THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 3 EECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 8FINAL REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMANAugust 18, 1969During my term as Student Ombudsman I receivedseveral hundred queries and complaints from students and faculty of the University. The greatestnumber of these I was able to answer immediatelyor refer to someone who could do something aboutthe complaint. When someone called my office wondering how to change advisers I suggested that hetalk with the Dean of Undergraduate Students.When someone wanted to change roommates I suggested that she speak with her resident head. Oncases such as these I kept no records, except whenI was out and there was a telephone message forme to return the call.On cases where more work was involved I didkeep records; there were fifty-five different kindsof cases involved, with better than one hundredstudents involved separately. There were also somecases, such as the complaints about Biology 105 inthe autumn, or about the lack of security at 1400East 57th Street, where forty or more people complained about the same thing. Each of those casesis listed as one complaint and one complainant.Generally those faculty who came in with complaints wanted a specific policy examined. I accepted one or two such complaints but refused alarge number, as the faculty themselves can raisesuch questions in meetings of either the Committeeof the Council or the Council itself. The graduatestudents who came in were generally interested inthe library or in some aspect of married studenthousing; the undergraduates came in with an incredibly varied collection of questions and complaints, the more interesting of which are discussedbelow.Had not Winter Quarter been so fouled up, I donot doubt that both the variety and number ofcomplaints would have been larger still; I am surethat it would have been possible to do a better job.I think that a slight discussion of the role anombudsman can play is necessary, if only to avoidthe difficulties that greeted my appointment lastfall. The Student Ombudsman is a student whohandles administrative problems of the University.I went past this function in aiding students who CONTENTS / October 3, 19691 Final Report of the Student Ombudsman9 Summary of the Report of the Committeeon Federal Grants and Contracts at TheUniversity of Chicago15 Report of the Committee To Evaluatethe Department of Philosophy at TheUniversity of Chicago1 8 Honorary Degreeshad problems with agencies other than the University, but given the time and an office from whichto make phone calls, a lot more can be accomplished than can be done by a student calling whenhe has some free time.The Student Ombudsman handles three types ofproblems — where he refers a student to an existingUniversity office, where he handles an administrative matter, and where he handles a policy matter.It is the first two cases which comprise the bulk ofwhatever I accomplished. Policy questions are besthandled privately ; by the time an ombudsman mustpublish a report on a policy question the best hecan hope for is a renewed public examination ofthe question.In some cases I wrote memoranda suggesting thata given post was filled by someone who did nothave the proper capability for the job; whetherthrough agreement with my memoranda or becauseof prior thinking along the same lines, in a fewcases personnel changes were effected. Such situations are extremely unpleasant but are sometimesunavoidable; I would hope that a situation will notdevelop where an administrator will know that asubordinate is incompetent, but leave him in hispost until "pressured" to remove him by the Ombudsman. That would be quite unfair to the Ombudsman and would have the effect, were it tooccur, of making the Ombudsman an institutionalboogieman. That should not be his role.Instead his role should be that of trouble-shooter,mediator, and walking solution to everyone's prob-1lems. I cannot claim that I was that, but I didtry. Following are descriptions and analyses ofsome of the cases I worked on.One of the problems raised during the year concerned the publication date of the examinationschedule. Every quarter a different examinationschedule is written and distributed, but this hasrarely occurred before the beginning of the ninthweek of the quarter. In Autumn Quarter 1968 itcame out later than that. There does not seem tobe any reason why an examination schedule cannotbe published simultaneously with the Time Schedules, so that a student registering for a course willnot find himself in the awkward position of havingtwo examinations scheduled at the same time. Ifthe student is equally interested in two or morecourses but find's that their examination times aretoo close to those of other courses he was planningto take, he might be able to use the schedule as aguide. (That would not necessarily be true for sections of staff-taught courses, as there are otherproblems involved there.)Professor Albert Hayes, the Registrar, has indicated a great deal of interest. It is likely, therefore,that the scheme will be in operation commencingin Autumn Quarter 1969. As it is understood at thiswriting, each course listed in the Autumn TimeSchedules will have an indication as to the time ofthe examination. Students should be careful to notethis, so they do not get too fouled up later in thequarter.• • •One student came in complaining about a grade(F) that she had received on a final examination inone of the early quarters of a comprehensive examination course. Having received an F, she could notnormally continue in the course. The student hadbecome involved in a dispute among several members of the faculty and had suffered as a result.Whether she could have avoided much of the problem by attending a different section of the class (inwhich she had to take the examination) is a question still open to conjecture. No more certain iswhether she could have known she was attendingthe wrong section, since it was the duty of theteacher in the section she attended to inform herthat she would have to take a different exam fromthe one he prepared, and since there is a good dealof doubt as to whether she was informed of thatmore than three days before the exam.An arrangement was worked out whereby thisstudent was permitted to continue in the courseand take the comprehensive exam (which she passed). After a conversation with the teacherwhose class she had not attended but whose examination she had taken, her early-quarter grade wasleft as an F.One student came in because of special difficulties in registration due to financial problems. Withtuition for the quarter $700, he had a loan for $300but was not being permitted to complete registration until tuition was paid. He could not raise thenecessary amount of money in the requisite periodof time.It developed that the student had received alarge loan at the beginning of the year but haddropped out of school during Winter Quarter. Hisreturn to school and his obtaining the loan were byspecial permission of the admissions office and thestudent aid director.By some judicious juggling of loan funds fromAutumn Quarter to Spring Quarter the amountneeded for tuition was cut to $250; special arrangements were then worked out for the late collectionof that money, and the student was able to register.A former student requested a tuition refund forthe second quarter of the year, since, due to disciplinary action, he had not received any credit forthose courses which he had taken. I took up thematter with the Dean of Students, and as yet noaction has been taken. I have so notified the student.The question of whether the University shouldrefund tuition because for some reason a studenthas not received academic credit for a course is anintricate one, deserving a serious hearing. I wouldthink that its importance lies primarily with thosestudents who voluntarily withdraw, rather thanwith those who are required to leave; but it shouldbe settled.I would suggest that the present idea of notgranting any tuition refunds after the first fiveweeks of a quarter is in essence sound, for underlying it is the notion that courses at the Universityare offered for their own sake — for the ideas developed and the knowledge obtained — rather thanfor credit. Insofar as this is true it is wrong forthe University to offer a course but not requirestudents to pay if they do not wish to receivecredit.Obviously, insofar as the purpose of the University is to offer degrees and courses for credit, tuition refunds should be available (though not neces-2sarily at a full rate) f@*feffl those who pay for acourse and do not receive credit for whateverreason, presumably including failing work.Early in the year there was a problem about theavailability of good pianos to practice on for students who were not music majors. After consultation with Leonard Meyer, Chairman of the Department of Music, a plan was worked out wherebyinterested students could audition; if they weregood enough, they would be allowed to use thepianos in Cobb Hall, which are normally locked up.In talking about that with Mr. Meyer I foundout that there was an imminent shortage of musicpractice rooms for the entire University. With theold music practice building scheduled for demolition (to make way for the Pahlavi Building) therewas an immediate need for new space. The requirements were that the location be central, that fewpeople be disturbed by such noise as came out ofthe rooms, and that there be some control of whowas in the rooms — security having become a majorproblem in the old music practice building.As I had just attempted to find space for theStudent Cooperative Bookstore to expand in thebasement of the Reynolds Club, I was aware of alarge area underneath Hutchinson Commons whichcould be converted to smaller rooms for practicing.I suggested this space to Mr. Meyer; after a fewtechnical problems were solved, it was decided togo ahead with the project. I gather at this writingthat the rooms should be finished by November 1.In accordance with a memorandum sent by Mr.Meyer to Dean of Faculties John Wilson, the musicpractice rooms will be under the jurisdiction ofthe Dean of Students and will be open to all University personnel who wish to practice there. Additional space in Lexington Hall will be reserved forthe use of the Music Department.For several years now there has been a policy inthe Personnel Office of having all summer jobsmade available to the first comers starting at 