and the College — in the departments and collegiate divisions— to work out the bestprocedures in their area consistent with the responsibility which each faculty has as the ruling bodyfor the determination of academic policies withinits jurisdiction.I have been urging for some time the creationof faculty-student committees in each of the areas. These should become — I am certain they can become — as the deans and the council have stated—"significant instruments of educational policy." jhave asked the help of the members of the faculties in implementing this policy.There will always be some differences among usOn some matters, some of us may never agreeBut we should agree, because we are in a University, on the importance of making the effort tounderstand, to explain, to explore, to discover.I ask your help.Edward H. LeviFebruary 14, 1969TO: The Faculty and Students of The Universityof ChicagoThis is our University, in. hard times as well asgood. Some events of the last two weeks, if takenby themselves, have threatened to seriously injureour University, damage its present condition, diminish its future. At the same time we can takepride in the overwhelming response — a unique response — of faculty and students who have struggledto see the University through this difficult period,There are some who believe this University willemerge as a better place. I trust they are right.We must try to make this so.A University shows its character more clearlyin hard times. Its nature and the value which itprizes most are then more clearly revealed. ThisUniversity is committed to discussion, inquiry, andthe importance of understanding. This is a difficultroad. It requires self criticism, humility and change.It requires also a commitment to the Universityas a special place, capable of self determination,and serious about its mission.There has been some expression of dismay because the more rational discussions of the last fewweeks have revealed important differences amongus about the proper aims and methods of education,the relevance of that education to ourselves and tothe larger societies. But these differences are notsurprising. They should be the beginning not theend of discussion. They should be the beginning notthe end of change. And equally they should be theoccasion for the reassertion of those values whichdistinguish one university from another, and alluniversities worthy of the name from the other institutions of modern life.The University has sought throughout this period,6however imperfectly, to exemplify the values forwhich it stands. It has encouraged discussionthrough faculty and student groups. It has soughtto institutionalize a process for wider participation.In a world of considerable violence, and one inwhich violence begets violence, it has emphasizedthe persuasive power of ideas. It has sought — andthe unique response of faculty and students hasmade this possible — to handle its own affairs in away consistent with its ideals. As I write theselines I cannot help but wonder what our successhas been and whether the choice we made remainsviable. But I do not believe success was the onlymeasure of this choice.I must say with caution and candor there areother difficult consequences which follow from thisbasic choice. Perhaps they would have followedfrom any alternative. These consequences to theUniversity will be felt for a considerable period oftime and will be disappointing to many. We mustmake the best of them.I am informed that those occupying the buildinghave decided to leave it. I hope this is true andthat tactics which should be recognized as havingno place on this campus will cease.Let it be said that this University, in its determination and in its responsiveness, will continueworthy of its history.Edward H. LeviSUBCOMMITTEE ON SOUTH CAMPUSINTERIM REPORTJanuary, 1969Since its appointment on October 18, 1968 the Subcommittee has devoted its time to studying the immediate problems of relocation and demolition inSouth Campus. This interim report covers our findings and recommendations resulting from that study./. The ProblemsA. Insufficient attention is paid to maintainingoccupied buildings slated for demolition, with theresult that the pace of relocation is determinedmore by a building's deterioration than by the readiness of its occupants for relocation.Once an area is designated for demolition in theurban renewal program, the landlords in that areatend to neglect the maintenance of their buildings.In addition, as buildings become only partially occupied, vandals begin to remove or destroy property and to threaten the security of the remainingresidents.The South Campus area was slated as a possibility for urban renewal as early as 1961. The pace ofpurchasing the buildings and relocating the residentshas been so slow that families are still living inbuildings which have been inadequately maintainedsince that time. As these buildings become totallyunlivable the families in them often have to movequickly and without adequate preparation or suitable new housing arrangements.B. The relocation services presently being offeredare inadequate.Once an area is slated for demolition, the smallerand higher income families are often able to relocatethemselves. Larger and poorer families are oftenforced to stay in the area until the pace of deterioration forces them to move, much of the time intosubstandard housing. Many of these families are the"multi-problem" families which are the most difficult to relocate. The Department of Urban Renewal does make some efforts on their behalf, butsevere limitations are imposed by the housing problem which now exists in Chicago.The Department is also limited by staff shortages,large caseloads, and by an apparent lack of housingcode enforcement during the long time period between the approval of an area for urban renewaland the legal acquisition of the buildings and lots bythe city.//. Our AssumptionsA. The pace of demolition and relocation shouldbe determined by the opportunities and readiness ofthe renewal area residents to move, not by the continued neglect of the buildings they occupy.B. The relocation process should be especiallyconcerned with the following:1. relocation to a neighborhood chosen by the individual family;2. relocation to an agreeable distance to employment or other source of support ;3. relocation to a neighborhood not already overcrowded and providing housing which meets federalstandards and is priced within the family's ability topay;4. opportunity for school continuity, so that parents may choose between keeping their children intheir old school for a period or transferring themimmediately to the new school, and5. facilitation of adjustment to the new com-7munity, which involves helping new residents , become acquainted and making the organizations andinstitutions of the new community known to them.Items 1-3 represent accepted guidelines for current relocation practice. Items 4 and 5 are not common to current practice and represent possibleopportunities for University-sponsored initiative inresearch and/or demonstration. These deserve special comment.Item 4. It has been observed by the WoodlawnMental Health Center that young children transferred between schools during the school year sufferseverely in academic achievement. The Universitycan assist both the community and the Departmentof Urban Renewal by calling their attention to thisfact and by working with them to alleviate thisproblem.Item 5. Adjustment to a new