THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO iEECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 4REPORT OF THE STUDENT CONTENTS /April 24, 1969OMBUDSMAN1 Report of the Student OmbudsmanApril 16, 1969My report for the Winter Quarter deals with theevents surrounding and following the University'sdecision not to rehire Mrs. Marlene Dixon, anAssistant Professor holding a joint appointment inthe Department of Sociology and the Committeeon Human Development. A chronology of the sit-in and other disturbances that resulted is includedas a second part of this report. The first part is ananalysis of those events.The nature of the disruption achieved by students is, of course, an important element in decidingwhat, if anything, should be done by the University in reprisal. There are serious philosophicalarguments that must be considered in any suggestion that amnesty or clemency be granted. Thereare some remarks that appear called for by the behavior of the Oaks Committee and the studentswho so regularly besieged it. Finally there are somenecessary commentaries on the nature of the University.In that the sit-in was designed to stop the University from continuing on its normal day-to-dayroutine, it was quite successful. Several hundredstudents stopped everything else they were doing tostay around the Administration Building. Severalthousand students stopped studying and started debating the relative merits of the^ various positionsin the sit-in. Much, if not most, of the faculty werelikewise shaken out of their daily routine and intoan examination of what they were doing, why theywere doing it, and even what its effects were. Inaddition, the daily routine of administering theUniversity was completely halted.There are those who view these ends as good inthemselves, that it is a good thing to shake peopleout of their ruts every once in a while. I wouldagree that everyone should periodically look aroundand see what he is doing, see if it is good, and see ifhe wants to continue. I would think that there arepeople who are so inured to what they are doingthat they do not see that it has evil consequences —so immersed in daily work that they cannot see thelong-term effects. I would nonetheless question theutility of allowing any group of four hundred to dictate the behavior of ten thousand without persuading them.A university exists, supposedly, as a place wherepeople can study — where they can increase andpropagate knowledge. Assuming that the studentsand faculty have by and large come here for thatpurpose, I question the desirability of allowingothers to stop them from pursuing their desiredavocations. There is no compulsion on the studentswho are, here to study, and no reason indeed whythey should be here if they are not interested instudying. This is a fundamental point which manystudents seem to have missed about the University.If the academic style of life is irrelevant — as it isto so many people — -the proper answer is to leadsome other style of life. It does seem somewhat inappropriate to dictate to those few genuine academics what their life style must be. Against theargument that the University is not entirely academic, and that indeed it has large political andcorporate ties, I would argue that the proper placeto fight political battles is in the political arena —whether that be viewed as the ballot box or thebarricades. Either way, a university is an inappropriate location, except as a battleground for menfsminds. I would hope that this University will continue to allow outstanding scholars of all politicalpersuasions to engage in such scholastic battles asthey wish within the confines of the University andin such political battles as they wish without thewalls of the ivory tower. There are those in thefaculty and administration who would have a relevant university, as would the students who sat inlast quarter. Both should be repudiated no matterwhat immediate ends they would relate to.In addition to cancelling all routine administrative work at the University, the sAt-in had anothereffect, with a far greater long-term cost. Those menresponsible for administering the University wereexhausted, both mentally and physically. Matterswould have been bad enough with the incrediblerange of meetings, the external pressure to "dosomething" and the internal pressure to "nego-1tiate." The actions of some students in making aconstant stream of late-night phone calls, marchesto houses, and the threats, real or implied, to thefamilies of the men concerned did not improve theatmosphere.I cannot understand the purpose behind themarches to the President's House, shouting a narrow range of obscene epithets, or such actions as thetheft of photographs from Charles Daly's office,showing him with John and Robert Kennedy. Suchactions are either those of true twentieth-centuryvandals or of truly diseased minds.In either case I cannot think that anyone wouldwant to put himself in a position in which he wouldbe exposed to such attacks. Similarly, the attackson those administrators and faculty members whoserved summonses may succeed in deterring othersfrom filling the same function in the future. Onewonders about the utilitarian aspects of having aninstitution with no one taking responsibility for anyactions, or with all conduct determined by the mostmilitant group on campus. If all executive posts arevacated, because life therein is too hazardous orbothersome, that will tend to be the situation. If nomembers of the faculty are willing to stand up forwhat they believe in, they will not have a university much longer. These statements apply not merely to this University, but to institutions generally.If the style of conflict is to be as destructive as itwas, and if the people in the community are aboutto tolerate that style of conflict, only the physicallystrong and those who like combat will be willing toexpose themselves in any executive capacity. I forone would not care to be a member of such asociety.In considering whether amnesty or clemencyshould be extended to the students involved in thesit-in (and presumably in the other incidents aswell, although this has not been clearly defined),several points need to be mentioned. Amnesty implies a political recognition of legitimacy on thepart of the University to those students who werechallenging the legitimacy of the University. Amnesty could be extended only if the Universitywere to be persuaded of the rectitude of the causebeing backed by the sitters-in. In one sense it canbe argued that the demonstrators who were suspended and expelled are paying a penalty