THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECOEDApril 28, 1975 An Official Publication Volume IX, Number 2CONTENTS37 REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE TO EVALUATETHE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS42 REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE TO EVALUATETHE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY53 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STUDENT MENTAL HEALTHCLINIC, 1973-7460 THE 55TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTY73 THE MERCY OF GOD AND ABOUT TWELVE MINUTES75 SUMMARY OF THE 352ND CONVOCATION76 PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THE UNIVERSITY78 SUMMARY OF THE 353RD CONVOCATION78 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 197480 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THESPRING QUARTER, 197482 VISITING COMMITTEES89 TUITION INCREASETHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1975 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE TO EVALUATETHE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICSMarch 7, 1975The present Visiting Committee for the Department included two members (Chern and Jacob-son) who served on a similar committee in theSpring of 1968 [see Appendix for the 1968Report] . This carry-over in membership makes itparticularly appropriate to make some comparisons at the outset between the two periods andindicate the ways that the Department has accommodated to a new set of conditions.As everyone is aware, the interval between1968 and the present time has been marked by anenormous change in attitude of the public and thegovernment toward higher education and research. This has resulted in a drastic curtailmentof financial support for graduate education and achannelling of research toward projects withshort-term goals and objectives, related to urgentproblems of our society. The framework of restrictions and austerity imposed by rising costsand contraction of federal support has created atotally different environment for pursuing traditional goals than existed at the end of the lastdecade. The Department of Mathematics hasmanaged a smooth transition between the twoperiods and has responded in an admirable fashion to new demands made upon it by the instructional needs of a substantially larger number ofundergraduate students with a wider range of interests. The Department has broadened its baseof interests, especially in the direction of appliedmathematics, and has introduced a novel teachertraining program, to be described below, that appears to be extremely successful in meeting theinstructional needs of the College while at thesame time preparing graduate students for careersin university teaching. These changes have in noway detracted from the Department's preeminentposition as a research center. The Departmentappears to be at least as strong as it was in the late sixties. Moreover, its relative position among thetop departments in the country has been maintained.The Department's success in maintaining itsenormous prestige and distinction in mathematicsmay be attributed to several factors. The first ofthese is its great mathematical heritage that goesback to the founding of the University. Since thiswas described in some detail in the 1968 report, itwould appear to be unnecessary to elaborate uponit here. It suffices to say that it continues to play adecisive role. A second factor that has favored theDepartment, and that is undoubtedly related tothe first, is the support that has been accorded itby the administration. Another factor that hascontributed to the success of the Department isthat it has had the good fortune during the past 30years of having a number of outstanding chairmen. The present chairman, Professor Browder,is certainly in this category; his effectiveness isvery much appreciated by his colleagues.The Department now has a strong group in applied mathematics. Its interests are diverse, encompassing numerical analysis, fluid dynamics,and relativity theory. These interests dovetailnicely with those of the "pure" mathematicians,especially the analysts. Moreover, the existenceof a strong group in applied mathematics has improved communication between the Departmentand related departments of astronomy,geophysics, and physics. The applied mathematicians appear to be happy with the arrangementthat makes them an integral part of a distinguisheddepartment. We could detect no conflicts betweenthe new group and the older ones in the Department. This fact in itself represents a significantachievement, since such conflicts have been quitecommon in other universities. At the present timethe applied group does not appear to attract its fairshare of graduate students. This situation, whichis similar to thai existing at other universities,37may improve in time. On the other hand, it maybe useful to adopt a policy of active recruitment ofstudents interested in applied mathematics.The present Committee does not feel competent to offer an opinion on the advisability of developing theoretical computer science in the University. We do feel, however, that the recent decision to place the responsibility for such adevelopment — if it is to take place — on the Department of Mathematics is a wise one, since it isa guarantee that only a group meeting the higheststandards will emerge.The Department has now succeeded in adding aprofessor in mathematical logic. The importanceof this field had been noted in the 1968 report, andits relevance to the central areas of mathematicshas increased in recent years. The Departmenthas now made an excellent beginning in this areawhich, it should be observed, can have an impactalso on computer science.The College Fellow program started in 1971 is anovel teacher training program that is likely to beimitated by other strong graduate centers. Thisprogram involves almost all the graduate students(all except a few who are exempted because oflinguistic difficulties or similar problems) including the NSF Fellows, who receive a supplementary stipend for their participation. In this program a graduate student in his second year is introduced to teaching under the guidance of an experienced professor. He attends all the classes ofan undergraduate course given by the professorduring three quarters, holds office hours, designsproblems and tests, and conducts problem sessions. Later on he teaches a number of classes:first single ones, and then several consecutiveclasses, all in the presence of the professor, fromwhom he receives criticism and suggestions forimproving his presentations. After the year of apprenticeship, the graduate student during his thirdand fourth years has the full responsibility ofteaching an undergraduate course on his own.This system is in marked contrast to the "sink orswim" procedure of training mathematics instructors which is still quite common. The training andexperience afforded by the College Fellow program will give the Chicago PhDs in mathematicsexcellent credentials for qualifying for universityteaching positions — which remains the main option available to PhDs in mathematics. TheMathematics Department has had a fine reputation for the brilliance of its teachers, several ofwhom have been awarded prizes for their excellence in teaching. The introduction of the CollegeFellow program indicates again the concern of the Department for top quality teaching at all levels.A second recent innovation in teaching and research in the Department has been the introduction of an elite corps of instructors, the LeonardEugene Dickson Instructors. This program issimilar to a number of others that exist at some ofthe major mathematics centers (M.I.T., N.Y.U.,Princeton, Yale, and others). They enable theDepartment to draw from a large pool of topyoung mathematicians in this country and abroad.Moreover, by providing some of the most promising fresh PhDs with an opportunity to associatewith a distinguished department under ideal conditions, they serve as a stimulus for their development at a very critical time in their careers.While Chicago has been rather late in initiatingthis type of program, once adopted, it has beenpursued by the Department with characteristicvigor. For the coming year the Department isplanning to have 14 Dicksons. Since there aremany fine candidates available, this will giveChicago an excellent opportunity to become acquainted with a large number of the best of thecurrent crop of PhDs.One of the casualties of the curtailment of federal grant support for pure research has been theprograms of year-long concentrations in specificareas (for example, group theory) that the Department organized during the sixties. These involved a substantial number of distinguished visitors and younger mathematicians in addition tothe regular Chicago faculty. Such concentrationsproduced an intense research atmosphere. Themost notable achievement of these programs wasthe solution by two young group theorists, Feitand Thompson, of a problem in finite groups thathad been proposed by Burnside more than 75years before. This achievement inaugurated anew era in the field of finite groups that for thepast 10 years has become one of the most excitingareas of research in mathematics.Fortunately, the reduction of government support for this type of program has been offset atChicago, at least in part, by the availability ofgrants from the Block Fund. This has permittedthe Department to maintain an excellent visitorsprogram. However, the funds have not beensufficient to permit long-term visitors. Among thevisitors during several summers has been Thompson, who in this way has been able to maintain hiscontact with the group theorists of the Department, after his departure to Cambridge University. It would be good to have some long-termvisitors including some not in the "star" categorywhose interests would lead to useful collabora-38tions with some of the younger members of theDepartment.We now turn to some suggestions that we putforth in a somewhat tentative fashion, since werecognize that it is difficult in such a short visit toprobe in depth into possible shortcomings, especially in a department as distinguished atChicago's. However, we assume that one of themost important functions of a visiting committeeis to make observations from the vantage point ofoutsiders. Many of the ones we shall make arecertainly known to the Chairman and to the Administration. We nevertheless list these for thesake of completeness and to record them. Ourrecommendations concern the following topics.1. Space problems.2. Computer time for research.3. The library.4. Appointment of a graduate student advisor.5. Appointments at the rank of assistant professor.6. Research areas into which the departmentmight move.1. Space problems. In the past, the fourth floor ofEckhart was an exclusive haven for the graduatestudents. At the present time some of thegraduate students are located in a separate building and some of the first-year students have nospace of their own. Particularly important wouldbe to provide space with blackboards where thegraduate students could meet and talk. We understand that it is planned to convert some of thebasement space in Eckhart for this purpose. Thisappears to offer a reasonable temporary solutionto the problem, whose best long-range solutionwould appear to be the assignment of more of theabove-ground space in Eckhart Hall to the Department of Mathematics.2. Computer time for research. We heard severalcomplaints on the inadequacy of funds for computer time for research. While this appears not tohave an easy solution we feel that somethingneeds to be done to improve the present situation.3. The library. We heard a number of complaintsabout the Eckhart Hall library: slowness of acquisition of new books and monographs, inadequate funds for new acquisitions, and complaintsby graduate students on the unavailability ofbooks required for courses. We urge that steps betaken to correct this situation. The MathematicsDepartment could help significantly by finding a faculty member willing to devote a substantialamount of time to the problem of the library. Inparticular, this individual might serve as a channelof complaints by graduate students and facultymembers who have problems with the library.Beyond this he could help in other ways, for example, by alerting the librarian on the existence ofnew books, sets of notes, etc. that would be desirable to add to the present collection.4. Appointment of a graduate student advisor. Wefound the morale of the graduate students wetalked to exceedingly high. They were happyabout the graduate program in general, and mostof them were satisfied with the highly structuredfirst year. Some stated they felt a bit lost at thebeginning of the second year and some complained that some of the examiners for the mastersexaminations did not know what had been covered in the courses, and that syllabi indicatingthe scope of the examinations were unavailable.As a result of our discussions with a group ofstudents, we came to the conclusion that it wouldbe useful to create a position of "graduate studentadvisor" or "director of graduate students" in theDepartment. Such a person, appointed by thechairman, should serve for a period of two orthree years. He should be available for consultations on the students' programs for the first andthe second years, and on the advisability of omitting some of the first-year courses through theroute of placement examinations. At times theadvice given a student might simply consist of referring him to another member of the faculty. Webelieve that the creation of this position wouldsmooth over some of the difficulties to which wehave alluded.5. Appointment of assistant professors. At the present time there are only two assistant professorsin the Department, one of whom is leaving. In thepast it was understood that assistant professors inmathematics had a good chance for tenure in theDepartment. This situation was quite differentfrom that in the other top private universities. Itshould be noted also that in the past the Department showed great insight in its junior appointments, and as a result of this, and of the stimulating research environment of the Department thatcontributed to their development, quite a few ofthe present faculty came up through the ranks. Allthe elements just described except one are stillpresent. The sole exception is that due to financialuncertainties, one can no longer regard any nontenure position as a stepping stone to tenure. We39believe that there is much to be said for having agroup of assistant professors in a department.They contribute elements of stability as well asdynamism to a department. We believe that withthe present make-up of the Department, thereshould be at least four positions in this rank, serving for a period of three to five years. Perhapsnamed assistant professorships would make thesemore attractive and would partially offset the factthat assistant professors in the Department couldentertain only a slim hope of promotion to ahigher rank.6. Research areas into which the Department mightmove. The greatest strengths of the Department atthe present time are in algebra, in analysis, and intopology. It should be observed also that, as inthe past, topology continues to afford an important stimulus to algebra, even to the extent ofcreating whole new fields of interest for algebra(for example, algebraic K- theory). The ChicagoDepartment is broadly represented in algebra,analysis, and topology and has moved ahead fastin applied mathematics. While no department canbe strong in all the important areas of mathematics and while one must always weigh the desirability of launching into a new area against that offurther strengthening of existing strong points, weare agreed that the appointment of a first-rate differential geometer would be an excellent move forthe Department to make. In this recommendationAPPENDIX: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE DEPARTMENTOF MATHEMATICS, 1968May 2, 1968The Committee which you [Provost Edward H.Levi] appointed to evaluate the Department ofMathematics presents the following report.The Department of Mathematics of The University of Chicago has been one of the most eminent departments in the country since the founding of the University. The Department insisted onexcellence in scholarship and research from thebeginning and consequently rapidly became oneof the two principal centers of mathematical research activity in this country, the other beingthat of Harvard University. Many people feel thatthe Department in Chicago was the more eminentof the two departments for the first 10 or 15 years. we are in agreement with the 1968 Visiting Committee. Next in order, after differential geometryas a field into which the Department might move,is algebraic geometry. The need here appears tobe less acute than for differential geometry, sinceseveral members of the Department, and especially Murthy, are very knowledgeable of algebraic geometry. The recent addition of mathematical logician should be followed by another appointment in this field, perhaps at the junior level.We conclude this Report with the general observation that the Mathematics Department atChicago continues to be one of the strongest research centers for mathematics in this country.On the score of effectiveness of its graduate program it appears to be one of the top two or threedepartments in the country.Finally, we wish to add a word of thanks to theChairman and Associate Chairman for the carefulpreparation and arrangement of a large body ofmaterial that was made available to us, and thatgave us an accurate picture of the present state ofthe Department.S. S. Chern, University of California, BerkeleyNathan Jacobson (Chairman), Yale UniversityJ. W. Milnor, Institute for Advanced Study,PrincetonLouis Nirenberg, Courant Institute of New YorkUniversityD. C. Spencer, Princeton UniversityAt any rate, these two departments dominated thedevelopment of mathematical research in thiscountry until Princeton emerged as a principalcenter of research at the end of World War I.Then these three departments were regarded asthe "Big Three" until the department at the University of California at Berkeley undertook itsgreat expansion in the late 1950s and early 1960s.In spite of some serious losses of personnel at thattime, the Department at Chicago was able tomake a number of excellent appointments and sois now regarded as one of the "Big Four" alongwith those of Harvard, Berkeley, and Princeton.However, there are now many excellent departments of mathematics in the country and thecompetition for the best research men continuesto be rigorous in spite of the great increase in thenumber of PhDs being granted per year. But thisincrease makes possible the great current increasein the number of very good research centers.It is probable that The University of Chicago40has granted more PhDs in mathematics over theyears than has any other university. It has certainly produced a large group of first-rate researchmen. It is interesting that probably the most famous men at both Harvard and Princeton — namelyformer Professors George David Birkhoff ofHarvard and Oswald Veblen of Princeton— received their PhDs from Chicago. Amongmore recent illustrious recipients of the PhD inmathematics from Chicago are such people as A.P. Calderon, Paul Cohen, and I. M. Singer, allrecently elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and younger men such as John Thompsonand R. M. Solovay. It might be noted that theDepartment at Chicago includes six members ofthe National Academy, a very large proportion.The teaching load in the Department atChicago is very favorable and the salaries are certainly competitive except, perhaps, in the instructor rank. Until now, the Department has not haddifficulty in making appointments at that rank.However, several of the eastern schools are raising the salaries of instructors above those paid atChicago.An attractive feature of the operation of theDepartment is the annual program in some specialtopic to which are invited a number of visitingprofessors. So far these have been financed bygrants from outside agencies but your Committeebelieves that the University should be prepared tohelp support these programs if that should become necessary. Another attractive activity is the"Midwest Topology Seminar" which involvescooperation between the Department at Chicagoand those at Northwestern University, NotreDame University, and the Circle Campus of theUniversity of Illinois.The Department has tremendous strength inthe fields of algebra and topology. It is doing everything it can to build up the groups in thosefields in which it is less strong. Its principal weakness is in the field of geometry where it needs tomake a high level appointment and a few others atthe lower levels. In analysis, it merely needs tomake sure that there are a few young people "onthe ladder"; Professors Browder and Calderonand, of course, Professor Zygmund are first-rateanalysts. It needs also to build up its groups inapplied mathematics and probability; but peoplein these fields are exceedingly hard to find and tomove when found. The field of mathematical logicis becoming a more important mathematical discipline. At present it is represented only indirectly(by Saunders Mac Lane) in the Department; agroup in this field should be formed as soon as possible but not at the expense of necessary appointments in geometry and analysis.The principal difficulty which the Departmentencounters in trying to prevent the developmentof weaknesses is that of locating the men of highquality which it wants and then persuading themto come to Chicago. Appointments at the instructor level would be facilitated by increasing thesalary for that rank. The Department has foundalso that two years is not sufficient time toevaluate the probable future performance of aninstructor since, in practice, the evaluation mustbe made at the end of his first year or the beginning of his second year as an instructor. The Department has let several instructors leave at theend of their two-year appointments only to findout shortly thereafter that they were "of Chicagoquality" after all. In several cases, the Department was then unable to persuade the men to return to Chicago. In view of the Department'straditional policy of keeping practically all its assistant professors, your Committee suggests thatthe Department be allowed to keep someinstructors on for a third year either as instructorsor as "lecturers" or "acting assistantprofessors" — the title being selected to emphasize the temporary character of the appointment. It would be still more desirable for fellowships, like the Junior Faculty Fellowships