community is especially difficult for multi-problem families. Becauseof their low income, their large size, and othersevere difficulties, they require intensive serviceswhen moving to a new community. The Universitycan take the lead here by encouraging the development of special projects, services and follow-up forthese families.77/. RecommendationsIt is clear that authority and responsibility for relocation and demolition in South Campus rest withthe Department of Urban Renewal, not with theUniversity.The Subcommittee believes, however, that theUniversity does have the responsibility of an interested and concerned party in this case, and werecommend that it consider acting on that interestand concern as follows.A. As a concerned neighbor, the University canjoin with the community in advocating to the Department of Urban Renewal relocation and demolition practices which are in the best interests of theresidents of South Campus and the neighborhood.The following recommendations are directed to thisend.1. The Subcommittee recommends that the University participate with the community in monitoring and assisting the relocation efforts of the Department of Urban Renewal, with particular attention to the following points for those families yet tobe relocated as well as those who have alreadygone :a) relocation to a neighborhood chosen by theindividual or family; b) relocation to an agreeable distance to employment or other source of support, andc) relocation to a neighborhood not already overcrowded and providing housing which meetsfederal standards and is priced within thefamily's ability to pay.The Subcommittee suggests that such monitoringand assistance be accomplished with the help of theCenter for Urban Studies and other departments inthe University which might find the related researchand training opportunities relevant to their interests.The Subcommittee urges the University to joinwith the community in making vigorous representations to the Department of Urban Renewal andothers whenever deficiencies in relocation plans orpractices appear.2. The Subcommittee recommends that the University encourage the Department of Urban Renewal and others to maintain where structurally andeconomically feasible those South Campus buildingswhich house residents who are not ready for imme-•- diate relocation. The purpose of such maintenanceis twofold: to provide some South Campus residents who so desire the possibility of moving directly into the TWO-Maremont housing on CottageGrove when it is completed, and to allow the relocation of the others to be determnied by favorableopportunities for them rather than by the dictatesof deteriorating buildings.B. As a concerned academic institution, the University, through its interested departments, schools,and centers, can recognize the opportunity theSouth Campus renewal project presents for study,research, and training, and for demonstration ofeffective and humane relocation practice. There canbe a mutuality of interest here: the Universitythrough research and demonstration can inform andinfluence the future conduct of relocation in thiscountry and the residents of South Campus can inturn benefit from a more complete relocation program. The following recommendations are directedto this end.1. The Subcommittee recommends that the University explore with the community and the Department of Urban Renewal the additional relocation considerations of opportunity for school continuity and facilitation of adjustment to the newcommunity. The Subcommittee further recommendsthat the University administration explore with thedepartments, schools, and centers of the Universitytheir possible interest in joining with the communityin developing continuity for relocated children andfor facilitating the adjustment of relocated familiesto their new communities.82. The Subcommittee recommends that the University administration explore with the departments,schools, and centers of the University their possibleinterest in developing along with the communityand the Department of Urban Renewal a researchand demonstration program of special services forthe residents of the remaining South Campus buildings in order to enhance the residents' ability to relocate successfully. Included might be individualand group services, as well as consumer and legaladvice.IV. Shared ResponsibilityThe Subcommittee recommends that in this instance the University, whether acting as a concernedneighbor or an academic institution, should not proceed unilaterally. The University has a fundamentalobligation and self interest in sharing its concernand ideas on the matters discussed in the aboverecommendations with the Woodlawn community,notably The Woodlawn Organization, and to request that a suitable committee from the community work with any committee or committees ofthe University in sanctioning and overseeing whichever of these recommendations the University mightpropose to implement.Harold A. Richman, ChairmanMembers of the SubcommitteeJeremy AzraelMrs. Judith BoggsMichael DuceyCaroline HeckDr. Sheppard G. KellamMaynard C. KruegerMichael MurrinHarold A. Richman, ChairmanGerald SuttlesPeter SwenssonLynn VogelBernard WeinbergGary YudkoffREPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMANThis report was submitted January 6, 1969, andrefers to activities of Autumn Quarter only.I was appointed Student Ombudsman for the University on October 8, 1968, and was asked to fill the following duties: "As Ombudsman it will beyour function to investigate specific complaintswithout superseding the regular remedial processesof the University. While the functions of your officedo not change rules or procedures, you will be expected to determine which complaints should be investigated by your office, to refer complaints to appropriate areas of the University, to suggest remedial steps in settlement of specific complaints, tocall attention to injustices or abuses or discretion,and to suggest changes, or consideration of changesin rules, procedures, or policies."During the past quarter I have dealt with morethan 25 different cases brought to my attention byover 70 students and faculty in the College, theUniversity, and from outside. These have concernedteaching in the College, as well as various administrative rules and one University policy. Of themore minor problems brought to my attention Ihandled approximately 18 to the satisfaction of theparties concerned. Three to five were handled unhappily, while others are still being considered.The greatest number of complaints, as yet unsettled, were about the quality of teaching in theCollege.