for theirfailure to persuade the University that they wereright in staging the sit-in. Although no one can denythe right of any man to attempt to overthrow anexisting organization, no one can deny that organization the right to fight back. It can be argued forany given organization that that organization should not continue in its present course, but if theargument fails to persuade, those people whosechoice of tactics is noxious to the organization willfind themselves being punished. Amnesty is grantedonly to successful revolutionaries. Since even thestudent body rejected the use of a sit-in as a tactic,the demonstrators were not successful. They chosethe sit-in as a trial of strength and lost. To grantamnesty under those conditions would be illogical.Clemency differs from amnesty in that it is thegranting of mercy. There is no recognition oflegitimacy in the granting of clemency, and it couldbe granted by the University if there were somereason to do so. Clemency could be granted for aminor prank, with fair assurances that it would notreoccur, especially when the only possible punishments are too severe. Likewise clemency could begranted, as it was in 1967, to a group of studentswho, it was assumed, did not know any better.Clemency could also be granted if the Universitywere persuaded that, although the tactics used werereprehensible, the students had pointed out anerror on the University's part which it would otherwise have overlooked.Clemency ought not to be granted to anyone unless there are special factors calling for mercy, suchas the difficulty of deciding whether the actiontaken was an incorrect one or not. Since sit-inshave been against University policy for three yearsnow, it would seem that the community has decidedon the use of that tactic.Sincerity cannot be used as a criterion forclemency; it is quite possible to be completely sincere and yet dead wrong. From a utilitarian pointof view it would be impossible to maintain anyinstitution, much less a university, if every group ofsincere people who wanted changes in the statusquo used violence to achieve their ends. Assumingthat sincere people can disagree, should an institution tolerate two or more competing groups, eachdestroying the institution in an attempt to gaincontrol so that their ends can be achieved? Obviously it could not do so if it would.The only argument that I can see for clemencyfor the demonstrators rests upon their having beenright in demanding that Mrs. Dixon be rehired.They took the action that they did because of theirbelief that they were right and everyone elsewrong. There is no conceivable reason why, evengranting that they were right, the Universityshould want them around if they have not persuaded the community of the justice of theircause. In the eyes of the University, right or wrong,the demonstrators were a willful minority attempt-2ing to coerce the majority; such behavior is intolerable here. Since they have not persuaded thecommunity of the justice of their claims, thereshould be no clemency granted on a widespreadbasis.The students who went into the AdministrationBuilding knew that they would be subject to disciplinary action. They had been warned repeatedlythat they would be, and they had the precedent ofthe sit-in in the spring of 1967 as a guide. To arguethat the University's actions were unforeseeableand that the demonstrators could not plan for themin the light of the above seems somewhat disingenuous.Handbills were distributed before the studentsentered the Building, pointing out that the studentsknew they faced expulsion, but that their cause wasworth the risk. It would seem somewhat paternalistic to then imply that students, being immaturepolitical animals, did not know what they did andshould not therefore be punished for it. The corollary of that view is that, as the students are immature, their views need not be given serious attention. I would argue that students are mature, thatthey know what they do, and that their viewsshould be considered on the merits of the ideas presented, not on the source. Their actions should likewise be allowed to speak for themselves, withoutregard to the source.On this final point it seems that there are somelegitimate grievances against the Oaks Committeefor the way in which it handled certain cases beforeit. If it has been determined that a sit-in is disruptive to the University, and if it is determined thattwo or more students participated in it equally,their punishments should be equal, subject only tothe possibility that some were previously found tohave violated the same rules. In the hearings conducted by the Oaks Committee questions wereasked by members of the Disciplinary Committeewhich had no possible relevance to the impositionof a just sentence on the students involved. Thishas led to serious questions being asked about thefairness of the Oaks Committee's actions, evengiven the assumption that they were appointed tohear the cases of students involved in a demonstration which directly threatened their power. The students who were involved in a constant attempt toharass the Oaks Committee, making circuses out ofthe hearings and following the Committee aroundvarious locations, cannot truly wonder at anyshortness of temper on the part of the Committee.One might indeed wonder at its restraint.The major problem with the disciplinary situa tion, and one of the major causes of true injustices,was the randomness with which people were summoned. Students who were not known by those administrators and faculty who went into the Buildinghad a far better chance of avoiding summonsesthan did better known students. There was no wayto summon all the students in the Building withoutsending in some kind of police force to clear theBuilding. This alternative was considered unacceptable by the Committee of the Council. Thosefaculty members who have complained about theinjustices inherent in unequal summoning of students, and who refused to participate themselves,are themselves the perpetrators of injustice unlessthey feel that sit-ins are an appropriate means ofself-expression. To argue that students who wereguilty of disrupting the University should not, bepunished unless all such students are punished isakin to arguing that, if there is a band of bankrobbers and only half of them are caught, noneshould be punished until all are caught. Such anargument has little relation to justice.Charges have been raised that the expulsionswere politically motivated. To prove those chargesone would have to show that a student with certainpolitical views who had not committed any