THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 8 RECORDMay 13, 1974 An Official Publication Volume VIII, Number 3CONTENTS83 THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSITYBy Edward H. Levi, PresidentTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© 1974 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDTHE STATE OF THE UNIVERSITYBY EDWARD H. LEVI, PRESIDENTApril 8, 1974The Times Higher Education Supplement, in anarticle and editorial last January, gives an overseas view of proposals in the United States tohave higher tuition charges in state-supported universities, and of the difficult financial situation ofmany private universities in our country.The nation's private institutions, The Timesreports, includes "many of the most famous universities in America: Harvard in Massachusetts,Yale in Connecticut, Columbia in New York,The University of Chicago, Stanford in California." The editorial comments that this roll call"is enough to convince anyone of the abidingvalue of private institutions." The editorial quotesthe Carnegie Commission's conclusion that manyprivate institutions have reached "a peril point"in their financing. The Times goes on to predict,although perhaps with less certainty than onemight hope, that "private institutions will continue to form an important segment of American higher education for many years to come,and probably for ever. . . ." The roll call, it willbe recognized, has a geographical structure, moving from East to West. I am sure it is not intendedto be complete, but it assigns special responsibilities, which we share with others, to The Universityof Chicago in this central area.In a similar vejn, in 1967 Professor FranklinFord, then Dean of Arts and Sciences at Harvard,looked at the shape and diversity of Americanhigher education in an article in The VirginiaQuarterly Review on the national and regionalroles of our universities. Professor Ford urgedthat universities consider their specific locationsif they are to appreciate all their tasks and opportunities. He wrote that it was "inconceivable that any one kind of institution could discharge for this immense country all the parts ofthe tasks" of higher education. He recognizedwith admiration the enormous and changing roleof state-supported institutions in the Midwestwhich have become academic centers of nationaland international importance. Then he went on to describe The University of Chicago as "clearlya giant, a 'world university,' " but which, in addition, "has a special role as the largest, richest andmost prestigious of private institutions in the Midwest." I am not sure of the accuracy or appeal ofthese adjectives, so graciously intended, and in anyevent I trust the following sentence, from DeanFord's article, will not be misinterpreted. DeanFord wrote about The University of Chicago:"Thus its regional leadership must at times consist in challenging what might otherwise be thetotal domination of that sector of the country bythe mighty engines of state-supported education."Professor Ford concluded .his article — and onemust remember this was in 1967 — with a pleathat in allocating support to higher education,care be "taken not to damage the few dozen placeswhich have already achieved some sort of criticalmass in terms of intellectual standards and experience." In this last plea, he remarked he was speaking in part for Harvard. "There is no point," hewrote, "in trying to sound so statesmanlike asto become anonymous." He was, of course,speaking for Chicago as well. As he correctlyemphasized, however, this final claim was "toovital to be dismissed as selfish." It concerned aquality, the presence or absence of which couldhave widespread effects on higher educationin the United States.Measure for MeasureI need hardly say that the quality and influenceof a university are not easy to measure, althoughone may believe one has an informed opinion onthe subject. Obviously, no one measure is complete, and the subject invites meretricious tests.In my own view, tiresomely repeated, the specialquality of Chicago is to be found in the unusualunity and interrelationships which exist, despiteseparatism and diversity, in the shared sense ofintellectual purpose, and in the insistence, whichwe have inherited and furthered*, that teachingand discovery are properly part of the same83venture. Nevertheless, the periodic surveys madeof the rankings of graduate departments are suggestive of our recent history, and along with theselection of faculty for membership in variouslearned societies, give some indication of presentstanding.President Harper, although he believed he wasfounding a new kind of university, knew thatinstitutional ranking had some importance. Hecame to speak of Chicago as being among the topfive. A survey of graduate departments in 1925placed The University of Chicago first. It is ofthat period, Robert Nisbet has written, that fortwo decades The University of Chicago was once"unquestionably the greatest single University,department for department, school for school,that this country had seen." But the Kenistonsurvey in 1957 placed the University on a pointsystem as sixth among institutions, and alsoranked the University as sixth in the numberof its departments found among the first ten.This downward trend, and there is always a timelag, was further reflected in the American Council of Education 1964 survey which, while on oneinterpretation continued to place the Universityas sixth, found the University only ninth amonginstitutions in the number of departments rankedamong the first ten. Then in the last survey ofgraduate departments made under the auspicesof the American Council of Education in 1969,the University's return to academic strength wassignaled by a ranking of third, fourth, or fifth inthe nation, depending on which method of calculation one uses. Taking the number of departments ranked in the top five, Chicago was third;it was third also in the number of departmentsranked in the top ten, but tied with Yale, andafter Berkeley and Harvard. My understandingis that if one uses as the measure the number ofdepartments ranked in the top seven — and I amnot sure why one would do this — Chicago rankedfifth.The present membership of our faculty in threelearned societies appears to show that Chicagois third in the nation in the number who aremembers of the American Academy of Artsand Sciences, following Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; fifth in thenumber in the National Academy of Sciences,after Harvard, Berkeley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the California Instituteof Technology, and fifth also in the number inthe American Philosophical Society, after Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, and Columbia. If ourfigures are correct, Chicago was fourth in the Na tional Academy memberships in 1956, and thirdin 1963.I am, of course, aware of the artificiality ofthese measures and the undue weight they mayplace upon peer recognition and other factors. Iam reminded by a discovery which comes directfrom the round table at the Quadrangle Club, thatSinclair Lewis's George F. Babbitt was forty-sixyears old in April 1920; so we now celebrate his100th anniversary. Undoubtedly his spirit is stillmuch with us, and increasingly so, on mattersrelating to higher education. But if one recallsthe history and problems of this University during the last 20 years, these rankings take on addedmeaning.The Keniston survey came during the periodwhen the University had been greatly weakened,largely through neighborhood problems and aftera period of severe budget reductions. In 1952,the crime rate in the area was the highest in thecity. In the years from 1950-51 to 1954-55, theregular academic budget was cut by 5.37 percent,the largest cut being almost 10 percent in 1952-53.The University suffered a crushing blow in 1954through the untimely death of Enrico Fermi.The Ten-Year PlanIn 1954 strenuous efforts were begun to reversetht downward academic trend. The