THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECORPNovember 21, 1973 An Official Publication Volume VII Number 9CONTENTS263 1973-74 UNIVERSITY BUDGET271 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CERTAIN MATTERSPERTAINING TO THE LIBRARY277 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS IN THE CAMPUS AREA281 PROBLEM FINDING283 SUMMARY OF THE 343RD CONVOCATION283 EIGHTEEN NINETY-THREE285 344TH CONVOCATION STUDENT ADDRESSES288 SUMMARY OF THE 344TH CONVOCATION288 QUANTRELL AWARDS289 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1971-72 DOCTORATES291 COMMITTEE ON PART-TIME STUDENTSTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© 1973 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORD1973-74 UNIVERSITY BUDGETOctober 1, 1973To: Faculty, The University of ChicagoFrom: John T. Wilson, ProvostThis is the fifth in a series of annual memoranda onthe University's budget.1 The purpose in any givenyear is to inform the faculty of the basic characteristics of the budget, as well as to indicate its mostimportant elements in that year. Because we haverecently completed detailed financial projections forthis and the succeeding three budget years, I haveincluded in this memorandum a discussion of futuredevelopments somewhat more detailed and lengthy(for which I ask your indulgence) than those of pastbudget memoranda.BackgroundFor this University, the 1970-71 academic yearushered in a period of relative austerity. In thepreceding five years the University experiencedsignificant growth. This growth was vastly helped bythe successful $160 million drive for funds whichprovided support for the on-going budgets as well asfor such significant additions to the University'sfacilities as the Regenstein Library, the Henry HindsLaboratory for the Geophysical Sciences, the SearleChemistry Laboratory, and the Albert Pick Hall forInternational Studies. The improved quality of theUniversity was reflected in the 1969 national ratingspublished by the American Council on Education.In 1970-71, the increment in University fundssupporting academic programs was much smallerthan in preceding years. To meet the need for additional unrestricted income, tuition was increased,with a provision for annual increases so long asbudget stringencies continued. The budget assumeda Quadrangles enrollment of 8,200 students — anoverestimation of some 600, which signalled thebeginning of the sharp deterioration in Federal1. For previously published memoranda in this series ofdiscussions on the University's budget, see The University ofChicago Record, Special Supplement, December 1, 1969; VolumeIV, No. 5, August 31, 1970; Volume V. No. 7, October 11, 1971;and Volume VI, No. 6, October 31. 1972. assistance to graduate students. That year a policywas established to limit the size of the faculty to atotal number equal to or less than the number offaculty as of June 1970.The following year (1971-72) the academicbudget was reduced. According to plan, programactivities were to be maintained by the increased useof restricted funds available to the various academicunits. Judicious pruning of non-essential functionswas encouraged. Quadrangle student enrollmentwas assumed to be 7,500 (which was exceeded by 100students). With reference to other parameters, the1971-72 budget reflected a continuation of thepolicy regarding total faculty size and a tuitionincrease. Throughout 1971-72 attempts were madein the academic areas affected, to adjust to shiftingemphases in Federal Government programs, whichwere becoming increasingly oriented toward"problems of society' ' in contrast to traditionalacademic goals.In 1972-73, there was a modest increase in fundsallocated to the academic areas. Tuition was againincreased. In response to continuing deterioration inFederal support for fellowships, steps were taken todevelop improved student loan programs and torejuvenate enrollment in the Summer Quarter. Thepolicy relating to faculty size continued. In thebudget for the largest and most complex area of theUniversity — the Biological Sciences Division andThe Pritzker School of Medicine, along with theHospitals and Clinics — expenditures were broughtunder tighter control.Thus, during the past three budget years, inrecognition of changing Federal Governmentsupport patterns and in order to preserve thestrength of the University, serious attempts havebeen made to enhance unrestricted income and toreduce the base of University expenditures. In sodoing, special attention has been given to auxiliaryenterprise costs, especially those relating to studenthousing. Funds for academic "E & E" functionshave had to be reduced. And the policy regardingfaculty size has been adhered to rigorously.Despite the constraint on growth throughout this263coON 888888888© © © o © © o © oCN ^f (N CN On co" »-T © ©ONor-"»— (to^oONoo1 ^. 'H "l 1 ^ O'o ^r-" rt rs on ~h cs" tj-" i/ifN 8<** $49,505,000 433,000 15,000 95,000 10,000 3,044,000 8a"5$3,813,000 48,202,000 1,040,000 8to$3,000,000 5,594,500 930,000 1,167,000 7,108,000** 2,003,000 8toOQOn 8inooCOON * *ooooooooo8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8sO O O to" to" ©" o ©" ©"¦3-ooor-»oooNvOQOOr--r-HlOOOONvOO^o n in od ^* ro i/)CO s<N" * *o o o o o o8 8 8 8 8 8On" o tO i^ o o? R - ^ °° Slo" ro OnS * *O O 008 8 «r^* i/o" o<N ro OvO O fNro (N ^h" 00Qo*NT ** *o o o o o o8 8 8 8 8 8o" ^r" to" o" — r-"Q <N Tt- t-h rM r-o^ n co « r- tora to" ~ o *-**V5 8 00*nods©QWH<5OPSPu<WPSDHsZwXw 1 18 £ 2 .a • 5•8 E i! | " I 13 *g « u C cs ^"3 c S S. "2 1 & ! *§.^5,f S & 3 5 2 o Q§'Z Ga .2« - aJx **¦* *->S §^.2s Si .§ isi : "E s i ^2 § g a ^ -si! '-£ ^ — — +_,8 a ^ c 2 2 c. 2 S 3 Jz u 2 o .9&W c5 .a"g :§ 8< ^ ipg '3d j£ 15a ^ a •£i* O 'n (^ ^^ s i" •§ 1 c.213o.a C oc <uJi <u C '-Tc O o • r; ^ ow ^ ^o 2> ^5 & * 1 1 * s"3 5 c ts t '5 * CMo1cW(VoBOUwr-*cor*-ON 8 8 8 8 8o o ©^ ©^ ©^rr r-" o r-" to"T-H SO 00 O i-Hi-h (N On vO lOrj- CN th 00 O* 86* 8 8 8o © R^h" "^ ^m ^ *"¦o ^ ^tC ^-T t^- 8 88 88 8o © ©. ©, ©,en on lo" iO rotN O h 0O H^O On O^ <N i-hro" 5 O ^h" 8 8 8 8 8 8 8©. ^ ©. ©. ©. ©.Q ro O ^ 00 QO co ro ro to Oo^ on on q n oqco" rr" ^" r-" ^ 8Onod Ss©00cot-ON * *o o o o o8 8 8 8 8o ©" to" o" ^-T© © r-» Q i-h"*f (N O tO 00 8On<N" * * *© o ©8 8 82 S Sn <N ¦»^" S 12 OnS *****O © © © 008 8 8 8 £rC O" O" to" Ooo rs o to o¦^ ON o LO ONro go f*iCO 00od *o o o o o o8 8 8 8 8 8o on" lo" ^h ^h KQ -^ "^ On 00 OnON vO 00 ON 00 COcm" Tf" o — ^" Q58<^oNT 90IT)C^s©fSFH00SOQWH<SHwCOW>PS" « _ . s8 » ©i 8 S~ g .S gI s § -s^ a> o S * °¦3 § S £ o w t,"3 rJ> c O ^ O fe8 « i I : i s -s°i i I Hi n< X u3 £ £ O h 1 §z && -o8 c¦« s .1Si*-9 O cfa w o* B z.a § «^ s |8 £ £* .§ s ^ a. c o +-» oP3 W O O K * s| &W ca u o a•a egSa o •= c— « w 0)•S V5 j. +j +J 0>< -S 5 .a gaso X u e o O K c.215o3i; <u c '43& M 8 '3 >^S "S ^ g '43=3 O O •'"5 t>w ^ ^o ^ ^fr -g gu£ g| 3 ff | t '2 =• o o -g <u e •- ro QUCmOoHsc-Si«"ocoUu PSperiod, it has been possible to enhance the quality ofthe faculty by means of newly-funded chairs and byspecial funds made available to the President for thepurpose of recruiting outstanding scholars. Thisyear, for example, James Coleman has been appointed University Professor of Sociology. Thisbrings to nine the total number of UniversityProfessors including, in addition to Mr. Coleman,Henri Theil (Business and Economics), AlbertWohlstetter (Political Science), ConstantineTrypanis (Classics), Gary Becker (Economics),James Cronin (Physics), James Gustafson (Divinity),Leonard Krieger (History) and Halil Inalcik(History).In the College this year Philip Kurland has beenappointed to the William R. Kenan, Jr., Chair,which was made possible by a $750,000 grant fromthe William R. Kenan, Jr., Charitable Trust. In theletter of grant the Trustees stated that it was their"wish to support and encourage a scholar-teacherwhose enthusiasm for learning, commitment toteaching and sincere personal interest in studentswill enhance the learning process and make aneffective contribution* to your undergraduatecommunity.,, In addition, appointments have beenaccepted in the College by Edwin Gerow as theFrank L. Sulzberger Professor of Civilizations, byHarry Harootunian as Max Palevsky Professor ofHistory and Civilizations, and by Jonathan Z. Smithas William Benton Associate Professor of Religionand Human Sciences.These appointments are theresult of a grant of $1.25 million from the AndrewW. Mellon Foundation, which was divided into fourparts, three of which have been matched by otherdonors, thus making possible the three professorships. And among the younger members added tothe faculty there are several that brighten theprospects for its future high quality. All of theseappointments illustrate the fact that there arecontinuing possibilities for the recruitment of individuals of the highest caliber despite budgetstringencies.Although what we have been describing hassome of the characteristics of a "plan," we have notestablished a formal program to reach some pre-setbudgetary goal by a set point in time. We haveattempted, rather, in President Levi's words, tooperate within "a policy of careful constraints . . .intended to further and maximize the University'sstrength." In concert with the Peans, we have triedto resolve budgetary problems in ways that wouldintroduce as few perturbations as possible into theUniversity, and yet be responsive to fiscal reality.We have had in mind as our primary goal, thepreservation of The University of Chicago as a unique institution of higher learning.The 1973-74 budget continues the thrust of thiseffort.The 1973-74 BudgetThe development of the 1973-74 budget wasinitiated by a series of detailed discussions betweenthe Provost, the Deans' Budget Committee, theDeans of the academic areas, the University Dean ofStudents, and the Comptroller. Based upon thesediscussions it was assumed that 1973 AutumnQuarter Quadrangles enrollment would be 7,700students (2,200 in the College and 5,500 in thegraduate divisions and professional schools).Recommended tuition levels for 1973-74 were:$2,850 for undergraduates, and $3,000 for graduatestudents, with special provision in the GraduateSchool of Business for a tuition level of $3,150. Thepolicy with reference to faculty size was continued.In discussions with the Deans, emphasis was againplaced upon the use of limited unrestricted funds incombination with restricted funds in order tomaximize support of programs throughout all areasof the University.With a provision for later adjustment in thebudget of the Hospitals and Clinics, which had notyet been finally determined, a Consolidated Operating Budget of $180.7 million was submitted by thePresident to the Board of Trustees for approval at itsApril meeting. Within this total, the General Funds(Unrestricted) sub-budget (that is, the "regularbudget") was approved at a level of $56.2 million.However, information relating to prospectiveAutumn Quarter enrollment which becameavailable in the latter part of May, indicated thestrong possibility that the estimate of 7,700 studentswould not be realized. Consequently, a reduction ofapproximately 1 percent ($511,000) was applied bythe President to the approved General Funds(Unrestricted) budget, thus reducing it to $55.69million. Incorporating this reduction as well as anupward adjustment of $1.47 million in Hospitalsand Clinics expenditures (offset by an equal amountof income), the Consolidated Budget for 1973-74 is$181.6 million.The regular budget of the University reflects asignificant increase (6.8 percent) over last year. ThePresident's recommendation for this increase wasmade with the realization that, although it mayappear to be a sizable one for a single year, itcompensates to some extent for the fact that therehad been an average increment of only 2.84 percentin the regular budget over the period 1970-71through 1973-74. Moreover, allocations for the265academic portions of the regular budget (that is,instruction and research, the Library, studentservices, student aid), had experienced a combinedaverage increment of only 0.27 percent over thesame period.The action of the Board of Trustees in approvingthe 1973-74 budget represents a strong commitmentto preserving and enhancing the excellence of theUniversity. At the same time, both the recommendation of the President and the approval by theBoard of a budget which, as we shall discuss indetail later, contains a gap of almost $6 millionbetween planned expenditures and anticipatedunrestricted revenues, assumes that the Universitywill be able to successfully launch the second phaseof the major campaign for funds. As you will recall,this phase was projected to follow a few years afterthe completion of the first phase, the $160 milliondrive completed some four years ago.The Consolidated BudgetThe Consolidated Budget reflects revenues andexpenditures for all functions of the University (butnot including Argonne Laboratory). It is shown inthe Attachment, with revenues and expendituresgrouped under four subsidiary budgets: GeneralFunds (Unrestricted); Restricted Funds; AcademicAuxiliary Enterprises; and Auxiliary Enterprises.Within the Consolidated operating budget of$181.6 million, expenditures for the respective sub-budgets are: General Funds (Unrestricted) — 355.69million; Restricted Funds — $53.10 million;Academic Auxiliary Enterprises — $53.05 million;and Auxiliary Enterprises — $19.80 million.Although the four sub -budgets, taken together,cover the overall operations of the University, it isessential to bear in mind that it is the General Fundssub-budget that carries the central on-goingprograms of the University. At the same time, thesefunds are vulnerable to the effects of unrealizedincome from various other sources.The Auxiliary Enterprises. Consistent with experience of the last three years, a little more thanhalf ($6.9 million) of the increase of $13.5 million (8percent) in the Consolidated Budget is reflected inthe expenditures for academic and .other auxiliaryenterprises. And of the $6.9 million, $5.6 millionrepresents increased expenditures in the Hospitalsand Clinics budget, resulting from the continuingupward trend in the costs of health care. The otherincreases in auxiliary enterprise expenditures ofsignificance are reflected in the budgets for theUniversity Press and for Miscellaneous activities, including the new parking structure.The academic auxiliary enterprises, which include the Hospitals and Clinics, the IndustrialRelations Center, and the Laboratory Schools, haveself-balancing budgets. The concern indicated lastyear regarding potential excess expendituresover revenues in the Hospitals and Clinics continues,and is the basis for the increased control of thisbudget.With reference to other auxiliary enterprises, asubsidy