THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 8 RECOEDSeptember -2, 1974 An Official Publication Volume VIII, Number 5CONTENTS135 A REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY, 1972-73144 SIEVES AND SEWERS: THE OPEN MIND AND THE UNIVERSITY148 STUDENT CONVOCATION ADDRESSES150 SUMMARY OF THE 349TH CONVOCATION151 QUANTRELL AWARDS151 UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, 1974-75THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1974 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDA REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THELIBRARY, 1972-73April 11, 1974Much information about the state of The University of Chicago Library, its budgetary limitations,and its efforts to adjust to increasing fiscal pressures has been disseminated to the Universitycommunity over the last year. Accordingly, this,my first annual report as Director, will attempt toprovide some historical perspective for theLibrary's situation in 1972-73 before going on todescribe the major activities of the year and toforecast the events we can expect in the immediate future.1. Perspective1960-72. The decade of the 1960s was a period ofrelative prosperity for the Library. Total expenditures for library purposes increased from$1,315,058 in 1960-61 to $4,577,189 in 1972-73, or248 percent. This was an average annual increaseof eleven percent, or almost double the rate ofannual increases experienced in the 1950s. Thesize of the collections increased from 2,094,824volumes in 1960-61 to 3,334,152 in 1972-73 and thenumber of new volumes added per year grew from53,393 in 1960-61 to a high of 177,715 in 1967-68(+233 percent). There was still a significant increase of 141,232 new volumes in 1972-73.Yet, in spite of these substantial achievementsin the 1960s, the Library actually lost purchasingpower and experienced a decline in growth relative to publishing rates. The number of hard coverbooks published in the United States increasedfrom 15,012 titles in 1960 to 28,710 in 1972 (+91percent), and world publishing accelerated at aneven greater rate. These data are presented inFigure 1. During this same period the average cost per title in the United States increased from$5.29 in 1959-60 to $12.99 in 1972 (+146 percent).These price increases exceeded all estimates andare continuing to rise as is shown in Figure 2.More serious, in terms of impact upon theLibrary's book needs, was the even greater rate ofincrease in both the cost and the number of serialtitles being published. The almost incredibleinflation in the average cost of periodical titlespublished in the United States is shown in Figure3, and it must be remembered that the costs offoreign serials have soared even higher. Accuratestatistics respecting the world-wide increase inthe number of serial titles being published are notavailable as of this writing, but the increase isreflected in the number of continuations our ownbibliographers have felt that the Library must acquire to meet faculty and student needs. In1961-62 the Library received 19,700 serial titles atan annual cost of $81,128 and a per-title cost of$4.12. In 1972-73, the corresponding figures were41,225 titles (+109 percent) at an annual cost of$502,049 (+518 percent) and a per-title cost of$12.18 (+196 percent). It is evident that althoughthe Library spent $1,076,001 for books and serialsin 1972-73 compared to only $303,022 in 1961-62,an increase of 255 percent, the proportion ofavailable publications it acquired was steadily declining. The negative impact upon our monographic purchases was even more significant, for alarger and larger portion of our book funds havehad to be expended upon serials. Figure 4 showsthat serial subscriptions required less than one-third of our expenditures for materials in 1968-69,but required more than one-half of our book fundsin 1972-73. This disturbing picture becomes evenmore gloomy when it is observed that our annual135FIGURE 1ANNUAL WORLD BOOK PRODUCTIONNEW TITLES1955 PROJECTED THROUGH 1976Number ofTitles(in Thousands).••" WORLD ...-~1 1 1 1 1 USA ~Ml 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MM1955 1960 1965 1970expenditures for books and serials have remainedalmost constant at approximately $1,000,000 from1967-68 to date — a period of rapid inflation andsevere dollar devaluation (see Table 1).Our inability to increase book funds to levelsthat would compensate for inflation is explained inpart by our need to raise salaries and wages. Thelatter have closely matched the rise in the cost-of-living and have required an increasing proportionof the budget — as is illustrated in Figure 5. Thesize of the staff remained relatively stable at anaverage of 350 full-time equivalent positions from1967-68 to 1971-72, but the staff costs increasedfrom $1,558,321 in 1967-68 to $2,557,413 duringthose four years (+64 percent). In 1972-73 thestaff was reduced by 16.2 FTE (full-time equivalent) positions but salary and wage expendituresnevertheless increased to $2,701,489. Thechanges in staffing costs also reflect our effort toattain more competitive salary scales. By 1972-73clerical salaries had been brought in line with theUniversity pay scales but professional salarieswere still only marginally competitive. Nonetheless, the cost per full-time equivalent position hasrisen sharply from an average of $5,080 in 1966-67to $7,245 in 1971-72 to $8,047 in 1972-73 and iscurrently estimated at $8,475 — 67 percent over1966-67. The evidence is clear that the overallbudget has not increased sufficiently to absorb rising staffing costs. The disturbing consequence isthat the ratio of book and binding expense to sal-136 FIGURE 2PRICE OF HARDCOVER BOOKSIN THE UNITED STATESAverageList PriceI960 '62 '64 '66 '68 '70 '72 '74 '76ary expenditures declined from a very respectable66.5 percent to an unacceptable 45.7 percent inthe period 1967-68 to 1972-73. By 1972-73 increases in salary costs had to be absorbed by cutting the clerical staff in order to maintain the bookbudget at the dollar level it had reached five yearsearlier.1972-73. Inevitably, in view of the trends described above, 1972-73 became a year of intensiveself-study. All activities and operations cameunder scrutiny and were analyzed to see how theycould be modified and improved in order to makethe best possible use of our resources, and someof these efforts are described in later sections ofthis report. The need for such analyses was givensome urgency by forecasts which indicate that ifcurrent Library costs are projected at realisticinflation rates, and if Library income does notcompensate both for inflation and the long-anticipated decline in the level of support fromgovernment, foundations, and other outsidesources of support, then either staff and servicesmust be cut, or the acquisition of books and journals must be cut to a level that will not support theteaching and research needs of the University.The need to make such hard decisions came fairlyearly in the fiscal year— and much sooner thanexpected — with the abrupt cessation of fundingfrom HEW and from other outside sources ofsupport, with no alternative sources of fundingAveragePrice$12 FIGURE 3PRICE OF PERIODICALSIN THE UNITED STATESJL _L ActualPessimisticBest GuessOptimistic I L1962 '64 '66 '68 '70 '72 '74 '76FIGURE 4BOOK AND SERIAL EXPENDITURESUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARYThousands$800Millions$3.02.52.01.5 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73FIGURE 5LIBRARY EXPENDITURESUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARY1.0 Staff ExpendituresMaterials ExpendituresJ_1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 immediately available. The Library made threeresponses: it sought, during prolonged budgetnegotiations for fiscal 1973-74, to secure increasedappropriations from the University — which, likeall other universities, was trying to cope with reduced income; it redoubled its efforts to find waysof cutting staff without irreversibly impairing services; and it asked the members of the Board ofthe Library to re-study and affirm the Library'sbudget priorities. The Board, in a report whichhas since found publication in The University ofChicago Record for August 7, 1973, concludedthat the volume of the Library's new acquisitionshad fallen to a dangerously low level whichthreatened the quality of the University'sacademic