at Yaleor the Miller Fellowships at Berkeley, to be madeavailable to the most promising young facultymembers during one of their first three years in theDepartment.Several members of the Department stated toyour Committee that the Department encountered difficulty in making some high-level appointments and in keeping some of its members.It was believed that this was due to the situationof the University in the city. The University hasdone a great deal to make its immediate neighborhood attractive to its faculty, 70 percent of whomwere stated to live there, and to work out friendlyrelations with the adjacent parts of the city. Thisproblem certainly poses a great challenge to theUniversity and to its faculty, a challenge which ifmet successfully will help point the way to a solution of the nationwide problem of the "innercity." However, it is a challenge with which manypresent and prospective members of the facultymay not wish to grapple.S. S. Chern, University of California, BerkeleyNathan Jacob son, Yale UniversityCharles B. Morrey, Jr. (Chairman), University ofCalifornia, Berkeley41REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE TO EVALUATETHE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHYI. PrefaceChicago's Department of Geography, the first tobe established at an American university in 1903,has paved the way for the profession in scholarlyresearch and graduate training during much of itshistory. Salisbury, Barrows, Goode, Tower,Jones, Semple, Parker, Leppard, Piatt, and Colbyare only some of the faculty who, together withtheir students, shaped major directions for geographical teaching and research through theirbooks, their governmental service, and their research approaches.During the first half-century, the Department'sfocus was on articulating the content and direction of geography as a discipline. During the pastquarter of a century pioneering has continued,with greater focus on explicating geography's rolewithin a cross-disciplinary graduate training andresearch context. No single school of geographical thought has dominated the Chicago scene; instead, the man-land, regional, earth science, andspatial traditions have all had, and continue tohave, their proponents, as have had variousmodes of methodology and technique.The field of geography continues to expand itsintellectual horizons: behavioral and post-behavioral, theoretical and experimental, social-orientation and individual-orientation, thephenomenological and the objective — variousmodes of inquiry are being pursued by geographers, and the role of the Department atChicago is important in the general pace and directions of this pursuit. The role of a Committeeto Evaluate the Department of Geography is toinquire into the departmental objectives andstructure in relation not only to the University butto the profession. For the Department's continuing success as base for exploring new directions,developing new subfields is of concern to geography as well as to Chicago.II. A Small but Distinguished DepartmentGeography at The University of Chicago is viewed by faculty and administrators as a small butdistinguished Department in comparison withother departments in the Social Sciences Division. The Department is small not merely relativeto the size of other departments in the University,but also relative to its sizeable responsibilities and goals in student training, scholarly pursuits, andprofessional accomplishments.It became quickly clear to the Committee ofoutside geographers charged with evaluating theDepartment that size is a problem — that a verysmall band of full-time faculty is on hand to carrythe burden and responsibility of this major anddistinguished Department. The combination ofkey individuals drawn off to University administrative pursuits; to specialized scholarly activitieswhich prevent them from being fully exposed to asubstantial number of graduate and undergraduatestudents ; to the academic needs of other departments and other programs; and the dependenceon part-time affiliation combine to leave a core ofless than a half dozen individuals who can becounted on year in and year out to devote theirfullest energies to the Department. The cataloguelisting of 12 individual faculty names, includingnine full-time faculty (seven full-time equivalents)presents an inflated figure.The manpower shortage that Chicago geography faces suggests that there are both opportunities which may be missed and dangerouscracks which may appear. The continuing pressure to establish new fields of geographic inquiryin research and teaching in keeping with progressand developments in geography specifically and inscientific and humanitarian inquiry generally; thechallenge to increase graduate study enrollment("Report of the Advisory Committee on StudentEnrollment," The University of Chicago Record,VIII, 4, May 1974); and the call upon the Department to take on more teaching responsibilitiesin the College (due in no small measure to thevery positive experiences of undergraduate students who encounter geography for the first time),make for a situation in which the small size of theDepartment creates a condition of concern.Clearly there are advantages in a scale of activitysuch as now exists. Individual members are accessible to students and to one another, and aninformal, non-bureaucratic approach is used inmanaging the day-to-day operations of the Department. These, however, are advantages of asmall department operating at a human scale thatcan be maintained even if the size of the Department is modestly increased.That the Department is distinguished is widelyaccepted. Faculty members are distinguished in42their own right and through certain elements heldin common — the traditions of the Department, theintroductory graduate student survey course, thestrong cross-disciplinary training, the ChicagoDepartment of Geography Research Series, thestrong intellectual leadership given within andwithout the profession by past and present faculty. Each member of the Committee is wellaware of the reputation of the Department withinthe profession. Over many years of experience wehave come to know many Chicago graduates andto know of the quality of research and impact onthe profession of the various members of the faculty. Thus we made no special attempt to measure exactly how "distinguished" it might be. It isundoubtedly among the very best.There are, however, some questions whichshould be raised about the unique way in whichthe Department operates, and which relate to thequestion of smallness. Members of the facultyevince a strong tendency to work independentlyof one another, their highly individualistic research orientations strengthened and encouragedby the University's committee and center structure. This independence and wide sphere of action enhances the vitality of faculty and their students. In some ways this independence carries ahigh price, for perhaps it lessens the pressure toshape a common strategy for the Department'sfuture.Perhaps a large department would better beable to withstand the pressures previously cited,and could afford to delay attention to shaping thefuture. But for a very small department, this issurely a time to clarify and redefine collectivelyunderlying assumptions of its mission. These assumptions are concerned with intellectual directions, with geography training patterns forgraduate and undergraduate students, and withthe strategy for meeting University and departmental needs. In such an assessment, a new balance may have to be struck between individualand collective interests of both faculty and students.III. Solid Strengths and ContributionsA strong geography department at Chicago has asignificance that extends beyond university wallsto make an impact on the entire geographical profession. The oldest and consistently among themost eminent of all geography departments inAmerica, Chicago today deservedly maintains itsreputation as a center of the highest level intellectual inquiry. The strength that others in the Uni versity ascribe to the Geography Department isalso valued by geographers from the outside,especially the policy to work across fields and disciplines. The University structure provides freedom and support for such cross-disciplinary activities. Encouragement of individual scholarshipin this cross-disciplinary framework fashions theimage of Chicago geography — a faculty immersedin an intellectual environment that knows few disciplinary bounds — a geist within which intellectual innovation is stimulated through individual orsmall group development, a mature, highly personalized relationship between faculty andgraduate student (and small numbers of undergraduates). By the fruits of their scholarship andthe strength of their independent efforts, Chicagogeography faculty succeed as role models ininfluencing their students.The high intellectual quality of the faculty aswell as the structure which encourages cross-fieldactivities results in a situation whereby certain faculty members have played a key role in the development of programs, committees, and centers.We need only cite the Area Studies Programs, theCenter for International Studies, and the Centerfor Urban Studies as examples. Recent participation in the Committee on Social Thought is alsoenhancing the work of that committee. Thiscross-disciplinary activity benefits geography students in encouraging them to take training in cognate fields. It benefits students from other fieldswho can work with geography faculty and acquirea geographical perspective, and it surely is atwo-way street for the faculty.Among the most interesting tangible exhibits ofthe Department's quality, vitality, and reputationis its Research Series. At last report, 159 volumeshave been published (eight currently in preparation). Since 1948 every doctoral dissertation hasbeen included, along with faculty researchmonographs, symposium papers, and other professional materials. The series has over 700 subscribers around the world, individual volumes areoften widely reviewed in professional journals,given the Department unusual visibility as a research center. The commitment to publish all dissertations rather than just the best must surelyserve as a salutary pressure on students and advisors for the maintenance of high minimum standards. The character and role of the Series is aunique and impressive feature of the Department.In looking to the future, the current strengths ofthe Department provide good opportunities forexpansion or redirection into a number of possibleareas which seem likely to be of greater43significance in the years ahead. It would be presumptuous of the outside Committee to specifysuch areas. Yet, so impressed are we by the potential, that in the interests of our profession, wecannot refrain from expressing our hope that theDepartment will make some concerted effort toenlarge its work in such broad areas as environmental analysis (including the archeological andthe anthropological), historical geography,social-behavioral analysis. Even should AreaStudies, once a strong departmental focus, notagain become a major attraction for students inthe near future, it is likely that the nation willcontinue to need a high quality of regional expertise to apply effectively to fresh approaches tointernational and transnational economic, political, and cultural developments and problems.This need can be satisfied both by graduate training and by regional course offerings in the College.It perhaps goes without saying that any enlargement of Geography's contribution in suchareas will enhance interdisiplinary strengths atChicago. But that obvious fact raises a matter ofspecial import in any university's assessment ofthe role of its geography department. Geographyis one of those fields whose very nature requiresan unusual degree of interdisciplinary training andthrives best in a relatively open interdisciplinaryteaching and research environment. Over theyears, surely the strength of the Chicago Department has owed much to just such opportunitiesinherent in the Chicago environment. Suchcharacteristics might tempt a university administration, for budgetary as well as presumed intellectual benefits, to weaken or even eliminate separate departmental status for geography. Someyears ago a few universities made just such a decision, attaching their geographers to larger relevant departments. But the results are clearly quitethe opposite of what must have been expected.No field can thrive without a secure solid base.However good the individuals involved, without adisciplinary base there will come a waning of vitality, an inability to attract good professors or students, and soon simply an elimination of a uniqueand important kind of contribution to the largercommunity. The department is the anchor point,it provides the roots from which interdisciplinaryactivities can flourish. Experience demonstratesthe seeming paradox: departments are peculiarlyimportant to just such inherently interdisciplinaryfields; and the corollary — to strengthen the geography department will inevitably strengthen divisional contributions. IV. Perceivable Hazards of SmallnessWe spoke initially of the problem of smallness. Wesee certain hazards. Perhaps the members of theDepartment are too close to the issue to see themas does a Visiting Committee and in emphasizingthis issue we hope that it will be seen as constructive criticism.1 . Smallness has led to a narrowing of departmental options and offerings. The question might wellbe raised whether this hazard can be countered bydoing what Chicago seems often to have done inthe past — finding the best intellectual minds irrespective of their fields, in this fashion broadeningthe offerings and introducing new fields. Thedifficulty with this strategy is overdependenceupon one person in a specialized field. Whetherthe Department were to have four to six individuals as at the present, fully committed to the intellectual pursuit within the context of departmentalresponsibility, or nine if those who are occupiedwith other tasks were to be freed from them, oreven more if new faculty additions can be made,would still beg the question of dependence upononly one person in a specialized field.An alternative course is to shape the strategy offaculty hiring so that there would be closer or atleast more readily recognizable complementarityamong more of its members by creation of clusters within which the various subfields of geography can be pursued. At present, there is onlyone such cluster — the urban/behavioral. Whilethis does not denigrate the role of the individualscholar in developing a subfield and attractingstudents thereto, it does suggest that there is aneed to build up additional subfields. If hiring policy is to be directed to pairing intellectual interestsor at least to developing a high degree of complementarity so as to build such subfields, thenstudents can be more easily shared, the burdensand responsibilities of maintaining sponsored research activities can be more equitably shouldered, the possibilities for developing new fieldswhich have an integral tie to existing fields can bebetter realized, and continuity as senior facultyretire can be better assured. We, therefore,strongly recommend that the University support adepartmental expansion policy whose academicstrategy will include a greater measure of cluster,or small group action than is currently the situation.2. The age profile of the faculty in the light of itssmallness is a matter of concern. The current faculty picture is as follows:44Year of Year ofTenured Professors Birth Retirement1 1914 19792 1921 19863 1921 19864 1921 19865 1930 19956 1934 19997 1934 1999Non-TenuredProfessors8 19459 1948The first retirement is to be expected in fouryears, but after that it is not until 1986 that therewill be any vacancies on the staff from retirement.This means, in effect, that the Department hasvery little prospect for infusing new blood and fordeveloping new fields, unless some staff additionscan be made. In making additions, there is thequestion of striking a balance between the advantages of permanent positions which can be filledby people who are given enough time to developmajor new areas of inquiry and who can seegraduate students through, and the advantages ofthe short-term appointment which helps to preserve some degree of openness in the faculty anddoes not freeze all of the positions. A combination of the two, with two or three permanent positions and a short-term post for senior visitingscholars, would seem to offer the best possibilitiesfor staff development.3. The College is attempting to increase thenumber of students enrolled; there will be moreand more need for individual faculty to contributeto the various academic enterprises of the College. One of the hazards of smallness is that adepartment may simply not be able to respond tothe needs of the College. Another hazard may bethat the department will respond, but with individuals whose major contribution is seen asfulfilling the College's needs only. Shaping thestrategy of faculty appointment must include consideration of this issue. It may well be that theoptimal way to fill the College's needs is to takeadvantage of senior faculty interests in the College, by adding junior faculty who can releasethem of some of their current responsibilities. Theresearch patterns and scholarly directions ofsenior faculty already being well in hand, they areperhaps more easily capable of responding to un dergraduate teaching pressures without major lossof research directedness. Younger faculty, on theother hand, may need more time and a reductionof undergraduate teaching pressures while theyare carving out their research pathways and,therefore, perhaps should be hired to meet theneeds of expanding existing fields or of developing new fields especially at the graduate researchand training levels.4. Another hazard of smallness has to do with thesmall size of the graduate student body. It isdifficult to suggest an optimal number of graduatestudents and optimal ratio of graduate students tofaculty, especially given variability in conditionsof graduate training, of faculty interests, and ofresearch support directions — all of which preclude fixing of precise norms. Having said this,however, we still must express a concern at a resident graduate student body that is about two-thirds the size of the average for other departments (there were 30 resident students in 1973-74,and 33 in 1974-75); has a higher student toF.T. E. -faculty ratio than most other departments; and is, moreover, very strongly skewed inrelationship to advisors. Indeed, 60 percent of thestudents in residence assigned to advisors areworking with two faculty members!Of course, there is no guarantee that this sameover-concentration of students working with particular faculty would not obtain if the graduatestudent body were enlarged somewhat, unless faculty additions are also made. With additional faculty, more students could be admitted and theadvisory burdens, already heavy because a largeproportion of students do finish their programsand therefore require intensive dissertationsupervision, would be more broadly distributed,both because new students would be attracted toChicago to work with the new faculty and becausecurrent students would find wider options, especially if new, complementary fields were to be introduced, with clusters of faculty rather than oneindividual holding the advisory burden.We wish to emphasize that our expression ofconcern over smallness is not made with an eye tocopying large departments in large universities.Chicago's eminence is partly due to the freedomof the Department from heavy undergraduate instructional loads and from large occupationalmasters degrees. In geography, where most of themajor departments are in large, mainly state universities (only three are not), a department likeChicago's excels by concentrating on researchand doctoral training, thereby making a unique45contribution to the profession. The modest sizeincreases are suggested as a means of strengthening a small department, while preserving the values of smallness.V. The Graduate StudentThe intellectual quality of students who have received their graduate training in geography atChicago has over the years been very high. Thescholarly productivity of graduates and the success that they have experienced in assuming visible and important positions has been a functionnot only of individual capacity but also of thetraining process from which they have benefited.Obviously the Department and the Universitymust be alert to anything which might affect thecontinuation of this outstanding achievement. Wewould call attention to several features, not ofequal significance, but all bearing upon the topic.1. We have not made a historical survey of theconditions under which students have been attracted to Chicago. We are, however, struck bythe very meager resource base that is currentlyavailable for support of students. We are told thatduring this year only $35,000 is available fromUniversity and endowment sources to supportstudents. This amount must cover tuition costs of$3,210 per student ($3,400 for 1975-76). Ofcourse, the University commitment has beensupplemented by support from federal sources,sponsored research projects, and in some instances foreign sources. The amount of supportreceived for graduate students from other sourcesis twice as much as the University support.Nevertheless, our assessment not merely of theactual support level but, perhaps more importantly, of the guaranteed support that can be offered a student who applies initially to Chicago,leads us to conclude that the Department is in anunfavorable position to compete with other departments (mainly state universities, but also afew private institutions) for the very best ofgraduate students on the basis of financial support.The support issue seems to have made a particularly negative impact on the ability of the Department to attract a larger proportion of foreignstudents. The changing distribution of wealth on aglobal scale is likely to make it possible for foreigngovernment- supported students to be attracted toChicago, but not from advanced, Western countries where geographical background training ismore likely to be at a high level; well- trained stu dents from Western Europe and Canada are animportant feature of any major Americangraduate department. Another issue, felt by somefaculty, is the pressure to generate sponsored research support to help fund graduate students.While this pressure may be viewed in a positivelight as a stimulus for research, the burden, ifshouldered only by a very small number, doespresent strain and can lead to a diversion fromprimary