THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO SEECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 6DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AND NAMEDPROFESSORSHIPSThe list includes, in order, the name of the holder,the name of the professorship and the holder's department.DIVISION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CONTENTS/Moy 29, 19691 Distinguished Service and Named Professorships as of May 8, 19694 Annual Report of the Student MentalHealth Clinic 1967-687 Memos from the Council of the University SenateGeorge W. Beadle William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professorship BiologyDr. H. Stanley Bennett Robert A. Bensley Professorship in theBiological and Medical Sciences BiologyDr. Albert Dorfman Richard T. Crane Distinguished ServiceProfessorship in the Pritzker School ofMedicine PediatricsDr. H. Fernandez-Moran A, N. Pritzker Professorship in Biophysics BiophysicsDr. Daniel X. Freedman Louis Block Professorship in the Division of the Biological Sciences PsychiatryDr. Lawrence C. Freedman Foundations Fund for Research in Psychiatry Professorship PsychiatryDr. Hans H. Hecht Blum-Riese Professorship in Medicine MedicineDr. Charles B. Huggins William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Ben May LaboratoryProfessorship SurgeryDr. Leon 0. Jacobson Joseph Regenstein Professorship in theBiological and Medical Sciences MedicineElwood V. Jensen American Cancer Society-Charles Hay-den Foundation Professorship Ben May LaboratoryDr. Joseph B. Kirsner Louis Block Professorship in the Division of the Biological Sciences MedicineHeinrich Kluver Sewell L. Avery Distinguished ServiceProfessorship Emeritus Divisional GeneralRichard C. Lewontin Louis Block Professorship in the Division of the Biological Sciences BiologyDr. John &. Lindsay Thomas D. Jones Professorship in thePritzker School of Medicine SurgeryDr. Charles P. McCartney Mary Campau Ryerson Professorship in Obstetrics andGynecology GynecologyDr. Sidney Schulman Ellen C. Manning Professorship MedicineDr. George Wied Blum-Riese Professorship in Obstetrics Obstetrics andand Gynecology GynecologyDr. Frederick P. Zuspan Joseph Bolivar DeLee Professorship in Obstetrics andObstetrics and Gynecology Gynecology1DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESWayne C. BoothHerlee CreelBenedict EinarsonIgnace GelbHans G. GiiterbockEdward E. LowinskyRichard P. McKeonA. Leo OppenheimEdward WasiolekBernard Weinberg George M. Pullman Professorship inEnglishMartin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service ProfessorshipEdward Olson Professorship in GreekFrank P. Hixon Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipTiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service ProfessorshipFerdinand Schevill Distinguished ServiceProfessorship in the HumanitiesCharles F. Gray Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipJohn A. Wilson Professorship in Oriental Studies at the Oriental InstituteAvalon Foundation Chair in the HumanitiesRobert Maynard Hutchins DistinguishedService Professorship EnglishHistoryFar Eastern LanguagesClassical LanguagesOriental InstituteLinguisticsNear Eastern LanguagesOriental InstituteNear Eastern LanguagesMusicPhilosophyClassical LanguagesOriental InstituteNear Eastern LanguagesSlavic LanguagesRomance LanguagesDIVISION OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESA. Adrian AlbertAlberto CalderonS. ChandrasekharJulian R. GoldsmithClyde A. Hutchison, Jr.Mark G. InghramIrving KaplanskySaunders Mac LaneWilliam W. MorganRobert S. MullikenStuart A. RiceClemens C. J. RoothaanJohn A. SimpsonAnthony TurkevichGregor Wentzel Eliakim Hastings Moore DistinguishedService ProfessorshipLouis Block Professorship in the Division of the Physical SciencesMorton D. Hull Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipCharles E. Merriam Distinguished Service ProfessorshipCarl William Eisendrath DistinguishedService Professorship in ChemistrySamuel K. Allison Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipGeorge Herbert Mead DistinguishedService ProfessorshipMax Mason Distinguished Service ProfessorshipBernard E. and Ellen C. Sunny Distinguished Service ProfessorshipErnest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService Professorship EmeritusLouis Block Professorship in the Division of the Physical SciencesLouis Block Professorship in the Division of the Physical SciencesEdward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service ProfessorshipJames Franck Professorship in ChemistryAlbert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professorship Emeritus MathematicsMathematicsPhysicsAstronomy and AstrophysicsGeophysical SciencesChemistryEnrico Fermi InstitutePhysicsMathematicsMathematicsAstronomy and AstrophysicsChemistryPhysicsChemistryPhysicsPhysicsEnrico Fermi InstituteChemistryEnrico Fermi InstitutePhysics2William H. ZachariasenAntoni Zygmund Ernest DeWitt Burton Distinguished PhysicsService ProfessorshipGustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distin- Mathematicsguished Service ProfessorshipDIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESBruno BettelheimBenjamin S. BloomDaniel J. BoorstinRoald F. CampbellDavid EastonFrederick R. EgganJohn Hope FranklinMilton FriedmanJacob W. GetzelsChauncy D. HarrisPing-ti HoWilliam F. HutchinsonDonald H. LachWilliam H. McNeillHans J. MorgenthauTheodore W. Schultz Stella M. Rowley Distinguished ServiceProfessorship in EducationCharles H. Swift Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipPreston and Sterling Morton Distinguished Service Professorship in HistoryWilliam Claude Reavis Professorship inEducational AdministrationAndrew MacLeish Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipHarold H. Swift Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipJohn Matthews Manly DistinguishedService ProfessorshipPaul Snowden Russell DistinguishedService ProfessorshipR. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service ProfessorshipSamuel N. Harper Professorship in GeographyJames Westfall Thompson Professorshipin HistoryPreston and Sterling Morton Professorship EmeritusBernadotte E. Schmitt Professorship inHistoryRobert A. Milliken Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipAlbert A. Michelson Distinguished Service ProfessorshipCharles L. Hutchinson DistinguishedService Professorship EducationPsychologyPsychiatryOrthogenic SchoolEducationHistoryEducationPolitical ScienceAnthropologyHistoryEconomicsEducationPsychologyGeographyHistoryHistoryHistoryHistoryHistoryPolitical ScienceEconomicsTHE COLLEGEGeorge W. BeadleBenson E. GinsburgChristian MackauerNorman F. MacleanRichard P. McKeon William E. Wrather Distinguished Service ProfessorshipWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegeWilliam Rainey Harper ProfessorshipEmeritus in the CollegeWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegeCharles F. Gray Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipJoseph J. SchwabMilton B. SingerJoshua C. TaylorKarl J. Weintraub William Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegePaul Klapper Professorship in the CollegeWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegeThomas E. Donnelley (Associate) Professorship in the CollegeGRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSSidney I)avidsonJohn E. JeuckMerton H. MillerGeorge J. StiglerArnold Zellner Arthur Young Professorship in Accounting in the Graduate School of BusinessRobert Law ProfessorshipEdward Eagle Brown Professorship ofBanking and FinanceCharles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professorship in the Graduate Schoolof BusinessH. G. B. Alexander Professorship inBusiness AdministrationDIVINITY SCHOOLJerald C. BrauerMircea EliadeLAW SCHOOLKenneth Culp DavisGrant GilmoreNorval Morris Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professorship in the Divinity SchoolSewell L. Avery Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipJohn P. Wilson Professorship in LawHarry A. Bigelow Professorship in LawJulius Kreeger Professorship in Law andCriminology History of ReligionsSCHOOL OF SOCIAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIONRachel MarksHelen H. PerlmanEdward E. Schwartz Samuel Deutsch Professorship in SocialService AdministrationSamuel Deutsch Professorship in SocialService AdministrationGeorge Herbert Jones Professorship inSocial Service AdministrationANNUAL REPORT OF THE STUDENTMENTAL HEALTH CLINIC 1967-68April 15, 1969True prevalence of emotional illness on our campuscan be determined only by systematic sampling ofthe population; this is a task to which we hope toaddress ourselves in the future. This report serves only to enable those with primary responsibility forproviding salutary conditions of living and learningto consider whether and what changes are in order.Judged solely on the basis of that segment of thestudent body which identified itself or was identified by others as needing our services, these werethe students who appeared in larger proportion thantheir campus registration.4The Very Young StudentOf those matriculating under the age of eighteen,one-fourth came to the Clinic, although they wereonly 13 per cent of the entering class for 1967-68.In our experience with these students, their intellectual maturity seems to be coupled with emotionalimmaturity, with feelings of isolation, with problems in peer relationships and with adults. Theirpresence on this campus occurs because of the interest of one or two individuals who, knowing theirproblems as high school students, assume that thesedifficulties arose because of their superiority academically. Their sponsors expect that in an intellectually challenging community where there are manybright students these students will find friends andfeel at home. Once here, intellectual mastery ofcourse material becomes an overwhelming task formany when depression over inability to alter a lifelong habit of loneliness drains their energy. Withpoor grades, they are robbed of the one significantelement of self-esteem on which they have beenable to count in the past.When we admit these students, we must be prepared to provide continuous close contact beyondthe orientation period until they feel able to moveahead on their own. They have