THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO iMECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 5EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THEOPERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO LIBRARY FOR THE FISCALYEAR 1967-68August 29, 1968Further significant progress was made during theyear in strengthening the Library resources of theUniversity. Gross additions to the Library totaled161,807 volumes, an increase of 28 per cent overthe already high rate of additions in the precedingyear. At the end of 1967-68, the Library reportedits official holdings at 2,712,785 volumes. Total Library expenditures came to $3,547,627, includingcredits and expenditures for Library purposes fromnon-Library budgets.The most noteworthy event of the year was thestart of construction of the Joseph Regenstein Library on September 20, 1967. Formal groundbreaking ceremonies were held October 23, 1967.The building is presently scheduled for completionlate in 1969 or early in 1970.Current OperationsThe Library was able to acquire most of the significant, current publications in western languages,in most, but certainly not all, fields of major University interest. The substantial acquisition programs for the support of South Asian studies,Slavic and Eastern European studies, and FarEastern Studies continued with increasingly heavy,unrestricted budget support. The acquisition ofmaterials for the support of Middle Eastern studiescontinued to gain momentum. Book purchases weresharply higher for the Humanities, the Social Sciences, and both the Biological and Physical Sciences. Notable, to the point of serious concern, wasthe heavy increase of 14.6 per cent (4,286 titles) inthe number of current serial subscriptions, bringingthe total to 33,543. This increase reflects newlyappearing serials and periodicals, augmented serialacquisitions in the various international studies programs, serial titles that are new to the University,and some increase in the number of duplicate subscriptions for heavily used titles. The concern arises CONTENTS/May 2, 19691 Extracts from A Report on the Operationsof The University of Chicago Library forthe Fiscal Year 1967-689 Oaks Report of Disciplinary Actions21 Shireman Report of Disciplinary Actions22 Report on Disciplinary and Appeals Decisionsbecause this rate of increase cannot easily be sustained without major fiscal consequences, and because serial subscriptions tend to become prior, permanent liens on the Library budget for both subscription and binding funds.Mrs. Helen A. Regenstein and Miss Ruth Regenstein continued their warm and generous support ofthe special collection that bears their names in thefield of American and English literature.The Library was also greatly assisted by giftsfrom more than one thousand other personal andinstitutional donors during the year.The following table summarizes the statistics oncertain key Library expenditures and operations.In 1965-66 the Library was able to budget alarge enough increase in its binding funds to beginto rebind a variety of badly- worn, heavily-usedbooks, to bind for the first time many serial publications that had been left unbound in past years forlack of funds, and to try to bind all currently received volumes in the year of receipt. This programreached its anticipated maximum level in 1967-68.Physically, the collection is unquestionably in farmore useful and durable form, though badly in needof a thorough cleaning, which is planned just priorto the move into the Joseph Regenstein Library.The disintegration of rosin-sized book papers is increasingly evident The only present remedies are tomicrofilm the original, to make full-size Xeroxcopies, to buy reprint editions when these appear onthe market, and in some instances to discard publications of marginal interest to the University.The reduction in recorded circulation of 5.5 percent may in part reflect a real decline, but some of1FIVE-YEAR ANALYSIS OF KEY LIBRARY STATISTICS*1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 Per Centin 1967-1963-64 Change68 over1966-67Book and serial expenditures. . $ 483,948 $ 603,614 $ 756,557 $ 872,721 $1,009,619 + 108.6 + 11.6Binding expenditures 86,540 89,034 147,455 172,286 229,493 165.2 33.2Subtotal (570,488) (692,648) (904,012) (1,045,007) (1,239,112) 117.2 18.6Salary expenditures 1,150,921 1,230,173 1,377,797 1,558,321 1,862,755 61 3 19.0Expenditures for retirement,supplies and all other purposes 170,653 187,765 265,615b 330,042d 445,760 161.2 35.1Total Library expenditures8 $1,892,062 $2,110,586 $2,547,424 $2,933,370 $3,547,627 87.5 20.9Volumes in Library 2,333,913 2,406,142 2,504,250 2,606,431 2,712,785 16.2 4.1Gross volumes added 103,595 109,390 122,560 126,513 161,807 56.2 27.9Current serial titles received . . 23,668 25,209 27,338 29,257 33,543 41.7 14.6Volumes bound .... 33,868 35,463 52,821 65,039 80,126 136.6 23.2Titles cataloged 47,126 47,911 55,035 56,719 70,621 49.9 24.5Recorded circulation 931,785° 1,000,950° 1,091,771° 947,454d 898,475° c - 5.5Average weekly scheduled hoursof public service per unit . . 61.5 62.5 65.2 68.7 68.7 11.7 0.0Approximate staff size in full-time equivalent 255.0 264.5 287.2 306.7 346.8 36.0 13.1a The figures for expenditures shown include unrestricted, endowed and restricted expenditures as well as Library expenditures made on non-Library budgets. They are not reduced for expenditures based upon credit adjustments. For these reasons^ the figures are not in agreement withthe official summary of Library expenditures made by the Comptroller, but are shown as a clearer indication of total Library costs. The Comptroller gives total Library expenditures as $3,463,931 for 1967-68.b Major increase largely associated with automation restricted grant funds.0 Owing to changes in methods of counting circulation, length of circulation loan periods and related factors, figures from year to year are notcomparable.d Excludes renewals for the first time.it is related to circulation policy changes and someof it appears due to departmental inconsistencies incounting. A staff committee has been workingthroughout the year on circulation policies and uniform statistical methods and these kinds of irregularities should, in consequence, be reduced. The Library is also attempting to make available electrostatic, coin-operated copying machines in all majorservice areas, and these undoubtedly are reducingrecorded circulation, especially in the science libraries.This year the Library attempted to acquire a substantially larger number of copies of reserve titles,and the Library changed the reserve loan periods toprovide for a twenty-four hour, instead of a two-hour, loan period for most reserve materials (except where the number of copies obtainable was toosmall) until the last three weeks of each quarter,when the loan period for most materials is reducedto two hours. This change in loan policy, accompanied by much heavier duplication, appears tohave significantly improved access to reserve materials and should reduce recorded circulation. Harper Reserve, in a continuing program of performance evaluation, reported that between July 1,1967 and June 30, 1968, some 102,637 requests were made. In response to these requests some97,426, or 95 per cent, were immediately available;the balance were either not on reserve at the timeof request for a large number of reasons, or allavailable copies were in use at the time of the request. Unsupplied requests are at a higher percentage rate in the beginning weeks of each quarter.We anticipate that after the move to the Regenstein Library, recorded circulation may easilydouble in the first year or two, and that facilityitself will impose some new and difficult circulationrequirements. Basically, a circulation system musttry to reconcile two conflicting demands: it shouldmaximize the availability of materials at the sametime that it leaves the reader free to keep materialsas long as they are useful to him. The systemshould, in addition, be easy to use, it should beaccurate and reliable, it should respond easily andquickly to great variations in work loads, its recordsof transactions should be highly current, and itshould be no more costly than is justified by theservice it provides. We hope that it will be possibleto design and install an essentially new circulationsystem, with long-range developmental capabilities,during 1968-69.The Library's efforts to improve its basic data-2essing capabilities moved forward during theear though the progress was at times not veryvisible in operations. The major effort of the systems staff was devoted to changes in programmingto up-grade tne system fr°m a 360/30 computer to360/40 computer, and finally to a 360/50 corn-outer with the IBM Operating System. Thesechanges were in part desirable to meet long-termoperational needs of the Library and were in partnecessary to adjust to the computer facilities of theUniversity.Programs for the production of book purchaseorders (using the same input that will later be usedfor catalog cards after any necessary corrections)and for charge cards and pocket labels have beencompleted and will also be fully operational on thenew computer shortly. Some eighty-five programshave been developed. The design of book fund-accounting and a variety of other processing routines has been started. With the assistance of agrant from the National Science Foundation, Chicago, Columbia and Stanford have entered into acollaborative exchange of data and other information relating to library automation. High priorityduring the coming year will be to program, for input into our system, machine-readable, currentcataloging data generated by the Library of Congress. This will eliminate the need for much manualinput for both book orders and for catalog cards.Space for staff, services and resources of theLibrary continues to present severe problems. Thesewill, of course, be relieved for a large part of theLibrary system at the end of 1969. In the meantime,architectural and University planning efforts for theproposed College Library in Harper, for Art andfor Music continued during the year, though in nocase as rapidly as the Library would have liked.Forward planning for the science libraries wasessentially at a standstill, and must be picked upagain as soon as staff time and general Universitypriorities will permit. Space in most of the sciencelibraries, and especially for the Biological Sciences,is critically deficient.The Regenstein Library will make its maximumcontribution to the work of the University notsimply by housing in a more spacious and comfortable way the existing resources, services and staff intheir present patterns, but rather by developingquite new and, in some cases, untried patterns ortypes of organization, services and relationships between readers, study facilities, books and staff. Wecall attention to these problems simply to alert theLibrary's constituency to the fact that a transitional period will be required for adjustments that in many ways are much more complicated than thephysical transfer of books and the installation ofnew furniture.The major priorities in the allocation of theLibrary's funds and efforts in recent years havebeen directed toward strengthening the University'sresource base quite generally, but with special emphasis upon improved coverage of current publications in all fields, and retrospective strength in humanistic subjects; responding to the heavy needs ofthe international studies programs; providing atlong last a physical plant in which most of theLibrary's resources could be housed properly andused comfortably and efficiently; strengthening thesize, quality and compensation of the staff; improving the physical condition of the collections; devising temporary solutions to the most critical spaceproblems, and making a start in a more systematicprogram of analysis and mechanization, where appropriate, of the Library's operations. Visible progress has been made in all these matters. Yet priorities always need reexamination in the light ofchanging University needs and benefits — which arethemselves difficult to measure. The underlyingquestion, of course, has to do with the quality andcharacter of the Library resources and servicesneeded by the University. The following are amongthe many visible problems or needs that may require some shift in resource allocation in the future.1. While it is hoped that automation will eventually