of $850,000 has been budgeted to coverstudent housing and food services, in addition toactivities such as the University transportationsystem. This amount is the same as that budgetedfor these purposes in 1972-73, but is about $150,000less than actual expenditures last year. It is substantially below the 1971-72 subsidy. Strong effortsare continuing in the direction of making auxiliaryenterprises self-supporting.Restricted Funds. Estimated expenditures fromrestricted funds in 1973-74 total $53.1 million,an increase of just over $3 million (6.1 percent) ascompared to last year's budget. This increase is allin the Instruction and Research category, withsizable decreases estimated for Library programsand for student aid. The influence of the decrease inrestricted funds on the Library budget, particularlyfrom Federal Government sources, has beendiscussed in a detailed memorandum to the faculty.The decrease in student aid restricted funds alsoreflects the downward trend in Federal Governmentfunding. It is a pleasure to report, however, that theUniversity was informed in mid-July that some$322,000 might be made available from appropriated Title VI funds for graduate fellowshipsin the so-called "esoteric language" areas. No fundshave been budgeted in this program, and the award,if made, will help to ease the expected decrease inthis category of restricted funds.Expenditures of restricted funds are limited, ofcourse, by funds available for specified purposesfrom various sources, including: restricted endowment income, grants and contracts (primarilyFederal Government), and gifts and grants made by1individuals, private foundations, and otherorganizations. The difficulty in making estimates ofsuch income is well illustrated by the increment inthe Instruction and Research category. Although anincrease of approximately $4 million is indicated for1973-74, the amount budgeted is slightly less thanfunds actually expended in 1972-73, and is considerably below actual expenditures of such funds in1971-72. The uncertainties reflected in the FederalGovernment budget stimulated improved analyses266of estimates of grant and contract funds for 1973-74. These estimates indicate a downward trend inthe availability of restricted funds from the FederalGovernment for Instruction and Research functionsfor all academic areas. The reductions are particularly disturbing with reference to training grantsin the bio-medical and social sciences.2General Funds (Unrestricted). The nucleus of theUniversity's budget is contained in the GeneralFunds (Unrestricted) sub-budget, which totals$55.69 million. This is an increase of $3.55 million(6.8 percent) over last year. As we have pointed out,this increase must be viewed against an averageincrement of 2.84 percent in the total regularbudget, and an average increase of 0.27 percent inthe academic portions of the regular budget over theperiod of the last four years, including 1973-74. Ofthis increase, slightly over half (53.8 percent) reflectsoperation and maintenance costs of new andrenovated space; increases in utility rates; non-academic salary and wage rate increases (includingstaff benefit costs); increased costs of security andfire insurance; and increased activities related tofund-raising. None of these budgets has access torestricted funds; hence all increases must come fromunrestricted revenue.The remainder of the increase in General Fundsexpenditures (46.2 percent), is for Instruction andResearch, the Library, and Student Services,allocated as follows: the Library, slightly over$400,000 (+10.9 percent); Instruction andResearch, $1,146 million (+4.4 percent); andStudent Services, $92,000 (+4.2 percent).Unrestricted funds for Student Aid remain levelwith those allocated last year. The relatively largeincrement for the Library was necessary to offset, inpart, the decrease in restricted funds mentionedabove.The increase of 4.4 percent in the allocation toInstruction and Research for next year compares toan increase of 0.4 percent last year, to a reduction of7 percent in 1971-72, and to an increase of 3.4percent in 1970-71.Sources of revenue to support the General Funds(Unrestricted) sub-budget include: student fees;unrestricted endowment; sundry income fromtemporary investments, royalties, etc.; indirect costallowances on grants and contracts; unrestrictedgifts; and funds functioning as endowment, utilized2. For those interested in the details of various Federal Government research and training programs for 1973-74, see: Science, 9February 1973. pp. 544-552; Science and Government Report,February 1, 1973; and Letter to Members, National Academy ofSciences, "The Annual Report of the President," May 1973. as necessary to balance the budget. Student feeincome is based on the enrollment estimates andtuition levels that we have indicated above. Theamount shown as unrestricted endowment incomeis based upon the "total return" formula discussedin last year's memorandum. This assumes a totalreturn of 8.5 percent on such endowment funds,with 5.5 percent being applied to support thegeneral budget and with 3 percent being returned toprincipal to offset inflationary factors. The estimateof income from indirect costs related to grants andcontracts is a function of somewhat improved ratesbalanced against the probability of some decrementin the total grants and contracts awarded to theUniversity. The decrease in estimated sundry income stems from a combination of reduced royaltyincome and the shrinkage of "cash float" availablefor short-term investment purposes.Unrestricted gifts which are available for application to the general budget are estimated at thesame level experienced during the immediate pastyears — approximately $3.6 million. The differenceindicated in the category "Gifts and balancerequired from endowment funds or other sources" — some $5.9 million — will be met from fundsfunctioning as endowment, unless 1973-74unrestricted gifts exceed normal expectation. If thefull $5.9 million is taken from funds functioning asendowment, the contribution to the budget fromsuch funds would approximate a return of 7.2percent of the average market value of the endowment for the four quarters ending June 30, 1972(the same base as for the 5.5 percent return mentioned above).Beyond the 1973-74 BudgetThe aspect of the 1973-74 budget which is inherentlymost important, not only for the year immediatelyahead, but for the budgets of the years that follow, isthe anticipated gap of $5.9 million in the GeneralFunds (Unrestricted) revenues. We have previouslypointed out that the past three years have beenmarked by persistent significant differences betweenunrestricted funds available and those required tomeet expenditures for a given year. These differences have been made up by funds that remainedin the 1965 Ford Challenge Grant and from specialassessments on funds functioning as endowment.The Ford grant has now been completely exhaustedand, therefore, the contemplated underwriting inthe 1973-74 budget must all come from unrestrictedgifts or from funds functioning as endowment.There is also the prospect that a similar underwriting will be necessary in the 1974-75 budget.267In consideration of the implications of thesebudgetary problems and especially with reference tothe assumption that a major fund drive would benecessary to alleviate the problems, two indirectlyrelated developments were on-going during the year.The first was the appointment of a Special TrusteesCommittee on Budget Planning. Generallydescribed, the function of the Committee was toconsider possible ways and means whereby theUniversity, during this continuing period offinancial stress, could respond so as to not onlymaintain its excellence as an educational andresearch institution, but also to gain momentumrather than to lose it. The thrust of the Committee'swork involved a review of prospective short-rangeincome, related to levels required to finance anticipated future University expenditures. It wasanticipated that the Committee's findings wouldhelp shape both the size and the composition of theeffort which would be necessary to meet the gapbudgeted in 1973-74 and that contemplated in yearsbeyond.The second development — also related to theprospective fund drive — was the preparation ofprojections of academic expenditures over a five-year period starting with 1972-73. The first stageof this exercise involved the writing by the Deans oftwo sets of essays: a retrospective survey of the fiveyears preceding 1972-73 and a forecast ofdevelopments and trends in the next five years.These were accompanied by projections of academicexpenditures and estimates of student enrollmentand faculty size in the same period. Several cycles ofreview followed in which the projections weremodified, first by the Deans, and then centrally.The basic parameters which were used inmaking the projections consisted of the following:faculty salaries; non-faculty salaries; plantoperations not centrally budgeted; and all otherexpenses which are incurred at the departmental,divisional, and school level. The assumptionsregarding salary increments for the 5-year periodincluded an annual rate of increase in facultysalaries of 5 percent, including a 3 percent inflationfactor (then considered realistic) and a real in-3. The earlier work of the Economic Study Commissionrepresented an attempt to address in a systematic fashion the fiscalproblems of the University. The work of the Commission contributed to certain aspects of the two developments indicatedabove.The appointment of D. Gale Johnson as Special Assistant tothe President continues the economic analysis of academicprograms initiated by the Commission. In a further related step,Chauncy Harris has been appointed as a Special Assistant to thePresident to coordinate plans for academic programs to be included in the drive. crement of 2 percent. The rate of increase for othersalaries was assumed to be 6 percent annually, withthe same inflation factor.These procedures yield, within the assumedconditions, estimates of boundary conditions withreference to academic expenditures in the immediate future. They are subject, of course, to theusual unreliability of such estimates. What emergesfrom the projections is a clear indication of thenecessity for continued disciplined husbanding ofUniversity resources. The requirement is twofold,and involves not only limits on available funds, but ashift in the pattern of relationships among thecategories of funds which are available to supportthe academic budget: that is, General Funds(Unrestricted) revenues; funds from governmentsources; funds from Restricted Endowment income;and funds from Other Restricted sources (forexample, the Ford Foundation area grants).With reference to total academic expenditures,the projections suggest a very conservative annualgrowth rate of 3 percent. The increase in projectedexpenditures from regular budget funds reflects anaverage annual increment of 4.6 percent. Withreference to restricted funds, the most reliableprojection is from restricted endowment sources,which indicates an annual rate of increase of about6.4 percent. The projection of expenditures fromUnited States Government funds indicates adecrease of about 3 percent per year. The projectedincrease in expenditures from "Other" restrictedsources reflects an annual growth rate of 9.8 percent.In my judgment, these projected estimates areprudently conservative and, hopefully, realizable.Our experience in adapting to changes in researchprograms in the National Institutes of Health isencouraging, although our experience with theNational Science Foundation is less so. A verycritical requirement inherent in government fundingis the necessity for a close watch over government-supported programs, to make certain that fluctuations are adapted to by reduction in programlevels and not by transfer of responsibility to theregular budget of the University. Projections ofacademic expenditures from "Other" restrictedfunds are of special importance. Historically, thissource of income has been growing and, in thefuture, must continue to grow if the University is toprosper. To achieve this rate of growth will requireenergetic action on the part of all of us.To summarize with reference to the changedpattern indicated for academic expenditures as afunction of the source of income for such support,the following table may be helpful.268The pattern, which for 1972-73 is:Unrestricted Government Restr.End. Other41.6% 34.9% 7.1% 16.4%by 1976-77 is estimated to become:44.1% 27.7% 7.9% 20.3%indicating changes, respectively, of:+ 2.5% -7.2% +0.8% +3.9%So much for the projections of academic expenditures. Let me turn briefly to those relatingto faculty size, to student enrollment, and to income.Faculty size (defined by June 30 payroll countand not including those who are engaged in full-time administrative duties) totalled 1,116 in 1970. In'the succeeding years we have been functioning witha policy of a faculty limited to a total number equalto or less than this figure. As of June 30, 1973,faculty size (defined as above) totalled 1,062, areduction of approximately 4.8 percent. Althoughseveral of the Deans' projections indicatedaspirations for additional faculty, it is my judgmentthat we should maintain the present policy withregard to faculty size. Future reductions, as hasbeen the case in the last three years, can be accomplished by attrition and by continued carefulreview of individual appointment decisions.With reference to student enrollment, theprojections indicate an increase in totalQuadrangles enrollment from a level of 7,635 in1972-73 to 8,000 in 1976-77. The error in projectionsof student enrollment is difficult to estimate.Theoretically, the population from which graduatestudents will be drawn will continue to grow over thenext few years. Even so, whether this University canmaintain its competitive position in recruitinggraduate students in the Divisions will, in largemeasure, depend upon its faculty, its programs, andthe availability of new funds to offset the precipitousdrop in outside fellowship funds for graduatestudents. The population of students from whichundergraduates will be drawn will remain essentiallylevel. To increase our enrollment in the College thuswill take more imaginative recruiting, along withincreased student aid funds.The income projections assume an increase intuition of $75 per quarter for 1973-74 and no lessthan $50 per quarter for the following years. It isalso assumed that the financing of any new buildingwill include a source of funds to finance main tenance and operating costs. With reference toincome for Auxiliary Enterprises, the most important assumption is that the