intellectual interests.One may counter this concern by pointing outthat financial support is not the only basis onwhich students are attracted to a university, andby recalling that all departments of geography, asindeed nearly all fields, are encountering increasing problems in finding ways of supporting students. We accept these counter-points. It is obvious that students are attracted more by departmental and university reputation than by stipends.Nevertheless, the figures that we have been givenfor the past few years of the ratio of students whoare admitted to students who accept this admission are sufficiently troublesome in our opinion tosuggest that the general issue of student recruitment, admissions, and acceptances is one whichdeserves more attention by the Department.Total Total Total TotalAppli Ad Ac Arcants mitted cepted rived1972-73 53 41(8) 17(5) 10(3)1973-74 41 34 (12) 14(7) 14(8)1974-75 45 33(9) 12(7) 13(9)The numbers within parenthesis are in each case thenumber in that category offered or receiving aid.In the last three years, nearly three-quarters ofall applicants have been admitted by the Department and anywhere from 40+ percent to one-thirdof those admitted have actually accepted. The lowratio of acceptances to admissions may well be aresult of competitive bidding for student support.The high ratio of those admitted to the totalnumber of applicants may suggest that there isconsiderable preselection so only the very beststudents initially apply (we have been told thathalf of all applicants apply only to Chicago); or itmay suggest that the minimum standards of quality for admission, which compare favorably withthose of other departments, might nevertheless beraised. The latter would be feasible if a larger poolof applicants can be generated (the pool has beena constant of 40-60 applicants for many years).46We have had no opportunity to review whatever objective measures might be used to studythe caliber of the individual students. Discussionswith graduate students as a group and as individuals, as well as a review of their backgrounds, suggests that they are well qualified and bright, comparable in academic attainment and college background with students who are admitted to othergeography departments of excellence, althoughperhaps with a smaller proportion of experiencedstudents who have pursued successful M.A.careers elsewhere. Because the Chicago systemso strongly depends upon the self-guidedness andself-directedness of the individual student, it isespecially important that the very highest qualitystudents, both American and foreign, continue tobe attracted to Chicago.We would caution the Department againstover-confidence in terms of expecting the ableststudents to continue to be attracted, without someactive measures being taken. We realize that thelimitations of student support are University-wide. Perhaps there is not much more that theDepartment can do to secure additional help fromwithin the University, although we would hopethat some modest additional support might begenerated through current University fund-driveefforts. We suggest that the Department investigate the admissions situation carefully, includingthe question of how graduate students are attracted to Chicago. We caution against complacency in the student recruitment process.2. A second issue that has to do with graduatestudent is one that is not independent of faculty.This has to do with interactions. For a variety ofreasons the Chicago style of the scholar living andpursuing his work in relative isolation (we do notmean to suggest that there is not considerable interaction among certain members of the faculty;we are rather talking about the Department as acollectivity), presents some problems to studentswho miss the learning opportunities that comefrom collective interaction among faculty. Students currently in residence were not alone in raising this issue. We are impressed that several ofthe most thoughtful, penetrating responses we received from those who have recently completedtheir degrees mentioned this feature as the onlysignificant weakness in an otherwise excellent andrigorous graduate training program. As one put it,the faculty as a whole muted debates over coreissues and themes which unify geographic inquiry, leaving a "philosophical void." Like manyfields, geography has been undergoing a good deal of internal stress from just such debates and thishas caused serious dissension in some departments. We are given the strong impression thatthe Chicago Department has adopted a strategy ofaccepting pluralism, partly to avoid the risks ofpublic discussion. We do not believe that the risksneed be that great and we do believe that the Department has weakened its program by not structuring more direct and collective discussions ofthese matters as an important feature. We wouldemphasize that we all believe geography to be apluralistic field and are in no way suggesting thatconfrontation of such philosophical issues shouldlead to a single doctrinaire view. We do believethat a much deeper concern for philosophical issues has been an important source of vitality toour field and that Chicago students ought to begiven greater opportunities to explore such matters as a routine part of their training.Between the period when the introductory corecourse is completed and a student presents thedissertation project, there are few formalmechanisms for group interaction, despite available opportunities, and the period involved may betwo or three years. That there may not be adequate interaction at certain critical periods mayalso be reflected in the number of students who,for reasons of their own or by decision of the Department, do not proceed beyond the M.A. Afaculty-student pro-seminar was established in thepast as one response to this problem. The venturewas dropped for lack of attendance. We wouldsuggest that this be tried again, with formal faculty responsibility for its organization. Anotherissue relates to the advisory situation. On the onehand, the need for support from research projectsif seen by some students as pressure leading tohasty movement into a specialized area. On theother hand, unless a definite area and advisor ischosen, some students feel that they lacksufficient faculty contact. Efforts to launch morecollective types of intellectual interaction forumsmay yield important dividends, as may a closerlook at the advisory system for students who havenot yet chosen a research topic.3. There is some graduate student concern withthe unstructured nature of the program and thelimited number of course offerings. There seemsto be a need for greater structure in the M.A.program, particularly as more and more studentsseek this degree in a limited time period, and asthe possibilities of joint AB-AM degrees forgraduate students are explored and developed.Because the University Advisory Committee on47Student Enrollment has called for increased attention to enrolling Chicago's own College graduatesin the graduate programs, and has urged a generalexpansion of graduate student numbers, the pressure to expand formal graduate offerings in geography, especially at the M.A. level, may well increase the demands on faculty manpower. Werecognize the dilemma: the Department once hada structured M.A. program, and dropped it infavor of greater flexibility. For students pursuingthe program through the PhD, this strategy hasobvious advantages. Its deficiences are felt moststrongly by M.A. students who have such a limited time in residence.While there is not the same pressure to structure the PhD program highly, there are someneeds in this area. In the past, a good measure ofcommonality was achieved through field camptraining (the dropping of which is viewed as a lossby some students); through entry diagnostic examinations, and through the structured M.A.program. Some faculty do perceive the lack ofmore common disciplinary ground among thegeography doctoral students as a problem thatneeds attention. If more common courses or projects are not feasible, then perhaps more facultyshould make the effort to organize advisees incommon seminar/workshop experiences.4. Some students expressed their concern withthe inadequacy of attention to the value of teaching experience in the graduate student trainingprocess. Recognizing that Chicago does not havea teaching assistantship structure, we nevertheless suggest that there are a wide variety of waysof providing such opportunities. Indeed, Chicagohas one faculty member whose professional concern lies squarely in this area and who is centrallyinvolved with graduate student teaching andlearning training within the geographical profession. Teacher training opportunities need not beprovided only to those who are in formal MAT-type programs. They can be extended throughoutthe geography program, provided that facultyrecognize the need and seek out appropriate training opportunities for their geography graduatestudents, most of whom seek university careersand who see teaching as important as research intheir professional life.5. The Department's facilities are first-rate theyhave been well-conceived and planned, and theyprovide for housing many students together onresearch projects, and in association with the faculty. There is a Commons room which is de-48 signed for graduate student use, serving as a dualseminar room and coffee break focus. Some student mention was made of the desirability for improving the common gathering space through amore informal setting that would provide for greater inter-communication and colleagiality, especially for newer students who do not have accessto private space. A few simple furnishing changescould accomplish this.To summarize, the Committee was fortunate inbeing able to discuss the program and the Department with most of the graduate students inresidence, with the first-year graduate studentgroup, and then with the other graduate students.Later, individual students sought out Committeemembers and were able to amplify their views.We think that we have a good idea of the reactionof graduate students currently in residence to theprogram. By and large it is a highly positive reaction: morale is high; individualization of the program is valued; cross-disciplinary course work isappreciated; the high accessibility of facultymembers is welcomed; and the intellectual geist ishighly regarded. Students understand that there isa high degree of responsibility on them as individuals to respond and to perform in such an atmosphere.The positive reactions of students to the program outweigh the perceived deficiencies.Deficiencies include the student-expressed needfor greater collective interaction at the intellectuallevel. They also include the low level of studentsupport, and the inability of the Department toassure an incoming student of a minimal supportlevel throughout the residence period. We haveno simple recipes for increasing the support structure, but we must point out that one of the consequences of the present situation is for students tofeel pressed to complete their work as quickly aspossible. We refer here not merely to those pursuing M. A.s but to the PhD candidates as well. Thedanger of a student's educational experience become narrowed in the pressure "to get in and getout" (a pressure heightened by both generaleconomic conditions and University limitationson tuition support to one year for the M.A. student and a total of three years for the PhD student) is very great. This must be avoided at allcosts precisely because Chicago's role has beenand continues to focus on the "broadly educatedindividual." Perhaps one way of addressing theproblem is to pay greater attention to providingformal learning opportunities for those who are nolonger in residence but are close at hand in thecity.VI. The Graduate AlumniIn addition to our inquiry of the graduate studentsin residence, we have taken the liberty of writingto nearly every graduate student who received hisPhD in the last five years. The purpose of this isto try to obtain a different kind of a view from thatheld by those who are currently in the midst oftheir program. It is a retrospective view and wepresent it for the additional insights that can bederived from it.The carefully composed and thoughtful responses are all highly positive. Geography PhDalumni value their years at Chicago. The educational and training experience is seen as having setthe highest standards for scholarly excellence andresearch emphasis; as having inculcated a senseof individual work, a work ethic, and self-directedness; and as having afforded an ideal intellectual climate for broadening intellectual horizons and developing critical capabilities. The setting that structured this experience was characterized as: the smallness of scale that stimulatedinteraction with highly accessible faculty; thecross-disciplinary training opportunities; theclose-knit, dynamic student body, dedicated toscholarship and serving as teachers to oneanother; and the flexible, individually-tailored,tutorial-type program in which students weretreated as professionals by their peers and by faculty. One respondent's description of Chicago'sgeography as "an outstanding Department in anoutstanding University" speaks for the group as awhole.In another respondent's characterization of theDepartment as a "community of individual scholars who are its strength and weakness," we findsome issues which both in the recent past andtoday highlight some weaknesses and offer a challenge for improvement. Several respondentspraised the structure of the past that required students to fulfill basic courses when diagnostic examinations indicated such a need. Several alsopraised the value of the field camp and the fieldproblem, some expressing a need for expandingthis set of experiences. These particular elementsof the program's structure that were singled outfor praise have now largely disappeared becausethe Department feels that they have lost their utility.A major concern expressed by many was thelimited training offered in analytic techniques, instatistical tools, in cartography, and, in general, intechniques as aids to developing researchmethodology. Statistical training is, of course, offered in the Department of Statistics, but these respondents feel that departmentally-offeredcourses are more appropriate for their backgrounds.Another widespread criticism was the absenceof formal opportunity in the program to experience college teaching. Some saw this in the technical training sense, others saw this as related tolack of breadth in their geographical background.There is a feeling by some that they were at adisadvantage in entering the college teachingscene because of the absence of structured collegeteaching experiences.Another area singled out for comment was thatthe flexibility, so highly valued by most, was alsoa weakness. For some it had proven to be"flexibility to a point of indifference." Lack ofdesignated supervisors during the period that students were searching for a research topic (supervisors are selected); a feedback system describedas "passive"; a structure that all too frequentlydid not put students to the test after the introductory course or the M.A. and therefore had littleability to terminate candidacy "mercifully"; lackof course structure for the M.A. students, wereall criticisms of the looseness of structure experienced.Finally, lack of interaction with faculty outsidethe area of specialization was cited by some as anegative aspect of their experience. The price ofintimate interaction with the dissertation advisorwas indifference on the part of other faculty. Thisis partly seen as leading to too narrow a geographical background and to lack of a comprehensive view of the field. It is also tied to anotherproblem area, perceived narrowing of facultyspecializations. For some alumni in this group,balance and diversity of specialization and outlook, and need for more inputs in the physical,cartographic, perceptual, and urban areas arespecified.Many of these weaknesses could berationalized as the inevitable price to be paid forthe strengths of the Department. This is recognized by nearly all of those who voice criticism,and the remedies suggested are not put forward asalternatives to what made the Chicago experienceso valuable, but as inputs which could enhancethe program by offering some built-in safeguardsfor providing greater supervision and breadth oftraining for those who need it.VII. The CollegeOur Committee's view of the College was derivedfrom discussions with undergraduate students ma-49joring in geography, the geography faculty, andthe Master of the Social Sciences Division of theCollege. In general, we feel that the College represents a major area of opportunity. Geographyserves a small (25 to 30) but growing number ofmajors, and a much larger number of studentswho see geography as a related or a general educational field.From the standpoint of undergraduate majors,geography is a flexible, open, intimate, andnewly-popular Department, whose faculty are accessible to students. The field is regarded as anexcellent base for those interested in such professional fields as urban affairs and environment.One issue raised by students who select theirmajor by their sophomore or junior years is thesmall number of courses (and the very few geography faculty who are involved in the undergraduate program). Another problem may be aneed to reach out earlier to undergraduates,nearly all of whom come to college with no graspof the value of the field either as a major or as aliberal educational experience. Ironically, thisoldest of America's geography departments isviewed as a "new" Department by undergraduatemajors.To encourage the expanding undergraduate interest, however, the Department will requiremore faculty resources. At present, four membersare seen as contributing in some measure to theCollege's program. Additional faculty input neednot, as has already been suggested, come onlyfrom new, young staff. On the contrary, more ofthe current senior faculty could be enlisted in thework of the College if the Department could gainyounger faculty who could develop their researchareas and concentrate on working with graduatestudents. Both College administrators and geography faculty with whom the Committee discussed this point were in agreement as to its desirability. While geography now serves two of theCollege's functions well (1) as a concentration,and (2) as a liberal educational framework thatrelates to the needs of other disciplines — for example, biology, anthopology, economics — it doesnot play a meaningful role now in the Core (General Educational) Courses. A commitment to thispart of the undergraduate program by the Geography Department would expose undergraduatesquite early to the field and increase interest in theother two areas (the concentration, and the related courses) as well.To serve the needs of an expanding College willnot be possible without expanding the size of thegeography faculty. That such service would help rationalize departmental expansion is clear. Butadding members merely in response to thisstaffing need, without integration with the long-term research and graduate training needs of theDepartment, would not merely represent an opportunity missed, but perhaps create unforeseentensions and pressures over questions of promotion and tenure.VIII. The Operations of the DepartmentWe have previously alluded to the highly individualistic character of the Department, notmerely in its approach to graduate training but inits approach to managing departmental affairs.Bureaucracy is kept to a minimum, routine decisions are made rapidly by the Chairman; there is alow level of conflict over issues (despite individualphilosophical differences) because little time isspent in formal meetings and in collectivedialogue. This atomistic mode of governance ispreferred (by junior as well as most senior faculty)to consensual governance.The atomistic level of governance sustains individuality, autonomy of inquiry, independence,and respect for others. However, this mode posescertain problems. Can general departmentalpriorities be defined without serious discussionand willingness to confront some issues head on?Can new departmental research goals be developed without more extensive team interaction?Can direct response be made to certain studentrequests for more collective faculty student interaction?The outside Committee does not wish to suggest models of collective faculty governance andstudent-faculty relation that are appropriate forother university settings but are not appropriatefor Chicago. What it does wish to suggest is thatthere may be value to structuring a more limitedamount of formal departmental interaction andcollective decision-making than now seems to bethe case, so that the opportunities that are available to the Department may be more readilyseized. Forging new directions requires some effort in collective planning that may require minoradjustments in the current departmental style ofoperation, but these are adjustments that can bemade by individuals of such talent, maturity, andexperience. Indeed, recent steps taken by theDepartment to strengthen collective decisionmaking, indicate an awareness of this need.50IX. Opportunities — and the Dangers of InactionWe have sought to pinpoint the issues that we seein the Department in this Report, not so much asproblems of the moment, but as problems stemming from the dangers of University or departmental inaction in the face of clear opportunity.To remain a truly distinguished Department in theface of the rapid changes that we can expect inuniversity life during the 1970s and 1980s will require an alertness to opportunity and an opennessto systematic re-examination.The need to increase faculty modestly is, in ouropinion, of the highest priority. Expanding the faculty is linked to the development of additionalsubfields of strength, based upon a hiring strategythat is directed toward "pairing" or complementarity. Existing faculty research interests presentopportunities to expand in certain aspects of theman-environment tradition that is so stronglyidentified with Chicago geography and that canbuild upon related disciplines and fields.Faculty expansion relates directly to anotherarea of opportunity — serving the expanding needsof the College. Involvement in the very significantcore general education courses could employ thetalents of key senior staff, and make possible thehiring of new, younger personnel to help open upnew specializations. Opportunity lies in the factthat College expansion is very much in the University interest now, and that geography's role ishighly valued by students, faculty from other disciplines, and