(In this respect I am happy to note that a committee of students is presently attempting to schedule a conference in the spring to examine the College, its courses, its philosophy, and its achievements. Their efforts should be worthwhile.)Although in my references to teaching I havedealt solely with the Biology Department and withBiology 105, the implications of my remarks, Iwould hope, will be taken far more broadly. Thefaults of common-year biology are to be found inhistory, physical science, and other social sciencesand humanities courses as well. There is no placeat Chicago for a policy tolerating the use of undergraduate teaching assistants. There is, indeed, noreason why even advanced graduate students shouldteach in any but a technical course (such as Mathematics 151) rather than a more idea-oriented course(such as Mathematics 101).In many courses there is a shortage of facultyand facilities for the number of students in theCollege. If the faculty are not available, the Collegeshould give serious thought to cutting its enrollment to manageable size in terms of teaching load,housing, and other necessities.My procedure during the quarter generally hasbeen to act on individual complaints and to settlethem to the satisfaction of the complainant if possible. On occasion all that was required was anexplanation of existing policy. At other times investigations about the expanded use of the Rey-9nolds Club, equalization of wages among variousdivisions for the same jobs, and an examination ofvarious "scholarship" practices were suggested andeither achieved or begun.Many cases that I dealt with could have beenhandled between the complainant and the administrator in charge, had they both been willing to gettogether and examine the problem at hand. Severalcases were involved where a simple explanation ofthe reasons behind a policy would have settled thematter early. It cannot be stated too often thatwhile almost all students are rational and will accept rational explanations for procedures, they willnot be satisfied with an uninformed answer, a sillyanswer, or a diktat.In two cases during the quarter students came upwith examples of bureaucratic rulings that seemedapparently senseless, and quite serious. In each thereason behind the policy was sound, but was notexplained to the students when such explanationswould have saved a good deal of trouble. If administrators and bureaucrats have to make "arbitrary" decisions, they should know the reasons forthem, and be able to explain if asked.I deal in this report only with fairly broad issues ;the individual cases I have dealt with privately.Among them are cases where students requested areview of their scholarship applications, where students were having trouble of various sorts with thehousing staff, both graduate and undergraduate,and where students required some clarification orexplanation of existing University procedure. I havesent memoranda to the offices concerned beforepublishing any comments on the situation.Some years ago a Chicago professor pointed outthat there was a peculiar philosophy of teaching inthe History Department. "Instead of having thesenior men, with their far greater scope of vision,teaching the courses covering the most material,junior professors with limited experience are set tothe task. They have studied only one or two areasintensively, and should be set to teaching aboutthose in 'advanced' courses . . ." Due to the prestigesystem, however, their elders taught the specializedmaterial.The same problem now exists with respect to therequired undergraduate biology course, which isbeing taught by a staff far too few in number forthe job, supplemented by undergraduate teaching assistants. Despite the intensive dedicated work ofsome members of the course staff, there are seriousdoubts that the course, as it is presently constituted, should be offered at The University of Chicago.Some members of the biology faculty may lookupon the recent criticism of the course as an excuseto cease offering any general biology course whatever. It would be most unfortunate if they did so,because this would seriously undermine the conceptof a liberal education, and because it would threatento cut off future generations of biologists.The threat to liberal education is apparent: ifbiologists don't have to waste their time teachingpeople who aren't interested in biology, why shouldmathematicians, social scientists, or anyone else?An acceptance of that doctrine would lead to fragmentation of knowledge with a vengeance. Equallyobviously, if elementary biology courses are ignored,it is difficult to see where advanced students willcome from in the future.In making this report, then, I shall present twoassumptions: there should be an elementary coursein biology, and it should be taught well. To teacha course well requires an adequate number of professors and an interesting curriculum. For severalyears now the Biology 105-6-7 staff has attemptedto meet the second requirement without the first,and has had little success in devising a satisfactorycourse. Presently there are several committeesworking on plans for the course for next year; theirsuggestions on the curriculum should not be hampered by the lack of an adequate faculty.For a course offered as part of the common year,the lecture format, with one professor speaking to350 students at a time, is not desirable. Only themost sensitive teacher can obtain any sort of "feedback" from an audience at a lecture, and not everyone is a most sensitive teacher.Also, undergraduates at Chicago should never beassigned teaching duties in elementary courses, forthe very reasons the history professor gave. Ifgraduate students teach — and there are those whofeel they should be required to, as part of theirtraining — they should teach preprofessional coursesin which concepts are not as important as the accumulation of data. There may be a place for undergraduates as tutors in a department, but theyshould not have the responsibility for conductinglaboratories and discussions and for grading.It has been suggested that the reason for usingfew professors and undergraduate teaching assistants is budgetary, that there is not enough moneyto do an adequate job. That is obviously a questionof priorities, and it would be appropriate if teach-10ing were to have a higher priority than it presentlyenioys. The teaching of undergraduates should notbe left to half a dozen dedicated teachers, workingwith what limited assistance their colleagues see fitto offer.My last point concerns the make-up of a required undergraduate biology course. The curriculum should apply both to those students who areinterested in biology and to those who are not, witha possible preprofessional course required for allbiology majors before 200-level courses can betaken. This would remove the Biology 105 stafffrom the constraints imposed on them by the needfor biology majors to have a substantial backgroundin the field. There should be no attempt on thepart of the required course to teach all of biologyin a single course. At the same time, each problemexamined should be delved into in some depth, sothat superficiality is not rewarded.Finally, it should be pointed out that the Division of the Biological Sciences is the largest inthe University and that, even though many of theM.D.s in Billings Hospital are unable to teach,there are enough professors to teach undergraduates if only they would do so.Although universities are technically corporations, they function best in non-corporate activities.Scholarship and learning are individual matterswhich cannot be decided by the democratic process,and universities are supposed to be concerned withscholarship and learning. In our society, at least,free and independent scholarly work has come to behighly regarded. This University should accept thepositive value of such work and move against forcesthat tend to threaten such independent scholarship.A university operates best with minimal control— it is only tangentially a corporation. Those aspectsof corporate life which are clearly necessities —building maintenance, library construction and support, dormitory construction — are also essential tothe existence of a university and as such are tolerable. Other corporate activities are more central toa university's function, and as such are dangerousto the ideal of academic