operations of theHospitals and Clinics will continue to be self-supporting. This will take rigorous monitoring. Thesize of this operation— now approaching $50 millionannually — means that a small financialdeterioration could have significant impact on thegeneral budget of the University. Last, and a veryimportant assumption relating to academic budgets,is that in the period covered by the projections, therewill be significant increases in funds added eachyear for unrestricted purposes or of a nature thatwill allow the income to be applied to reduce ongoing unrestricted expenditures.Taken together, the projections regarding income and expenditures reflect the dimensions of thebudget problems of the University for the short-termfuture. They also define the parameters of theprospective capital fund effort to meet thebudgetary requirements. Although the specificelements of this effort have yet to be determined indetail, the general pattern envisages a drive heavilyweighted in the direction of raising funds of a typeand in amounts sufficient to "close the gap" between future annual expenditures and annual income.ProspectusIn working through the 1973-74 budget and theprojections, there were (as there continue to be)times when there was a need for navigational aids todetermine anchoring points for appropriateassumptions and judgments. During one suchperiod, which preceded a presentation of some ofthe matters discussed above to the Board ofTrustees, I reviewed various materials describingevents of the past decade relating to highereducation, particularly those that seemed to me tohave affected universities such as this one. Onepertinent source was the "Profile" prepared forsubmission to the Ford Foundation in 1965. Thatdocument, written to support needs not unlike thosefacing the University today, was an importantstimulus for the $25 million Challenge grant fromFord.In the "Profile" there is a section headed"Assumptions for the Future." The "Future" thenwas the decade stretching to 1975. These assumptions — heroic in their scope — included apreliminary set pertaining to the United States as anation, a sub-set relating to the academic areas ofthe University, and a second sub-set which wentdirectly to fundamentals and is titled "The Basic269Assumption."The assumptions dealing with the United Statesincluded a number having to do with economic andsocial trends (described as being "clearly visiblenow"), others dealing with per capita income, theimpact of technological change, the development ofeconomic opportunity on a broadened base, and theeffect of all of these upon higher education.With reference to the academic areas, theassumptions furnished a prospectus for a series ofacademic achievements encompassing the range ofintellectual outcroppings which, at the time, weremaking their appearance in the various Divisions,the Schools, and the College. From among these atruly remarkable number have come to pass — forexample, the Laboratory for AstrophysicalResearch, the "materials sciences" program, therise to national prominence of the Department ofPediatrics, the programs in Non -western Studies, inLinguistics, and in graduate study of business, toname but a few.The section on "Assumptions" in the Profilecloses with the following:"There is one fundamental assumption: In thefuture, as in the past, The University of Chicago willbe concerned primarily with quality. Despite itsplans for selective growth, this University cannotmake a numerical response to the problempresented by the enormous increases in the college-bound population. That type of response must comemainly from the burgeoning state universities .... This University must set the standard.This University must encourage others to tryimitating, matching, even surpassing the values ofan institution that sees its role centered upon absolute, uncompromised quality."This assumption is as fundamental today as itwas in 1965, and indeed as it was in the day ofWilliam Rainey Harper. It is the one on which weare now operating and on which I assume we willcontinue to operate in the years ahead.Speaking of the period that the "Assumptions"encompassed, President Levi, in last year's State ofthe University address, made this observation:"The life of an academic institution during (this)decade has been filled with enormous distraction.The pressures have been heavy not only on administrative officers, but on a very large segment ofthe faculty. To a considerable extent the support ofresearch has been nationally structured, and increasingly in such a way as to reduce the flexibilityof the institution while placing an enormous burdenupon the scholar. Education as a whole has beenlooked on as one giant system to which prefor-mulated problems could be given for solution, or as a collection of geographic places housing separatedisciplines, part of a common market, or with theindividual faculty member as a necessary entrepreneur. The very idea of a university having aspecial value because of its unity, with an innerdirection and judgment as to its course, has beendowngraded or abandoned. But we have not accepted this view. We have welcomed this as a time torethink, to be about the business of improving whatwe do, and to plan ahead. This is what I believe theacademic community and the friends of theUniversity have expected of us. The truth is that inview of the University's history, no other choice waspossible."Among the trends "clearly visible" in 1965,those which seemed to be most supportive of agrowing higher education enterprise are now verymuch less so. This is particularly true of FederalGovernment indicators. The promise of the first halfof the last decade for the establishment of a long-term rational relationship between the FederalGovernment and higher education has faded. Andthe recurrence of such an opportunity is not highlyprobable. Although there will be continuing supportfrom the Federal sector, it will be in decreasingamount and in more categorical form. And in thisdownward trend, private institutions, especiallythose with strong traditions of research, will feel thedecline more severely than will public institutions,especially the entry level institutions.All of these factors point to the obviously increasing importance of the private sector in meetingthe financial needs of the University. It was theseresources that created and brought to flower thegreat private institutions of the country, includingthis one. Although there is growing competition forprivate funds from public institutions of higherlearning, as well as from other institutions such ashospitals and museums, it is a necessary assumptionthat The University of Chicago is, and will continueto be, one of the institutions for which private givingwill rise to meet this competitive challenge.Turning from external to internal signs, theintellectual ferment within the University, which isthe true lodestar for our future, is positive in theextreme. It has been a banner year for curriculardevelopments, faculty reports recommendingimprovements in departmental structure and newforms for the organization of knowledge. Weassume that the prime factor in the continuation ofsuch developments is our own initiative, and that theonly thinkable response for us in this situation is, inPresident Levi's words, to regard what has beendone thus far "as a platform from which to moveahead."270REPORT OF THE COMMITTEETO REVIEW CERTAIN MATTERSPERTAINING TO THE LIBRARYAugust 13, 1973The CommitteeThe Committee to Review Certain Matters Pertaining to the Library was established by the Provoston June 27, 1973, and charged with determiningwhether policies and priorities established by theBoard of the Library within the context of theLibrary's 1973-74 budget have been reasonablyfollowed with reference to the elimination ofprofessional positions and particularly whether theelimination of professional positions was based onconsiderations not related to those policies, forexample, union activities of some of the incumbentsof those positions. The Committee's function wasneither that of a legal proceeding, nor a grievancecommittee, nor a policy-making body. It was notcharged with undertaking a sweeping investigationof the Library,- the activities of the Union, or thegeneral University budgetary situation. TheCommittee was given the widest latitude in performing its specific task as a committee of inquiry toreport to the Provost its findings as to the factssurrounding the elimination of several professionalpositions in the Library as announced on June 15,1973.In discharging its responsibility, the Committeedecided to interview all individuals directly involvedin the terminations and others who possessedknowledge on related matters concerning which theCommittee deemed it necessary to obtain information. The Committee also examined anydocuments that had been brought to its attention asbearing directly upon the matter under investigationor providing necessary background information.The Committee examined several hundreddocuments from a variety of sources and held extended interviews with the following individuals:Jean Allard (Vice-President for Business andFinance)C. Harvey Arnold (Bibliographer for Theologyand Philosophy)1. For the sake of clarity, the titles are those held prior to June 15,1973. Fred D. Bjorling (Director, Personnel Office)Patricia Coatsworth (Documents Librarian)Herman H. Fussier (Professor, Graduate LibrarySchool and former Director of the Library)David W. Green (Education Librarian)Stanley E. Gwynn (Deputy Director of theLibrary)Sharon S. Irvine (Circulation-Reserve Librarian)D. Gale Johnson (Professor, Department ofEconomics and former Acting Director of theLibrary)Walter V. Leen (General Counsel of theUniversity)Christine Longstreet (Head Reference Librarian)Stanley McElderry (Director of the Library)Robert C. Miller (Associate Director forReaders' Services)Robert F. Moran, Jr. (Coordinator andReference Librarian for Social Sciences ReadingArea)Ronald P. Naylor (Coordinating LibrarianRegenstein Public Services)James P. Riley (Director of Libraries, MarquetteUniversity, and former Associate Director of theRegenstein Library)Patricia Wilcoxen (Administrative Assistant andCoordinator Departmental Library Services)John T. Wilson (Provost)We are grateful for the courtesy and assistancerendered us in the performance of our task by allparties concerned with this matter.We should note for the record that four of theindividuals interviewed (Arnold, Coatsworth, Irvine,Green) brought to the Committee's attention theirconcern that a full presentation of information intheir possession might "disclose their defense" insubsequent legal action and that, therefore, it wouldbe necessary for them to make a "restrainedpresentation."Throughout its inquiry the Committee washampered by the lack of adequate documentationon a number of important points.Areas of ControversyIn the course of its investigation, the Committeeidentified six areas of controversy:2711. Either the budget crisis confronting theLibrary was genuine or there was no budget crisis.2.Eitherthe choice of the particular positions tobe terminated was made on the basis of reasonablejudgment of organizational economies or the choicewas made on the basis of union activities of some ofthe incumbents.3. Either the only area in which responsible andsignificant economies could be made was that ofprofessional staff or there were other areas in whichresponsible and significant economies could bemade.4. Either the possibility of transferring thosestaff members who held the terminated positionswas seriously entertained with no vacancies beingfound for which these individuals were judged to bequalified or transfers were possible either intoexisting vacancies or by creating vacancies through"bumping" but were not entertained because ofunion membership of some of the individuals.5. Either an appointment "without limit oftime" is essentially an administrative conventionthat carries no explicit tenure commitment or anappointment "without limit of time" is at least theequivalent of faculty "indefinite tenure."6. Either the manner by which the terminationswere implemented was in conformity with Universitystatutes and procedures or the manner was improper, unprecedented, and the result of anti-unionsentiments on the part of the Library administration.In its deliberations, the Committee initiallysought to examine the administrative actions takenin order to determine whether or not these actionsfollowed policy or precedent and with the objectiveof evaluating any deviations. Regrettably, policy andprecedent frequently were either impossible to find,contradictory, or ambiguous. Therefore, we wereoften forced to resort to interpretation of administrative decisions in terms of previous orconcurrent administrative actions.We discussed alternative interpretations whichmight shed light on those areas of controversy.What follows is a report of the facts we found,the arguments we developed, the judgments wemade, and the alternative interpretations we entertained.BudgetThat this University has been facing severe financialdifficulties in recent times is beyond dispute. Thisfact has been announced in the public press, inofficial University statements, and clearly appears inReports and Announcements of the Library from 1969 to the present. The Library has largely beeninsulated from the full force of this crisis throughproportionally higher increases in budgetallocations, the appropriation of contingency fundsand other extraordinary means which have notforced the Library to undergo the same extent ofgrowth freeze of faculty and staff, setting ofpriorities, and curtailment of projects which havebecome normal in other academic areas.In 1973-74 the normal budget problems wereexacerbated by two extraordinary items: (1) thedecision to increase salaries and to reduceinequities, and (2) the need to pick up the loss ofapproximately $225,000 support for the Area Studycollections from HEW and the Ford Foundation.The Committee considered the possibility thatthe decision not to undertake either or both of theseexpenditures would have overcome the budgetdeficit. One might argue that in a fiscal crisis it isunusual to raise salaries and that this decision waspart of a conspiracy to engineer a budgetary crisis.We concluded that the decision made was areasonable managerial response to a long-rangeproblem and was in conformity with generalUniversity policy. The Library had, despite previousincreased allocations for salaries, slipped to amedian position with respect to professional salariesand thus stood in danger of losing competitiveadvantage in recruiting and retaining a first-ratestaff. In addition, the