Universitywas deeply involved, at the request of neighborhood leaders, in a pioneering attempt to improve the neighborhood as an interracial community; by 1965 the University had spent inexcess of $30 million on this endeavor which wasessential if the University was to remain. A special campaign for funds for academic purposeswas begun in 1954 — in some ways 14 years toolate — because the 1940 campaign was abortedby the war. But the 1954 campaign made it possible for the University to regain some of themomentum from its history of excellence. Thatcampaign was later greatly assisted by the munificent and thoughtful bequest to the University from Louis Block for basic research and foradvanced study in the Divisions of the PhysicalSciences and the Biological Sciences. If it hadnot been for this bequest — one of the largest giftsin the University's history — this University wouldbe a lesser and completely different place today.The bequest, which continues as the Block Fundtoday, was a turning point, and along with thedevelopment of some of the professional schools,reopened a promise for the future.The way back was difficult, although since it84was successful it perhaps now looks as thoughit might have been inevitable. It did not look thatway then. Undoubted progress was made in thelate fifties, but in 1960, an elected faculty group,meeting with a Trustee committee for almost ayear, came to the conclusion that the Universitycould not maintain its quality role in higher education, which was the only role it had, unlessthere was an infusion of at least $200 million intothe endowment or expendable funds. No oneknew how this could be done, although thefigure was authenticated by one of the leaders inAmerican education, not at this University, consulted by the committee. From 1962 to 1965,the Chairmen, Officers, and Deans of the University attempted to prepare systematically a 10-year plan for the University. The plan estimatedcosts and income, and predicted the direction ofacademic programs. The studies, of course,recognized the extraordinary number of variablesto be taken into account, and emphasized alsothe importance of retaining for the Universitythe ability to change directions as circumstancesor greater wisdom might dictate. The studies andconclusions were presented to the Trustees andaccepted by the Board as a reasonable determination of goals, predictions, and priorities. Thefulfillment of the plan required the raising ofmore than $360 million, as it was then estimated,mainly from private sources, for facilities, endowment, and working funds required for ongoing expenditures. In accepting the plan, theBoard decided to launch at once a first stagethree-year campaign for $160 million to be followed in 1970 by a second stage mammoth effort to obtain the additional funds required.The setting of the $160 million goal for thethree-year first stage campaign meant that theBoard had committed itself to conducting thelargest single fund-raising campaign ever ventured for any university up to that time. It didso, even though as the formal document recites:"Professionals in the fund-raising communityhave alleged that regardless of recent increases insupport, this University will have exceptional difficulty in raising enough dollars to cover proposedexpenditures. They say the University is tooyoung to have developed a strong 'constituency'of givers, the percentage of teachers in its alumnihas reduced the financial potential of that group,and the institution has made contributions to theneighborhood that have left it with a weakenedfinancial base. Further, they say that for too longpersons in the Midwest not cognizant of the University's history, hopes, and responsibilities have viewed it mistakenly as a wealthy institution notin need of great help."The first stage of the drive succeeded. By 1968,$160.5 million had been raised in gifts or pledges.As we know, the success of the first stage of thedrive was greatly helped by a challenge grant fromThe Ford Foundation of $25 million. This challenge fund gave the campaign momentum, asense that the impossible might be achieved, andwas, in effect, an authenticating declaration ofthe importance of the effort.Both the goal and the implicit question of the10-year plan involved the leadership role of theUniversity in the nation and in the Midwest. TheBoard's report said of the University, "Recovering lost ground has been slow but continual." Itsaid: "The faculty has assumed that the role ofThe University of Chicago is to be among thebest of the universities. It is among the top ten.It is today, as it has always been, considered agreat university . . . but it has been greater." Itnoted that in comparison with other institutions,the University in the future could be expected toeducate a smaller proportion of the college population, and that there would be a proportionatedecline in the numbers of its graduates teachingat institutions of higher learning. Because of this,if the University was to continue to have significant influence in American and internationaleducation, its maintenance of the highest standards would be that much more important. Thequestion was whether the University had run itscourse or could continue to serve as a leader, ateacher, a critic, and a creative force.Because the maintenance of quality was so important, the plan had a difficult problem in allocating priorities between the first and the laterintended second stage of the drive. The plan, ineffect, apologized for the "absolute necessity"which it had found for plant improvement. Thusslightly more than half of the goals for the firststage were for such capital purposes.Not all of these stated goals were realized. Butas a direct or indirect result of the drive, the University was able to build such important additions to the campus as the Joseph Regenstein Library, the Searle Chemistry Building, the HenryHinds Laboratory for the Geophysical Sciences,the High Energy Physics Building, the Ben MayLaboratory for Cancer Research, the Albert PickHall for International Studies, the CummingsLife Science Center, the Cochrane-Woods ArtCenter with the David and Alfred Smart Gallery;to remodel for the College, Cobb Hall, whichwas completely rebuilt within its old walls, to85recreate Harper-Wieboldt as a College Center,with added space, also, for the Humanities Division, and to adapt and remodel Rosenwald Hallfor the Graduate School of Business. Many ormost of these undertakings required at least thepartial use of funds which could have otherwisesupported the academic budget. The magnificentgift from the Pritzker family for the BiologicalSciences and The Pritzker School of Medicinehas been used in large part in aid of facilities inthat area, although it is hoped that these fundseventually may be restored so that they may beused for endowment.In order to counterbalance or supplement thisemphasis on building construction, the University decided to use the Ford challenge fund, tothe extent this was possible, and until the secondstage of the drive took over, to support the ongoing academic budget. This was essential if thequality of the University was to be maintainedor improved. The need to find other funds, eitherfrom annual gifts or from the second stage ofthe drive, became more acute after 1970. Theannual report in November 1969 pointed out thatit appeared likely that for the year 1969-70 wemight have to use as much as $5,690,000 fromthe Ford challenge fund as unrestricted incometo support the budget during that year, and thatthis would "almost use up what remains of theentire $25 million from Ford. A hole of $5,690,-000 in our budget in future years," it was stressed,"even at current levels is the equivalent of 20percent of the regular budget of the College, theDivisions, the Schools and the Library." The annual reports for the next two years continued tocall attention to the phasing-out of the Fordchallenge funds. They were finally used up lastyear.The planned second stage of the drive did notmaterialize in 