freedom.Universities, particularly this one, should avoidcorporate positions on matters subject to academicscrutiny and debate. Individuals attending the university, either as students or as faculty, of coursehave the right to contract their services to whom ever they wish, but the university as an institutionshould not do the same.There are two reasons for this, the first of whichis fairly obvious. As the university becomes aninstrument of social reform rather than one ofindependent analysis, there will be increasing pressure from all groups to have a voice in determininghow society shall be reformed. Since the independent university is free of societal constraints, it neednot be — indeed cannot be — democratic, since thereis no control to exercise. The reforming universityis political, and hence subject to many politicalconstraints. One of these is a demand for democratic control. The only way to avoid such demandsfor a share in the power by dissident groups is tohave the university avoid engaging in those enterprises where control is needed.The second danger to free scholarly inquirycomes from a possible conflict of interest betweenthe corporate university and the scholars. There isserious doubt about the freedom of a scholar toinvestigate and report on a problem if the university where he works has done a job n ontractwith some societal group arriving at a currentconclusion from his own. Similarly, professors whodo contract for outside work often lack academicobjectivity in examining the projects on which theyhave worked.The solution seems to be for universities to avoiddoing society's dirty work and to avoid contractualrelations in any but business matters. This doctrine, though accepted in principle at The University of Chicago, has not been followed in practice.The Woodlawn Community School Board (WCSB)presents one example, while The Woodlawn Organization (TWO) — University of Chicago cooperationon the Model Cities program is another.The WCSB is an experimental school board inWoodlawn consisting of three groups of seven representatives each from the Chicago Board of Education, TWO, and the University; a vote of 3-0is necessary for passage. There is no reason for theUniversity to have a vote except to act as an arbitrator between the Board of Education and TWO.Such a role is hardly an academic one and has greatpossibilities for throwing the University into thepolitical arena, where it does not belong. I gatherthat the University is attempting to give up itsvote; it should certainly do so at the earliest opportunity.Another example of unfortunate University involvement concerns the planning for the ModelCities program written by TWO with the University. There was absolutely no reason why TWOcould not have contracted with various members11of the faculty to get help in writing the document;as professors they certainly are within their rightsin using their expertise as they see fit. There areserious doubts as to the rectitude of their using theUniversity name, however. The TWO plan is antidemocratic in its operation, with the political section written so loosely that probably no politicalscientist here could defend it. Is the Universitythen bound to this plan? If it is, what happens tothe professors and students who feel that it shouldbe defeated and who wish to testify against it athearings? Are they opposing University policy? Dothey not have an equal right to use the Universityname in their condemnation of the plan?It is not wise to set precedents on the groundsof immediate necessity, which is the excuse beingused for the University's intimate involvement withurban redevelopment plans. It is far less defensibleto have any sort of corporate ties whatever thatinvolve faculty, students, or teaching, unless theyare of the clearly non-political type (e.g., management by this University, together with others, ofthe Argonne National Laboratory). It must beborne in mind that when the University speaks ina corporate capacity, it speaks with a single voice,stilling all dissent. Such occasions should be avoidedlike the plague, for they are fatal to free intellectualinquiry.When football was banned at the University, thetrustees gave the President the power to end intercollegiate football at Chicago. Intercollegiate football has returned to Chicago and has been here forseveral years now, yet the men who play that gameare not given varsity awards while those who playfor other teams are. As a matter of simple justice,varsity awards should be restored to those who playwhat is in actuality varsity football at Chicago.Presently The University of Chicago has one ofthe largest private telephone exchanges in theworld. There are approximately 4700 phones oncampus, on a dozen exchanges — but most of theseare in offices and in dormitories, with few buildingson campus having public restrict phones (i.e.,phones available to the public from which onlycampus calls can be made). As a result there is agood deal of difficulty in communicating across the campus. Students who wish to check to see if aprofessor is in before they walk to his office, f0rexample, must often walk half or all the distanceto his office in order to pick up a phone.This problem could be alleviated by having campus phones located on the first floor, near the entrance, of each campus building. Campus phonesshould also be located near libraries, although probably only Harper would need phones additional toone at each entrance.Although the additional cost of these phoneswould not be too great, finding someone to pay forthem is problematic. Normally, departments of theUniversity are charged for all telephones in theirbuildings, which may explain why so few are available. Some departments might decide to foot theadditional bill in the public interest, but this issomewhat unlikely. (With the 28 additional phonesneeded, the annual cost would be $3528, with aninstallation cost of $1224.)The Dean of Students might be charged for theadditional phones on the grounds that they represent a service to students, the faculty and the administration having their own office phones. A moreequitable distribution, it seems to me, would be toprorate the cost of the additional phones againstthe total University phone bill. At present thecharges for a phone are set by dividing the likelycost of the phone service (barring long distancecalls) into the total bill. Under the proposed system the additional cost per pay phone would beminimal — rather less than $2 per year.I recognize there are presently dormitories whichhave phones operated through separate switchboards, and I recognize fully that the Universitywill soon be switching to the centrex system, whichwill alleviate much of the trouble caused by theswitchboards. Until the switch is made, however, itwill be convenient to have a few phones per dormitory system which are dial phones operated directlythrough the central campus switchboard, making itpossible to avoid talking through two or threeswitchboards. At least some of these phones shouldbe outdoors where they would be accessible at alltimes in case buildings are locked. The obviouslocations for such phones are under the archway ofthe Social Sciences Research Building, betweenEckhart Hall and Ryerson Laboratory, and in theentrance to Reynolds Club.There is a major problem about the future ofstudent activities in the College. The Cap & Gown12vearbook has ceased publication due to remarkablymall sales last year. It was interesting to note lastvear