College administrators.A unique area of opportunity may lie in developing closer relationships with the NewberryLibrary and the Hermon Dunlop Smith Center forthe History of Cartography. This major resourceis just beginning to be tapped (Woodward, program director of the Smith Center and the library'smap curator is offering a course in the Department in The History of Cartography, as seenthrough Graphics; and a few students of Historical Geography pursue some of their research atNewberry). Newberry offers considerable opportunities for the Department to expand its work inHistorical Geography and the History of Cartography.Chicago's University map library, one ofAmerica's outstanding libraries, seems to be aseriously under-used resource that has potentialto the Department for teaching as well as research. Organization and procedures in the library should be reviewed for the possibilities ofmeshing map collecting policies with those of theNewberry Library. This is a possibility suggestedby Woodward. The separate locations of the two libraries (Chicago's map library is in theUniversity's Regenstein Library and the Newberry Library is on the Near North side) doespresent certain obstacles to closer interaction butthese are not insurmountable.Ideally, of course, if Newberry were housed at,or near The University of Chicago, geographycould play the role of spearheading major newthrusts in research and teaching efforts that couldlink history, literature, cartography, and geography. Studies of the region, the city, the American West, Latin America, and the Renaissancewould all stand to benefit from the closer interaction of these two institutions. If the Universitywere prepared to pursue the possibilities of serving as host for Newberry, then the Departmentcould support this major opportunity, by a commitment to expand its specialized efforts in historical geography and to develop historical cartography as a major thrust (this area is now onlymodestly explored by Woodward's course already mentioned).Another area of opportunity may lie in recognition of the very special attractiveness thatChicago's geography Department holds as a basefor post-doctoral students. We refer not merely toforeign scholars whom the Department has frequently welcomed in this capacity, but also toyoung American scholars for whom theUniversity's rich resources and the Department'sability to create interdisciplinary training situations can play a unique role for the profession.A post-doctoral thrust could also serve as a wayof providing part-time teaching resources,perhaps in connection with certain parts of theCollege's activities. Clearly, such an activitywould have to be separately funded. TheDepartment's meager budgetary resources do noteven support special lectures, let alone meetneeds for expanding the use of instructional materials and technical services (these often dependupon support from external projects). And, giventhe need to increase graduate student support, it isclear that even a modest effort in the postdoctoral area would require support fromspecially-generated funds.The desire of some graduate students to expandtheir graduate training to include teaching experiences presents an opportunity to enlist them, notas substitutes, but as "junior partners" in presenting innovative teaching situations to the College.We refer not to the teaching or lab assistantshiprole that is assumed by graduate students in mostother universities, but to team-teaching situationsin which the student's teaching is geared to re-51search talents, and in which the teaching experience is treated as part of a learning effort.Finally, the expressed desire of graduate students to increase collective interaction within theDepartment may be taken as a stimulus tostrengthen inter-faculty as well as faculty- studentdialogue through a variety of mechanisms. Someattention to greater structure of the M.A. program, to larger seminars for students after the firstyear, and to group activities for accessible out-of- residence students is desirable; so is more attention to the advisory system, especiallybroadening the number of involved faculty forfirst-year students.Modest rearrangement of space, not merely inthe Student Common Room, but perhaps withinthe Department, may be helpful. At present, 23 ofthe graduate students are housed in the Department, either in separate rooms or in lab space.Finding some room for students in the Department who now do not benefit from such spatialinteraction with other students and faculty wouldbe helpful. Perhaps this space can be found in partof the area now given over to storage. Aside fromthis need and for additional stockroom space needfor the Research Series, the Department is wellhoused. Since space is so highly used, there isalmost no leeway; however, the expansion of staffmight require some additional room within thebuilding.X. EpilogueThe Committee wishes to express its thanks to allconcerned for having developed requested data inadvance, for having organized the necessarymeetings during our site visit, and for having responded to our needs for post-visit data. We include in this appreciation geography alumni whohave responded to our request for their assessment of their graduate training experiences. During the visit to the campus that extended over athree-day period, we were fortunate to be able toreach out to nearly all of those who constitute the Department and its University setting.In the course of the visit, we met with nearlyevery geography faculty member, individually, insmall groups, and collectively (Messrs. B. Berry,N. Ginsburg, S. Golant, C. Harris, D. Jones, M.Mikesell, W. Pattison, P. Wheatley, and lecturersB. Ogilvie and D. Woodward). We failed to meetonly with Mr. K. Butzer, who was out of thecountry (but who prepared a thought-provokingmemorandum for our consideration). Other faculty members with whom we met includedMessrs. B. Cohn (Anthropology and South AsianHistory); R. Hodges (Education); J. Kitagawa(History of Religions); J. Meltzer (UrbanStudies); and V. Turner (Social Thought). University administrators with whom we held discussions were: Dean S. Rudolph (Master of the Social Sciences Collegiate Division); President E.Levi; Provost J. Wilson; and Dean W. Kruskal.We spoke with most of the graduate students inresidence. The meeting of first- year students had10 participants, and of the more advanced students 14 participants. We had the further opportunity to meet with several students individuallyand to read prepared statements that expanded oncertain points of conversation. We met with abouthalf of the undergraduate majors. We receivedwritten responses from 19 recent doctoralgraduates.All-in-all, the Committee had a rare opportunity to meet the Chicago Geography Departmentin a variety of settings, and to enjoy an atmosphere that was open and searching. We came toobserve, to learn, and to report. We hope that thissurvey and evaluation will prove useful toChicago in stimulating the continued growth anddevelopment of this small but distinguished Department so as to serve even better the needs ofboth the University and the profession.John S. Adams, University of MinnesotaSaul B. Cohen, (Chairman) Clark UniversityDonald W. Meinig, Syracuse UniversityRhoads Murphey, University of Michigan52ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STUDENTMENTAL HEALTH CLINIC, 1973-74March, 1975Most first-year undergraduates now on our campus were born in 1956, the year in which the Student Mental Health Clinic had its inception in itspresent form. It was the year in which Ericksonfirst published a set of observations about youthwhich he described as an identity crisis, stirringthe imagination of students and healers alike. Although not so intended, the conceptualframework seemed to offer both explanation andresolution of the type of stress encountered mostfrequently in the beginning years of college.Among other observations, he introduced the notion of a moratorium, a leave of absence fromstudying which for most students had been uninterrupted since kindergarten years.At that time, fewer than three million studentswere enrolled in colleges, though it was being reliably reported that in 20 years the number wouldbe nine million and would require a proliferationof institutions, predictions since realized. Lesswell predicted was the fact that private institutions such as ours would be faced with sharplyincreased costs in a time of economic recession,making it more difficult to attract and hold students in the undergraduate programs we offer.Although dropping out or leave-taking neverbecame institutionalized, it was increasinglycommon until an unpopular war and the draftbegan to create a negative force. With the liftingof the draft, the tendency to leave college at somepoint during the undergraduate years increased.But, as we reported last year, this was of limitedvalue for some students and counterproductivefor others. Moreover, it was our experience thatstudents who were known to the clinic tended toreturn to the University more frequently thanthose we had not known; if the interval away waswell-planned, the likelihood of return was greater.Now, the escalating cost of education, and feweruseful alternatives to formal study, create a special urgency in finding the essentially right courseof study with less opportunity to experiment. Asnew lines of educational options emerge and formerly valued areas of specialization become lessattractive, students find themselves assailed byeven greater doubts and anxieties. Eighteen-year-olds on our campus have sincebirth been caught up in a spiraling intensity ofchange such as few generations before theirs haveexperienced. Countries merged and fragmented;our own country was rocked by racial violenceand by violence to end violence abroad. Distantstars and the most secret recesses of mind andbody were subject to probing inquiry through theintimate eye and voice of TV. Lines of sexualdevelopment were blurred and intimacy appearedto become obligatory, its absence or postponement often viewed as immaturity or illness. Drugsto heal and drugs to banish reality were the subject of anxious and tempting discussion or experimentation. Through all this the theme of violence continued in reality and as a constant threat.The seasoned among us recognize that newlyvalued goals are emerging, that change alone isenduring. But we also hope that undergraduateyears may provide an opportunity to inform themind and heart in a way which should lead toreasoned choices and the capacity to search outand strengthen the pursuit of cherished goals.As we seek to respond to the needs of undergraduates and graduates who consult us, we continue to relate high clinic users to their proportionate registration on campus. Through sharingtheir concerns and our own with faculty and administration, attention can be directed to relievingundue institutional stress, leading to improvementin the conditions of living and learning.Continued Rise in Clinic UseRegardless of fluctuations in enrollment, clinicuse continues to rise in the rate per thousand students (Tables 1 and 2). Undergraduate use remains higher than proportionate undergraduateenrollment, but we no longer see a disproportionately high number of first-year students in theirinitial quarter on campus (Tables 3 and 4). Weview this as an indication that the housing andadvisory systems are supportive in aiding the process of acculturation. More importantly, comments by students who do come to the clinicreflect this sense of support. By the end of theacademic year, however, we will see about 10percent of an incoming class for difficulties of53varying intensity. This is to be expected sincelong neglected or unsuspected problems may surface at this time of first separation from home.Clinic Use and GraduationIn any convocation list, clinic users will be aboutone fourth of those receiving undergraduate degrees; the same proportion will be among highaward winners. But this will include transfer students and members of the other classes. It is useful, therefore, to follow a given class from the timethey enter as first-year students to the point ofgraduation or leaving (Tables 5 and 6). We havealways anticipated a higher rate of dropoutsamong clinic users for most frequently they comeon their own or are sent to us when they are introuble. Yet our experience has been that clinicusers tend to graduate at a somewhat higher rate.This has been true with the exception of the classof 1974 which we will later discuss in greater detail. By way of comparison, the clinic experiencefor two preceding classes is presented.Twenty -eight percent of the Class of 1972 and25 percent of the Class of 1973 consulted theclinic. At the time of expected graduation (in fouryears) there was a higher number of graduatesamong clinic users in both classes than amongnon-users. By December 1974, clinic users of theClass of 1972 were 6 percent higher in the numbergraduating and a higher percent are still enrolled.Their dropout rate is 10 percent lower than theirclassmates who did not use the clinic. For theClass of 1973, the difference was even greater.Graduation among clinic users was 12 percenthigher than non-users, and, since more are stillenrolled, the dropout rate was 15 percent lowerthan non-users. Most of these students consultedthe clinic in their early undergraduate years;lengthy treatment is not generally associated withgraduation.As we reported last year, we no longer see adisproportionately high use of the clinic bywomen, but for those who did consult us in theClass of 1973, the number graduating was 28 percent higher than for women who were not users.For men, the graduation rate for user and non-user was identical. The dropout rate among clinicusers for both men and women will be slightlylower since some are still enrolled.A word of caution is in order. From our studiesand others, it would appear that men tend to seekhelp less frequently than women although theirneeds are as great. Our responsibility is to encourage their use of clinic services while they are still resident on campus. It is clear from our workwith graduate students that they were troubled inundergraduate years and might have been treatedthen.Class of 1974The Class of 1974 bears closer scrutiny since itrepresents a shift in our experience that a higherpercent of clinic users than non-users tend tograduate. With this class 20 percent were clinicusers; the number graduating was one percentlower than for non-users. In all three classes, forstudents who did not use the clinic the percentgraduating remained virtually unchanged, risingonly one percent in the most recent class. Thedropout rate for users will be slightly lower thanfor non-users because a number are still enrolled.With the Class of 1974, a large group of students were admitted to the University under special programs such as Alonzo A. Stagg Scholarships, Cooperative Program for Educational Opportunity, Grass Roots Talent Search, UpwardBound, Urban Talent Search, and NSSFMA. Although they constituted only 10 percent of the entering class these students were known to us at alevel six percent higher than the class as a whole.The number graduating was 15 percent lower thanthose who did not consult us. Non-users wereonly three percent under their classmates in thenumber graduating.As we examined our experience with clinicusers in this group, we found that many were already immobilized when they came to us. Although this is true for others who consult us, students in the special programs seemed to have astronger need to avoid recognition of theirdifficulties, to attribute their problems to factorsoutside themselves. And, in part, this was valid.After succeeding encounters with the reality ofstudying on this campus, they described a senseof being burnt out, a loss of readiness to experiment. They longed for continuity with that recentpast in which their accomplishments were prizedand their sense of worth supported by recognition. Without close supervision, which somefended off in this new community because it madetoo public their needs and hampering self-doubts,they were unable to surmount their failures. Theyfelt they had given up a great deal to come here.The loss of self-esteem which ensued upon theirfailure to perform at previous high levels furtherreduced the energy required for the difficult taskof establishing new methods of learning.Omitting discussion of those students whose54needs and dysfunctions are typical of the problems for which we are generally consulted, students admitted under the special programs regarded the clinic as but another indication of failure to which was now added the anxiety thatothers might consider them ill. And yet it becameclear that for a large number their intellectualcapacity set them apart from their peers in thecommunity from which they came. It provided ahaven from their struggles to secure for themselves the friendship and easy camaraderie whichothers seemed to enjoy. They confided how meaningful their ties to advisers, househeads, and faculty had become. More people spoke their language here than at home. When we were unable toassist them in remaining here, the focus of ourwork, in as healing a way as possible, had to be inbringing about return to their home communitywith the possibility of other educational options.When indicated, we had to help in finding treatment facilities at home.Although, in retrospect, the experiment in admitting students at such varying levels of preparation may seem discouraging, it is important thatwe were successful with many. What we havelearned may be that as with children at an earlierlevel of development, academic support should beprovided not as an option but as ongoing structure. And in small enough groups to assist them inmaking the transition to independent study.Transfer StudentsWe have long reported that newcomers to ourcampus tend to use the clinic services in largernumbers. For some, environmental change,rather than resolving their problems as theyhoped, highlighted instead their need to workthrough some tenacious difficulties. But we wouldlike to consider a special group of transfers, theolder undergraduate, obscured in the recent pastby the romantic ear and eye catching descriptiveterms of the news and entertainment media. Werefer here to transfer students, older than theirclassmates, who are seeking to return to collegeafter an interim of life in various forms of counterculture.These were not young people engaged in activist expression of anger and disillusion. Theywere not students who had been caught up in anintensive experience of trying out ideologic concepts or deliberately seeking a life different fromtheir parents. They appeared rather to be individuals whose severely disturbed behavior wentunrecognized. They were not a danger to the community though their behavior was severelyself-destructive. They sought out this Universityas fulfilling their earlier ideal for themselves, and,when they were admitted, they had already beguna process of self-evaluation and had successfullycompleted a year of work at another college. Theycame to the clinic on their own or were referredwhen they were overwhelmed with anxiety abouttheir ability to perform at the high level they expected of themselves and the fear that they wouldagain fall into uncontrollable, self-defeating behavior.A great deal of intensive effort is required tohelp these students stabilize themselves. Theyoften confide that as children they were regardedas exceptionally bright, conforming individualswho bore a great deal of responsibility in theirhomes. Parents were often demanding, fragilethemselves, using these students as auxiliary parents to younger brothers and sisters, or if thesestudents were the youngest, ignoring their needsin relation to the demands of older siblings. To usthey appeared to have been intellectually overfedand emotionally undernourished. At some pointmid high school, their behavior went wildly out ofcontrol. To their parents this appeared as intransigent or delinquent behavior, and ultimately thesestudents became runaways. The events they described to us covered a lengthy period of yearsand conveyed the impression of borderline if notpsychotic behavior. The students themselvesviewed their behavior as alien and yet compulsivein its impulsiveness. They suffered from a tyrannical sense of guilt and experienced a sense ofunworthiness in accepting satisfaction. Ironically,this was compounded by their experience withadults here whom they found more compassionateand understanding, more able to help them withtheir educational and life tasks than any in theirprevious years. Old longings to please and to befound pleasing reasserted themselves sharply andseemed to engulf them, particularly when theirwork was not of that quality they demanded ofthemselves. At such times, impulsive behaviorthreatened to erupt again. Thus the course ofenabling such students to tolerate the learningprocess was a slow and demanding one. If theywere able to afford private treatment while continuing their studies which had now become precious to them, they were referred out, but somehad to be accommodated within the clinic services. And they required a heavy investment ofclinic time.With all these students, those in the specialprograms and those who arrived as transfers, their55presence here was an act of mutual faith. We hadsought them out or they had sought out this University. Undertaking to educate so varied a groupof young people places a special demand on all thesupportive services. We tend to search for someblanket approach which will insure their survivalonce they have been admitted to the University.But we are far from such a solution and we are ledto the conclusion that what we can offer them andeach other is a growing body of experience in responding to the needs of each individual student.Graduate StudentsFor the most part, graduate students whom wesee have achieved a very high level of accomplishment. They come to the clinic from allgraduate divisions and schools. Our previousstudies have indicated that students whose professional training requires working directly withsocial or medical problems tend to use our services in somewhat higher numbers. This year hasseen a sharp increase in clinic use by students inthe humanities. It is well-known that the problemof finding meaningful employment has becomegrave, but for the most part students are not coming to the clinic directly with this problem. It doesappear as an anxious theme underlying questionsabout their own adequacy or the wisdom of theirchoice of a profession. They are depressed bytheir inability to live up to their earliest aspirations for themselves or that others held