THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECORPFebruary 26, 1975 An Official Publication Volume IX, Number 1CONTENTS3 A REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY, 1973-748 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE CONSEQUENCES OFRESEARCH23 THE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THE NEWDEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES28 COMMITTEE TO SELECT A NEW PRESIDENT29 EDWARD H. LEVI: 71ST U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL29 NEW ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS30 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE AUTUMNQUARTER, 197434 OMBUDSMAN APPOINTED FOR 1974-1975 TERM34 PRESIDENT'S SEMINAR, 1974-7535 DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1975 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDA REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THELIBRARY, 1973-74December 2, 1974It was evident from the beginning of the year thatfiscal 1973-74 would be a difficult period for theUniversity Library. The Library experiencedadequate growth throughout most of the 1960swhen budget increases averaged nearly 15 percentper year, but in 1968 cost inflation began to exceed budget increases. Since that year, the average budget increase has been only 4.7 percent,while actual costs have increased at an annual rateof 8.5 percent or more, driven upward by a combination of inflation and dollar devaluation. Salaryexpenditures have taken a larger and larger proportion of the budget, whereas book funds haveremained nearly constant. As one consequence, the number of monographs acquired annually fell 40 percent between 1967 and 1972. ByJuly 1972, the Library could no longer absorb increased staffing costs, and the size of the staff wassignificantly reduced in order to raise individualsalaries to keep pace with the general inflation inliving costs.Even sterner measures were required in June1973, when it became clear, first, that the 1973-74Library budget was to be increased by only onepercent and, second, that a similar stringency wasto be expected for the succeeding year, 1974-75.Since the Board of the Library had already urgedthat the level of acquisitions be maintained, evenat the cost of curtailments in service, the Librarymoved immediately to eliminate seven professional and a number of clerical positions — a reduction of 18 positions for the year. As a consequence of this step and of a careful husbanding ofbook funds to ensure both that we would live within the 1973-74 budget and have some cushionfor the expected leaner year 1974-75, the Libraryfurther reduced expenditures during 1973-74 byfour- tenths of one percent — the first time the expenditure level has fallen since 1954-55. The resulting balance will be carried over to 1974-75 tomeet anticipated inflation rates for that year.Because the priorities established by the Boardof the Library shaped the Library's operationsduring the year, the essential portions of theBoard's statement are attached as Appendix I.The key recommendations can also serve as anoutline for this Report, and as the standardagainst which operations for 1973-74 can be reviewed.Collection Development. The Board recommendedthat the highest priority should be to maintain anadequate level of acquisitions. This was furtherdefined as the acquisition of all new publicationsnecessary to support existing teaching and research programs, the continuation of retrospective development where existing resources do notadequately support current or anticipated research, and provision for the replacement of lost,damaged, or worn volumes. It was specificallystated that retrospective buying should not proceed at the expense of current acquisitions.In implementing the collection developmentpriority, the available general book funds wereallocated by subject in roughly the same proportions assigned during the preceding year, but onlyafter upward adjustments were made to a numberof funds in an effort to compensate for dollar devaluation and the drying up of some PL 480 support. A special fund reserved for preservation and3replacement was retained intact until April 1974when, by agreement of the bibliographers, the entire amount (roughly $10,000) was quickly expended in replacing mutilated or missing issues ofHumanities and Social Sciences journals.Table I, appended to this Report, records expenditures in 1973-74. Despite the slightly lowerexpenditure for books and serials, the Library acquired 25,000 more volumes than it did in the preceding year. One-fifth of this increase is ascrib-able to the unusual number of useful gift booksadded to the collections (up 73 percent). The Library grew at an annual rate of 4.5 percent of thecollection, a rate of increase that once was considered adequate. It is no longer adequate, largelybecause the volume of new publications has swollen to such an extent. In 1973-74, therefore, theLibrary acquired a relatively smaller number ofnew, current publications and was able to buy retrospectively only in rare books, special collections, and the Middle East and Far East — allareas which are largely supported by earmarkedgifts of special, non-University funds. The acquisitions of retrospective as well as current publication was especially encouraging in the field ofMiddle Eastern Studies, where the knowledgeable new Bibliographer for Middle EasternStudies was able to move quickly in analyzingneeds and filling them.Despite ingenuity and careful selecting by thebibliographers, our coverage of current publications cannot really become adequate at our present level of support. Germanics provides a goodexample. In that area, funds did not permit theaddition of all useful current material, even afterthe allocation was increased. Our approval orderwith the German book dealer, Harrassowitz, wasusing most of the funds, and it was necessary torevise and sharply limit the "profile" we supply toHarrassowitz to guide his selection on our behalf.The list of contemporary German authors we undertake to collect was significantly reduced, andcertain categories of material were eliminated entirely. This kind of adjustment is becoming necessary throughout the Library, with the already-mentioned exceptions of the Far Eastern andMiddle East areas. Only in terms of net additions,then, can it be claimed that the Library was ableto maintain "adequate" collection development.Technical Services. The Library was only partiallysuccessful in meeting the Board's priorities fortechnical services: "The Library should provideenough support staff to keep the acquisitions and cataloging work current. The binding fund should. . . permit the binding of all new acquistions and. . . support a systematic program of preservationand restoration." The Acquisitions Departmentwas able to sustain the number of volumes accessioned only by searching and adding a much largernumber of gifts, which fortunately had been received in recent times. The cataloging staff, although reduced by 10 percent, cataloged as manytitles as in the preceding year, while at the sametime eliminating a large card printing backlog.This was only possible by emphasizing catalogingwith Library of Congress copy, while the rate oforiginal cataloging decreased almost 23 percent.Efficiency of the binding operations improved,and the binding of new materials was maintainedin accordance with Board priorities. However,our principal binder raised his prices in October,requiring the Library to defer some of its rebind-ing and preservation work in order to pay for binding of new materials.Readers' Services. Respecting services to readers,the Board of the Library urged that existing service schedules be maintained, that circulation,stack, and other support services should be consistent with the hours of access, and that reference and bibliographic assistance should beprovided — but that the latter have lower priorityand be subject to curtailment should such curtailment become necessary in order to continue themaintenance and processing of the collections.During the year, both the schedule of servicehours and the support services were maintained in1972-73 levels. It was necessary to reduce theservice staff, however, and the Library offered,during 1973-74, a significantly curtailed programof reference and bibliographic assistance. Despitethis loss, which should be corrected as soon asfunds permit, satisfying improvements were madeboth in the finding aids upon which the Library'sreaders rely and in operations and services.Worthy of special mention were the wide-rangingefforts of the service personnel to prepare for theautomation of the charging system now scheduledfor early 1975. One such task brought to completion was the design and approval of a new studentID card which is compatible with the bar-codingrequirements of the new system.Administration. The Board of the Library recommended, in its statement of priorities, that theLibrary administration "should implement andsupport policies that will insure a staff of high4professional competence and effective performance." For 1973-74, several major administrative accomplishments in this area can be listed:1. The organization structure was changed toshorten lines of communication and to providemore direct supervision of the operations withineach division.2. An intensive program of reviewing Libraryobjectives and policies was instituted to refine theprocess of determining goals and priorities.3. Training programs were undertaken to improve administrative and supervisory competenceand to broaden the management base.4. Orientation programs were instituted to prepare staff members for the implementation of theautomated data management system.5. The automation program proceeded with theinstallation of hardware and other terminal devices, and the development of software wasintensified in preparation for implementation ofthe circulation and processing systems.6. A well-qualified personnel officer was addedto the staff, and the revising and formalizing ofpersonnel policies was begun.7. The fiscal management system was refinedto provide close monitoring of expendituresthrough prompt and detailed reports.8. The development program was expandedand groundwork laid for an aggressive, systematicfund-raising program.9. The Board of the Library took a more activerole in determining policies and informing itself ofthe problems and needs of the Library.Goals for 1974-75.Two major factors will affect priorities in almostevery aspect of Library operations during1974-75. The first is the ongoing financial stringency, which will force the Library to focus uponthe revision of policies, upon a more careful assessment and choice of goals and priorities, andupon methods of maximizing resources. The second major factor is the new automated system.During the year the computerized Library DataBase and its applications for circulation and technical processing will be fully established and inoperation. These systems will bring about widespread change in almost all Library data processing activities. The following list of goals reflectsboth the factors mentioned above and reflects alsothe thoughtful approach the staff has taken to thesolution of present problems. 1. Administrationa. Continue to formalize personnel policies.b. Strengthen the administrative organizationby expanding the range of available skills andchanging the structure as needed.c. Plan and administer change in the organization with the aim of fully realizing the potentialbenefits of changes.d. Develop, at all levels of supervision, effective goal-setting and prioritizing procedures andskills.e. Continue efforts to improve staff qualitiesand skills.f. Make manifest the urgent fiscal needs of theUniversity Library.g. Seek out, or initiate, and take an active rolein cooperative ventures which show promise ofexpanding information resources and curtailingoperating costs.h. Refine and expand the management information system, including fiscal management.2. Collection Developmenta. Identify existing and emerging collecting areasrequiring substantially increased or special funding, and provide the Library Development Officerwith the documentation necessary to prepare appropriate fund-raising proposals.b. Provide for a greater range of input in developing and monitoring the Library's collectiondevelopment policies.c. Develop more positive and sensitivemethods for evaluating the Library's selectionperformance.d. Formulate a general statement of collectingpolicy in terms of subject, language, and geographical areas covered; the intellectual level ofacquisitions and degree of current and retrospective buying in these various areas; appropriate options as regards physical form (e.g., microfilm,fiche, pamphlets, manuscripts, etc.); and any collecting responsibilities to be shared with other institutions.e. Establish a systematic monitoring procedureto provide for the systematic review and updatingof collecting policy.f. Formulate policy and procedures for the allocation of the Library's book and serial funds,which will provide for the annual primary distribution of funds, for subsequent special fundingsituations, and for the related questions of functional funds, the funding of serial monographs,and the means for achieving and maintaining anappropriate balance between book and serial expenditures.53. Technical Servicesa. Implement and develop the potential of the automated data processing system.b. Determine long-range requirements for bibliographic data access and display.4. Services to the Publica. Implement the on-line circulation system andthe bibliographic control system.b. Investigate and evaluate both the information needs and the hidden costs represented bydepartmental office book collections, LaboratoryCollections, and other non-Library libraries, andrecommend revised University policy with respect to such collections.c. Define with more precision the type andquality of assistance required to conserve the timeof students and faculty.d. Develop new approaches to responding touser needs.5. Development (Fund Raising)a. Establish the position of Library DevelopmentOfficer.b. Develop and make effective the work of theLibrary Visiting Committee.c. Establish a friends group: The University ofChicago Library Society.d. Develop "packages" of Library needs forconsideration by potential donors.e. Plan and implement a broad, ongoing program of activity which will effectively cultivateold and develop new sources of financial support.6. Library Systems Developmenta. Continue to completion all tasks of design,programming, and testing for the Library DataBase System and its applications for technicalprocessing and circulation.b. Establish in Library operations the hardware and data communications systems.c. Start work on new modules for serials control and management information systems.d. Cooperate in investigations toward transferor replication of the Chicago system elsewhere.e. Plan for cooperative data base arrangementswith other libraries.ConclusionThe University is fortunate to have a Librarywhich is outstanding for the range and depth of itscollections, for its modern, functional building,for its advanced computer system, and for itswell-qualified and dedicated staff. To maintain this strong position and to realize its potential, theLibrary will require the strong support of theUniversity Administration and its many friends inthe academic community. We are grateful for theunderstanding and support we have received inthis year of crisis.Stanley McElderry, DirectorThe University of Chicago LibraryAPPENDIX I: PRIORITIESRECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OF THELIBRARYIt is the judgment of the Board of the Library thatthe highest priority should be to maintain an adequate level of acquisitions. This means that fundsshould be allocated to insure the acquisition of allnew publications necessary to support existingteaching and research programs. Retrospectivedevelopment should be continued in fields whereexisting collections do not adequately supportcurrent or anticipated programs of research andinstruction. Provision should be made to replaceitems in the working collection that become lostor damaged or that require repair for preservation.A program of retrospective development ofeven greater depth and scope should be pursuedas funds permit or as outside support can be secured. Retrospective buying should not, however, proceed at the expense of current acquisitions.The Library should provide enough supportstaff to keep the acquisitions and cataloging workcurrent. The binding fund should be large enoughto permit the binding of all new acquisitions and tosupport a systematic program of preservation andrestoration. The operating budget (for equipment,supplies, and contracted services) should besufficient to support acquisitions and services on acurrent basis.The priority of services should provide accessto the collections on a schedule of service hoursthat will meet the reasonable needs of a majorityof its users (defined as the current hours of access). Support services (e.g., charge out, doorcheck, stack access and maintenance) should beconsistent with the hours that the collections areaccessible. Reference and bibliographic assistance should be provided for each broad subjector area study program to facilitate the work andconserve the time of students and faculty, but6co co o CO 00 CN ^r WO ^^ co cn r- ^^ CO r-- ^H ooox) ufi <u CNON 1 + + 1 1 , ^t 00 -h -h ^ UO+ + + + 1 1 1 + ^H WO+ +,_Hcd >^ ou ^+-> r-& 'U ONOh o vO CN — H Tt CN q vo oo co q o q oo *— • 00 001ONvoON ^ cn r-H CO vo 00 i-h o CO *-h t^ ON VO ON VOCN ^t ^— i T-H t-H ^— H fN) '— ' 1— '1 + 1 + + + + + + 1 1 1 1 i 1 1^ $IT! ON © r- rf ,— i o co i—i wo r-» o oo CN CN CN^f £2 ^ vo wo CO «o ^- ^h WO WO ON ON •,— ¦ oo r^ m so ^ J2 CN 4 Ar^ ^ v-O °. ^ VOco & ^o ON O ON oo" wo VO '— ' wo CN O CO ONO SO ^ CO 00 CO ^o 00 vo "^f wo vo wo "St-ON CN VO voV5- Tf ^-1 00CO CNeS $ «#W ^ 00 o\ on ,— « ON cn cn wo r^ ^f oo r- q r~ t~co o r- r- oo CN 00 WO CO CN 00 CN vo . -:^ CN CN vo ^h ro )g^ r- «^ »v ^ ^ CO CN 9«JJi rp <o ^ "1 ^ wo ^^3 CN vo~ on wo~ t-T o r-^ t^- ^h t-h "vf rO ON CO wo+j i> r- wo CO O ^t" r- CO Tf ^- wo vo wo cocc ON <o -^ CN l— ^o WO CO ^h oo CN^ »-h CN tj- coC3 */> & «/*u,03>% £ ^0> ^ ON O CO ^_H Tf SO WO 00 "xt O ^^ ON r^ r- ^-^ CN CN "!fr r- -h o 00 ON vo "=fr O ON co _;CN ^ CO^ 00^ rt 00^ fp[ 00CN § ^«M r^ t-h ro ^r ^r Tf CNo T-H CN Tf \£ r^ CN VO CN '—t ^^ CO CO ON CO o„ l> VO 00 Tt wo ^t ^f i—< WO "^t VO vo CN CN•Hi ON O, -H CN WO *r\ CO CN ^ 00 CNCM^> ^ CN ^t CO13 «/* ^5- &*s<u0) <u ^ ^*! wo 00 CO i-h u^ O O CN 00 WO ON r^ WO 00 ^ Owo ^t O Tt CN t^ r-*- cn cn on ^r i^ •cn oo^ vo^ q q vo « ONCN ^ °°i ""1 r^ co^ r^ wo wo ^ ^o CN CO~ VO O ON \6 r^ oo" ~ cn vo" cn" co wo£ r^ co oo *-H lO O l> r-- CN ^ l^- WO CO woON CO *-* CN CO »o o o ^ r- CN^h y—l T-H fNJ ^> CO^g &r ^5- */*2H^ ^ ^r^ wo CN WO o 1^ r- r- "oo wo vo co ^i- ^f vO coo oo o ON CO CO wo ^t ^ XT O CO CN •CNco 55 sSO ON lO ON^ CN r^ vq^ wo^ oo^ ^ wo^ ^t {^ONVOON on cn CN CN r^ CN r-" o" vo" o" r--" ^" co r-r- t>- wo r^ CO VO r- wo co r- vo wo vO°„ ^ CN — ^ Tf 00^ ON *-¦ 00 CN€/* ^-T csT co"V9- CN^5-O O ^j^ Q.