8:30on a particular Monday morning. This year a student came in complaining that the day selectedwas the first day of exam week and that those students like himself who had exams Monday morning were going to suffer in consequence. FredBjorling, Director of Personnel, changed the datewhen this was pointed out to him; it was movedup a week.There were several cases involving University Realty Management. In one case a student was toldthat he would have to get rid of a pet parakeet, asowning pets is in violation of the lease. The student in question was somewhat perturbed, but uponinvestigation it appeared that the complaint wasgenerally about conditions in the apartment ratherthan possession of the pet. The manager of thebuilding was very much upset because the apartment was not being kept clean, because it was nevervacuumed, and because the bird in question wasspreading its seeds all over the floor through thewire cage. Arrangements were worked out so thatthe apartment was cleaned, a plastic cover for thebottom of the cage was purchased so that the seedswould not be kicked out any more when the parakeet was feeling playful, and the notice to get ridof the pet was forgotten.In another case a student came in complainingthat when she went to renew a lease for a furnished apartment, she was told that the furniturewould be changed and replaced with new furniture.It seems that there is a regular schedule of furniture replacement in the building, and her apartment's turn had come. The student in questionwanted to keep the furniture that she had had fora year; it was a simple matter to get the leaserewritten to list the old furniture instead of thenew and to have the change in furniture for. thatapartment postponed for a year.In another case a student came in complainingthat generally the housing staff was not treatingthe tenants of married student housing as responsible adults, but rather as children. An examplecited was the fact that the circuit breakers in onebuilding were kept locked, with only the janitorhaving the key. Since the janitor was not alwaysaround the building, there were long periods oftime in which a circuit, if broken, could not bereclosed, leaving apartments in darkness.The reason the circuits were kept locked, it appeared, was that in the same room with the circuitbreakers was a 2 50 amp switch for stove circuits.This was situated fairly low down and there wasfear that small children might be killed playingaround with the switches. The situation was remedied by switching the lock on the door so thatany apartment key could open the closet door andby placing the high amperage switch under a speciallock.Many of the complaints raised about UniversityRealty Management concerned the activities of oneof the area managers. In the normal course ofevents these complaints would have warranted afull-scale investigation into whether that managershould have been retained. Due to the approaching3retirement of the employee, however, no such action was taken.It is to be hoped, however, that in the futurearea managers will treat the students living in theirbuildings as competent human beings unless anduntil they prove otherwise. Even though there is afeeling among many people that the landlord cando no right, there is no compulsion on the part ofthe management to prove this. Although I havegenerally found that the management has beenquite attentive, at higher levels, to legitimate complaints about housing, I have noticed a disturbinglyhigh number of tenants who are unnecessarily bothered by lower levels in the realty bureaucracy.One of the examples — totally needless, in my opinion — was the issuance of a memorandum on parkingspaces which came out in the middle of one of thevacations and was due back before the end of thevacation. Since large numbers of students — evenmarried students — leave school during breaks between quarters, one would have hoped that themanagement would have taken that into account.It must be remembered at all times that althoughstudents are people, they are people living on special time schedules, whose behavior in many respects does not parallel that of nonstudents.In early March a story was circulated aroundcampus that various administrators were attempting to prevent the admission to other institutionsof students who had been suspended or expelledfrom Chicago during and after the January sit-in. Ifelt that the charges were of sufficient gravity, iftrue, to warrant investigation, and on my own initiative I undertook such an investigation.I gathered that the Registrar had failed to recordinterim suspensions on transcripts of students whowere suspended for failing to report to the OaksCommittee. Some of those students, intrigued by adescription of the Old Westbury campus of theState University of New York given by a professorfrom there who happened to be in Chicago, authorized him to be given transcripts to be taken backto Old Westbury as part of an admissions application. The professor was acting in a private capacity,but I gather that he was very much impressed withthe Chicago students and that he persuaded severalstudents to come to Old Westbury.Due to the fact that the Registrar had notmarked the transcripts, they were released fromhis office showing the students to be in good standing. For many of the students involved this wasnot true. Realizing his error, the Registrar sent a letter to Old Westbury informing them that somefallacious transcripts had been released from Chicago. No names were mentioned in the letter, butword swiftly reached Chicago that the administration here was attempting to prevent former students from going elsewhere. Due to some thoughtless actions (including addressing the letter to thePresident of Old Westbury rather than their Registrar) an impression was given that was far fromthe truth.To make matters worse, the Dean of Students,unaware of what had happened, was denying thatany letter had been sent to Old Westbury, since hewould normally have had to approve it. I informedhim of the true state of affairs and told the Maroon, so they would have an opportunity to verifythe story.In Spring Quarter a girl in the 1400 East 57thStreet building was accosted by a man with a knifewho followed her into the building and up to herapartment. Before he was chased away by thescreams of her roommates she was cut (not seriously) with the knife, and a small amount of changewas taken from the apartment. Had two of herroommates not been present, of course, the incidentcould have been much worse, and it brought a request for police protection in the building. I wasasked to expedite the process of getting that protection and did so. The time has come to reexamine that situation, however.The building, at the corner of Dorchester Avenueand 57th Street, has an interesting position amongUniversity-owned real estate. It consists of twenty-four apartments which rent for $260 a month, withroom for either three or four girls, depending onhow crowded one can be and tolerate conditions.The building was just recently built, and occupancyis limited to women students at The University ofChicago, although it is under the jurisdiction ofUniversity Realty Management rather than thewomen's housing office. Given the security arrangements in the building, it is no more securethan are other Hyde Park buildings, but it has theadditional disadvantage of having no men livingthere (ostensibly) and hence no one on the scenewho can cope with the incidents that occasionallyoccur there.Following the incident in the spring a guard wasstationed at the building for sixteen hours a day.The duties of that guard were somewhat curious,since the women in the building wanted him to keepout intruders without questioning those men who4were visiting them, withouOtopping those men whoentered with a key, and without in any way interfering with the normal routine of the building. Asfar as I can tell the sole function of the guard isto be a psychological block to people wandering into the building without malice aforethought. Werean assailant to walk into the building behind one ofthe people with keys — and few residents of thebuilding would bother to question his right to doso — the guard would be useless, because there is noway of communicating with him from the apartments except by calling the security office and having them talk with the guard by radio. It is certainly conceivable, given present security standard'sin that building, that an incident similar to that oflast spring could occur without the knowledge ofthe guard — even if he is stationed at the doorwayof the building.If the residents of the building want to make itsecure they can do so through their own efforts —by restricting availability of keys, by not buzzingpeople into the building without knowing theiridentities, and by not letting people follow theminto the building without using a key or gettingbuzzed by someone upstairs in the building. Werethe residents to use that much care security wouldbe far better. They will not act for any length oftime, however, in any concerted fashion, and it isthe sort of matter that does not truly admit ofindividual handling. Either the residents of thatbuilding want entrance to the building restricted inthe name of security or they do not. They act asif they do not.It might be possible to have a guard stationedat the door checking people in and out of the building. That would achieve the end sought, but thereis some doubt as to the desire of the residents forsuch a system. In a petition to Dean of StudentsCharles O'Connell, which I was given a copy of,the residents of 1400 East 57th Street called forstationing a guard at the door to act as a deterrentand as a means of summoning assistance. It is awaste of manpower and of money if the guard fillsonly those functions.The money part is important, not because onenormally looks at the cost of having an efficient security system, but rather because the marginalbenefit of having the guard stationed at the building is so slight. I gather that the cost is somewherebetween $35,000 and $50,000 a year (dependingupon the number of weeks a guard is stationed atthe building on a twenty-four hour per day basis).Given the other pressures on University finances, itis too much of a luxury to have a guard at thebuilding unless he is doing an effective job. There are two possible remedies. One, mentionedabove, is that the residents of the building takeproper care of whom they buzz in and to whomthey give keys. Another, impossible for the