for them.This is particularly true for those who are newto our campus. They are not infrequently highaward winners who have left behind those associations which in a more personal way supportedtheir growing competence and excellence. When,in addition to the intensifying demands ofgraduate work, old supports are absent, they experience a severe drain in energy. They becomeintimidated by the competence of other students.Feelings of envy and self-doubt encumber theirthought and further impair their capacity for productive demonstration of their very real abilities.With such students it is possible to help them understand feelings of disappointment and anger in amanner which does not rob them of their self-esteem. And they can then come to terms withdisappointing realities in the context of atherapeutic relationship. We can then help themto free their energies for further challenges whichlife holds for us in increasing intensity.We would offer only this observation. Individual departments and professional schools seemto have ways of easing students into the first year of graduate work. Others assume that these youngadults are and should be able to use institutionalgivens to find their own direction. This is a reasonable assumption. And yet it is also a reasonablehuman need to have an affirming contact withthose in authority. Initiation or orientation ritesspaced over the year can provide for that need in amanner which can strengthen an individual in hisability to tolerate the lonely work of masteringcomplex intellectual data.We have always seen a number of undergraduate and graduate students who consult us inrelation to family stress or loss. When a warmlyloved parent dies or is incapacitated, the drain ofenergy can be severely immobilizing. At that timestudents may also need to assume additional responsibilities, along with the demands of graduatestudy. It can be easing to talk about their feelings,to have some help in considering solutions to theproblems they face. Other students who have always had to bear a disproportionate burden offamily care may need permission and support tomove away from demands which are not appropriately theirs and can be borne by others, particularly now when they must be freer to equip themselves for their own life work.But a continuing and prominent theme amongall students who consult us is that of loneliness,isolation, ceaseless searching for and failing tofind an idealized union, or, for a few, even a beginning in the ability to reach out to others forfriendship. The latter can find their way throughthe most abstruse intellectual concepts and yet beunable either to receive or express the ordinarycues of attachment behavior.Is there some special problem that students inthe learned professions experience in establishinga happier bond between sustaining warm relationships and the pursuit of academic excellence?Most of us have struggled to achieve a balanceand it is in our work with those who will ultimately replace us that we seek the answers tothese human needs.Five- Year TrendThe appended tables describe clinic use for theperiod July 1, 1969, through June 30, 1974. A preview of clinic use by first and second year students for the current year is included.During the past year the rate of clinic use per1,000 students increased; the total number of interviews rose by 25 percent. Eighty percent of thestudents using the clinic came in on their own;another 20 percent are referred. Although as in56previous years we are reporting that most students complete their work in the clinic within fiveor six interviews, these figures are computed onlyfor the past year and do not represent the numberof times students may be seen during their residence on this campus.Eleven percent of undergraduates and sevenpercent of graduate students cosulted the clinic.Hospitalizations remained at previous levels. Seventeen percent of students were referred to otherresources for further treatment: five percent toprivate therapists, eleven percent to the Outpatient Department of Psychiatry, and one percentto other clinics.John F. KramerMiriam ElsonTABLE 1: STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC USAGE,JULY 1, 1969-JUNE 30, 1974Number of Number ofAcademic Registered Students Rate Per 1,000year Students* consulting MHC Students1973-74 8,550 584 68.31972-73 8,627 561 65.01971-72 8,636 549 63.51970-71 10,907 614 56.21969-70 11,457 646 56.3* Prepared by the Registrar's Office, this represents the total number of different studentsenrolled for at least one quarter during the academic year.TABLE 2: ANNUAL USE OF THE STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC,JULY 1, 1969-JUNE 30, 19741973-74 1972-73 1971-72 1970-71 1969-70Total Under Care 655 629 621 669 708NewFormerReturning in theCurrent year 437147*71 426135*68 397152*72 405209*55 474172*62Unduplicated total(New and Former) 584 561 549 614 646*Carry-over from previous academic year included in totals.Clinic StaffPsychiatristsPeter B. JohnstonJohn F. KramerJerome A. WinerPsychiatric Social WorkersMiriam ElsonAlice IchikawaBetty KohutAnna Mary WallaceSecretaryPaula Nichols51TABLE 3: GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE USE OFSTUDENT MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC COMPARED WITHTOTAL QUADRANGLE RESISTRATION, JULY 1,1969-JUNE 30, 1974Undergraduates GraduatesYear MHC% TotalRegistered % MHC% TotalRegistered %1973-741972-731971-721970-711969-70 41404047.545 2928293031 59606052.555 7172717069TABLE 4: UNDERGRADUATE CLINIC USE BYACADEMIC CLASS DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OFRESIDENCE, JULY 1, 1969-DECEMBER 31, 19741974 1975 1976 1977 1978Size of entering class 608 563 630 525 599Year of firstclinic contactIn first year 68 59 68 54 18*In second year 50 58 65 22*Total in first twoyears 118 108 133^Through December 31, 1974.TABLE 5: CLINIC USE BY THREE UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES1972, 1973, AND 19741972 1973 1974Total Class 727 100% 485 100% 596 100%Users 203 28% 123 25% 120 20%Non-users 524 72% 362 75% 476 80%TABLE 6: CLINIC USE BY THREE UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES 1972,1973, AND 1974, BY PERCENT GRADUATING1972 1973 1974User Non-user User Non-user User Non-userGraduatedStill Enrolled*Withdrew 57538 51148 63631 51346 511237 52741*As of December 31, 1974.TABLE 7: STUDENTS HOSPITALIZED INALBERT MERRITT BILLINGS HOSPITALFOR EMOTIONAL DIFFICULTIES,JULY 1, 1969-JUNE 30, 1974ThroughOther ThroughYear Total Services MHC1973-74 ll2 5 61972-73 10 3 71971-72 141 2 6 81970-71 122 4 81969-70 183 14 41 One student was hospitalized three times.2. Two students were hospitalized twice.3. Three students were hospitalized twice.TABLE 8: ANNUAL NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS BY PERCENTAGE,JULY 1, 1969-JUNE 30, 1974Number ofInterviews 1973-74 1972-73 1971-72 1970-71 1969-701 26 29 21 22 252-5 46 47 50 44 486-10 17 15 15 20 1611-20 7 6 8 8 7Over 21 4 3 6 6 459THE 55TH ANNUALBOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNER FOR THE FACULTYRemarks by EDWARD H. LEVIJanuary 8, 1975Our University from the start has been reflective about purpose and direction. We havesought continuously a clarification of identity. Arecent manifestation has been the interdisciplinary essay-writing committees of the faculty,examining problems, giving guidance on appropriate responses. The work of these committeesexhibits an awareness and a pride that the survivalof our kind of University requires special capacityfor a mission. That some faculty, after strenuous,even tumultuous discussion, have been unable asof now to complete the writing of the essays emphasizes the seriousness of the effort. The effortis a process central to the University's life. Whenwe have had difficulties, as we did last year,which rise to the level of principle — a distinguished lecturer prevented from speaking (and Imention this with humiliation) — these reportshave helped us to judge our way. Then, as a systematic matter, outside panels are invited to review the state of departments or disciplines withinthe universities. These comments are also published, along with departmental responses. Members of other institutions have wondered at thiscandor. One could write the history of ourUniversity — and one day I suppose it will bewritten — using as touchstones the recurring efforts at evaluation.The characteristics of our University take onmeaning against the background of the largeracademic world. The pressures and movements ofthe last decade in higher education are reflected ina compilation of eighty-one essays, published asthe Fall and Winter issues of Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, under the heading "American HigherEducation: Toward an Uncertain Future."Perhaps because they come after the reports ofthe Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,and thus can build upon them, in contrast, theseessays seem to deal more with central issues ofquality and content in education and to reveal much more also of the experiences, fears, andshape of the educational world around us. Theessays are personal accounts, with sufficient disagreement among them to give authenticity to theissues discussed. Taken together, I think theymake the case for Chicago. So I commend themto you.In discussing these essays let me begin by mentioning, and then putting to one side, the fact thatmany of them reveal a considerable irritation withthe events of the last ten years. That decade isdivided into two parts: the days of disruptivetroubles, and the coming of a financial crisis. Asto the first, it is characteristic of many of the essays to lament this was a time of civil war leavingthe community in tatters, principles in disarray,inner reserves depleted. One great universityafter another, a humanist is quoted, passively accepted its own disgrace. The curriculum was vulgarized, trivialized, and made relevant in a GreenStamp University movement. The University'sresponses, the commentators say, were adoptedout of fear and confusion, were essentiallytherapeutic, not principled — a divided faculty, division of leadership, made a principled responseunlikely. It was the bourgeoisie — one commentator says — and their representatives in statelegislatures, Boards of Trustees and alumni, farmore than the faculty, who saved the universities."Now the University," he writes, "is vulnerableto its saviors." As to the financial crisis, one writer speaks for many, although his greatest concernwas for the medical area, when he writes, "thebottom dropped out." In the memorable words ofClark Kerr, the American University passed fromits Golden Age to its Age of Survival.Richard Lyman of Stanford summarizes thedifficulties to be met in presenting the case for theprivate sector of higher education. "We areswimming against very powerful tides." "Theyare running against the private sector in Americanlife generally. The watchwords are equality andcost-effectiveness, or (if you prefer) rational planning for the allocation of resources." As to equal-60ity, it has come to mean not equality in opportunity but in result. Cost-effectiveness has becomeoverall coordination and control, dealing with private institutions as though they were but part ofthe state system. The egalitarian trust is of coursestrong in American history. Some of the writerssee it as a persistent revolt against authority in acountry which began that way; others as a morerecent breaking away from European culture andtradition. Allan Bloom of Toronto quotes de Toc-queville on the point that democracy, or theegalitarian regime, must "perforce have utility asits primary motive." "The intellectual life in ademocracy is profoundly influenced by the absence of a truly leisured class which would patronize and protect it from the demands of themarket. In modern democracies the universitieshave taken the place of such a class and attemptedto provide a basis for the cultivation of thetheoretical life which finds only thin soil elsewhere in the society ... In the last years we havewitnessed the failure of the university."The egalitarian point is made dramatically byFelix Gilbert of the Institute for AdvancedStudies at Princeton when he recounts that whenstationed with the Army in Germany in 1945, hewas sent to Heidelberg to get an impression of theavailability of non-Nazi professors. In a conversation with Karl Jaspers, Jaspers said he was writing a formal constitution for the University ofHeidelberg, with a preamble which stated the aimof the University was to create an "intellectualaristocracy." Gilbert reports he said he was quitesure the American occupying authorities wouldnever permit publication of a document containing such a formula.But if the academic's ideal is "the republic ofscholars," in order to be a member of it, RobertApter, quoting de Jou venal, reminds, "one mustwork diligently, and be selected. It is necessarilyrestricted." Moreover the utilitarian bent of oursociety has greatly encouraged increase inspecialization and professionalism. This makesfor a particular kind of elitism. It is also used tojustify a separation between teaching and research. "In almost all disciplines the scholar whowants to remain abreast with what others aredoing and wants to make a contribution of his ownmust have full free time," Mr. Gilbert writes. Inresponse to this problem, he suggests we had better distinguish between the higher learning, whichapparently fits this state of affairs, and highereducation, which does not. Others have taken theline of suggesting the formation of teaching institutes alongside, but not quite part, of the University. The use of the doctrines of equality and costeffectiveness join to level the universities and diminish diversity. "Equality, of course, is a shibboleth in our country," Martin Meyerson bravelywrites, "and in questioning its universal applicability, one runs certain risks. But the nation'sgreat research universities attained their preeminence by merit. If the basic structure of the system is to be arranged so that contingencies workonly to the advantage of the less favored institutions, there will be downward leveling. It seemsclear that general equalization of budgets andsalaries as well as admissions will lead to mediocrity." "I am issuing an early warning," he says,"— perhaps not early enough — in the hopes ofhalting the leveling process. . . . The most important step is to end the move toward state centralization." "A cost formula which could be appliedto all public universities, and perhaps to privateuniversities which seek public funds, is naturallyattractive to legislators," Robben Fleming ofMichigan observes. The forces behind formulafinancing are strong, and if successful "the long-run prospect is for a greater homogenization ofinstitutions." Part of the problem, of course, istreating the individual university as but part of asystem. Clark Kerr, indeed, now has education asa whole down to a sub- system within the total society. In view of these movements, Martin Trowcomments, "a good deal of what has made thegreat universities really creative has been a function of bad data collection. Much of the best aswell as the worst in higher education hasflourished in a decent obscurity. Data reveals inequalities, which, once seen, must be eitherjustified or abolished. The tendency, in the face ofthe egalitarian pressures that define inequalities asinequalities, is to reduce or abolish them Weought to at least entertain the possibility that it isnot in a university's own best interest to gather'good', i.e., systematic and recurrent, data on asmany of its own internal operations as possible.Much of what is important in a university — thehuman quality of students and faculty, the socialand psychological processes of teaching andlearning, and the individual and social gains andbenefits — of higher education are beyond routinemeasurement anyway."Many of the writers, Gabriel Almond amongthem, refer to the steady attrition of breadth requirements in the curriculum; the absence ofsynthesizing courses, with the net effect that"universities have lost their capacity to orienttheir students to a world which increasingly insists on being viewed whole with all of its inter-61dependencies and moral dilemmas." "It is odd,"Charles Frankel comments, "to announce, at theundergraduate level, the glories of the humanitiesand the liberation to be gained from the study ofthe pure sciences, and then, at the graduate level,to give next to no attention to the larger social,human, and even intellectual significance of thespecialized subjects studied. The notion that'general education' is an undergraduate concernand that a graduate school is professional not liberal is one of the expressions of the inherited hybrid model of higher education — Anglo-Saxon atthe base, continental at the top." Many of theessays refer to the compartmentalization, decentralization, and expansion of universities alongthe lines of the multi-university; to the purely instrumental character of specialization; to thefragmentation of knowledge. It is commonplaceto observe the University is not an intellectualcommunity, that it has no unity or focus.Thus the essays find a great need for liberal orgeneral education and for a modification of theview that cognitive learning without an examination of values is sufficient. Sometimes this is putin terms of the unfortunate decline in thephilosophic element, in the distinction betweenknowledge and wisdom, in the unawareness ofstudents in their belief systems, in the necessitythat education transmit a culture, in the recognition of the different ways of knowing in thehumanities and in the sciences. President Mullerof Johns Hopkins makes a strong plea for the creation of a coherent central core. To restore thegeneral foundations of education, he advocates anemphasis on literacy, both verbal and quantitative; the imperative of a common minimal foundation in the basic history of culture; a mandatorycourse in human biology; and full fluency in a second language. Derek Bok of Harvard, after concluding that the prescribed curriculum seems destined to survive in only a few small colleges,urges as the important aim the effort to impart avariety of basic habits and skills: the ability tocommunicate orally and in writing, to speak aforeign language, capacity for careful analysis,knowledge of an academic discipline, and an acquaintance with a variety of disciplines developedthrough a series of "mode of thought" courses.Peter Caws writes in favor of an "intellectualsoup" in which students might be immersed — ahigher-order analogy of the "biological soup" outof which the earliest forms of life are supposed tohave developed. Sherwood Washburn, decryingthe labyrinthine character of modern education,suggests the creation of organizing case studies which will themselves serve to synthesize knowledge and approaches to understanding of the nature of the world and of man. President Meyer-son, remembering the professional origin of manymedieval universities, advocates the importanceof joining professional training with liberal learning. Carl Kay sen also finds professional trainingas one way to reestablish undergraduate education in the problem-solving culture of our time.Gerard Piel concludes that the shape and content of the curriculum are probably not nearly soimportant as the spirit in which it is conceived,and comments "that the effort is a trial, must beconstantly renewed, and can rarely be long sustained, tells something else about our universities."The aim of many of the essays is to find a unityfor the university around a new respect for scholarship and teaching — an acceptance that theprimary aim of the university, despite social andservice pressures of all kinds, is the transmissionand creation of knowledge in order to create andprotect the sovereignty of the citizen. The roadwill be one which many times will require us to goagainst the national mood. It requires a recognition that there are motives and values in learningquite apart from the job market. It means thatuniversities must attempt to set their own course.Some institutions within this system must dare toprotect a special excellence. They must be willingto be elite, even though this has a pejorativesound, if nodes of quality essential to the freedomof our society, are to be maintained. "But manyeducators continue their apologies as if it were amatter of the highest priority for them to denytheir elite character. As a result then they bid forpublic support in such a way as to advertise thevirtues of mediocrity under the guise of populism... at some point people in higher education mustrealize that if the masses are aware of them at all,they are aware of their elite character. It cannotbe hidden or bluffed away." The words are thoseof Martin Marty. I am glad to borrow them.This summary of two volumes omits much ofwhat is good, contradictory, or what appears tome to be strange. I can appreciate Clark Kerr'semphasis on the need for better contacts with thepublic to encourage favorable reactions. But Iwould hope, and I am sure he would agree, wemust take our stand where our mind is. This University, probably more than any other, has reasonto know that Peter Caws is correct when he saysthat something called general education can becompleted by the accepted age of majority. But Idistrust this limitation of general education, which62I think must be continuing for all of us. I believe itis foolishness, if the idea of a learning society hasmerit, to say that, unless the job is done by the ageof eighteen, "the conditions of democratic government are tainted." I can accept for some universities and for our society the flamboyantthought of Thomas Adams, the President of theMassachusetts Historical Society, that "thepolitician and the businessman should be encouraged, if need be dragged into the university bothas student and teacher. The hierarchy of the university should be encouraged, pushed if necessary, into the rotten world that surrounds it, learning something of the base jobs, the boredom, thefears that fill the life of the bench worker, thecorporate underling." The world is there to studyand education should be for all. But the elitism ofwhich Martin Marty speaks can best serve ademocracy if it provides for it, and with it, anexcellence and a tradition not otherwise present.So I return to the thought voiced by CharlesFrankel, and stated in other ways by Allen Wall is,Richard Lyman, Martin Meyerson, and others,that some institutions must be prepared to give"unapologetic concentration" to the training ofthe 10 to 15 percent of the population equipped tomake intellectual contributions to the arcs, sciences and learned professions." Universities andcolleges never