reduce the need for staff to handle manybasic, routine data-processing operations and willimprove the Library's responses and capabilities inother important ways, there will continue to becritical needs for staff at nearly every level of Library operation and service. At the moment there isa conspicuous need for such staff for a variety ofsomewhat basic, routine operating tasks: e.g., stackinventories, shelf reading, stack exit controls, catalog card filing, order and gift searching, preliminarycataloging, better order and serial claiming, etc.There are always suggestions, obvious needs, orpressures for new and extended services and programs; implementation of such operations will, inmost cases, require added staff. There is a need forsome enlargement of the administrative and systems staff to help in the transition to Regensteinand for the better planning, coordination, analysis,improvement and mechanization of Library operations.2. It is evident that it may become quite important for large research libraries to develop a capability to provide for their readers computer-aided,specialized literature searches where externally-3generated, machine readable, comprehensive bibliographic data bases are becoming available. Suchbases are now available for medicine, in some aspects of space and nuclear research, in chemistry,and in a growing number of other disciplines. Thiskind of service will not be inexpensive. It may bepossible to have such searches designed locally andmade remotely, but convenient access to such capability is likely to become increasingly important inmeeting certain research needs.3. It has been stated in a recent National Academy of Sciences report that the research libraries ofthe country might reasonably have been expected toprovide computer access to the growing number ofmajor data bases in the behavioral sciences. Heretofore such access has been thought to be the problem of a particular research team, project, operating agency or investigator. This type of accesswould present, if libraries were to accept such responsibility, very much more serious and difficultprogramming and fiscal problems than would thebibliographical or literature access issue describedin the preceding paragraph.4. We assume, and discussed in last year's report, that large research libraries may graduallyanticipate better access to jointly-owned or administered, infrequently-used research resources ofcertain kinds. This should help to mitigate thegrowth rates of individual large research librariesfor a given level of resource access, but it will require a substantial effort to create such a nationalsystem and make the resources of such cooperativeendeavors known to those who may have need forthem. For example, the Center for Research Libraries will, in 1968-69, have substantial federalmatching funds for acquisitions. The means foreffectively alerting the staffs, students and facilitiesof the member institutions to these acquisitions willrequire greater attention from the staff of the Center than they have thus far received.5. It is evident in this connection that a varietyof mechanisms are tentatively being examined thatwould also have the avowed purpose of mitigatingto some extent some of the severe disparities in theresource bases of existing educational institutions.Some of this exploration appears under the name ofnetworks, some under regional or state compacts orother agreements, and some in reports of nationalcommissions or other bodies. The equitable supportof such inter-institutional access, the determinationof its real costs, and the construction of suitablemechanisms to increase and fund inter-institutionalaccess without serious impairment of the access ofa library's primary constituency, poses some difficult problems. Resource DevelopmentGeneral Reference and Bibliographical Works ^During the year bibliographical control was muchstrengthened by the addition of several comprehensive catalogs of library collections in specializedsubject areas. These included the U. S. Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare's Author-TitleCatalog of the Department Library, 1965 (29volumes) ; the John Crerar Library's Author-TitleCatalog, 1967 (35 volumes), and its Classified Sub-feet Catalog, 1967 (42 volumes); the New YorkPublic Library's Catalog of the Theatre and DramaCollections, 1967 (23 volumes); the DictionaryCatalogue of the History of Printing, published bythe John M. Wing Foundation of the NewberryLibrary in 1961 (6 volumes); and the DictionaryCatalog of the Missionary Research Society of NewYork, 1968 (17 volumes).The Sciences. In the scientific fields, retrospectivepurchasing by the several departmental librarianswas largely limited to filling in gaps in our journalholdings, and *to strengthening some areas whichhad been unevenly developed, e.g., paleontology.The Department of Special Collections continuedto buy very selectively in the history of science andmedicine and the publications of early learned societies. We acquired, for example, the first four (ofseven) volumes of the Commentarii (1746-57) ofthe Accademia delle Scienze dell' Istituto di Bologna, and the exquisite facsimile edition of the complete "Vienna Dioskurides" of the Austrian National Library. This famous sixth century manuscript of the writings of Pedanius Dioscorides is ofequal interest to the historian of art.The purchasing of current scientific materials reflected the need to keep abreast of handbooks, newjournal titles and tabular compilations. In Chemistry, the Library acquired the new edition of theHandbuch der Physik and the Encyclopaedia ofChemical Technology, the Sadtler Research Laboratories' Sadtler Ultra Violet Spectra (S3 volumes)and Werner Briigel's Nuclear Magnetic ResonanceSpectra and Chemical Structure (New York, 1967and continuing).In the field of Physics, additions were largely insuch fields as quantum theory, mechanics, plasmaphysics and particle physics, cryogenics and lasers.Working closely with the Yerkes Observatory Library to coordinate acquisitions, Eckhart addedselected materials on astrophysics and radio astronomy. The number of titles purchased in Statisticsincreased 51 per cent over last year, including thesix-volume Proceedings of the Fifth BerkeleySymposium on Mathematical Statistics and Prob-4bility- Materials invaluable for the history ofHern statistics — a four-volume collection of cor-ndence between W. S. Gosset and Sir RonaldA Fisher spanning the years 1915-36 — was received as a gift through the good offices of Profes-c r William H. Kruskal. For Mathematics, acquisitions were strong in symbolic logic, algebra, calculus functional analysis, differential equationsnd topology. Eckhart also added three titles dealing with the still rapidly developing subject ofgraph theory. Finally, several additional Englishtranslations of Russian mathematical journals weresubscribed to, although the Library is continuingthe original Russian issues because the translationsoften do not appear for six months to a year afterthe Russian numbers are published. Computers,computer systems and systems theory continued toreceive attention.In the Bio-medical Libraries, efforts were madeto secure publications in the neurosciences, evolutionary biology, and in new research techniques ingel chromatography and electrophysiology. The duplication of very heavily-used journals is importantin improving access, and funds from a NationalLibrary of Medicine grant to the Library made itpossible to place duplicate subscriptions, plus a five-year backfile, for sixty-six such journals in medicaland closely-related fields. Funds from the samegrant also made it possible to acquire such expensive major bibliographies and catalogs as the Dictionary Catalogue of the London School of Hygieneand Tropical Medicine, 1965 (7 volumes).For the Geophysical Sciences, the resurgence ofinterest in evolutionary biology led to a re-evaluation of our somewhat uneven holdings in paleontology and to markedly increased buying in thisfield. At the same time we continued to buy heavilyin crystallography, hydrodynamics, fluid mechanics,ceramics and selected titles relating to computerapplications in the geophysical sciences.The Map Library added 4,006 sheets of mapsand 92 aerial photographs with emphasis on thebibliography of maps, on atlases, topographic mapseries, hydrographic and aeronautical charts,county highway maps, urban maps, and indexes toaerial photographs. The areas of special interestwere urban planning, the United States, Canada,Europe, East Africa, the USSR and the Far East.A new publishing project called "Historic UrbanPlans" is providing excellent reproductions of oldC1ty plans selected for their significance in the history of urban development. Eighteen of these werePurchased, dating from 1572 to 1878 and coveringtwelve U. S. and six foreign cities. The Social Sciences. — Economists, historians andpolitical scientists studying Latin American countries concentrated on Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.The Library strengthened its resources on SouthAmerican politics and on the Communist parties inCentral and South America, and in Modern China.Major acquisitions included the Revue Africaine(Bastide, Algeria), volumes 1-40 (1856-96), theDaily Report Supplement: Far East, of the U. S.Foreign Broadcast Information Service, 1956-65(microfilm), and the Adas de las Sessiones of theInter-American Economic and Social Council of theOrganization of American States, Washington,1945-61 (microfiche). Other areas of major development included U. S. colonial history, Negro andother Reconstruction newspapers including theMemphis Daily Appeal for 1865-86, the history ofIreland, the history of modern Italy, works on government, regional planning and social welfare in theScandinavian countries, and the U. S. Departmentof State's Consular Despatches (from consulates inChinese cities prior to 1906). In Education, theyear's acquisitions emphasized works on educational law, on politics and education, on teaching effectiveness in the urban situation, and on the specialcurricular content required for that situation. Muchmaterial was acquired also on the special learningproblems of students living in disorganized communities, and on the dysfunctions of the child aslearner. Some 18,850 titles on microfiche came tous in the second year of our participation in ERIC(Educational Research Information Centers) ; ofthese, 800 related to higher education, 2,700 concerned the disadvantaged learner, and 15,350 wereof more general educational interest.For Social Service Administration, particular attention was given to minority cultures, civil disorders and the cause of crime. Material on the problems of aging received unusual emphasis, and theSchool's expanded program in the training ofschool social workers led to a re-evaluation of thematerials dealing with school psychological services.The Business and Economics Library grew mostrapidly in the fields of industrial development andmanagement, marketing, international business andaccounting. In Economics, there was continuedgrowth of resources on the economic planning anddevelopment of South Asia, Africa and Latin America, the European Common Market, and econometrics. Here, too, acquisitions reflected interest inthe problems of poverty, unemployment, housing,the labor market, consumer economics and inflation.The Library began acquisitions, on microfiche, ofthe annual reports of all the corporations listed onthe New York and American stock exchanges.5The Law Library added 18,693 volumes — bringing its holdings to 252,338 volumes. Serial holdingswere increased by 351 new titles, a reflection of thelarge number of newly established law reviews,court reports and loose-leaf services, and of themany areas claiming greater interest from the legalprofession: natural resources, the balance of payments, human rights, water resources, etc. Thecollection was substantially strengthened by microfilms of the early session laws and statutes for thirteen of the states. The Library added such landmark publications as a 1636 edition of Sir HenryFinch's Law: or, A Discourse Thereof, and the firstedition of Sir Francis Bacon's The Elements of theCommon Law of England, London, 1630. Probablythe single most significant acquisition was the 73-volume set of the transcript of testimony in theLake Diversion Cases of Wisconsin v. Illinois,Michigan v. Illinois, New York v. Illinois, and