1970. Major fund-raising efforts,even when they are part of a previous program,require intensive preparation and organization.But there were other distractions between 1968and 1 970 which made this impossible to achieve.Possibly 1970 was too early in any event; evendonors may need some rest between extraordinary commitments. The two segments of thedrive, however, were part of one plan. The failure to go ahead on the second segment hasmeant the University has not been receiving theendowment or expendable funds for facultysalaries, student scholarships or fellowships, orfor the maintenance of buildings and librariesessential to retain the advances of the first stage. The Second StageThe original ten-year plan by now, of course, isout of date. But over the last four years the planshave been twice revised and extended, based onnew projections by the Deans and Officers.The objectives and assumptions have been subject to review by a special faculty committee,headed by Professor Chauncy Harris, who hasaccepted a continuing administrative role for thispurpose. The Trustees of the University have considered these revised projections and goals withthe Deans in two intensive retreats during thelast four years. Under the leadership of GaylordDonnelley and Robert E. Brooker, extensivepreparations for the second stage drive are nowunder way. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that acampaign for funds, considerably larger than thefirst, will be launched and successfully completed,although, of course, this will not be easy. Approximately 80 percent of the funds raised in thissecond stage will be used for professorships,programs and student aid, and for the maintenance of libraries and other essential facilities;approximately 60 percent of this amount, in turn,will' be to provide supporting endowment forthese purposes.Thus a central focus of the second stage ofthe drive is to achieve sufficient capitalization sothat the most essential activities of the Universitywill not be left as vulnerable as they now are.This was the intention of the original endowment of the University. But Chicago is noweighth among the universities in the size of itsendowment. In this sense it is an over-achiever.The University, in the past, has not required thatnew professorships be supported by endowment,that scholarships and fellowships be similarlysupported, and that buildings not go up withoutmaintenance funds. We probably should not becritical of this past experience which surely hasshown that an extraordinary institution could becreated, and which perhaps could not have beencreated in any other way. But our inability tostart the second stage of the drive as early as1970 is, itself, a telling warning that while privateuniversities, if viable, will always require privatefunds, long-term obligations require arrangementsfor long-term support. And this in the broadestsense. A building is a long-term obligation. Butso is a program which requires a continuationfrom one faculty member to another, and fromfaculty to students.During this interval between the two segmentsof the drive, the Officers have recommended, and86the Trustees have permitted and adopted, budgetswith planned deficits or shortfalls between income and expense. There was a special payoutfrom funds functioning as endowment of $1,826,-000 in 1971-72, although this amount wouldhave been covered as income if the total returnconcept adopted later by the Board had beenretroactively applied. For 1972-73, there was adeficit of slightly less than $3 million, although ifgifts carried forward for use in 1973-74 had beenapplied to this deficit, the amount would havebeen reduced to $992,000. The budget for 1973-74 was adopted with a projected $5.9 millionshortfall, but it now appears — and I hope this iscorrect — the amount will be $4.5 million. Including all of these amounts since 1971, there willhave been a cumulative shortfall of $9.3 million.I do not know whether this appears reckless ornot. We have followed this course because wehave believed that the high quality of the University was an important asset and a groundupon which the second stage of the campaignshould be built. We wished to avoid the experience of the early fifties when drastic budget cutshelped to precipitate an academic decline. Having come back once, we did not know whetherthe University could accomplish this turnaboutagain. Against this payout from funds functioningas endowment, it should be noted that since 1969,the University has received about $9 million ingifts which the University, as a discretionary matter, applied to funds functioning as endowment.If the University had made the contrary choiceand used these gifts as annual expendable funds,it appears there would have been no shortfall.But it is clear we cannot continue indefinitelyon this course which has been justified as a holding action between the two segments of the drive.We are now committed to eliminating thisshortfall or gap between income and expenseover a three-year period. The budget we haveprepared for 1974-75 reduces the shortfall toslightly less than $4 million — a reduction of almost $2 million over the planned budget for thisyear — and this will have to be reduced furtherand substantially in 1975-76. The successful commencement of the second stage of the capitalization drive should make this possible with aminimum impairment of academic quality. If weare both fortunate and wise, there should be noimpairment.Among the factors adding to this shortfall wasthe decision to write down the valuation of certain securities held by the Treasurer, and the almost simultaneous recognition that additional funds would have to be supplied to the Divisionof the Biological Sciences and The PritzkerSchool of Medicine beyond the budget allocations. The financing of the University's hospitalsand clinics has been most carefully monitoredover this period, greatly aided by an advisoryTrustee committee, headed by Mr. CharlesBrown. An important matter now and in thefuture with respect to the budget of The PritzkerSchool of Medicine and the Division of the Biological Sciences has been the continuing refusalof the State of Illinois, after three years of discussion, to pay the medical fees for the professional medical care rendered by our full-timemedical faculty to in-patients in the University'sHospitals and Clinics who are beneficiaries of theIllinois Department of Public Aid. The consequence has been to force The Pritzker School ofMedicine and the Division of the Biological Sciences and, therefore, the University as a whole,to subsidize the State of Illinois. The paradox ofthe refusal is that the State would pay if we hireda part-time staff to treat these patients. A part ofthe problem arises, I am convinced, from an un-thoughtful, although perhaps popular, attempt tocompel the University to segment its work, at thevery time when the delivery of superior healthcare requires the closest coordination with ongoing research and instruction, unless, of course,the suggestion is that inferior care is to be givento those on welfare, or that the University shouldconvey to the State the operation of specialclinics so that it can do with them what itwishes.Since 1969 the University has been on a policywhich we have described as one of careful budgetconstraints. In 1969, with Vice-President WilliamCannon as Director, the University set up anEconomic Study Commission, consisting of faculty, Deans, Trustees, and non-University representatives. Between 1969 and 1972 the staff ofthe Commission guided the assembly of analyticcost data on a University-wide but also on a departmental basis. The Commission also examinedthe management of the University in non-academic areas. Competing models for future University performance were developed. The Commission also encouraged valuable experiments,such as the steps taken toward automation in theLibrary. The work of the Commission laid thegroundwork for continuing study and evaluation.As will be recognized, comprehensive reportingsystems