-a X d «x Q13 > w o (Da> H 00 ojo d73 ^ -a>» 73 c/3 O "~"atioofbook&bindinsalaryexpend.tossIncomePhotoduExpenditures Book&SerialBinding 15O1 -"•3 etirement,suppliotherpurposes*1 "3OH olumesinLibrartossvolumesad<urrentserialtitleolumesbounditlescataloged ecordedcirculatipprox.staffsizeatioofbook&btotalexpend.c/) 0- >OU>htt!< Qt oi O T3O•ca saa6oSao13 aSoONVOONcd«3 W .73 OO C.s 2 &« o Ro >» <d2 £ *».« o <^>o ^^UCCT3 U) o00 H.S o^o . oX 73•° -S Oo c"5 <u73 c^^ 00O T3-a 3c X5<u >.L-T3 C«0) UX)f > N-l(75 ca> ori •S3 ba) E *-h o c«3 r ^ cu5 >,;§c« X) oO 73 CLr55 rt c«5 C C fcfl u <UO 3 jCu Co «^83W 00c C3 *0?v l-1 fcN S ^T° <L> as 2 «**IsX ^1/3 t; 73 2 0S g c§|so c73 CC •-1)Ch u.as O <Uc« wo25 «3?C G (N .0O cfie« Ccd CDC/3<U cnH 5 " 2 Wthese specialized services have a relatively lowerpriority and may need to be curtailed in times offinancial stringency.The Library should implement and supportpolicies that will insure a staff of high professionalcompetence and effective performance.The Board of the Library recognizes that implementation of these priorities may require thatthe level of staffing be reduced to preserve acquisition levels and that some desirable services mayJanuary 1975IntroductionThe Committee on the Consequences of Research convened in response to a request fromEdward Levi, President of the University. (Mr.Levi's letter is an Appendix.) The Committee metduring the Winter and Spring Quarters of 1973;this essay is the formal result.We, the members, have addressed ourselves tosome of the immediate consequences of research,especially in light of current tensions, as well as tolarger and longer-term issues. We have examinedthe consequences of research in terms of theproducts of research and in terms of the roles andobligations of the participating individuals and institutions.Our discussion falls into four sections. First,we consider the ground rules, the framework ofassumptions within which the rest of the essaydevelops. These deal with the commitment to research and with the criteria for evaluating this research. The second section deals broadly with theconsequences of this commitment for the individual and the University. The third sectiondraws upon the second to focus on the effects ofthe demands of research for money and talent.The fourth section deals with some possibilitiesfor the long term. need to be curtailed. It is also recognized that thelevel of the acquisitions program will determinestaffing levels in Technical Services and will setpriorities in binding and other operating areas thatmay in turn adversely affect public servicebudgets. The Board believes, however, that thequality of service is ultimately dependent uponthe quality of the Library's collections, and that intimes of financial stress the level of acquisitionsmust be protected.The University's Commitment to ResearchThe Assumptions. ". . . beginning with registration in the Graduate Schools, research, and research only, should be the standard of requirement." So wrote Albion W. Small, in thePresident's Report for 1904-1905. And this hasbeen the tradition and commitment of The University of Chicago since its origins. Among thethree facets of the role of the University — thestorage, the transmission and the generation ofknowledge — The University of Chicago has chosen the third for relative emphasis. The commitment to the generation of knowledge has traditionally played a larger role, proportionately, atThe University of Chicago than at virtually anyother university.The orientation toward research cannot be theentire basis for a university, and The Universityof Chicago can claim rightfully a leader's role intransmitting and storing knowledge, as well as inits generation. It is a truism that, in the idealacademic community, these functions overlap inseparably. Furthermore, the natural balanceamong them differs from discipline to discipline;even the meaning of "research" is different for alegal scholar and a physicist. Professional schoolsof medicine, business, social services, and lawnecessarily emphasize the transmission of knowledge more than its generation. Within the univer-REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THECONSEQUENCES OF RESEARCH8sity, some units are primarily generative andothers are primarily assimilative. The consequences of research differ accordingly, as we shallsee.Research is an expression of man's obsessionto understand himself and his place in the universe. Basic research has become a highly articulated and self-regulated system, superblyefficient, generating new knowledge at a rate challenging our capacities to assimilate it.Regardless of how the procedures of doingbasic research evolve, new ideas and new basicresearch in some form are inevitable. Moreover,these new ideas will always have consequences,good and bad — the more profound the idea, thegreater the tensions will be in assimilating theconsequences.New ideas and new knowledge are like the mutations that maintain a genetic pool. Most mutations disappear quickly; a few generate majorchanges, good or bad; some even threaten theviability of their community. However, withoutmutations, the living system stagnates and dies;mutations are its means to face the continual challenge of a changing world. In the same way, newknowledge is man's device to refresh and maintain the vitality of his intellect, his most effectivecapacity for adapting to change. This continualchallenge to man's intellectual world is the supreme function of basic research. It is the aspectof research which we assume underlies the commitment of The University of Chicago.We suppose that the University will continue tooperate according to the familiar basic intellectualstandards. The criteria of validity will continue tobe logic and observability. The criteria of valuewill continue to be the influence of the research onthe thinking of others, and the independence andoriginality of work and worker. We shall discussthe dilemmas created by trying to balance thesefactors, and, more broadly, the problems associated with fashion and public utility of research.Criteria. The first criterion is necessary but notsufficient, and applies to research of any kind: Tohave any intellectual worth, the work must be rational. Illogical work is valueless as research. Thesecond criterion applies not only to the rationalworld of research but, in part, to creative work ofany kind. The value of a person's effort is measured by how much it ultimately influences thethinking of others. How much do my ideas shapethe way others after me look at themselves andtheir place in the universe? This criterion super sedes all others in the biological and physical sciences and dominates basic research in the socialsciences and humanities. Even in mathematicsand the arts, where aesthetic values play important roles, intellectual or conceptual impact remains a powerful judgmental factor. AlthoughPablo Picasso and James Joyce are importantpartly because of the pleasures we take from theirindividual works, they, like Max Weber, SigmundFreud, and Albert Einstein are giants becausethey have had so much influence on our way ofthinking about ourselves and our universe.In practice, we seldom recognize and respondimmediately to new ideas. Ideas and their consequences spread like waves, at a finite velocity.The process of assimilating new conceptions usually works by outward growth, beginning with asmall inner group of experts. The departmentalstructure is the institutional expression of thisprocess. The University must judge people andideas that may have a wide impact only aftermany years; to meet this responsibility, it assumes that the most accurate guesses about a manor an idea will be made by the established expertsin that field.A characteristic of good basic research is itscapacity to open questions more than it answersthem, to create demand rather than satisify it.Trying to identify this character in work is easierthan trying to estimate its impact. Estimating thisquality is often useful in considerations of hiringand promotion. However there is the other implication, that there may be no expert capable ofevaluating a truly extraordinary piece of work.Some kinds of work are inherently inappropriate for the University, or even incompatiblewith its criteria and goals. The most obvious research of this sort is any which requires secrecy;such work is hidden from the critical scrutiny ofthe community and cannot be evaluated fairlyagainst the basic criteria. (What a man may do inhis own time away from the University is a matterof personal conscience. We do not address ourselves to the question of secret work in a time ofclear danger. We speak now of normal times, inside the University community.)More subtle problems of undesirable aspects ofresearch, such as its application for inhumanepurposes, or pressures for immediate socialchange, will concern us later. Here, we simplyrecognize that the goals and criteria of many ofthe people and institutions in our society are skewto our basic criteria for academic research. Sometimes this difference goes beyond skewness, evenbecoming direct conflict of interest; sometimes it9merely creates problems for balancing the allocation of effort and resources. Often, it threatens tocloud our perception of the larger goal and toinfluence our judgements.Consequences of the CommitmentWith the ground rules before us, we assume thepretensions of trying to examine the consequences of research, including those of the research itself and those of the commitment to theprocesses of doing basic research within the contexts of their operating criteria. The consequences for the rest of society is a topic far too vastfor this essay; we cannot altogether avoid thisarea, but we shall only discuss "outside" consequences in very restricted ways. Whether theyapply to the individual researcher, the universityor the outside world, the consequences of research can be sorted into three groups. Some consequences take the form of responsibilities andobligations; others are nearly inevitable effectswith which the individual, the university, or theoutside user must cope; others appear as theconflicts and dilemmas that arise when goals,criteria, or means come into contradiction.Consequences for the IndividualResponsibilities and Obligations. The most obvious and pervasive responsibility associated withdedication to research is the maintenance of one'sown standards. The standard of personal performance, of intellectual integrity, is in fact one ofthe most characteristic aspects of the intellectualmilieu; violation of this standard, as KennethBoulding has pointed out, is a taboo for academiastronger than the taboo against disloyalty in politics. Exceptions occur, but violators generallylose virtually all of their status.The companion standard, that of critical use ofperspective in the selection of one's objects ofstudy, is honored as a principle, but has far lessreal force across the whole academic field. Animportant characteristic of an institution dedicated to (and successful in) excellence in researchis a climate in which this sense of perspective is,in fact, pervasive. Sustaining this climate is a responsibility of the institution, but to maintain it,each participant must ask continually: "Whyshould I select this problem and not that one?Where will this work lead? How will it affect thethinking of others?"The senior members of the community have the responsibility to pass on the sense of the criteriaand perspective to junior people. The experiencedresearchers help to insure continued strength ofthe research by acting as models for students andyounger faculty.The maintenance of a vital research programand of the perspective to understand its worthcarries the companion responsibility to communicate. To do research for one's own amusementand edification without communicating the results, especially when someone else pays the bill,is obviously irresponsible. Communication withina research area is absolutely necessary for perpetuating and renewing the subject. Because ofthe manner in which the research world metes outrewards and recognition, and because most of usdo like to see our ideas have impact, researchersare rarely overly reluctant to publish. In fact, theexternal pressures, especially the pressures onnon-tenured faculty, may sometimes induce people to publish too much or too fast. Again, thelocal intellectual atmosphere has a very largeinfluence in setting the standards for professionalcommunication. Traditional departmental structures and the professional disciplinary journalsought to make it relatively easy to learn the rulesand standards.A second level of communication associatedwith research is one of conveying the information,the ideas, and the sense of why the work is worthdoing to graduate and undergraduate students.We live with the myth, hopefully a true one, thatthe transmission of knowledge is freshest andmost effective where new knowledge is beinggenerated. Studying man's ideas of the solar system ought to be more exciting if one knows thatone's professor is actually studying real moonrocks to expand our ideas about the solar system.This kind of communication is less rewarding inprofessional emoluments than writing researchpapers, but most people in universities derivegreat personal satisfaction from this process; it isan important reason to choose to work in a university rather than a research institute.The third level of communication is moredifficult and frequently less rewarding than thefirst two. This is communication to the community outside the university. Biological and physical scientists, particularly, do relatively little ofthis sort of writing or speaking. It is an open question, but not a trivial one, whether the researchcommunity has been too casual about its responsibilities to communicate to laymen. Does the recent public disaffection with basic research comein part from inadequate understanding of its10reasons for being and its processes? We do notmean to argue that the answer must be "yes"; aknowledgeable but unsympathetic public might beeven more antagonistic. Nevertheless, the inclination of an academic is to suppose that understanding generates sympathy, if the cause is good.We must also recognize that difficult class ofresponsibilities associated with research that hasclear implications of potential unpopular or harmful application. We classify these together because we believe that unpopularity and real harmneed not occur together. Merely unpopular consequences and truly harmful consequences notonly lie on a continuous scale, it is often impossible to distinguish between these extremes whenanyone first suspects the implications of the research. The hottest controversies often centeraround the degree to which those applications willbe truly harmful, as compared with being currently out of favor.The problem for the individual is partly one ofdisclosure. Should he neglect to communicate results that may be harmful? Is he obligated tocommunicate this information? Should the researcher go so far as to avoid doing research if itmay have harmful consequences? The criteriapresented in the introduction answer these questions in part. If we avoided research because itmight have harmful consequences, we wouldavoid research that would be likely to have anyconsequences. Even the most benevolently motivated health research can be used for evil orharmful purposes. It would be a repressive actindeed to try to prevent research on topics thatmight ever be harmful. As to the researcher's ownselection, so long as his own work is compatiblewith the criteria for basic university research, hemust feel free to choose as his intellect and hisconscience tell him. This especially true of unpopular topics, so long as they are intellectuallyhonest. Searching for ethnic and racial differencesis an obvious contemporary example. An individual should be free to carry on research in a fieldas stigmatized as this, just as long as his intellectual and ethical standards for this work are as highas we try to demand of all academic research.When results of research raise clear threats tohuman well-being, the question of responsibilityfor disclosure is more difficult. Leonardo da Vinciwithheld some of his findings from the ruler ofMilan because he feared for their consequences.By contrast, facing the threat of Hitler, LeoSzilard stimulated the famous letter from Einsteinto Roosevelt, pointing out the possibility of a nuclear fission bomb. It is easy for us to guess the response of the federal government if a DefenseDepartment grantee knowingly withheld information that could lead to a new weapon, if thatweapon were later to be developed elsewhere, bysomebody else. We incline toward the view thatthis must be a matter of personal conscience, because the alternative is inherently repressive.Does the researcher whose work has importanttechnological or social consequences have a responsibility to help guide the assimilation of thatwork? Sometimes the researcher's participationdevelops naturally, simply because he or she isthe best-informed expert on the topic. Morecommonly, ideas quickly detach themselves fromtheir source. When