academic year 1969-70 but feasible thereafter, is totreat the building as all other University RealtyManagement buildings are treated and permit bothmen and women to live in the building. That wouldmake the building no more of a target than areany other Hyde Park residences and would legitimatize the status of some of the current residentsof the building.The arrangements at 1400 East 57th Street werenot the only time I was requested to intervene in amatter involving the University security force. Atone point during the year there was a series ofassaults on students between 54th and 55th Streetson Greenwood Avenue, which caused students inthe 5400 Greenwood building to request additionalpolice protection. Due to construction nearby, thesite was difficult to patrol ; but with some additionalstrain on University security there, the area waskept patrolled.Noticing that the area between Kenwood andDorchester Avenues on 57th Street was not welllighted by campus standards I suggested that newlighting be installed. I gather that it is being installed presently. It does not seem particularlyuseful to have well lighted stretches of sidewalk ifthere are areas dark enough to hide people. I wassurprised by the City of Chicago, which said, in response to a request for greater lighting in that area,that it is well enough lighted. It seems foolish tohave this university — or any university — spend agreat deal of money on security around the university neighborhood; ideally such security fromattacks on person or property ought to be grantedevery resident of this city.A graduate student in history came to me askingwhy it was difficult to take books out of the LawLibrary; they were foreign law periodicals fromthe 1930's and surely no one else could want themat the same time he, the student, did. I checked upon the matter; the arguments for not circulatingsuch materials are really quite strong. The periodicals in question are quite irreplaceable and are ofuse to a number of people. As a general rule itseems proper that there be restrictions on withdrawing such volumes. On some occasions it makessense for such rules to be relaxed, however; thelibrarians are the best judges of that. I suggestedthat the student check with the librarian in ques-5tion. I would not want to see any changes made inthe general policy of book availability in the librarysystem.The Division of the Social Sciences has an institution known as Social Sciences Tea, which functions in a Common Room for students and facultyof the Division. It is a pleasant institution whichmight profitably be emulated by the other divisions. On one occasion this year, however, it causedsome trouble.Following decentralization of the Deans of Students so that each divisional Dean was locatednear his Division rather than in the AdministrationBuilding, Fred Zimring, Dean of Students in SocialSciences, decided to locate Social Sciences registration in the Social Sciences Common Room. A student came to me complaining about this; I wasable to suggest an alternate site which looked acceptable. Instead of using any of the classrooms,I suggested that the Foster Hall lounge be used forregistration in the future. Dean Zimring promisedthat no matter what area was used for registration,the Common Room would not again be bothered.On one occasion I received a phone call fromthe parent of a former student asking if I couldget the alumna in question an international studentidentification card. None of the other people withwhom the parent had spoken had any idea thatthere was such a thing, but her daughter neededsuch a card for travel in Europe. Knowing thatsuch ID card's are issued by the National StudentAssociation, I was able to get an ID card to thealumna in question.On several occasions students came to the Ombudsman with problems either tangentially relatedor unrelated to the University. When it was in mypower to do so, I helped them, but obviously therewere far different constraints than existed normallyon what could and could not be accomplished underthese conditions. One student came in asking if hehad to return $40 to the bursar's office, as a checkhe had cashed there bounced. I told him he had torepay the money, but that I would attempt to getthe money for him.He had received the check from a political organization for poll watching on election day but hadfailed to cash it immediately; the account had been closed before he cashed his check. The man whosigned it, as treasurer of the ad hoc committeewhich paid people, had told him to collect from thenonexistent committee. I verified the story andcalled some friends in the appropriate party organization. They were as shocked as I that bad checkstraceable to their party were floating around andtook steps to correct the matter. After some delaythe student in question received his money.During the summer two students came in complaining that they had moved into an apartmentwhose previous occupant had been extremely recalcitrant about paying utility bills. As a result theywere for awhile unable to obtain telephone service.They had done most of the work themselves, before they came to see me, but I was able to expeditetheir getting a telephone several days early. Theonly recourses I had access to in the matter were thetime, energy, and facilities for following up on allthe necessary phone calls and, in some cases, letters.In other cases students came in complainingabout landlord-tenant problems not involving theUniversity. Generally I was unable to help them.Tenants in Chicago are not regarded with favor bythe law.One student in Boucher Hall wrote to me inJanuary asking me to help obtain refrigerators andfreezers for the dormitory, as most people therewere not on meal contracts and they needed someplace to store food. I checked the situation, butnothing was accomplished before the sit-in, andfollowing that there was little energy left amongthe housing staff to deal with the problems. Newequipment will be installed for Autumn Quarter,however.A complaint was registered with me regarding theadvertising afforded the Blackfriars' play TheCharge of the Numidean Cavalry and RenaissancePlayers' play Shoemaker's Holiday in The ChicagoMaroon. According to the complainant there was adifferent ad rate being charged Holiday, with alarge number of Maroon staff members, than wasbeing charged the Blackfriars' production. I investigated the charges, and found that they were nottrue, as both organizations were being billed thesame amount of money per column inch of displayadvertising. There .was a serious discrepancy in theamount of money spent on classified advertising,however, as Renaissance Players working on theMaroon staff have the right to place free classified6ads, while Black^iirlF has to pay for its classifiedadvertising. This worked substantially to the disadvantage of Blackfriars.The Blackfriars' play was scheduled for twoweekends, while the Renaissance Players' production was scheduled to conflict with the first weekendof the Blackfriars' performance. In the Gray Citylournal, whose editor was involved with Shoemaker, there was a good deal of publicity for thatplay, while Blackfriars got only an unfavorablemention the first week. The excuse used was thatthis represented the editorial judgment of the editor. There was nothing I could do about the matter.There were other complaints registered duringthe year about the editorial judgment of the Maroon editors and about their ability to obtain andverify statements of fact. Such complaints havebeen made in the past and no doubt will be made inthe future; their inevitability does not in any waydetract from the fact that many of those complaints are indeed justified. Often there is poor editorial judgment exercised by Maroon editors, as inthe case of the Gray City lournal. Often the newsstaff is hopelessly inadequate to cover news. Onoccasion venality may influence editorial or newsjudgment. This is obviously a problem for a campus which depends on the Maroon for news.There is no easy solution to the problem. WhatI consider proper news judgment would not be soconsidered by someone else. What one reporter observes as having happened may be seen by someoneelse in an entirely different light. Even the best-trained observers disagree on what they have seen— and the Maroon has no well-trained observers.One way suggested by some to overcome problems raised by the present level of competence ofthe Maroon is to have some sort of Board of Publications which would approve copy, approve theselection of editors, or in some way influence therunning of the newspaper. Such boards exist atother schools and are harmless in direct proportionto their importance. A few years ago at Michigansuch a board attempted to block the election of aneditor of whom they disapproved but were forcedto let him become editor when the staff threatenedto resign. The paper that year won a Pulitzer Prizenomination.Another way of correcting the Maroon's problems is to hope that the staff, which does selectitself, will develop over the next few years intowhat one could hope for from a good college newspaper staff. With the steps currently planned tohave the editor a fourth-year student (over the pastfew years the Maroon editor has been a third-yearstudent, with the exception of one sophomore) there is a good possibility that the staff will developa level of maturity which it has not had recently.Yet another way of changing the Maroon wouldbe to have it withdrawn from the protection of theUniversity and incorporated as a profit-making venture. Were that to happen the editors would ofcourse have to tailor the paper a great deal moreto campus tastes and rather less to their own thanis presently the case. There does seem to be somequestion of propriety in having one organ of communication enjoying a monopoly of University support, but such a question is not answered by havingtwo or more such journals sharing that monopolyof support and weakening each other's financialbase in the process. Those questions can only reallybe answered by sharing University support equallyamong all competing groups. That is not reallypossible so long as one newspaper is given space ina University-owned building and is given money byan arm of the student government acting for theDean of Students. Nor is it feasible to promiseequal support to all groups that might wish to publish a newspaper.The problems caused by having an inadequatenewspaper on campus would not all be solved byhaving no newspaper whatever on campus. Manyproblems, such