Illinois v. Michigan, given before a Special Master,Judge Albert Morris, from 1959 to 1966. Only afew complete sets were assembled, and a specialappeal from the Law Librarian led the HonorableWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General for Illinois, toauthorize the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court tomake the Illinois copy available to the Law Library.In the field of Geography, increasing attentionwas given to materials on urban problems. The reports of various urban planning commissionsthroughout the world, as, for example, the three-volume Land Use Study: Memphis MetropolitanArea, by the Memphis and Shelby County Planning Commission, and such important foreignmodels of urban planning as Johannes Humlum'sdetailed study, Lansplanlaegnings-problemer. MedSkitse til en Lands planlaegning i Danmark (1966)were acquired. Two new serials — Urban Affairs Annual Review and Raum und Siedlung — were amongother titles augmenting Rosenwald's already extensive collections in this area. For other fields of interest, Rosenwald added such titles as the Land andWater Law Review, the Papers of the Transportation Research Forum, and the second edition of thetwo-volume study, Air Pollution (1968), edited byArthur C. Stern — all of them but single examplestaken from each of the many relevant subject areas.Retrospective buying in the social sciences was inpart oriented toward the history of cities and regions, of which two examples are a 1580 edition ofJoannes Aventinus' Chronica . . . Darinn nichtallein dess gar alten Hauss Beyern, Reiser, KonigeHertzogen. . . . (1580) and Karl Schnitzlein's Se-lecta Norimbergensia, oder Sammlung Verschie-dener kleiner Ausfuhrungen und Urkenden . . . (1768-79). Such works were supplemented by Collections of laws and statutes promulgated in citiewhich were centers for political and economic activity.The Library continued its acquisition of booksrelating to the history of agricultural economicse g., Francis Home's Principles of Agriculture andVegetation (1759), and the literature on earlytravels as a prime source for the history of westernculture. For the latter the emphasis was on accounts of the Near and the Far East, and we acquired a significant number of seventeenth andeighteenth century titles including the importantMissione al Gran Mogor del padre Ridolfo Aquavi-va delta Compagnia di Giesu (1714), by the ItalianJesuit, Daniello Bartoli. Finally, mention should bemade of the William E. Barton Collection of Lin-colniana. Since the collection now has almost all theimportant printed materials pertinent to Lincolnand his career in a narrow sense, we are presentlyshifting to closely related contemporary materialsreflecting the political, social and economic issueswhich formed the backdrop against which Lincolnthought and acted.The Regional Programs. — For South America, acquisitions activity was intensified in response to agrowing interest in Latin American politics and economics. With respect to Africa South-of-the-Sahara,much attention was given to parliamentary debates,statistical publications, ethnological studies, regional planning and historical studies. The program forSoutheast Asia was handicapped by unrest in thatpart of the world, but acquisitions of publicationsoriginating in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand andCambodia were satisfactory. We had little success,however, in obtaining desired publications fromeither North or South Vietnam, from Laos andfrom Burma. Some two or three packages a weekcontinued to come from Indonesia via the PL 480Program.For the ancient and medieval Near East andMiddle East, the Oriental Institute Library addedapproximately 950 new titles and, in addition, approximately 185 still unclassified titles, chiefly Persian, in the traditional subject areas of Egyptology,Assyriology, Sumerology, Near Eastern history andNear Eastern art and archaeology, with the traditional goal of securing all scholarly publications forthese areas. A major purchase was the almost complete run (63 volumes) of the Pravoslavnyi Pales-tinskii Sbornik, Petrograd, 1881-1917.Our collecting of materials on the modern MiddleEast has, in the past, emphasized language, literature, history and religion. This pattern began to6shift, in the last two or< three years, as a consequence of new teaching and research interest in thecontemporary Middle East, and to some extent, atleast, as a consequence of the availability of thecontemporary publications coming to us under theLibrary of Congress' PL 480 Program for the Middle East. With the appointment in July, 1967, ofthe Bibliographer for Middle Eastern Studies, asystematic survey of our holdings was begun andour pattern of acquisitions was expanded to includepolitics and government, economics, education, artand music. Three thousand orders in these fieldsand others have been placed, and some 500 monographs were received — in addition to about 500 PL480 monographs.The Far Eastern Library added about 12,000volumes — the highest number in four years — including 6,600 in Chinese, 4,500 in Japanese, 500 inKorean and western languages and 300 reels ofmicrofilm. We acquired many large sets of Japanesedocuments, literary collections and -journals devoted to language, literature, arts, history and thesocial sciences. Also acquired were numerous items,mostly reprints or photocopies, of Chinese collected works, documentary sources, referenceworks and periodicals. About 100 titles of localChinese histories were added to our collection of1,600 titles, which is the fourth largest in thewestern world. The emphasis was on modern andcontemporary China; especially valuable were1,200 items of Red Guards' newspapers and handbills.Some 7,575 monographic titles were received under the South Asian PL 480 Program, and 6,510were accepted for addition. Of these, 37 per centwere in English, and the balance were in one oranother of the 26 other languages used on the SouthAsian subcontinent, with Hindi, Tamil, Bengali andUrdu accounting for over half of the 4,077 titles inthe vernacular languages. Some 4,415 serial titlesare received from the four South Asian countries.The regional program in Slavic Studies had itsmost fruitful year since 1964-65, adding almosteleven thousand volumes. Among the notable successes of the year was the acquisition of four SouthSlavic journals and multi-volume sets which are ofprime importance for research in Slavic and Balkanlinguistics, literature, history and ethnography. Ofthese, perhaps the most significant is a 286-volumerun of the oldest and very important Serbian scholarly journal, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad, Letopis,published since 1827, of which our holdings (1865to date) will be the most extensive among Americanuniversity and research libraries. For Russian jour nals, a decision was taken to acquire on microficheabout 150 long-run titles, all prior to 1917. Thisextensive acquisition of Russian serials in the humanities and social sciences, supplemented by ourexisting holdings in bound form, provides a soundworking collection in this area. Considerable progress was made, too, in securing Modern Greekmaterials, with the addition of over 270 monographs, mostly retrospective, in the fields of linguistics, literature and history. There was also a steadygrowth of our already strong resources in Albanian,Bulgarian, Polish, Rumanian and Slovak worksthrough the addition of older Polish literary textsand critical studies. Our exchange agreements withSoviet libraries work well, if slowly, and last yearproduced over 2,500 volumes which would otherwise have been unobtainable.The Humanities. — For the Humanities, the library kept abreast with contemporary originalwriting, modern critical editions, current scholarlystudies and recent reference works and bibliographical compendia.In Art, works on painting continued to accountfor over half the titles acquired, with books onarchitecture second, and with a substantial additionof works on the decorative arts. Perhaps the mostnotable acquisition of the year was the completerun (1908-65), in mint condition, of the monumental Osterreichische Kunsttopo graphicThe Music Library found it more and more difficult to respond to two growing pressures: 1) theneed to duplicate, because of increased enrollmentand a higher intensity of use, some of the basic andexpensive sets, and 2) the opportunity representedby the availability of reprint editions in fantasticnumbers — some 723 in the field of music have beenannounced since 1966 at a cost averaging $78 pertitle. If a need for only half of these is assumed, thecommitment for reprints would be at the rate of$14,000 annually. In terms of actual acquisitions,the Music Library concentrated this year on earlyeditions of the music of Chopin. With the aid ofProfessor George W. Platzman's donations, it acquired nearly 100 early editions of Chopin and ofsuch contemporaries as Kalkbrenner, Herz, Hummeland Clementi. In other fields, one unique item acquired was a manuscript fragment in the hand ofRossini containing variants of three well-knownarias.In Classics, the major portion of the book fundswas spent for current publications, but efforts werealso made to fill in missing volumes of publicationsin series, to replace deteriorated volumes and sets,to purchase added copies of reserve titles and the7Loeb editions of classical authors, and, to a lesserdegree, to acquire antiquarian items. Among thelatter were sixteenth century editions of Pausanias,De Tota Graecia Libri Decern, Basel, 1550, andProcopius, De Rebus Gothorum, Persarum, ac Van-dalorum . . . Basel, 1531.The Helen and Ruth Regenstein Collection ofRare Books provided the most notable retrospectiveacquisitions in the Humanities. The outstanding acquisition here was the first edition, in parts, ofDickens' Pickwick Papers (1836-37) in the primeset once owned by Thomas Hatton. The earliest imprint acquired for this collection during the yearwas the first issue of the first edition of JohnLocke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1690) in a fine copy of this pivotal work. Anothermajor early item was the first edition of LaurenceSterne's posthumous Letters from Yorick to Eliza(1775), which joined Tristram Shandy and A Sentimental Journey added last year. The main development of the Regenstein Collection spread across theliterature of the nineteenth century, bringing usmore titles than can be listed here — and all in finecondition. There were Jane Austen's Emma (1814),Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (1847), AnneBronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848) andGeorge Eliot's Daniel Deronda (1876) in its original eight parts and wrappers. Among classic detective novels came Wilkie Collins' The Moonstone(1868) and its later counterpart, the first edition ofA. Conan Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles(1902). Of famous novels first issued in parts wesecured Trollope's Orley Farm (1861-62) andThackeray's The Virginians (1858-59). Other English authors were added in first editions — Bulwer-Lytton, Harrison Ainsworth, Kipling, Wilde, Shaw,Stevenson and Wells, but special note might bemade of three — Meredith, Bridges and Belloc — foreach of whom we acquired his first published work.In the first place among the American additions tothe Regenstein Collection we must list The ScarletLetter (1850). There came to us also Emerson'sEssays (1841), Longfellow's Hiawatha (1855),Louisa May Alcott's Little Women (1868-69), andHenry James's The Bostonians (1886) and TheTragic Muse (1890) — to mention just a few.Acquisitions outside the Regenstein Collection included such items as Wycherley's Miscellany Poems (1704), the first collected edition of JamesThomson's The Seasons (1730), and Pine's two-volume edition of the works of Horace (London,1733), which, with both its text and its illustrationsengraved, is a major example of English engravingin the first half of the eighteenth century. For Eng lish dramatic literature, some 85 new titles andeditions were added to the Celia and Delia AustrianCollection during the year.Over 550 volumes were added to the HarrietMonroe Modern Poetry Library. These included asmall number of examples of African and Australianverse, and a larger representation of the work ofyoung Canadian poets. Publications of the "avantgarde" poets of the Los Angeles-San Francisco circuit were purchased in some volume, though