research involves patentableideas and has had external support, the researcherautomatically loses some control of his results. Assoon as a piece of work is known publicly, andespecially as soon as it has been described inprint, it develops an existence and a force of itsown. Yet we cannot acknowledge that we freeourselves of all responsibilities by publishing. We,the originators, are still likely to have more insightinto the implications of the new work than mostother people, at least for a little while. On theother hand, to say that we retain long-enduringobligations for interpreting our work would be intolerably crippling. Such a course would lockeach of us to the first field in which we had anyimpact. There must be a release clause implicit inour conceptions of responsibilities for our work.Effects on the Individual. The problematic effectsof research on the individual, and of theuniversity's commitment to excellence in research, include at first a trial by fire, and then aself-defeating burden. We take for granted thatthe audience for this essay is acutely aware of thepersonal edifying aspects of research and of itsemotional sides: the long periods of frustrationand tension that make one difficult to live with,the intense, brief thrills of discovery, the difficultyto put into words ideas that are not yet reallyclear, and the postpartem depressions that followthe birth of new works.The consequences we would pursue here aretwo, the effect on the individual of the intenseachievement orientation of the University and theeffect of personal success in research.Intense achievement orientation presumablyhas the salutary effect of encouraging excellencein all parts of the University. We know no otherway to maintain the kind of university thatChicago is. However, this condition may haveundesirable side effects for the individual that we11should recognize, whether or not we want to doanything about them. The first is the effect onjunior faculty of the need to show achievement:this need may inhibit young people from being asadventurous as they might in a less demandingsituation. It is a hazard for a young facultymember to gamble all his efforts on a line of workthat will show little or nothing until after four orfive years. The modern first- rank research university is not a comfortable home for the junior person who chooses this style of slow gestation forhis work. We would like to believe that such aperson will have colleagues who can both recognize his achievements and potential and advisehim of the nature of his gamble.Achievement orientation has a lesser effect onthe selection of problems by senior people. Tenure effectively grants one the privilege of tryingout some ideas that may fail. The pressures ofachievement orientation perhaps discourage onefrom trying the chancy problems if more than oneor two hard tries have been unsuccessful. Theyalso are likely to inhibit people from making majorshifts in direction or in field. It is simply far easierto continue to find success where one has alreadyachieved it than somewhere far enough away thatone is not already known and accepted.Beyond the immediate consequence for the individual, the strong orientation toward achievement leads to the natural selection of people whothrive with this kind of pressure. They must havestrong senses of their own identities and worth.This means that the successful university becomes a collection of strong individuals, wherepersonalities and individual viewpoints abound.Group orientations and corporate personalitiesseem flaccid and rarely survive in the strongestuniversities.Teaching is strengthened, not weakened, by theachievement standards of vigorous individualists.The foremost danger here is not one of damagingclassroom teaching, but of installing thestereotype of the "empire builder" in the pejorative sense of the expression. The healthy counterpart of the empire builder is the stellar intellectwho creates and leads a school. Distinguishingbetween these two is only easy after it is too lateto matter. One does great harm to the universitycommunity by sapping its resources; the otherbrings great benefits for all the obvious reasons.We can m^ke no general rules here, accept thatthe faculty must exercise great care in distinguishing the two.The second effect we want to mention here, theeffect of success, like early timidity, is an in hibitor of change. Not only do the rewards continue to come in when one elaborates on one'seminent position in an accustomed field, peoplecome to rely on recognized expertise. This sort ofsuccess leads to calls for services that can quicklygrow to the point that they seriously sap one'scapacity for research. In some universities, thiskind of activity is considered as important asclassroom teaching and research. It is easy toargue that occasional consulting is valuable. Wewould certainly not argue for a ban on outsideadvising. However, a university such as TheUniversity of Chicago, depending on significantfrontier research for its eminence, cannot affordto have a large portion of its senior faculty members caught up in so much peripheral advisorywork, even for the most august bodies, that theybecome ineffective leaders for the on-campus research program.Consequences for the UniversityWhen the University makes a commitment to depend heavily on research for its reputation, it triesto put itself in the role of a Medici. It gambles thatit can select wisely and attract and hold peoplewho make a difference. It takes on a responsibility to provide a fertile environment in which thesepeople can work and grow, and to protect themagainst outside forces when necessary, and always to maintain an atmosphere in which thebasic intellectual criteria are pervasive. The University must be ready to meet new problems thatarise as society assimilates the results of its members' work. And it must find ways to maintainquality and continuity, especially when the society around it oscillates into a period of antagonismtoward universities and toward research. TheUniversity has a responsibility to this society,which it fulfills by doing a good job of transmittingand generating knowledge. Sadly, it is easy toforget that this responsibility is directed towardthe long-term concerns of the society and notnecessarily to the current ones.To have a viable program of research, the University must meet certain necessaryconditions — conditions that do not guarantee asuccessful program, but, without which, failure islikely. First, just to create a healthy program,there must be cohesive functional groups. Peoplein basic research who operate as well alone aswith colleagues exist, but they are rare. Far morecommonly, a functioning frontier research groupis greater than the sum of its parts. Thestimulation — which may be no more than frequentcriticism from a group of colleagues — with a12group of sufficient size raises the standards andthe performance of its members. What constitutes"sufficient" size is of course impossible to answerin general terms. This will depend on the personalities and interactions of the individuals, andon how the group is perceived by its members andby the outside world with which it interacts. Wedo not particularly subscribe to the simplistic notion of a "critical mass," but we assuredly dobelieve that the quality of a strong group can increase in a much faster than linear way with size.The epitome of the strong group is the "school,"whether a man functions as leader or a group ofpeers guide its direction.The strong professional research group must becharacterized by the ability to respond criticallyand to be sensitive toward new insights. Groupslacking either of these qualities, whose workreflects either an absence of rigor or growingscholasticism and stagnation ("protracted quiescence" is perhaps a more gentle euphemism) mustbe regarded with suspicion. We shall return in thenext section to this problem.Beyond the immediate group of professionalpeers, it is desirable that the university offer aninformal sounding board of intelligent, responsive, sometimes critical colleagues who can provide the nonprofessional's perspective. Socialscientists find this particularly important. Highlycompartmented universities with tight departmental lines do not offer this sort of interaction. Opportunities to discuss ideas across academic linescome more easily in a university with loose departmental boundaries. It helps if there are somepeople around who are particularly good at communicating their ideas to nonspecialists. They actas the catalysts. Certainly one must beware of glibmediocrity, but the benefits of having some well-selected, broadly oriented people is more thanworth the gamble.Once the requisite people have joined the university, the responsibilities of the institutionchange a bit. The university must of course beprepared to protect its scholars against illogicalpolitical attack, as during the era of JosephMcCarthy; it must also be prepared to protect itsscholars in other ways when their ideas (presumably meeting the basic criteria) are out of socialfavor, or are badly understood by virtue of beingfar ahead of their time. The first of these sorts ofprotection sounds far from the other two, but wehave seen in our own time how, in several othercountries, the second and third threats havemerged into the first, especially for people working in social science. There are other more professional protectionsthat the University must offer to sustain its commitment to research. One is to provide for itsscholars the luxury of having occasional failures.The kind of research most desirable for a university is to chance that some such failures are inevitable. Perhaps the man who never has a failureis likely to be doing things that are too well-known.The University must also provide the environment in which people have the opportunity to takelong views, to see subjects in perspective. This istrue for people in all fields, but it is especially aptfor the social scientists who have counterparts inpublic affairs. The public servant has no time tosee problems in terms beyond next week orperhaps next year; he and we need the advice ofpeople who look at long-term implications. Thequestion of how this happens, the integration ofinformation from research into public life, is itselfa serious problem to which members of the University could well devote some attention.The time to think is the most valuable day-today benefit that the University can provide for itsfaculty. The large faculty-to-student ratio, andthe attitude that the classroom lecture is not theonly way to learn, both make The University ofChicago a particularly favorable home for research. However, even at Chicago, the tentaclesof committees and minor commitments eventuallyentangle most of us. It is important to have theopportunity to cut off these connections occasionally and to learn again how to think hardabout one's research. The University has to provide this opportunity, or its senior faculty will degenerate into professional contract administrators.A different sort of responsibility for the University is the need to deal decently with peoplewho fail to continue to meet the University'sstandards of criteria for achievement. This problem goes deeply to the problems of money, naturally, yet it is not a problem of money alone. Individuals' values and orientations change with time,and people do sometimes move away from thesystem of values that characterizes the University. Presumably this sort of change is very rareduring the early years after one achieves tenure.Most people who lose interest in research do soafter years of active life in the University. Quiteclearly, for such people, ready access to a favorable early retirement plan is desirable. In particular, it is good to have a retirement program available to people when they are young enough to beattractive for positions in other sorts of institu-13tions.Another aspect of the responsibilities of theUniversity harks back to its protective role. Basicresearch is certainly a necessary component forcontinuing national activity in the development ofany kind of technology, whether it be weapons,artificial organs, pollution control, or weathermodification. Where is the University's responsibility concerning research for national or international "research and development"? Here, we return to the metaphor of the genetic pool: the research done in The University of Chicago shouldbe the element that refreshes that gene pool. Weshould be producing the seminal ideas. We shouldbe the collection of individuals whose role it is togo off by ourselves to find new paths. Because ofthe impressive efficiency of the Manhattan Project style for achieving well-defined goals, thepressures are heavy to adopt this style generally,even for ill-defined goals, and in situations wherethe Manhattan Project may be a very inappropriate model. The frontiers of knowledge, so faras we can tell, are still best explored by the wondering individual or the small and very independent group. (Only the Chinese experiment couldin time possibly raise doubts about this generalization, and for that, we must wait and see.)We may classify types of thinking as congruentor divergent. Congruent thinking is a rational extension of an existing framework; the great breaksand innovations come from divergent thinking.Pursuing an existing paradigm is clearly congruent thinking; creating a new paradigm requiresdivergence. The Manhattan Project style, or thecorporate style in general, thrives on congruentthinking. The ideal of the creative university researcher is the great innovator. The Universitycannot maintain this ideal if it accedes to pressures to adopt the project style generally.Other Effects on the UniversityThe consequences we have just discussed arerecognized as responsibilities by a large part ofthe community. Others are better called pressures; they are deemed responsibilities only byspecial interest groups. Let us now examine someof the pressures that the University must face as aconsequence of its commitment to research.Personnel. The first in natural sequence are thepressures associated with building and maintaining a strong faculty. The pressures here comefrom desires for growth and strength in every active research field, conflicting with the finite resources of the University and limited size for de partments. At the hiring stage, there are pressuresfor three kinds of appointments: senior luminarieswho bring reputations and sometimes groups ofpeople, and immediately enhance the reputationof the University in research; the young "risingstars" well known within subfields but not necessarily across the whole of an academic discipline;and the very young people, primarily on the evidence of their untested promise. The first of theseis felt especially when a discipline finds itselfwithout enough (sometimes without any) senior"wise men," on whose experience younger people can draw for advice. The second sounds veryattractive generally, but evaluations at this levelare often controversial and the market for clearlyrecognized young people with demonstratedabilities is very competitive. Hiring untested people can lead to two styles of operation; one requires selecting young people exceedingly carefully, with the intent to taking only those whoshow a high probability of doing research of note.The other leads to selecting at a higher risk level,but with the clear understanding that decisions ofrenewal and promotion must be made strictly.Pressures concerning hiring policy arisewhenever a university strives for quality by anystandard. However, the pressures associated witha research-oriented standard differ somewhatfrom those deriving from other standards, largelybecause of the high visibility and relatively easyevaluation of research. Both the ready evaluation(regardless of the accuracy of that judgment) andthe general visibility of research tend to spreadthe market values. At the more senior level, thebest-recognized and ablest people stand out andare in far greater demand than are the ablest college teachers, to pick one example. Correspondingly, the university with a commitment to research is doubtless under continual pressure tohire senior people as high up the scale of publicrenown as it can afford. At its crassest level, hiring according to these pressures takes the form ofhiring a person because of his ability to bring people or equipment, or even because of his ability toget grant funds.It is worth speculating on how effective suchpressures are in enhancing the University's contribution to new human knowledge over the longterm. Sometimes renowned senior people interacteffectively with their colleagues at the level of research; when this happens, hiring for eminencesatisfies its most immediate goal. Other times,senior people have sufficient momentum withinthe groups they bring that they interact very littlewith their colleagues at the level of current re-14search. If this kind of interaction was the aim inmind when the university hired the new person,then the act of hiring was unsuccessful. A department looking for a new senior member to playthe role of sage for its younger members clearlymust keep this problem in mind. There is, however, a longer-term and more indirect way inwhich adding an eminent senior person enhancesthe University's contributions in research. Thenew addition obviously adds to the University'simmediate reputation and to the current researchoutput that has the University's name attached— the "neon sign effect." We cannot really countthis as an enhancement because it, of itself, has nolasting value for the University, and the personhimself would do essentially the same research inone place or another. It is, rather, the secondaryconsequences of this neon sign effect that maygenerate real new strength in the University, evenif the new person himself does not interact effectively with his colleagues. These secondary consequences occur if more able research studentscome as the neon sign effect takes hold and generate the higher general level of intellectual activitythat is always associated with better students.Eventually, the University