ex-pellable offenses had still been expelled. As yet Ihave seen no such evidence. I have seen evidencethat there is a high correlation between leaders ofthe New Left on campus and those who were expelled. Since there was an even higher correlationof New Left leaders and those people committingexpellable acts, however, I would suggest that theOaks Committee had more than sufficient reasonfor the expulsion decisions it made. That membersof the Committee asked improper questions doesnot detract from the final justice of their result.Finally, it seems that there is a certain amountof confusion about the very nature of The University of Chicago, this confusion forming a majorcause of the trouble during the winter. The University since its founding has defined itself in terms ofits faculty. The University is as good as the members of the faculty and it is run by members of thefaculty.Universities can be run under different plans—and run quite well. Given that there is presently awide diversity in the governing structures of American universities, and given that several fairly different types have resulted in good universities, Ican see little point in having only one proper formof university governance.Since the faculty run Chicago, they ought to beallowed to continue to run it as they please. There3is a minor proviso, that if they do what studentsconsider a poor job no one will come; if they ignorethe stream of student ideas that keep the academiesalive and vigorous, the University will stagnate.Those dangers are not immediate, though quite real.Far more immediate is the threat posed by thosewho would change the governing structure of theUniversity. Presently there is little internal government at Chicago; the faculty members are largelyautonomous. This autonomy has developed as aresult of struggles for academic freedom and isclosely related to that freedom. Since internal discipline of the faculty does not exist, no one candiscipline a faculty member for his political viewsor academic approaches to questions. Recently certain professors have not been rehired, with thecharge leveled that their "firing" was politicallymotivated. Since, as mentioned above, Chicago defines its stature in terms of the quality of its professors, and since by rejecting people for politicalreasons Chicago might be rejecting good scholarswho would then be lost to it, such a course of actionwould run counter to the interests of the University, and of the faculty who identify with it.• • •In this section of my report I attempt to* dealwith all of the major events of the disturbances oncampus, but I may have missed some of the lessimportant incidents. There are several questionsabout credibility raised whenever such a report iswritten ; I have endeavored to rely solely upon eyewitness accounts and on notes written at the time.I have also used a fairly complete file of flyers thatwere distributed on campus relating the various incidents that occurred. In some cases, as will benoted below, I have relied upon University files. Itried to be at many of the meetings that took placeon campus, but I found it impossible to keep upwith even a small fraction of them.On Tuesday, January 7, The Maroon reportedthat Mrs. Dixon had been denied reappointment fora second three year term as Assistant Professor.The Committee on Human Development hadrecommended that she be reappointed, but althoughtheir recommendation was unanimous, some members of the Committee felt that a one or two yearreappointment would be sufficient. The Departmentof Sociology felt otherwise, and unanimously suggested that Mrs. Dixon did not deserve to be reappointed. Commenting (February 12, 1969) uponthe work that Mrs. Dixon had submitted to the Department of Sociology for review in making theirdecision about rehiring, Professor of Sociology Ed ward Shils wrote:The careful study for the second time of Mrs.Dixon's written accomplishment leaves me withthe conclusion at which I arrived after the firstreading, namely that Mrs. Dixon's level of performance is at best unqualifiedly mediocre. Shehas not a single relatively original, or even boldidea. She has not pursued a central theme withrigor nor in depth. The data which she hadgathered has no connection with the generalproblem with which she introduces them. Theplanning of the research in relation to the generalproblem — whatever she conceived it to be — wasdefective. Her knowledge of the literature of hersubject is limited to the best known publicationsof recent years. She lacks analytical skill. She isunimaginative. Such perspectives or theoreticframework as she possesses belong to the problematic cliches of the present day.From the evidence that Mrs. Dixon presented tothe Department of Sociology one would have toagree with Professor Shils. I gather from a varietyof sources, however, that Mrs. Dixon did not see fitto present to the Department of Sociology thoseessays, dealing particularly with women, which sheconsidered to be her best work. I have not readthose essays; they may easily be of a far betterquality than the work on engineers, which she submitted. Mrs. Dixon wrote, in a statement datedFebruary 1, "Let me also make the followingdoubly clear : I am a researcher-teacher, and I haveevery intention of publishing my work. What / donot want to do is to put my knowledge and skill towork for those who rule this country; I want myknowledge and skill to work for those who want tobe free." [Her emphasis.] From other of Mrs.Dixon's statements I would gather that she includesthe University's Department of Sociology in theformer category.At The University of Chicago the Dean ofFaculties is responsible for making faculty appointments. He acts upon recommendation of the department or departments concerned, usually with arecommendation from the Dean of the Division.Either the divisional Dean or the Dean of Facultiesmay reject the advice of a department when urgedto hire someone, but only once was a serious attempt made to have a professor hired over theobjections of the department. That appointmentwas rescinded when the department threatened toresign in protest. In the case of Mrs. Dixon, SocialSciences Dean D. Gale Johnson agreed with theDepartment of Sociology and suggested that she4not be rehired. John T. Wilson, as Dean of Faculties, concurred. Given. the traditions of the University those men had only two choices: they couldeither refuse to rehire Mrs. Dixon or they couldsend her file back to the Committee on Human Development and ask if they wanted her without ajoint appointment. Such appointments do exist inthat Committee, but