as inadequacy of the reportorialstaff and the like, would indeed be solved, but others would inevitably arise. If the campus is toofragmented now, what chance is there that havingno newspaper will not augment the fragmentationon the campus?It seems to me that the third alternative of having the newspaper become independent is desirableand impractical. It is well within the realm of possibility that Hyde Park is too small a market tosupport a newspaper such as the Maroon; such anewspaper may be necessary in any case.The best chance of getting a good newspaper oncampus is a forlorn chance but, at that, better thanthe alternatives that seem open. It is for the staffto develop on its own the necessary sophisticationand talent to deal with the task of putting out thepaper. There is a thing as too much assistance, andover the years the Maroon staff has received eitherstone-wall receptions from the news sources oncampus or has been hand fed stories. Neither reallybuilds up the paper. If instead of telling the staffwhat was available in the way of news those peopleon campus with the talent and energy could helpthe staff develop its own abilities, they could bedoing the campus a service. It is possible that thereis no way in which the Maroon can be improved,given the calibre, traditions, and inclinations of UCstudents ; it is certain that censorship is undesirable7in its own right, and it is questionable whether having no paper is better than having the Maroon. Thecampus should consider the question, however, anddecide. (Editors of the Maroon have asked that Irecord my opinion that although the Maroon is inquite poor shape, comparatively it is better than allbut four or five college papers in the U.S., a sadcommentary on collegiate journalism.)• • •During the winter I received a complaint from aresident of Hitchcock House asking why a passageway under Searle Chemical Laboratory was lockedat night. I checked; there were valid reasons whyit should be closed at night, but these did not outweigh the discomfort to the residents of Hitchcockand Snell of having to go around through an openpassageway. I was informed that the passagewaywould be kept open until midnight, but on manyoccasions it was locked sooner than that. Due to adivision of responsibility between the Security Department and Buildings and Grounds it was almostimpossible to know who was responsible, at anygiven time, for the passageway being locked.A former student wrote in asking for moneywhich was owed him by the Student CooperativeBookstore and sent me a copy. After some delaythe Bookstore sent out the check; it was simplya question of getting them to move in the face ofactive apathy.In early November a student came in complaining that she had not been awarded a Murphy scholarship, despite the fact that such scholarships wereawarded for participation in extracurricular activities, and despite the fact that her participation wasquite substantial. Upon investigation I found thatshe was wrong about the Murphys : they are awarded upon three criteria — participation in extracurricular activities, need, and academic record. Thethird criterion is really quite minimal. The firstcriterion — performance — seems to me to warrantsome recognition even if need is not a factor; itseems silly to say that if the Maroon, for example,has three editors, that the editor-in-chief should notreceive such an award while the other two editorsdo receive them, simply because "need" is a criterion. It should be remembered that many students here without "need" do work and that participation in student activities is therefore lost. Itmight be regained, at least for the more active of them, were some sort of honorary Murphy scholarship to be awarded.At a meeting of the administrators concernedwith the distribution of Murphy awards I suggestedthe idea of honorary Murphys. The idea won provisional acceptance and needed just a little bit ofwork by the Office of Financial Aid. The idea wasnot implemented during the second quarter of1968-69, possibly because of other difficulties(though it could have been done in the three weeksbefore the sit-in started). It was not implementedduring the third quarter, despite requests from methat a final decision be made. It was not implemented during the summer quarter, and at thiswriting I find no one has yet bothered to take thematter up with the Dean of Students. The amountof paper shuffling and procrastination has been immense, but nothing has yet been accomplished. Itwill be interesting to see if a final determination onthe idea is made during the academic year 1969-70.It would be a pity if the idea were allowed to dropbecause of the reluctance of an administrator tomake the requisite few changes in his routine.In my first report I suggested that it would behelpful if additional campus telephones were installed. That suggestion was forgotten, presumablyin the sit-in and its aftermath. It is still an ideaworth considering — that there be a campus telephone available for public use on the ground floorof every campus building. Another suggestion abouttelephones was made to me by Arthur Rheingold, astudent in the College. Having lived in a dorm andhaving lived in an apartment trying to call friendsin a dorm, Rheingold came to the conclusion thatdormitory switchboards should be open until midnight. I agree with his conclusion.I spoke with Lylas Kay and Kendall Cady (ofResidence Halls & Commons and University RealtyManagement, respectively) about the matter. Theyhad discussed it during the year with representatives of the dormitories and had offered to keep thelines open if the dorms could furnish volunteersfrom 11 p.m. until midnight every night. Given thedifficulty in getting employees to stay until 11 p.m.it is considered impossible to get people to work atthe switchboards until midnight. Most women especially are reluctant to be outside then. Given thatKay and Cady asked for, but did not receive, anyvolunteers to man the switchboards, they simplydropped the matter.The matter should not be allowed to rest. Itwould be appropriate for the University, given8everything that is beingslrjhe in the housing systemthis year, and especially considering the large decrease in the number of double rooms, to lay outthe paltry sum of money necessary to pay studentsto keep the switchboards open from 11 p.m. untilmidnight. The total cost would be a good deal lessthan $3,000 a year over the entire system. As amatter of convenience it would be a great help tothose students whose hours are not those of the restof the world — that includes most of the studentbody at Chicago.John MoscowSUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THECOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL GRANTSAND CONTRACTS AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO*In July 1966, the Provost appointed a committeechaired by Dr. H. Stanley Bennett to examine thesituation of the University with respect to government grants and contracts. In June 1969, the Bennett Committee submitted the attached report. It isbeing sent to members of the faculty for information.John T. WilsonDean of FacultiesMembers of the Ad Hoc CommitteeSidney Davidson, Arthur Young Professor, Director of the Institute for Professional Accounting,Graduate School of BusinessRobert Gomer, Professor, Department of ChemistryNathan Keyfitz, Professor, Department of Sociology (on leave Spring Quarter 1967; resigned1968)J. A. B. van Buitenen, Professor, Department ofSouth Asian Languages and CivilizationsKnox Hill, Professor, Department of Philosophy,Director of Undergraduate Programs in PhilosophyRobert McCleary, Professor, Department of Psychology (sat with the Committee during SpringQuarter 1967, when Professor Keyfitz was onleave from The University of Chicago, and re-* Copies of the complete report are available at theOffice of the Secretary of the Faculties, Room 201, Administration Building. placed him in 1969 after Professor Keyfitz's resignation from The University of Chicago faculty)Dr. H. Stanley Bennett, Robert R. Bensley Professor of Biological and Medical Sciences, Professor of Anatomy, ChairmanI. Charge to the CommitteeThe Committee was asked to report on the present situation of the University with respect to contracts and grants, including thoughtful evaluationof policy questions, problems and dangers, and delineations of the role which federal grants and contracts play in the , activities and missions of theUniversity.77. What Is a Grant, and What Is a Contract?A federal grant or grant-in-aid is an instrument conveying a conditional gift which provides financial assistance to a grantee for supportof an activity which serves the public interest butwhich is not the conduct of a federal function, andwhich imposes on the grantee an obligation to expend the funds for matters essential to the purposes for which the grant was made but which involves no specifications or assumption of a productor of a given result.A federal contract is an instrument derivedfrom an agreement between two parties, wherebythe government obtains promises of goods, services, or other considerations deemed necessary forthe conduct of a federal function.777. Brief History of Committee ActivitiesThe Committee has been working for over twoyears, meeting with faculty members, deans, administrators, and students of The University ofChicago, studying relevant federal and universitydocuments, and visiting Harvard University andthe University of Michigan in an effort to compare the situation at Chicago with that at otheruniversities.IV. The General SettingIn 1966, federal government commitments toThe University of Chicago, including those forcapital expenditure, were over $45 million, representing about 1.5 per cent of the $3 billion whichincluded all federal commitments to higher education that fiscal year.As of April 1, 1969, at The University of Chicago the annual level of government grants andcontracts for research and training, excluding fundsfor capital expenditures, was over $44 million.9This is about one-third of the combined operating expenditures of the University. These figuresexclude the special U.S. government contractprojects managed by the University (such as theArgonne National Laboratory), but include student aid, student services, and plant operation.In percentages of university expenditures derived from federal funds, The University of Chicago resembles the University of Michigan andHarvard. In amounts of federal funds committedto the University, Chicago