clerical staff salaries hadfallen below University scale.The Library administration did attempt torespond to the Area Study problem. On February27, 1973, Mr. McElderry had a meeting with theProvost, Deans Robert Streeter and Robert Adams,and Professor Chauncy Harris "to determinewhether any of the four area programs could becurtailed or dropped." Their decision was that theprograms should continue to be supported at nearcurrent levels as the Far Eastern and South Asiancollections were world renowned and there weresubstantial commitments in research and instructional programs related to these collectionswhich could not be curtailed. The Committee findsthis decision prudent and reasonable, recognizingthe established policy of maintaining the University's strongest programs even if it requiresreduction of support for weaker programs.The Committee considers this decision to becrucial. If the decision (which was not the Library'sbut the result of a faculty administration decision)had been to curtail these programs, the budget crisiswould have been averted and the positions may nothave been eliminated. The Library administrationdemonstrated its good faith by exploring the272possibility of terminating these programs. Anyproponent of a theory that the budget crisis wasengineered in order to fire four union memberswould have to extend this conspiracy to includeMessrs. Wilson, Streeter, Adams, and Harris. Thisthe committee finds improbable.The Decision to Terminate Professional PositionsThe Committee finds that the Library, given thisdecision, was extremely limited in its options as tothose areas in which significant and responsibleeconomies could be made. Despite the favoredtreatment of the Library budget in recent years,acquisitions were declining to an unacceptable level(this downward trend being exacerbated by theseveral devaluations of the dollar which affectedforeign purchases) and could not be reduced further. Technical services had to be kept at least at alevel relative to acquisitions. From as early as 1969service hours had been severely cut to reach itspresent minimum level. Obviously, staff was theonly remaining area for substantial dollar savings.As 19 clerical positions had been eliminated in 1972-73, the administration concentrated mainly on theelimination of professional staff positions. TheBoard subsequently concurred with the administration's conclusions.The Library administration first turned to theelimination of positions through attrition, that is,positions already vacant or where the incumbentwould shortly retire. This is thoroughly consistentwith Library practice over a period of many years (itwas extensively employed in the 1950-53 budgetcrisis). At first, six positions (including three part-time) were identified but the savings (approximately$53,000) were not of sufficient magnitude to relievethe deficit. The Committee believes that the Libraryhad no significant option but to take the unusualstep of terminating positions which were occupied.Seven positions were identified by the Libraryadministrative committee after extensivedeliberation, which, together with the six positionsalready allowed to lapse, brought the total savings tomore than $148,000. This sum, in addition to othereconomies, would allow the budget to be balanced.In the course of its inquiry, the Committeereceived alternative suggestions for coping with thebudgetary deficit, including: more effective fundraising and better inter-library cooperation; curtailing Special Collections; eliminating the CollegeLibrary; administrative economies (such as holdingadministrator's salaries at present levels); reducingsome positions to half-time; increasing charges fornon-University Library users. While there may be merit in some or all of these suggestions, theCommittee believes that these alternatives are eitherof too small a magnitude or too long-range in theireffect to have resolved the immediate presentbudgetary requirements.The Committee further notes that the numerous suggestions presenfed to it have identifiedother positions than the 13 as candidates for termination, thus conceding the logic of the Libraryadministration's action in seeking to reduceprofessional staff.Positions TerminatedThe Committee listened to extensive testimony andread numerous documents bearing on the questionwhether a particular position should be terminatedin preference to others. The eviden je was conflictingto the point where we found it impossible to makeany defensible judgments.Rather than trying to assess the particular set ofpositions terminated against all possible alternativesets, the Committee decided to elucidate theprinciples that may have been followed by theadministration to seek out the positions to be terminated. We first identified the principles thatlogically should be followed by an administratorseeking to make effective decisions in these circumstances. The most general theoretical principleis an economic one: choose a set of positions thatsimultaneously maximizes dollars saved andminimizes services lost. Operationally, we wouldexpect to see the elimination of positions withrelatively high salaries where the service loss couldbe demonstrated to be relatively acceptable.An alternative principle is an organizational one.Where formerly scattered operations are consolidated, as was the case at the time of the moveinto Regenstein, redundancies should be expected incertain functions because of the efficiencies thatcentralized operation permits. Operationally, onewould expect that the same level of service might bemaintained with fewer staff positions. Curiouslyenough, in fact, brand new positions were created atthe time of consolidation.In considering the economic principle, we notedthat there was no way in which the elimination of asignificant number of positions would result in noservice loss. The question was whether the loss wasacceptable when measured against the gain tocollection development. Recognizing that this is anarea of administrative judgment where input can bereasonably measured in dollars but where output, interms of service, is all but impossible to quantify andcompare, we reasoned that one set of prime can-273didates for elimination would be middlemanagement positions which have relatively highsalaries and almost no direct user contact.In general, the positions chosen fit the economicprinciple more or less well, most persuasively in fourpositions, namely:1. Coordinating Librarian, Regenstein PublicServices2. Coordinator and Reference Librarian, SocialScience Reading Room3. Administrative Assistant and CoordinatorDepartmental Library Services4. Circulation-Reserve Librarian.Turning to the principle of reduction ofredundancy in consolidation of organization, thespecific functions in which efficiencies shouldappear in centralization are those of circulation andreserve. Furthermore, problems of coordinationshould be somewhat reduced. Departmentallibrarians and others whose responsibilities incirculation and reserve were reduced would be onegroup of prime candidates for elimination, inparticular those whose book selection and referencework did not appear heavy enough to justifyretention. Another group would be the coordinators,whether their functions were created at the time ofthe Regenstein move or were then in existence.Invoking the above considerations, all theeliminated positions fit more or less well, but withthe Documents Librarian occupying a marginalposition.Therefore the Committee concludes that if oneassumes that the Library administration wasmotivated solely by $he desire to achieveorganizational efficiency and fiscal economy, theparticular set (or mix) of principles applied wouldappear to justify (with varying degrees of conviction)the termination of all the designated positions withthe possible exception of that of DocumentsLibrarian.2 It should be noted that this judgmentaccepts, for the sake of the argument, the Libraryadministration's contention that they examined theposition and not the incumbent. An alternative viewis considered below (under "Incumbents").We turn now to a consideration of the position ofthe Documents Librarian. In libraries there appearto be two differing points of view as to the bestmanner in which to handle documents. Somelibraries have opted for a centralized documents2. In the procedure of evaluating the fit of these principles to allthe eliminated positions, we did give special consideration to eachindividually in some detail, without involving ourselves inevaluating individual competency. As a result we resolved that theonly one really marginal in respect of the considerations was thatof Documents Librarian. collection, others for a dispersed collection withdocuments treated as analogous to serials. At thetime of the move to Regenstein we find clearevidence that both points of view were advocated bydifferent members of the Library administrationand staff, and the existence of a full-timeDocuments Librarian remained controversial. Theacquisition, the reference work pertaining to, andthe recording of documents have been handled byvarious departments as well as the DocumentsLibrarian. The latter has been concerned essentiallywith U. S. and U. N. documents. The Committee isnot competent to judge the relative merits of the twoextreme positions but notes that the past pattern ofmaintaining both a decentralized and a selectivelycentralized collection appears not to capture theadvantages of either option. In the light of the needto eliminate a number of professional positions, thepresent administration has clearly decided in favorof a decentralized collection and by virtue of thisdecision, the termination of the position ofDocuments Librarian would appear justified.First ConclusionsThe Committee finds that there was a genuinebudget crisis; that the Library administrationshowed good faith in attempting to find ways ofaverting this crisis; that when these possibilitieswere closed off by actions independent of theLibrary administration, they demonstratedresponsible managerial judgment in seeking majorsavings by terminating professional staff positions.Taking the 13 terminations as a group, there ispreponderant support for the judgment that thepositions were terminated for economy and efficiency.However, this finding is predicated on acceptingthe Library administration's claim that they considered positions not the incumbents. Looking at theindividuals involved, could the alternative explanation be defended that the terminations weremade because of union organizing activities?The IncumbentsConsidering only those seven positions that wereterminated in which there were incumbents, the"mix" is susceptible of varying interpretations. Fourwere union members; three were not. There are bothlong-term and fairly recent employees, good and lessadequate performers. This mix appears at firstglance to be not unexpected (given the varyingestimates we have received on union strength, theproportion of union members whose positions were274terminated does not necessarily seem unduly high).Pressing the "union busting" argument further,the Committee took note that traditionally the"safe" procedure, where "union busting" is theobjective, has been to attempt to build a malper-formance case against the individual union memberand then fire him. The Committee found thatduring the period 1970-1972 the personnel filescontain documentation of alleged insubordinationor malperformance in the case of each of the fourunion members. However, no action was taken as aconsequence. In the case of one individual, anadministrator recommended firing but wasoverruled by other administrators.From these facts the following alternatives maybe entertained:1. That they demonstrate that the Library didnot intend to take discriminatory action againstunion members.2. That had the possibility of discriminatoryaction been considered it had been rejected.3. That poor judgment was shown in not takingadvantage of these opportunities to take actionagainst individuals rather than delaying to takeclass action in a tense legal situation.4. That the Library deliberately waited to takeclass action (by engineering the budget crisis anddeveloping the elaborate camouflage that theyconsidered positions not individuals).5. That the Union was too strong during thatperiod for the administration to fire prominentunion members.Evidence that would clearly establish or denyany one of these alternatives does not exist.However, each of these arguments implies a unifiedand concerted conspiratory action on behalf of theLibrary administration. We may note that there isclear evidence of conflicting judgments on the partof various Library administrators as to what actionto take with respect to individual members of theUnion during the above period. We also note againthe efforts of the Library administration to avoidelimination of the relevant professional positions byactively seeking curtailment of the Area Studyprogram. Therefore, it becomes difficult to developa conspiracy theory necessary to making the "unionbusting" argument convincing.ConclusionWhile "personality" and behavior factors mustalways be assumed to have some influence on anindividual administrator's decisions, the Committee's best judgment, based on the availableevidence, is that the Library's decision to terminate the positions was undertaken primarily for reasonsof economy and efficiency. The policies andpriorities established by the Board of the Librarywithin the context of the Library's 1973-74 budgethave been reasonably followed with reference to theelimination of professional positions.Having reached this judgment, the Committeewas compelled to go beyond a strict reading of itscharge. We inquired into several other relatedmatters of controversy that have been repeatedlybrought to our attention: the length of time whichexpired between the first determination of thepositions to be eliminated in March and the firstpublic announcement of these terminations in June;the secrecy which surrounded these decisions; thequestion of the meaning of "without limit of time";the question of transfer and "bumping"; and themanner in which the terminations were implemented.TimingIt has been argued that the Library administrationdeliberately waited until June to announce theterminations because this was a time when unionstrength was at its lowest, when faculty, staff, andstudents who might be sympathetic to the Union'splight were on vacation, and when the Marooncoverage of University affairs was most sporadic.Furthermore, it has been stated that the secrecywhich surrounded these decisions from March toJune is "prima facie evidence that the administration had something to hide." The Committee finds no