take a substantial time to develop. Considerable progress has been made in the rapiditywith which data on operations are now made87available. Using and extending the data andstudies developed under the Commission's aegis,Professor D. Gale Johnson, Chairman of theDepartment of Economics, has carried forwardstudies to show the relationship between costsand income of individual departments, and onthe economic consequences of academic decisionsand practices. Out of this work — much of whichhas been sent to all Deans, and by Deans to Departmental Chairmen (who have reviewed thedata on their department with Mr. Johnson) —have come analyses of the economic consequenceswhich would follow the elimination or change inpractices of particular projects and areas. Following the suggestion of the Economic StudyCommission, an Office of Economic Analysis hasbeen established in the Office of the Presidentunder the guidance of Professor Johnson.Balancing Resources and ExpendituresAs one result of these studies, we came to thereluctant conclusion late last autumn that it wouldbe necessary to close the present Downtown Center of the Extension Division. The loss to theUniversity of the operations of this Center hasbeen running at the level of about $300,000 ayear.The University has been a pioneer in the development of extension work. The original planand first announcement of the University includedevening courses in college and university subjectsfor men and women in and about Chicago whoseoccupations would not allow them to take theregular work on the campus. They also indicatedthat correspondence courses would be given incollege and university subjects for students in allparts of the world. The correspondence schoolprogram continued until 1963 when it was terminated. The copyrights for 55 syllabi were thensold to the University of Wisconsin to supplementthe extensive program run by that institution. Thelecture-study program developed from 1 892 until1911, when financial losses caused its termination.It had operated through various centers aroundthe city. Extension work, through University College, during that period, was able to sustain aDowntown Center, largely through the subsidy ofa private donor. When that subvention was removed, financial losses compelled an attempt in1906 to transfer the work to Blaine Hall on thecampus. In that location the enrollment all butdisappeared, and University College in 1 908 againreturned to a Downtown building. By 1937 as many as 4,000 individuals were taking coursesin a degree-granting curriculum or in one ofthe cooperative programs with other institutionsor businesses. The growth of competing extensionprograms, as was the case also with home study,cut into enrollment; increasingly questions wereraised about the quality of the programs. In 1960the faculty of the University placed the Downtown Center under the University's Board ofAdult Education; in 1962 that Board recommended that all programs for credit be movedto the Quadrangles. Non-credit courses continued, however, at the Downtown location, although with declining enrollment. Among themost important offerings which have continued,and for which there is great loyalty, are those ofthe Basic Program and the Fine Arts Program. Ihave no doubt that these are excellent programs,not easily duplicated, and worthy of this University's efforts. Plans are being made to make possible their continuance in outlying areas of thecity, and also in a different Downtown locationwhich is being donated for this purpose. Therewill have to be some changes in tuition charges,however, and in methods of operation so that thetotal saving, if not $300,000, will come close tothat level.Last December, in commenting on the Deans'Committee report on budgetary problems, I mentioned that "Most serious consideration is nowbeing given to the elimination of the DowntownCenter of the Extension Division. And consideration also is being given to some kind of differentarrangement for the work of the Yerkes Observatory." As is true with so many facilities at theUniversity, the Yerkes Observatory is a nationalresource, used by scholars from many institutions,and particularly from the Midwest. Because of itscontinued operation in one place, with the oldestfunctioning telescope in the country, and its collection of photographic plates, Yerkes has exceptional value in the field of astrometry — indetermining the changing position of the stars.The ability to do this with accuracy has beengreatly increased by modern technology. To maintain the Observatory, funds must be found torepair the dome over the 40-inch refractor; tomaximize the work, additional sums are requiredfor the purchase of newly developed measuringdevices. I am happy to say that the Universityis about to receive a gift which will take care ofhalf of the cost of the dome, and this can bematched. We are hopeful that additional sums willbe acquired for the instrumentation. The Univer-88sity has a distinguished Astronomy Department;Yerkes is important to the Department; the Director of Yerkes is a leading scholar in pioneeringthe use of the new techniques. I regret that mystatement of concern should have caused someperturbation, however slight this may have been,in contrast to inter-stellar phenomena. We are ina period, perhaps we always should be, when wemust examine from an economic as well as aneducational point of view the operations of eachacademic unit. I know of no completely painlessway to do this. The University can make overallplans, and collaboratively set goals for the Divisions and Schools, but these plans must be builtupon a continuing review, to quote the Deans'report, of the "balances between resources and expenditures of each unit, the intellectual vigor ofthe field, the quality of the faculty and students,and the contribution the University makes," and— I would add — the contribution the unit makesto the University as a whole and to other unitswithin the University, by maintaining the workat the required level.Including actual budget expenditures for1970-71 and through the adopted budget for 1973-74, the cumulative increase in the amount of theregular unrestricted budget has been held toslightly more than three percent. With unrestricted non-governmental grants included, thepercentage increase is 8.83 percent. The restricted funds, not including governmental grants,thus have increased almost 27 percent during thistime on a comparable basis, perhaps in responseto the programmatic inclinations of many foundations and donors. Since 1962, in fact, there hasbeen an increase in the proportion of funds received by the University in restricted form, andthis has placed a greater responsibility on individual departments and faculty members in particular programs. The result is not inevitable, butthis can add to the centrifugal forces within theUniversity — a pressure which federal governmentfunds, in the form and for the purposes for whichthey have been given, have also augmented.Student EnrollmentSince 1970-71, faculty size has been reduced by63, going from 1,140 to 1,077 this autumn. Thesize of the quadrangle student body has gonefrom 7,626 in 1970 to 7,496 this academicyear. The faculty student ratio which stood atone member of the faculty to 6.7 students in1970, now stands at about one to seven. If in the present student body one includes tne Graduate School of Business — Downtown programs forMBAs and the Executive Program students — onan adjusted basis for the number of courses taken,this adds 610 students, and our present faculty-student ratio changes to one to 7.53. If, inaddition, one takes account of the special circumstances for a full-time medical faculty and, therefore, calculates the faculty-student ratio solely forthe rest of the University, the ratio becomes oneto 8.76. These figures do not take into accountwhat may or may not happen in the summer quarter; these are all autumn quarter figures. But it isworthy of mention that the summer quarter wasa University of Chicago