programs, and that if the fiscal situationrequired a choice, the growth of the Library's collections was to be maintained even at the expenseof cutting staff and services. When, on June 8,1973, three weeks before the close of the fiscalyear, the University concluded that it could notfind additional funds for the Library, the Libraryadministration was forced to put into effect, for1973-74, the staff cuts which its studies throughout 1972-73 had indicated were those least likelyto disrupt the Library's services and which mightbring the Library's operations in line with whatapparently was to be the income level for the nextseveral years. These steps, which included theelimination of eleven professional positions andthe consequent reorganization and reassignmentof the remaining staff, was announced on June 15for immediate implementation. Their effects, ofcourse, were not felt until 1973-74 and will not becommented upon until the Annual Report for thatyear is written.2. Activities During 1972-73The principal function of the Library is to provideefficient access to publications of scholarlysignificance. It must systematically acquire for itsown holdings as extensive a representation of theworld's useful publications as it can afford (tomeet the immediate needs of the academic community it serves), and it must also participate in asystem of access to the other useful materials itcannot afford to own. This is a delicate balance tomaintain during a period of rapid inflation and dollar devaluation.Collection Development. With respect to thebuilding of its collections, it would appear on thesurface that the Library held its own during1972-73, for it cataloged 141,232 volumes for addi-137CNi m t^ © NO ^H m oo no m m \£> VO NO On CN ON ]T-H m r-H »0 od w^ m no f "* f m ^r to NO NO00 i5 ° ONr— 1 + 7 1 + + + + i T 1 + 1 1 1 +ms «?<D CNO r-S-h ON<U ^HOh ONi ON 00 NO Tf ^°. 00 00 no «o o ra <n ^r NO r^ cntO ^f + ^~m ^t NO no r^ «o m r^ + m1 1 O tO NO00NOON + CN NO <N r-H 1 ^H ra CN CN r^1 + + + + + 1 1 1 1^ ^,_ 00 on" on T— 1 ON N N >o h ^- oo r- O ¦> r-m o t^ t^ 00 <N 00 »o m cn oo ^ ^° \A*-* ^ S r^ to »or-- o i-H *-H Tf •O T— f r^ (N ra no CN ^- m^^ «n micn NO ON to" r-H O t^ Tj ^H r^ Tfr m on m to"r"- l^ to m o ^f t^ ^ t ^- to NO to mON © 1— t cn r^ NO »o C^i r-H 00 CN*/> ^ cn^5- m «/3-^ $03 r-H ON © m r-H ^1" NO »0 00 Tf O r^ ON t^ ^ Tl"#u CN CN ^f o ^ o 00 ON NO ^" O °^ ^^ rvi^ » K 00 00 ^t*-*3 i *"^ m ^t ^f ^f (N cs r-H cn oo^ CN rj- fN•22 r-H CN ^f no" r^ rT no" (N h h rn m on m o"¦*-» c- VO 00 ^- to ^f '*¦ r-H »0 Tf NO NO (N CNCQ ON ©^ T-H CN to •o m (N r-K 00 CN55 *"" 'O ^ ^f" m V5-^ ^5- ^5-uCOShpQJ $ ^>> tO 00 mT r-H »o O O N oo >o On l> to 00 <> or"H to ^r o -3- <N r- h N (M 0\ xr h • On r-H 00i »o r^ m r-» »n »o (N 00 NO^ O o NO ^°^< ^ to CN io cnCmO o cn" m" no" ©' ON no" r^ oo" r-T csf no <n m to"r-* m 00 t-h to o i^ h N ^ h to CO to1/3 On ©^ T-H cn m »o o^ O^ r-H r- CN•6/5-*33 i— t r-T cn ^f m"^> */5- "— ' ^5-13&^3u $ ^r- to CN »0 o 1^ h h oo >o no m> rf ^ ^ mo 00 o on m m »o ^ rH TH- O m cn • CN i> oi0> r-- VO ON to^ On <N r^ NO »0 0O r-H ^ ^ K m »o cn5* ON ON cn" cn" cn" l^ <n" tC o no" o r- r-H m i>"E ON r- r^ to r- m NO t> to m r- NO to NO©^ CN r-H tt 00 On r^ 00 CN•€/5*H ^e- ^ CN m"V5- <n"—ISCQH ^m o m m NO <N r-H 00 NO O NO NO NO ^ ^ r-& NO m ON ON m CN i^ r- O r^ 00 T"H rA o ^H 00NO to r- cn r^ <N m no t^ r^ o on m 22 ^o ^^¦^00 to T-H r- ^f ON o m <N to r-H r- r-- m m oNO l— H CN ON 00 to to m r- NO to 00ON ©^ CN CN ON m NO^ 00^ T-H 00 CNr-H</* m" (N V5-o o-»->T3 d d Qa> X XId #> m <D a> pi<**CO '5 H 00 00 P1 t s'-6G T3OOm «olumesinLibrarrossvolumesad<urrentserialtitleolumesbound "*3 <D '3 '£ hP13x oW ffl 00c'-5c Ido£GO CiSIdGO OhpcoC6 COd>COO&POh<DO «1 itlescatalogued ecordedcirculapprox.staffsizioo«+Hoo T3C<DPhXo oox>o#o"cd salaryexpend.rossIncome,P' s 0^ > a u > H & < & 04 a Oo•3 aO <D o-C 3 T3§ g §S ^ *-»-^ & cC3 S w¦8 8-So fe orS Bfa b 3o g *C OXl eo<u oo £*co W)r§o - p£ «cs « |H J-. coC 73 P> .2 oO fe£ CO ."t5»H «r1P os so po cfc:o (D• O .P p-a <u° -3x ^-p o• - 2<u >> cd C<0 Oh^ aP o<u CL> co T303 rt2 sd>alPJ-H 'S co<D <U -P. xco a>S3 p<r-o 2D. 00to <Mto ^O (NO 0011•« CO¦s-sco 0)73 >-|2PhX)X ~1> -Jc2 cS fa^ ^73o COp c«*pa> «JhCO orrtX) a>co rp00 COD to-P <U.H3 3-g3 op'*rH ^9 >-.a <o"§«il •P. -i22 ^§ *oj crj c(O CO <l)CTJ (D *hC§S!> .ti 73O 73 s2 ££2 x WTable 2. Library Income and Expenses (in thousands of dollars)IncomeUniversityExternalTotal 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73$2,947601 $2,978632 $3,239624 $3,491586 $3,706640 $3,958619$3,548 $3,610 $3,863 $4,077 $4,346 $4,577ExpensesSalaryBook PurchasesSerial PurchasesOtherTotal $1,843711299695 $1,954695320641 $2,165710370618 $2,362598435682 $2,574570492710 $2,766522554735$3,548 $3,610 $3,863 $4,077 $4,346 $4,577Table 3. Projected Library Income and Expenses(in thousands of dollars)IncomeUniversityExternalTotal 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77$4,104517 $4,268290 $4,439136 $4,616113$4,621 $4,557 $4,575 $4,729ExpensesSalaryBooks and Serials*OtherTotalDeficit $2,846815960 $3,007913769 $3,1781,022656 $3,3581,145676$4,621 $4,689$ 132 $4,856$ 281 $5,179$ 450*Funded by the Universitytion to the Library, bringing total holdings to3,334,152 volumes. The growth rate was 10,000volumes less than in the preceding fiscal year eventhough the book budget was very slightly higher($1,076,001 compared to $1,062,121). Catalogingproduction is a poor measure of purchasingpower, however, because of the lag in receipt ofbooks and cataloging information and because ofthe substantial backlog of materials on hand. Abetter index to the loss of purchasing power is the12 percent decline in the pre-cataloging rate ofaccessions. This continues a trend begun in 1969:since that year, the number of volumes accessioned annually has declined from 75,074 in1968-1969 to 46,344 in 1972-73, a reduction of 38.3percent.Efforts to increase the funds available formonographic purchases by reducing the numberof our subscriptions to serial titles were generallyunsuccessful. After a careful review of the 41,000serial titles we receive, approximately 1,000 titleswere cancelled. Unfortunately, we cannot avoidadding a significant number of newly-founded serials, so that we achieved a net reduction of only403 continuations. It is clear that further and repeated review will be necessary, utilizing morestringent criteria.In the light of all these difficulties, it is not surprising that the work of the book selecters wascharacterized by a prudent use of funds. All ofthem report an essentially identical pattern ofselection: concentration upon request and otherclearly vital titles, rather than selection forbreadth and excellence; no buying of retrospective materials except as reprinted standard worksmade it possible to replace the most essential"lost" items and except as a few urgently-neededindividual titles came upon the market; very, veryfew purchases of titles in more than one copy; andsome emphasis on the acquisition of bibliographictools which would enable our users to learn aboutthe existence and location of works we do nothave.It is pleasant to be able to report that the carefulwork of the bibliographers was usefully supplemented by the actions of the Library's friends,a great number of whom responded generously toour needs with donations and a record-breakingtotal of 24,561 gift volumes. A full list of thesedonors is given in Appendix A (available from theOffice of the Joseph Regenstein Library), and it isamong their contributions that we must look fornotable acquisitions.The Helen and Ruth Regenstein Collection ofRare Books, with the continued support of Mrs. Joseph and Miss Ruth Regenstein, continued tobe a source of steady enrichment of the Library'sholdings of English and American literature andalso made possible the acquisition of titles fromthe traditions, of continental literature. Threebooks typical of the scope and depth of the collection acquired this year were the first editions ofRobert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy,Robert Burns' Poems, chiefly in the Scottishdialect, and Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities.The Burns Poems, one of the greatest works oiScottish literature, published in Kilmarnock in1786, was acquired in the copy once owned byLouis Silver — probably the finest copy in existence. Our purchase returned it to