becomes more attractive to other prospective faculty members because of the quality of the students. In the longrun, then, hiring a senior person may help theUniversity in a fundamental way, even if the particular person fails to satisfy a near- term problem.At the other extreme, hiring junior people withthe understanding of the high associated risk mayenhance the University's strength in researchthrough the continual freshness that these peoplebring. The pressures to maintain very high qualityconflict with the tendency to accept and sometimes overvalue the work of those nearby. How tobalance these effects lies in the province of theCommittees dealing explicitly with hiring andpromotion policies. The magnitude of the problems themselves, and the criteria for evaluation ofeach individual, arise from the research commitment of the University. Two related aspects ofthe hiring of junior people do deserve explicitmention here. One is the problem of maintainingan atmosphere in which high aspirations of youngpeople are supported and enhanced, in the face ofa tight policy with respect to promotion and tenure. The other is the problem of keeping theUniversity an attractive place to work, in the eyesof candidates for junior positions. In a time of fewavailable jobs, this is not so much a problem; inother times, it can be very important for the University to provide the support and the atmosphere to give young faculty the best possible opportunities to do research, and environment that beststimulates their development. With such workingconditions, the University best enhances the jobopportunities of the people it does not keep, andthereby maximizes its attractiveness to other newpeople. The large conclusion thus appears oncemore: the best way to meet the problems of acommitment to research is to maintain an atmosphere conducive to the best possible research.Pressures to Use Expertise From Inside. Underthis general heading, we could examine severalkinds of problems, such as the pressures to develop research to conform to current patterns offunding or the pressures to expand existing centers of expertise to serve the public. We reservediscussion of the first of these for the next part ofthis Report. Here, we deal with the internal andexternal pressures, apart from funding, associatedwith expertise based on research.A research program develops a kind of momentum. Like objects moving according to the laws ofphysics, the larger the program, the more difficultit is to change its direction. One person canchange his interests almost instantly. A facultymember with several associated graduate studentscan only change direction as fast as the studentsmature and finish. A group with paidnonacademic employees has far greater inertia.Unquestionably, large groups with well-accepted expertise enhance the reputation of theUniversity. They grow naturally when the University "builds on strength." Such groups oftendemand heavy support from the University. It isimportant to call attention to two negative aspectsof large research groups. The lesser is the dangerof imbalances; it is sometimes easy to lose perspective on the breadth of a topic when one's associates work in the same subfield. This problemneed not be severe, so long as the researchers in astrong but limited area can keep broad enoughhorizons to remain effective teachers of their entire larger field. This is especially important forteaching at the undergraduate level. Keepingbroad horizons, retaining the ability to argue asubject from someone else's viewpoint, is not always easy. A faculty must be ready to correctnarrowness that can afflict a department built toomuch on the research strength of only one strongsubgroup.A more severe problem arises when themomentum of a group keeps it going beyond itsnatural productive life. Here is one of the consequences of research most difficult to face, yet one15of the very most important. There is no questionthat a strong group, active at one time on the frontiers of knowledge, can develop so much forwardmotion that the group continues to draw heavilyon the University long after its frontier contributions have ceased. When this phenomenon occursin a committee or other non-departmental structure, there is a ready mechanism to change thepattern: the University can discontinue the program. When the situation occurs in a department,especially in a university that gives a maximumresponsibility to its faculty, responding to theproblem can be excruciating. Yet as the University constantly examines the contributions of allits researchers, it must be especially mindful ofthose large, high-momentum groups whose verysize makes them susceptible to overextendingtheir existences and highly demanding of theUniversity's resources.The needs of large groups differ from those ofan individual. Size alone may sometimes makelarge groups develop a hunger for new material forresearch. This condition, which presumably begins when the group has drained its original subject of intellectual content (or support), may be akey indicator that it is time to reevaluate or turnoff the program. Naturally, one would not makerules to prohibit vigorous groups from seekingnew directions. Redirecting a group's efforts isclearly a good thing if it can be done in a way thatkeeps the group on the intellectual frontier. Thehunger to continue to exist, however, may overcome the capacity to judge ideas. When this happens, the group must inevitably decay and deserves to be discarded as rapidly as possible.Pressures to overextend its life are reinforcedwhen the growth of a group has been part of anational trend; then a competition arises amongdifferent institutions to have the best of the groupsaccording to the private rules of the circle of participants.What we have just described is of course thefrequently recognized but rarely resolved problemof the degeneration of a scholarly area. What begins as a field where increasing knowledge willchange man's viewpoint eventually may evolveinto rococo embellishment. The field becomes aglass bead game, with the rules and values setonly by the players themselves. The physical andbiological sciences may be especially susceptibleto becoming rococo, insofar as any successful advance in these sciences has a validity that closesoff alternative views unless they can penetratebeyond the first advance. After the big step, onlysmaller steps are possible. The social sciences, and still more, the humanities, have much moreroom for parallel and alternative developments ofa topic. This only means that the natural scientistsmust be the most careful of us all to guard againstscholasticism.The most extreme examples of large researchinstitutions attached to the University are the Ar-gonne National Laboratory and La Rabida Hospital. The reasons given for continuing connectionswith the University are the desirability of closecontact for the researchers at both places, the desirability of a University watchdog to help maintain the quality of the peripheral institution, and ofcourse the funds that come to the University forbeing a manager. We raise two questions here thatwe think should be asked and answered over andover again. Does the net effect of managing alarge peripheral institution sap the strength of theUniversity? Is the University bearing responsibility without holding the corresponding authority?If the answer to either question is "yes," then theUniversity should change its relationship to theperipheral institution. The history of theUniversity's management of Argonne suggeststhat the answer to the second question has probably been "no," but that the University has had tobe vigilant and even aggressive to maintain itsshare of authority.Pressures to Use Expertise From Outside.Pressures from the outside community, apartfrom funding institutions, often come stated as responsibilities to use expertise.Several examples serve to illustrate these pressures. The researcher in a frontier research program often sees many necessary steps between anew advance in his laboratory and the successfulapplication of his finding in society. Yet societyoften calls fervently on the researcher, especiallya health scientist, to make his new advance available at once.Does this pressure induce researchers to makepremature clinical use of research? Apparently, inmost well-run, research-oriented medical schools(or universities), the general ethic prevents suchoccurrences. The most likely situation in whichthe problem may occur is one in which thesocietal pressures come from an institution, especially a governmental institution, rather than fromindividuals. Then, of course, financial pressuresmay be applied. This is the situation in which theUniversity, because of its expertise, is calledupon to serve some social role. Sometimes theUniversity can respond in a way that enhances itsresearch program. In such cases, individuals in16the university are sometimes the first to suggestthe program. When this symbiosis can be established, it deserves high praise and encouragement. At the other end of the scale are the situations in which the service role sought by the outside institution is incompatible with the researchprogram, the resources, or the criteria of the University. For example, it may involve classifiedwork, or it may involve neglecting some sociallyunpopular but possibly significant aspect of aproblem. These are difficult situations indeed.Panglossian optimism falls back on the rule ofreason: if the University's role is made clearenough to the people applying the pressure, thenthey will realize that a few places must be left tofill that role and withdraw their pressures. If thepressures call for actions by the University inclear conflict with the basic criteria of its researchcommitment, then the University must resistthese pressures even at serious financial cost.Real situations will rarely create direct conflicts;more often, responding to the pressures wouldweaken the University's capacity to meet the responsibilities or other pressures associated withresearch. In these cases, the University must actin its long-term self-interest. Compromise infulfilling responsibilities to its researchersweakens the ability of the University to attractand hold first- rank researchers. Without the workof these people, the society would have no specialprograms to want.Other socially useful programs are based on asymbiosis between the University and other partsof society. The Reproductive Counseling Centerand the program on Criminal Justice have thischaracter. Naturally programs of this kind arisemore naturally in professional schools than inphysics or history of philosophy, in fields of assimilative research more than in fields of generative research. When they arise naturally fromwork of the faculty and are compatible with thecriteria for research, the social programs arehighly desirable. However, the University as aninstitution of social service makes its special contributions in the form of long-range impacts. Diffusing its efforts into working toward immediatesocial goals could well threaten the University'scapabilities for doing what it can do best.What of the rare discovery of a substance or adevice that could be both useful andprofit-making? The extreme responses to the dilemma of involvement are represented by theUniversity that remains aloof to avoid associationwith something that may have undesirable (even ifunforeseen) consequences, and the active Uni versity that participates in development because itmay produce profits. Some well-known successstories as well as failures and embarrassmentshave occurred at other Universities. We wouldlike very much to see the University derivefinancial benefits from the research it supportsand, therefore, hope very much that ways can bekept open for University participation in patentsand in patent licensing. On the other hand, thescreening process that the University should usemust be extremely severe; the University simplycannot afford to be the patent-holder for anotherthalidomide. This means a case-by-case examination. One general guideline might, for example, befor the University to be far more reluctant to takeresponsibility for a new synthetic substance thanfor a new way of preparing a known and provensubstance. As in the case of social programs, wemust add the caveat that these potential participations must arise as by-products of the real research of the University; doing developmental research for profit is not compatible with the criteriafor University research.Whether it deals with social programs or usefulsubstances and processes, the University facesthe problem of eventual loss of control over theresults of its own scholarly work. We can onlyrepeat the viewpoint we stated previously, thatideas of value inevitably have consequences thattake them out of the control of their originators.We feel that it is less morally responsible and lesscourageous to dissociate oneself automatically, asfast as possible, from each new idea, than to beflexible and sensitive enough to recognize and follow the occasional idea whose pursuance carriessome special value for the University.Effects of the Demand for MoneyThe increase in funds for research has unquestionably enlarged the power of the individual researcher. This is true of the social sciences andthe humanities, as well as of the sciences wherethe funds and their effects are probably more visible. The consequence of this expanded capabilityhas been a corresponding increase in our expectations of achievement. We have more powerfultools and therefore attack more difficult problemsthan we could before World War II. Even thecapacity to travel has made an important difference in the level of research.Having money has been, on the whole, a verygood thing for the researcher and for the growth ofhuman knowledge. This part of our Report focuses on the problems that arise from trying to17adapt to this new level of research, and to theevolving relationship between the sources ofmoney and the recipients. Addressing ourselveshere to negative aspects of the issue, we do notwant to forget that the problems exist because of away of dealing with research that we have approved, accepted, and encouraged.Some the the problems associated withfinancing research were the subject of the Reportof the Committee on Federal Grants and Contracts at The University of Chicago, June 13, 1969(the Bennett Report). The conclusions of this report were generally favorable: government funds,in the form of grants and fellowships, added to theoverall strength of the University and especiallyto its capacity for research. There were someproblems due to imbalance, but these were notserious so long as they were recognized; overall,The Committee concludes that federalgrants and contracts, supporting about one-third of the work at The University ofChicago, have farreaching influences on universities including The University of Chicago,most of them beneficent in nature, (p. 84)The Bennett Report raised questions explicitlyconcerning secrecy, concerning the source of thestimuli for granting proposals, and concerningpressures from government agencies toward "result oriented" federal granting programs. In 1969,the Bennett Committee was able to report thatthey felt the University was able and should continue to ensure that there would be no secret workcarried out on the campus, that the grant proposals do originate with faculty members as theyshould, and that untoward pressures from result-oriented programs would not divert research atthe University from its proper direction and style.The most obvious change since 1969 is thegrowing unreliability of federal funding. The cutbacks in support for specific programs shook theacademic community into acute awareness of thedangers of relying on grants to pay for salaries andother long-term commitments. Presumably universities now realize the vulnerability that comeswith heavy federal funding. We recommend thatthe University administration be prepared (if it isnot already) with frequent revised contingencyplans for responding to changes in the availabilityof funds. We see no reason to refuse short-termfunding, so long as it is done with some thought ofwhat will happen when the funds are no longerthere; every short-term project should include theplans for its own demise. During the late 1960s and early 1970s about one-third of the funds for faculty salaries in the Biological and Physical Sciences came from the federal government. In the Social Sciences the figuredropped from about 27 percent in 1968-69 to about18.5 percent in 1971-72. The Business Schoolfigure increased in this period from 8 percent toover 14 percent.