invention, and that in1925 the enrollment was almost comparable tothe enrollment of other quarters. Summer quarterenrollment has declined so that it is now atabout the 40 percent level, without adjustmentfor the number of courses taken. Nor do the figures take into account non-credit Extension students, where the number fell from 606 in 1970to 224 this year.In general, the proportions within the University of enrollment as among the Divisions, theSchools, and the College have not changed significantly since 1970, with approximately 29percent of the students in the College, 37 percentin the Divisions, and about 33 percent in theprofessional Schools. But since 1970, there hasbeen a drop in the number of students in thePhysical Sciences from 579 to 440; in the Collegefrom 2,243 to 2,177 — although the College isslightly larger this year over the last — in theDivinity School from 359 to 258; and in Education from 194 to 133. There has been asignificant increase in the size of the MedicalSchool, the Humanities Division (although notif one takes 1969 and not 1970 as the benchmark) , the Graduate School of Business, and forthe Social Service Administration, although forthe latter, 1970 seems to have been mysteriouslylow.I have paid this much attention to the enrollment figures, in part because this is the area wherethe deviation from the original 10-year projectionis the greatest. A part of this deviation, as withthe College a few years ago, was intentional, andwas based upon the capacity of the student residence halls at that time. A good deal of thevariation is a reflection of changing federalpolicy on student aid. Federal fellowship aid tostudents at The University of Chicago, for example, has declined on the average of $500,00089a year for the past four years as part of the national policy to substitute federally aided studentloans in place of direct subventions. The transition has had a substantial consequence, andparticularly within the private universities. Itis doubtful whether the policy under these conditions took account of the need not to damagethe places which had achieved some sort ofcritical mass in terms of intellectual standardsand experience.Student enrollment is, obviously, one of thevariables in the projection of most academicplans, although its significance is not the samethroughout the University. There is a naturaltendency to link the increase in the number ofstudents to the necessity for more faculty, butnot to wish to recognize the reverse. But this is amatter of substantial importance. Student enrollment involves many decisions by Departments and Schools and by the College. An allUniversity committee, headed by Professor RogerHildebrand, has recommended that measures betaken to increase enrollment each year by 200students through 1979-80. The report emphasizesthat the "proposed rate will require vigorous effort throughout the University" and warns"against any notions that the task can be left entirely, say, to the College or to the professionalSchools. It is essential that each major area of theUniversity should contribute to the effort." TheCommittee's report, which will be published inthe University Record, is an important document. Many of its recommendations have beenput into effect or are in the process of beingimplemented. Among its recommendations, theCommittee has urged that Departments which donot have active Master's programs, and Divisionswithout Divisional Master's programs, promptlyexplore this possibility. It is particularly encouraging to note that, as in the Division of theSocial Sciences, under the Chairmanship of Professor Morris Janowitz, other faculty committeesare seriously confronting the enrollment question. Let me add my own judgment that as oneviews our University in its national role and inthe Middle West, there are many similarities between our present situation and that which existed years ago. This should be a time for greatopportunity.Beginnings and RenewalsLast year the University received official notification that it was receiving a two-part grant fromthe federal government for the creation of a new Cancer Research Center which will facilitate thework of some 103 members of our faculty andtheir staffs engaged in possibly 50 separate projects. The award is an impressive testimonial tothe effectiveness of the interrelationships withinthe Division of the Biological Sciences betweenthe basic sciences and The Pritzker School ofMedicine. The first part of the grant providesfunds on a matching basis for the constructionof the Marjorie Kovler Cancer Virus ResearchBuilding, and the creation or renovation of facilities in the Experimental Biology Building, theFranklin McLean Memorial Institute, BillingsHospital, and the Cummings Life Science Center.The second part is an operating grant for one yearwith amounts recommended for succeeding years.The Center, which will be under the direction ofDr. John Ultmann, builds upon the University'spreeminence in cancer research, treatment, andthe training of scientist-physicians in the NathanGoldblatt Pavilion, the work of Dr. CharlesHuggins, Professor Elwood Jensen and othersin the Ben May Laboratory, the work in radiation medicine and medical physics in the McLean Institute, as well as other collaborative efforts by biologists and physicists. The newMarjorie Kovler building will enable the University to expand its current work in virology andoncology, including the study of the role of theherpes virus in human cancer, a field in whichProfessor Roizman and his colleagues achieveda major discovery in 1972.In August, the government of Japan announced its intention to give $1 million grantsto each of ten American universities, Chicagoamong them, in aid of Japanese studies. The arrangement for this generous grant to the University, which comes through the Japan Foundation, were completed last December. It creates anendowment fund which can be used to supportnew positions and administrative costs directlyrelated to the field of Japanese studies; to support research and library costs; undergraduate,graduate, and post-doctorate fellowships, and forinternships to qualified faculty members fromother colleges and universities themselves lackingappropriate facilities for such studies. I believethis grant must be regarded as not only arecognition of the long-time interest of our University in Japanese studies and in collaborativework with Japanese scholars, but the distinctionwhich has been achieved, particularly byyounger members of our faculty, in this area ofscholarship. The University has been experiencing a renaissance in its work in both Japanese90and Chinese scholarship. In recent years ourlibrary holdings in East Asian studies havegreatly increased, and while the size of the holdings is much greater in Chinese materials, ourJapanese collection, even though it needs a greatdeal of supplementation, has become one ofthe best in the country. The Andrew W. MellonFoundation, in December of last year, informedus of an award of $150,000 to be spent in notless than three years in aid of our East AsianLibrary Collection. To give administrative support, the University has established the Centerfor Far Eastern Studies with separate committees for Japanese and Chinese studies.The work of the University in Middle Easternscholarship was significantly recognized whenour Center for Middle Eastern Studies, under theChairmanship of Professor Leonard Binder, wasadded to the special language and area centersto which the federal government contributessupport, at a time when the number of suchselected centers has been greatly reduced. Inaddition, The Ford Foundation has awarded agrant of $350,000 for research on Islam andSocial Change to be directed by Professor FazlurRahman and Professor Binder.I have already mentioned the renovation ofHarper-Wieboldt, the completion of the Cummings Life Science Center, and the Cochrane-Woods Art Center with the David and AlfredSmart Gallery. Harper-Wieboldt was rededicatedlast autumn with ceremonies in which the