merit in these arguments.In a memorandum of March 21, Mr. McElderrypresented to the Provost a list of positions to beterminated if the Library's budget could not beincreased. He requested "prompt action" becausehe wished to announce the decision by March 30thso that (consistent with the three monthsnotification policy) the positions would not becarried on the Library's budget into the next fiscalyear which begins July 1st. He was dissuaded fromthis course because there was still hope that morefunds might be found and because there was arequest from central administration that outsideconsultants be called in. The consultants werecontacted April 2nd but scheduling difficultiesprevented their visiting the campus until late May.It was not definitely known until early June, when anadditional budget cut was required because of adecrease in student enrollment for 1973-74, that noother monies could be found. The final decision wasreached on June 8th and announced at thepreviously scheduled staff meeting on June 15th.275The delay of the announcement from June 8th toJune 15th stemmed from a concern for possibledisruptive union action.The "secrecy" surrounding the possible decisionto terminate positions stemmed mainly from aconcern for staff morale (it could not be definitelystated until June that these and only these positionswould be terminated in 1973-74)."Without Limit of Time"Much controversy surrounds the designation:appointment without limit of time (WLOT).The Committee finds that WLOT was firstemployed as a euphemism for "until further notice"(UFN) in 1961 and was proposed as a "paper-savingdevice" to eliminate the preparation of annualnotices of appointment for those employees whomone foresaw retaining for some indefinite period oftime. There was no implication of permanence. Thefact that the Statutes clearly confers neither facultystatus nor indefinite tenure orr members of theLibrary staff, the fact the WLOT is described in theLibrary's 1967 Staff Handbook as being "usually"conferred after a year's probation, and the fact thata three-month notification of termination isrequired clearly indicate that no comparison between faculty indefinite tenure and WLOT ispossible.On the other hand, the Committee finds thatWLOT was understood as conferring increasedstatus on the position thus described. That both theLibrary staffs desire for faculty status and theLibrary administration's desire for recruitmentadvantages have supported the notion that WLOTprovides, in some way, job security analogous toindefinite tenure.We find that the participation of Library staff inTIAA-CREF, the increase in the probationaryperiod from one to three years, and the explicitstatements of some members of the Library administration all contributed to a reasoned understanding on the part of some members of theLibrary staff that WLOT was in some wayequivalent to indefinite tenure (although we find theUnion's understanding of the job security offered byfaculty indefinite tenure to go considerably beyondthat provided for in Statutes and the AAUPGuidelines).The Committee was dismayed to find that noclear description of WLOT is to be found in anyofficial University publication, that the Library StaffManual is distressingly vague, and that there was nopublic announcement of the change in theprobationary period from one to three years. We would urge that these matters be rectified, andespecially that there be a public announcement toclarify the meaning and intent of the term WLOT.Our conclusion is that the dismissals underconsideration did not violate the WLOT contract ifinterpreted strictly in terms of the Statutes^TransfersThe Committee can find no evidence that theUniversity has ever entertained a "bumping" orseniority policy with respect to the termination orlay-off of any academic personnel. We do findevidence that transfers were seriously considered asearly as March 21st for all individuals under consideration. One of the professionals (a unionmember) whose position was slated for terminationwas transferred to another position because ofsuitable previous training and experience; one nonprofessional (non-union member) with extensiveexperience, and higher mobility because of lessspecialization than the typical professionallibrarian, was transferred to a temporary GSAposition. The evidence indicates that the Libraryadministration did consider the qualifications ofother individuals, both union and non-union, to fillthe few vacancies that existed, and reached anegative judgment. We do not feel competent toevaluate this judgment.Manner of Implementing the TerminationsFollowing our general principles of looking forpolicy and precedent, we conclude that the mannerof dismissal was unusual. We can find no precedentfor requesting these persons to leave the premises onthe day of dismissal, while retaining them on thepayroll for three months. It is our impression thatthe usual procedure would be to advise them on agiven day of the termination of their employmentthree months hence. The Committee has evidencethat these procedures were employed (on the adviceof counsel) out of concern for the possible disruptiveactivities by the Union members whose positionswere terminated.Summary StatementThe following facts loomed large in the Committee'sdiscussions:1 . That the decision not to curtail the Area Studycollections was not made by the Library administration, and therefore there are no grounds forasserting that the budgetary crisis was engineered bythe Library administration in order to eliminate276union members.2. That the Director sought to announce thepositions terminated in March 1973, and thereforethere are no grounds for asserting that the delay inannouncing the terminations was part of an antiunion subterfuge by the Library administration.3. That there is no evidence of a conspiracy onthe part of the Library administration to fire unionmembers.Beyond these facts, the Committee has sought tore-create a possible set of principles which mighthave resulted in the designation of a set of positionsto be terminated. There is no irrefutable evidencethat these principles were, in fact, followed; there isno compelling evidence that they were not.Considering the basic charge that we were given,our summary conclusions are that the Libraryadministration made a genuine effort to avoid thenecessity for dismissing professional staff by seekingfirst to curtail programs associated with the loss ofgrant funds. This possibility being precluded by aThe following is a listing of property The Universityof Chicago owns near the campus — the campusbeing primarily comprised of campus Quadrangleswhich are: 55th Street to 56th Street, Cottage GroveAvenue to University Avenue; 56th Street to 57thStreet, the alley east of Drexel Avenue to UniversityAvenue; 57th Street to 58th Street, Drexel Avenue toUniversity Avenue; 58th Street to 59th Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to Dorchester Avenue; and60th Street to 61st Street, Ingleside Avenue toUniversity Avenue. This list does not include tworesidences which have been given to the Universitywhere the donors have retained use during theirlifetimes. Where a mixed use exists, the property isdesignated in its primary use.On the city's South Side, the University ownsnothing north of 47th Street. West of Cottage GroveAvenue its only holdings are one 10.99 percentinterest and one 7.32 percent interest in two landtrusts that hold title to two commercial properties inthe 6300 block of South Halsted Street. South of62nd Street the University owns only one piece ofproperty — land (but not the building on it) at the faculty administration decision, they sought toutilize normal attrition in both clerical andprofessional staff. However, given the prioritiesestablished by the Board of the Library in responseto the problems arising from the 1973-74 budget,the Library administration's decision to germinatesome professional staff seems unavoidable. We findthat the choice of positions to be terminatedinevitably involved administrative judgment, and itappears that the final choice was made on thegrounds of economy and efficiency, and did notstem from a concerted effort to eliminate unionmembers. It appears to us that after some attemptwas made to find alternative positions for thosedismissed, the procedure of dismissal was carriedout in a manner that clearly was aimed atminimizing possible disruptive union action.Ronald SingerJonathan Z. Smith (Chairman)Thomas L. Whislernortheast corner of 63rd Street and WoodlawnAvenue — which was given to the University as a gift45 years ago. The University owns no property inSouth Shore.1A "student building" is an apartment propertyassigned for student use. A "student house" is aresidence where students live as a group. A "faculty-use building" is an apartment property; faculty andstaff are given preference when apartments arevacant, but the general public may also be housed.A "faculty house" is a single-family residence;faculty and staff are given preference if it is vacant.The percentage of units occupied by University-affiliated persons is indicated for "faculty-usebuildings," "faculty houses," and "mixedUniversity and non-University housing" that, as ofOctober 1, 1973, housed some non- affiliatedhouseholds. (Commercial units are excluded frompercentage calculation.)1. It should be noted that the endowment of the BaptistTheological Union includes ownership of the Cloisters apartmentsat 5801 South Dorchester Avenue.UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGSIN THE CAMPUS AREAAS OF OCTOBER 1,1973277AREA I (47th Street to 51st Street,Drexel Avenue to Lake Park Boulevard)Ellis Avenue:4827 Vacant Lot4933 Vacant LotHyde Park Boulevard:1310-16 (1311-17 Madison Park) MarriedStudent Housing1318-24 (1319-25 Madison Park) MarriedStudent Housing1334-40 (1335-41 Madison Park) MarriedStudent Housing1400-12 Married Student Parking LotAREA II (51st Street to 55th Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to Woodlawn Avenue)Drexel Avenue:5436 Vacant Lot5442 Mixed University & Non-UniversityHousing (10% University*)Greenwood Avenue:5233-37 (1100-1110 East 53rd Street)Married Student Housing5400-10 Single Student Housing5427-29 Faculty Use Housing5470 Faculty Use Housing5482 Married Student Housing5486-88 Married Student Parking LotEllis Avenue:5468 Single Student HouseIngleside Avenue:5440 Single Student HouseUniversity Avenue:5408 Faculty House5410-12 Faculty Use HousingEast 55th Street:1160-66 University AdministrativeServices1168-74 CommercialAREA in (51st Street to 55th Street, east ofWoodlawn Avenue)Blackstone Avenue:5107 (1429-43 Hyde Park Boulevard)Piccadilly, Married Student Housing and Commercial5409-11 Faculty Use Housing278 Dorchester Avenue:5316 Gaylord, Married Student HousingHarper Avenue:5345 Harper Crest, Married Student Housing5426 Harper Surf, Single Student HousingHyde Park Boulevard:1215 Married Student Housing1361-65 Married Student Housing Playground1369 Fairfax, Married StudentHousing (includes 5110 Dorchester Avenue)1401 Married Student Housing, Residents andInterns1405-21 Married Student Parking Lot1425 (5100-14 Blackstone) Married Student ParkingLotKenwood Avenue:5100-06 Married Student Parking Lot5110 Married Student Housing5114-16 Married Student Parking Lot5117 Married Student Housing Play Lot5125 Chicago Arms, Married Student Housing5220 Grosvenor, Married Student Housing (withParking Lot)Kimbark Avenue:5301-23 (1301-09 East 53rd Street) Commercial;Mixed University & Non-University Housing (79.6%University * )5428-32 Married Student HousingRidgewood Court:5410-18 Married Student HousingWoodlawn Avenue:5439-45 Faculty Use Housing (88.2 % University* )5447-57 Faculty Use Housing (88.2 % University * )East 54th Street1514-16 Married Student Parking LotAREA IV (55th Street to 56th Street,University Avenue to Lake Park Boulevard)Blackstone Avenue:5514 Mixed University & Non-University Housing(64.1% University*)5519 Laughlin Hall, Single Student Housing5533-35 Faculty Use HousingUniversity Avenue:5537 Faculty House5545 Faculty HouseWoodlawn Avenue:5548 Faculty HouseAREA V (56th Street to 57th Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to the alley east of DrexelAvenue)Cottage Grove Avenue: v5601 Commercial5625-29 Vacant Lot5631-39 Mixed University & Non-UniversityHousing (14.3 % University *)5643-49 Storage, Physical Education DepartmentDrexel Avenue:5604-06 Plant Department Storage Lot5609 Vacant Lot5613-21 Faculty Use Housing5614-20 Plant Department Storage Lot5622 Vacant Lot5623 Faculty House5631 Faculty House5632 Vacant Lot5637 Vacant Lot5642-44 Faculty Use Housing5645 Faculty House5648 Vacant Lot5655 Faculty House5659-61 (908-10 East 57th Street) Married StudentHousingMaryland Avenue:5601-05 (835-39 East 56th Street) Married StudentHousing5604 Single Student House5606 Single Student House5608 Faculty House5610 Vacant Lot5625 Vacant Lot5631-33 Faculty Use Housing5638 Faculty House5640 Faculty Use Housing (50% University*)5644-46 Faculty Use Housing5645-49 Married Student Housing5650-52 Plant Department Storage LotAREA VI (56th Street to 57th Street,University Avenue to Lake Park Boulevard)Dorchester Avenue:5623-25 Faculty Use HousingEast 57th Street:1400-12 Single Student Housing AREA VH (57th Street to 58th Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to Drexel Avenue)Drexel Avenue:5700-02 (845-47 East 57th Street) Married StudentHousing5706-08 Faculty Use Housing5710-12 Faculty Use Housing5716-18 Faculty Use Housing5724-26 Faculty Use Housing5728-30 Faculty Use Housing5736-38 Faculty-Staff Parking Lot5742-48 Faculty Use HousingMaryland Avenue:5700 Faculty Use Housing5701 Faculty House5705 Faculty House5708-10 Faculty Use Housing5712 Faculty Use Housing5716 Faculty Use Housing5717 Faculty House5720-26 Faculty Use Housing (91.7 % University * )5725 Faculty House5730 Faculty Use Housing (66.7 % University *)5732 Faculty Use Housing (50% University *)5734 Faculty Use Housing (66.7% University*)5741 Faculty House5746 Faculty Use Housing5750 Faculty Use Housing5756-58 (816-24 East 58th Street) Married StudentHousingEast 58th Street:804-12 Married Student Housing (includes 5753-59Cottage Grove Avenue)AREA VHI (57th Street to 58th Street,University Avenue to ICRR)Blackstone Avenue: "A5706-10 Faculty Use Housing (8(8?9^o yniversity *)5748 Blackstone Hall, Single Student HousingKenwood Avenue:5700 (1329-37 East 57th Street) Commercial5721 Parking LotUniversity Avenue:5727-29 Statistics-Mathematics5733 Alumni Association5737 Computation Center OfficesWoodlawn Avenue:5720 Center for Health Administration Studies5730 Committee on Human Development2795736 Far Eastern Languages and Civilizations5740 Nursery School5750 Nursery