(Federal support made up a large fraction offaculty salaries in the Library School, the Schoolof Education, and especially the School of SocialServices in the period 1968-72, but these fundswere not research funds.) Other parts of theUniversity — the College, the Humanities Division, the Divinity School, and the Law School— have had very little or no faculty salary moneycoming from federal sources. Clearly, the SocialSciences, the Physical Sciences, and the Biological Sciences have been the areas most vulnerableto the caprices of political decisions. (It is ironicthat the Physical and Biological Sciences havebeen in this role, in view of their relatively apolitical subject matter.)Changing patterns of government funding makeunrestricted contributions to the University seemeven more valuable than they ever were before.We hardly need point out how this makes the roleof the Development Office particularly importantfor the stability of the University.Since 1969, attitudes toward research, especially in funding agencies, has oscillated awayfrom the happy acceptance of the researcher's initiative judgment and responsibility for contentand methods of research programs. With pressures to use federal research funds for short-termproblems, there came a reduction in the growth oreven in the absolute amounts of money for basicresearch, and a less tolerant attitude toward thenearly total freedom of the able researcher tochoose and guide his program. In 1973, we areforced to deal with pressures on research fromfunding agencies that could be treated relativelycasually four years earlier.The reduction in research funding was not atotal surprise. Studies by the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD) indicate that nations at the same level ofdevelopment tend to spend about the same percentage of their gross national product on research, basic and applied. The United States waswell above this figure during the late 1950s and1960s, so that the recent reductions could be considered natural readjustments. However naturalthey may be, these changes nonetheless generatea situation in which some very unpleasant short-18and long-term problems now face the Universitybecause of its commitment to basic research.One aspect of the pattern illustrates how far thechanging attitudes toward research have permeated. Restrictions on charitable deductions, forexample, could quickly dry up funding by privatefoundations and certainly reduce the number ofpotential sources of research funds. Requirements that foundations spend most or all of theircurrent incomes could, of course, increase immediate funding of research and correct misusesof trusts and foundations, but such restrictionscould also make foundations more reluctant tocommit themselves to long-term programs.A reduction occurred in the number of sourcesof funding for basic research, as many federalagencies spent their research funds for immediateproblems. This, in turn, reduced the inherent stability of the funding program for basic researchsimply by making the system subject to largefluctuations when one agency changes policy.The problem of stability will always be a centralone for basic research. The Bennett Report wasfully cognizant of the difficulty of carrying outbasic research when the funds are only secure onan annual basis. "Physics in Perspective," theBromley Report, was likewise written with anacute sensitivity to this problem. Some government agencies, the National Science Foundationin particular, have responded to the problem withthe creation of continuing grants. The career development grants and training grants from the National Institutes of Health have met and will meetthis problem very effectively — so long as theyexist — but these grants will not continue beyond1975, according to present federal plans. The nettrend seems to be away from long-term stability,both by elimination of programs with inherentlong-term stability, and because of a problem wemust discuss more, the problem of the direct control of funding by agencies subject to capriciousredirection of policies.Too frequent or too sudden changes of policymay be doing severe harm to the nation's scienceand technology. It has now become extremelyimportant to study how research and employmentrespond to funding changes. There are indicationsthat the pattern may be the very dangerous one ofunstable oscillation, in which employment and research rise further above and fall further belowtheir average levels with each successive crestand trough of support. If this is in fact the case,then we surely must try to change the situation.Funding by federal agencies has changed inseveral ways, apart from the amount of available money and the number of sources. There hasbeen a trend toward more direct guidance of research, toward more formalized short-term responsibilities on the part of the University and theresearcher, and toward control of the way research is carried out. All of these at very leastcreate problems and may become inimical to theUniversity's program of basic research.The trend toward specific goals is exemplifiedby the shift in funds within the National Institutesof Health, away from general medicine and abroad program of research, toward heavy emphasis on research on cancer and heart disease.The pattern is presumably based on extrapolations from the successes of the Manhattan Projectand the NASA Program — but, we fear, withoutfull realization of why these large-scale, goal-oriented projects were successful and others,such as the breeder reactor program and the nuclear fusion program, have not been.Whether or not the new pattern is appropriatefor a national health program (and we think it isnot), the emphasis on one or two specific goals inan area with a broad spectrum of problems hasseveral destabilizing effects. The funding patterninevitably requires cuts in existing and often successful programs. The people attracted to thenewly-supported field tend to be those least committed to another problem and, therefore, to bepeople who have lateral mobility because theyhave had difficulty getting funds. Correspondingly, the people with effective programs in otherareas are unwilling to move casually into areaswhere they will be less effective; they are thepeople whose research suffers most. The net results of this pattern, particularly when it occursfirst with one faddish problem and then withanother, is to reward the superficial and punishthe serious and deeply committed worker. Forthese reasons, we believe that such short-term,goal-oriented research is ultimately in conflictwith the criteria for the University's research andshould be resisted by individuals and by the University.Governmental requirements of more formal actions on the part of the University and the researcher started with requirements for explicitstatements of the University's financial contribution in each research proposal. This particular requirement is more ironic than burdensome, inlight of the many analyses (including the BennettReport) that show that federal research grants touniversities do not cover the costs of the researchprograms. The University and the researcher mayreduce the likelihood that a proposal be fully19funded by making a truthful statement of theUniversity' s real contribution to the proposedresearch — instead of a pro forma list addingroughly to a predetermined percentage of thetotal requested amount.Formal requirements become far morethreatening when they reach the extreme nowdisplayed by the operating procedures of the Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) program of the National Science Foundation. TheRANN proposal is supposed to commit the researcher to a time schedule that would be incompatible with any real basic research deserving ofthe name. No real research could be programmedwith the three- or six-month steps of progress expected in a RANN project. The inherent character of research, questioning more than answering,makes it antithetical to the notion of a productiondeadline. Yet the University is now faced with thepotential that much of the available money fornew research on important social issues will comewith such conditions. (The more traditional funding programs have not adopted this policy.) It willbe up to the individual researcher to make clear tothe funding agencies just what kind of regular reporting can be expected, what can be hoped for bythe researcher, and what must be left to thenatural vagaries of the research work itself. Onlyif the best researchers are, as a body, ready toclarify the problem to funding agency personneland to continue to insist on maintaining conditionscompatible with basic research, only then willfundamental ideas come from the new funding.Even more threatening than production deadlines are moves toward agency direction of theexecution of research. This is again evident inRANN, and to some degree in the Material Research Program of NSF. Suggestions, advice,comments, and additional information are alwayshelpful to the researcher. However, it is unthinkable that a researcher worthy of his position is lessable to plan and guide his research program thanan administrator in a funding office, whose function includes the monitoring of some large numberof programs. Even the ablest administrator cannotand should not be expected to think through anyof the projects he monitors to the depth thatwould qualify him to direct it. When the researcher surrenders the direction of his work to afunding agency, he gives up the responsibility thatjustifies his claim to his role and his position.When the agency takes upon itself the job of directing individual research programs, the agencyundermines the research program it is supposed tobe protecting, and it may force itself to neglect its proper responsibilities at the same time. Assuredly the act of selecting proposals to fund or ofsetting an amount of funds for a grant is a directive act, but only in the broadest, weakest sensethat the agency is setting constraints, boundaries,or negative conditions. This kind of "directing" isobviously necessary for any program with finitefunds. Our criticism refers to the more active kindof directing, in which an agency selects whichthings should be done, rather than saying thatsuch-and-such can't be done because it costsmore than the agency can afford. Even the so-called "training component" required of somenew federal grants steps a bit beyond the traditional, tolerable, passive role of the agencies: itadds a constraint that could be manipulated by anagency or an accounting officer in a manner incompatible with the University's criteria for research and perhaps even in conflict with the waythe research programs and the teaching programsof the University integrate.One aspect of the tendency of agencies to guideresearch deserves to be singled out for specialmention. We do this partly because of its particular opposition to the style of work traditional atThe University of Chicago, and partly becausewe interpret it as symptomatic of the problem ofpressures due to fads. This is the pressure fromagencies for researchers to work in groups, interdisciplinary combinations, or, in the most faddishterm of all, consortia. We mentioned previouslythe way the success of the Manhattan Project andNASA encouraged the creation of other massiveefforts. The impression grew somehow thatlarge-scale projects with many senior participantswould assuredly be better for doing difficult andimportant research than projects carried out byindividuals. In reality, there are some examples inwhich a relatively large group was able to do farmore than one individual might; an example is thestudy of the social health of the United Statespopulation, done at The University of Chicago.However, innumerable other examples have depended on the seminal work of one individual, orof one individual and his students. It is simplyfoolish to suppose that because a project is largeor interdisciplinary, it is necessarily better than aproject carried out by one leader and a few students. There is no logical connection between sizeor breadth and quality. Fortunately, there hasbegun to be a recognition of this fact in some funding agencies that were previously carried awaywith the notion of consortia. The conflict at TheUniversity of Chicago would have become particularly acute because of two factors more20characteristic of this University than any other inAmerica. One is the degree to which the individual faculty member is free to choose the research and teaching program he thinks best andwith this, the individual onus to contribute tohuman knowledge that each faculty member carries. The other is the loose structure that encourages informal cooperations without the necessityof creating a formal program. The pressure tohave formal cooperation thus acts against the tendency toward individual responsibility, on onehand, and against the highly desirable informalmeans of interaction on the other hand.The ResponseResponding to pressure, especially to pressuresfrom funding agencies in times of financial contraction, is painful. This Committee has tried toconsider some ways to meet immediate problemsand possibilities to smooth the similar problemsthat must eventually occur in the more distant future. We fear that we have been more adept atrecognizing and perhaps in dissecting problemsthan in resolving them. Nevertheless, perhaps wecan at least advance the dialogue.First, facing contractions, we immediately recognize that the University is, proportionately,thrown more and more on its own private resources. The increasingly limited funds simplyrequire more careful selection in the allocation ofthese resources.There is a temptation to think in terms of absolute totals when one examines the funds for research. This is not always the most useful approach when one is faced with readjusting allocations. It is better to look at the marginal cost ofresearch programs to decide which areas wouldsuffer least by cutbacks and which must retaintheir present level of support or collapse altogether. This kind of thinking helps when onetries to compare the support of a physics facilitywhere a large capital investment exists, and a linguistic study that may involve only travel expenses and time.In the competition for University funds, it isinevitable that some areas must be given relatively larger allocations than others. The problemhere can be phrased as one of how to select amongseemingly different areas, where the researchgoals and methods may differ widely. Here, wesuggest that decisions could well involve groupsspanning ranges larger than those of the traditional academic departments. For example, tenure appointments and promotions might be acted on by divisional committees (as they are alreadyin Social Sciences), rather than only by departmental committees. This would have the effect ofputting one field in overt competition withanother, when appointments are limited. The research a man does in a field would have to satisfynot only the intrinsic qualifications acceptable to adepartmental committee, but the extrinsicqualifications of an interdisciplinary committee aswell. Another way of getting a sort of interdepartmental comparison would be through theuse of divisional visiting committees, distinctfrom the departmental visiting committees.In the process of paring, the question arises asto whether the University should maintain a department or subfield for purposes of breadth andbalance in the teaching program, if that department or subfield turns out to have withered, insome sense, to a substandard condition. Based onthe research orientation of The University ofChicago, our answer is "no." We should beready, even eager, to encourage our students touse facilities at other places where those facilitiesare clearly superior to our own. By being selectiveabout what we will accept, but by encouraging theuse of the strengths of other institutions, we makeit easier for our University to pass through astraitened period maintaining excellence in whatever we can. Considerable fortitude is required tolet a weak area disappear, and it is important tohold onto the expectation of rebuilding all thoseareas eventually. By sharing our strengths withother universities and letting them use ours, wecan hopefully help to husband enough resourcesto keep most areas active at the frontiers of scholarship.Sharing applies not only to intellectual disciplines. It applies to hardware as well. We shouldmake considerable more effective use of theequipment already on campus by finding ways ofsharing, and even of establishing exchange or loanpools among other universities in the immediateregion. Even the simple waste associated withbuilding renovation — junking filing cabinets,desks, and tables — seems to us an unwise policyin general, and especially in a time of tightfinancing.The problem of rigidity toward reallocationmight be helped in some areas if there were morereliance on transient interest groups, structureseven more informal and less structured thancommittees, created for purposes of discussionand study of a field. Even more of this activitythan now exists in the University might help in theevaluation process of allocating resources.21Now, a point regarding personnel: in a timewhen all universities face problems similar toours, we recognize the difficulties of supportingnew faculty. We would like to point out a fact ofwhich the readers of this Report are alreadyaware. The market in faculty is a buyer's market.It is still a time when the University might be ableto fare unusually well toward meeting some of theresponsibilities and pressures concerning staffingwhich we discussed earlier. We therefore urgethat the University consider a deliberate policy ofactive hiring now, with the intent of reducing itsrate of hiring at a later period when the market ismore competitive.The University is the one institution in our society that has a responsibility to look dispassionately at the long-term problems of man's worldand his changing role in this world. The problemsof the consequences of research can be construedas the problems of assimilating and adapting to theprocesses of rational inquiry. The very examination of these problems, fits the criteria for research and thus is an intellectual process appropriate for the University. It would be fitting forthe University to assume this responsibility in anexplicit way, by creating a kind of forum to examine the relationship of research and the societyit serves, both in terms of adapting to the processand assimilating the results. (There have been occasional courses and seminars in this area.) Creation of a continuing forum in the University hasbeen discussed before, many times, many places,and many forms. But the fact that such ideas havebeen suggested before in no way weakens thecase. Rather, we raise the question now as towhether the idea has come of age and should beimplemented. Our suggestion here is only a general one; we do not propose to specify whetherthis forum should be a loose interest group, aprogram of some existing body within the University, or the focus of some new structure. We do,however, urge that establishing such a forum beexamined.Gary BeckerR. Stephen Berry (Chairman)David CurrieJarl E. DyrudAllan GibbardPhillipe SchmitterDonald F. SteinerRichard SternRobert Wilson AppendixI am delighted you have agreed to serve on acommittee with R. Stephen Berry as chairman totry to think through and to write an essay on thegeneral subject of "The Consequences of Research."The essay will be one in a series dealing withthe important problems now facing The University of Chicago — essays which attempt to tell