have all been the same; it is strangewe should think they now must be so becausethere are more of them, and the inherent diversityis greater.Think then of The University of Chicago in thissetting. It would be foolish to suggest we have notbeen subjected to many of the strains which thecommentators mention. The strains were with usfrom the beginning. An undergraduate college aspart of a University dedicated to discovery. Aresearch institution in which all professors wereto teach. A required curriculum frequentlymodified, with the knowledge that these effortsmust be renewed seriously, if the spirit of a liberaleducation is to be maintained. A divisional structure, which occasionally works, intended to counterbalance departmental isolation. Professionalschools carrying the full burden and responsibilityof the university. An undergraduate college sharing in the strength of the entire university. Interdisciplinary arrangements which have come aboutnaturally as scholars and students have found andcreated the important questions to be pursued. Aconstant search for the unity of knowledge, although we know it has not been accomplished,and a recognition of the appropriate diversity inthe ways of knowing. The recognition of a more basic unity among us in membership in oneacademic community dedicated to the increase,transmission, and understanding of knowledge. Itcould have been otherwise. Harper's Bazaarcould have been just that. It could have sprawledin every direction. There were few experimentsand efforts it did not try, few pressures and temptations which have not been placed upon it. Butthe spirit of the intellectual pursuit of truth at thehighest level of excellence has been overwhelming. It has propelled the University throughperiods of affluence and distress, saved the University from the faddism of various times, givenus an insistent goal which often has made us goour own way.Allen Wallis in his essay on Unity in the University, published in the Daedalus volumes,comments on the two ways one can look at theorganization of the University. "Most students,some Trustees, and a few faculty, as well as outsiders," he writes, "make the mistake of lookingat a university as a hierarchial or line organization. They picture a Board at the top, to whomreports a chief executive officer, 'under' whomand his associated staff officers come the deans,'under' whom in turn are department chairmenserving as foremen, and 'under' whom are the various grades of faculty. This view of universityadministration," he correctly states, "renders incomprehensible the actual workings of a university, especially the ways its most important decisions are made." He suggests a somewhat moreaccurate picture, although not completely accurate, by looking at the structure upside down. Onebegins with the faculty and at the end of the line isthe Board. I can assure you that this takes a dedicated Board. I am not exactly sure who is really atthe end of the line or what he is doing. Allen Wallis quotes Ralph Tyler describing the man at theend of the line as dressed in a white suit with abroom and a pan.Suffice it to say that those of us who are heretonight are joined in a venture which is noweighty-four years old. But the venture is botholder and younger than that, for this is theprivilege of the life of learning. It is a rareprivilege, and I am sure I speak for all in sayingthat we are grateful for it.Edward H. Levi was President of the University.He retired on February 6, 1975, and is nowAttorney General of the United States. He is theKarl N . Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor in the Law School, on leave.63THE 55TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by JAMES W. BUTTONJanuary 8, 1975When the Chairman of the Board of Trustees invited me to speak for the Trustees tonight, I mustconfess to some reticence. But perhaps I amespecially sensitive, because I grew up with theUniversity.I was born and raised almost on the campus.My Sunday school teacher was a Nobel Laureatein Physics — and I learned more about mountainclimbing, balloons, and cosmic rays thanMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John. As a youngster,I sat next to Amos Alonzo Stagg in church — andacquired more faith just observing the Grand OldMan.I married a neighborhood girl who started inthis institution with Miss Adam's nursery schooland went all the way to the University. Hermother attended the Lab School. And Mrs.Harper was my wife's godmother.Michelson, in addition to determining the speedof light, burned a hole in our livingroom rug withhis cigar. The Goodspeeds, Fruends, Carlsons,Gilkeys were neighborhood friends. And somefaculty friends here tonight were my contemporaries in school.I don't think I need to elaborate further. Thisgreat University has been a part of me from mybeginning.I graduated in 1939 and went to work immediately for Sears, Roebuck and Co. I do notregret the choice; I have thoroughly enjoyed my35 years in marketing and the private sector. Andout of that experience grows the observations andcertain concerns I will briefly discuss tonight.My concern is that the market system is goingthrough a metamorphosis that holds promiseneither for the private sector nor for The University of Chicago and the American private university.Sears represents the free market system in thiscountry and the importance of that system to thedevelopment of our nation's well-being, including, I believe, the further development of theAmerican private university.Both Sears and the University were conceived and spawned in an environment conductive to thepurpose of each.However, Sears, Roebuck and Co. ancT TheUniversity of Chicago have some interests incommon that go beyond the Rosenwalds and theEncyclopedia Britannica.There was a genuine need for a catalog house tosupply the needs of rural America and there wasalso a need for a great University in the West.Sears had its beginnings in 1886, just four yearsbefore the signing of the Articles of Incorporationfor the University.Sears, Roebuck and Co. was founded onintegrity — it had to be to deal by mail with theoften-abused consumer of that era. And WilliamRainey Harper founded his university on integrity.However, Richard Sears promised and provided "satisfaction guaranteed or your moneyback" — Harper was not so bold.Although competition was keen even thenamong scholars and institutions of higher learning, no one in academia to my knowledge suffereda tiny crack in his shining armor as did RichardSears when he offered his customers an electricbelt in 1898. The catalog copy read:NO Medicine — NO local treatment can compare. The electricity saturates the nerves andcells with its vitalizing current. Every disorderand disease peculiar to these organs yields immediately. Impotency — emissions — losses-— and drains — from any cause.Then he went on to add: "If in your case astronger current is needed, we recommend the$18.00 version."Incidentally, the birth rate dropped during theperiod of the electric belt promotions.Sears, Roebuck, nonetheless, went on to growover the years — its merchandise and prosperityebbing and flowing with the wants, desires, andneeds of the restless, moving American consumeruntil the Company stands today as the acknowledged leader in its field.The Sears story is free enterprise at its best-— operating in highly competitive markets. Over64the years the Company has enjoyed freedom toact and it accepted that freedom with responsibility to its country, its employees, its stockholders,and its customers. In fact, the Company established its first advertising guide in 1908 and alaboratory in 1911. It was not until 1914 that thegovernment established the Federal Trade Commission.The University of Chicago, conceived in thesame era as Sears, has grown and developed inthe same environment. It, too, has enjoyed itsfreedom to act in pursuit of its own high goals andis an acknowledged leader in research and teaching.There were times, as you might expect, whenthe market disciplined the merchant. Flushedwith success in 1916, the merchants thought theywould probe the better dress market of the UnitedStates.The Company engaged Lady Duff-Gordon, described by a magazine of the period as a designerfor the crowned heads of Europe and the International Set. The article went on to say that "Searsput on the dog — and multitudes of women put onSears, Roebuck clothes." "Huge quantities weresold" was another account of the program.Each creation was beautifully illustrated in theCatalog; and each creation had a name.One dress was called "I'll Come Back toYou." The title was prophetic — two were soldand two were returned!That venture in Continental Fashions for thefarm women of the middle America was a resounding failure.But, all things considered, the market systemhas been good to Sears and most Americans — andit has also been good for private scholarship. Ourgreat University and the American private university have grown with the expansion and success of that system.The Council for Financial Aid to Education reports that gifts and grants from individuals, foundations, and corporations to private universitiesin the 1953-54 school year were $249 million. Inthe 1973-74 year the Council estimates that giftsand grants were $1.6 billion.This growth in contributions might appear onthe surface to be adequate, but, over that periodof time, financial support from the private sectordropped from 85 percent of total support for private universities to an estimated 76 percent. Theincrease in government support in that 20-yearperiod, however, rose from 15 percent to 24 percent.I do not believe that anyone seriously in terested in scholarship should want to see thatrelative balance deteriorate further.Edward Shils, Distinguished Service Professorin the Committee on Social Thought and in theDepartment of Sociology, in his paper "TheAmerican University," carefully chronicles thehistory of the great private and public universitiesof the world. He traces the growing dependencyupon government funds for the private universityand growing inroads of State upon the governingbodies of public institutions, resulting in a loss ofsovereignty and freedom for both.Even the ancient universities of Germany,France, and England — for centuries recognizedfor their scholarship — are losing some of theirindependence to the pragmatic and sometimespolitical pressures of State.A great university, according to ProfessorShils, is a delicately balanced institution. It mustbe a sovereign body with its center of gravity andcoherence within itself. When a university becomes disaggregated, and I quote Professor Shils,"Its traditions become attenuated and its mainfunctions are lost from sight."A great institution of higher learning, I submit,must retain multiple sources of funds, with asufficient balance from private sources to maintain total independence from threatening incursions of State — or any other source. Thus, I ampersuaded that the viability of the market systemis important to the private university.Allow me then to examine the health of thatsystem — and by health I do not mean cyclicalfluctuations of the economy, important as theyare. I refer rather to the growing number of forcesat work undermining that system willfully or innocently.Over the past decade or so, a burgeoningmovement has purported to make the market system responsive to a variety of real or imaginedproblems. There are legions supporting causes forconsumerism; safety; discrimination; accountability; concentration; anti-materialism; ecology; relevancy; profit; the market system itself.Each category of charges is pressed by specialgroups with particular and sometimes overlappingconcerns. For example, consumerism breaksdown into specific areas of: (1) advertising; (2)quality; (3) product standards; (4) performance;(5) service; (6) credit; (7) warranties; and (8) grievances.When you add the Congressionalcommittees — sub-committees, agencies, andcommissions of government that have eitheraligned themselves with protest groups or evi-65denced interest in their causes — you becomeoverwhelmed with rhetorical luridities, not tomention the severe burden in time and money required to finance fishing expeditions and/or defending the charges.My Company has long prided itself — and profited from — being responsive to its customers. Infact, the Company has led in many developmentsin merchandise and marketing. Sears was the firstretailer to provide flame-resistant treatment tochildren's nightwear, to provide simplified warranties, permanent care labels, and so on. Otherssoon followed. Even so, we are bombarded fromall sides.It's not that there are not reasons for variousconsumer movements. It's not that most of thepeople involved are not sincere. It is that toooften the demands are based on distrust, unreasonable expectations, and ignorance ratherthan fact.When the National Advertising Review Boardwas established on a voluntary basis by industryand the Council of Better Business Bureaus a fewyears ago, Sears had the dubious honor of beingthe first case for review. Our claim on the startingability of our batteries advertised in the newspapers was challenged by a consumerist group.The technical data was gathered andsubmitted — and the ads were approved by theCouncil. If the consumer group had bothered tocheck with the Company, or even a competitor,they would have quickly learned the claim waslegitimate.Today, an agency of the government is challenging our claim that a two-year old Diehard Battery can start five cars. In the first test of the idea,a two-year old battery actually started 11 cars. Inworking with test panels of consumers on thecommercials, however, we reduced the number ofcars to five for belie vability.With simplified guarantees, our lawyers arenow devoting more time to the copy in our ads. Ifwe continue on the present course, our advertising copy will begin with the usual "Whereas ..."and end with the "now therefore be it resolved."My illustrations of ephemeral charges are butthe tip of the iceberg; indeed, my Company isinvolved to one degree or another in all thecategories. In 1974 there were 71 bills introducedin Congress effecting Sears and 16,000 bills in thevarious states — 1,600 of those bills were in NewYork State alone.It is well known that businessmen are reticentto defend their rights in public for fear of retribution. Henry Watterson, an editor at the turn of the century, said on being rebuked by a publicofficial: "Things have come to a helluva passwhen a man can't cudgel his own jackass."The new product safety legislation, in thewords of a noted Congressman, "Gives morepower than a good man should want and morethan a bad man should have."This legislation, while needed and important inprinciple, is another area where cost to benefitrelationship needs careful attention. For example,if current proposals for rotary lawnmower requirements prevail, the item could be safer, butlose considerable efficiency in cutting grass, aswell as being more expensive.The criminal penalties attached to this legislation are causing industry over- reaction and it willcost the public a good deal in over-engineeredproducts.An example of expectations is the vaguecharge, "You don't make it like you used to." Asa matter of fact, there isn't a major mechanicalproduct that Sears sells that has not enjoyed asteady decline in the number of in-warranty service calls over the last ten years — and this includes problems associated with new features andfunctions added to the products in that period.The high cost of in-warranty service disciplinesmerchants and manufacturers to produce the bestproducts they possibly can commensurate withthe price. On the other hand, the cost of zerodefect products would be prohibitive — even if thatwere possible.It reminds one a little of the letter RichardSears received from a customer in 1893:Dear Mr. Sears Roebuck:I got the pump which I buy from you, but why,for god's sake, you doan send me the handle?Wats the use of a pump which she done have nohandle. Shir thank you doan treat me rite. Ifyou doan send the handle pretty quick, I sendher back.Sincerely,John DoeP.S. Oh, hell, after I rite I find the damnhandle in the box. Excuse me.Today's letters and demands are not so polite.It seems to me that underlying much of today'scomplaining and rhetoric is a disturbingmilitancy — the tone of an adversary venting rageat "the system" rather than expressing a genuineand understandable desire to settle a grievance.Instant mass communication of real and allegedabuses of all varieties has created hysteria in somequarters and polarized many opinions, contribut-66ing to the public distrust of the system.The Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, has kept a finger on the pulse ofthis public sentiment. It reported in January 1974that "low approval" of business has reached 67percent, while moderate to high approval has declined to 33 percent.Interestingly, when asked how much after taxprofit the average manufacturer makes on eachsales dollar, the public response was 28 percentagainst the actual of only 4.3 percent. Alarmingly,the response from those most active in public affairs, and generally in the forefront of public opinion, was 27 percent. As Charley Brown said afterlosing a baseball game 39 to 0, "How can we losewhen we are so sincere?"I am sure there are a number of causes for thesemisconceptions, but one in particular that givesme concern goes back some years.At that time grade and high school educators intheir anxiety to make education more relevantcombined the academic courses of geography,civics, history, and economics into one overallcourse called social studies. I don't know of anyone who took issue with that consolidation — afterall, the courses were and are related. In a shorttime, however, the economics content disappeared or was mistreated.In 1973, the Joint Council for Economic Education, a nonpolitical organization supported by organized labor, business, and education, funded astudy by three university committees on theeconomic content of the social studies textbooksused in the school system. They found: "a gooddeal of economics is conspicuous by its absence,""too many assertions without criteria or support," "misapplication of economic concepts."The Council administered a simple economicstest to a national sample of 15,000 junior highschool students in 1973 and found that only 29percent could correctly identify a simple description of the capitalistic system. Over half the students in the Community Colleges of New YorkState could not correctly identify the characteristics of socialism and free enterprise.I am not qualified to judge whether we shouldteach economics per se or improve the economicscontent of social studies. However, my concernis, of course, with the widespread public ignorance of the economy in which we live and thegrowing tendency to regulate and overregulate.For example, C. Jackson Grayson, recentlyChairman of the Price Commission, stated in hisbook, Confessions of a Price Controller: I am personally convinced that our economicsystem is steadily shifting away from privateenterprise and a free market and toward central direction and control.I do not believe the movement to centralizationby the public and the lawmakers is deliberate,even if at times it appears so. The problem stemsfrom a long history — and recently at an accelerated rate — of poorly conceived and ill-advisedlegislation and regulation on a complex economicand political system.Some controls, although ostensibly imposed toeliminate abuses, have too often been adoptedwithout consideration for their side effects on thebasic principle of the market system — Freedom.With impaired freedom the market losesefficiency; entry of new competitors into the market becomes difficult; productivity, income, andprofits go down; costs and prices go up.Loss of economic freedom is just as counterproductive as loss of political freedom, and Iagree with Milton Friedman when he said:We shall preserve that freedom only if weawake to the threat that we face and do whatwe can to persuade our fellowman that freeinstitutions offer a surer, if at times slower,routine to the ends they seek.My attitude toward freedom has been stronglyshaped by my relationship with The University ofChicago. I cannot say that as a student I appreciated its total importance, but I know nowthat it was essential to the quality of the University then; andT know, as a Trustee, that freedomis essential to the quality of the University now.Your Board of Trustees is committed to thebasic sovereignty and autonomy of the University, and constantly works with the problems ofbalancing revenues so that quality — which springsfrom that freedom — will not be diminished orcompromised.I find myself concerned that the restrictionsgrowing so rapidly in other segments of our society do not threaten the integrity of this great institution, which must command the best efforts ofus all.James W. Button is a Trustee of the Universityand senior vice-president of merchandising,Sears, Roebuck and Co.67THE 55TH ANNUAL BOARD OFFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by SAUL BELLOWJanuary 8, 1975Wordsworth in 1807 warned that the world wastoo much with us, that getting and spending welaid waste our powers, that we were giving ourhearts away and that we saw less and less in theexternal world, in nature, that we could respondto. In our modern jargon we call this "alienation." That was the word Marx used to describethe condition of the common man underCapitalism, alienated in his work. As HaroldRosenberg has pointed out, for Marxit is the factory worker, the businessman, the professional who is alienated in his work throughbeing hurled into the fetish-world of the market.The artist is the only figure in this society who isable not to be alienated, because he works directlywith the materials of his own experience and transforms them. Marx therefore conceives the artist asthe model man of the future. But when criticsinfluenced by Marxist terminology talk of alienation they mean something directly contrary toMarx's philosophical and revolutionary conception. They mean not the tragic separation of thehuman individual from himself, but the failure ofcertain sensitive spirits (themselves) to participateemotionally and intellectually in the fictions andconventions of mass culture. And this removalfrom popular hallucination and inertia they conceive as a form of pathos. Nothing could be morevulgar in the literal meaning of the word than whining about separation from the mass. That beingoneself and not others should be deplored as acondition of misery is the most unambiguous signof the triumph in the individual of the ideology ofmass culture over spiritual