been accustomed tosuch contact from at least one significant person intheir past, and we must provide for a replacementof that interest by someone on our campus untilthese students feel more sure of themselves.Very Young WomenOf first-year students entering the University inOctober of 1967, 45 per cent were women, butwomen were 57 per cent of first-year Clinic users;of Clinic users under the age of eighteen, 65 percent were women. If this class follows the patternof other classes, by their second year the proportionof female to male Clinic users will be in keepingwith their campus registration.As we examine this group more closely and seekto evaluate the problems which they stress, we arestruck by the impatience and urgency with whichthey seek to confirm sexual identity. That this neednot be accomplished between Friday and Monday,and that a leisurely stretch of time will insure better growth, avails little. They see some of theirpeers moving with seeming sureness and gratification into this phase of life. Indeed they are oftenforced by living conditions and mass media to confront what appears to them as their own woefulinadequacy or immaturity. We are struck by theneed of some to rush into sexual experiences, a rushwhich has little to do with a developing sexual ma turity and much more to do with seizing upon anyrapid replacement of the warmth they miss in leaving the close ties of home. For others locked in byinhibiting anxiety, their view of these rapid involvements is but further evidence of the deprivation towhich their habits of lonely living condemn them.The use of drugs may be for some a means of seeking retreat from difficult self-confrontation andevaluation. Either of these modes of attempting toresolve inner tensions serve only to postpone orshort-circuit the painfully slow process of achievinga set of standards and values by which one can live.We do not know whether this campus may bemore difficult for young women. We do know fromother researchers and from previous studies of ourown population that women tend to use health services more readily than men. Men suffer as much,but do not as easily admit their need for help. Butsince young women are clearly indicating their difficulties, we believe more general educational effortsmay be in order in their first year on campus. Thismight enable more young women to respect theirown individual tempo of growth and developmentwhile increasing their understanding of the physicaland psychological needs of their sex.The First Two Undergraduate YearsSince the inception of the Clinic, we have consistently reported that first- and second-year undergraduates seek our help in numbers larger than theirproportionate representation. Indeed over the pastfew years the per cent of Clinic users in this grouphas risen from one-fifth to one-fourth of an entering class.We would expect this because of the heightenedintensity with which youth responds to a new anddemanding environment, but it is also evidence ofthe turbulence of our times. The urgency and impatience with which they demand immediate response from those around them and the accomplishment of radical change in themselves and in theirenvironment is a factor of their youth. Their demands and complaints are often inconsistent and atthe same time valid. They want complete freedomfrom control of their lives and they assert theirability to conduct their lives without intrusion fromadults. But their experiences and the difficultiesthey confide suggest that for some their demandsshould be read: "How can we manage our ownlives?" "How can we achieve true independence?"They complain of lack of structure, of lack ofplanned activities, but shun with vigor those thatare provided for them, even where these are developed by their own peers.Typically, 15 per cent of the population of any5dormitory which houses first-year students will cometo this Clinic. This does not indicate that dormitories make students ill, or that we have a large percent of emotionally disturbed young people in dormitories. Rather the possibility is greater that,through house heads, a disturbed student, early inhis stay on campus, will be better informed aboutwhere to seek help, that through the experiences ofothers he will have better knowledge of distortionsin his own development. But the use of assistanthouse heads who are close in age to students forwhom they bear some responsibility does not offer asufficiently stabilizing and growth enhancing experience. They suffer from too many of the same stresses. In this year, on our campus, in this community,and in this metropolitan area, we believe that thedormitory system requires more adults to share thelives of these students.This is an unpopular stand. We are in the midstof a tidal wave in which all restrictions on personalliberty are being swept away. Whether out of thissomething finer will emerge, whether the quality ofhuman life will improve for more individuals, is stillin question. But in such a period we can only dowhat we always do in time of stress — offer helpwhen it is requested, intrude when intervention isnecessary and educate where we can. The