they are few. Besides that, theDeans had good reason to doubt the value of therecommendation from the Committee on HumanDevelopment over that of the Department of Sociology. The Department of Sociology is one of themost demanding departments in the University; itis also one of the best. The Committee on HumanDevelopment is not as dedicated as is the Department of Sociology to obtaining either outstandingscholars or outstanding teachers, being much moreeasily satisfied with mediocrity. The members ofthe Committee, individually and collectively, seemto have great difficulty in telling anyone that hiswork is of a quality unacceptable at The Universityof Chicago and that he either ought to leave hisprofession or go elsewhere. Since the strength of agreat University can be measured in its ability todispense with mediocrity, the Deans were right inrejecting Mrs. Dixon on the available evidence.Whatever Mrs. Dixon's qualifications as a scholar, she has many qualities which have won her afollowing among certain of the students on campus.She cared about their welfare and related to theirproblems far more than did most faculty here. Shebecame a friend and confidant of her students. Herfriends, quite naturally, were appalled at the idea ofher not being around in the future. As Mrs. Dixonhad been quite active in New Left politics, herfriends were largely drawn from the ranks of theNew Left.Charges were immediately raised that Mrs. Dixonwas fired for one or more of the following reasons :that she was part of the New Left, that she was awoman and that she had not published sufficiently.The level of the debate heated up rapidly, as theWomen's Liberation Movement, the Students for aDemocratic Society and the New University Conference all attacked the University's decision not torehire Mrs. Dixon. Dean Johnson was unwilling, aswere the other members of the faculties concerned,to discuss the specifics of the case or to release anyinformation about Mrs. Dixon without her writtenpermission. This she did not give until her February1 statement, which authorized the release of heracademic work to the public.Both sides scheduled meetings for Friday afternoon, January 17. Dean Johnson responded to an SDS request for an open meeting to discuss theDixon case by calling for a meeting to "discuss theprocedures and criteria for reappointment and promotion in the Division of the Social Sciences." TheDixon supporters, by that point organized into aCommittee of 85, asked students to attend theJohnson meeting and demand an agenda, adoptedby vote, with discussion of the specific factors inthe Dixon case first on that agenda, and a studentchairman from the meeting. These demands weremade at the meeting and adopted afte. Dean Johnson, together with Sociology Chairman MorrisJanowitz and Human Development Chairman William Henry, had indicated that they would notremain for the discussion if the Committee of 85had their way. The Committee of 85 won the voteand the faculty left the meeting.That Sunday Dean Johnson asked Dean Wilsonto appoint a faculty committee to investigate thedecision not to rehire Mrs. Dixon. Known after itschairman, Mrs. Hannah Gray, the committee included Robert Fogel, Jacob Getzels, Helen HarrisPerlman, Stuart A. Rice, Susanne Hoeber Rudolphand M. Brewster Smith.1 At the time of the appointment Mrs. Dixon expressed full confidence inthe integrity of the committee.It was during that week, however, that the issueof Mrs. Dixon's reappointmemnt began to lose itsearly importance. An unsigned leaflet following theJanuary 17 meeting and the appointment of theGray Committee had two demands — that Mrs.Dixon be rehired and that students "have equal decision making power in faculty selection." On January 23 a note was sent from the Committee of 85 tothe University Administration saying in part: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. [Their emphasis.]On January 27 students staged a sit-in in thelobby of the Social Sciences Building and in Dean1 Mrs. Gray is an Associate Professor of History, Mr;Fogel a Professor of Economics, Mr. Getzels a Professorof Psychology and Education, and Mrs. Perlman aProfessor in the School of Social Service Administra-. tion. Mr. Rice is a Professor of Chemistry, Mrs. Randolph an Associate Professor of Political Science, andMr. Smith Professor and Chairman of the Departmentof Psychology.5Johnson's office. According to Dean Johnson theoffice was locked; despite this, the students enteredwhile the office was unoccupied. When Dean Johnson returned to his office, he found that studentswere occupying it, that although he was permittedto sit in his chair he did not have access to thetelephone, and that one student was engaged inlooking through his files.The sit-in started at noon, as did a meeting ofthe Committee of the Council of the FacultySenate. The Committee "determined" that thedemonstration was disruptive, and at 1:55 p.m. anotice to that effect was given to the demonstrators,who had been planning to leave at 2 p.m. in anycase. On the same day the Gray Committee requested that students and faculty interested intalking about the Dixon case get in touch withthem.At a Tuesday night meeting of the Committee of85 it was decided that some sort of militant actionwould have to be taken if the University did notrespond favorably to their demand's by Wednesdaymorning. A meeting to discuss the sort of militantaction was scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.The Wednesday meeting was packed, literally andfiguratively. There were approximately 1,200 peoplein Mandel Hall (capacity 1,060)' as the result ofefforts by both the administration and the Committee of 85 to mobilize supporters. The chairmanpolled the students and faculty at the meeting, asking how many supported the two demands of theCommittee of 85 that Mrs. Dixon be rehired andthat students have equal share with faculty in hiring of faculty. Fewer than 500 agreed, and thechairman requested that the others not vote. Afterextensive and raucus debate a vote was takensuggesting that militant action be taken immediately, as the University had not acceded to theprevious demands by the deadline. This passed bya recorded vote of 444 to 430, with 82 abstainingand several hundred not voting at all. It was decided to postpone any decision about the nature ofthe action for another meeting that evening inKent 107.At the second meeting it was decided to stagea sit-in in the Administration Building but not toopen any files there.A flyer released the day the sit-in started, January 30, made two new points. A new demand