School5757 Robie House, Adlai Stevenson InstituteEast 57th Street:1155 Quadrangle Club1323 Commercial1413-15 Faculty Use Housing (83.3% University* )AREA IX (58th Street to 59th Street,Dorchester Avenue to ICRR)Dorchester Avenue:5821-33 (land owned by University; buildingprivately owned)East 59th Street:1414 International House1442 Breckenridge House, Single Student HousingAREA X (55th Street to 59th Street east of theICRR)Everett Avenue:5555 Faculty House (Condominium Unit)Hyde Park Boulevard:5540 Broadview, Single Student HousingAREA XI (60th Street to 61st Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to Ingleside Avenue)Cottage Grove Avenue:6001-17 Commercial6021-23 Plant Department StorageDrexel Avenue:6000-10 Hospitals Parking Lot6001-09 Faculty-Staff Parking Lot6022-24 Married Student Housing, Nurses'Residence6051-57 Married Student HousingIngleside Avenue:6016 Midway Studios6020-22 Faculty Use Housing6026-28 (rear only)6034-36 Play Lot6044-52 Married Student Housing6054-56 Married Student Housing AREA XU (60th Street to 61st Street,University Avenue to Stony Island Avenue)Blackstone Avenue:6018 Maintenance Department6037-6129 Power Plant6050 Power Plant Parking LotKimbark Avenue:6018-22 Illinois Drug Abuse Program, Departmentof Psychiatry6021-37 Faculty Use Housing (79.2% University *)6042 Student ActivitiesWoodlawn Avenue:6005-11 (1201-09 East 60th Street)Colmar, Faculty Use Housing (85.2 % University *)East 60th Street:1225 Mott, Industrial Relations Center, withParking Lot1307 Center for Continuing Education, withParking Lot1313 Public Administration Center, with ParkingLot1365 Orthogenic School1401-07 Orthogenic School Play Yard1411-13 Population Research Center1445-49 Commercial1545 Plaisance, Mixed University & Non-UniversityHousing and Commercial (68.6 % University *)East 61st Street:1300-18 Vacant LotStony Island Avenue, Harper Avenue, and East 61stStreet:Approximately 7.8 acres of land between the ICRRtracks and Stony Island Avenue leased for JacksonPark Terrace Housing Development (TWO)AREA XHI (South of 61st Street)University Avenue:6105-21 Vacant LotEast 61st Street:1001-21 Commercial* Vacant units excluded from percentage calculation.280THE 343RD CONVOCATION ADDRESS:PROBLEM FINDINGBY J.W. GETZELSMarch 16, 1973This convocation — the 343rd in the life of thisUniversity — marks a graduation and a commencement. It is by tradition a moment forexamining what we have been about and what weshould be about.Asked of any other institution: What is it about?What should it be about? What does it do? Whatshould it do? The answer is relatively simple. Thework of a factory, a store, a court, a hospital may bedescribed as providing solutions to manifestproblems — problems that have already beenidentified and formulated. The work of a universitycannot be described so simply, and surely not thework of The University of Chicago.One may of course say merely that Chicago is aninstitution composed of students and facultyengaged in the preservation and transmission ofknowledge at the undergraduate, graduate, andprofessional levels. But a university is not only that,and perhaps not even distinctively that. The work ofa university lies distinctively, as does that of no otherinstitution, in making explicit that which is yetproblematical — in exploring enigmas still seekingformulation as problems, to say nothing ofsolutions. It is no accident that the most commonquestion one faculty member asks another is:"What problem are you working on?" For theimportance of the University's work is judged asmuch by the quality of the problems and enigmasfound and faced in its classrooms and laboratoriesas by the certitude and finality of the solutions thatmay be reached.This engagement with the enigmatic rather thanthe apparent, with the ultimate rather than theimmediate, renders the University vulnerable to thecharge that it is not doing anything, not producinganything. It is especially vulnerable to this chargewhen the principal criterion of worth becomes costbenefit analysis and the standard of value the payoff. One may judge the cost benefit, the pay-off, ofan answer that is produced, of a solution that can beapplied. But how does one measure the cost benefitof a problem that is found — a problem, moreover,that may not be solved in one's own lifetime? Thereis the prior issue. Need one find problems? Is not theworld already teeming with dilemmas at home and in business, in economics and in technology, in thearts and in the sciences?The world is of course teeming with dilemmas.But the dilemmas do not present themselvesautomatically as problems capable of resolution oreven of profitable contemplation. They must beposed and formulated in fruitful and often radicalways if they are to be moved toward solution. AsAlbert Einstein put the issue with respect to science:"The formulation of a problem is often moreessential than its solution, which may be merely amatter of mathematical or experimental skill. Toraise new questions, new possibilities, to regard oldquestions from a new angle, requires imaginationand marks real advance in science."The critical role of problem finding in the advancement of knowledge, and in turn of the advancement of knowledge in expanding the rangeand depth of problems to be found, is not limitedonly to scientific activity. It is crucial to all humanendeavor, the aesthetic as well as the scientific, thepractical as well as the theoretical. It is crucial evento the seemingly esoteric scholarship in languagesand literatures long-since dead, which seems so farremoved from our daily concerns. Stewart Atkinsmade the point eloquently in this year's presidentialaddress to the Modern Language Association. Hesaid: "Intellectual enthusiasm — whether fortransformational grammar, Dickens, existentialism,Goethe's Faust, or even Augustan satire — ispreferable to darkness and bitterness ....Knowledge of language or literature may not be theanswer to life's problems, may not be the best instrument for creating Utopian perfection . . . But itcan be an important means of recognizing whereproblems lie and action is needed."It is this — the identification of where problemslie and inquiry is still needed — and not only thedispensation of skills to solve problems alreadyidentified that is the distinctive work of theuniversity both in its research and instruction. Theproducts of such work, like the problems themselves, often seem, as the saying goes, merelyacademic, and their value not measurable by thepopular criteria of the moment. But they bear fruitin knowledge that illuminates dark experience,which seems to me value enough, and in due courseoften in applications of the greatest practical utility.The invention of radio communication, to mentiononly an obvious example or two, would not havebeen possible if someone in a university had notposed the prior problem: What is the nature ofelectro-magnetic radiation? And the invention ofthe polio vaccine would not have been forthcoming281if students and faculty at various universities, largelyunknown to the general public, had not posed theprior questions: What are the properties ofmammalian cells, and can such cells be maintainedoutside the living organism?The decisive contribution of problem finding tothe advancement of knowledge and to the quality oflife is not confined to the humanities and the well-established natural disciplines. It is also characteristic of the newer social and behavioraldisciplines, although to be sure in less dramatic andvisible form.Before the turn of the century the mind wasviewed as though it were a body, and the training ofthe mind was seen as analogous to the training ofthe body. Just as muscular powers could bestrengthened through arduous exercises in running,jumping, or lifting dumbbells, to use Sir FrancisGalton's rhetoric, so could the faculties of the mindbe strengthened through educational exercises. Thisdoctrine, which rested securely on tradition andauthority, was used to justify Latin and Greek as thepre-eminent educational exercises since thesesubjects were manifestly arduous. Investigators inseveral universities, including this one, posed thethen radical question: How does learning transferfrom one subject to another, if indeed it does? Theyfound that the transfer of learning was not at all assimple as it had been supposed, and they therebycontributed not only to altering the role of Latin andGreek in the training of the mind but to the veryconception of mind itself. Good reasons for learningLatin and Greek remained, but their use as dumbbells to strengthen mental faculties was not amongthem.Consider a second, more recent example. Geniusand insanity, it was held, are in most instancesinseparable, and "great wits are sure to madnessnear allied," according to the familiar verse. Intellectually precocious children were called "quizkids" and thought of as "queer kids" — physicallyunderdeveloped, emotionally maladjusted, andsocially immature. Moreover, unless their intellectual precocity was in some wise restrainedthese children would come to a bad end since "earlyripe, early rot." A university investigator posed theproblem: What is the nature of early giftedness, andwhat is its relation to later achievement? It turnedout that the gifted children were more advancedthan other children physically, emotionally, andsocially, and that their adult achievement was fargreater than that of other adults. But more important than the substantive results was the effect ofposing the problem. It took childhood giftedness outof the realm of superstition and ignorance, and opened it to systematic inquiry and to the improvedunderstanding and cultivation of all talent. Theenigma rof intellect and talent was not solved, norwas it likely to be in the investigator's own lifetime,but there is no doubt about the commanding effectsto this day of the problem he had posed.The academic problems posed in universitiesfind their way into solutions that go to the very coreof our life. I take one final instance. The legalsegregation of schools rested on the judicial doctrineof "separate but equal." So long as the physicalfacilities of the segregated schools were the same,children of the minority group were not deprivedand suffered no damage. The only question at issuewas whether segregated schools had comparablefacilities. But beginning in the late thirties, investigators in universities, including this one,reformulated the question and raised the moresubtle and radical problem — a problem few anticipated would one day have a profound impact ona Supreme Court decision. What, they asked, arethe psychological effects of segregation even underconditions of equal physical facilities? In thehistoric Brown decision of 1954, the Supreme Courtoverthrew the separate but equal doctrine, findingthat segregated schools even if equal physically hadpsychologically damaging effects on "the hearts andminds" of children. The Court wrote: "Whatevermay have been the extent of psychologicalknowledge [before] . . . this finding is amplysupported by modern authority." That is, theauthority deriving from the reformulated problem.The advancement of knowledge and of thequality of life depends as much on the arts of findingand formulating problems as on the technical skillsfor solving the problems once they are found andformulated. And one might even argue that theultimate values of a people reside more in thequestions they put to life than in the transitorysolutions to which they may be driven. There ispressure today upon universities to turn from theirdistinctive character — to turn from exploringfundamental enigmas to delivering technical services, from formulating problems to advocatingpolicies. No one can deny the need for services andpolicies; the university cannot neglect these. Yetthere are other institutions that can do these thingsas well, and perhaps do them better. But if theuniversity does not behave distinctively like auniversity, what other institution will ask the freshquestions, explore the fruitful problems?Gertrude Stein once observed: "The wholequestion of questions and not answers is very interesting ..." and more pointedly, "Suppose noone asked a question. What would the answer be?"282Indeed, what would the answers and solutions oftoday be if students and faculty in this and otheruniversities had not found problems and askedquestions regarding language and literature,electro-magnetic radiation and mammalian cells,the transfer of training and the development ofintellect, the effects of discrimination on the heartsand minds of children?The uses of problem finding are not limited tothe university. They are germane to all humanpursuits. Whatever your future pursuit, whether inthe arts, in the sciences, in business, in theprofessions, or elsewhere, there will be the inevitablechallenge "to raise new questions, new possibilities,to regard old questions from a new angle." In aminute or two you will receive degrees from thisUniversity. I consider nothing in my years at theUniversity a greater privilege than the opportunityto address you, and to extend my greetings andcongratulations to you — and to your family andfriends — on this occasion.Jacob W. Getzels is the R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentsof Education and Psychology.SUMMARY OF THE 343RDCONVOCATIONThe 343rd Convocation was held on Friday, March16, 1973, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel. PresidentEdward H. Levi presided.A total of 389 degrees were awarded: 36Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 134 Masterof Arts, 1 Master of Fine Arts, 9 Master of Science, 3Master of Arts in Teaching, 3 Master of Science inTeaching, 109 Master of Business Administration, 1Master of Comparative Law, 4 Juris Doctor, 88Doctor of Philosophy.Jacob Getzels, the R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentsof Education and Psychology, delivered the Convocation Address, entitled "Problem Finding." THE 344TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:EIGHTEEN NINETY THREEBY ROGER H. HILDEBRANDJune 8 and 9, 1973In 1893 my father came to Chicago to visit theWorld's Columbian Exposition. He saw buildingsfestooned with carbon -filament electric lamps farbrighter than the kerosene lamps he used at home;he listened with earphones to an early Edisonphonograph; he crisscrossed the area on foot,walking very likely through an open field where thischapel now stands; and in order not to missanything he rode the huge Ferris wheel on theMidway. The one thing that altogether escaped hisnotice was The University of Chicago.Our Admissions Office complains of still havingthat sort of difficulty with young scholars; but myfather was hovering almost above