at asmall outlay.Our already strong holdings in Italian literaturewere given new and welcome depth with the purchase of a collection of over 2,200 volumes datingfrom the sixteenth through the early nineteenthcentury.Our buying in retrospective German Literaturewas still heavily centered on the Baroque period.Here, we added further works by Jacob Balde, andtitles by Daniel Sudermann, Michael Rentz, andEberhard Hauber. The outstanding acquisition,however, was Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg'sGeistliche Sonnette, Lieder und Gedichte (1662), awork of great rarity by one of the signicant womenin the history of German literature. For a laterperiod, we bought the first edition of Goethe'sWilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (1795), and a collection of 44 volumes containing some 125 plays ofLessing, Tieck, Iffland and Kotzebue, etc.An inflow of the eighteenth century dramaticworks characterized the year's acquisitions in FrenchLiterature. One large group of 72 plays was selectedfrom a single catalog prepared by a French dealer.These were selected, first, to include texts not already in our collections, and second, to acquire firsteditions where our only holdings were of laterpublication or of doubtful authority. Among thisgroup were two of the most important dramas ofthe French Revolution — Chenier's Charles IX, onVEcole des Rois (1790), and Francois Leger'sUAuteur d'un Moment (1792). From the eighteenthcentury library of August, Prince of Prussia, weacquired his set of Tragedies, Comedies et OperaComique de Divers Auteurs — altogether 170 playsin 19 volumes still bound as they were when part ofthe prince's collection.Finally, we continued to make a few very selective purchases of manuscripts. Of the nine itemsacquired, the earliest was a fourteenth century theological manuscript presenting some unusual textualproblems which are currently under investigation.We also acquired another commentary on Aristotle,this one by Tommaso Reviglione in the seventeenthcentury.8The University benefited from the generous giftsof more than one thousand donors and friends.Only a small sampling can be listed. Principal donors from the faculty included Professors WrightAdams, Saul Bellow, Benedict Einarson, EarlEvans, Jr., Bert F. Hoselitz, Allan T. Kenyon,Harold M. Mayer, George W. Platzman, George P.Shultz and George J. Stigler.Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Hartman of Winnetkapresented the Library with 311 volume's, most ofwhich will be added to the rare book collection,including a copy of Bleak House (1852-53) inparts; an unusually fine copy of the first edition ofAinsworth's The Tower of London (1840), whichwas originally part of the Spoor Library; DanteRossetti's Collected Works (1897), and a boundcopy of Pendennis (1844-50).Mrs. Clarence Loeb of Chicago donated an interesting collection of books, including Lovelace'sLucas t a (1659), early American editions of a number of Darwin's works, and one volume of 11eighteenth century pamphlets which containedGay's Polly (1729), Hampton's Reflections on Ancient and Modern History (1746), and Addison'sDiscourse on Ancient and Modern Learning (1739).Mrs. Loeb also presented in memory of her latehusband, Dr. Clarence Loeb, an early, rare work inthe history of ophthalmology, Plempius' Ophthalmo-graphia (1632). A collection of over 400 art catalogs and other miscellaneous works came from Mr.Morton Newman, and over 700 volumes, largely inart and music, were received from the estate ofClaire Dux Swift Van der Marwitz. Mr. and Mrs.Peter W. Sloss gave the Library a copy of the 1640edition of Ben Jonson's Works.Mention was made earlier in this Report of theChopin materials made possible by the support ofProfessor George W. Platzman. We should note,too, that Professor Arthur Friedman's interest inour holdings in English literature continued withhis gift of a fine copy of David Hume's Essays,Moral and Political (1742). This two-volume setincludes the exceedingly rare first edition of thesecond volume printed in Edinburgh by R. Flemingand A. Alison for A. Kincaid.The Library received a gift of 28 letters writtenby Vachel Lindsay to Professor Edward ScribnerAmes, presented by Professor Ames's son, VanMeter Ames of Cincinnati. Covering the periodfrom 1904 to 1927, the letters are a revealing sourcefor the study of Lindsay's developmenc as poet andas commentator on the American scene. Saul Bellowcontinued to add to the permanent collection of hispapers both by gift and deposit. He included in his gift 1,190 items of correspondence and manuscriptsand drafts of various shorter pieces, including "TheOrange Souffle," "Out from Under," "The Old System" and others.Professor Hilda Levi presented four notebookswhich were the result of her scientific collaborationwith Professor James Franck. Professor Paul Vothturned over to the Archives some early correspondence and notebooks of Professor John M. Coulterdealing with early research in botany at the University. The papers of Charles W. Moffit, one-timemember of the astronomy faculty, were presentedby his widow.Our holdings of the papers and correspondenceof Professor George Herbert Mead were greatly increased by gifts from Dr. Irene Tufts Mead andMrs. Henry C. H. Mead; The Divinity Library alsoturned over some of his manuscript notes found inits collections. Altogether some 300 letters wereadded. Additions were also received for the ErnestW. Burgess, Robert Redfield, Richard G. Stern andWilliam C. Reavis papers.The selection, procurement and cataloging ofsome 162,000 volumes, the circulation of 900,000volumes, the shelving of many more, the maintenance of a large number of public service departments for long service hours, the preparation forbinding of 80,000 volumes, the study of Libraryoperations and their mechanization, the handling ofcountless reference questions and the provision ofa wide variety of other Library services, can onlybe accomplished through an able and devoted Library staff. This work of the Library was carriedout cheerfully in the face of heavy work loads andovercrowded work and stack spaces in many partsof the Library. Staff participation in efforts to improve both the quality and efficiency of Libraryservice has continued to be widespread and substantial. The improvement in working conditions thatthe Regenstein Library will provide for much of thestaff will not be among the least of its many important contributions to the University.Herman H. Fussler, DirectorUniversity LibraryOAKS REPORT OF DISCIPLINARYACTIONSMarch 21, 1969TO: Edward Rosenheim, Jr.Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilFROM: The University Disciplinary CommitteeRE: Final Report9This is the final report of the University Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Committee of theCouncil on January 30 (document in AppendixA-l)./. Composition of the CommitteeThe Committee members appointed on January30 have served throughout the period of the Committee's work, except that it has been unnecessaryto call upon the services of Dr. Joseph Kirsner, thealternate. John Bremner, one of the four studentobservers named in the letter of January 30, hasserved through the whole period. Mark Gilford andBertha Josephson withdrew on January 30, aftersitting with the Committee for about five hoursThe fourth student observer, Mary Sue Leighton,and the two students named as replacements onJanuary 31, Johnathan Dean and Michael Denneny,served until February 27, when all three withdrew.They were replaced on February 28 by Mrs. LinneaBrandwein Vacca and on March 3 by Philip Bur-stein and Steven Crockett, who have served duringthe remaining weeks of the Committee's business.77. SummonsesThe University Disciplinary Committee actedonly in the cases of persons who had been summoned before the Committee upon evidence of participation in a disruptive demonstration. This evidence was presented to the Committee by the partyor parties who issued the summons. All summonseswere issued by the Dean of Students or his representatives. These officials determined when summonses would be issued and which persons wouldbe summoned. Four different types of summonseswere employed, all of which made clear that theperson was summoned for continued participationin a disruptive demonstration, that he was requiredto appear before a disciplinary committee by aspecified time, and that failure to appear would initself be additional grounds for disciplinary action(A-2).Before the initial summonses were issued representatives of the Dean of Students took steps tonotify students in the building that the demonstration had been declared disruptive and that summonses would be issued to those who did not departimmediately. In addition, on the morning of January 30, the first day of the sit-in, the Dean of Students circulated across campus and posted on theAdministration Building a notice reminding students of the frequently stated University policythat "any student who takes part in such [disruptive] activities in any University building will be subject to disciplinary measures, not excluding expulsion" (A-3).77Y. Interim SuspensionsOn February 1 the Committee took action suspending indefinitely 60 persons who, evidenceshowed, had been participating in the disruptivedemonstration and who had failed to appear beforethe Committee after having been summoned (A-4).Interim suspensions were imposed on additionalstudents on February 11, 12, 13, 19 and 28, bringing the total of interim suspensions to 89. Uponevidence submitted by the persons involved, 9 olthese suspensions were later lifted. The remainderhave now been replaced by final action of theCommittee.IV. Procedures of the CommitteeBeginning with its first session on January 30 andcontinuing throughout the first week of its meetings, the Committee devoted considerable time toformalizing and making public its procedures.On February 1 Dean Charles D. O'Connell issued the following "statement of the rights andprivileges as to matters of procedure that a studenthas had in disciplinary proceedings under the traditions and practices of the University":Under the traditions and practices of The University of Chicago in cases of student discipline,the student has had the rights and privilegeslisted below as to matters of procedure; they aredesigned to insure that all relevant facts are presented and all relevant views are considered;they are designed to provide a fair method ofinquiry for matters arising within the distinctivecontext of a university community.1. Reasonable notice of the offense that thestudent is charged with so as to enable himto prepare a presentation on his behalf;2. The right to request a continuance of theproceedings so as to give him, where required in the interests of fairness, time toprepare a presentation on his behalf;3. Before any final disciplinary action is taken,the right to appear and have a hearing atwhich he may present his side of the matter;4. The right to have his case heard initially bya panel of the faculty;5. The right to be accompanied at the hearingby a spokesman or a friend to advise himand to assist him in argument;106. The right to offer witnesses on his own behalf;7. At the option of the student, the hearingmay be opened to the public insofar as reasonably permitted by circumstances, including the nature of the case, the. availabilityof space, and the maintenance of order atthe hearing;8. At the option of the student, two studentobservers appointed or* recommended byStudent Government shall be present at thehearing and permitted to participate in itand in the deliberation of the faculty panel,but without the right to vote ;9. The right to a decision as soon as practicable after the hearing has been concluded;10. The right to appeal the decision to the University Dean of Students.