ushow to think about these subjects, what the important ideas are, how to think about them.The subject of "The Consequences of Research," of course, is one which is much discussedthese days and with a much more skepticaltone than would have been the case, I think, whenour University was founded. Moreover, there isthe paradox that when our University wasfounded with its heavy original emphasis on research, perhaps that idea was more acceptablethan today when, because of the governmentalway of financing research for so many faculty andgraduate students in so many universities, a muchsharper distinction is drawn between educationand research and research itself appears tied upwith all kinds of governmental problems. And, aswe know, research itself is held responsible formany of the ills of the society, either for causingthem or for not curing them.I would not want to suggest the direction orscope of the essay. Perhaps it is not inappropriatefor me to mention that the subject seems to havetwo large questions in it: (1) the effect of researchon the society or the individuals in it, and theresponsibility for those effects; (2) the demands ofresearch for money and talent and the effect ofthis on other kinds of activities, including otherresearch and education. As to question one, Isuppose one can ask whether this is a universityor an individual responsibility and what assumptions are to be made about the discovery of truthor devices. But since all discoveries are notequally important and since we have moved into aperiod where some discoveries require an enormous amount of resources, I suppose question twocomes into play. How does one or a university orsociety decide which is most important. Alongwith this, I suppose, questions are always askedabout the distortions of particular kinds of research both on the career of the investigator andin any event on the academic institution. As Ihave implied, one can turn these questions aroundand, putting the needs of society on one side, askwhether there is a responsibility to equate thepriorities of research to meet these needs on theother side. This is, at least, a popular conception22as of the moment. In any event, this is a periodwhen intelligent scholars have been heard toargue that there should be a moratorium on research, or particular kinds of research; and thereseems to be afloat the notion that, so far as socialproblems are concerned, the thing to do is to forceinvestigators and institutions into types of practical action on the theory that chance and the judgment of success or competition will best determine and bring about the desired outcome, ratherthan the support of "basic" research.My hope is that the Committee will approachsuch problems as it decides to take up from thestandpoint of this University rather than universities in general or research institutes in general.Our experience is that in some sense the chairman of the Committee has to play the major rolein writing the essay, since an essay by a committee is a difficult matter, but the essay shouldreflect the thoughts of the Committee and Committee members should feel free to write their ownadditions. One of the more successful essays hasresulted from a sharing of the writing among particular members for particular parts. The Committee should find its own most successful way ofworking.The essays which are not being worked upon orOctober 1974Norman Bradburn, whose talk to enteringgraduate students I am happy to introduce, is analumnus of the College of The University ofChicago with accomplishments and contributionsthat must make the College swell in corporatepride. After a few post-college years at someother institutions — I understand they were Oxford and Harvard — the young Norman Bradburnreturned to The University of Chicago in doubleduty: a faculty position and a Senior Study Direc- have been completed are as follows: Federal AidPriorities; Problems and Scope of GraduateWork; Teaching; Opportunities in Broadcasting;Extension; The Character and Implications of theFaculty Contract and Faculty Relationship to theUniversity; The Relationship Between theUniversity's Academic Programs and the Intended Effect of These Programs Upon the Student; The Role of Private Giving; Tradition andInnovation; Incentives and Collective Strength;Faculty Search Procedures; Tuition; The AppliedSciences and the Applied Arts; The Autonomyand Direction of the University; The Whole andIts Parts: Priorities, Outside Forces, and theMaximization of Strength; Philanthropy; Part-time Students; and Values and Morality.I know Mr. Berry will be in touch with you toarrange an initial meeting of the Committee. Thesubject is a most important one. I know theCommittee will not be constrained in any way bythe observations I have made above; it should notbe. I am most grateful for your acceptance.Sincerely,Edward H. Levitorship at the National Opinion Research Center.His activities since then have combined scholarship of high, innovative quality and inspired leadership of teaching and research — at NORC, in theGraduate School of Business, in the Social Sciences Collegiate Division, and now in the newDepartment of Behavioral Sciences.Professor Bradburn' s research is specific butnot parochial; it is wonderfully informed bytheory and a stimulus for fresh theory, yet itselfnot abstractly speculative. His work is daring andsolid, paradoxical though that may sound. HowTHE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY AND THENEW DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESRemarks by NORMAN M. BRADBURN23else can one describe serious study of personalhappiness by carefully asking people about theirsense of well-being . . . and then finding consistent, but unexpected, structure in the responses?Psychological adjustment, racial integration, andremarkably careful attention to non-samplingerror structure for sample surveys: these are threeout of Norman Bradburn' s many areas of concernand research.It is time to hear his own voice. You will findmy praise illustrated in the talk that follows, a talkthat might have been a pedestrian, perfunctorylisting of requirements and schedules, but that isinstead a tapestry of integrated intellectual history. Lucky entering graduate students to have solucid an introduction.William KruskalDean, Division of the Social SciencesI welcome you today as the first class of graduatestudents to enter the Department of BehavioralSciences. The Department came formally into existence during the academic year 1973-74 andbegan accepting students for matriculation in theAutumn Quarter, 1974. The Department differsfrom most others at The University of Chicago inthat it consists of five separate committees, eachof which offers a curriculum leading to the PhDdegree. The five committees are: (1) the Committee on Biopsychology, (2) the Committee on Cognition and Communication, (3) the Committee onHuman Development, (4) the Committee onMethodology of Behavioral Research, and (5) theCommittee on Social and OrganizationalPsychology.The committees differ in their subject matters,their theoretical approaches, and to some extenttheir methodologies, but they are held together bya common concern for understanding man's behavior. We are, to quote President Harper, "onein spirit, not necessarily in opinion."This diversity of opinion and our apparent radical departure from the form of organizationcharacteristic of traditional academic departmentsmight lead one to think that we have broken ourlinks with American psychological traditions orwith the field of psychology as it has been knownfor the past 80 years at The University ofChicago. However, I believe that the new Department is in fact the logical development of an approach to the study of behavior that has beenpresent at this University from its very beginning.The present structure of the Department can beviewed as a reflection, in more formal organizational ways, of the major theoretical perspectivedeveloped by the early psychologists at Chicago.To demonstrate this point, let me review with youthe beginnings of psychology at Chicago.A good place to start is volume 1 , number 1 , ofthe Psychological Bulletin, which appeared onJanuary 15, 1904. The leading article of that issueis by William James. It is entitled "The ChicagoSchool" and is a review of papers by JohnDewey, James Rowland Angell, George HerbertMead, and A. W. Moore which had recently appeared in the Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago. In the article James wrote:The rest of the world has made merry over theChicago man's legendary saying that "Chicagohasn't had time to get around to culture yet,but when she does strike her, she'll make herhum." Already the prophecy is fulfilling itselfin a dazzling manner. Chicago has a School ofThought! — a school of thought which, it is safeto predict, will figure in literature as the Schoolof Chicago for 25 years to come.The emergence of the "Chicago School ofFunctional Psychology," as it has come to becalled in histories of psychology, was an important event in the development of psychology inthe United States. The group of scholars at theUniversity around the turn of the century were byvirtue of both their own research and writings andthose of their students, extremely influential inshaping modern psychology. Indeed, E. G. Boring, in his History of Experimental Psychology,takes the view that functional psychology isAmerican psychology.How did this school come into being, and whatwere the ideas that proved to be so influential,ideas that I believe we can see today represented,albeit in a modified form, in the committees thatmake up the new Department of Behavioral Sciences? In the beginning there was no Departmentof Psychology; indeed, there was still no Department of Psychology when the papers reviewed byJames were published. The organization of fieldsof knowledge was of some concern to PresidentHarper, but he was much more concerned withrecruiting first-rate scholars to be "head professors" and encouraging them to build up a group ofsimilarly talented men and women, organizing departments in whatever manner was most conge-24nial to their subject matters. Harper's first attempt at securing a psychology professor provedto be one of his few failures, a failure due in partto Harper's lack of concern for organizational details when they got in the way of securing theservices of professors he wanted. The manHarper wanted, Clarence L. Herrick, was abiologist, interested in psychology, who wantedto form an interdisciplinary Department ofNeurology and Comparative Psychology. In amemo, extraordinary for its day, Herrick outlinedhis conception of a department that would includesections on comparative neurology, physiologicalpsychology, and comparative psychology, and insisted that such a department must be under thegeneral Department of Biology.Harper, however, was engaged at the sametime in recruiting a group of scientists from ClarkUniversity. These included the biologist C. O.Whitman and the neurologist H. H. Donaldson.When it became clear that the Whitman groupwould dominate biology and that Harper was alsohiring others — notably C. A. Strong from Clark,who was interested in physiological psychologywithin a more traditional association withphilosophy — Herrick declined the offer to join theoriginal Chicago faculty.The collapse of the negotiations with Herrickmeant that psychology at Chicago developed initially as it had at other universities, that is, withinthe context of a Department of Philosophy.Strong came to Chicago in 1892. In 1893, thePsychological Laboratory was founded, andJames Rowland Angell, who had been a studentof both Dewey and James, joined the faculty as itsfirst director. The Psychological Laboratory wasoriginally located in two rooms on the third floorof Ryerson Hall adjoining the PhysiologicalLaboratory. The Annual Register for 1894 notedthat "The darkroom on the same floor, belongingto the department of physics, is available for experiments on vision." In a few years the Laboratory had expanded and moved to the first andfourth floors of the Anatomy Building. The history of subsequent periods — down to the presentday, I might add — shows a constant flow of complaints about the inadequacy of space allotted topsychological laboratories on campus.In 1894, Dewey himself came from Michigan tobe head Professor and George Herbert Meadcame as an Assistant Professor. Dewey was 35,Mead 31, and Angell 25. The ferment began.Boring dates the formation of a school of func-tionalism at Chicago with the publication in 1896of Dewey ' s famous paper, "The Reflex Arc Con cept in Psychology," in which Dewey criticizedthe reflex arc concept of sensory stimuli-centralactivity-motor discharge as inadequate for the understanding of psychological processes. Dewey'sbasic criticism of the reflex arc as a model forpsychology was that it treats stimuli as if they hadan independent meaning for the organism apartfrom the organism's ongoing activity. Instead, hemaintained that stimuli exist and have meaning foran organism only in terms of some adaptive function. The idea that behavior, particularly that portion defined as mental activity which was seen asthe subject matter of psychology, should beviewed in terms of its adaptive significance for theorganism in coping with its environment was central to the approach that came to be known asfunctional psychology.While it is difficult to set any specific date forthe founding of the Chicago School, it is clear thatthe 10-year period between 1894, when the principal figures were all at Chicago, and 1904, whenJames proclaimed that a new school of psychology existed at Chicago, were years of great intellectual excitement and that a relatively coherentorientation had emerged which was to guide theteaching and research of the next generation ofpsychologists. By 1905, the field was sufficientlydistinct from philosophy that an independent Department of Psychology was established withAngell as its head. Angell remained Departmenthead until 1920, when he left to become Presidentof the Carnegie Corporation and subsequentlyPresident of Yale. He was succeeded by HarveyCarr, who remained chairman until he retired in1938. During this period, the Department produced many PhDs who became leading figures inpsychology, beginning with its first graduate, JohnB. Watson. Angell notes in an autobiographicalessay the names of 32 Chicago PhDs before 1920who went on to distinguished careers inpsychology — 14 of them women, for this University was co-educational from the start. Five ofthese 32 were presidents of the AmericanPsychological Association before 1936.What were the characteristics of the ChicagoSchool that gave rise to its distinctive influenceand that we see represented throughout the history of psychology at Chicago down to their present incarnation in the Department of BehavioralSciences? Some of these characteristics resultfrom the thought of the founding members, principally Dewey, Angell, and Mead, or their students, such as Watson and Thurstone, whileothers reflect the general University environment.Functional psychology as developed at Chicago25was not a strict theory embodying a set ofpropositions about mental activity. Rather, it wasa general orientation toward psychologicalphenomena which was in opposition to the structural approach identified with Wundt and Titch-ner. Many of the arguments between structuralists and functionalists strike the modernreader as meaningless, but some aspects of thecontroversy did have important consequences forthe way in which we now view the field.Perhaps the most important of these argumentscentered on the relation between psychologicaland biological processes. At the end of thenineteenth-century it was generally agreed byboth schools that the proper subject matter ofpsychology was consciousness, although, asWoodworth notes, in practice they were studyingman's performance rather than his states of consciousness. The structuralists argued that thebiological and psychological viewpoints differedradically; the functionalists argued that there wasno difference and that biology and psychologywere continuous. By adopting a biological point ofview, Dewey and Angell meant that consciousexperience was to be viewed in terms of its adaptive significance for the organism in relation to itsenvironment. Titchner, on the other hand, arguedthat psychology should be concerned with conscious experience in direct relation not to the environment but to processes occurring within theorganism. This was a psychology that stressed theelements of consciousness and the way in whichsimple sensations were combined into compleximages. It did not ask questions about the utilityof consciousness for survival and need satisfaction or its role in the evolution of man.There are several implications of the functionalapproach that influenced the development ofpsychology at Chicago. First, by adopting abiological perspective, the psychologists atChicago sought close ties with biological scientists in other departments of the University— notably, from the beginning, with H. H.Donaldson in neurology. While the tie was not asclose as it might have been if Herrick' s plan hadbeen adopted, students in psychology were encouraged to do work in neurology and physiology,and courses were given in physiological and comparative psychology even while the field wasclosely allied with philosophy.In 1931, when the University's graduate departments were organized into the four presentdivisions, the Psychology Department's biological approach led to its choice of affiliation with theBiological Sciences Division. As Carr wrote to Dean Woodward at that time, "Our present connection with the Social Science group is mainly anaccident of birth and is not a reflection of ournatural affiliation." The Social Science connection was not so accidental as Carr had thought,however; the Department later became joint between the Divisions of Biological and Social Sciences.Perhaps an even more important consequencefor the whole field of psychology was the impetusthat the functional approach gave to the development of experimental and comparative psychology by