waslisted, "That any pay loss suffered by employees asa result of our action be recompensed by the University," and a rationale for the sit-in was produced."At a later meeting a large body of students decided on the necessity of a sit-in as a protests against discrimination against women, political suppression, and the narrow academic standard's of theU. of C, and as an educational experience to explore the nature of the University and the education we are receiving here." [My emphasis.]Another document, released from the Administration Building by the students after the sit-instarted, announced for the first time that theirdemand to rehire Mrs. Dixon was non-negotiable.It concluded:What do we hope to accomplish? The grantingof our demands. We know that we risk disciplinary action; but we have decided that we mustsustain this risk in a principled effort to makethe university take one small step toward internal democracy and a new role in the externalsociety. We ask your support. [Signed] Ad HocSteering Committee.The same day that the sit-in started, a disciplinary committee was appointed by the Committeeof the Council. It was chaired by Dallin Oaks, withDrs. Louis Cohen and Alexander Gottschalk andMessrs. Gwin Kolb, Arthur Mann, Anthony Tur-kevich, Peter Vandervoort, Karl Weintraub andLennard Wharton.2 The student observers, aftertwo resigned in protest, were John Bremner, Michael Denneny, Jonathan Dean and Mary SueLeighton. More than one hundred summonses wereissued to students the first day of the sit-in, butmany of these were duplicates and many otherswere made out with incorrect names.On the same day the Committee of the Councilmade it quite clear that they would not negotiatewith the students occupying the AdministrationBuilding under such circumstances. Throughout thesit-in the Committee was to adopt the position thatit would do nothing that would tend to legitimizethe sit-in; among the actions it rejected as a resultwere cancellation of classes and any changes inpreviously established disciplinary procedures.Another meeting was held in Mandel Hall thesame day that the sit-in started. Called by a groupentitled the "Concerned Students," the meeting setwhat was to be a frequent precedent of passing2 Mr. Oaks is a Professor in the Law School, Dr.Cohen an Associate Professor of Medicine, and Dr.Gottschalk the Director of the Argonne Cancer Research Hospital. Mr. Kolb is Professor and Chairmanof the Department of English, Mr. Mann is a Professorof History, Mr. Turkevich the James Franck Professorof Chemistry, and Mr. Vandervoort an Associate Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Mr. Weintraubis the Thomas E. Donnelly Associate Professor of History, and Mr. Wharton is Associate Professor of Chemistry.6resolutions calling for several goals that appearedto be desirable, even if self-contradictory. Othermeetings were held Saturday, February 1, andthroughout the weekend. At almost all of thesemeetings resolutions were passed calling for amnesty for the sitters-in. The meetings on Saturdaydid have some interesting points, however. Afteran initial meeting in Quantrell Auditorium thegroup broke up into , small discussion sections byfield of academic study to talk about the place ofstudents in hiring faculty. Enough people from theBuilding came over with good enough organizationso that each small group discussion had two or threepeople who pushed for. resolutions calling for amnesty. No resolutions favoring Mrs. Dixon werepassed. At the larger meeting, when everyone reconvened, reports of the group chairmen were readand a vote was taken and, amnesty approved, thesitters-in withdrew from the meeting, leaving it inconfusion.Amnesty had become an issue with the start ofthe sit-in, when the original issue, or issues, of Mrs.Dixon and student power, were added to. It wasdecided by the students in the Building that thereshould be four non-negotiable demands; a negotiating committee was elected to present them tothe Administration. These demands were:1) The immediate rehiring of Marlene Dixonas Assistant Professor of Sociology and HumanDevelopment.2) The acceptance in principle of equal student-faculty power in the hiring and firing of pro-.fessors.3) That any pay loss suffered by employees asa result of our action be recompensed by theUniversity.4) Amnesty with the understanding that weconsider our actions legitimate and not subjectto discipline.The first few days after the start of the sit-inproved an interesting fact about the faculty. Manyof them were quite willing to talk with students,but few were willing to concede the students' demands. Much of the faculty seemed willing andeager to establish that they wanted to talk withstudents, but few were willing to point out that,unless the students were remarkably persuasive,they were not about to convince the faculty thatstudents should have a share in the running of TheUniversity of Chicago. Many faculty, consciouslyor unconsciously, adopted the line of one politicalscientist who argued that faculty should run theUniversity, that students had no right to be in the Administration Building, and that someone shouldget them out — but that he wouldn't let the University use policemen and he wouldn't identifystudents himself. This logical inconsistency led toa rather more strained atmosphere than necessary,both between faculty and students and amongfaculty members themselves. It is one cost of thesit-in which will survive a long time.On February 1, Charles U. Daly, Vice Presidentfor Development and Public Affairs, released thecopy of a letter which he had sent to President Levia week before. The letter, a personal resignationfrom the University, was released because someone,presumably from inside the Building, had previously released the text to local newspapers.Despite the vote that files would be respected someone person inside the Building seems to have obtained access to Mr. Daly's desk, as there were onlytwo copies of the letter in existence — one in Mr.Daly's desk in the Building and the other in Mr.Levi's personal possession. The premature releaseof the letter did nothing to lower tempers or anxieties about the security of University files. Sincethen it has appeared that other files were rifled.