Chicago.Among the continental books were GottholdLessing's Laokoon (Berlin, 1766), and the 1655edition of La Rochefoucauld's Maxims as well asthe 1513 Aldus printing of the works of Plato.About 50 works of continental literature werepurchased.In three cases valued and valuable collectionscame to us in the form of bequests, so that a substantial strengthening of our resources was sadlyoffset by the loss of good and thoughtful friends.Jacob Viner provided in his will for the addition tohis collection in the history of economics, a fieldProfessor Viner had assiduously cultivated for theLibrary while he was a member of the University faculty. Joseph Halle Schaffner, long a friendof the University, and Professor Bernard Weinberg left collections which greatly enriched twoareas in which the Library has had a deep interest. The Schaffner Collection, to be recognized soon by a major exhibition and catalog, is acapstone to the Library's collections in the history of the physical sciences and includes many ofthe greatest works of early science. BernardWeinberg's bequest further strengthened theLibrary's commitment to Renaissance andFrench literature. The bequest was of particularvalue since Professor Weinberg had acquired hisbooks with a careful eye to the Library's holdingsand rarely duplicated them in his own collecting.Mrs. George Williamson again gave a numberof volumes from her husband's library includingeditions of Ben Jonson and John Milton,Dry den's Fables and Woods' Athenae Oxonien-sis, all in contemporary bindings and in excellentcondition. Mr. David Borowitz, a great and goodfriend of the Library, gave more than 300 volumeswhich reflect his interest in the history ofchildren's books and in English literature. Included in the several gifts were long runs of theworks of G. A. Henty and Harry Castlemon as140well as a copy of the first edition of EdwardFairfax's translation of Godfrey of Bulloigne byTasso (London, 1600). Miss Louise Ohge, classof 1924, donated her collection of some 2,000 volumes. This gift included a number of notable examples of fine printing, such as the NonesuchPress edition of the works of Dickens, as well asother rare books. In a very different direction,Walter C. Dopierala made a gift of his collectionof more than 2,000 comic books from the 1940sand 1950s. While these books represent an unusual departure from the Library's collections,their acquisition will usefully support the increasing interest among the faculty and students inmass culture.The very welcome additions to the book collections described above were matched by impressive contributions to our archival and manuscriptholdings. In the realm of University history, thesingle most valuable document this past year wasCyrus Eaton's reminiscences of William RaineyHarper and John D. Rockefeller, ca 1900-1905,prepared early in 1973 for the current Board ofTrustees and based upon his acquaintance withthe two most important founders of the University. The papers of two distinguished facultymembers from very different disciplines wereadded to the growing archival collections. NobelLaureate James Franck, whose later work onphotochemistry and photosynthesis was done atthe University, is now represented by an extensive collection of letters, notes, and manuscripts,the gift of his daughter. The papers of the eminentlegal scholar Max Rheinstein were deposited withthe Library by Mr. Rheinstein. Largely correspondence and manuscripts, the collection reflectshis scholarly interests in international and comparative law, and his many professional connections.For the non-archival manuscript collections,the Library acquired two single items of literarysignificance: a letter from T. S. Eliot, the gift ofJohn M. Wallace, Professor of English; and a letter written by Matthew Arnold, from a volumegiven to Miss Louise Ohge, Class of 1924.The codex manuscripts collection also was enriched by the gift of a generous faculty member,Theodore Silverstein, Professor of English. Mr.Silverstein presented the Library with an important manuscript of Cicero's De Senectute, DeAmicitia, and Paradoxa (Ms 956), which had belonged to Chester Beatty (Western Ms. 164). Thetexts, in a small humanist hand* were probablywritten in Italy in the third quarter of the fifteenthcentury. Marginal notes indicate that the manu script was taken to Germany in the early sixteenth century.A cache of codex manuscripts was discoveredby our Curator of Special Collections, RobertRosenthal, in the stock of Palo Alto booksellerWilliam P. Wreden. Altogether, fifteen wereselected for purchase. They range from thefifteenth to the nineteenth centuries in date, and incontent from Latin treatises to a ship's journal,to account books of a Kentish farmer, to minutesof a town council in fifteenth-century Catalonia.The most interesting appears to be an Englishemblem book, a relatively rare item, of the seventeenth century, bound with a German symbolicwork in poetry.Perhaps the most outstanding single group ofmaterials added to the Library's manuscript collections is yet to be fully assessed — the JosephHalle Schaffner Collection. These manuscripts,which supplement the exceptional collection ofprinted books in the history of science, briefly described above, include many items of extreme importance, notably the letters of Charles Darwin,Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein.Public Services. In spite of the slight decline inenrollment, use of library materials increased.Total recorded circulation was 859,368, a rise of 4percent over 1971-72, while the number of booksused only within the Regenstein Library was175,563, an increase of 15 percent over the previous year.A number of new functions were added in theReaders' Services Division during the year. Themajor portion of the collections in Theology wasmoved into Regenstein during the summer of1972, leaving in the Swift Hall reading room only15,000 volumes in practical theology. The Recordings Collection was transferred from theMusic Department building to Regenstein wherenew music listening facilities were installed. TheBillings Library installed the Medline system providing on-line access to recent medical literature;this service has proven to be attractive and thenurriber of searches processed is increasing. Workcontinued on the remodeling of the Harper Library and the fully expanded facility opened in theautumn quarter, 1973. With the completion ofconstruction in Harper, the remote storage facility in the old Harper-Wieboldt stacks can be reorganized and made more accessible. Plans werecompleted for shifting the books on the Regenstein A-level stacks during the 1973 summer quarter. Eckhart Library was remodeled during theyear and an added storage facility in the basement141was completed. This has reduced crowding andimproved reading facilities in the remodeled second floor quarters.Organizational Improvements. Like mostservice-oriented organizations, the Libraryspends a substantial portion of its budget on personnel. Opportunities to reduce cost are limitedbecause many services require the personal attention of subject specialists, and because there arefew operations large enough and routine enoughto permit economies of scale to be achieved. Themajor areas for cost savings or budgetary improvement are: increasing operating efficiency,automating record-keeping functions, cost-sharing through cooperation, and fund-raising.Each of these areas has been given careful attention in the past year.The organization and staffing patterns of theLibrary were intensively reviewed in an effort toidentify more efficient and responsive methods ofoperation. Attention was centered primarily uponthe service pattern of the Regenstein Library because the technical service and circulation functions were already being analyzed as targets forautomation. The move into Regenstein in 1970consolidated 18 collections and their associatedservices, but the staffing patterns were intentionally left flexible until the natural service loads inthe new structure could be determined. In addition, a number of coordinating positions had beenestablished to facilitate communication andsupervision during the adjustment period. Aftercareful analysis it was determined that realignment of some departments and more direct linesof communication were desirable. The majorchanges were the establishment of a General