independence. It is arenunciation of everything that has been gainedduring the past centuries through the liberation ofmankind from the authoritarian community.Thus Rosenberg. And why do I associate himwith Wordsworth? Simply because we have now aclass of people who cannot bear that the worldshould not be more with them. Incidentally, theamusing title of Mr. Rosenberg's essay is, "AHerd of Independent Minds."I have two more quotations to offer. The first isfrom a recent statement by Soviet PresidentNikolai Podgorny. He warns Russian writers thatany deviation from the principles of SocialistRealism is inadmissible and he says: TRUSTEES' DINNERAt a time when ideological struggle betweensocialism and capitalism is becoming sharper, ourart is called upon to constantly raise its ideologicalarsenal, its irreconcilability to manifestations ofalien views, to combine the assertion of the Sovietway of life with the deflation of apolitical consumerpsychology.Since Mr. Podgorny speaks of "our art" I shallclaim the same privilege. In the West our art is farfrom apolitical, if you allow me to give the wordpolitics my own definition. When I say "political"I mean that the world is very much with us. Theworld is more populous, more penetrating, moreproblematical, more menacing than it was in 1807.We can no longer think of it in contrast to Natureas Wordsworth did. This is an all made, ratherthan a naturally created, world a world of artifacts, products of the mind. This world lives somuch in us and upon us, so greatly affects ourthoughts and our souls that I can't help thinking ofit as having a political character. The sociologistEdward Shils writes:Either too much is happening too quickly, or it issimply much more visible and audible than it was inearlier centuries. Society has become more alive.The populace [Professor Shils is speaking of theWest] has become more demanding of services,benefits, attention and a share of authority. Thisadds to the visibility and audibility . . . The exhilaration, titillation and agitation have become a continuing feature of our societies.I should like to go beyond this. I believe that weare in a state of radical distraction, we are often ina frenzy. When Baudelaire spoke of a frenesiejournaliere, he was like Wordsworth and his all-too-present world, describing the condition in itsearlier states. The frenzy has accelerated unbearably in our time. We have been, as it were, appropriated mind and soul by our history. We canspeak of the history of the twentieth century as anunbroken series of crises. Not everyone of courseresponds to crisis with the same intensity. Someof us become more convulsed by events thanothers. Some take it with existentialist anguishand commit themselves to some sort of obligationto suffer through it as nakedly and acutely as possible. Others are more tough minded or less in-68clined to give up their lives to any interpretationof history. I myself simply don't go for this sort ofself immolation. With writers historical interpretation should not take precedence over the judgments of the imagination. But I don't see how wecan be blind to the political character of our so-called consumer societies. Each of us stands inthe middle of things and hears the great publicnoise. All minds are preoccupied with social andeconomic problems, with taxation and terrorism,with street crime, racial tension, corruption ingovernment, inflation, depression, Arab oil,detente, the technological future, arms talks. Whylengthen the list? It will only unsettle us further. Iseem to remember that T.S. Eliot confessed thathe could no longer bear to read the daily paper."It is too exciting," he said. A poet is of coursemore liable to be unbearably excited, in his ten-dermindedness, than a Kansas manufacturer or aHarvard economist. At all events I don't thinkanyone here will quarrel with me if I say that mostserious people are thinking about these social andpolitical questions. They are not thinking much ofthe time about painting or narrative poetry, Greektragedy, Platonism, about the sacred, about art,religion, philosophy and literature. They are fartoo extensively politicalized for that. This is easily understood. I'm not sure that I want to deploreit. I simply report, as one who has lived amongserious people and who knows something aboutAmerican intellectuals, that they cannot be said totake literature very seriously. It is simply not thatimportant to them. It is not a power in life. Poweris in science, in technology, in business, in institutions, in government and politics, in the massmedia, in the life of nations. It is not in novels andpoems. Not even novelists and poets appear tothink so. Poets who, like Osip Mandelstam,seemed to believe that there were in Russia onlytwo real powers, the power of Stalin and thepower of the truth manifesting itself in poetry, arevery rare indeed,I don't think these remarks of mine highly original. They are merely descriptive and commonplace. On an occasion like this it is perhaps necessary to begin with what everybody knows.The man whom I wish to pair with Podgorny isGoethe, whose view of the writer's social duty isvery different. He said in 1830, "I have neverbothered or asked in what way I was useful tosociety as a whole. I contented myself with what Irecognized as good or true. That has certainlybeen useful in a wide circle, but that was not theaim."Those who belong to nations and societies torn by conflict, suffering, famine, beset by enemies,fighting to survive may not feel kindly towardOlympian and contemplative Goethe. We mustnevertheless be aware that we may feel an angryloyalty to our condition and that there is such athing as falling in love with what we must endure.We are, some of us, thrust into politics by theleast intelligent, most cruel, most brutal, deformed part of our species. The creators and rulersof prison states, the dictators and oligarchs, theterrorists and their intellectual strategists forcepolitics upon us. In the privileged democraciesthere are people who force politics upon themselves and upon us all, and who express theircommitment to justice by demanding action, whojustify force, even terror and murder. I think forinstance of a Sartre who tells us in his introduction to Fanon's "The Damned" that the ThirdWorld finds manhood by its burning ever-presenthatred and its desire to kill us. Us? By us hemeans guilty and hateful Europe, and "thatsuper- European monstrosity North America." Ican't resist quoting from this impassioned document.The native cures himself of colonial neurosis bythrusting out the settler through force of arms[Sartre writes]. When his rage boils over, he rediscovers his lost innocence and he comes to knowhimself in that he creates himself . . . Once begun,it is a war that gives no quarter. You may fear or befeared, that is to say, to abandon yourself to thedissociations of a sham existence or conquer yourbirthright of unity. When the peasant takes a gun inhis hands the old myths grow dim and the prohibitions are one by one forgotten. The rebel's weaponis the proof of his manhood. For in the first days ofthe revolt you must kill: to shoot down a Europeanis to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy anoppressor and the man he oppresses at the sametime. There remain a dead man, and a free man, thesurvivor, for the first time, feels a national soilunder his foot.Sartre reminds us not altogether unjustly of our"ideology of lies," our "strip-tease ofhumanism," and "the fat pale narcissism" ofEurope. But what about this reliance on activism,what about redemption and rebirth through murder? Are we to take this seriously? I have suggested already that the imagination is deserted bywriters who prefer to accept ideological historicalpackages, Marxist or other. In this faith in redemption by killing I see more proof of the samething.Suppose that Sartre had written a novel aboutthe "Damned" and made all this a matter between real human beings, not the Zombies of a69pamphleteer. Suppose the man butchered in a revolt had been, for Sartre and for us, a real person.Would Sartre then have been able to show theslave who had murdered his oppressor redeemedby violence and turning from the corpse a trueman at last? I strongly suspect that the banality ofthis would have sickened the author of LaNausee. War certainly filled Tolstoi with fury, buteverything in War and Peace is humanly tested incomplete detail, page by page. The novel is forTolstoi a method of dealing justly. It showshuman beings rooted in reality and it shows thattheir need for truth is a vital need, like the need tobreathe. Swift's platonist horses in Gulliver'sTravels spoke of a falsehood as the thing that isnot. By truth I mean simply what is. "Truth,Clearness, and Beauty naturally are public matters," writes Wyndham Lewis. "Truth or Beautyare as much public concerns as the water supply." The imagination I take to be indispensibleto truth, so defined. For the imagination Truth isthe prior necessity, not the desire or the duty toperform a liberating action. Sartre declares that inthe eighteenth century a work of the mind wasdoubly an act since it produced ideas which were tolead to social upheavals and since it exposed itsauthor to danger. And this act, whatever the bookwe may be considering, was always defined in thesame way; it was ^liberator. And doubtless, in theseventeenth century too, literature had a liberatingfunction. . . .It is not inconceivable that a man might findfreedom and identity by killing his oppressor. Butas a Chicagoan, I feel rather skeptical of this.Murderers are not improved by murdering; ratherthey become more brutish. Perhaps fertilizers andmodern methods of agriculture would benefit thepeasantry of a famished world more than themelodrama of rebirth through bloodshed. It mightdo more for manhood to feed one's hungry children than to make corpses.It is true that the writer no longer holds theimportant position he held in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries. He has lost out. He is not atthe centre of things. The bullying idea that he hasa social responsibility, that he must cause upheavals and that in the service of justice he mustthrust himself into danger is the result of a senseof decline, of a certain impatience, as well as aboyish nostalgia for eighteenth-century roles. Awork of art has many other ways to attain socialmeaning. The writer whose imagination is passionately moved by political questions and whofollows his deepest convictions will write political novels worth reading. But the ideological package, complete with historical interpretations, hasno value. I have the greatest admiration for thecourage of writers who, having had politics thrustupon them by the ruling brutes of their respectivecountries, honorably stood their ground. I havegreat sympathy for them as well. They had nochoice but to write as oppositionists. From theirside, looking at us in the West, they must bestruck by our innocence, our apparent ignoranceof the main facts, our self-indulgent playing aboutwith ideological toys, our reckless rocking of theboat, our dull refractory minds, our sleepiness.For one part of mankind is in prison; another isstarving to death; and those of us who are free andfed are not awake. What will it take to rouse us?I said earlier that we lived in a state of distraction, even of frenzy, and I called this unavoidableimmersion in the life of society political. I saidalso that intellectuals in America did not reallytake literature seriously, but were professionallypreoccupied with various scientific, technologicalor social questions. Having been told at their universities that art is very important they are quitewilling to believe it, they are prepared to acceptand even to respect those who are described(quite often by themselves alone) as artists. Butthat is as far as it goes.Experts know certain things well. What sort ofknowledge have writers got? By expert standardsthey are entirely ignorant. But expertise itselfproduces ignorance. How scientific can the worldpicture of an expert be? The deeper his specialization the more he is obliged to save the appearances. To express his faith in scientific method hesupplies what is lacking from a stock of collectivefictions about Nature or the history of Nature. Asfor the rest of us, the so-called educated public,the appropriate collective representations havebeen pointed out to us and we have stocked ourheads with pictures from introductory physics, astronomy and biology courses. We do not, ofcourse, see what is, rather what we have beendirected or trained to see. No individual penetration of the phenomena can occur in this way. Twocenturies ago, the early romantic poets assumedthat their minds were free, that they could knowthe good, that they could independently interpretand judge the entire creation, but those who stillbelieve today that the imagination has such powers to penetrate and to know keep their belief tothemselves. As we now understand knowledge,does imagination know anything? At the momentthe educated world does not think so. But thingshave become dreary and humankind tired of itself70because the collective fictions of alleged knowledge are used up. We now bore ourselves bywhat we think we know. Either life has alreadygiven up its deepest secrets to our rational penetration and become tedious, or we have developeda tedious sort of rationality by ruling that certainkinds of knowledge are illegitimate. I am inclinedto argue that the tedious rationality of our educated heads is a great breeder of boredom and ofother miseries. Our head-culture inordinately respects the collective powers of mind and the technical developments that have produced the mostvisible achievements of this civilization; it takeslittle stock in the imagination or in individual talent. It greatly esteems action. It seems to believethat artists should be harnessed to the social system as intellectual workers.The Western world does not compel the writerto be an intellectual worker, or functionary. But,feeling no power in the imagination and needing toattach himself to power, under innumerable socialpressures and politicized by crisis, the writer begins to think he too must be an activist and exertinfluence. He must do something, make himselfavailable, be heard in just causes. We are however in a position to review the achievements ofwriters in politics. These are not especiallybreathtaking. The Tolstois, the Zolas, yes, thosewere great. But what of the Celines, the EzraPounds, the Louis Aragons, the hundreds whosupported Stalinism? And what, after all, can besaid for the view that it is the writer's duty tocause social upheavals? How many of these upheavals have not brought to birth a Police State?And if one yearns to live dangerously, is it not asdangerous to persist in the truth as to rush to thebarricades? But then it is always more agreeableto play the role of the writer than to be a writer. Awriter's life is solitary, often bitter. How pleasantit is to come out of one's room, to fly about theworld, make speeches and cut a swath.For a very long time the world found the wonderful in tales and poems, in painting and in musical performances. Now the wonderful is found inmiraculous technology — in modern surgery, in jetpropulsion, in computers, in television and inlunar expeditions. Literature cannot competewith wonderful technology. Writers, trying tokeep the attention of the public, have turned tomethods of shock, to obscenity and supersen-sationalism, adding their clamor to the great noisenow threatening the sanity of civilized nations.But isn't there a branch of the wonderful intowhich wonderful technology cannot lead us? Ifthere is, how shall be know it? Why, we shall recognize it at once by its power to liberate usfrom the tyranny of noise and distraction. Since1914, in all spheres of life, crisis has ruled over us,survival anxiety has become permanent with usand public unrest has been set into our souls. Tobe free from this would indeed be wonderful. Itwould mean nothing less than the restoration orrecreation of culture. Indispensable to such a restoration is the recovery of significant space bythe individual, the reestablishment of a region,about every person through which events mustapproach in which they can be received on decentterms, intelligently, comprehensively, and contemplatively. At a time when we are wildly distracted and asking ourselves what will happenwhen the end will come, how long we can bear it,why we should bear it, these notions of cultureand significant space may seem hopelessly naive.But for art and literature there is no choice. Ifthere is no significant space, there is no judgment,no freedom, we determine nothing for ourselves,individually. The destruction of significant space,personal space, leaves us helplessly in the publicsphere. Then to say that the world is too muchwith us is meaningless for there is no longer anyus. The world is everything. This, however,probably cannot happen. We will always haveheart enough to feel the pain of such a condition.Besides it is in the nature of the creature to resist.The need for truth is one of the vital needs. Andwe have many ways of knowing the truth. If notall of these ways can be rationally certified by ourpresent methods, so much the worse for thosepresent methods of certification.The German philosopher Joseph Pieper speaksin one of his essays {Leisure, the Basis of Culture)of a purely receptive attitude of mind in which webecome aware of immaterial reality. "Is there,"asks Pieper, "such a thing as intellectual contemplation ...?... in antiquity the answer givenwas always yes; in modern philosophy, for themost part, the answer is no."According to Kant, Pieper continues, knowledge is exclusively discursive, the opposite of receptive and contemplative. To Kant knowledgewas an activity. Any other claim to know was notgenuine because it involved no work. In Pieper' sown words,The Greeks — Aristotle no less than Plato — as wellas the great medieval thinkers, held that not onlyphysical, sensuous perception but equally man'sspiritual and intellectual knowledge included anelement of pure receptive contemplation or, asHeroclitus says of listening to the "essence ofthings.'71Am I proposing, then, that we should take refugefrom crisis and noise in a contemplative life? Sucha thing is unthinkable. I am saying, rather, thatthere is a mode of knowledge different from theruling mode, and that this other mode is continually operative — the imagination assumes thatthings will deliver something of their essence tothe mind that has prepared itself and that knowshow to listen. I am saying also that full immersionin the great noise will kill us. Perpetual crisis willtear our souls from us. Indeed this tearing sensation is experienced daily by many people. Whatcan art and poetry do with this great threat toLife? Has the crisis grown too vast — is it nowunmanageable? Only the imagination, by its acts,can answer such questions.Just now writers are asking themselves how canthey be interesting, and why should they be takenseriously. Interest follows power, and they do notappear to command the sort of power that is nowvalued by most of mankind — the power of statesor institutions, the power of money or resources,the power of politics, of science and technology,the power that once belonged to religion, thepower of abstract ideas, etcetera. What can makea writer truly interesting is an inadmissible resource, something we all hesitate to mentionthough we all know it intimately — the soul. I don'tknow what else can possibly obtain and hold theattention of the modern reader who has alreadybecome peculiarly difficult to reach. Granted thathis tolerance level is low. Bad and boring novelshave made him impatient. But he tends to resistall literary influences especially if he is, or considers himself to be, an intellectual.Coming from me this may sound a bit odd for Iam thought in America to be something of a highbrow. But it should be said in a talk like this thatthe character of the public has changed, that it hasbecome more intellectual, that writers themselveshave more intellectual interests and that they havebecome as concerned to analyze, to investigateproblems or to consider ideological questions asto tell stories. The attitude of intellectuals towardliterature has become a "serious" one (the quotation marks are heavy). They see in novels, poemsor plays, a creative contribution often unconsciously made to the study of society, or psychology or religion. The plots of Dickens arepsychoanalytically investigated, Moby Dick supplies Marxists with material for the study of thefactory system. Books are strongly shaken to seewhat usable things will fall out of them tostrengthen a theory or support some system of ideas. The poet becomes a sort of truffle-houndwho brings marvelous delicacies from the forestof the unconscious. The writer himself begins toaccept this truffle-hound role, acknowledging thesuperior value, the greater dignity of ideas andexplanations over fancy, play, verve — over imagination. The intellectual makes discourse. Thenovelist and even the painter and musician nowimitate him and in doing so become themselvesintellectual workers, discourse makers, seriouspersons and even functionaries. Obsessive oreven monomaniacal professionals do not makewonderful readers. The world is very much withthem and their hearts are difficult to reach. Onemight even call it a political feat to reach theirhearts with a story, to penetrate their preoccupiedminds and to interest them.The general view now seems to be that thewriter's true province is the unconscious. It isfrom the unconscious that he brings in his truffles.No one can doubt the existence of the unconscious. It is there all right. The question is what itcontains. Is it only the seat of animal nature, ofinstinct, the libidinal forces, or does it also contain elements of higher life? Does the human needfor truth, for instance, also have roots in the unconscious? Why, since the unconscious is bydefinition what we do not know, should we notexpect to find in it traces of the soul as well asaggression? In any case the unconscious is todaythe sole source of impulse and freedom that onebranch of science has reserved for art.What I am saying is that the accounts of humanexistence given by the modern intelligence arevery shallow by comparison with those that theimagination is capable of giving, and that weshould by no means agree to limit imagination bycommitting ourselves to the formulae of modernintelligence but continue as individuals to makefree individual judgments.Wordsworth warned that we laid waste ourpowers by getting and spending. It is more seriousthan that now. Worse than getting