presenceof seasoned adults makes this easier.The Class of 1968When this class matriculated as first-year students in the fall of 1964, it was larger by one hundred students than the previous class. We reportedearly that there was an unprecedentedly large useof Clinic services. We speculated at that time thatall the services which the University provides fornew students were overtaxed. By the time of expected graduation, four years later, 33 per centwere Clinic users, as compared with 26 per cent ofthe Class of 1967. Comparison with non-Clinic usersshowed no significant difference on the basis of admission ratings. Indeed, Clinic users showed a veryslight trend to have the highest combined verbaland math scores. But unlike the Class of 1967, thegraduation and continuance rate for the Class of1968 did not show a significant relationship to Clinicuse. Graduation rate for the Class of 1968 as awhole was 50 per cent (50.2) and for Clinic userswas somewhat lower.For the Class of 1968, in the period of their fouryears on campus, half the Clinic users were seen forfive interviews or more. This was in contrast withthe preceding class, half of whom were seen ineleven interviews or more. That Clinic contact wasstatistically significant for a lower dropout and higher continuance for 1967, we concluded was theresult of the intervention of objective adults inhelping some students re-engage their energies inlearning.NewcomersMatriculants in all classes, undergraduate andgraduate, in all Schools, in all Divisions were 30 percent of campus registration, but they were 52 percent of our Clinic population. Indeed for the fallstudents new to campus were 62 per cent of allapplicants.It is not unexpected that the human organism responds to change with stress. But we believe thatways of inducting graduate students into their newacademic environment can be devised which wouldassist more in making the adjustment without sogreat injury to their self-esteem that despair andcrippling disequilibrium occurs. For many, the shiftfrom being an award winner of a handsome fellowship to becoming only a worker in common withmany others toward a goal about which one hasdoubts and uncertainties requires a period of closercollaboration with the faculty with whom they havecome to study. Otherwise there is needless effort inattracting students to our campus and a great wasteof human potential when they leave.Five-year TrendThe attached tables reflect a five-year history ofClinic use. Since 1964 the use of the Clinic has increased by over 45 per cent, far outstripping thehighest increase in campus registration: 12 per centof undergraduates and 7 per cent of graduates usedthe Clinic in 1967-68. The number of new applications increased by 14 per cent, although campusenrollment showed a slight decline. The number ofreferrals to psychiatrists in private practice was 11per cent (11.3) of total applicants for 1967-68. Anadditional 4 per cent were referred to the Department of Psychiatry Outpatient Clinic and 3 percent to other clinics or social agencies. Hospitalizations rose by 6 per cent over the previous year.Dr. John F. Kramer, ChiefStudent Mental Health ClinicMrs. Miriam Elson,Chief Psychiatric Social WorkerStudent Mental Health ClinicClinic StaffMiriam Elson, Psychiatric Social WorkerAlice Ichikawa, Psychiatric Social WorkerDr. Peter B. Johnston, Psychiatrist6Betty Kohut, Psychiatric Social WorkerDr. John F. Kramer, PsychiatristFreddie Nollet, SecretaryAnna Mary Wallace, Psychiatric Social WorkerAlba Watson, PsychologistMargaret White, SecretaryTABLE 1Student Mental Health Clinic Usage by Yearand Number of Students Enrolled in Degree Programs for the Five-year PeriodJuly 1, 1963 through June 30, 1968AcademicYear Number ofStudents inDegreePrograms* Number ofStudents Consulting StudentMental HealthClinic RatePer 1,000Students1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 12,00312,10612,276. 12,79412,501 473560677652704 39.446.255.150.956.3* The University admits and graduates students in all quarters of a given year. These totals prepared by the Office of theRegistrar represent the number of different students registered indegree programs in each year. TABLE 4Class Use of Student Mental Health Clinicduring First Two Years of ResidenceClass of1968 1969 1970 1971 1972Size of entering class . 674 690 700 727 734Year of Clinic contact:In first year 90 72 86 89 71*In second year 85 87 75 54*Total in first twoyears 175 159 161* Through February 15, 1969.MEMOS FROM THE COUNCIL OFTHE UNIVERSITY SENATEApril 30, 1969TO: Faculty and Students of The Universityof ChicagoFROM : Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilTABLE 2Clinic Population Compared with Total Quadrangle Registration July 1, 1963 throughJune 30, 1968Undergraduate GraduateYear StudentMentalHealthClinic Quadrangles StudentMentalHealthClinic Quadrangles1967-681966-67 . .1965-66 1964-65 • 51%... 51... 