(At this point it might be worth mentioning thatno organization could long function if its files wereto be public property automatically. An organization, like an individual, should be known by thedecisions it makes, not by the thoughts it entertains and rejects on the way to those decisions. Iffiles are not kept confidential, memoranda will bewritten for the public, rather than for the goal ofpersuading someone that something ought to bedone. More important even, the number of peoplewho enjoy living their lives in a fish bowl is quitelimited; were all files subject to the scrutiny of anygroup that announced its purpose was politicalI doubt that anyone would take the jobs affected.)It should be remembered that two debates, entirely different from each other, were going on atthat time. Many of the, faculty were interested incalling in the police, while most of the studentswere interested in obtaining some forms of studentpower and in obtaining amnesty for those studentswho had been summoned before the Oaks Committee.The amnesty issue picked up force when, onFebruary 2, Dean of Students Charles D. O'Connell announced the immediate suspension of 61students for "failure of these 61 persons to discontinue a disruptive demonstration after having beennotified that their conduct was disruptive and afterhaving been asked to cease that conduct. Further,each of these students failed to appear before the7University Disciplinary Committee after havingbeen summoned to appear before this Committee."With the start of the Disciplinary Committeehearings the sit-in took on a new aspect, as thesitters-in and a large number of students outsidethe Building used various tactics to have the hearings cancelled or postponed. During the days thatfollowed, the rehiring of Marlene Dixon becameless and less important, as did the issue of studentpower once student committees in the variousdepartments started exercising their authority.Throughout the weeks the Administration Buildingwas occupied debates continued within classes anddepartments as to the proper role of students in theadministering of a university. The debate, however,was simultaneously overshadowed by the Disciplinary Committee hearings and undercut by additional power granted to the student councils. Thesit-in did prove to be an important catalyzing agentin speeding the formation of student councils(which had been called for by the President in theAutumn Quarter) ; it waits to be seen what powerand influence they will have.Had the faculty acted with even minimum dispatch in establishing their student councils in thevarious academic units of the University, and hadthey listened to what their representatives weresaying, it is possible that much of the brouhaharaised by the Dixon case could have been avoided.In actuality, however, many areas of the Universitywere without well- functioning student councils. Itdoesn't seem that a student council for a Divisionshould merely speak with the Dean or Master, butrather with much of the faculty over a continuingperiod of time. The faculty, even though they retain most power in their hands, have the responsibility of using that power properly. This, to me,means that they take some time and make someeffort to see how matters concerning at least theirarea of study are progressing.As the sit-in wore on with no response from theUniversity other than the application, as promised,of disciplinary measures, everyone involved in thesituation became progressively more exhausted,both mentally and physically. There was a feelingon the part of much of the student body and of thefaculty that everything could be solved by "rationaldiscourse"; yet despite incessant amounts of talkinglittle seemed to be accomplished. One of the fewpoints on which there seems to have been substantial student and faculty agreement was theundersirability of calling in the police, althoughhard-liners on both sides were indeed hoping thatthey would be called. Faculty opinion on the issue seemed badly split, with substantial contingentsfavoring each position. Generally the Committee ofthe Council held out for the hope that the University would be able to maintain its own discipline without reliance upon the civil authorities.The Committee's patience was stretched fairlythin during several of the sporadic incidents ofviolence that took place during the sit-in. Thesewere generally connected with attempts by variousstudent groups to disrupt the hearings of the OaksCommittee. A handbill put out by students in theBuilding February 7 said:Today [Friday] we intend to hijack the re*opened disciplinary hearings to Cuba. That is, wewill disrupt their proceedings to prevent themfrom taking place and subjecting students . . .We do not recognize the legitimacy of the committee or any of its activities and consider thesuspension of selected members of the sit-in asan attempt to intimidate everyone. The occupation of the ad building is a necessary and justified response to a political firing and the in-transigency of the University in answering ourdemands. The suspensions simply add politicalsuppression to political suppression.Another leaflet issued the same day, entitledCOPS and referring to a group of faculty memberswho entered the Administration Building thatmorning to issue summonses, also called for actionto disrupt the disciplinary hearings.The major disruption occurred the next day,Saturday, when the Oaks Committee attempted tohear testimony from Dean O'Connell as to whetheror not the sit-in could properly be termed a disruptive action. The meeting was supposed to beopen, but due to pressure from some demonstrators,who had succeeded in making it impossible to conduct the hearings here, Dallin Oaks adjourned themeeting and attempted to leave so that it could beheld elsewhere. There was a slight scuffle as someof the sitters-in and the allies attempted to blockthe Disciplinary Committee from leaving the room.Although two people were injured, I gather fromstudent sources that one was a reporter who stoodup on a table to take pictures and had the tablecollapse under him. In any case, the hearings werecontinued that day in a different secret location,with only defendants, their counsel, and two reporters from The Maroon in attendance.That evening a small band of youths from outlying areas of the city attacked the AdministrationBuilding. Three of them were subdued, but thepeople in the Building decided not to press charges8against any of them, and they were released by theUniversity security forces. (During the entire sit-inthere were University security forces present in. theAdministration Building, but by agreement withthe students there they made no effort to remembernames or faces; their only action was to help arrestthe youths who attacked the occupants of theBuilding.)Incidents directed against the Disciplinary Committee were continued on Monday, February 10, asa large group of people blocked the Committee intoa hearing