Services Division encompassing Regenstein generalservices and the branch libraries, and the creationof a Collection Development and Subject ServiceDivision to coordinate book selection throughoutthe system and specialized reference serviceswithin Regenstein. A number of service pointsand functions were merged to effect neededeconomies.In addition, the supervisory staff as a wholeattempted to identify major problems and to setpriorities for responding to needs. At the sametime efforts were made to open communicationchannels and to involve the staff more directly inresolving problems.Steps were also taken to improve managerialskills by inaugurating an Organizational Improvement Program with the assistance of the Industrial Relations Center. This process focuses attention on the identification and resolution ofexisting problems, enabling supervisors to acquireanalytical, problem-solving, and communicationskills as they are required to resolve specificdifficulties. The process is slow and indirect incontrast to a program of formal training by thecase method, but if is already evident that many ofthe supervisory staff have increased their capacityto resolve problems.Considerable attention was also given to thedevelopment of more effective procedures tomonitor expenditures and maximize the use of resources. Further improvements are anticipated infiscal controls and decentralization of fiscal andbudgetary responsibilities.The Automation Program. Work continued onthe development of the Library Data Base Management System scheduled for implementation inthe fall quarter of 1974. The software componentsare well along in development as is the design ofthe circulation system. Basic decisions on acquisition of software components and terminal deviceswere made so that implementation could proceedon schedule. A grant from the Joseph and HelenRegenstein Foundation provided generous andtimely support for purchase of all of the hardwarerequired for full implementation.The Library Systems group conducted numerous orientation meetings with the staff and employed task forces to assist in formulating designspecifications. Although this process consumedconsiderable time much valuable information andexperience was gained.The program for Library automation is a uniqueprototype system that offers much promise for rethinking and reorganizing the work of the Library.Most of the effort thus far has been devoted todevelopment of the basic software capability, butduring the next year applications programs will bedeveloped which will demonstrate the power ofthe system. This program offers considerable opportunity to improve services and to controloperating costs, and it is expected to be highlytransportable to other University operations aswell as to institutions outside the University.3. The FutureThe two earlier sections of this report, one offering some perspective on our current situation andthe other describing Library operations and activities during 1972-73, reflect difficulties thatcould be with us for a long time. Such financialevents as a recession economy, inflation, and dol-142lar devaluation have certainly aggravated ourdifficulties, but we should perhaps questionwhether they constitute the underlying cause. Is itpossible, instead, that the flood of publication hasnow permanently reached a level of volume andcost so high that few if any individual libraries arelikely to be able to cope with it, alone, for muchlonger? Or, to put it another way, will any university be able to afford the funds that will enable itslibrary to operate at the level of completeness andservice that has become traditional? If the answeris negative, university libraries are going to haveto learn how to really share resources, and university libraries are going to have to become active in developing their own sources of funds.Both these areas have occupied some of our attention for some time, and will absorb more and moreof our interest and effort.Opportunities to share costs through cooperation with other libraries and organizations are currently limited and long-range in character. It isevident that more attention will have to be given todefining and identifying the resources which mustbe held locally, and to broadening the range ofresources that can be held jointly with other libraries for shared use. The more efficient structuring of library resources and of library access on anational basis have been recognized as desirableobjectives for many years, but we are just nowdeveloping the technology and mechanisms for effective cooperation. The National Program ofAcquisitions and Cataloging of information at theLibrary of Congress has only recently been expanded and funded at a level that effectssignificant savings in local cataloging costs. Provision of the National Union Catalog prior to 1958in printed form is now nearing the half-way pointand is making bibliographic access to nationallyheld resources more readily available. The establishment of a periodical/serial bank for little-usedtitles was inaugurated in 1973 at the Center forResearch Libraries, and although it has onlylimited funding it is beginning to demonstrate inthe United States the utility of a national lendinglibrary service of the kind that has been in successful operation in Great Britain for a number ofyears. Efforts are under way to develop machinereadable data bases for monographic and serialinformation which will facilitate retrospectiveconversion of files, centralized data base man agement, and more dependable, faster inter-library loans. These developments offer considerable opportunity to share operating costs on abroader basis in the future, but effective savingsare a number of years away at best.Our greatest hope for financial assistance in theimmediate future lies in our own fund-raising activities. Again it will take a number of years toestablish contacts and to begin to realize actualresults, but substantial progress was made inplanning programs and inaugurating activitieswhich will interest members of the Universitycommunity in the Library.The development program thus far has beencentered in the Special Collections Departmentand has been closely coordinated with the University Development Office. A broad range of activities including exhibits, lectures, and receptions has been designed to acquaint friends of theUniversity with the resources and needs of theLibrary. These have had a wide appeal and promise to be fruitful.A Visiting Committee for the Library was organized under the leadership of KatharineGraham and held its first meeting on June 15,1973. The group is interested and responsive tothe Library's problems and will offer useful guidance and assistance in meeting the Library'sneeds.SummaryThe Library has experienced a difficult and tryingyear in adjusting to greater reliance upon University and other local sources of support. Theabrupt reduction in federal and foundation funding and the anticipation of further losses in theimmediate future forced a reordering of prioritiesand the adoption of internal changes in organization. Adjustments were made which will assurethe continued development of the Library's resources, but increased financial support throughfund-raising activities and greater operatingefficiency will be required to restore the quality ofservices required to provide adequate support tothis academic community.Stanley McElderry, DirectorThe University of Chicago Library143THE 349TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:SIEVES AND SEWERS:THE OPEN MIND AND THE UNIVERSITYBY WAYNE C. BOOTHJune 14-15, 1974I must begin by letting you in on a minor scandalabout our Convocations. The speaker is sometimes trapped into giving the same speech threetimes in two days. I spoke yesterday morning to agang of future businessmen and preachers. Yesterday afternoon I spoke to another job lot oflawyers, doctors, physicists, and literary critics.So today, by custom, I should bore myself and afew long-suffering folk on the stand here with thesame speech, one fitted to all occasions and therefore really to none. Obviously that's a bad idea,so the thing to do might be to prepare an entirelydifferent speech. But the trouble with thatsolution lies in a general scientific law which Iinvented Wednesday morning at 7:43: the qualityof a Convocation speech varies inversely with thenumber of speeches