that the yearbook staff consisted entirely offreshmen and, given the enthusiasm among thisvear's graduating class, the demise of the yearbookis not extremely surprising.The Chicago Maroon is also under pressure andcould fold within a year or so. The financial postureof The Maroon is shaky at best: advertising revenue decreases during the winter months, necessitating a cut in news copy. Burdened as it is withdebts from past years, there is little likelihood thatThe Maroon will become a financially solvent paperin the foreseeable future. Printing costs have risenand advertising revenue is approaching a limit.More serious is the shortage of staff. Although feweditors will confess that their staff is too small, itshould be realized that a campus newspaper willconsider as newsworthy only those events which ithas the staff to cover. If there are more reporters,there will be more news covered in the newspaper —hence more student interest and more people interested in working for the paper. It is a self-supporting cycle which the College seems to have avoidedremedying during the past years.Many people have pointed out that student activities on campus are better than ever this year,that there is ever-increasing student participation invarious groups. It should be borne in mind, however, that organized student activities are thosewhich do least well here and that they are the onesfrom which the University — as opposed to the participants — derives the most benefit.Since the foremost problem these organizationsface is the lack of personnel, incentives should beestablished to attract people to the top jobs on TheMaroon, WHPK, theatre groups, and Doc Films.These incentives would probably have to be monetary, as there is little prestige in working at anything at The University of Chicago.Murphy scholarships might be used in this regard, but for technical reasons it would probably bebetter if the money were made available from someother source. Presently discussions are going on regarding the feasibility of establishing such a structure, but little has been decided.It must be remembered that if working on student activities as mentioned above becomes too unpopular, the activities will cease, as did Cap &Gown. This would involve a great loss to the College and to the quality of life at the University. KALVEN COMMITTEE REPORTON DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURESFebruary 24, 1969TO: Students and Faculty of The University ofChicagoFROM: Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsIn re : The Kalven Committee To Review Disciplinary ProceduresIn the Winter Quarter of 1968, I asked a facultycommittee chaired by Mr. Harry Kalven to reviewthe University's current disciplinary procedures andto advise me of changes that they might thinkappropriate. Other members of the committee were :Mr. Benson Ginsburg, Mr. Robert Platzman, Mr.Harry Roberts, Mr. Reuben Smith, Mrs. JaniceSpofford, Mr. James Vice, Mr. Charles Wegener,and Mr. Karl Weintraub.The Kalven Committee submitted its report tome on January 31 of this year, the day after theoccupation of the Administration Building, and it isnow under study by the Faculty-Student AdvisoryCommittee on Campus Student Life, the advisorygroup with which I have been working for the pastyear.Meanwhile, I have asked Mr. Kalven and hisCommittee to review their recommendations in thelight of the events of the past three weeks and tomake any revisions, suggestions, or additions totheir original report that they feel are appropriate.Mr. Kalven has agreed to ask his Committee to doso.I am releasing today the Kalven Committee'soriginal report, .dated January 30, 1969.Dean Charles D. O'ConnellUniversity of ChicagoChicago, IllinoisDear Chuck:Your Committee to review current discipline procedures and practices at The University of Chicagois at long last ready to pass on to you what recommendations and impressions it has about the problems of discipline. Since we have regarded ourselvessimply as a group of faculty friends and colleaguesto whom you have turned for advice, and not as anofficial formal University Committee, we put ourviews to you in a somewhat informal letter. In thecourse of our review we have looked at so many13solemn, lengthy, ponderous committee reports fromother schools, that we find the format of the letteralmost irresistible.We would indicate at the outset that we have nosharp criticism of existing practices and procedures,although we do have certain suggestions for change.We have been impressed by the concern, high purpose, and decency shown by the existing Committeeon Undergraduate Discipline.We began meeting late in Winter Quarter andmet steadily during Spring Quarter. We had in allsome sixteen meetings, ranging from one-and-a-halfto three hours, plus a seventeenth meeting on January 22 at which we put our report into final formfor you. We decided at the outset against addingstudents as members to our already large group, butwe have made a serious effort to explore studentopinion. During our deliberations we met with somenineteen persons, including two sets of representatives from Student Government (Lipsch, Blum,Birnbaum, Hochberg), a special faculty-studentgroup from the Divinity School (Visick and Wil-coxen), faculty and student members of your Student Life Committee (Connell, Siefert, and Dam),other representative students (Burstein and Bloom) ,several students who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the prior years, and finallyfaculty who had shown special interest in the problems (Skolnick, Zimring, Bemesderfer, Playe, and —O'Connell!). We do not claim to have made a systematic poll of student attitude, but we do feel wehave some rough sense of it, and, not surprisingly,we find it quite mixed, ranging from support of current policy to indignation to indifference.We have also had access to committee reportsfrom other schools, including California, Texas,Wisconsin, Duke, the Cox Report on the Columbiaaffair of last spring, and Visick's report on our ownrank protest of Spring, 1967. In addition, we havehad the benefit of a legal memorandum on judicialreview of disciplinary action by American universities and colleges prepared specially for us by Raymond Kuby of the University counsel's staff.We have looked at figures on the volume andnature of disciplinary business over the past fiveyears. If we put to one side the fifty-some instancesof discipline which followed the Spring, 1967 rankprotest sit-in, the total volume for the five-year interval from 1962 through 1967 is eighty-three cases;and in 1967 the year's total was down to elevencases. In addition to the relatively modest volumeof cases, the figures suggest another point. Whenthey are classified by the academic level of the student, it appears that roughly 75 per cent of all instances have involved Freshmen and Sophomores. As we reach the end of our task, we cannot butreflect on the adage of the mountain and the mouseWe have pursued the problem with a sustainedinterest, we have had lively and engaging debateand discussion, we have put in many hours. "tyeshould somehow have more to say about it nowsome fresher observations to report back to you.There is perhaps some comfort to be found inthis. Our strongest impression is that discipline hasbeen an unimportant issue at this University. It isimportant that it be kept that way. We would offeryou, therefore, as a first observation the followingformula: discipline of students is an alien, unseemly