room, shutting off both doors as theypresented a petition for a collective defense. Bythis time most of the demonstrators' energy wasbeing devoted to the secondary question of discipline rather than the primary questions of Mrs.Dixon's rehiring and the demand for an equalstudent voice in hiring and rehiring of faculty. (Thedemand that workers not suffer because of the. actions of the sitters-in was rhetorically useful, butwas hardly to be contested by a University whichhas habitually paid its office help when they havebeen kept from work by some action of the studentbody.)The Monday demonstration at the Law School,where the hearings were being held, disbanded whena group of bailiffs went out one door, blocked bythe demonstrators, and the Disciplinary Committeewent out the other. There was some jostling andshoving, I gather, but no serious violence took place,despite an attempt by the demonstrators to restrainthe Committee from leaving. The hearings weremoved from the Law School, however. Perhapsfrom fear of additional damage to the Law Schoolbuilding, perhaps from fear of clashes between thelaw students and the demonstrators, or perhaps because the new site was easier to keep clear, thedisciplinary hearings were moved to Abbott Hall.As the protests and attempts to disrupt the Disciplinary Committee were gathering steam byFebruary 11, the original causes of the sit-in werealmost buried. With publication of the Gray Committee Report, the sit-in lost steam rapidly.The Report called for a terminal one-year reappointment of Mrs. Dixon due solely to the fact thatcertainty about her status was delayed for twomonths due to the furor over her case. The Committee, which found her to be a woman of integrity,also found that in her case there had been no violation of normal appointive procedures. The GrayCommittee Report was issued Wednesday; Thursday evening the demonstrators voted to leave theBuilding "within twenty-four hours." This they did.Upon their leaving it became evident that a con siderable amount of damage had been done to theBuilding in the last day they were there. Severalphone lines were cut, a fair amount of graffiticovered the walls, a few file cabinets were damaged,as were a couple of typewriters, and the Buildingwas cluttered with garbage. The direct losses attributable to the sit-in were later estimated bySpokesman of the Committee of the Council Edward Rosenheim, Jr., as being approximately$250,000.The next week was generally quiet, as the demonstrators used some guerilla theatre tactics andsome stink bombs in eight of the campus buildings.Plans for a collective defense were made, but theOaks Committee rejected the notion.The week of February 24 was scarred by severalviolent clashes, as the more militant of the studentsattempted to change the movement's tactics. Monday a group of about 80 students went to AbbottHall to submit a petition to the Oaks Committee.As it had already adjourned for the day, someonesuggested that the group give the petition to President Levi at his home. The President was not athome (Mrs. Levi was there alone with her 13 -year-old son), and the demonstrators were met on thefront steps by Dean O'Connell, who volunteered totake the petition and who talked with the studentsfor several minutes. According to two mutuallyhostile witnesses who spoke with me about the incident, Michael Goldfield then called Jeffrey Blumand Howard Machtinger over to the side of thecrowd for a caucus.3 Following that, Mr. Machtinger went over to Mr. O'Connell and pulled himoff the steps. (In the meantime another studenthad threatened Mr. O'Connell with a rock.) A girlkicked in the outside glass door to the President'sHouse and another student went through and unlocked it, but the demonstrators were unable tobreak through the inner wood door and satisfiedthemselves by tacking their petition to the door.At this point campus security men started to arriveand the demonstrators wandered down UniversityAvenue to the Quadrangle Club, where they interrupted a buffet supper. Eventually they left theQuadrangle Club and dispersed. At both incidentsthere were faculty members and administrators whotook down names of those students whom they recognized in the crowd.One student, a guest of a member of the faculty,was shoved around in the Quadrangle Club by some3 Mr. Machtinger and Mr. Goldfield were graduatestudents and teaching assistants in the Department ofSociology. Mr. Blum was a fifth-year student in theCollege and is a former president of Student Government.9graduate students who felt that he didn't belongthere.The morning of February 26 the Committee ofthe Council instructed the Dean of Students tosend notices to those students who had previouslybeen suspended for failure to show up at hearingsbefore the Oaks Committee and who had beenidentified as having participated in the incidents atthe President's House and the Quadrangle Club,instructing them to show cause why they shouldnot be expelled. A deadline of Thursday at 5:30p.m. was set for postmarks on the letters makingappointments for the hearings. Many of the leadersof the sit-in were among those so summoned, whichmay explain the following events.Wednesday night a small group of demonstratorswent to Woodward Court, where Dean O'Connellhad had a dinner appointment. He was not there,but they came across James Redfield, Master ofthe New Collegiate Division, on the street. Therewas, I gather, the routine verbal abuse — shockingto those who have not heard it before, but routineand fairly dull to those who have heard the samecombinations of Anglo-Saxon monosyllables timeand again from the same sources. There were alsovarious physical steps taken, such as the placing ofbarricades in Redfield's path, some shoving, andsome spitting.Thursday evening Dan (Skip) Landt visited thehome of a friend in a building where many of thedemonstrators lived. Several of the erstwhile sitters-in came in (having just failed to meet thedeadline for showing cause why they should notbe expelled) and told Landt, who is director ofStudent Activities and had been active in identifying students in the Administration Building, toleave. He did not until he was grabbed by one former student and pulled to the floor, at which pointhe got up and walked out, escorted by the disgruntled demonstrators.A new disciplinary committee had been appointed to deal with the incidents of that week, asthe Oaks Committee already had a full docket andfelt strongly disinclined to handle any matters notdirectly related to the sit-in. The committee waschaired by Charles Shireman, with Mark Inghramand