ranks about twelfthamongst universities of this nation — in theseamounts sitting in proximity to Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University, andthe University of California at Berkeley and atLos Angeles. In these matters, then, The University of Chicago is not an exception.V. How It Arose and GrewThe federal government for more than a century has from time to time perceived nationalneeds for new knowledge, new technologies, orhighly trained or educated persons and has turnedto universities for meeting many of them. Inmany cases, the universities were the only agencies capable of fulfilling these needs. Universities,on their part, wishing to serve the public well, responded by accepting many federally financed opportunities which were compatible with their missions and within their capabilities.Federal funds entering universities increasedsharply during World War II, declined to halftheir 1945 peak by 1948, and thereafter grewrapidly, the amounts doubling every three to fiveyears. The rate of increase leveled off after 1966.The total level for the current fiscal year is littlechanged from that of last year.The emphasis of federally supported work inuniversities has also shifted with time. The physical and engineering sciences were especially favored during the 1940s and early 1950s. Federalsupport for the biological and medical sciencesgrew rapidly during the 1950s. Since 1960, a shiftin emphasis toward social sciences and educationalsupport has been noticeable.VI. Are Federal Government Missions Compatiblewith Those of Universities?Many of them are. The federal government andthe universities are maintained to serve the publicinterest. Universities serve the public by providingthe public with knowledge and understanding ofman and of nature and by training persons toserve the public. Those federal missions which re quire new knowledge or highly trained professional people are compatible with university func.tions.VII. Why Do Universities Accept GovernmentMoney?Universities utilize federal funds to supportsome of their activities because the demandsthe public places on universities have far outstripped the traditional sources of revenue ofAmerican universities, and acceptance of federalfunds has provided the only means whereby universities can meet these obligations. The utilization of federal funds by universities has greatlyincreased the capacity of universities to serve thepublic in ways appropriate to university functions.VIII. How Do Grant Funds or Contract Fundsfrom the Federal Government Enter the University of Chicago?Federal grants and contracts to the Universityare made only upon application prepared at theinitiative of faculty members. After preparation,applications are reviewed by the Dean, the Deanof Faculties, and the Vice-President for Programsand Projects. Those approved at the Universityare sent to the appropriate federal agency, wherethey are reviewed and evaluated in accordance withthat agency's mission and procedures. If approvedby the federal agency, and if funds are available,the agency may allocate funds to the University tobe used for the purposes specified in the application and by the granting agency, under the direction of the applicant faculty member.IX. In What Federal Government Missions DoesThe University of Chicago Participate?The University participates in research, training, and development missions of thirteen federaldepartments and agencies. Of these, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare providesmore than half of all the federal funds entering theUniversity for the support of ongoing research,training, and development. Within this Department the largest contributor is the U. S. PublicHealth Service, and within that the National Institutes of Health supplies the largest fraction, whichtotals nearly one-third of all current federal fundsin grants and contracts at this University.There follow, in order of size of total currentongoing support in grants and contracts for research, development, and training: the NationalScience Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commis-10sion, the Department ^Sf""^ Defense, the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, theDepartment of Commerce, the Office of EconomicOpportunity, the Department of the Interior, theSmithsonian Institution, the National Foundationon the Arts and Humanities, the Department ofAgriculture, and the Department of Labor — the lastwith a single grant of less than ten thousand dollarsplaced at this University.X. What Parts of The University of ChicagoParticipate in Federal Government Missions?All major parts of the University except theDivinity School utilize federal grant and contractfunds. The Division of the Biological Sciences isthe division using the largest fraction. About 45per cent of all federal grants and contracts comingto the University support work in the biologicalsciences, including the Pritzker School of Medicine. Following the Division of the Biological Sciences, in order of totals of federal sums utilizedfor ongoing research, development, and training,are: the Division of the Physical Sciences, theDivision of the Social Sciences, the Office of Admissions and Aid (which administers many studentstipends, fellowships, and scholarships), the Schoolof Social Service Administration, the GraduateSchool of Education, the Graduate Library School,the Division of the Humanities, the GraduateSchool of Business, the Argonne National Laboratory (not a part of The University of Chicago butreceiving federal funds for teacher training throughthe University), The University of Chicago Library, the Administration of The University of Chicago (for institutional support in the sciences), theLaw School, the Oriental Institute, the Office ofthe Dean of Students (for student scholarships andother stipends), the College, and University Extension. The variation in amounts of governmentfunds entering the University is large, ranging fromnearly twenty million dollars for the Division ofthe Biological Sciences to less than fifty thousanddollars for University Extension.XI. What Is Accomplished at The University ofChicago by Utilization of Funds from FederalGrants and Contracts?Federal funds from grants and contracts havebeen used extensively at The University of Chicagofor construction and remodeling of buildings used for teaching and research, including research laboratories, libraries, classrooms, teaching laboratories,hospitals, and special facilities for research animals, computers, high energy physics, etc. Federalgrants and contracts support very nearly all theresearch carried out by faculty members in theDivisions of the Physical and Biological Sciencesand a substantial part of the research in otherpqrtions of the University. Without federal research funds, a faculty member in the sciences isvirtually unable to maintain a productive research activity or to provide satisfactory trainingfor his graduate students. Federal funds benefitstudents at The University of Chicago by providing direct stipends, traineeships, or fellowships formany. In addition, the thesis research of mostgraduate students in the sciences is supported byfederal funds. Government grants and contractsmake it possible for the University to have alarger and better faculty than would otherwise bethe case, so that there are more and better teachersfor students than would be here without grants.Moreover, an important part of the classrooms,laboratories, hospitals, libraries, and other facilitieswith much of the equipment in them, which havebeen paid for in part by federal funds, are utilizedby students and hence benefit them.XII. Do Government Grants and Contracts Support Secret Research at The University of Chicago?No. There is no classified research of any kindat this University — neither secret nor confidentialnor restricted. No research support is acceptedwhich forbids the publication of results.XIII. Is uWar Research" Carried Out at TheUniversity of Chicago?No. There is no weapons development researchor any other research activity at The University ofChicago directed to purposes of war. It is recognized that any human knowledge or skill can beused for peaceful benefit or for military ends. Lessthan 7 per cent of government grant and contractmoney entering The University of Chicago is derived from funds with a military connotation, andthe proportion has been decreasing over the pastseveral years. These funds are used for regularacademic purposes which are indistinguishable fromthose supported by strictly civilian governmentresources, by private foundations, or by regularUniversity funds.11XIV. What Has Been the Influence of FederalGrants and Contracts on the Balance between theSeveral Academic Disciplines at The University ofChicago?Though federal funds have contributed to a considerable expansion of activity and improvement inquality in science and other departments wherework is supported by grants and contracts, otherscholarly fields not so supported have grown infaculty size to about the same extent and havedone as well as the science departments in maintaining their national distinction. Graduate training in fields not drawing federal grants suffers fromlack of sufficient funds for graduate student stipends, with a consequent prolongation of theperiod of graduate training for students in thosefields.The Committee has not found evidence thatfederal grants and contracts have impaired relations between humanists and scientists or have ledto an over-emphasis on research or to more emphasis on research in sciences than in other disciplines.XV. What Influences on Academic Freedom DoGovernment Grants and Contracts Exert at TheUniversity of Chicago?Federal grants and contracts appear to be administered and awarded without biases based onpolitical views of applicants. In many fields, federal funds make possible research or teaching orgraduate or postdoctoral training which could notbe performed without the funds. Hence, in thesecases the federal grant funds enhance academicfreedom. Political considerations do constrain tosome extent the usefulness of some federal fundsfor research in political science and for some research abroad in the social sciences sponsored bymission oriented agencies. Such constraints, however, are not imposed by the NSF and the NIH.XVI. Do Federal Grants and Contracts Have anAdverse or a Beneficial Effect on the Quality of theTeaching Performed by University FacultyMembers?Grants and contracts have clearly benefittedgraduate