the campus — andthere was a campus in 1893; it was almost one yearold. We have to conclude that Cobb Hall wasunassertive in comparison with the Fine ArtsBuilding, the captive balloon, Little Egypt, andwhatever else caught his eye amid the splendors ofthe "White City."It is tempting to speculate about the difference itmight have made if he had noticed the Universityand visited its classes. There is a sense in which thespeculation is humiliating; there is a sense in whichit is exalting.Since the entire history of the University fallseasily within the span of my father's memory, hisrecollections call to our attention subjects thatreveal something about the curriculum of 1893without having been a part of it. I have chosen a listof these subjects with today's graduates in mind,since it is to them I wish particularly to speak.In 1893, in a course in his own field, chemistry,my father would not have learned about the electronic structure of atoms and molecules because noone had discovered the electron. The chemistry hedid encounter now appears to be in part trivial andin part wrong. In physics he would not have learnedabout relativity or the uncertainty principle; inastronomy, nothing beyond gravitational effectsabout stellar evolution, and nothing at all about theexpanding universe. None of these concepts hadbeen discovered.There was no concept of macroeconomics oreconometrics. No principles were illustrated usingthe European Common Market or United Statesincome tax: neither existed. Sociologists were notdiscussing women's suffrage because there were no283sociologists (or none full-blown) and there was nowomen's suffrage. The historians were notdiscussing the Boer War, the Spanish-AmericanWar, World War I, World War II, the Korean War,or the Vietnamese War. The political scientists werenot discussing the Russian Revolution. The artistshad not heard of cubism and had never seen aBraque or a Picasso. The musicians were notdiscussing Claude Debussy's Afternoon of a Faun orRichard Strauss's Rosenkavalier. The Englishprofessors were not discussing any of Hemingway,Faulkner, or Steinbeck and not much of HenryJames. The biologists did not know about thegenetic code. The archaeologists hadn't found KingTut. Nobody knew how to read Hittite. And in thethe kitchen no one had ever spoken of an aluminumpot.Except in his still being alive, not much of thisproves that my father is old. It is extraordinary thathe still goes to his laboratory every day, but I havemostly used examples of things that came into beingbefore he reached the onset of respectable middleage. The point is that most of the world events, thediscoveries, the theories, and the creative works thatconcern him today were utterly missing from hisformal education. And that being so, it matters littleat what institution he missed them. That is thehumiliating part.The training certified by bachelor's and doctor'sdiplomas provided him with no more than a tinyfraction of the subject matter, the techniques, oreven the basic concepts he was to use throughoutmost of his professional career.It will be the same for you. You know that. Butthis is not a day to praise education for its inherentlimitations. The limitations are not yours in particular since they fall on everyone; yet they areespecially your concern because of the task you aredestined to undertake. It sounds presumptuous tosay so, but we know what that task will be. You willbe teachers.Now I know that some of you think you willbecome doctors, or lawyers, or businessmen. Youcould become steamboat pilots or circus riders. Butinsofar as past experience at this University is aguide, more of you will be teachers than anythingelse. The rest of you will also find yourselvesteaching, willy-nilly, because it is the way to sharewhat you have learned. If you don't believe it,remember that you may have children, and that theywill learn from you even when you don't want themto.If your wealth is in your learning (and for most ofyou that will be true in the literal sense) and ifsharing it by teaching can prepare your students so little for what they will encounter, then you may ask:"What can I teach my students that will seemworthy when viewed by them from the distance of alifetime?"Perhaps you will seek to teach what emerges withorder and certainty from established disciplines.Perhaps you will teach language, mathematics,mechanics, or classical literature — disciplines thatwere taught in 1893 with an understanding that timehas not upset. I hope you will. But if you teach onlywhat is orderly and certain and enduring, what willyou say to the students who are curious about thethings that are not?As you consider what a life's reflection mayprove to be worth teaching you will have to do whatyou can with the emerging confusion of events andideas, and you will gain little by noting the topics ofimmediate public attention. What my father recallsabout the issues of Grover Cleveland's administration in 1893 has little to do with the learninghe now values. It is easy for us to say, because wehave nearly forgotten about them, that the panic of1893 and the invention of the now-defunct carbon-filament lamp were matters of passing importance;and it is easy to say, because we are surrounded bytheir consequences, that the development ofmacroeconomics and the discovery of the electronwere matters of greater significance. But scholarshipdoes not consist in waiting for time to cull smallevents and fruitless ideas. The choices that arenecessary and the discoveries that are possible makethe educational struggle exciting, and at its best,exalting.The University is not, of course, the only placewhere people teach and learn, but as you leave, youmay see in it a symbol of that endeavor. It is a placewhere teachers and students expect to inquire anddiscover and rediscover, and to bring changes to thethings they study. It is a place where teaching ismeant to reveal not only the result but also theprocess of human intellectual achievement.It will not long be possible to assemble hereknowing that living scholars see back further thanour founding day. While we can do so, we maycomprehend more vividly than we shall again theswiftness of events that may hardly seem to changeas we live day by day through their evolution. In thespan of years we have considered, we see, as inGibbon's register, the continuing crimes and folliesand misfortunes of mankind. How fortunate we areto see, also, humane accomplishments that reassureus of our worth.The fortune we have won by our endeavors canbe lost as swiftly as it was gained. We are not likelyto lose the standard skills that school taxes are284meant to insure for the motor functions of society;but history shows that from time to time we have lostour capacity for free inquiry and with it the essenceof our civilization. Sometimes for years, sometimesfor decades or for centuries, we have lost the graceand perception by which we might call ourselveshumane. And when that has happened all but a fewhave been ignorant of the loss.We rejoice in the perception which the last erahas brought to us. The enterprise in which we learnand teach and improve and cherish that perceptionis what we celebrate today. We have little to certify,but much to celebrate, and many to honor. To thegraduates, their families, and their teachers, I offermy warmest congratulations.Roger H. Hildebrand is Dean of the College andProfessor in the Department of Physics and theEnrico Fermi Institute.344TH CONVOCATION STUDENTADDRESSBY AMY K. HILSMANStanding up here reminds me of something an oldNavaho woman once said to me. Those of you whoknow me know that I took a year off from school towork on the Navaho reservation in Arizona. After aseries of run-ins with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Isettled into a job herding sheep in a very isolatedsection of the reservation. One day, as I walked withthe sheep, I noticed an old woman, elegantlyadorned with turquoise and silver, wandering alongbehind. Finally, she approached me. She then saidsomething which roughly translated means: "Whatthe hell's a girl like you doing in a place like this?"Well, I was out of place herding sheep inArizona, and according to University tradition, I amout of place speaking at this convocation. We arehaving student speakers today because a group ofour classmates got together to request a guestspeaker or at least representatives of the graduatingstudents. I am grateful to those people because tome the gesture is meant to indicate that regardlessof what Time magazine says, the campuses have notreturned to the fifties. People have tended to equate the seventies withthe fifties because they have set up a false dichotomybetween the goals of students in the fifties and thoseof the sixties. In this view, the fifties was a time ofself-interested achievement, and the sixties a periodof altruistic, socially-oriented activism. Timemagazine would have us believe that these are theonly two alternatives available to students. If wearen't marching and sitting-in, then we should beswallowing goldfish and lining up $15,000 jobs.We're graduating now, trying to work outcareers and life-styles. Let's at least save ourselvesthe pain of using such a distorted perspective as thatprovided by this dichotomy.The seventies aren't a return. Rather, they are anoutgrowth of the sixties.Two lessons learned in the sixties directly influence the conflicts which now confront us. Thefirst is the social conditions which profoundly effectall of our lives. Most immediately, this is seen in theemployment crisis. The second lesson is more abstract, and relates particularly to graduates of theivory tower universities such as The University ofChicago. That lesson is that our education is in someway irrelevant to the lives we want to live. MalcolmCowley expressed this situation most clearly whenrecalling his own experience at Harvard: "I am notsuggesting that we should have been encouraged totake more (so-called) 'practical' courses —bookkeeping or restaurant management or sewagedisposal or any of the hundreds that clutter thecurriculum of a big university. These specializedtechniques could wait till later, after we had chosenour life work. What we were seeking, as sophomoresand juniors, was something vastly more general, akey to unlock the world, a picture to guide us infitting its jigsaw parts together. It happened that ourprofessors were eager to furnish us with such a keyor guide; they were highly trained, earnest, devotedto their calling. Essentially the trouble was that theworld they pictured for our benefit was the specialworld of scholarship — timeless, placeless, elaborate,incomplete and bearing only; the vaguestrelationship to that other world in which fortuneswere made, Universities endowed, and citygovernments run by muckers."People in the sixties pointed out this problem.Students in the seventies simply have not forgottenit. We know that we are, in an important sense, ill-prepared for the non-academic world. And we knowthat we can't retreat from that world by pretendingto be objective observers or insensitive consumers.I have no easy solution for the problem thatconfronts students of the seventies. I would simplylike to point it out, and to beg my peers not to cover285up the struggles that are going on within each of us.We can't forget the lessons of the sixties; naivete,once lost, cannot be recreated. It is simply that theattempt to equate the seventies with the fifties canonly confuse the real problems we face in trying toreconcile our values and insights with pragmatic lifechoices.Amy Hilsman received a Bachelors degree duringthe convocation. She is currently studying for adegree in law at the University of Michigan.344TH CONVOCATION STUDENTADDRESSBY STEVEN M. MENCHERA few days before I graduated from high school,four years ago, I decided that we had to have aprotest. It was a spur of the moment decision, madeas I was walking around in lower Manhattan, whichwas very convenient, because there were plenty ofnovelty stores with just the commodity I needed. Iwalked into one of them, ordered several hundredfeet of red crepe paper and brought it to graduationa few days later.My friends picked up the idea very eagerly andseveral dozen of us similarly adorned our arms forthe ceremony. A few of the spectators on thatsolemn occasion, but none of the students, of course,asked what those armbands signified. I'm sure myfellow graduates greeted such questions with thesame indulgent looks as I did. "The war (we said). . . you know . . . black power ..."None of those friends from my high school wentto The University of Chicago; none even appliedhere. It was, after all, the year after the 1968 convention, and those who didn't have a lurkingsuspicion about living in a ghetto, pictured the placeas a grotesque island where Gulliver might havestopped on his travels to be greeted by thousands often-foot tall Mayor Daley's in police uniforms. Fewof us were really thrilled with the idea of college atall, but the draft was in the back of our minds, andthe feeling that, although we were expected to go tocollege, it might possibly be fun.Even after I came here, though, my dreams werenot taken from my classes, which were certainlystimulating, but from Life magazine. Every pictureof someone sitting in repose on a New Mexico mesa filled me with uncontrollable envy. I was moved togo to New Mexico after my freshman year and foundmyself disappointed at the stark realities of commune life: the desert heat, the problems of gettingfood and water, the generally unhappy people tryingto escape their urban environment.Life magazine is gone; and these days I findnothing inherently special about sitting in a lotusposition overlooking miles of scrub-brush.When I came back to Chicago after those experiences and others, I was somewhat changed, butin a negative way. I didn't seem particularly suitedto the "free and easy life" of New Mexico andCalifornia, but I still had trouble figuring out justwhat I was doing here. I was philosophically opposed to the idea of school. Walt Whitman's poemabout the learn'd astronomer was my credo, and Itook it to mean that studying, writing papers,reading innumerable books and parts of books, andall those things we spend so much energy on at TheUniversity of Chicago, were a waste of time. Thepoem goes like this:When I heard the learn'd astronomer,When the proofs, the figures, wereranged in columns before me,When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide and measurethem,When I sitting heard the astronomerwhere he lectured with muchapplause in the lecture-room,How soon unaccountable I became tiredand sick,Till rising and gliding out I wanderedoff by myself,In