focusing on the behavior of lower animals.Since functional psychology was interested in"mental processes as part of a larger stream ofbiological forces" (to quote Angell), it was naturally also interested in the evolutionarysignificance of those processes. Such an interestled to the recognition that animals other than humans possessed consciousness, now redefined toinclude all mental activities, even though theycould not report on it. In 1894, Mead gave the firstcourse in animal psychology at Chicago.Together with the possibility of performing experiments on lower animals that could not be doneon humans, this interest in comparative psychology led to the creation in 1900 of an animalpsychology laboratory, "to start our work incomparative psychology under laboratory conditions," as Angell wrote to President Harper.Watson was appointed as Angell' s assistant.Watson's dissertation (1903) was entitled "Animal Education: The Psychical Development ofthe White Rat." Angell and Donaldson fromNeurology were his thesis advisors.Once consciousness had been redefined to include mental processes of animals who could notreport directly on their experiences, it was a shortstep to a more radical behaviorism that rejectedconsciousness altogether as an object of study.Such a step was taken by Watson shortly after hemoved to Johns Hopkins as a professor in 1907 atthe age of 29. At Hopkins, he worked intensivelyto develop his ideas and published them in hiscontroversial and influential article, "Psychologyas the Behaviorist Views It" in the PsychologicalReview in 1913. Although Watson argues vigorously against the need for a concept of consciousness in psychology, he was really arguing moreagainst Titchner and the structuralist viewpointthan against Angell and Dewey. That he still borethe mark of his earlier training is shown by hisstatement, "I believe that behaviorism is the onlyconsistent and logical functionalism."Today the close relationship to the biological26sciences continues and is represented in the Department of Behavioral Sciences by the Committee on Biopsychology, many of whose facultyhold joint appointments in the Biological SciencesDivision and whose students may matriculateeither through the Biological or Social SciencesDivisions.A second consequence of the functional orientation for the development of psychologystemmed from its interest in what was called"human genetic psychology," that is, in thegrowth and development of human beings— particularly, but not exclusively, in cognitivedevelopment. This interest also grew naturallyout of the biological orientation with its emphasison evolution and adaptation to environmentalchange. Dewey viewed life as a continuous process of action and reaction in which the organismwas constantly adapting its behavior to environmental changes, learning new habits and ways ofcoping with environmental stimuli. This emphasison a circuit of action-stimulation-reaction-stimulation-further action, and so on, led Deweyto be concerned particularly with education of thechild. Dewey pursued this interest at Chicago byfounding the Laboratory School and by supporting the early separation of the Education Department from the Philosophy Department. In a sensethe Education Department represented the applied interest of the functional approach, and theconnections between the Departments of Education and Psychology have always been and remainquite close, with frequent joint appointments.The interest in developmental psychology wasrepresented for many years on campus by theCommittee on Child Development. Gradually,the developmental viewpoint was recognized asapplying not just to childhood, but to the entirelife cycle. In 1940, the Committee changed itsname to the Committee on Human Development.It is now a constituent part of the Department ofBehavioral Sciences.The major thrust of functional psychology thatdifferentiated it from the structuralist approachwas, in Angell' s words, the "effort to get at mental process as it is under the conditions of actualexperience rather than as it appears to a merelypostmortem analysis." The rejection of consciousness as a fit subject of study by the be-havioralist revolution meant that this part of thefunctionalist orientation was practically obliterated from American psychology over the next fewdecades. An independent but parallel development of the functionalist approach, however, hadbeen going on in Switzerland at about the same time as the formation of the Chicago School, particularly with the work of Claparede in Geneva.This work was not deterred by the behavioristrevolution and has become influential again in theUnited States, beginning in the mid 1950s,through the work of Claparede' s most brilliantstudent and successor Jean Piaget. The stimulation of Piaget' s work and the growth of interest inlinguistic behavior have given new vigor to research on the classical problems in the study ofmental activity — perception, cognition, andmemory. This work is continuing in a revitalizedand exciting form in the new Department in thework of the Committee on Cognition and Communication.I mentioned earlier that the functional approachviewed mental activity as the expression of anorganism's adaptation to its environment. Thescholars of the Chicago School were quick topoint out that for man the environment is social aswell as physical. Commenting on the characteristics of the functional approach as developed atChicago, Angell wrote, "The dominance of socialsituations as stimuli, as objects toward whichreaction is directed, is always stressed in thispoint of view." George Herbert Mead, of course,is remembered today primarily as a socialpsychologist, even though his teaching and research spanned a much larger area of interest,from animal psychology to methodology. He gavehis first course in "contemporary social psychology" in 1900. Although the approach has changedconsiderably, the tradition of interest in socialpsychology has continued and is embodied in thenew7 Department by the Committee on Social andOrganizational Psychology.Mead's interest in methodology and measurement was far from casual. Beginning in 1895, heregularly gave a graduate course in the methodology of psychology. In his paper on "TheDefinition of the Psychical" in the 1904Decennial Publications that stimulated WilliamJames's proclamation of the birth of the ChicagoSchool, Mead was concerned about errors of observation and the role of the scientist as a sourceof error in scientific experimentation. But perhapsthe most famous work on measurement was donelater at Chicago by one of the Department's earlyPhDs, L. L. Thurstone, who founded thePsychometric Laboratory here and during the1930s and 1940s produced much of the basic workthat underlies our present-day thinking aboutpsychological measurement, as well as a host ofgraduates who are prominent today in the field ofpsychometrics. Thurstone acknowledged his debt27to Mead in his autobiographical essay, writingthat "Mead's lectures on social psychology had agreater influence on my psychological thinkingthan any other course." The methodological andmeasurement interests of Mead and Thurstoneare being pursued in the new Department by theCommittee on the Methodology of BehavioralResearch.I have noted that the five committees comprising the Department of Behavioral Sciences— those of Biopsychology, Human Development,Cognition and Communication, Social and Organizational Psychology, and Methodology ofBehavioral Research — represent continuations oftraditions that can be traced back to the beginnings of the Chicago School. The organizationalform of the research and teaching programs, however, has newly changed, even as it changed at anearlier time from the departmental organizationthat existed at the time of the founding of the University. I believe that the possibility of this newdepartmental organization can be traced back to aclimate which has prevailed at this Universityfrom its inception. That climate, which stressesthe freedom of the individual scholar to pursue hisintellectual interests in the manner he sees asbest, has fostered an attitude of organizationallooseness which encourages the formation of interdisciplinary committees or new departmentsA committee of seven Trustees has been appointed by Gay lord Donnelley, Chairman of theBoard of Trustees, to consider selection of a newPresident of the University. The appointment ofthe committee was announced at the TrusteeDinner for the Faculty on January 8, 1975. Mr.Donnelley said the Trustees had asked EdwardH. Levi, President of the University, to agree toremain in office beyond the usual retirement ageof 65, but he had declined and had informed themhe would retire in September 1976.The Trustees on the Committee are:A. Robert Abboud, chairman of the board of whenever new fields of knowledge emerge or oldfields are restructured by new approaches. Onemight even view this as an example of the functional approach in which form follows function.The original Psychological Laboratory within theDepartment of Philosophy gave way to a separateDepartment of Psychology. The Department ofPsychology located wholly within the Division ofthe Biological Sciences gave way to a Departmentunder the joint jurisdiction of the Biological andthe Social Sciences. That Department has givenway to a new Department of Behavioral Sciencesmade up of autonomous committees whose members individually hold joint appointments in manyother departments and professional schools of theUniversity. I feel confident that this most recentembodiment of the Chicago spirit of innovation inacademic organization will promote a flowering ofscholarly achievement that will carry on the besttraditions of the old Chicago School of Psychology.Norman M. Bradburn is Professor and Chairmanin the Department of Behavioral Sciences andProfessor in the Graduate School of Business andin the College. The above talk was delivered tothe entering graduate students in the Departmentof Behavioral Sciences.the First National Bank of Chicago.Gaylord Donnelley, Chairman of the Board ofTrustees and chairman of the board of R. R.Donnelley & Sons Company.Katharine Graham, chairman of the board ofthe Washington Post Company.Ben W. Heineman, president of Northwest Industries, Inc.George A. Ranney, vice-chairman of the Inland Steel Company.Robert W. Reneker, president and chief executive officer of Esmark, Inc.Hermon Dunlap Smith, president of the FieldFoundation of Illinois, Inc.COMMITTEE TO SELECT A NEW PRESIDENT28Seven members of the faculty and seven alternates were elected by the Council of the University Senate to consult with the Trustee Committeeconsidering selection of a new President.The seven members are:John Hope Franklin, the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History.Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Dean of the Collegeand Professor in the Departments of Anatomyand Anthropology and in the Committee onEvolutionary Biology.Philip B. Kurland, the William R. Kenan, Jr.Professor in the College and Professor in the LawSchool.John E. Jeuck, the Robert Law Professor in theGraduate School of Business.Erica Reiner, the John A. Wilson Professor inthe Oriental Institute and in the Departments ofNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations andLinguistics.Norman H. Nachtrieb, Master of the PhysicalSciences Collegiate Division, Associate Dean inthe College, and Professor in the Department ofChemistry.Norman M. Bradburn, Professor and Chairmanin the Department of Behavioral Sciences andProfessor in the Graduate School of Business andin the College.The seven alternates are:Stuart M. Tave, the William Rainey HarperProfessor in the College and Professor andChairman in the Department of English.Harold A. Richman, Professor and Dean in theSchool of Social Service Administration.Saunders Mac Lane, the Max Mason Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofMathematics, the Committee on the ConceptualFoundations of Science, the Committee on Ideasand Methods, and in the College.Susanne H. Rudolph, Master and Professor inthe Social Sciences Collegiate Division, Associate Dean of the College and the Division ofthe Social Sciences, and Professor in the Department of Political Science.James M. Gustafson, University Professor inthe Divinity School.Dr. Jarl E. Dyrud, Professor and Director ofClinical Services in the Department ofPsychiatry.Gerhard Casper, Professor in the Law Schooland in the Department of Political Science. EDWARD H. LEVI:71 ST U.S. ATTORNEY GENERALTo: The University RecordOn January 14, 1975, the President of the UnitedStates nominated Edward H. Levi, President ofthe University, to be Attorney General of theUnited States. After hearings, the Senate JudiciaryCommittee unanimously recommended approvalof the nomination and the Senate approved itwithout dissent on February 5. Mr. Levi took theoath of office as Attorney General on February 7.At the meeting of the Board of Trustees of theUniversity on February 13, Gaylord Donnelley,Chairman of the Board, reported that on February 6 a majority of the Trustees had approvedthe retirement of Mr. Levi as President of theUniversity on that day and his designation asPresident Emeritus. His resignation as a Trusteeof the University was also accepted and the Trustees had designated John T. Wilson, Provost, asActing President. At the Trustees' meeting onFebruary 13, the Trustees elected Mr. Levi anHonorary Trustee of the University.Mr. Levi is the Karl N. Llewellyn DistinguishedService Professor in the Law School, on leave ofabsence.D. J. R. BrucknerVice-President for Public AffairsNEW ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTSTo: The University RecordAt its meeting on February 13, 1975, the Board ofTrustees of the University affirmed a number ofchanges in administrative positions in the University, and John T. Wilson, Provost and ActingPresident, announced the following appointments:D. Gale Johnson, the Eliakim Hastings MooreDistinguished Service Professor in and Chairmanof the Department of Economics, becomesVice-President and Dean of Faculties, and is the29senior officer of the University under Mr. Wilson.Chauncy D. Harris, the Samuel N. HarperDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Geography and Director of the Center forInternational Studies, becomes Vice-Presidentfor Academic Affairs.Jonathan Kleinbard, who has been Assistant tothe President, becomes also Vice-President forCommunity Affairs.Harold E. Bell, the Comptroller of the Univer-January 15, 1975One hundred five cases requiring more than simple referrals were handled by the Student Ombudsman in Autumn Quarter 1974. This increasednumber of problems probably reflects an increasing awareness of the existence of the Office andits usefulness for students, rather than a generalincrease in campus problems. Of these cases,slightly more than half were brought by graduatestudents. Approximately 70 cases were handledto the student's satisfaction, while about 15, fromthe complainant's perspective, at least, werecompletely unsuccessful; the remainder of thecases were either resolved to the partial satisfaction of the student or remain unresolved.When a particular problem is brought to the attention of the Ombudsman's office, it usually fallsinto one of two broad areas of concern. The firstgroup are those problems which arise from University policy: where mechanisms for carrying outpolicy may not work smoothly or effectively,where those mechanisms are not stated clearly, orwhere present policy may not be equitable. In thesecond group fall problems originating from personal relationships: when feelings becomestrained between a professor and a student, whenstudents themselves are involved in a dispute, orwhen changes in University policy may havehelped to precipitate hard feelings. The secondtype of problem has unfortunately become more sity, becomes Vice-President — Comptroller.Ben Rothblatt, who has been Assistant to theProvost and is Assistant Professor of Humanitiesin the College, becomes Associate Provost of theUniversity.These appointments were effective on the dateof action of the Board of Trustees.D.J. R. BrucknerVice President for Public Affairscommon lately, although the first still constitutesmost of the caseload.Student Health is one area where questions ofpolicy have often emerged. In one case this autumn, the director of the Student Health Clinicwas informed of alleged improper conduct by oneof the physicians toward a patient. The directorreported that the physician in question denied anyimpropriety was intended, but he said the doctorhas been transferred out of Student Health.Another woman student complained that a doctorin Student Health had given her a moralizing lecture, which she had neither requested nor enjoyed, to say the least. She felt that the doctor'sthoughts were strictly personal opinions that hadnothing to do with her particular problem or hergeneral health.The "moralizing atmosphere" in which treatment was given at the Student Health Gynecology Service was one criticism by students mentioned in a report in The University of ChicagoRecord by the Chief of Staff of the GynecologyClinic in December 1970. Complaints about that"moralizing atmosphere" have continued, although they are now fewer in number. Complaintsabout two other problems of that time have alsocontinued: excessive waiting periods for nonemergency appointments and impersonal care regarding personal problems. On the other hand,the new location of the Student GynecologyClinic in Billings Hospital is a definite improve-REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 197430ment over its former location on Drexel Avenue.It seems that as a result the atmosphere is muchmore pleasant and cheerful. Student Health needsto continue its efforts to make health care servicesaccessible and comfortable to students.Problems with policy are most clearly seen incases involving the administration of the University. Some policies are unclear or unworkable;others fail because of personal failure or incompetence on the part of an administrator. One casebrought to the Ombudsman's office concerned adormitory film group which