teaching in those scholarly areas wheregrant funds are available. The Committee couldfind no evidence that federal grants and contractsentering the University had adversely affected thequality of teaching of undergraduates or of graduate students in fields such as English or history,which are not supported extensively by federal funds. Federal funds have benefitted the teachingof undergraduates and of high school students bysupporting the training of teachers and the acquisition of new knowledge and concepts which become incorporated into material taught to students.The Committee could find little to justify allegations that the University diverts governmentfunds improperly by using grant or contract fundsfor the direct support of teaching.In some parts of The University of Chicago—for example, in the College — the assignment offederal research grant funds to part of the salaryof a faculty member has been interpreted as releasing that faculty member from a certain portionof his teaching responsibilities. This interpretationleads to certain adverse effects. The Committeedeems it wiser to construe teaching and researchresponsibilities of faculty members in a manner notcoupled closely to the sources of fund's contributingto a faculty member's salary.XVII. What Influence Does the University Exerton Federal Policy as Related to Grants andContracts?Universities, their associations, and their facultymembers exert substantial influence on the federalgovernment in matters relating to grants and contracts. In the aggregate, the influence of individualfaculty members serving the government as full-time officials or as part-time advisers and panelmembers is far greater than the influence of universities or their associations as corporate bodies.University faculty members comprise the majorityof the members of the numerous advisory committees, panels, study sections, and reviewingbodies which advise the president, governmentagencies, and departments on policies relating togrants and contracts and which review individualgrant applications for merit and set prioritiesamongst them for funding. The University of Chicago and its faculty members participate extensively in these government activities and thusmodulate the impact of federal grants and contractson the University.XVIII. What Is the Effect of Federal Grants andContracts on the Levels of Faculty Compensationat The University of Chicago?Funds from federal grants and contracts can, under certain conditions, be used to provide summeror other off quarter salaries for faculty persons onregular academic three quarter appointment who12work full time durin#rfhe summer or other offquarter on research or other work supported by agrant or contract. Federal grant and contract fundscan also be used to reimburse the University forpart of a faculty member's salary during regularacademic quarters to compensate for that facultymember's effort toward the work supported by thegrant. At The University of Chicago, about a quarter of the sums devoted to salaries of facultymembers in the Divisions of Physical and Biological Sciences are derived in this way from federal grants and contracts. The fraction so derivedis less in other portions of the University and isestimated to be about 10 per cent of all facultysalaries. The salaries of individual faculty members are not dependent on approval of their grantapplications, but the total amount of money available for all faculty salaries is enhanced appreciablyby sums derived from federal grants and contracts.XIX. Does The University of Chicago Make aProfit from Government Grants and Contracts?No, nor could the Committee find reason to fearthat the financial ties to the government embodied in federal grants and contracts had involved the University in tasks not properly part ofthe University's mission, nor had these funds led toan impairment of the capacity of the University tofulfill its role as an independent judge and critic ofsociety.Rather than make a profit for the University,federal grants and contracts are insufficient tomeet the full direct and indirect costs of the worksupported by such instruments.XX. Do Federal Grants and Contracts CarryRestrictions or Conditions Which Are Impedimentsto the University Mission?All private, foundation, and government grants,contracts, gifts, and bequests to the Universitycarry some sort of restriction. Even "unrestrictedgifts" must be used for the purposes of the University. Most gifts, bequests, grants, and contractscarry additional restrictions, and federal grants andcontracts are not exceptions. All must be used onlyfor the purposes for which awarded. Federal accounting and auditing practices impose certain constraints, and many grants carry restrictions as tothe way funds can be expended for certain purposes. The preparation of an application for agrant or contract involves the setting forth of aproposal which, if approved, thereafter becomes aconstraint. The variety of federal and private granting agencies gives the University and its faculty members a reasonable degree of flexibility, sothat good use can be made of federal grants andcontract funds in spite of the impediments and restrictions embodied in them.There are, in addition, special nonbudgetary restrictions on federally supported research in whichpeople are studied. Some of these restrictionsaffect clinical research and research in human motivation and behavior in the social sciences. Theseregulations are designed to protect the individualpatient or subject from undue risk or exploitationor invasion of privacy and invoke the requirementof informed consent in advance by the patient orexperimental subject who is to be studied in theresearch. Some social science research to be carriedout abroad by American scientists with support ofDOD, AID, or the Department of State is subjectto special prior review by the State Departmentand is constrained by severe restrictions with apolitical basis. Such restrictions are not imposedon grants from the NSF and NIH.There are, in addition, restrictions written intolaw which prohibit discrimination in accordancewith race, creed, or color when hiring persons to bepaid from grant funds or to be hired by contractorspaid from grant funds or which pose other restrictions which are consistent with Universitypolicy.XXI. Are There Unsound Features of the FederalAdministration of Grants and Contracts WhichPose Special Dangers or Disadvantages to theUniversity?The greatest source of difficulty residing in federal grants and contracts at The University of Chicago resides in fiscal instabilities inherent in theshort-term nature of such awards, in the necessityfor frequent reapplication, in the uncertainty of renewal, and from time to time in the unreliabilityof approved grants amounting on some occasions todefault of payment on committed awards. ThoughThe University of Chicago has some fluid research funds to cover catastrophies to grants andto applications, these resources are insufficient, andthe adverse impact of fiscal uncertainty and disappointment from federal grants and contracts at thisUniversity has been considerable.The University and the nation also suffer whenjudgments as to competitive federal grant awardsare made on bases other than those of scholarlymerit. For example, if political or geographicalconsiderations, or the wishes of influential Congressmen, or a desire to strengthen weak institu-13tions enter into the judgments as to which competitive applications are to be approved and funded,disadvantages to the country and to the Universityresult.There are special difficulties confronting grantapplications from young scholars who have notyet established reputations.Often there are strong pressures on the University to maximize contributions from Universityfunds to work supported by grants. Whereas suchcontributions increase probabilities for approval ofapplications, they impose serious financial strainon the University.XXII. Are There Pressures on Faculty MembersTo Apply for Federal Grants or Contracts or ToSlant Their Proposals toward Certain PracticalGoals?The University of Chicago, by policy, puts nopressure on persons to apply for grants or contracts. However, the opportunity for advancingone's professional work through federal grants orcontracts often exerts a pressure on faculty members to apply. Some federal grant and contract programs place strong emphasis on the achievement ofpractical results. Although such result orientedprograms offer legitimate opportunities for scholarsin certain fields at this University, there is riskthat some may be tempted to slant or distort theirscholarly objectives in order to increase theirchances of getting support from such federal programs. Special scrutiny should be given to applications directed toward such result oriented federalsources.XXIII. Should The University of Chicago Be Concerned about the Branch of Government fromWhich a Grant or Contract Might Be Awarded?In the Committee's view, the conditions and thepurposes of a grant or contract are of primaryconcern. If the purposes are included in the scholarly objectives of a faculty member and are consistent with University functions, and if the conditions pose no restrictions on publication of results, conceal no hidden channeling of funds, andotherwise offer no compromise of academic freedom, then funds from any federal or nonfederalgranting agency may properly be accepted.XXIV. Some Conclusions and JudgmentsThe Committee judges that, in general, the University has comported itself with integrity and wisdom in its relation to the government with grants and contracts and has established a sound positionin most respects.The Committee is concerned with an attitudediscovered in some members of the College facultyand in the Department of Sociology, and perhapspresent elsewhere, holding that the award to afaculty member of a grant carrying provision forpartial salary of that faculty member warrants areduction in the teaching responsibilities of thatfaculty member. The Committee sees dangers inpractices which suggest that research grants mightbuy release from teaching and urges that apportionment of faculty members' time between teaching and research be determined by more rationalcriteria.The Committee was also concerned that the fortunes of grant applications have too much influenceon the annual compensation from the Universityfor academic work of faculty members on threequarter appointments who seek summer or otheroff quarter salaries from grants or