Maynard Krueger; the non-voting studentmember was David Kohl.4Forty-two persons were expelled altogether. Ofthese, 33 persons were expelled as the result of4 Mr. Shireman is an Associate Professor in theSchool of Social Service Administration. Mr. Kruegeris a Professor of Economics, and Mr. Inghram is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Physics. disciplinary committee recommendations; 15 ofthose were expelled upon recommendation of theOaks Committee following hearings; 9 were expelled following appearances before the ShiremanCommittee; another 9 were expelled for failure toappear before the Oaks Committee.In addition, another 9 persons were expelled bythe Dean of Students for taking part in the demonstrations February 24, while being undersuspension because of participation in the sit-in,and for refusing to appear before the ShiremanCommittee. Of the 42 persons expelled, 3S werestudents at the time of their expulsion; 7 were notregistered.Eighty-one persons were suspended for variousperiods of time; only 38 students were suspendedpast March 31, 1969; 12 of the people suspendedwere not students at the time.f-• • •During the quarter I wrote two memoranda ofsome general interest. The first, on February 11,.suggested that the University give some thought toinstituting a "suggested withdrawal" from studiesfor a certain period of time. This could be usedfor students who think that they cannot relate tothe academic life and therefore wish the academiclife to relate to them. There may be considerabledifficulty in asking students to withdraw when suchwithdrawal means that they- are subject to the draft.Neither the war nor the draft will last forever,however, and the device suggested has certain advantages in that students who find they have madea mistake in coming to this institution would beencouraged to leave. It might be used when studentshave committed some peccadillo that warrants disciplinary action, but when neither suspension norexpulsion seems appropriate. It would have its mostcommon usage, I would think, in the cases of thosestudents for whom the determination is made, contrary to what I mentioned above, that they didindeed act from ignorance of the consequences oftheir actions.I also wrote a memorandum (March 2, 1969)suggesting that the size of the College be cut. Iquote some relevant passages from that. "The College has been attempting to offer the same qualityeducation without increasing its faculty, at thesame time expanding the student body size. Bluntly,the College is bursting at the seams. Even if therewere not the overriding educational reasons forcutting the College size, there is the simple limitation of housing."10Describing the housing available to entering women, I wrote:Without going into too much detail, it seems thatpacking two women into a cement block box, withsmall wooden closets and minimal soundproofiing,is not good for them. It may be the length of thecorridors, it may be the incredible communalbathrooms, it may even be the primitive telephone system, but in any case life in Woodward,together with other varied pressures, has an undesirable result.And elsewhere :Living there makes one question the existence ofa civilized life style . . .Last year the dominant theme of the dormitories — and hence of the junior college — was drugs.This year it has been radical politics. It wouldbe appropriate if the University were to makesome effort to insure that the dominant theme isnormally academic, that questions are consideredin a certain way, and that answers derive fromthought rather than emotion. It has been saidthat Chicago is the school that goes by reasonrather than tradition; it would be nice if therewere someone in the dormitories who could persuade the entering students of this. Persuasionshould be as much by example as by rhetoric.It will do no good, however, to establish agood life style in the dormitories unless the College is worth attending. Presently the courses inthe College are not worthwhile for the vast majority of students. There are large numbers ofincompetent offerings, some of them staff taughtcourses, some of them required individuallytaught courses . . .I think that Chicago should return to a distinctive type of education with severe changesin the College called for. There should be anhonest general education requirement, preferablyover two years, where a conscious effort to inculcate some fundamentals "in the arts of reading,writing, speaking and mathematics," as well as "to restate ideas in the humanities, social sciencesand natural sciences," and "to interpret institutions and thought within a culture" [quoted sections from Memorandum on the College by Edward H. Levi].Once the students have developed sharplyanalytic minds they should then be free to studysuch problems as they find of interest, in whatever disciplinary or inter-disciplinary field theyfind attractive. This would involve an end tothe regular "College" courses, as all courseswould be offered in the Divisions. A minimalnumber of divisional courses might be requiredfor graduation.This plan can work only under certain conditions; if they are not met it should not beinstituted.The size of the entering class should be cutdrastically. I would want a class of from between 350 and 450, given that the resources ofthe College are what they are and given thatfaculty are in short supply. If admissions procedures are changed to actively seek out the intellectually curious and eager students from themass of those who are bright it should be possible to attract a College whose calibre will begreater than that of the student body in theGraduate Schools.If that is so it should then be possible to attract senior faculty to teach the general education courses — not continuously, but on a rotatingbasis . . .The dormitory system should consist exclusively of singles, and there must be adequatefaculty participation in the residence halls. IfChicago is to continue as a community of scholarssteps must be taken to make sure that a) thereis actually a scholarly community, without overlyformal distinctions between scholars with andwithout the Ph.D. and b) the junior membersof that community are in a position to comprehend and enjoy their role.John MoscowTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESto0asowooSB0srnorq«^ca IS?5 3 c *3•O H* ^ cC*» <J £»>r o d* P3H( ^ o oK as *•$ o**— *"* * QP3 cf **£X << COo »a#33 t"* G> S31Z> *-*« o O22 O* r~*** caO *-'j r^ OJKJ &> &** ei**•«? o8*k* O »«-*<D O SOt£ *~**.»#<*>rx oH£ d*H**5 OOn ^O wt3taCO B0Oa\a-am E cTO n-4 >Q -o J"z O > 0p , "" </>r-Z a -1>0<4 o rfl