activity for a serious university. There is a presumption against it.We believe that the central and decisive questionabout university discipline is : What is the rationalefor the University exercising any discipline overstudents? We have discussed and argued this pointat length and have concluded that there are twosomewhat different lines of justification, and thatthis distinction in the rationales for discipline hasimplications for other questions such as sanctionsand centralization. Before, however, developing thiscentral distinction, we have two further prefatoryobservations about the University's role in discipline. First, to make its stance as clear as possible,we would recommend that the University explicitlynegate and renounce certain claims. Accordingly wewould assert:(1) that discipline at the level of the Universitycannot be justified on the basis of its educational value;(2) that the University renounces any in locoparentis role as source of disciplinary authority ;(3) that the University renounces any omnibusheading for discipline such as "conduct unbecoming a student and gentleman."Second, it would be useful at this time to restatewhat we take to have been the University's positionand practice with respect to the law. There has beendeveloping in recent years legal doctrine limitingsomewhat the power of a university over its students and providing some judicial review of the propriety of university disciplinary action. We thinkThe University of Chicago has an obligation towarddecency in the administration of discipline whichgoes beyond what the law may now require. Thequestion is not whether the University can be forcedunder law to do this or that, but rather whetherwithin the discretion the law allows it, the Univer-14. should not impose additional norms on itself. Inh'ei the University does not take the position thatthe student's only claims on it are those which acourt will enforce.Our consideration of the issues of discipline haveivoted on a distinction in the rationale for the Uni-ersity engaging in it. As we see it, the basic, elementary, and profound rationale for University dis-inlinary powers is the protection of the intellectualmission of the University. The University is a community of men — teachers, researchers, students,staff, administrators — joined in a common intellectual purpose. That purpose is teaching and trainingand the dissemination of knowledge, the relentlessand enthusiastic pursuit of new knowledge, and theexploration of rational public policy. That is whywe are here and that is why students are here. As acommunity, the University is thus both distinctiveand fragile. The University can properly claim touse the self-help of internal discipline to protect theintegrity of its enterprise ; and that, simply, is whereits essential claim to disciplinary jurisdiction rests.The point may perhaps be approached in anotherway. If the University were to be denied the self-help of discipline, the only alternative in many instances would be resort to public authorities, to callin the police. It is, and it should continue to be, apolicy at this University to call the police slowly,very slowly. We all thus have a profound stake inestablishing a fair, coherent, and viable apparatus ofinternal discipline.This protection of the University mission, then, isthe essential predicate for disciplinary powers. It is,however, a narrow one and covers only a limited,albeit grave, category of offenses. There is a secondpredicate which derives from the need and obligation to police certain aspects of communal lifewhere the University is furnishing the place and thefacilities for the activity. The claim to disciplinaryjurisdiction here is in a sense territorial and contingent upon arrangements which may change fromtime to time, such as the provision for dormitories.The critical problem with this category is to workput a rationale for policing activities on campusconsistent with the University's practice of not policing such activities off campus. Since the activitiesoften have involved such matters as sex, liquor, anddrugs, it is necessary that such discipline be rationalized in non-moralistic terms. We believe thatthe existing practices of the University have followed implicitly the principle we have in mind; weare suggesting simply that the principle now bettade explicit and that the claim to discipline behnked to the protection of the common environ ment for the sake of other students and not to notions of paternalistic morality.If we may indulge in exaggeration to emphasizethe distinction we are struggling for, the first category of offenses might be assimilated to "treason,"the second to "nuisance." In emphasizing a non-moralistic basis for University discipline, we do notwant to be misread. The University is, of course, aplace of deep moral concerns; it is not indifferent tothe moral tone of student life. The point is thatthere are other ways than through discipline of expressing that concern.We have dwelt at length on this distinction between offenses against the mission of the Universityand offenses against University life for two reasons— first, to underscore once again that discipline is asufficiently alien activity for a serious university torequire from us a direct explanation for why weever engage in it, and, second, to note that certainconsequences for personnel, sanctions, and disciplinary institutions seem to us to follow from it.For example, there is the question of whetherthere should be a single University-wide policy onall disciplinary matters or whether discipline shouldbe decentralized and left to each appropriate sectorof the University to handle. We suggest an answeralong the following lines. The offenses against theUniversity's mission, our first category, should behandled on a uniform University -wide basis; theoffenses against University life, our second category, might well continue to be handled, as theyessentially are at present, on "regional" lines withthe College having its disciplinary institutions, theprofessional schools theirs, and the graduate schoolstheirs. There are perhaps three qualifications to bemade on this invitation to variety. ( 1 ) The College,judging from past experience, is likely to have themost active and experienced disciplinary body; itshould be permissible for other parts of the University, if they wish, to utilize in some way College experience by borrowing personnel from its committee, or conceivably referring cases to it. (2) TheDean of Students might well keep some liaison withthe various disciplinary groups at the University,receive reports of their action, and whenever hefound too great a discrepancy in the way comparable problems were handled initiate discussionsamong the interested groups. (3) We shall havesome suggestions about procedures and appeal. Werecommend that these apply uniformly to bothcategories of disciplinary action.We emerge then with a two-level disciplinaryapparatus: a University -wide institution for handling offenses against the mission of the Universityand a "regional" set of institutions for handling15offenses against University life. We have puzzled agood deal over one class of offense which our"theory" would place in the first category but whichUniversity practice has long placed in the secondcategory, namely, cheating and plagiarism. We areimpressed with the ease with which the variousparts of the University have been able to handlethis and we are recommending it continue to