the speaker prepares. So itseems that I had to choose between mediocrefreshness and polished generalities. I at first chosemediocrity and prepared three separate speeches.Then I slept, last night, very badly. What to do?Obviously I had let myself be trapped in a falsedichotomy. At 7:51 this morning the true solutioncame to me in a flash: Give them the best bits ofeach speech. Yesterday morning I spoke on"Sieves and Sewers: Moral Decadence in theUniversity." In the afternoon the subject was"Intellectual Decadence in the University, asProduced by False Ideas of Open-mindedness."Today's title was to be "The Wonder ofUnderstanding — Or, Why Our Minds Are Not,Even at Worst, Sieves or Sewers." But now, asthe only fitting reward for your four years of unremitting intellectual labor, I have chosen to giveyou not the predigested pablum suited to thosedecayed digestions I addressed yesterday butsolid chunks of nutriment chosen especially foryou.Now some of you B. A. candidates have alreadyguessed where this introduction leads. For the second time in your lives at Chicago I'm going tobribe you with cash to stay awake. Four years agoI offered, you may remember, twenty five bucksto any freshman who could give me an adequatesummary of my "Aims of Education" speech.Unfortunately there was a winner — an entry submitted as a beautifully controlled sonnet sequence. I warn you that the standards have goneup in this new contest, but the cash amount hasnot: I hereby offer twenty five dollars to anyonehere — and this includes parents as well as students — who can figure out which parts of thisspeech are new for today, and which parts weredelivered yesterday. Recidivists on the standare disqualified.Everywhere we turn, in this tired century, weare flooded with pleas for open-mindedness. Letme quote from a recent speech delivered from thisplatform: "If I have a prayer for you" my colleague said here last year, "it is that you continueto cultivate what we have worked to inculcate— an attitude of benign skepticism about virtuallyeverything — a constant query of 'where is theevidence?' in support of ideas and institutions,new and old." Now that speaker, unlike manyone might quote, at least qualified his prayer withthe word, "virtually." He said that we should bebenignly skeptical about virtually everything.But many who talk about open minds and openuniversities would not show even that smidgeonof benign skepticism about benign skepticism.These days, the minds we praise are always open,never closed. If we do sometimes praise steel-trapminds, our heroes are still those who use suchminds to shake students out of their dogmaticslumbers. But today I would remind us that ouractual heroes, every single professor we think ofas having made a major contribution, are famousmore for their unchanging, unflinching adherenceto basic principles and methods than for theiropenness.In the metaphor of the open mind, openness is144synonymous with receptiveness. The closed mindis seen as closed to new truth; it has in a sensebecome no mind at all. It is true that many of usthese days employ a conflicting metaphor whenwe refer to minds: the mind as machine. Themachine metaphor suggests to many of usc/osed-mindedness; a machine seems bydefinition to have its mind made up, as it were,made up by others who have programmed itslimits. Debates thus rage about whether machinescan ever be programmed to be open, that is, todiscover truths that were not tautologically included in what their programmers knew. Regardless of how such debates are finally resolved in thefuture, it is interesting that back here in 1974,everyone who believes that machines and mindsare sisters under the skin always insists that hisown mind is open, it can think creatively. Wemust note, then, a nice little paradox in these twometaphors: we are machines, we are told, but weshould be open-minded machines; yet whethermachines are able to think will be determined bywhether they can in fact behave open-endedly likethe open-minds that invented them!Every Convocation speaker is entitled to onepiece of prophecy and one only, and I have nowcome to mine: I predict that the ultimate decisionabout whether man-made machines can reallysimulate the human mind will be determined notby whether they can be made open to unpro-grammed discovery, kept open-minded; we already have machines that almost qualify on thataccount. What will be decisive is whether we canmake machines that can simulate our forms ofclosed-mindedness, machines whose operationsare brought to term by the discovery of reasonsand the discrimination of good reasons from bad.End of prophecy.When we talk only of openness, we tend toforget that it comes in many sizes and shapes.Sieves, for example, are open, open to everythingat one end; at the other they retain only what is ofa certain size and shape, and they leave even that,like themselves, unchanged in the process ofdraining. Sewers, pipes, in contrast, will receiveanything and pass everything, producing nochange except a slight contribution toward ultimate entropy. Totally open, they are totally inert.Now of course nobody who recommends thatwe question everything and maintain an openmind ever means to suggest that we cultivateminds like sieves or sewers. Everyone presupposes that some parts of the mind must be closed,if the recommended openness is to be of any usewhatever. And we thus find ourselves forced to the conclusion that it is not at all the function ofuniversities merely to open minds that are closed;all minds are closed to some degree and in somedirection. Rather it is as much the function of auniversity to ensure that the right valves areclosed as it is to open the right inlet pipes.I suspect that if we could reconstruct the beliefsthat each of you here held when beginning highereducation, whether three or thirteen years ago,we would find a collection of minds that werebeautifully and mushily open, capable of believingalmost anything, vulnerable to whatever forcefulassertion reached you first, unable to distinguish,as you would now try to do, between themediocre in a given field and the useful or sound.On most subjects, even subjects of passionateconviction, they were more easily shaken thenthan now. For them, the University has thus beenan institution skilled in closing minds in a veryspecial way; it is the institution that rejects what isthese days called indoctrination but at the sametime believes in implanting certain doctrines andhabits of mind that will not be vulnerable to theseductive alternative that comes along.That this kind of closure is not a scandal but avaluable service can be seen perhaps most clearlyby looking at the likely consequences of any pretense at total open-mindedness. Usually the pretense comes in the form of claiming not to believeanything that has not been tested scientifically,and often that test is put in the form of the criterion of falsifiability. The trouble is that most ofour most important moral and intellectual principles, including those which make a universitypossible in the first place, are not scientificallyfals ill able.Consider for a moment one of our mostcherished and scientifically unprovable beliefs:we are not open-minded about whether it is okayto doctor the evidence to suit predetermined conclusions. In some circles today — I sometimesthink that it is in most circles today — it is acceptedpractice to cook the evidence, as I was taught todo in a college course in quantitative chemicalanalysis. So-called scientists can now be hired toproduce results of any predetermined variety.And of course for every trained scientist who hashis price, there is an army of clerks and functionaries who make use of his results or non-results.More interesting, perhaps, than such blatantexamples are the subtler forms of corruption thatcome when the evidence does not even have to becooked. It is the very nature of many of our mostimportant social issues that what we think of as145strictly scientific evidence cannot prove or disprove a point. Suppose I am a manufacturer ofsoda crackers and some Ralph Nader comesalong and finds rat's fecus in my product. It wouldbe a simple matter for any chemist to prove thatrat's fecus in crackers can do no harm, becausethe crackers are heated to such and such a temperature for so many minutes that all the bacteriaare done in, absolutely, demonstrably: the product is therefore harmless. Now many of us willstill be sort of closed-minded about this: somehowthere is still something wrong about fecal matterin my soup, something wrong with the scientistwho will sell his talents to prove the irrelevantcase that the crackers are harmless.In the immortal words of E. E. Cummings'Olaf, "There is some (expletive deleted) I will noteat." I take this example to be representative ofhundreds of similar situations today, in which weseek scientific disproof where by the nature of thecase such disproof cannot be had. Prove to me,friends, that to subject my ten-year-old son to adaily double movie bill, let's say, of Deep Throatand The Exorcist, every day for a month, will dohim no harm. Prove to me that to subject all ten-year-olds daily to one hour of physical torture willdo permanent psychic damage. Prove to me thatfor a teacher to neglect his students, or to use hisinstitutional power to steal student's results andpublish them over his own name, is wrong. Proveto me that for a student to accept police money tospy on a professor is harmful. About all of thesematters I have a closed mind, and I hope that youdo too. While I don't think that they are beyondrational defense in other forms of discourse, whenthey are put on the defensive in the pursuit ofscientific proof, they get settled the wrong way.A good example of how such questions get underplayed is a book by Milton Rokeach, TheOpen and Closed Mind. Rokeach developed instruments for testing whether his subjects hadopen minds or closed minds. He then testedthousands of subjects and correlated their degreeof openness and closedness with their actual opinions on various scales measuring authoritarianismand liberalism. And he, of course, discoveredwhat anyone could have predicted from the wayhis instruments were constructed, that open-minded people are less authoritarian thanclosed-minded people. The authoritarian personality, which, of course, we all deplore, is close-minded, which ought to settle once and for all thequestion of whether open or closed minds are better. The trouble is that when you look closely atRokeach' s method you find that he didn't dis criminate effectively about what the minds wereopen or closed about. Without too muchsimplification one can say that for him it meant thesame thing if someone refused to change his mindabout two plus two equalling four as aboutwhether it is a good thing to call Jews kikes.Rokeach had no confidence in the notion thatsome moral and intellectual principles are moredeserving of pig-headed allegiance than others.We can thus predict how he would treat certainobstinate heroes, anonymous in the closed-minded columns: those one or two White Housefunctionaries who at a given point said "this farand no further, because it really would bewrong"; those precious Germans, some of themuneducated peasants, who were not open-mindedabout accepting Nazism; those insistent scholarswho persist in unpopular positions until others areforced to attend those unsung scholars who losefame and fortune because they refuse to cooktheir evidence to make it fit desired results.But we should now turn from the consequencesof unthinking openness to a different kind of evidence that whatever openness we ever achievedepends for its validity on forms of closure. I'mthinking of varieties of research being done thesedays on the structure of human thought, from infancy to adulthood. I could happily quote dozensof researchers here, from Piaget to T. G. R.Bower and Jerome Kagan. But I find it somehowmore rewarding to quote from myself. I've recently been working on irony, on the operationsof that grand old rhetorical device, irony, andespecially on what I call stable irony. In stableirony — the kind that allows the speaker and theauditor to understand each other through spokenmessages that are in themselves misleading — wefind a curious test case for all models of mind,because when we use irony and it works, mindsmeet in really curious, not to say mysterious,ways.Think for a moment about what happens whenour minds encounter a piece of irony like the onein Samuel Butler' sErewhon. The narrator tells usof a dangerous leap he had to make across amountain gorge and says, "As luck would have it,Providence was on my side." I submit that asmachines now stand they are too open-minded tounderstand such irony. If a message is fed tothem, they invariably take it straight, as it were. Itwould of course be possible to program a machineto translate a statement into some other statement, feeding in instructions not to accept "Asluck would have it Providence was on my side"but to turn it into — well, into what? There's the146interesting question. Because of our experiencewith the works luck and Providence, you and I areable to unpack Butler's statement, as the jargongoes, into a highly elaborate joke — one that wouldtake perhaps two or three score words to describe. When you think of all the possible ironiesthat a machine might have to face in a workingday, surrounded by even the least ironic crowd ofworkers, you can see that the problem of programming it to do what you and I regularly do iseven in these terms immense. But of course ourjob with the irony has just begun, because amachine that has been told that these ten wordsshould be transformed into these 40 words meaning a mixture of contrary and half-contrary things,has not really done what we do when we readirony. It has taken a literal message and done aliteral thing with it. There has to be an instructionsymbol in it somewhere meaning "irony," and themachine is thus still as open-minded as it can be:"You tell me to read something ironically and I'llread it ironically," it says, and it does. But youand I, with our closed minds, know that the surface meanings of some messages, quite possiblyan infinite number, must be rejected because theyviolate sense in certain ways. From among these,we can discriminate some that somehow tell usthat their speakers intended them not to makesense, and without any obvious button markedirony we perform a highly intricate dance of reconstruction.But that's not all. The reconstruction includes aknowledge that we are made of the same mentaland emotional stuff as the speaker, in this caseButler. It includes even further the notion that ifanyone were to speak the nonsense seriously, itwould be ridiculous, but that since Butler says itmeans something else, it is funny, and we want tolaugh, knowing that Butler wanted us to laugh.But all of this can happen only because we haveour minds closed, structured, in such a way thatwe can say an absolute no to the literal nonsense.If we were seriously open-minded we would nodour heads obediently and say something like:"Well, yes, now that you say so, it seems to mequite reasonable to say that there is no differencebetween the meaning of luck and Providence."My second example of research demonstratingthat all of our creative achievements are dependent on vast regions of our minds being closed isnot my own. As I understand recent research onwhat babies know at birth and on how they learn,it demonstrates to everyone's satisfaction thatbabies make their way in the world only becausethey come out hollering something like: "When you talk with me, you gotta use good reasons,because my mind is already made up." The newborn baby seems, for example, to know the difference between lying on a cantilevered pane of glassover a depth and lying on a firm table, and itshouts no when it somehow perceives three-dimensional threatening depth. The newbornbaby is not open-minded about whether to try outa variety of tricks on the world when the propertime comes: it insists on its ways, and if it did notit would never learn anything whatever. Even if ababy is blind, for example, it will try out, after thescheduled number of weeks, the trick of smiling atthe world. What is more, every baby seems tohave its mind made up to try out hypotheses formaking sense of things. One researcher has saidthat the day-old baby is best described as ahypothesis-forming creature, open-minded only inone important but limited sense— not willing tostop inquiring, though willing to follow the datawhere they lead.Our minds are not, then, either at birth or as wesit here, open either like sieves or like sewers. Iwish I had a nice metaphor for what they are, intheir combination of