the mystical moist night-air, andfrom time to time,Looked up in perfect silence at thestars.Lately, though, I've been reevaluating my yearshere. I remember a freshman physical sciences class,geophysics and astrophysics, or, as we used to call it,rocks and stars. One of our assignments was to keepa diary of what the moon did each night. It soundsrather simple, I know, but at least half the class,myself included, couldn't fulfill the assignment.That simple act of stepping outside and looking upwas too much for us. I looked up once or twice thatquarter. Some of my classmates wrote poems andshort stories about the moon, others pored overalmanacs and newspapers the night before theassignment was due and made believe they saw themoon. Some of us didn't have the commonsense to286also take a glance at the weather reports, so we gaveourselves away talking about the glories of the fullmoon on an evening when, in fact, it had beenraining.I could have cited other instances. Many of the"learn'd astronomers" at Chicago know quite wellthe problems of the stuffy lecture hall and, as oftenas not, it is they who threw us out into that mysticalnight air.I don't mean to suggest that I have been througha purging Odyssey from the meaningless protest atmy high school graduation through naivete inChicago, and disillusionment in the Southwest, backto wisdom and happiness in Rockefeller Chapel onJune 9th after having seen the light. Let my friendsrest assured, lest they had doubt, that things are asmurky as ever.All I mean to do is affirm that as much as I'vefought against what is called a liberal education,perhaps it was worthwhile. I could never explain itto my parents, but as long as there were people herewho thought that General Studies in the Humanitieswas suitable as a major field, I was willing to goalong.I was recently accused of writing a paper withstubby paragraphs and the analog to that, inspeechmaking, might perhaps be said to be giving aspeech with stubby thoughts.I plead guilty to that charge. My only defense isthe difficulty I've found in putting four years of myown life in perspective. I am nevertheless gratefulfor having been delegated the responsibility towrestle with that challenge.Steven Mencher received his degree on June 9. He iscurrently doing graduate work in dramatic arts atthe University of California at Berkeley.344TH CONVOCATION STUDENTADDRESSBY RICHARD K. SCOTCHMr. President, distinguished faculty, fellowstudents, honored guests. The University of Chicagois a great university. We students were told thiswhen we first came, and we have been frequentlyreminded of the fact through the course of oureducation and our life here at Chicago. It is greatbecause of the great scholars who are associatedwith the University and because of the quality of academic discourse which the University fosters.Central to this greatness are two freedoms.Academic freedom allows a scholar, once he hasproven his competence to his peers, to follow hisinterests and his convictions wherever they lead inthe course of his research and teaching. There isfreedom, also, from values. The expansion of therealm of knowledge ought to be carried out objectively and impartially. Learning is to be soughtwith a sense of aesthetic endeavor, rather than forany practical purpose, for practicality is oftentransitory. This is the creed of The University ofChicago, as I understand it and have experienced it.This self-image is manifest in the nature of theeducation provided in the College. The emphasis isupon learning to function as an intellectual. Onelearns to be an intellectual through the acquisitionof certain skills and methods of analysis. Throughthe common core and sundry distributionrequirements, the student is introduced to a numberof disciplines and subject matters. He is encouragedto be dispassionate and analytic in his approach toproblems.The values of liberal education and of scholarlypursuit have been assimilated by many of us. Wemay feel that Humanities 107, WesternCivilizations, and the rest have somehow been goodfor us, although we have forgotten much of what welearned in the preparation for examinations andterm papers which are the culmination of mostcourses in the College.One way of assessing the value of the educationalexperience which we have had, is to look at how wehave changed in the years we have spent at Chicago,and to determine the ways in which being in theCollege of The University of Chicago has affectedthese changes. Specific instances come to mind —good friends, a few good teachers, the excitement oflearning. None of these have very much to do withthe distinct nature of the University. An atomizedsocial environment and the continued pressures toperform — these work against social interaction.Despite sincere efforts on the part of some in theCollege, good teaching is still a poor second to goodresearch in the value system of Chicago faculty. Theexcitement of learning can occur in many differentenvironments, and one in which dispassionateobjectivity is the modus operandi and there is aheavy stress upon tests and papers may not alwaysbe conducive to it. All of us have had positive experiences at Chicago, but for the most part thesehave been unrelated to what is considered to be theessence of the University.What distinctive influence there has been uponstudents at The University of Chicago has resulted,287not so much from specific experiences, but fromwhat might be called the intellectual outlook. Thoseof us most inculcated into the University's frame ofreference are objective observers, value-free studentsof the natural sciences, the social sciences, thehumanities. We observe more than we participate;we consider many alternatives thoroughly andthoughtfully without necessarily pursuing any ofthem. Such an ideology of scientific inquiry isbasically conservative, supportive of the status quoon both the personal and the societal levels.If scholarship is its own end, then those actionswhich scholars do perform tend to be primarily self-supportive. One neighborhood is altered, anotherdestroyed so that scholarship may continue. Thepolitical and economic system as it exists is implicitly supported, and in turn lends its support tothe University.As a product of the College of The University ofChicago, I believe in thoughtful and well-reasonedanalysis and in freedom for scholars to study whatthey wish in the manner they find most fruitful. Ialso believe, however, that it is incumbent upon anyuniversity, as an institution within a society, toprovide a humanistic context in which inquiry cantake place. Concern for the freedom and well-beingof all men and women should be encouraged. WhatGeorge Orwell has called simple decency shouldunderlie our undertakings as scholars, and those ofthe University, through its official policy and itscurriculum. Of the initiatives which have beentaken, too many have been reactions to duress fromwithin and without.The faculty has thoughtfully and responsiblydesigned academic programs and considered TheUniversity of Chicago's role in the academiccommunity. Comparable time and effort ought to beinvested in a consideration of its role in the community at large. Students should examine theirplace in the world of men as well as in the world ofideas. We cannot choose whether or not to relate toour environment; such interaction is inevitable. Wemust discover how to act humanely, and pursue thiscourse. If The University of Chicago is to become atruly great university, thoughtfulness must notpreclude action, but rather must provide for it.Richard K. Scotch graduated from the Universitylast June. He is now studying at Harvard Universityfor a Ph.D. in Sociology.288 SUMMARY OF THE 344THCONVOCATIONThe 344th Convocation was held on Friday, June 8,and Saturday, June 9, 1973, in RockefellerMemorial Chapel. President Edwartd H. Levipresided.A total of 1,448 degrees were awarded: 279Bachelor of Arts, 20 Bachelor of Science, 460Master of Arts, 38 Master of Science, 7 Master ofScience in Teaching, 3 Master of Arts in Teaching,263 Master of Business Administration, 1 Master ofComparative Law, 1 Doctor of Comparative Law, 83Doctor of Medicine and 129 Doctor of Philosophy.The principal speaker was Roger H. Hildebrand,Professor of Physics and Dean of the College; histalk was entitled "Eighteen Ninety-Three."Three members of the graduating class alsospoke; they were Amy K. Hilsman, Steven M.Mencher, and Richard K. Scotch.QUANTRELL AWARDSThe University's 1972-73 Llewellyn John andHarriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching were presentedduring the 344th Convocation, June 9, 1973.Acting upon the recommendation of John T.Willson, Provost, and Roger H. Hildebrand, Deanof the College, President Levi designated thefollowing four winners.Edward Anders, Professor in the Department ofChemistry, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege.John L. Hubby, Professor in the Department ofBiology, the Committee on Genetics andEvolutionary Biology, and in the College.Norman F. Maclean, the William Rainey HarperProfessor in the College and Professor in theDepartment of English.Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Professor in theDepartment of Political Science and in the College.A total of 132 Quantrell Awards have been madesince the program was established in 1938.1 © o h in oo. ^ ^ ^i/> ir> ooi/) toOO3PQI On8 ^ ^ ^* 8 8 ^ ^ *£^ ^ 2-i/j v> ootoOOHi5 i7) m^-^ <N ^-^ m3oPQ ON *-H i-l 9 9HH^ 3^ CO ^fN H CO 00 vO vo &"fc- &- TTth ro ^-i^ ^"T -*^ O X) &-^ # ^u~> ir> in~ &^ ^fc£ ¦'~v /~^°^ *S" *s>y-i fN 1/)Q '53 O .tJ o .tJ 5C/5 v C/5 TO> •§ > l ff .3 * i * 1 £ :S a> u o> e _a oo c« op c oO Sh 53 < ,fl •c> o ^ o ^yO U U W3 £» . ~£ D o £ fr 3£ o6 «52i s 9 °o pq a z oC *¦£O -55"+2 o05 PU _s .2 ¦ «> >>©300z u* z z ospo^ toIH 5toO5 p*ww ^3 Onw o —0 5^6^ t^ « * s ^ w ^ ^tJ ©. Q £1 S2. 3, G- r^ S- C 3- <sB2 oo *¦* ^ °° 2oioH COLO C* •/) fO <S »-i r*> ^- © r-.<00C/5 00 *-h fN (NO y* o o o o OC0"oeJ5oV5 •O"3 HB.2 ett fN o o ~ © o o O O -H fN*3Ss O(3oOO CO o o on *— i o CO "^f O CS ON> CO '—I (N5enV.5 o »-< co -H ^ O o o o ,^- O"333PQ^_^ ^_^« s ^ i ^^^»/5 CO w 3, cj^ r-* H Tf ff)3 3 3 0O On ^NO Tt O 00 ^^ ^^O^ CO ^ ^ ^ ^.-* (N CO 3 C^ O r^ r^ lo co"GCOu CO O O 00 TT ON oo o ^ (No00^. ,-v3 s^ o 5g r- to CO r--e *o*S3 oo io y-i t^ LO O © o TH o O rr*> >> VOQ &^v ^-v /-^ "^-vC?^ ^ . ^ ^~ ^ ?^^ ON N U <N ^r- cs CO QQ r- h co rn£ t- "t r- ON 1H O ¦*¦ O (N M ON3 vO LOffi^-«« ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^.~ LO CT^ °J^ 2^'o00 _ CO O LO o o y-< ^ o ^^6 TT "-"PQj:8V 1tf13IB B * o00aCJ15 -<-> o*s 1 15coc •£c ° tf¦2 I Z3 .ti 4= 00 So oo >> >p«a4 .5OD 3 "S? si- i— i0> .-a ts •« g^ c * .2^ oo oo -m U^ £ 00i? ° oO U tu 3 sQi I' 2: ^ oo Q JJ SO < o S-U U U Qi sOO I1 45CJ 1/5 0 c000 O C4-I "¦C"c3 ^3O0 0 23t3 <L> Go <SJ F,3 8CM <0 O < (Uc (4-1 c >B "oa O u0)00•J 8W3 C3O u "3'0^ < u 00 00JO O0 00 a <00-o ^ 0 << < u u 00A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1971-72 DOCTORATESMarch 5, 1973To:. Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsAgain, at your request, I have completed a study ofthe employment situation of 400 students who wereawarded the Ph.D. degree between July 1, 1971, andJune 30, 1972. A total of 450 degrees were awarded;however, 50 foreign graduates on temporary visaswere excluded from the study.Each department and professional schoolawarding Ph.D.s was surveyed. Table 1 presents asummary of the employment of Chicago Ph.D.s bytype of employment. Most significantly, of the 400 inthe job market, only 8 (2 percent) were known to beunemployed and seeking employment. Althoughthis is up by 1 percent when compared with mysimilar study of 1970-71 doctorates, it is still wellbelow the national figures of unemployment and itwould appear that overall, Chicago doctoratescontinue to find adequate employment, and to findit in the fields for which they are prepared. (See page289.)Our graduates continue to choose college anduniversity teaching and /or research in the greatestproportion to the total; 63 percent in 1971-72 and 65percent in 1970-71. When we compare the nature ofthe colleges or universities which employed thesegraduates (Table 2), we find 5 percent were retainedat The University of Chicago, which is the samepercentage retained in 1970-71. (See page 290.) Theproportion employed by AGS and CGS institutionsremains significantly high at 59 percent. The scatterat institutions of other types remains very similar tothat in the 1970-71 study, with the major shiftslightly away from small private liberal arts collegesto state colleges. This is perhaps significant in thelight of the special financial difficulties faced by thesmall private colleges. A further sign of the tightteaching market is also reflected in the slight increase of our graduates who teach now in Community Colleges. Postdoctoral fellowships were awarded to 15percent of the graduates. This figure comparesfavorably with the 17 percent in 1970-71, particularly in view of the increasing shortage of fundsavailable to institutions for such fellowships. Someshift is noted in the increase of graduates employedby government and nonprofit organizations. It isprobably fair to assume that the shortages inavailable teaching and research jobs in highereducation account in large measure for this shift.These graduates, however, are employed for themost part in their areas of preparation.This study without doubt bears out our convictionthat the Chicago doctorate continues to be a verysignificant degree, and that, in spite of the nationalpublicity about the Ph.D. "glut," our graduates canand do find successful employment.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsCOMMITTEE ON PART- TIMESTUDENTSThe following faculty members have been appointedto serve on the Committee on Part-Time Students.Lester Asheim, Professor in the GraduateLibrary School.Jeremy R. Azrael, Professor in the Departmentof Political Science and Chairman of the Committeeon Slavic Areas Studies.Charles E. Bidwell (Chairman), Professor in theDepartment of Education.Arthur Heiserman, Professor in the Departmentof English and in the College.Arthur Mann, the Preston and Sterling MortonProfessor in the Department of History.Marc Nerlove, Professor in the Department ofEconomics.Arnold W. Ravin, Professor in the Departmentsof Biology and Microbiology, in the Committees onEvolutionary Biology, Genetics, and ConceptualFoundations of Science, and in the College.Dr. Janet Rowley, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Medicine and the Franklin McLeanMemorial Research Institute.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingoomB*Oas_ o z"D X om £ c 333 P TJs > -o^5 0HO2 1O Fr- >s— COQ O<Q»325 ?3*7" O m¦* T" 0C/> 3