behandled on a regional basis, whatever violence thismay do to the integrity of our theory. Finally, wewould note that there is perhaps a third level, oneabout which we have no recommendations — thehouse discipline within the dormitory itself. Here,there is considerable variation in the degree of organization of life within a dormitory and the sanctions are limited. We would leave this aspect of theproblem, as it now is, under the jurisdiction of theDirector of Student Housing and the Dean of Students and with the hope that there will be furtherevolution of local house government systems.The distinction in the rationale for disciplinemay also throw some light on another question:What should be the relationship of University discipline to public law in cases where the conduct involved is a violation of public law? We are impressed with the fact that certain conduct may wellbe a far more serious offense against the Universitythan against the public order. As we have indicated,we would urge that the University insofar as humanly possible handle its problems without resort topublic authority. If, however, circumstances do notmake this possible and an overlap occurs betweenpublic offenses and offenses against the mission ofthe University, we would not as a matter of principle say that the University should surrender itsclaim to discipline. We further recommend that ifthe student commits a public offense off campus, thematter be left to the public authorities to handleand not be made an occasion for University discipline. Finally, in our category of offenses againstUniversity life, if the conduct should also be anoffense against public law, we would recommendthat the University weigh this factor in decidingwhether or not any purpose would be served by itsown exercise of discipline. In this area, unlike thefirst category, the public offense may engulf theoffense against University life. Here again we regardourselves as simply stating what implicitly has beenthe University's operating policy.Coming then to the issue of personnel in decisionmaking in matters of discipline, we find the distinction a useful guide. For the category of offensesagainst University life, we are persuaded that thereis some point to the student desire to participate inthe decision-making process. Here the student may usefully contribute a kind of "student judicial n0,tice" of contemporary student culture relevant tnevaluating the conduct involved. We would recom-mend, therefore, a change in the current practiceunder which there are student observers but not stu.dent judges. For offenses against University life Wewould recommend that the disciplinary body consistof an equal number of students and faculty. Sinceproblems are likely to be more frequent and recurring in this area, as the experience with the Undergraduate Committee on Discipline suggests, theremay be some advantage in continuity of administration and in having, therefore, a body that servesthroughout a year, and having perhaps also a per-manent non-voting member drawn from the administration of the area who could provide continuity from year to year. We see no reason for acomplicated formula for selection of the membersof such a body, since each sector of the Universitymay employ its own formula and since we do notthink there is really a problem of judicial bias involved. One obvious solution is for the studentmembers to be drawn from or selected by theelected student council in the appropriate area.We see somewhat differently the constitution ofthe body to pass on offenses against the mission ofthe University. Here, as a matter of principle, wewould vest jurisdiction in the tenured faculty as themost permanent part of the University community.Since offenses in this category may involve gravesanctions and since the business will hopefully notbe frequent, we do not recommend a permanentbody, but rather an analogy to the jury that a committee be convened for the occasion and that itsmembers be drawn each time by the President ofthe University, with the advice of the Committee ofthe Council, from the roster of tenured faculty. Notto be slavish about following the jury model, acommittee of, say, seven or nine would seem aboutright in size. Finally, we would favor continuing forthis purpose the current practice of student observers.We turn now to sanctions. Here, we meet an ineradicable difficulty with University discipline: thepaucity of alternatives with respect to sanctions.The sanctions available to a university run the riskof being either too trivial for its purposes or toograve. We debated the matter of fines at somelength, but finally concluded that for the most partthey made an inappropriate and awkward sanctiondespite their flexibility. We are left then with suspension and expulsion at the one extreme and suspension of privileges at the other. The latter often16smack of the childish, of being kept after school;and in any event, this University does not alwaysoffer a suitable range of privileges to be sacrificed !We find ourselves somewhat defeated by thepuzzle of sanctions. We do not see our basic distinction in the rationale for use of sanctions as carryingover literally to the choice of sanctions. Offensesagainst the mission of the University would in general be graver than those against University life,and we would expect to find the use of suspensionfar more frequent with respect to the first category,but again the matter need not be one for inflexiblerule. We are tempted to one further observation.The paucity of sanctions available to the Universitycan be read as another indication that it should keepits disciplinary business to a minimum, limited torelatively grave offenses for which its sanctionsmight be appropriate.As to appeals, we have one brief suggestion.There is, we think, no need for new institutions andapparatus. We would favor vesting in the University Dean of Students the single and final powerover appeals in all cases. And we would make explicit what has been the rule in practice: Appealscan move in one direction only ; they should go onlyto clemency and there should be no power to enlarge or make harsher any initial disciplinary judgment. To facilitate this approach, it might be necessary to change the current practice of having thedisciplinary body make recommendations to theDean of Students; rather it should make decisionssubject to appeal.We have debated at length the issue of how detailed and specific the code of disciplinary offensesshould be. We think it might be wise to re-examineat this time the statements in the Student Handbook pertaining to both of our categories of offenses,and to consider some redrafting of them in light ofour curernt recommendations. What the studentneeds is not a code but a full statement of the University's position and policy and procedures on discipline. On the key matter of offenses against theUniversity's mission, we do not favor specific enumeration but would settle on a clean statement ofthe principle: The deliberate interference withthe mission of the University in teaching activities,research activities, or supportive administrative oroperational activities, in an effort to coerce University decisions — that is the gist of the offense. Wewould always leave it open to the student in a particular instance to appeal to the principle and toargue that his conduct did not fall within it.There is one final puzzle in all this, associatedwith the term civil disobedience. Is civil disobedience