openness and closedness.But every metaphor I know seems to me to distortthe wonder of our capacity to understand bychoosing what to receive and what to reject. Thehuman mind is, so far as we know, unique amongcreated things. The wonder of its uniqueness hasgenerally been described, throughout moderntimes, as its creativity, its inventiveness, itscapacity to invent what is genuinely new. Withoutdetracting from that wonder at all, I want to suggest, as you leave a university that is both closedand open, that you think harder than has beencustomary about the importance of the mental obstinacies, if we can call them that, which make ourcreations possible.There was a time, I suppose, when genuineacademic progress came from a chanting of thehalf- true slogans of open-mindedness. But themetaphor of progress through doubt became destructive, at some point along the line, and decadence set in. Look around the world at all theopen, cluttered minds and the many new open,cluttered universities. What happened? The intellectual ideal of open-minded objectivity, embraced in the name of perpetual cognitive progress, led in many instances to intellectual decadence rather than progress. And it is in the natureof decadence that those who have decayed donot easily recognize their decay.When noble traditions decay through overextension, as happened with the liberal tradition147of objective, open-minded inquiry, it does littlegood to grab desperately for opposing half-truths,matching slogans with slogans. If closed-mindedness were taken up as a bright new trend,made into the same kind of slogan that open-mindedness has become, we would probably beeven worse off than we are now. What we needinstead is a recovery of the arts of talking responsibly about our values, but without insisting thatresponsibility is found only in scientific proof.The true university — and in this respect this University is one of the genuine ones of this world— will work as hard at the constructive and preservative arts as at the critical arts of scientificfalsifying. Those arts tend to rediscover oldtruths, but in doing so, they are our sole protection from the decadence that comes from pursuingfalse dreams of indefinite progress.Our ceremony today illustrates what I havebeen saying. It is a closed ceremony, celebrating atraditional process in traditional ways, with traditional music that our minds are open to becausethey have closed structures of perception! If Iwere required to give scientific proof to anyonethat this is a good way or the right way, I wouldnot know where to turn. But we know togetherhere more than we can prove, and we find here, asin the University generally, old and firm foundations from which to explore new truths.Wayne C. Booth is the George M. Pullman Professor in the Department of English and in theCollege and Chairman of the Committee on Ideasand Methods. His most recent book is TheRhetoric of Irony, The University of ChicagoPress, 1974.349th CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSBY ELIZABETH P. FORDDuring Orientation my first year, introductions toand by freshmen usually included the question:"Why did you decide to come to The Universityof Chicago?" Within a matter of weeks it wasoften modified to "Whatever possessed you tocome to The University of Chicago?"People here complain, and then others complain that people here are so nasty and complaining and unhappy, and so back and forth. Some of this might be a simple matter of familiarity breeding contempt, but the fact is that the carefree Student Life is not carefree — it's rough. And so,among ourselves, we usually find someone else'sreason for complaining quite reasonable, and weare often sympathetic with those who leaveforever.Alright (sic), if we understand those who dislikeand leave the University — how do we explain allthe people who stay here? Or the people whocome back after having left forever? Lately, I'vebeen collecting theories as to how this can be.The first was proposed to me by a math-majorfriend of mine, who compared the University to ablack hole in outer space. Now, for those whodon't know — and I know you're out there becauseI've had trouble explaining this before — a blackhole in space is not the same as the Black Hole ofCalcutta. No, it is supposed to be a star which hascollapsed so far and has become so dense thatnothing can escape its gravitional field. Similarly,since the University has a lot of gravity about it,nothing can escape it once it has come this close.However, although this model has a lot of emotional appeal for some, it really doesn't adequately explain the people who do manage to getaway.Another analogy came to mind while I washanging around in one of the immunology labs ofBillings. It seemed to me that some people who letthe University get under their skins have severeallergic reactions to it. The white blood cells andthe antibodies start charging through the bloodstream, and the body rejects the foreign matter byleaving town. Those of us who remained here orwere able to return either have thicker skins orhave built up a tolerance for the place. Some fewcan even become addicted.A third proposal was given to me by one of myroommates, a graduate student in Indian history,who incorporates the whole problem into her system of Karma and Reincarnation. According toher, if a person doesn't get his Ph.D. here in thislife, he must return to the University lifetime afterlifetime, rebirth after rebirth, until he does. Shepoints out how, at the highest level, the soul canbe born into the University and can never stayaway for more than a few years at a time.I couldn't bring myself to accept this notion atfirst, but my roommate seems to know more aboutit than I, since she's been working on her dissertation as if she's been at it lifetime after lifetimeafter lifetime . . .The eminent scholar known to some as Hard-Drinking Katy O'Brien offers no explanation for148he causes of this phenomenon, but describes itsuccintly in her Second Law: Chicago is gonnaletcha, for better or for worse. Maybe Chicago is[he only place to offer you full graduate tuitionand a three-million dollar stipend, and it'll getcha.Or you may think you've gotten by all the snagsyou could possibly run into here, and on the dayof graduation get run over by a Gray-Line tourbus crossing from Woodward Court to Rockefeller. No matter what you do, Chicago is gonnagetcha.So although I'd like to think of this as the day ofthe Great Escape, I feel certain that we'll allgravitate together again, in this life or the next, forsome reasonable reason or other. Therefore, Icannot say good-bye to you, but merely "see youlater."Elizabeth Ford received a Bachelor's degree during the convocation. She will be working inChicago this fall and will be studying part time inthe Department of Linguistics at The Universityof Chicago.349th CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSBY FRANK J. GRUBERToday is a proud day; and rightfully so. I amproud; proud of myself, my friends, my professors and proud of The University of Chicago.However, as all of us, inside the University andout, have so painfully learned in recent years,pride is dangerous. We have been so bedeviled bynumber one-ness and clamorously asserted butonly apparent achievement. Skepticism has replaced idealism among us, and, since we doubtothers, it is only right that at this convocation wetake a hard look at academic arrogance and intellectual pride.Arrogance of the educated is particularly pernicious. It undermines the whole of real intellectual achievement. It lies antithetical to humility,the foundation of intellectual endeavor; thenecessity to say "I don't know." As much as wewho have been so intimately involved with thisUniversity love it, we know too well the occasions of our own hubris, and cannot forget theembarassments of academic arrogance.Scholarly arrogance harms both the whole of society and a particular and important part of it,the intellectual community itself. We are all nowtoo familiar with the academic who lends himselfto government, confident that what have been intractable social problems will lie down before thesword of his rationality. His attitude, and the non-rational cores of most public problems, are hisundoing; the rare and special academic leaves thepublic forum either successful or unscarred. Asfor the latter effect, we students