had lost its movie receipts and was unable to meet its bills for themovie. The money had been collected at the timeof the movie, put into an evelope and sealed bytwo students, who then called for a security escortto the security department. The money was keptby the security department for two days and then,since the students had not returned to pick it up,was mistakenly sent to the Student ActivitiesOffice in Ida Noyes. When the students finally gotaround to looking for the envelope, they found itat the Student Activities Office, but most of themoney was missing from the sealed envelope.After some delay the Student Housing Officegenerously decided to pick up the entire tab forthe movie. But this action and weeks of personalworry by the students and the dormitory groupinvolved could have been avoided if Universitypolicy for the counting, sealing, and storing of receipts from student-sponsored events was clear tostudents and resident heads.At times difficulties arise even when there is aclear policy regarding the matter. Late in thequarter an undergraduate student wished to receive the grade of W (withdrawal) in a course.First, the student went to the instructor who declared that he could give only a W IP(withdrawal/pass) or a WIF (withdrawal/fail) and,further, that the only way the student could receive a WIP was to complete an assigned projectand take the final examination. The student calledher advisor, but he did not know the answer to herdilemma. Finally, the student called theOmbudsman's office and related her story. Whenthe instructor was told that no W of any kindcould be given if a student took the final examination, he was surprised and not fully convinced. Ina late Sunday night intervention, a concernedsenior faculty member was able to remedy thesituation. The next morning the student handed ina partially completed project and received aWithdrawal/Pass. The entire problem could havebeen avoided if the instructor had known theCollege's policy regarding withdrawals. In some cases procedure is difficult for administrators to follow because of understaffed conditions or negligence. Federally insured loans weredelayed for some students this quarter becauseunderstaffing delayed the forwarding of applications by the University for federal approval. Recognizing the financial problems that would result,the loan office aided in adjusting tuition for theaffected students so that they would have to payonly the amount which would not have been covered by the federal loan. Then, when the loanscame through, the University would receive itsmoney. This policy, however, did not cover thecase of one student who had already receivedloans from other sources to pay for his tuition andneeded the federal loans to cover personal expenses. When the problem was brought to the attention of a higher officer of the University, a substantial, interest-free loan was secured for thestudent.One section of the administration created anamusing problem at the end of Autumn Quarter.In a letter postmarked Salisbury, Australia, a student wrote: "I'm appealing for your help in thesmall matter of a parking infraction; I am enclosing a xerox of a form letter from the ParkingOffice. To send a letter to Australia requestingthat I 'come immediately to the Parking Office'must surely be one of the more remarkable featsof 'blind bureaucracy' and I hope it appeals asmuch to your sense of humor as it does to mine.The matter however is both serious (in that itthreatens my convocation) and complicated; thefine is unjust as I did not at the time own the car."As it turned out, city records did not indicate thechange of ownership that had, in fact, taken place,and this explains why the Parking Office personnel thought the car was his. A Parking Officesupervisor quickly waived the fee when told thecircumstances of the case.More often it is the student who is not aware ofgeneral University policy, or the particular procedure followed by an individual or an office. Thiscan lead to inconvenience at best, and a seriouspersonal misunderstanding at worst. Onegraduate student had his registration held up because he had not filled out a relatively simple formwhich graduate students fill out every quarter. Heprobably would not have neglected the form if thedire consequences had been stated. More seriously, there were several cases where studentsfelt that they were being discriminated against because they were not given notice of why a particular action was taken. This is especially true inseveral hiring cases brought to the office. One31student, for example, felt that she was turneddown for a job merely because she was a woman,and with the information made available to her itcould not have seemed otherwise. Upon furtherinvestigation, it was found that the section inquestion had wanted a full-time rather than apart-time employee. The misunderstanding couldhave been avoided if only there had not been an"information gap" between the student and thepotential employer.One expects employers, however, to blame an"information gap" even in cases of actual discrimination, so that it is often difficult for a thirdparty to ascertain the actual state of affairs. AMidway Studio student employee complainedthat her pay was ten percent lower than other employees there, who were all male. Her supervisorcould not explain the discrepancy and directedinquiries to the director of the section. The student employee received the pay increase, but itwas stated that discrimination had nothing to dowith the original lower pay rate. The facts remainunclear, but there was certainly a lack of communication which complicated matters betweenboth the student and her supervisor, and thesupervisor and the director.Lack of communication in academic matters isanother area of especial concern, producing moregeneral complaints than any other area. As a matter of fact the most "popular" complaint of thequarter was in this area. Specifically, the PhysicalSciences Collegiate Division now insists that students place out of or take Math 102 before takingany common core physical sciences course. Thisrepresents a change in policy from 1972 when itwas possible to fulfill the physical science common core requirement with a course in which "themathematics necessary for the development of thetopics will be reviewed and discussed" (CollegeAnnouncements, 1972). Unfortunately, the College Curriculum Committee never approved thischange, and consequently, students have receivedcontradictory advice on this matter.Further lack of communication is evident in theincreased number of complaints with regard tocourse grades. I shall discuss this problem later inthis Report.In some cases fees were charged withoutforewarning: students in Chemistry 105 are required to pay a $20 laboratory fee per quarter.Because no mention had been made of the fee inthe Announcements, some students came unprepared to pay an additional sixty dollars. Theseadditional fees, incidentally, can add more thanten percent to the College's "suggested budget" for a student's books and personal expenses. Action was taken by the College to ensure that futureAnnouncements will mention possible fees. It isto be hoped that the financial impact of such feeson students who are receiving aid will also be considered.Additional fees are the result of a general trendthroughout the University to have special activities pay for themselves. Unlike the chemistrylaboratory fee, however, the existence of fees affecting particular groups of students have beengenerally well publicized. Even so, in the case ofsuch a new fee as that for graduate foreign language examinations, there have been vocal com-pliants. The ongoing financial difficulties of theUniversity are undoubtedly in part to blame forthis new policy shift. But before a large number ofspecial fees are introduced, I think the generalproblem of requiring special areas of Universitylife to pay for themselves should be reviewed. Itmust be remembered that in a university, especially a private university, few things, in fact, payfor themselves.Certainly the popular (and free) minibus systemdoes not pay for itself. Student complaints arelistened for and responded to quickly. When itwas brought to the attention of the Grounds andTrucking Services, for example, that theminibuses were running only until 12:30 a.m. andnot until 1:00 a.m. when the Library closes, theschedule was quickly adjusted.The deepening financial crisis of the Universityis affecting us all. The beginning of Autumn Quarter was marked by a strike by the University'sPlant Department (maintenance employees). Because of the strike, the delivery of students'trunks to the dormitories was delayed or re-routedto other dormitories. Each of the students whohad a trunk delivery complaint, with one exception, however, received his or her trunk within afew days. With only some delay, this particularproblem was solved with the help of a hardworking housing office administrator. The strike alsocaused the untimely death of the Botany Pond fishsince the Plant Department's yearly advertisement in the Maroon announcing the pond's draining to interested fish-catchers was not displayed.Perhaps the financial crisis is responsible forintroducing rigid attitudes where informal relationships once held sway. Perhaps students arebecoming more pragmatic — wondering whetherthe present annual tuition expenditure is reallyworthwhile, or worrying about the future tangibleresults of their education. Whatever the cause,cries of unfairness or injustice in grading policy32have reached a crescendo. A greater number ofstudents made serious and specific allegations ofunfairness in grading. One complained about theinjustice of a chemistry professor who refused tocorrect a laboratory assistant's miscalculation ofthe student's score because the student hadmissed an appointment for that purpose. The instructor felt that "the floodgates would be open"to all the other students who might have had theirgrades miscalculated and wanted their scores corrected. In a relatively small college such as this,one would expect more from an instructor (muchless a full professor). But maybe the laboratoryassistant had actually misadded all the papers sothat the proverbial floodgates would be open andpermit a veritable deluge of premedical studentsto drown the professor in their pleas for a recalculation. So serious and numerous, though, are becoming the charges of unfairness in grading that,unfortunately, the day may arrive when academicunits will be pressured to institute formal channelssuperseding the individual instructor's review forthe resolution of grading conflicts.Problems between students also increased thisAutumn Quarter. Conflicts usually resolvedthrough informal mechanisms became more open.Not surprisingly, money was the focus of foursignificant complaints between students. A pastombudsman suggested that the University "dealwith the general problem of student versus student disputes where other jurisdictions do notseem to cover the problem. Of course, themechanism would be a mediatory service, ratherthan an adjudicating agent" (University ofChicago Record, April 14, 1974). The Universityshould seriously consider such a policy.Problems between students also touchedacademic affairs, with several complaints aboutclassroom cheating. One student told a story ofhow the grade curve had been significantly depressed in a second year chemistry course severalyears ago when a more watchful professor proc-tored an examination. I believe that student cheating has potential for more harm, however, thanmerely lowering non-cheaters' grades; widespread cheating has a morally injurious effect onall students. The situation could be improved ifteachers exercised some preventative care.A case that students are becoming more pragmatic can also be made from the initial studentreaction to The Family Rights and Privacy Act,commonly known as the Buckley Amendment.This act allows students to examine their files andmay even allow students to view their letters ofrecommendation. Some educators have voiced objections to the latter possibility, since they feelthat recommendations written with the knowledgethat students will later see them will be lessthorough and less valuable. In some instances instructors have refused to write recommendationsfor students because of the possible ramificationsof the law. One case of this nature was mentionedto me, although I was not asked to intercede. Students discussing the bill in my office were generally pleased that files will be open, but often expressed concern over the future of letters of recommendation. This attitude can be expected in auniversity where recommendations can play suchan important role for future occupations. This isparticularly true in the College where traditionallyover two-thirds of the students go on to graduateschool and where there is increasing emphasis onfuture graduate professional school studies.Students may be showing greater concern fortheir future condition, but concern for presentconditions is also very great. Complaints aboutathletic facilities have not changed in the six yearssince the establishment of the Ombudsman'soffice, except that the number of complaints hasgrown enormously; but then the athletic facilitieshave not significantly changed in this period, except to become even more woefully inadequate. Itis good to see that over five million dollars of the$280 million that the University is in the processof raising in the current campaign will be devotedto the improvement of athletic facilities. If themoney is secured, it will provide the firstsignificant improvement in athletic facilities sincethe Great Depression.Some modest improvements could be made,however, without large expenditures of money.One area to which attention should be turned iswomen's athletic facilities. Margaret Finerty, theAssistant Ombudsman, has dealt with complaintsabout women's facilities this past quarter and shereported to me in some detail the problems whichwomen encounter at Bartlett Gymnasium. Inequities between the condition of men's andwomen's athletic facilities in Bartlett are particularly evident. Until recent years, of course, Bartlett was exclusively a men's facility and womenused only Ida Noyes. The present women'slocker room in Bartlett, a makeshift arrangementat best, has inadequate locker space with temporary lock service for only those in physical education courses and, after four in the afternoon, notowel service. Allocation of several hundred dollars for hair dryers was considered a prohibitivecost. But worst of all, there were numerous complaints that the locker room was filthy. Many33women wonder whether the locker room is evencleaned at all. Fortunately, pleas for better lockerfacilities, at least, did not fall on deaf ears and, asMargaret Finerty reports, "The locker room willbe painted, plastered, and given a good cleaningover the Christmas break. This should make iteasier to keep it reasonably clean in the future.Also, the slimy shower curtains may be replacedwith shower doors. Now if the soap container canstay filled, at least taking a shower should be amore pleasant experience."The athletic problems, of course, stem from anacute lack of funds. Administrators in athleticsseem to be doing their best with what they havebut, most importantly, they could probably domuch better with just a little more money.Some of the suggestions put forth in this Reportwould require major changes in University policy.In many cases, though, the quality of student lifecould be improved with only minor policychanges or by the infusion of a relatively smallamount of money. The continual examination andrevision of University policy, insofar as the policyaffects the quality of student life, should continue.The relationship of the University to all aspects ofthe students' life should be continuously and critically examined, particularly at a time when theUniversity seeks additional students.Joseph P. KiernanOMBUDSMAN APPOINTED FOR1974-75 TERMJoseph P. Kiernan, an undergraduate student whowill receive his Bachelor's degree in Spring 1975,has been appointed Student Ombudsman for the1974-75 term. He is the seventh student to holdthe position since it was established in October1968.The appointment was made by Edward H.Levi, President, on the recommendation of acommittee of three students, three faculty members, and the Dean of Students. PRESIDENT'S SEMINAR, 1974-75Upon the recommendation of the deans, Mr. Levihas asked and the following students have agreedto serve in the President's Seminar.Biological Sciences Collegiate DivisionClayton WileyHumanities Collegiate DivisionConnie ClarkNew Collegiate DivisionMichael RodinPhysical Sciences Collegiate DivisionStephen UsalaSocial Sciences Collegiate DivisionOmar TiwanaThe CollegeMrs. Carol A. KahlerDivision of the Biological Sciences and ThePritzker School of MedicineMrs. Mary Ellen GaekeDivision of the Social SciencesMrs. Margaret WeberDivision of the HumanitiesTim RedmanDivision of the Physical SciencesJohn C. SchaefferGraduate Library SchoolMaryfrances DunnGraduate School of BusinessRonald C. FosterGraduate School of EducationCamilla MasonThe Law SchoolMrs. Sharon BaldwinThe Divinity SchoolGeorge Lawrence GoodwinSchool of Social Service AdministrationMrs. Donna Levine Walker34DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDThe Disciplinary Review Board has authority toreview decisions of University DisciplinaryCommittees set up under the procedures adopted.All members, other that the Dean of Students,serve one-year terms beginning in the WinterQuarter of each academic year. Members for 1975are: Hellmut Fritzsche (Chairman), Professor in theJames Franck Institute, the Department ofPhysics, and in the College and Director of theMaterials Research Laboratory.Harold A. Richman, Professor and Dean of theSchool of Social Service Administration.Charles D. O'Connell, Vice-President andDean of Students.Charles Becker, graduate student.Marianne West, undergraduate student.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingoEJOQOr2.tQsW_ o zT3 I om S c 33D 9 Tl2 > -n w 3POSTAAIDiO,ILLITNO.J oOB32 2 Q N09¦f O m S-*• rr OCO 3