against the University possible and, if so, should the University in its position on disciplinesympathetically acknowledge it? We will confineourselves to three brief observations. First, the tradition of civil disobedience since Socrates has always involved a willingness to accept the punishment, and its moral force as an appeal to the conscience of the community has stemmed from thisfact. Second, the moral use of civil disobedience requires a genuine effort first to exhaust the otherchannels of redress available. Third, in its disciplinary administration the University should alwaysleave it open to the student to present on his behalfhis motivation in acting as he did.In reviewing the existing experience, we havebeen impressed with how extremely infrequently thedisciplinary hearings have involved any dispute offact. Indeed, the somewhat informal practices of theUndergraduate Committee appear to have derivedfrom the circumstance that they have almost neverbeen confronted with controversy over the facts;the issue rather has been what should be done withthe student. This practice has had both its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages have beenthose of informality, of removal of adversary tensions, of concern with the student's welfare. Thedisadvantages are that any description of the procedures makes it appear that there is not adequateprocedural protection of the student and that in theoccasional case where disciplinary hearings haveproceeded in the teeth of a disputed issue of fact,the procedures may in reality not prove adequate.We deem it important that the issue of proceduraldue process in disciplinary hearings not be blown upall out of proportion. The problem is to introduce arational procedure for inquiry into disputed issuesof fact without destroying, in other cases, the advantages of the current informal practices.We suggest that the elaboration of procedures depends primarily on whether the facts are in dispute.However, whether or not the facts are in dispute,certain procedures should be followed, because theremay still be important issues bearing solely on theappropriate punishment or sanction :(i) The student should have the right to berepresented by a friend or counsel to present his side of the matter and whatever canbe urged in extenuation.(ii) The student should at the outset be informed as clearly as possible, probably inwriting to avoid misunderstanding, what theoffense charged against him is.(iii) He should be given adequate time, say threedays, to prepare his case on factors affectingon punishment.17(iv) There should be an obligation on the bodyhearing the matter to dispose of it promptly,say, within a day or two or certainly withina week(v) A record of the proceeding should be keptin order to make feasible an appeal. Thehearing record should be considered asstrictly confidential, and in this connectionyou might wish to consider a provisioncomparable to that found in the Universityof Texas rules under which the hearing isdestroyed after the appeal and only an impersonal summary of the charge and its disposition is retained.If there is dispute as to the facts, the procedurenecessarily becomes more complicated. In additionto the five points above, the following provisionscommend themselves:(vi) After he has received notice of the charges,the student should be asked at the outsetwhether he wishes a hearing on issues offact and, if so, then adequate time to prepare his defense, say, one week.(vii) Decision should be based on and limited bya record; that is, the body deciding thematter should make its decision solely onthe basis of evidence put into the record.(viii) There should be something akin to a presumption of innocence. This would be morea set of mind than a formal rule. Theatmosphere at the hearing should be one inwhich it is recognized that the burden ofproof is on the University and not on thestudent.,(ix) To some extent, at the student's option, thehearing should be public in the sense that alimited number of outside observers bepermitted to be present.(x) There should be a chance for the studentto present witnesses and other evidence onhis behalf and to utilize for this purposethe University's powers of invitation, limited though they are.(xi) No winesses should be heard outside thepresence of the student charged and thereshould be a chance for the student to havequestions put to adverse witnesses.(xii) The student should be advised at the outset of his procedural rights. Despite these analogies to legal procedures, thereremains one central difference which it would bemost difficult to eliminate. There seems to be noappropriate way to provide a prosecution so as toput the discipline committee in the posture of adjudicating adversary presentations by a prosecutionand a defense. As a result the discipline committeewdll have to play something of an inquiring role (orin the legal term of art, an inquisitorial role) andon its own motion collect evidence and interrogatewitnesses.It may be appropriate, when the committee sowishes, for it to have its own counsel.Finally, the procedural requirements do not depend on the distinction in the rationale for discipline of which we have made so much. They shouldapply in all instances where there is a dispute offact and to the degree indicated even when there isnot, regardless of whether the offense is against themission of the University or against University life.The last word is, with appropriate irony, aboutthe Dean of Students. His office, which has no legalanalogue, would play an important role at the startand at the end of any disciplinary matter. The University Dean of Students is the final arbiter ofappeal. His office should continue to be the channelthrough which the disciplinary machinery is initially put into motion. The Dean of Students in theCollege, in the Divisions, and in the Schools shouldcontinue to play the role of screening complaintsand deciding whether a matter warrants referral toa disciplinary committee. The University Dean ofStudents should make the initial determination as towhether the matter should be handled as an offenseagainst the University mission or against Universitylife. In cases of offenses against the mission of theUniversity, because of the possible gravity of thematter, it might be well to empower the Committeeof the Council of the University also to initiate disciplinary action and the convening of the University Disciplinary Committee.The exact office of the Dean of Students variesconsiderably, of course, as we move from one partof the University to another, but it would seem desirable that neither the University Dean of Studentsnor the Deans of Students in the College, the Divisions, or the Schools should be members of any disciplinary committee.We regard a good part of what we have set out inthis letter as nothing more than an explicit re-statement of existing practices and principles. Theremay, however, be some value at the present time ina single over-all statement of the University's position on discipline.18In the end, in its relationship with its students the Robert Platzmanobjectives of a university should be freedom and Harry Robertsjustice and affection. At this University, there is Reuben Smithevery reason for the confidence that those objec- Ianice Spoffordtives can be realized. James ViceHarry Kalven, Jr., Chairman Charles WegenerBenson Ginsburg Karl WeintraubTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESiiooo»0J9S0H.0)OSOONU>^1