College eloquently and fittingly explained its pastglories, expressed its satisfaction that at last itwas getting something of the physical setting itdeserved, and looked forward with hope, judgingitself to be, in reality, the best undergraduatecollege in the United States. This is a ceremonywhich recurringly takes place, as in the past,when the College acquired Gates-Blake and then,later, Cobb Hall. I agree with the College inthese sentiments. The rededicated Harper Library adds a magnificence which probably canbe appreciated best by those who knew Harperbefore transient modern improvements removedits elegance. The elegance has now been restored, and is made more poticeable by a kind ofmedieval informality. Furthermore, both towersof Harper Library seem to be safe — an accomplishment which was denied to our predecessors.The 11 -story Cummings Life Science Centerwas dedicated last October 19th. It brings together in one especially designed building scientists, previously housed in six separate buildings, working primarily on problems in molecular and cell biology. The Cummings building provides laboratories for biochemists, microbiologists,theoretical biologists, neurobiologists, developmental and population biologists — and biologists.The functions of the building are symbolized bythe 40 awesome chimneys which embrace it. Thechimneys serve as exhaust towers for the laboratories and reach a dominating height on the campus only exceeded, I believe, by the tower ofRockefeller Chapel. Each laboratory is equippedwith at least one fume hood which continuouslyexhausts air from the room. The building has six"clean rooms" on the ninth floor designed to growtissue culture. One floor of Cummings will bedevoted to special laboratories for developmentalbiologists to study the role of the cell surface,cellular interaction, and the regulation of growthand differentiation as part of the University'snewly created Cancer Center.Sometime this coming autumn the Universitywill formally dedicate the Cochrane- Woods ArtCenter and the David and Alfred Smart Gallery,responding to the plea made 70 years ago by Professor Tarbell, then Chairman of the new Department of Art, that the Department be equippedwith "works of bronze and marble sculpture, withcopies of studies of painting, and perhaps evenwith the original works of art, ancient and modern." The Cochrane-Woods Art Center consists oftwo limestone buildings enclosing a sculpture garden and contains classrooms, a 50-seat lecture halland faculty studits. This part of the Center is already in operation; the beautiful white doors arealready marked by handling. The Gallery consists of 7,000 square feet of exhibit space forpermanent collections and traveling exhibitions,a conservation room, darkroom, storage area,a workshop, and administrative offices. TheCenter and Gallery already have an impressivecollection of paintings and lithographs and worksof sculpture, and friends of the University havegenerously pledged to donate from their privatecollections. The Gallery will be an importantteaching facility, but it also will contribute greatlyto the life of our University and to the community.The operations of the Gallery will require an endowment. I know this is a matter of concern forthe Visiting Committee of the Art Department. Amost helpful gift to enable the Gallery to begin itsoperations already has been made.We look forward to the day when friends of theUniversity, devoted to the arts and to this institution, will make possible a new building for theDepartment of Music, certainly one of the mostdistinguished departments of its kind in the nation,91and for a theater to help in the development of aprogram which in recent years, and now morethan ever before, adds to the cultural life on theQuadrangles. Both the proposed music buildingand the theater are among the comparatively fewstructures included in the second phase of thedrive. The plans for the Cochrane-Woods ArtCenter eventually call for the completion of anart library which will rest on that building andupon the adjacent music building.The opening of the Cochrane-Woods Art Centerwill enable the Department of Linguistics to moveto Goodspeed from Classics, Foster, Kelly, andPick.Maximizing Academic StrengthsSome of the changes I discussed last year intendedto give greater flexibility to the organization of theDepartments in the Division of the Biological Sciences have been put into effect. Pharmacology andparts of Physiology have been combined into oneDepartment; Biophysics, Theoretical Biology, andthe rest of Physiology into another. In addition, aninterdepartmental Committee on Immunology hasbeen authorized as a degree-recommending unit.In the Division of the Physical Sciences, steps havebeen taken to dissolve the Committee on Information Science and to replace it with a Committee forComputer Science within the Department ofMathematics. In the Division of the Social Sciences, a new Department of Behavioral Scienceshas been established. The new Department nowhas five degree-recommending committees. Thenew Department brings together approximately 50scholars; most of them had their primary appointment in Psychology or Human Development,but in addition, through joint appointments orotherwise, such additional areas are representedas Anthropology, Education, Linguistics, Surgery,Ophthalmology, Psychiatry, the Graduate LibrarySchool, and the Graduate School of Business.Each of these changes in the three Divisions is anattempt to maximize the academic strength whichthe University has; to provide a basis for the natural clustering of faculty working on the sameproblems; to further the concentration on thoseareas where it is believed this University can do itsbest work. The College has gone forward with theprograms in Politics, Rhetoric, Economics andLaw: Liberal Arts of the Practical; Religion andthe Humanities; and in Human Behavior and Institutions, mentioned last year. The work of theCollege has been aided by the appointment ofPhilip B. Kurland as the William R. Kenan, Jr.Professor in the College; of Jonathan Z. Smithas the William Benton Associate Professor in Re ligion and Human Sciences, and as Master of theHumanities Collegiate Division; of Edwin M.Gerow as the Frank L. Sulzberger Professor ofCivilizations; of Harry Harootunian as the MaxPalevsky Professor of History and Civilizations;and of Charles W. Wegener as the Howard L.Willett Professor in the New Collegiate Division.The College and the Humanities Division nowhave under consideration the creation of a Centerfor the Study of Languages. The Center wouldseek to identify individuals of proven ability andprofessional commitment to the teaching of languages as Fellows of the Center, to staff andteach all elementary language courses offered bythe University, to participate with other scholarsin a series of seminars on the teaching of language, and to work on major intellectual problems in the study of language.Those who know the history of the Universitywill recall that when the University began, it entered into a series of formal and informal affiliation arrangements with numerous Midwesternliberal arts colleges. Because of the University'searly emphasis on graduate work, the fact that somany of its alumni went into teaching — a recentsurvey shows that as of now 38 percent of ourgraduates have become educators — there was anatural basis for collaborative action which tosome extent has continued. This is true also of theBig Ten universities, where a conservative figure(not including the University of Minnesota, forsome reason unknown to me) indicates that atleast 700 of our graduates are now on these faculties, including, as we proudly note, two of thePresidents. The examples of cooperative actionare many, and I will not attempt to recite them. Ofthe older examples, the Center for Research Libraries, at the edge of our campus, is one obviousillustration. It was founded 25 years ago by tenMidwestern universities. The Traveling ScholarProgram among the Big Ten universities