• • •On February 2 the University Disciplinary Committee circulated the following:STATEMENTThe University Disciplinary Committee welcomes issuance by the Dean of Students of amemorandum describing past procedures in student disciplinary proceedings. This statementshould be useful for the guidance of students andtheir spokesmen and for the information of theCommittee. The list issued by the Dean of Students is not, however, an exhaustive list of theingredients of fairness or academic due process.Special circumstances applicable to a group ofcases or individual cases may require additionalprotections, which the Committee will work outwith the assistance of students and their spokesmen. For example, the Committee believes thatno student names should be released by the Committee as being involved in disciplinary proceedings until the individual student has met brieflywith the Committee or its representatives andhas requested a public hearing. Once a studenthas requested a public hearing, the Committeewill continue his case to a public session. Hisname will be entered on a docket list, open topublic inspection, which will contain the timeand place of the student's hearing and the nameof the person whom he has designated to counselwith him (to serve as his spokesman). Studentswho desire to exercise their rights to private sessions may so advise the Committee in private.Such students will not have their names and the times of their hearings entered on the docketopen to public inspection.The Committee will make no public announcement either of its interim or its final dispositionof cases. Instead, it will notify the Dean of Students of its decisions and recommendations; he,in turn, will notify the students. When the Committee considers it appropriaate, it will notify astudent of its decision and recommendation, evenbefore communicating its action to the Dean ofStudents.The Committee advises interested parties thatstudents who have received written or oral summonses to appear before the Committee shouldgo to Eckhart Hall, Room 209 (extension 8698)between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Here theycan make appointments to meet with the Committee or its representatives to discuss the matter of public or private hearings and to havetimes fixed for such hearings.On February 3, in further clarification of procedure, the University Disciplinary Committeeissued the following:STATEMENT1. The first question that must be determinedonce a student has responded to his summons byappearing at Eckhart Hall, Room 209, is whetherthe student desires a public hearing or a privatehearing. That question will be resolved at a briefmeeting between the student (who may bring oneperson of his choice to counsel with him) and theCommittee or its representatives. That preliminary meeting will normally be held the same daythat the student responds to his summons. TheCommittee will endeavor to arrange preliminarymeetings for students who desire them today at4:00 P.M.2. The Committee will try to schedule andhold its public or private hearings in the order inwhich students have requested them; where astudent submits a signed statement to the Committee at Eckhart Hall, Room 209, showing special circumstances or reasons why his caseshould be heard or resolved out of its turn, theCommittee will consider that possibility.On February 3 the Committee heard argumentsby law student spokesmen and gave rulings on eightmotions made by various students who had been11summoned before it. A summary of the motionsand the text of the Committee's rulings follows.1. Motion for Bill of Particulars — specific natureof the offense with which the defendant ischarged."Granted. To the extent that the students arenot already aware of the specific nature of theoffense, the Chairman will supply information."2. Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that theoffense stated in the summons is void forvagueness."Denied."3. Motion to produce the complaining witness — ¦the defendant has the right to face and cross-examine the person who served him with asummons."Denied. If not already known to the studentby the copy of the summons in his possession,the identity of the person who issued the summons will be communicated to the student onrequest. This Committee has no power of subpoena to require the presence of such personsbefore it. Yet the persons who issued summonses are available on campus. Such personsas the student can bring to the hearings willbe welcomed by the Committee, but the Committee will take signed statements instead ofrequiring personal testimony in all instances,since the Committee has no rule against reliable hearsay evidence in these informal proceedings."4. Motion to produce the person who declaredthe demonstration disruptive."Granted. The Committee considers it fairthat the person who declared the demonstration disruptive give explanation of the criteriaand evidence by which it was judged disruptive, and the Committee will take steps to obtain that information for presentation in openhearing."5. Motion to dismiss on the ground that theCommittee lacks jurisdiction: (a) The Committee is illegally constituted in that studentshad no voice in the decision as to the composition of the Committee, (b) The Committeehas operated and is operated under procedureswhich violated Article 15 of the Student Billof Rights."Denied." 6. Motion to continue the proceedings until theemotional climate on cmapus has diminishedsignificantly."On the basis of all the circumstances knownto this Committee, and some of the considerations urged by the students at this morning'shearing, the Committee decided that it wasfair to grant a motion for continuance and toset these three cases for Monday morning,February 10, at 8:30 A.M. in Classroom I ofthe Law School. Any student who wishes tohave his hearing changed from public to private should so advise the Committee."7. Motion that the Committee adopt the principle that the defendant in a disciplinary proceeding has the right to stand mute and not beprejudiced thereby."Granted in substance. No unfavorable inference will be drawn from a student's silencewhen before the Committee, but by standingmute a student gives up an opportunity topresent favorable evidence, thus running therisk that wrong inferences may be drawnfrom other information before the Committee."8. Motion that the Committee recommend establishment of a fair and impartial appellateprocess, including appeal to a body in whichstudents have voting representation."No action will be taken on Motion #8 at thistime, but the Motion will be kept before theCommittee during the whole course of theCommittee's proceedings."Copies of the foregoing rulings and statements ofprocedure were widely distributed for the guidanceof students and their spokesmen during the Committee's proceedings.V. Criteria and Evidence for Judging DemonstrationDisruptiveOn February 8 the Committee attempted to holda public hearing to hear Dean Charles D. O'Connellon the criteria and evidence for judging the demonstration disruptive (Students' Motion #4 above).Deliberate and prolonged interference from a partof the audience prevented this hearing from evenbeginning. After trying to secure order for aboutten minutes, the Chairman adjourned the hearingto another location where Dean O'Connell submitted his statement (A-5) and discussed it in alengthy semi-public session with students, spokesmen, witnesses and representatives of the campus12press. Following deliberation, the Committee issuedthe following ruling on that same date:Having considered the written statement andoral presentation of Dean Charles D. O'Connelland the rebuttal witnesses and arguments of students and spokesmen, the Committee has concluded that Dean O'Connell acted within theappropriate discretion of his office in declaringthat the demonstration in the AdministrationBuilding on Thursday, January 30, 1969, wasdisruptive.The varied educational, research and serviceactivities of this University are dependent uponthe administrative facilities for their normaloperation. This disruption of these facilities is aninterference with the mission of the University.In addition, the interference, in this instance,was accompanied by explicit and repeatedthreats to coerce compliance with demands, frustrating the ideal of free discussion to which theUniversity is committed.The Committee concludes that it was properfor the Dean of Students to have invoked thedisciplinary procedures of the University.VI. Request and Denial of u Collective Defense"On February 18 the Committee issued the following statement :The Committee takes this opportunity to respondto questions that have been submitted to theCommittee by various parties.1. A student claiming to represent a group ofstudents who are opposed to amnesty for students whose cases are before the Committee hasapproached the Committee Chairman and hasasked for permission to appear before the Committee or to submit information and argumentsagainst amnesty. The Committee has denied thisrequest. The Committee has no prosecutor and itdesires none, although the Committee does ofcourse accept and consider information submitted to it by the responsible University Officialsby whom the summonses were issued, and theCommittee may request additional information.2. Three students claiming to represent "agroup of students who participated in the Administration Building sit-in and who desire acollective defense" have appeared before theCommittee and urged that the Disciplinary Committee "schedule a public hearing for the presentation of a collective defense." For purposesof dealing with" this request the Committee assumes that these three students do represent a group who desire a collective defense. Afterthorough discussion of this request, the Committee has decided to continue its practice of individual hearings.The Committee has previously decided theimportant factual question common to all of thecases before it: whether the Dean of Studentswas within the appropriate discretion of hisoffice in concluding that the demonstration wasdisruptive. The Committee has likewise decidedthe principal common questions of procedure forguidance of students and their spokesmen, andhas made written copies of these decisions available to all who came before it.What remains now is to determine the natureand quality of each student's participation, ifany, in the disruptive demonstration.Since this is a separate issue for each student,the Committee has concluded that a full and fairconsideration requires a separate hearing for eachindividual. Fifty-six students have already appeared before the Committee on this basis. TheCommittee will continue to follow its procedures.VII. Procedure for Continued Failure To Respondto SummonsOn February 27 the Committee mailed certifiedletters (A-6) to 34 persons who had not respondedto the summons for a period of over four weeksand 15 letters to persons who had not respondedfor over two weeks. The letter advised them that ifthey failed to arrange for a hearing before 5 p.m.on March 3 the Committee would assume that theyhad chosen not to appear for a hearing and itwould proceed to take final action in their cases.VIII. A Stay of Proceedings in Some CasesOn March 1 the Committee Chairman announcedthat this Committee would hold no hearings andtake no final action in the case of any student thensummoned before the University Disciplinary Committee chaired by Charles Shireman until after theShireman Committee had reported its decision tothe Dean of Students and he had taken the usualsteps to notify the student. Pursuant to this decision the Committee took no action in the case of 23students for about two weeks.IX. Hearings HeldThe University Disciplinary Committee's firsttwo hearings were held on the afternoon of January30 in the Law School. These were private hearings,one of which was held over the protest of the student, who wanted a public hearing. On January 31the Committee announced that thereafter a public13hearing would be held in the case of any studentwho requested it. (The student heard in privatehearing on January 30 was offered a new publichearing if she desired it, but she declined.)Hearings were held in the Law School fromJanuary 30 through February 20. From February23 through March 7 the Committee held hearings inAbbott Hall. The remaining hearings, from March10 through March 19, were held in the Stagg FieldLaboratory Building.The Committee held a total of 105 hearings atwhich it took evidence; 59 of these were publichearings and 46 were private hearings. The Committee also held several public sessions for theargument of motions. Representatives of the Committee held over 100 preliminary scheduling meetings with students and their spokesmen. In addition, the Committee Chairman held scores of individual meetings to acquaint a student and hisspokesman with the contents of the student's file inadvance of his hearing.On January 30 and 31 and on February 3, 7, 8,20, 24, and on March 11 the Committee's publicand private hearings and deliberations were disrupted by