4949 31%31343131 49%49515145 69%6969691963-64 55 69TABLE 3Students Hospitalized in Albert Merritt Billings Hospital for Emotional Difficultiesfor the Five-year Period July 1, 1963 throughJune 30, 1968Through Stu-Year Total Through dent MentalOther Services Health Clinic1967-68 28a 7 211966-67 17b 8 91965-66 25 12 131964-65 11 6 51963-64 19a 11 8a Three students in this total were hospitalized twice.Two students in this total were hospitalized twice. At its meeting of April 29, 1969, the Council ofthe University Senate passed the following resolution:The Council has given long and careful consideration to the various proposals made to it withrespect to the recent disciplinary proceedings. Ithas been assisted in its discussion by these proposals. The Council has concluded, however, thatit is not in the best interests of the University torescind the decisions that have been made by thedisciplinary committees or to revise appeals procedures on these cases.The Council affirms its confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary procedures employed inresponse to recent disruptive demonstrations andaccepts the judgments made by the relevant committees and by the Dean of Students.The Council notes that future appeals to theDean of Students remain in order. It states thatthe established disciplinary procedures will remain in effect unless and until revised by theCouncil. The Council is now engaged in a comprehensive discussion of the desirability of modifying procedures in future disciplinary cases.In connection with the last sentence of this resolution, I should like to call attention to anotherrecent action of the Council, taken on April 22,1969, asking for the appointment of a subcommit-7tee to study possible future changes in disciplinaryprocedures with particular reference to disruptiveactivities and to the question of student participation in disciplinary hearings. The Council askedthat the policies of other institutions be examined,and asked that a report from the subcommittee besubmitted by November 1, 1969.At the request of the Committee of the Council,the President has appointed six faculty members toserve on this new subcommittee of the Council.These persons will be joined by three students, whowill serve as full members of the committee andwill be selected in the following way: each of thestudent councils of the five Collegiate Divisions,the four Graduate Divisions, and the ProfessionalSchools will be asked to elect one candidate. Fromthe panel of available students thus formed, thenew committee will itself select the three studentswho are to join its membership.The six faculty members who have agreed toserve on the new committee are: Mr. Charles W.Wegener, Professor, New and Humanities Collegiate Divisions, Chairman; Mr. Harold Demsetz,Professor, Graduate School of Business; Mr. Edward A. Deutsch, Instructor, Department of Chemistry; Mr. Paul Sally, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics and College; Dr. RonaldSinger, Professor, Departments of Anatomy andAnthropology and in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology; Mrs. Janice Spofford, Associate Professor of Biology (College).The committee will also be joined by "counsel"for purposes of planning and research. Mr. AllisonDunham, Professor in the Law School, has agreedto fill this position. He will be helped by one ormore student assistants who will be retained andpaid for this purpose.TO: Faculty and Students of The Universityof ChicagoFROM : Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr.Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilMr. Dallin H. Oaks prepared the following statement for the Council at the request of its members.At its meeting on April 29, the Council requestedthat Mr. Oaks's statement be made public.Several members of the Council of the University Senate have asked the Chairman of the University Disciplinary Committee I to enlarge upon the information given in the Committee's report of March 21, 1969. After consulting witha majority of the members of that Committeethe Chairman is adding the following informationThe University Disciplinary Committee I wasformed to deal with cases arising out of thesixteen-day forcible occupation of the Administration Building from January 30 through February 14, 1969. The Disciplinary Committee wasformed by the Committee of the Council, theduly elected body of the Council of the University Senate.The precedents and directions available toguide the Disciplinary Committee included:a. The one- and two-quarter suspensions imposed by a University Disciplinary Committeefor the six-hour sit-in at the AdministrationBuilding in May, 1967;b. the action of the Council of the UniversitySenate embodied in a resolution adopted May 24,1966 (following a sit-in at the AdministrationBuilding), and frequently reaffirmed thereafter:The Council reaffirms the University's policythat disruptive acts of this or similar naturewhich go beyond the legitimate means of communication or persuasion are prohibited;And the Council recommends that in the future any student who engages in such an actbe subjected to appropriate disciplinary action,not excluding expulsion.The gravity of participating in a disruptivedemonstration and the fact that expulsion was anauthorized disciplinary measure were repeatedlyand widely publicized both immediately preceding