and TheUniversity of Chicago is another case in point. Cumulatively, over the last three years, the University has received 109 of these Ph.D. students, andsent 43 of our own. The exchange represents student choices when the work sought is not availableat the home institution, and when the host institution is willing to receive.A very different kind of example of extraordinarily desirable cooperation is the relationshipwhich has developed and is developing betweenthe University, its Divinity School, and the Chicago cluster of denominationally-based theologicalschools in the neighborhood.In the late sixties, with the help of The FordFoundation, and under the direction of Professor92James L. Cate (and very much in the spirit of thekind of arrangements which President Harperfostered) , the University developed a cooperativeprogram with 34 private Midwestern liberal artscolleges. Under this program, 144 students eventually received Master's degrees in the Humanitiesfrom The University of Chicago. More recentlythe University has endeavored to provide specialseminars and conferences for members of thefaculties of Midwestern colleges and junior colleges. The program has been small, but perhaps itpoints a direction. More than 100 institutions havebeen represented over the last three years in briefHumanities Institutes which have been sponsoredby the University. These Institutes typically runfor four or five days, and may have as many as 75participants. Last December, under the auspicesof the Extension Division, some 65 faculty members from 40 private and public colleges in sixMidwestern states came to the campus for threedays of seminars and meetings on "The Humanistand the Artist." The major paper was delivered byProfessor Leonard Meyer. Professor EasleyBlackwood — noted composer and pianist as he is— gave a demonstration session of an artist atwork, rehearsing a piece and speaking about it.Professors Sinaiko, Redfield, Ted Cohen, Maddi,and Neil Harris conducted seminars; artists fromthe Midway Studios, Department of Art, tookpart. Another example : the School of Social Service Administration last summer, as it had thesummer before, conducted a special institute forthe training of teachers in undergraduate programs in social work. Teachers from 17 collegesattended.At the present time, the University has been discussing with the Associated Colleges for the Midwest a Summer Institute in Far Eastern Studies forthe benefit of their students and faculty. Alas, Isuppose financing has been the problem, since Iremember this being discussed years ago.In cooperation with the Center for MiddleEastern Studies, the Center for Policy Study sponsored during the present year the Conference onTurkey, 1922-72, which brought together morethan 100 scholars from all over the world including our neighboring institutions. Next year in collaboration with the Divinity School, the Centerwill be sponsoring the three-week celebration of thesepticentenaries of both St. Thomas Aquinas andSt. Bonaventure, with a series of lectures and discussions by ten leading theologians and scholars.To these examples of what are, in some casesbut not all, extension-type activities, reflecting somany different aspects of the University, let meadd that the University, under the faculty Board of Radio and Television, is one of the largest, ifnot the largest, producers of broadcast time in thenation among institutional broadcasters. Programswe produce and distribute nationally total about300 hours of broadcast time each week. The Noraand Edward Ryerson Lecture series, which will beinaugurated by Professor John Hope Franklinon April 23rd, is an attempt by our faculty to produce over the years a series of most memorablelectures, worthy of the best we have, worthy ofbeing recorded and played many times.I have taken this occasion to stress this history,and this kind of ongoing reaching out of educational activities, which the University has so frequently sponsored, because these activities mayhave a special role today. The opportunity for acontinuing or renewed or first-time relationshipwith a university may be particularly importantfor many college teachers, for members of a college-trained population whose education ought tobe continued, and for scholars who may find thediversity and unity of our University has much tooffer as, indeed, these scholars have much to offer us.Enriching Student LifeI must confess a constant worry as to the necessityfor an enrichment of the quality of student life atthe University. If one wants to describe studentlife at the University, I suppose one might beginby pointing out that book circulation per capita bystudents at The University of Chicago is the highest in the nation among university libraries. Thenone can add that the University has what is one ofthe country's best intramural athletic programs:4,000 students took part last year in 21 sports on600 teams, and this from a population of 7,600students. One difference between the book circulation and the use of the athletic facilities must bementioned. We have a magnificent library; thebest in the country. Nothing like that can be saidof our athletic facilities. They are woefully inadequate. The most recent athletic facility is theField House which was dedicated in 1932. Thewomen's gymnasium — in Ida Noyes — was builtin 1916, the men's gymnasium in 1902. We donot have enough handball courts, enough indoortennis courts, no adequate swimming pool, an insufficient number of basketball courts, and nogood court. I should add that the complaintscome not only from the students but the facultyas well, and they are continuous. Thus, in thesecond stage of the drive we propose to add toand upgrade these facilities. I believe it will bedifficult to raise these funds. I suppose this is because Chicago, for many years, has been less well93known for spectator sports.About two-thirds of the undergraduates live oncampus; over 30 percent of the approximately5,500 graduate students live in University singleor married student housing. I believe that the introduction of senior members of the faculty asResident Masters, living in the residence halls, thesponsorship by Professor Wirszup, one of theResident Masters, of a lecture series which hasattracted at times hundreds of students to hearSaul Bellow or Richard McKeon or Milton Friedman, the growth of music programs both in theresidence halls and elsewhere on the campus, andthe revitalization of University theater are all stepsin the right direction. We have an enormouslytalented student body. As one looks at our alumni,one should think of our present students. If 37Nobel Laureates have been associated with theUniversity, the more important figure is that ten ofthese were our students. If our faculty has a reasonable ranking, as it does, in the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps it is more important tonote that a recent survey of the baccalaureate origins of the membership of the National Academyof Sciences placed Chicago as second, and third inthe listing of institutions from which the highestdegree was obtained. Twenty-three of the recipients of National Science Foundation Fellowshipsfor 1974-75 have chosen to pursue their work atThe University of Chicago. This places us fifthafter the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Stanford, Harvard, and Berkeley. It is perhapseasier to give this kind of accounting in the scientific areas, but if one looks to the arts, the humanities, the social sciences, or the professions,one will see the same results. It is a diverse studentbody. Over time, 10 percent of the students havecome from foreign countries.I am sure the University has been correct inthe priorities which it has given to the academicprograms, but I hope the second stage of thedrive will bring us a few more of the amenitieswhich in fact, are helpful to the programs. TheJoseph Regenstein Library, the Harper-WieboldtCollege Center, and soon the Cochrane-WoodsArt Center with the David and Alfred