contracts. Thispractice places in hazard a part of the income ofthe faculty member and tends to impair his loyalties to the University. Deeming the implications ofthis problem to extend beyond the charge placedbefore the Committee, a careful examination ofthe problem and of possible remedies is recommended.XXV. RecommendationsSince the Committee finds The University ofChicago's policies and practices with respect tofederal grants and contracts to be sound in most respects, all but the first two of the recommendations listed below urge a continuation of Universitypolicies and practices now in effect. Of the two exceptions, one proposes modification of current practices not supported by policy and one proposesstudy and evaluation of a policy now in effect.The Committee recommends that The University of Chicago:1. Solidify the freedom of faculty members toapportion their efforts between teaching and research without permitting the apportionment to bedetermined by persons outside the University whoreview grant applications. It is recommended thateach faculty member's responsibilities in teachingand in research be set on an individual basis on thebasis of the faculty member's talents and scholarlyobjectives and in accordance with University needsand commitments. The apportionment of responsibilities so reached should be defended from vulner-ablity or modification based on the fortunes of research grant applications. The determination of14the teaching responsrMSies of a faculty member onthe basis of approval or disapproval of grant applications carrying provision for partial facultysalaries should be discouraged.2. Study, through an appropriate committee, themerits and shortcomings of offering options of fourquarter appointments to faculty members outsidethe Division of the Biological Sciences, with a viewtoward searching for an alternative to the presentUniversity policy of permitting off quarter (usually summer quarter) salaries drawn from researchgrants and contracts for faculty members on threequarter appointments who have provision for offquarter salary in the budgets of research grants orcontracts. The study should have the further aimsof formulating recommendations which, if adopted,would have the effects of permitting the Universityto command more fully the loyalty of facultymembers on three quarter appointments now drawing summer salaries from grants and contracts andof protecting faculty members from hazards of uncertain personal remuneration dependent on thefortunes of research grant applications. Successfulimplementation of such recommendations mightincrease the attractiveness and stability of facultypositions at The University of Chicago and permitthe University to assume full responsibility for andcontrol over the annual recompense of facultymembers for their academic work at the University.The Committee recommends that The University of Chicago continue to :3. Regard federal grant and contract programofferings as opportunities which the University andits faculty members can examine and evaluate, sodetermining the suitability and relevance of theseveral programs to the functions of the University and the scholarly objectives of its individualfaculty members.4. Allow faculty members full freedom to prepare applications or to refrain from applying, inaccordance with the initiative, wishes, and aims ofeach faculty member, without pressure or coercionfrom the University or any of its officers, deans, orchairmen.5. Submit to the federal government only thoseapplications which have originated with and beenprepared by faculty members and which have beenexamined and approved at the departmental level,at the level of the division, school, college or institute, as may be appropriate, and at the level of thecentral administration of the University.6. Accept no grants or contracts which imposeconditions of secrecy or of prohibition of publi cation of results, or which are classified as "secret"or "confidential" or otherwise restricted as to openness, or which provide for consultative services involving restricted or classified information, issues,or operations, or which are otherwise inconsistentwith free inquiry.7. Exert, through its associations and individualfaculty members and otherwise, as may be helpfuland in the public interest, influence on the federalgovernment designed to promote sound, adequatelyfinanced, stable federal grant and contract policies.8. Provide mechanisms whereby faculty members can get competent and knowledgeable advicefrom colleagues whenever the foregoing recommended policy guides appear to be insufficient orwhere questions of judgment and interpretationarise, and encourage faculty members to seek suchadvice in any doubtful case.9. Take special care in review of grant applications which may be directed toward result oriented federal granting programs, or which mayotherwise offer danger of distorting, slanting, orcompromising the legitimate scholarly aims of theapplicant and the University.REPORT OF THE COMMITTEETO EVALUATE THE DEPARTMENTOF PHILOSOPHY AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGONovember 29, 1967Members of the CommitteeRichard Brandt, University of MichiganGregory Vlastos, Princeton UniversityMorton White, Harvard University, ChairmanThis is a report to Provost Levi on the Philosophy Department of The University of Chicago.The report is based on our visit of November 9-10,1967. The report consists of the following mainparts: I) a brief description of what we did whilein Chicago; II) a statement of our main findings;and III) some recommendations.IAt 10 a.m. on November 9 the Committee beganits work by conferring with Professor ManleyThompson. At 1 1 a.m. we talked with Mr. Levi andDean Streeter for about an hour. We then lunchedwith Professors Thompson and Chappell and continued our discussions with them into the after-15noon. From 4 to 5:30 p.m. the Committee met withabout fifteen students of the Department, of whomabout ten were graduate students and five undergraduates. At 6 p.m. we gathered for dinner withall the members of the Department except one ortwo visiting professors. After dinner we discussedsuch departmental matters as members cared todiscuss until 10 p.m. At 11 a.m. the next morningthe Committee conferred with Dean Booth andDean Streeter until lunchtime. At lunch the Committee went, so to speak, into executive session,reflected on its experience for a couple of hours,and agreed upon the essentials of this report. Professor Vlastos talked privately with Professor Hillduring the visit and Professor White talked brieflywith Visiting Professor Anscombe. There were alsouseful exchanges with individual members at thegathering on the night of November 9.IIIn reporting our findings it may be best to beginwith rather mundane considerations.1 . In spite of the abstract nature of philosophy, itusually requires a few material conveniences andcomforts, such as a Common Room for spontaneous, unscheduled discussion of the kind, for example, that may grow out of a lecture or a seminar.The Department has also expressed a desire to havea library nearby, though this is perhaps less important than a Common Room. The Committee alsogathers that progress has recently been made in thedirection of getting offices for philosophers but thatthe Department would like all those offices in onebuilding. We imagine that from a budgetary pointof view a request for such facilities is minor bycomparison to the requests you must receive fromother departments — for example, Physics.In the same mundane vein we report a need formore secretarial assistance which will not onlyhandle correspondence and related departmentalbusiness, but also the typing of manuscripts andthe duplication of scholarly materials.2. We now come to a less tangible matter. Wenote that there is in the University a Committee onAnalysis of Ideas and Study of Methods, the offerings of which are listed in the Announcements ofGraduate Programs for 1967-68 as coordinate withthose of the Department of Philosophy itself. Wenote that this Committee is organized, according tothe Announcements, to direct study of "philosophical issues" which "are involved in the fundamentalideas employed in the discussion of practical, theoretic, and aesthetic questions and in the methodsby which those ideas are developed and treated"; and that it gives the A.M. and the Ph.D. degrees.We note further that it offers a number of courseswhich from their titles sound quite philosophical innature. And we note finally that there is a relatedundergraduate offering called "Ideas and Methods,"which is coordinate with the undergraduate philosophy offering.We note these facts mainly for the followingreasons. First of all it is somewhat unusual to haveas coordinate with the Philosophy Department, aprogram which directs study of philosophical issuessuch as those described in the quotation from theAnnouncements. Secondly, some members of theDepartment have expressed concern over the existence of such a program — both at the graduate andthe undergraduate level. However, not knowingwhat the reasons are for the existence of such related programs of instruction, and not having beenasked to examine these programs, we must herecontent ourselves with the observation that they area source of concern to some members of the Philosophy Department for reasons which you may wishto investigate in detail on some future occasion.Here we wish to add that we have great confidence in the Department's judgment concerningproblems of philosophical curriculum and staffing,both at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Furthermore, its interests are wide and it is not givento thinking that it should teach only the traditionalsubjects of logic, metaphysics, ethics, and epistemol-ogy, since it is also interested in encouraging, forexample, study of the philosophy of science, art,religion, law, and politics.3. We now wish to report some of our findingsabout the scholarly condition of the Department.We think that it has strengthened itself considerably in recent years and, what is more important, ithas shown very high standards and admirable intentions in its efforts at recruitment. A departmentthat has sought the services of those on a list givento us by the Chairman is aiming at the stars, andtherefore such a department should be surprised ifit should reach them and not when it does not. Thecompetition for good people in all fields is keentoday, and there are many intellectuals who do notlike life in the big city. (A great