crowds in the hearing room or outside,beating on doors, shouting, preventing entry andexit, eavesdropping on private hearings and deliberations, and otherwise creating or attempting tocreate an atmosphere of intimidation surroundingthe Committee's work.In this atmosphere of tension the Committeecould not have continued its hearings without theassistance, cooperation and support of Universitysecurity personnel and students (particularly lawstudents) who acted as ushers and bailiffs. In addition, the hearings and deliberations had to beshifted again and again to facilities less favorableto the conduct of the Committee's business and tothe interests of the students and others who attended the hearings.X. Statistical BreakdownA total of 152 persons were summoned to appearbefore this Committee. Upon examination of theevidence on which summonses were issued, theCommittee took action quashing 10 of these summonses. Another University Disciplinary Committee (Charles Shireman, Chairman) expelled 18 ofthe persons previously summoned and suspended bythis Committee.This Committee has taken final action on the remaining 124 persons. The Committee held hearingsin the cases of 105 of these persons. The remaining19 cases were resolved on the basis of the evidence in the file. In some instances this was done becausethe person made a written request that his case beresolved without a hearing. In the remaining casesit was because the person summoned, after havingbeen properly notified, persisted in his failure toappear before the Committee for a hearing.Of the 124 persons whose cases were resolved bythis Committee on the merits (those where thesummons was not quashed), 105 were studentspresently registered in the University. The remaining 19 were persons not presently registered, butwho had been students in the past and/or might bestudents in the future and therefore had reason tohave their status resolved by the Committee. Thetotal of 105 students presently registered is composed of 26 graduate students and 79 undergraduates (including 15 freshmen).The Committee's decisions on discipline for the105 persons currently registered as students aresummarized as follows:ExpulsionSuspended for 6 quartersSuspended for 5 quartersSuspended for 4 quartersSuspended for 3 quartersSuspended for 2 quartersSuspended for 1 quarter 1971221114Suspended for a period less than onequarter 10Suspended for a period of one quarter ormore, but the suspension suspended 6Suspended for a period of less than onequarter, with the suspension suspended 10Probation for a period 3No discipline 20Total for students registered 105(Some of the students suspended for one or morequarters also received additional quarters of suspended suspensions. Some of the suspended students were also given disciplinary probation forvarying lengths of time.)Disciplinary action in the cases of the 19 personsnot currently registered as students was as follows:Further registration barred 6May not register for 6 quarters 1May not register for 4 quarters 2May not register for 2 quarters 2May not register for 1 quarter 2No discipline 6Total persons not registeredTotal cases resolved on the merits 1912414XI. Bases for DecisionsThere were two bases for disciplinary decisionsby this Committee: (1) participation in the sit-inafter it had been declared a disruptive demonstration and (2) failure to make timely response to asummons to appear before the Committee. TheCommittee received information from the Dean ofStudents or his representatives and from studentsand their spokesmen and witnesses at the hearings.Much of this information described the issues andevents of the demonstration and the relation of individuals to them. This information was consideredas evidence only to the extent that the Committeefound it relevant to the actions which were thebases for discipline. In each case, the decision ofthe Committee was determined by the nature anddegree of the individual's participation in the sit-in,and, if applicable, by his delay or failure to respond to the summons.XII. ConclusionThe Committee does not consider it part of itscharge to submit any statement on whether itsaction should have the effect of disqualifying students from financial benefits pursuant to the termsof any federal or state legislation, or to submit anyrecommendation upon such matters as the appropriate procedure for appeal from the Committee'sdecisions or whether students should have votes onfuture disciplinary committees.Having submitted final decisions and recommendations in the cases of all students summonedand remaining before it, and having no furtherbusiness on its agenda, the University DisciplinaryCommittee requests that it be discharged.Dallin H. Oaks, ChairmanDr. Louis CohenDr. Alexander GottschalkGwin KolbArthur MannAnthony TurkevitchPeter 0. VandervoortKarl J. WeintraubLennard WhartonStudent ObserversJohn BremnerPhilip L. BursteinSteven F. CrockettMrs. Linnea Brand wein Vacca APPENDICESLetter Appointing University DisciplinaryCommittee A-lSummonses A-2Notice Circulated across Campus and Postedon Door of Administration Building A-3Memorandum on Interim Suspensions A-4Dean Charles D. O'Connell Statement on Disruptive Demonstration A- 5Letter Sent to Persons Who Had Not Responded to Summons by February 27, 1969 A-6A-lJanuary 30, 1969Mr. Dallin OaksSchool of LawDear Dallin:The Committee of the Council has asked me toconvey the following information to you about theUniversity Disciplinary Committee that you haveagreed to chair. Other members of the Committeeare:Dr. Louis CohenMr. Gwin KolbMr. Anthony TurkevichMr. Karl WeintraubDr. Joseph Kirsner, alternateDr. Alexander GottschalkMr. Arthur MannMr. Peter VandervoortMr. Lennard WhartonThe Committee assumes that the disciplinary committee's judgments will come in the way of decisions, with appeal to be made to the UniversityDean of Students.The Committee hopes that your Committee willapprove the inclusion in your deliberations of anumber of student observers. Three such observers,appointed by Student Government, are now servingwith another University disciplinary committee, andwill be asked to serve: Mark Gilford, Bertha Jo-sephson, and Mary Sue Leighton. An additionalstudent with experience as an observer at University disciplinary deliberations, John Bremner, willalso be asked to serve. If still more are needed, theCommittee of the Council will arrange for them.15-Your present Committee numbers nine. If you feelthe need for additional faculty members, please letus know.Sincerely yours,Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilA-2SUMMONSES1.NameBecause of your continued participation in a disruptive demonstration, your name is being given toa University Disciplinary Committee. You are required to appear at Eckhart Lounge (second floor,Room 209) within one hour of receiving this summons to be assigned to a hearing before that Committee.Your failure to appear will in itself be additionalgrounds for disciplinary action.January 30, 1969 Charles D. O'ConnellDate Dean of Students Byj Time of Delivery2. The text of the foregoing summons was also announced orally to persons or groups of personsin the Administration Building who could beidentified and addressed orally but who could notbe served with a written summons because theywere inaccessible or refused to accept the document.3. (Letter)Dear You have been identified as having been in theAdministration Building while a disruptive demonstration was in progress and after all studentshad been officially requested to leave the building immediately.Your name has therefore been given to theUniversity Disciplinary Committee chaired byProfessor Dallin Oaks.This is an official request that you appear inEckhart 209 by 5:00 P.M., ,February , to schedule an individual hearing before the Disciplinary Committee.Your failure to appear in response to thissummons will in itself be grounds for disciplinary action. 4. (Letter)Dear After carefully reviewing the written statement you have made concerning your participation in the recent disruptive demonstration inthe Administration Building, I have made a preliminary determination that your statement issufficiently detailed to merit referral to the University Disciplinary Committee chaired by Professor Dallin Oaks.You are hereby summoned to appear beforethat disciplinary committee. You should go toEckhart Hall, Room 209, before 5:00 P.M., , Marcli _, toschedule an appointment with the committee.Failure to appear to make an appointment willitself be a matter for disciplinary action.If you have any questions about this, pleasecall me at University extension 3250. Such contact does not, however, obviate the need foryour appearing in Eckhart 209 by at 5:00 P.M.A-3THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOJanuary 30, 1969NOTICEIN RESPONSE TO A VOTE BY A GROUP OFSTUDENTS AT A MEETING LAST NIGHT INKENT 107, CALLING FOR THE OCCUPATIONBY FORCE OF THE ADMINSTRATIONBUILDING, I WISH TO POINT AGAIN TOTHE RELEVANT UNIVERSITY POLICY.ANY STUDENT WHO TAKES PART INSUCH ACTIVITIES IN ANY UNIVERSITYBUILDING WILL BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES, NOT EXCLUDING EXPULSION.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsA-4February 1, 1969TO: Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsFROM : Dallin H. Oaks, ChairmanUniversity Disciplinary Committee16At the request of the Committee of the Council wesubmit the following decisions and recommendations of the University Disciplinary Committee,which are unanimous. Additional decisions andrecommendations will be forthcoming.The students who have participated in the disruptive demonstration at the Administration Building have subjected themselves "to disciplinarymeasures, not excluding expulsion."On evidence submitted by various representatives of the Dean of Students, unanswered thus farby the students themselves (who have failed to respond to summonses to arrange for hearings beforethis Committee), we have concluded that each ofthe students named on the attached list failed todiscontinue a disruptive demonstration after having been notified that his conduct was disruptiveand after having been requested to cease that conduct. Furthermore, each of these students failed toappear before the University Disciplinary Committee after having been summoned to appear before this Committee. Each of these students is tobe suspended immediately from The University ofChicago until his case is resolved by the UniversityDisciplinary Committee on the student's individualapplication. By appearing in Eckhart Hall, Room209, Extension 8698, between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00P.M., the students on this list (and others whomay be summoned) can arrange for hearings sothat the Committee will be sure that all relevantfacts are ascertained and all views are fairly presented before taking final action in their individualcases.A number of students summoned from the Administration Building have appeared before theDisciplinary Committee and their cases are nowbeing considered.CC : Edward RosenheimSpokesman, Committee of the CouncilA-5STATEMENT TO UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEEFebruary 8, 1969Charles D. O'Connell, Dean of StudentsMy name is Charles O'Connell and I am Dean ofStudents at The University of Chicago. I declaredthat the demonstration that began in the Administration Building on Thursday, January 30, 1969,was disruptive. I understand that this Committeehas invited an explanation of the evidence and thecriteria on which that declaration rested. I shall attempt to provide that explanation.An appreciation of the events that immediatelypreceded my determination will be promoted, Ithink, by a reference to their background. There aredifficulties in selecting a particular starting point,but I believe it useful to go back to January 19,1969, and, in general, to proceed chronologically.On that day, John T. Wilson, Dean of the Faculties, announced the appointment of a Committee,chaired by Mrs. Hannah Gray, to review the decision concerning Mrs. Dixon. That announcement,like the other communications I will be mentioning,was widely circulated throughout the Universitycommunity. Dean Johnson had requested such areview because of the allegations that improperconsiderations had entered into the decision not toreappoint Mrs. Dixon.On January 21, 1969, President Levi issued astatement made by the academic deans and endorsed by the Committee of