and during the sixteen-day sit-in. In addition,a significant number of participants in this demonstration, having been among those disciplinedfor the 1967 sit-in, had first-hand knowledge ofthe disciplinary consequences of such action.The Disciplinary Committee concluded thatparticipation in the disruptive demonstration inthe Administration Building and the accompanying explicit threats to coerce compliance withdemands were actions meriting the authorizeddisciplinary measures. The Committee consideredthat more than a few days' full participation inthe forcible occupation of the AdministrationBuilding, together with delayed or non-responseto a disciplinary summons, merited the disciplinary measure of expulsion. In deciding individualcases the Committee exercised its best judgment,on the basis of the evidence available to it, on8the nature and extent of the individual's participation. It also sought and considered explanatoryand mitigating evidence.The University Disciplinary Committee I,which sat for fifty-one days, reached decisions inthe cases of 134 students. The Committee dismissed the charges or found no discipline appropriate in the cases of 36 persons, and gave probation or short periods of suspended suspension inthe cases of 19 more.The cases dismissed in advance of a hearingwere those where the Committee concluded, afterreviewing the evidence on which the summonswas issued, that the evidence submitted to theCommittee was an insufficient basis for concluding that the person had participated in a disruptive demonstration and therefore furnished nobasis for disciplinary action and no justificationfor requiring the person to attend a hearing andpresent evidence.The common elements in cases where the Committee held a hearing but gave little or no discipline were the person's prompt response to thesummons plus evidence that his presence in thebuilding was of short duration and in some capacity (such as newsman or spectator) otherthan participant.At the opposite extreme, as mentioned above,the Committee was of the view that a person whohad been a full participant for a considerablefraction of the sixteen-day take-over of the Administration Building and who had failed to respond to a summons to appear before a University Disciplinary Committee for a period of threeor four weeks should be given the maximum discipline of being barred from registration at theUniversity.A complete statistical account of disciplinaryaction growing out of the recent disruptions requires a consideration of the actions of two University Disciplinary Committees: Committee I,of which Dallin H. Oaks was Chairman, andCommittee II, of which Charles H. Shireman wasChairman. A total of 35 students then registeredat the University were "expelled." Equivalentaction was also taken against 8 persons not currently registered. (The Dean of Students officehas advised that actions on both categories ofpersons, unless altered by appeal, will be notedon the official transcript as follows: "Barredfrom registration at The University of Chicago.")Of the 43 persons barred from further registration, 2 1 were persons who failed to appear beforethe disciplinary committees to which they were summoned. The remaining 22 appeared but gavelittle or no evidence to counteract, explain ormitigate the evidence on which disciplinary action was being invoked.Of the 2 1 who failed to appear, 9 were personsexpelled or barred from further registration bydirect action of the Council of the UniversitySenate. After having been suspended by action ofthe University Disciplinary Committee I, theseindividuals were identified as having participatedin the February 24, 1969 assault upon the President's house and invasion of the QuadrangleClub. On February 15 the Council resolved thatthe behavior of these suspended persons calledfor "immediate expulsion." Accordingly, theCouncil resolved that "these persons should besummoned to appear before a University Disciplinary Committee ... to show cause why theyshould not be expelled forthwith. . . . Failure soto respond (by February 27) should automatically result in expulsion." The 9 persons whofailed to respond to the summons were thereupon expelled, as their summons had indicatedand as the Council had resolved.The University Disciplinary Committee II(Charles H. Shireman, Chairman) held hearingsin the cases of 24 persons who did respond to asummons to appear before it. Following thesehearings 9 additional persons were expelled. Thecriteria used by this Committee in its hearingsand the Council resolution under which it functioned have already been published.The remaining 25 persons were barred fromfurther registration by action of the UniversityDisciplinary Committee I (Dallin H. Oaks,Chairman). The rest of this account relates exclusively to the work of this Committee. Ofthese 25 persons, 13 appeared for hearings before the Committee and 12 did not.It is clear that all of the 12 who had no hearings deliberately chose not to appear before theCommittee. The Committee took no action untilmore than four weeks after these persons hadbeen summoned. These persons had also beenwarned of the gravity