are particularlyaware of the absurd competition between intellectual progress. We and our friends at other collegesare aware of the deficiencies of our schools as wellas the achievements. Competition itself is notwrong, but there will never be improvement whenthe demands of competition distort realistic appraisal.At the source of intellectual pridefulness iscondescension toward the difficulties of basiccreativity. Creation is the essence of intellectuallife, in the library, classroom, or laboratory. Yet,we so often pile words of analysis on words ofanalysis that we obscure the basic substances central to any creative problem. And our words sooften leave nothing concrete for us to measureand criticize. We lack familiarity with coarse materials, the raw and mysterious non-rational makings of the objects of rational analysis. In thiscase, familiarity breeds respect: is there a sculptorcontemptuous of stone, a photographer disrespectful of light?Our curriculum slights the fine arts. Whether ornot the student is particularly able, artistic training, learning to draw, perhaps, teaches the intellectual process. Analysis, the drawing, is readilycompared to reality, the model, and thedifficulties of analysing are readily apparent.No good artist, no matter how aware of hisabilities, believes his human rationality overwhelms his materials. No good scholar is pre-sumptious enough to believe his rationality is thekey to all problems. On the contrary, the goodscholar first and foremost endeavors to understand his ignorance. The way of advancement is apath from that understanding, to hard observationof realities, and then to more and more beautifullyabstracted thought.My point is not to degrade aggressive scholarship, nor the whole of academic politics. Intellectuals may well be aggressive and may certainlypromote the policies they think best. However,we must never think the rational world is thewhole world. There is a life of the mind, but, justas certain, there will be always a life of the mysterious.149Frank Gruber received a Bachelor' s degree during the convocation. He will be employed in LosAngeles this fall and plans to attend law schoolnext year.349th CONVOCATIONSTUDENT ADDRESSBY JUANA J. SINCLAIRUpon being notified that I was to speak to you thismorning, I responded with mixed emotions. Onone hand, the idea of writing "another paper"was a constant reminder that at this school youmay never consider all of your work finished. Buton the other hand, the opportunity to speak beforea captive audience is a rare experience and onethat should be made the most of.In September of 1970, I came to the Universitybecause of the excellent academic education it offered; however, the social education here hasproved equally valuable and I would like to sharewith you some of those lessons that have mademy educational experience here worthwhile.Probably one of the first lessons to be learned isthe fact that you are not the only fish in the sea.As a Black student and consequently a member ofan 8 percent minority, one learns the lessonquickly. But all students here have had to dealwith the traumatic experiences of coming here.In order to survive and to cope with this situation the lesson of flexibility must be learned. Andit is here that those of us who are Black have hadan advantage. By being in the minority, we wereforced, more than others, to assert the individuality that had been subdued when we came here.We learned to understand, cooperate, and compromise with ourselves and with the Universitysystem in order to reach some semblance of self-satisfaction.However, many students at U. of C. never gainflexibility due to a sad lack of understanding andopen-mindedness where idealogical, cultural, andracial differences are concerned. This stubbornand prejudicial aversion to change in an academiccommunity, brings about not only death to societybut death to the academics as well.To see this kind of stagnancy within an institution of higher learning teaches us an even greaterlesson: That "education" is valueless and unpro ductive unless it is incorporated with social consciousness. Thus one learns that formal educationis not necessarily a solution to social problems,nor is it an automatic license to true knowledge. Agood example of this is the fact that though I havenever taken an advanced sociology or physicalscience course here, I can still see how the socialand political trends of the nation have broughtabout a 7.5 percent decrease in the entrance ofstudents here over the past four years.Lastly, with education in a new perspective youlearn to reevaluate the role and the importance ofeducation with regards to your goals in life andthis leads in turn to a self-examination. To take anobjective look at yourself is quite a task, but aneven greater achievement is to learn that you asan individual, more than anyone else, have control if not influence over your life.In essence the culmination of my social education here has brought me to the realization that lifeis what you make it or, better yet, you are whatyou allow yourself to be.Juana Sinclair received a Bachelors degree during the convocation. She will be employed this falland intends to study law within the next year ortwo.SUMMARY OF THE 349THCONVOCATIONThe 349th Convocation was held on Friday andSaturday, June 14 and 15, 1974, in RockefellerMemorial Chapel. President Edward H. Levipresided.A total of 1,450 degrees were awarded: 319Bachelor of Arts, 7 Bachelor of Science, 98 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 2Master of Fine Arts, 116 Master of Arts in theDivision of the Social Sciences, 6 Master of Artsin Teaching, 16 Master of Science in Teaching, 1Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciences and The Pritzker School ofMedicine, 38 Master of Science in the Division ofthe Physical Sciences, 24 Master of Arts in theDivinity School, 13 Master of Arts in theGraduate Library School, 168 Master of Arts inthe School of Social Service Administration, 244Master of Business Administration, 3 Doctor of150Ministry, 176 Doctor of Law, 1 Master of Arts ofComparative Law, 87 Doctor of Medicine, and131 Doctor of Philosophy.Three honorary degrees and four LlewellynJohn and Harriet Manchester Quantrell Awardswere awarded.Wayne C. Booth, the George M. Pullman Professor in the Department of English and in theCollege, and Chairman, Committee on theAnalysis of Ideas and Study of Methods, delivered the principal Convocation Address entitled, "Sieves and Sewers: The Open Mind andthe University."At the undergraduate session, three membersof the graduating class also spoke. They wereElizabeth P. Ford, Frank J. Gruber, and Juana J.Sinclair.QUANTRELL AWARDSThe University's 1974-75 Llewellyn John andHarriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching were presentedduring the 349th Convocation, June 14-15, 1974.Acting upon the recommendation of John T.Wilson, Provost, and Charles E. Oxnard, Dean ofthe College, President Levi designated the following four winners.Philip Gossett, Associate Professor in the Department of Music and in the College.Robert Haselkorn, the Fanny L. Pritzker Professor and Chairman of the Department ofBiophysics and Theoretical Biology and theFanny L. Pritzker Professor in the College.Ira A. Kipnis, Associate Professor of SocialSciences in the College.Leon M. Stock, Professor in the Department ofChemistry and in the College, and DepartmentalCounselor in the Department of Chemistry.A total of 136 Quantrell Awards have beenmade since the program was established in 1938. UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEE, 1974-75IRichard A. Posner, ChairmanE. Hazel MurphyDavid SmigelskisLeon M. StockWilliam J. WilsonIIMargaret K. Rosenheim, ChairmanGary D. EppenChase P. Kimball, M.D.Nathan A. Scott, Jr.Peter A. VandervoortIIIPeter Meyer, ChairmanEarl DurhamBernard McGinnLarry SjaastadPeter WhiteIVWilliam H. Meyer, ChairmanJames E. Bowman, M.D.Gerhard CasperKostas KazazisEvelyn KitagawaRobert Dreeben, ChairmanDonald W. BelessRichard A. EpsteinPhilip C. HoffmannJanet H. JohnsonTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building^ «4 H? ^| ^s«£^». «j>3ji ?¦*?• fe* »"grig §g$ jf^. ffef Si^ © SIS **s *'-¦>§pr *§S '<&& -i^' "^£«* £k <§? ^ ^ipsa sfc» £*?•%*£» h'£ ^S $ ^ S-'^is£ d- ^ 4'-*'8o zTJI _ omj c 33D O TJ2 > -n W 3POST*AID,0,ILLTNO. o32z o 1-j. O rn«* rr oCO 3 '