the Council. Thatstatement once again emphasized the importance ofstudent views on a wide range of academic matters,including the performance of faculty members, andcalled for the institutionalizing of procedures forsecuring student appraisal of individual teachers ona continuing basis.On January 27, the Gray Committee invited student organizations and all interested individuals ofthe University to submit in writing their views regarding the issues in the Dixon case and their proposals for resolving them.It is convenient at this point to refer to an earlierevent. On January 23, representatives of a groupcalling itself the Committee of 85, left the following communication with President Levi's secretary :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 on hiring and rehiring of faculty.We regard the formation of the Gray Committee as an inadequate response to these demands.It is an excuse to waste 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 control overhiring and rehiring of faculty, be accepted by theUniversity no later than 9:00 A.M., Wednesday,January 29.Unless these demands are accepted at thistime, we will take militant action.17President Levi referred that communication tothe Academic Council of the University. In a statement dated January 26, 1969, the Council reiterated the value of student views on a wide range ofmatters, including the performance of facultymembers, and recommended that each of the faculties should institutionalize procedures for continuing student appraisal of individual instructors.That statement concluded by pointing to "TheUniversity's long-standing policy that disruptiveacts which go beyond the legitimate means of communication or persuasion are prohibited, and thatstudents engaging in such acts are subject to appropriate disciplinary action."On January 28, 1969, D. Gale Johnson, Dean ofthe Division of Social Sciences, made a report tothe University community concerning certainevents in the Social Sciences Building on January27, 1969 Although this report was widely circulatedamong students and faculty, it may be helpful toread all of it:I think it is important that the Universitycommunity receive a factual account of theevents in the Social Sciences Building on January27. I likewise think it important that I makeclear my reasons for believing that the "sit-in"staged on that occasion was not productive ofuseful discussion and why, moreover, it hasraised grave questions in my mind.The office of the Dean of the Division waslocked at noon on January 27, as it normally isbetween 12:00 and 1:00 each day. Returning tothe building at 12 :10, I observed the sit-in takingplace in the lobby under circumstances which Ishould hesitate to call disruptive I likewise observed, however, an attempt being made by twopersons to pick or force the locked door of theoffice — an attempt which they ceased upon myrequest that they do so. Returning to the lobby,I shortly afterwards observed a movement by theprotesting group toward my office and, on myarriving there, I discovered that the office hadbeen forcibly entered, that the room was fullyoccupied, and that a file drawer had been openedand one person was engaged in examining its contents.I was allowed entrance to my office and wasable to occupy my own chair. The occupants ofthe room announced their wish to discuss the caseof Mrs. Dixon but, at the same time, made it entirely clear that they were also considering taking the contents of the files. In fact, during thehour and forty minutes during which they remained in the office, two votes were taken as to whether the files should be seized; althoughmajority voted for this move, it apparently wasinsufficient to prompt the actual seizure of thefiles. It was, nonetheless, made clear to me thatsuch a step might be taken at any time and I wasasked at one point what I would do if such anattempt were made. If the discussion of MrsDixon's case proved unsatisfactory, I was toldthe question of seizing the files would be resumedat once.In effect, I found myself surrounded for theperiod between approximately 12:20 and 2:00p.m. by uninvited intruders into my office andthreatened by the possibility that the contents ofthe files would be removed at any point duringthat period. During this time, my telephone wasunder the control of the students. It was madeclear that I could not leave the office with anyassurance that the contents of the room would berespected. Indeed, while I was there, articles inthe offices were broken and damaged.At approximately 1:55, written notice wasserved to those engaged in the demonstrationthat their conduct was regarded as disruptive.My office was vacated and the demonstration terminated by 2:00 p.m.The forcible entry into my office, the limitation upon my personal movements, the unauthorized inspection of personal files, and the suspension of ordinary business within my office allconstitute, in my opinion, behavior which wasdisruptive of the University's proper operation.Equally important, from the standpoint of theUniversity's welfare and the possibility of continuing open discussion upon matters of commonconcern, the actions in my office led to no usefulresult.During the past several weeks, the faculty ofthe Division of the Social Sciences has made continuing efforts to engage with students in the discussion of the principles and practices implicitlyraised by the case of Mrs. Dixon. I remain willing, as do my associates in the faculty of theDivision, to participate in open discussion ofthose questions of policy which concern both students and faculty alike. Such discussion cannotproceed under threat, physical constraint, or circumstances in which civil rights are violated. Ihope, most earnestly, that they will proceed under circumstances marked by the good faith, responsibility, and concern for justice which arecharacteristic of this academic community.On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 29, at a18meeting in Mandel Hall, the following votes werennounced : 444 people favored a resolution to take"militant action"; 430 opposed the resolution, and82 abstained. I heard a report of that vote broadcast over WHPK. On the night of January 29, Iheard a "live" broadcast over WHPK of the meeting in Kent Hall 107. During that meeting thethreat of "militant action" was made more specific.Of the group present, according to an announcement made during that meeting, 350 voted to occupy the Administration Building on January 30, at12:00 noon, and 200 opposed that resolution. Thedescription "disruptive" was applied by severalspeakers to the proposed action, and at least onespeaker supporting the resolution urged the choiceof the Administration Building because it was essential to the operation of the University. Speakersthroughout the evening indicated that the proposedoccupation was intended to force the University tocomply with certain demands. A vote to determinethe length of the proposed occupation of the Administration Building resulted in a decision that itshould be of no fixed duration but that its continuance should be determined at the end of each dayin the building. Those present were invited to infiltrate the building during the morning hours. Finally,the chairman of the meeting advised participants inthe occupation to bring a supply of food.In view of this publicly announced threat tooccupy a University building and in accordancewith University practice that, whenever possible,students should be reminded of the disciplinaryrisks inherent in disruptive demonstrations, I postedon the main doors of the Administration Buildingat 7.30 A.M. on Thursday, January 30, the following notice :January 30, 1969In response to a vote by a group of students ata meeting last night in Kent 107, calling for theoccupation by force of the Administration Building, I wish to point again to the relevant University policy. Any student who takes part in suchactivities in any University building will be subject to disciplinary measures, not excluding expulsion.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsThis notice was circulated widely across the campus during the morning of January 30, including allresidence halls, Mandel Hall corridor, Cobb Hall,Ida Noyes Hall, the Social Sciences Building lobby,major married student housing complexes, andother points of student concentration. During the morning of January 30 signs appearedon campus advertising that a "sit-in" was scheduledto begin at noon. A booth in the lobby of Cobb Halldistributed materials urging students to join a "sit-in," and a large sign in front of the booth advertised the "sit-in" as beginning at noon.From 9:45 A.M. until 10:30 A.M. on January 30,I received a succession of telephone reports fromUniversity staff in various offices in the building.Those telephone reports conveyed the following information to me: Small clusters of people weregathering outside the building; several individualshad entered the building with bedrolls ; small groupsof students were gathering on the third, fourth, andfifth floors of the building without indicating anyUniversity business; women members of the clericalstaffs were troubled by the presence of these individuals; some had begun to complain to theirsupervisors that their work was being adverselyaffected ; others had stopped their usual work to putaway office equipment and to lock up files, both ofwhich were normally required for their regularwork.At about 10:30 A.M , I was sufficiently troubledby the situation that I asked a number of facultymembers and deans to station themselves throughout the Administration Building and to report to meby telephone on the activities they observed in thebuilding and their effects. I myself left the buildingat 11:40 A.M., but left word where I could bereached by telephone.Between 11:45 A.M. and 12:15 P.M., I receiveda number of calls from the faculty and staff observers, which indicated that many persons continued to enter the building, some equipped withbedding and substantial quantities of food, and thatnormal activities were being increasingly interferedwith. Fifteen to twenty persons entered the Registrar's Office, with no announced official business.Some of them sat in chairs ; others walked back andforth in front of the staff. A smaller group of six oreight stationed themselves at the entrance to theprivate elevator at the south end of the building. Agirl moved into the chair of the receptionist in theRegistrar's Office. Thereafter, staff reported thatthe girl was monitoring their outgoing calls. Thenature of these and similar activities was known tome or to people reporting to me before I made thedeclaration of disruption. Clear indications haddeveloped that the threats made the night beforewere being carried out and that normal administrative operations were impossible.While I was receiving telephone calls, between11:45 A.M. and 12:15 P.M., I was consulting with19members of the Committee of the Council, withwhom I was sitting. I passed each report on to theCommittee, as I received it. At 12:20 P.M., whenthe reports had made it clear that between 150-200people had entered the building, their conversations clearly indicating their intention to stay andto occupy offices, and their conduct having madenormal operations impossible, I consulted onceagain with the Committee of the Council. I alsoconsulted over the telephone with the Legal Counsel of the University and an Assistant Dean of Students, both of whom were in the AdministrationBuilding, and then officially declared the actionsdisruptive and an interference with the normalfunctioning of the University.I turn now to the standard I applied in determining that the actions I have described were disruptive. The governing criterion was interference withthe normal operations of the University. In applying that standard to the events of Thursday, January 30, it was, in my judgment, necessary to takeinto account the atmosphere of coercion that hadbeen generated by antecedent events, including theimmobilization of a member of the faculty in hisoffice for two hours on Monday, January 27, andthe explicit and publicly announced threats of theevening of Wednesday, January 29, when a publicly announced decision was reached by a large number of people to occupy the Administration Building at noon on the following day. The accumulatingincidents of the morning of January 30, which Ihave described, showed plainly that those threatswere being translated