of their situation by aninterim suspension. The Committee only actedafter giving still further notice that final actionwould be taken in the cases of persons who didnot arrange for a hearing by a specified date. TheCommittee's final action was based upon theevidence before the Committee of the person'sparticipation in the demonstration and of hisfailure to respond to the summons. This evidencewas uncontradicted, unexplained and unmitigatedby any evidence that might have been presented9if the person had chosen to appear for a hearingor even to submit a relevant written statement inhis behalf. All but 2 of these 12 persons hadbeen summoned in person in the AdministrationBuilding on the first day of the sixteen-day sit-in.The 13 persons who had hearings and thenwere barred from registration were also cases ofadmitted or inferred full participation in the sit-in, together with non-response to the disciplinarysummons for period's of at least three (and inmost instances, four) weeks. All 13 had beensummoned on the basis of their presence in theBuilding on the first day of the sit-in (exceptone person present on the second day) . When hefinally did appear, each person had a privatemeeting with the Chairman of the Committee inwhich he was shown the contents of the file inhis case and in which he was advised that unexplained presence in the Building early in the sit-in, coupled with a long period of non-response tothe summons, gave rise to an inference of continued participation. In contrast to 92 other persons who had hearings and who submitted explanations of their actions and/or non-responseto the summons and received lesser discipline,these 13 persons presented no evidence that theyhad been other than full participants for a substantial part of the sit-in. Some admitted fullparticipation for the entire duration of the demonstration.The presentations of these 13 persons, whichthe Committee heard without limitation of timeor content, in most instances consisted of attackson society, on the University, or on the Committee, together with the contention that their actions were justified by the grievousness of theconditions they protested or by the purity oftheir motives, or that they could not properly bedisciplined by a Committee without voting student representation. The Committee consideredthese subjects irrelevant and did not use them inits determination of discipline. Rancor, intemperance or defiance in a presentation did not augment the discipline imposed. The shortcoming ina "defense" such as that described above was notthat it aggravated the person's case, but that itfailed to mitigate it by countering or explainingthe evidence against him. In most instances thedefense of these 13 persons amounted to standing mute on the key issues of participation and delayed response. If it is thought that this resultedin discipline markedly different from that givenpersons similarly involved, or in discipline excessively severe in relation to the true degree ofthe person's involvement, it must be rememberedthat the Disciplinary Committee had to act on .the basis of the evidence submitted to it, ascountered, explained or mitigated by the presentation of the person who was summoned. Personswho chose not to appear, persons who appearedand stood mute, and persons who appeared andgave presentations that were not responsive tothe evidence against them knowingly chose notto contest the indication that they had been fullparticipants in the demonstration.In determining the amount of discipline inindividual cases, the Disciplinary Committee wasonly interested in actions : the nature and degreeof the individual's participation in the sit-in, andthe individual's delay or failure (if any) to respond to the summons. Among the factors considered pertinent were the amount of time spentin the Building and the types of activity engagedin while there. Almost without exception theCommittee accepted as truthful the statementsof students on such questions. In no case was anyperson disciplined for his poliitcal beliefs or affiliations. For example, the Committee at no timeinquired and never considered whether a personwas a member of SDS. In all cases the Committee sought and took account of evidence in explanation or mitigation on the key issues of participation and delayed response. Upon request ofa person who had been summoned, the Committee permitted him to present some of his evidencein private, even where his hearing was public.Differences in the degree of discipline imposedin various cases reflect the Committee's judgmenton differences in the nature and degree of theindividual's participation in the sit-in. The Committee was frequently unanimous in its decisions,and where it was not unanimous the differencesamong the nine Committee members were invariably within a narrow range.Dallin H. OaksApril 22, 196910THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESiS0»wo003§8 §2 m KIt $¦ m *1Q ** n «a *s pr* ^ c* m«*i ** a <&.«$ C3 p crhi* #p .c* HH ** CO c*a . tsm.r* # 20?** H* a o§| O* H* toS* *1 B> 03|*| pi *-<» »*t c*ft* o cr^ o S»esta> *»«#*& Q: SS «?*•«B Ocr 3o tftCO03&3 30H.ONOONU>