department — nota philosophy department — in a university which isone of the greatest in the world, has, it is said, beenturned down by ten or fifteen people in the last fewyears.) Furthermore, one can say on good authority that some of those on the list of philosopherspreviously mentioned came very close to accepting Chicago's offer. Also one should not have beensurprised to have lost one born New Yorker tothat new Shangri-la for philosophers, the Rocke-16feller University, ^a^Tanother to Columbia University.Let us now return to the intellectual quality ofthose whom you have sought unsuccessfully torecruit. We have said that it reflects favorably onthe standards and intentions of your present Department. Others might say in criticism that toomany of them are "analytic philosophers," but wemust report that the philosophical profession certainly does not think of Chicago as narrowly dedicated to a certain philosophical ideology. The factis, however, that America's dominant philosophy isnow analytical in orientation, and this means thatthe ablest philosophical minds are most of them ofthat persuasion. One may applaud that fact wildlyor mildly, one may deplore it wildly or mildly —but it is a fact. And therefore any department whichasks itself "Who is the best man available?" willin most cases come up with the name of a so-calledanalytic philosopher. There are some philosophicalcenters which have disregarded this fact and theyhave, as a consequence, sunk as places of distinguished philosophical work. You cannot, we submit,fly in the face of such powerful head winds withinthe climate of a discipline.IllWe come at last to our recommendations, whichin some cases are obviously adumbrated by ourfindings.1. We strongly urge that steps be taken to getthe Department a Common Room, and that thephilosophical section of the library be located conveniently close to the center of the Department'sactivity. But more than that, we recommend thatsomething be done to diminish a certain shabbinessabout the Department's quarters. In this age ofglittering buildings and offices for some professorsit would help if philosophy — which of course bakesno bread — should at least be granted the modestcomforts and untinselled conveniences that arecommensurate with its dignity as a calling. Thereare the attic philosophers, of course, but the Chicago Department does not contain many of them.2. We recommend that the secretarial staff of theDepartment be doubled, i.e., raised to three full-time persons.3. We recommend continuation of the admirable support of the Department's efforts at recruitment but would add two suggestions, or perhapsthey had better be called two queries.a) Would it not be advisable to give the Department a considerable freedom of maneuver in itsefforts- at recruiting first-rate minds? We do not mean to criticize the recent laudable efforts at importing well-established or famous figures, but sincesuch efforts have not so far met with notable success, might it not be wise to allow the Department,if it wishes, to look for, say, one full professor andtwo absolutely top-notch associate professors, thelatter being offered terms that are as attractive atthat rank as those offered to the older people youhave invited?b) Would it not be advisable to try to attract afew of these simultaneously, so that each wouldknow that the other or others are coming? In thisway the incoming persons might have the feelingthat they were entering a department which wouldimmediately be turning into a distinctively betterone. This need not be a case of attracting a teamwhich is now together at another place, as is sometimes done in the sciences. It could simply be amatter of informing X of University A that youwere also dealing with 7 of University B — and viceversa — in the hope that those two (or three) wouldbe more likely to come together.4. Having said something about materiel and men,we now turn to the deployment of men.Since we have not been asked to examine programs like that on Ideas and Methods, and sincewe were not in Chicago long enough to study itsrelationships with the Philosophy Department, wemake no recommendations about that program perse. However, we recommend that the Universitymake no new appointments of philosophers or ofhistorians of philosophy for the benefit of this graduate program unless the recommendation comesfrom the Department of Philosophy itself. Furthermore, we cannot help thinking that many philosophers whom you seek to recruit would hesitatebefore coming to a university in which the department does not have such authority over philosophical staffing.Something similar is true in the case of relationships between the Department and the College, buthere we judge that an irenical era is dawning andwe would urge that the expanding light be allowedto spread over the face of the Midway. For its part,the Department seems to have taken salutary stepsand we should hope that it might consider others;for his part, the Dean of the College seems morethan eager to let bygones be bygones. In any case,we strongly urge the wisdom of having the Philosophy Department initiate the recommendation ofall appointments of philosophers on the Collegestaff. And if your present statutes or customs allowor require the Dean to initiate such recommendations, we respectfully submit that the Department'sapproval be required before such appointments are17made. In our opinion, an analogous course shouldbe followed in the determination of curriculum. Ingeneral, philosophers should decide what philosophyshould be taught just as physicists should decidewhat physics should be taught.We recognize, of course, that certain general education courses which are not predominantly philosophical and which are not staffed by philosophersmay well prescribe certain philosophical texts. Forexample, a course which is predominantly literaryor historical may be the better for including, say.an influential idealist or Marxist work in philosophy,and it would be silly to insist that philosophersmust be able to veto such a text because of theirown adverse estimate of its philosophical value. Itwould also be silly in our opinion to insist that onlya professional philosopher should be permitted tocomment on a philosophical text. On the other hand,we cannot subscribe to a view which might bevoiced by saying that philosophy is too importantto be left to the philosophers. The remark is mildlywitty and it makes a certain point, but it should notbe used to hide the fact that by and large thosewho are trained in a subject are best fitted to teachit. Furthermore, the Department is now activelyrebuilding bombed out bridges to the College, andwe hope that it will be encouraged to go on byadministrative recognition of its powers, its achievements, and its good will.We conclude by reporting that the Committeewas received with great cordiality and that the Department showed a great willingness to cooperatewith us. We are very grateful to Professor Thompson for his hospitality and cooperation, as we are toMr. Levi, Dean Booth, and Dean Streeter. We feelthat even though we devoted only about two eight-hour days to our visit, we did learn a great deal —far more than we expected to learn about the situation. Naturally, the brevity of our visit preventedus from probing as deeply as we might have wishedinto the attitudes and views of individual membersor into the history of the Department and its relation with other parts of the University, but wehope we have learned enough to substantiate ourdescription of the situation and to support ourrecommendations .HONORARY DEGREESSix honorary degrees were awarded at the 328thConvocation, second session, on June 13, 1969. Doctor of Humane LettersYakov Malkiel, Professor of Romance PhilologyUniversity of California, BerkeleyEminent etymologist, Romance philologist, lin.guist, and editor, who has greatly contributed tothe resurgence of Romance historical linguistics.Doctor of LawsThe Honorable Henry Jacob Friendly, Judge ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitPractitioner, judge, and scholar, whose contribution to the definition of law in our time we delight to honor.Doctor of ScienceRichard Dagobert Brauer, Perkins Professor ofMathematics, Harvard University, and VisitingProfessor of Mathematics, University of ChicagoOne of the most distinguished living algebraists,his work on modular representations of groupshas had a major impact on many areas of algebra.Ilya Prigogine, Professor of Chemistry and Physics, Free University of Brussels, BelgiumDistinguished scientist and teacher, his probingtheoretical studies have illuminated the molecular basis of the universal approach towards equilibrium.Edwin E. Salpeter, Professor of Physics and Nuclear Studies, Cornell UniversityTheoretical astrophysicist of rare physical intuition, whose work has pioneered many areas ofearly and late stages of stellar evolution and nu-cleogenic processes in the universe.John Wilder Tukey, Professor of Mathematicsand Statistics, Princeton University, and Associate Executive Director of Research, Bell Telephone LaboratoriesIllustrious scientific generalist, who has redirected the development of statistics by his far-reaching contributions to theory and methods,and by his creative use of statistics and dataanalysis in the pure and applied sciences.18Three honorary DgcJ&is-of Science degrees wereawarded at the 329th Convocation on August 29,1969.Shiing-shen Chern, Professor of Mathematics,University of California, BerkeleyA profound mathematician whose wide-ranginginsights have made him a world leader in geometry.Henry Seymour Kaplan, Professor and Executive, Department of Radiology, Stanford UniversityRadiologist, scholar, trainer of new talent, andresearcher, whose contributions to our under standing of the mechanisms by which exposureto radiation induces leukemia and to modernmethods of radiation therapy of cancer have contributed significantly to the better health of man.Russell Hedley Morgan, Professor and Chairman, Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University, and Professor and Chairman ofthe Department of Radiological Sciences, TheJohns Hopkins University School of Hygiene andPublic HealthRadiologist, meticulous and dedicated investigator, careful and imaginative administrator, andgifted statesman for the radiological sciences inthe interest of public health.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXtaG<wHHH§n3!ooowoo IoJoreo5*2.OSOas-B ^ Z035 n IzP > S oO — "¦ " t/> toSz o 0NS2 2 men