into action — action that resulted in the invasion of, and continuing threat to,the privacy of the staff's communications; theaccumulative destruction of the peaceful atmosphere necessary for the normal conduct of University affairs; and the entry — by 12:15 P.M. — of between 150 and 200 persons, who had no apparentUniversity business and who were spreadingthroughout the Building; apprehension on the partof members of the administrative staff of the University; adverse effects on their work and complaints by them that their work was being adversely affected.The events of January 30, prior to my officialdeclaration, in and of themselves, led me to conclude that substantial interference with the University's administrative services had occurred. Thatconclusion was reinforced by two considerations:(1) These events looked back to explicit and repeated threats to coerce compliance with demands,coupled with a disregard of open and widely publicized channels for discussion and review; (2) these events foreshadowed increased interference withnormal University operations in the immediatefuture — interference which in fact occurred.In conclusion, I want to make one point clear.Although a considerable number of persons was involved in the actions declared on January 30 to be"disruptive," a particular number of participants isnot, in my judgment, a necessary condition for disruptive action. In any event, in this case, the pertinent evidence, in my view and in the view of theCommittee of the Council, left no doubt that disruptive activities had occurred. Finally, this Committee, I believe, may properly notice and shouldnotice that the actions in the Administration Building, especially when viewed in the light of theirbackground, went beyond the legitimate means ofcommunication and frustrated the civilized discourse to which this University is dedicated andwhich the social regulations are designed to protect.A-6February 27, 1969The University of ChicagoUNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEEDearThe University Disciplinary Committee remindsyou that it has been more than four weeks sinceyou were suspended for your participation in a disruptive demonstration and for your failure toappear before the Committee in response to a summons.After this period of time, the Committee considers it appropriate to take final action in yourcase. Room 210 in Eckhart Hall will be open onFriday, Saturday, and Monday between the hoursof 9 and 5 p.m. to permit you to make an appointment for a hearing before the committee.If you fail to arrange for a hearing before 5 p.m.on Monday, March 3, 1969 the Committee willassume that you have chosen not to appear for ahearing and it will proceed to take final action inyour case.Very Truly Yours,Dallin H. OaksProfessor of Law and Chairman,University Disciplinary Committee20SHIREMAN REPORT OF DISCIPLINARYACTIONSTO: March 17, 1969Edward Rosenheim, SpokesmanCommittee of the CouncilFROM: Charles Shireman, ChairmanUniversity Disciplinary Committee IIRE: Report of Disciplinary ActionsDisciplinary Committee II received referral of 27students. All were alleged to have been involved inincidents following the Administration Building sit-in. Fourteen had previously been suspended forfailure to appear before the Oaks Committee and13 were on active student status. The following dispositions of these two groups of cases were made.A. Students previously summoned before the OaksCommittee, suspended for non-appearance, andthen involved in the Quadrangle Club and/orthe President's House incidents 141. Expulsion 92. Suspension for an indefinite period, not toend before the beginning of the Spring Quarter, 1970, and then only upon presentationof evidence of acceptable interim behavior 33. No action taken, with the understandingthat the Oaks Committee will consider students' involvement in the sit-in. (Involvement in other incidents seems peripheral orother extenuating circumstances exist.) 2B. Students officially alleged to have been involved in the Quadrangle Club incident only.(Note that no charges were filed with us regarding participation by these students inother disruptive acts. However, in disposingof these cases our Committee took note ofthe fact that the incident in question tookplace during a period of known extreme tension in the University community. This wasconsidered an aggravating circumstance.Note further that it is recommended that allsuspensions be for indefinite periods, thesuggested minimum terms of which are notedbelow, with eventual re-admission only uponpresentation of evidence of acceptable interim behavior.) 121. Suspension beginning with Spring Quarter,1969, with no re-admission for at leastthree quarters 1 2. Suspension beginning with Spring Quarter, 1969, with no re-admission for at leasttwo quarters 43. Suspension beginning with Spring Quarter,1969, with no re-admission for at leastone quarter 14. Suspension for one quarter, such actionsuspended as long as the subject's behavior warrants his remaining in this academic community 15. No disciplinary action taken 2(In both of the above cases, the evidenceavailable to us made it difficult to distinguish the students' behavior during theQuadrangle Club incident as being disruptive rather than normal to newspaper reporters.)6. Students failed to appear before ourCommittee as summoned 3We recommend that these three studentsremain upon suspended status with thisUniversity until such time as dispositionis made of their cases by a UniversityDisciplinary Committee before whichthey have properly appeared. We suggesttheir failure to appear before us be takeninto account as a seriously aggravatingcircumstance in any further proceedingsregarding them.C. One student was referred for an act of vandalism at the Quadrangle Club. He was ordered to pay for the cost of the windowbroken in this incident.It is obvious from the above report that in someinstances different dispositions were recommendedin cases of students involved in the same incidents.This results from the fact that in determining disposition the Committee took note of such factorsas:a. the nature of the student's involvement inthe incident in question (central, peripheral,etc.) ;b. the degree to which the student sought tocommunicate realistically with the Committee rather than simply to defy it or disruptits proceedings;c. the extent to which the student, upon reflection upon his participation in the incidents inquestion, assessed his behavior as being justified and proper or inappropriate to a University community, and21d. in some few instances, the degree to whichthe student had demonstrated capacity forpositive citizenship in other aspects of hisfunctioning at this University.REPORT ON DISCIPLINARY ANDAPPEALS DECISIONSApril 8, 1969TO : Students and Faculty ofThe University of ChicagoFROM: Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsAlthough I am continuing to receive appeals fromthe disciplinary actions of the two University Disciplinary Committees which completed their workin the Winter Quarter, it seems appropriate to report on the present status of the disciplinary andappeal actions.Both the University Disciplinary Committeechaired by Professor Dallin H. Oaks and the Committee chaired by Professor Charles H. Shiremanhave submitted reports to the Committee of theCouncil which will shortly be made public.One hundred sixty-five persons were summonedto appear before the two Committees. Of these 165:42 students have been expelled, 24 after appearance before the Committees, 18 on the basis ofuncontested evidence before the Committees ofparticipation in disruptive activities, interimsuspensions, and final warnings.Of the expelled students, 7 were not enrolledat the University in the Winter Quarter, allmen. Of the remaining 35, 24 are men, 11women; 30 are undergraduates, 5 graduatestudents.81 students have been suspended, of whom 12were not enrolled at the University in theWinter Quarter.Suspensions affecting 38 of the 81 studentswere operative for only the Winter Quarter,and so these 38 students were eligible to register for the Spring Quarter.Of the 43 students currently suspended, 5 werenot enrolled at the University in the WinterQuarter — 3 men and 2 women. Of the remaining 38, 26 are men, 12 are women; 31 are undergraduates, 7 are graduate students. The original 81 disciplinary suspensions were asfollows :8 students were suspended for six quarters;1 student was suspended for five quarters;4 students were suspended for four quarters;5 students were suspended for three quarters;15 students were suspended for two quarters;some had a third quarter's suspended suspension;17 students were suspended for one quarter; somehad a second quarter's suspended suspension;10 students were suspended for less than onequarter; none lost the quarter's credit;17 students were suspended for varying lengthsof time, but with the entire suspension suspended, and4 students are on indefinite suspension for failureto report to a Disciplinary Committee.In addition, the Disciplinary Committees reachedthe following decisions:1 student was fined the cost of a broken windowbut given no other sanction;3 students were put on disciplinary probation forvarying lengths of time, but with no suspensioninvolved ;28 students were recommended for no disciplinary action, and10 students had charges dropped in their casesfor either mistaken identity or insufficient evidence.Both Disciplinary Committees based their individual decisions on the extent and degree of thestudent's involvement in the disruptive incident orincidents for participation in which he was summoned to the Committee, the nature of the student's response to the summons, and in some casesat least, the student's previous record of disciplinary involvement or lack of it during his time at theUniversity.As for appeals to the Dean of Students for mitigation of the Disciplinary Committees' judgments,33 students have filed written appeals as of April 7.Of these, 19 appeals have been acted on, and 14 —most of which have been received only in recentdays — are pending.Of the 19 appeals on which I have acted, all fromsuspended students, the disciplinary judgments imposed by the Committees ranged from a one-quar-22ter suspension to an indefinite suspension. In thecases of 5 of these appeals, I did not act to mitigate the Committees' decisions. In 14. cases, actionof some kind was taken to mitigate the effects ofthe original judgments. In 1 case, an indefinite suspension was set aside completely. In 3 cases, a one-quarter suspension was suspended. In 3 cases, onequarter of a two-quarter suspension was suspended.In 1 case, a four-quarter suspension was reduced tothree, and in another, a five-quarter suspension wasreduced to three. Finally, in 5 cases, administrativeactions were taken which, although they did notformally change the penalties imposed by the faculty committees, substantially mitigated their consequences.Of the 14 appeals pending, 6 are from expelledstudents, 8 from suspended students. Each studenthas already had or has been asked to schedule anappointment to discuss his appeal with me. Sincethe appeals decision in the case of suspended students is more likely to affect their Spring Quarterregistration, I am considering those cases first. Ap peals from expelled students are also being reviewedcarefully on an individual basis, but in addition,because nothing prevents an expelled student fromre-applying for admission to the University, I haveasked the Committee of the Council to give thoughtto the time and circumstances under which suchapplications might be seriously considered.Some students who have filed appeals appearedbefore the Disciplinary Committee to which theywere summoned; others did not. Of those who appeared, some presented a defense of their involvement in disruptive activities; others made no defense. As a result, new evidence has been offered insome cases. In other cases, evidence has been presented that the academic effects of the disciplinarysanction imposed has produced or will produce consequences disproportionate to the DisciplinaryCommittee's intentions. I have tried to keep thesevarious considerations in mind as I have reviewedindividual appeals.Appeals, of course, are still being received andwill continue to be received.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESa0»hiO0»020P |' 1 92.(ftONoONU>^1rn ± c Z03E > -o </> |zP > ¦oo 0O - ¦"™ ^ 003R0si Q -1>022 m 2CO 3