SmartGallery are indications that sometimes this canbe done.Unity and DiversityFive long-term characteristics of the Universitypersist. The first of these is the responsiveness ofDepartments and faculty generally given additional support. This may seem obvious, but it is not; it is, in fact, the mark of a strong institution.I do not say it always happens, but I think ofexamples in prior times, such as History, Anthropology, English or the professional Schools,such as Law or the Graduate School of Business,or more recently the creation of one of thestrongest Psychiatry Departments in the country,and the renewed strength today of Surgery. Connected with the first is the value which the University has always placed on the individualscholar, and its refusal to adopt a system whichassumes that only a proportion of the faculty canhave scholarly excellence. Because this continuesto be the environment which individual facultyare invited to join, the University, despite thepolicy of careful budget constraints, appears tobe having less difficulty in making appointmentsthis year than in prior times. It is this environmentalso which has made so important the UniversityProfessors made possible by the special TrusteesFund. The University Professors help renew theUniversity's strength from outside, but becauseof the overall quality of our faculty, these appointments do not have the weakness of the starsystem which has so seriously injured many otherinstitutions. This year Professor James Colemanrejoined our faculty as a University Professor,confirming by his presence, I would judge, theextraordinary status of our Sociology Department.He is the ninth University Professor, and we areauthorized to have ten. The tenth has been appointed and will be announced soon.I have continually stressed as one of the characteristics of pur institution the close relationship between investigation and teaching. By thiswe mean to insist upon a special quality in both;investigation is teaching, and teaching, as wewould wish it to be, must have the creativity offinding out, of seeing something new, of learningone was wrong. We do not regard the learningprocess as having ended for anyone, and this isone of the reasons, regarding faculty and studentsas involved in the same search for understanding,where the joint reformulation of questions is soimportant, we have tended to emphasize smallclasses where a continuing dialogue or the doingof experiments — not just the redoing of them —is possible. We continue to emphasize smallclasses, and the individual involvement of thefaculty member, not as a captain of a team wherethe cohorts do the work, as extremely important.The result of this kind of emphasis has giventhe University from the beginning a conceptionof its own unity, and this has given the institutiona way of protecting the diversity within itself94at the same time that one area has been ableto profit from the efforts of another, even thoughthe approaches may be entirely different. Thisunity of diverse approaches has created for theUniversity a liveliness which has made it possiblefor an institution committed to basic research tostimulate continually ideas which may havepractical importance in areas remote from wherethe original investigation was made. "What," Iwas asked recently by the nephews of GeorgeBabbitt, "has the University been doing to solvethe energy crisis?" If I had been bright, I wouldhave said, "Some scientists have been working onthe light-collecting properties of the horseshoecrab."During the present year, upon the recommendation of a Deans' committee, the Council ofthe University, and the Board of Trustees approved a Committee for Public Policy Studies asa degree-recommending committee, with thethought that eventually, with sufficient support,the Committee might become a professionalSchool. The proposal is that the Committee shouldsponsor curricula leading to a two-year Master'sdegree, and jointly with the professional Schoolsor the Divisions, organize programs which willlead to a professional degree or a Doctor's degree in the joint area. A search is now under wayto find an appropriate director; this much of anendowment has been obtained. It is assumedthat all faculty in the program will have joint appointments in the professional Schools or in theDivisions. The Committee, in other words, willbuild upon the diverse strength which the University has.I regret to report that a few weeks ago a notedsocial scientist, an alumnus of this Universityand a former member of our faculty, who wasinvited by the University to give an address, wasprevented from doing so, and those who had invited him were prevented from hearing him,because of intentional acts of disruption by thosewho did not agree with his views, as they understood them, from some of his prior publications.The speaker actually gave his prepared talk thenext day before a small group of faculty andinvited guests, but this does not change the seriousness with which acts of disruption of this kindmust be regarded. Throughout history, those whohave tried to prevent, and sometimes have succeeded in preventing the presentation of scholarlydiscourse, whether of the written or spoken word,have often been well motivated. The argumentsfor this kind of censorship are not new, and theycan always be made. Undoubtedly these argu ments must and should be continually debated.This is a necessary act of education. What is involved is the question of the purpose of the University, and the number and kinds of restrictionson speech, or writing, or upon reading and listening, which are compatible with that purpose.Censorship upon speech within the universitiesoften comes from the outside. That seems tohave been mainly the case in this instance.In one of the more interesting pamphlets issuedby the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Professor Martin Trow has discussed whathe calls "Problems in the Transition from Eliteto Mass Higher Education." Professor Trow observes that something happens to the way highereducation is regarded when as many as 15 percent of the age grade go on to higher education,and that this change is further accentuated when,as in the United States— and this appears to bethe only example — as many as 50 percent of theage group do so. Then the education is likely toshift to the transmission of skills for "specifictechnical elite roles." There is still elitism, but itis of a different kind. Higher education policiesincreasingly become subject, he predicts, to theordinary processes of interest groups and partyprograms. The University ceases to govern itself;it falls under the control of managerial techniquesat the same time that the boundaries which makefor the University's integrity are removed. In thiskind of system of general education at the highereducation level, Professor Trow asks how will itbe possible to preserve and defend the best of thevalues for which quality education has stood inthe past. Believing in planning, as he apparentlydoes, Professor Trow sees systems planning ashaving the duty to find the way to defend the moretraditional elite institutions "in an emerging system of mass higher education without allowing theold elite institutions to impose their forms, standards, and costs on the new institutions or the system as a whole." But this is really not a newproblem. As do other institutions, a universitydoes ask for much from the society. It does seekto justify as being important to mankind whatmight otherwise be regarded as an unproductiveway of life. "I do believe in intellectual excellence," Lord Snow recently said to an apparentlystartled interviewer. "I think," Lord Snow continued, "a society pays a very high price if itstops thinking that intellectual excellence is agood thing."The State of The University of Chicago in thisyear is that it is still committed to intellectualexcellence, and it is performing its task.95HXao1-4oftoBoQo z >"0 x O !m S c 3 'DO P TJS > -, CO O.POSTAAID10,ILLITNO. O<Q0)3 ¦'2z * o 51-j. O rn = *¦* 7^ o 1CO 31