and spending,modern distraction, worldwide irrationality andmadness threaten existence itself. We may notmake it. Under the circumstances I have no advice to offer other writers. I can only say, speaking for myself, that the Heraclitean listening to theessence of things becomes more and more important.Saul Bellow is Professor and Chairman of theCommittee on Social Thought and Professor inthe Department of English. <;72THE 352ND CONVOCATION ADDRESS:THE MERCY OF GOD AND ABOUT TWELVE MINUTESBy CHARLES W. WEGENERDecember 13, 1974There is a story — no doubt apocryphal — about aman who was asked to preach at some officialfunction in the University of Oxford and whomade bold to enquire "what should I preachabout?" "Tell them," was the response, "of themercy of God and about twenty minutes." AConvocation Address is not a sermon, this is notOxford, I hope to command your attention onlyfor some twelve minutes, but I do intend to speakof the mercy of God.Though I am not a theologian I can see that thenotion of the mercy of God is entangled withdifficult questions of divine Providence and disturbing problems concerning the divine nature. Infact, it is difficult to see how "mercy," which wemight take straightforwardly as an act of forbearance from deserved suffering grounded in compassion and sympathy, could be literally attributed to God at all. Not only does it imply a kindof moment to moment adjustment of the world'saffairs as they bear upon the lives of human beings(what Hegel was pleased to call the "retail" viewof Providence) but it seems to impute to God acapacity for perception, feeling, and change of attitude incompatible with perfection, changeless-ness, and eternity. But the recent celebration ofour medieval heritage on this campus should havereminded us — among other things — that nothingcan be literally attributed to God and that Hisstate and His Providence have many meaningsand encompass many mysteries.Yet while God and His Providence may be incomprehensible they may yet be significant for us:they may be what Immanuel Kant would havecalled "practical ideas." This is neither the timenor the place to develop a hypothesis concerningthe nature of the religious concerns of mankind,but surely any hypothesis must recognize as partof those concerns the effort to relate ourselvesand our fates to that total structure of being andexistence which we feel rather than know to be both source and condition of all we are or aspireto become. At every point we know — in somedegree — our dependence on structures which wecannot control, which we did not invent, andwhich we only partially understand: "man is begotten by man and by the sun as well," says Aristotle. But inexorably involved as we are with universal conditions in physical and organic cycles ofbirth and death it is in the realm of action andpurpose, of individual aspiration and communalstructure and institution that our sense of the "religious" is most doubtfully but also most urgentlyexperienced. The investment of God with moralattributes — attributes relevant to the purposeswhich define our lives as participants in the goodsand evils, successes and failures of action, knowing and the arts — is significant of our convictionthat these things are not alien to the world, thatthey too are grounded and sustained in a networkof conditions more than passively tolerant of theirpresence. The providence and mercy of God aretherefore at least powerful "practical ideas"which represent demands we make upon ourselves as persistent and fundamental features ofthe universe. In so doing we assert that no man, noculture, no finite range of human achievement canexhaust the significance of a purposive life, that adiscipline seemingly self-imposed reveals an objective structure which we cannot limit by ourselves or shed without destroying ourselves.Now some of you may well be wondering whyon this December afternoon you should be askedto listen to these solemn and obscure reflections.For those whose achievements the Universityrecognizes this afternoon one might expect thatthis would be a moment of celebration rather thanof portentous solemnity. Of course it is also indifferent ways and different degree for most ofyou a moment of transition. While you may facethat transition with some trepidation, I trust thatyou face it also with a confidence born of a senseof recognized competence and clarity of purpose.No doubt you may feel that the course of your73future lives will not be entirely your own to determine, but I doubt that in considering upon whatit may depend you are likely to reflect much uponthe Providence and mercy of God — more relevant, it may seem, are the state of the economy andthe whimsicalities of those who may sit in judgment upon your qualifications, including (mayGod forbid) your qualification for unemploymentcompensation or the welfare roll. Against thesedire contingencies and the harsh facts they represent your talents, your competence, and yourdedication may at moments seem to be feebleweapons, unless by accident or design they happen to fill some need which is not your own. But Iwould suggest to you this afternoon that the freedom and autonomy which your competence andconfidence represent are not so fragile as all that.For surely freedom and autonomy are not thesame as the ability to provide for oneself all theconditions of survival and functioning. Ratherthey are the ability to mound whatever materialsof action are available into a recognizable patternof individuality constituting a kind of activitywhich is our own. The mystery here, if indeedthere is one, is that the pattern and the individuality of activity of which it is the shape function intheir realization in our lives, in the making of ourselves and the control of our own activities. In themaking and direction of ourselves and our actionsthey are present as purposes and in the standardsinherent in purposes which define our functioning.Conditions of survival and resources of action donot by themselves constitute any individuality offunctioning: in fact without some minimal sense ofpurpose and function no sense can be made of thenotion of means or conditions, for as means andconditions they are entirely relative to purposes.These structures and the standards, the principles, which they embody are in one sense ofcourse at the mercy of circumstances which wecan only partially control by our ingenuity andconfident action. In another sense — that sense inwhich they give meaning to our lives and make itworthwhile to exert our ingenuity — they are independent of circumstances. They are the stuff outof which achievement in action is made and measured. In the search for that achievement whichlies before you, I, and the University — yoursoon-to-be Alma Mater — wish you well, whileknowing that more will depend on you than on ourgood will.But it is of the University that I would nowspeak. Institutions also have problems of freedomand autonomy, of individuality, of clarity of purpose and confidence in action, and, of course, of dependence upon circumstances which they cannot always control. Whether these problems aresimpler or more complex in the form in whichthey present themselves to institutions rather thanto individuals is not my present concern — what isobvious is that it is more tempting, since institutions seem so clearly to be — legally, economically, socially — creatures of the society of whichthey are parts and which they serve, to find in thedemands which society makes on them and theconditions on which it seems willing to proffersupport the limits of their purpose and function.The influence which the rest of society exerts — orattempts to exert on educational and intellectualinstitutions is pervasively felt; its subtleties aswell as crudities are a constant preoccupation ofscholars as well as of administrators and fundraisers. Paraphrasing Aristotle we might say that"physics is begotten by physicists and by the National Science Foundation and Committees of theCongress of the United States as well." Yet obvious as these facts may be, there occasionally appears a moment of clarity in which not only is theintegrity and independence of intellectual enterprises effectively asserted but the relation of dependence is actually reversed. In 1969 Robert R.Wilson, Director of the National AcceleratorLaboratory, testified before the Joint Committeeon Atomic Energy. He was pressed by onemember of the Committee to make some claimthat the planned accelerator would serve in someway the purpose of national defense. The following exchange eventually took place.Question: Is there anything here that projectsus in a position of being competitive with theRussians, with regard to this race?Dr. Wilson: Only from a long-range point ofview, of a developing technology. Otherwise,it has to do with: Are we good painters, goodsculptors, great poets? ... In that sense thisnew knowledge has all to do with honor andcountry but it has nothing to do directly withdefending our country, except to help make itworth defending.Nor should it be thought that this privilege andobligation belongs only to enterprises of "pure"research and scholarship. In its appropriate formit pertains (or should pertain) to all the manifoldpursuits to which the University gives place. Noprofessional school is devoted simply to the replication of an existing state of a profession or itsmembers. Professional education in a most directsense is as much concerned with a critical exami-74nation of the profession as with producingqualified professionals who can perform a serviceto society. Never is it properly concerned withproducing trained practitioners who can slip easily into slots in the social machine. In otherwords, it is devoted always to the redefinition ofthe profession which it undertakes to serve andperpetuate, and it does so not only in occasionalmoments of reflection upon professional "ethics"but in the continuous reexamination of the knowledge and skill which constitute the professional'sart. The loyalty of the University throughout isultimately, therefore, to intellectual enterprisesconstituted by purposes and informed by standards not realized or met in any embodiment insociety. They may thus be fairly interpreted asrequirements not socially imposed, not definableby ourselves, in a proper sense infinite, and therefore divine. Thus their ultimate origin and supportis not unreasonably taken to be the Providence ofGod, not in the sense that God will provide whatthe Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or theFord Foundation will not, but rather in the sensethat He has provided the ground on which claimsupon them can be based. While those claims maynot be met, the grounds on which they are madewill not cease to be, and thus the enterprise whichthe University represents cannot cease to be.Inherent in the conception of such institutionsas this University is the recognition that we always fail, not in the sense that we cannot provideor do not have provided for us the means necessary to sustain our activities but rather in thesense that we cannot finally achieve our purposesor meet the standards which we must accept. Inan old-fashioned theological language, therefore,we and the University are fit objectives for Divinemercy. But as a "practical idea" the mercy ofGod is the claim we make to judge ourselves andbe judged by our best rather than our worst, andthe confident assertion that our best will be discriminated and survive while our worst will beremanded to oblivion.At this Convocation the University recognizesthe special achievement of some of its members.But at every Convocation, precisely because it isa moment at which the whole University isrepresented — convoked — we remind ourselves again of that devotion to unrealizable ideals ofintellectual activity which makes individualachievement possible. In some way — no doubtconfusing, inadequate, and but dimlyperceived — we are all here on this December afternoon, in part the products of that unremittingquest for the best which is the nature of this University. The University has never accepted survival as an end — it has always asked what is it thatis to survive. In that questioning we have not always succeeded in finding answers wholly satisfactory, but we are all of us here today participants in the search. And therefore we may cheerfully commend ourselves and our University tothe mercy of God.Charles W. Wegener is the Howard L. WillettProfessor in the College, Master of the New Collegiate Division, and Associate Dean of the College.SUMMARY OF THE 352NDCONVOCATIONThe 352nd Convocation was held on Friday, December 13, 1974, in Rockefeller MemorialChapel. President Edward H. Levi presided.A total of 404 degrees were awarded: 57Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 108 Master of Arts, 1 Master of Fine Arts, 25 Master ofScience, 3 Master of Arts in Teaching, 11 Masterof Science in Teaching, 1 Doctor of Laws, 794 Master of Business Administration, 1 Doctor ofMinistry, and 115 Doctor of Philosophy.Charles W. Wegener, the Howard L. WillettProfessor in the College, Master of the New Collegiate Division, and Associate Dean of the College, delivered the Convocation Address entitled,"The Mercy of God and About Twelve Minutes."75THE 353RD CONVOCATION ADDRESS:PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THEBY JAMES W. CRONINMarch 21, 1975Almost 20 years ago, I found myself in this verychapel waiting to receive a PhD degree in experimental physics. I remember so well the ambivalence of my feelings: on the one hand a sense ofaccomplishment, on the other, the painful awareness of how meager was my knowledge of thephysical world. On thing I do not remember at allwas the identity of the speaker who stood here.With that realization I feel free to tell you what ison my mind with no great worry that my remarksmust have a significant influence of your futurelives and careers.I received my degree from a department ofphysics that had been the greatest in the world inthe years following the second world war. It attracted the best students and was able to appointthe most outstanding faculty in the country. Enrico Fermi was the focus of this faculty. After hisdeath in 1954, many of these prominent physicistsmoved to other parts of the nation, and no department has approached the same quality since.During the period of my studies at the University, Fermi and a bright group of young experimentalists were engaged in elementary particle physics, using The University of Chicago cyclotron. At that time, the Chicago cyclotron wasthe largest proton accelerator in the world. Thecreativity and dedication of this group made astrong impression on me. While a deeper understanding of the most fundamental nature of thesub-atomic world was most clearly elucidated bythe theoretical physicists, I realized these elucidations were necessarily based on the results of experiments. Some of these experiments were ofsuch beauty and simplicity, and so incisive in themanner in which they questioned or probed nature, that I came to the conclusion that experimental physics in its finest form represented anintellectual achievement every bit as grand as thetriumphs of theoretical reasoning. UNIVERSITYThis realization of the intellectual nature of experimental physics was a revelation to me because, as students, we always confronted physicsfrom a very theoretical point of view. Ourachievements were generally measured by ourlevel of understanding of physics as learned frombooks. Ideally, one would like to be both experimentalist and theoretician. Fermi was such anindividual. While it is laudable to aspire to be likeFermi, no one has achieved that goal. We findnow a rather sharp division between experimentaland theoretical physicists. I learned at this University that in experimental physics, one couldfind stimulation and excitement that rivaled thebest theoretical physics.As early as 1954, if one wanted to investigatethe nature of elementary particles, one found thatteam work was essential; truly individual researchin that area was rare. The groups working withFermi were large, and so many, including myself,did their thesis research in other fields where onehad the opportunity to work alone. But the excitement of the elementary particle research ofFermi and his colleagues was ever present. I attended the cyclotron research seminars and followed the developments closely. Particularly interesting were the lectures of Murray Gell-Mann,who at that time was formulating his successfulscheme of classification of elementary particles.While I was satisfied with my individual research effort, I found investigation into the natureof elementary particles so fascinating that I decided to subordinate my natural desire to workalone. After receiving my degree, I accepted aposition at a large national laboratory in the Eastto work on particle physics.Since 1954, our perception of the properties offundamental particles has changed enormously.There now appears to be a definite substructure tothose particles which were previously consideredfundamental. Three of the basic interactions between particles, strong, electromagnetic, and76weak, are being synthesized. The scale of energies which has led to these new perceptions liesfar outside the range of natural phenomena whichoccur on earth. Experiments are carried out withhardware of great technical sophistication, andthe data are elements of concrete reality: a photograph, a meter reading, or perhaps numbers encoded into a computer memory. But the interpretation of the results cannot be made withcommon-sense notions developed in everydaylife. Thus, on all accounts, our perception of nature on this level is remote from our perception ofterrestrial phenomena. It appears unlikely thatour understanding of sub-atomic phenomena willlead to any improvement in our material wellbeing.Civilization, however, is characterized byachievements of the human mind and spirit thattranscend the struggle for survival. Our great universities stand not only as symbols of civilization,but as institutions which are among the activeelements in the very process of civilization. Theprobing of the nature of elementary particles, despite its expense, is a concrete example of theprocess of civilization.The University of Chicago, from the day of itsfoundation, has had a clear understanding of thiscivilizing role. A good example, which could havebeen called "big science" in its day, concerns thefounding of the Yerkes Observatory at WilliamsBay, Wisconsin. In 1892, the young astronomerGeorge E. Hale discovered that a glass casting forthe manufacture of a large telescope objective wasavailable at a cut rate price in Europe. With thehelp of President Harper, he found a benefactor,,Mr. Yerkes, who put up the money to create theYerkes Observatory with its 40-inch refractingtelescope. Five years after its founding, The University of Chicago possessed the best equippedobservatory in the world.It is worth quoting some of the remarks of Mr.Ryerson, speaking for the Board of Trustees onthe occasion of the dedication of the Observatoryon October 21, 1897.When the many expressions of gratitutde willhave found utterance on this occasion, therewill remain, what must be a source of evengreater gratification to Mr. Yerkes, the continuing and increasing usefulness of his greatgift. I use the word "usefulness," not only because I am convinced that we are here at theinception of a great work, which will justifyitself by the practical value of its results as wellas by the ideal nature of its aims, but also because I feel that, in an age when so much of the ability and energy of the community is devotedto the advancement and the improvement ofmaterial conditions, each new agency for theupholding of the ideals of life through the cultivation of science for its own sake has a usefulness of the highest order. We need not fear thematerialism of an age in which an intense pursuit of the useful and the practical is accompanied by an ever- widening conception of trueutility, in which the satisfaction of intellectualdemands is keeping pace with the meeting ofphysical requirements. Let us by all means bepractical, if we can at the same time broadenour conception of the meaning of the word sothat it may include that development of the intellectual side of life without which any improvement of material conditions is absolutelyvain. While recognizing fully the great practical services which Astronomy has rendered tothe world, I still feel that its proudest claim torecognition and appreciation must dwell in itstendency to establish and maintain in the feelings of mankind the conviction that, amid theservices of science, the increase of knowledgefor the sake of knowledge is not the least.One can apply the spirit of the remarks of Mr.Ryerson with equal conviction to a magnificentnew accelerator that has recently been constructed for research in particle physics. Thisfacility is located at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, 40 miles west of this campus. The accelerator is physically immense. Theprotons are accelerated in a ring of magnets fourmiles in circumference; beams of protons, 1,000times more energetic than those from the oldChicago cyclotron, are extracted tangentiallyfrom the machine and run over distances as largeas two miles to experimental apparatus.The Laboratory facilities are available to experimental physicists throughout the nation andinternational teams as well. The Laboratory isdevoted to the exploration of nature in its mostbasic form and the activities at the Laboratory arefreely and openly discussed. Nothing is classified.While the technical performance of the accelerator and the intellectual atmosphere of theLaboratory are most stimulating for creative research, the sheer size of the experiments and thefierce competition for access to the machine areserious negative factors which can suppress theintellectual vitality of the research. The time spanof an individual experiment can be several years.A certain amount of conservatism to assure results creeps into one's notion of what experimentshould be done. There is astrong force toward theperformance of experiments that are generally77considered fashionable because they are morelikely to be approved.The intellectual freedom of the experimentalistis seriously threatened. Some talented experimentalists have been discouraged from continuing research and students are uneasy about entering thefield. While the intrinsic vitality of particlephysics remains, the very nature of the researchmay decrease the quality of its practitioners. Theuniversities are the only institutions which canappreciate these most creative experimentalists,provide them with students to inspire, and protecttheir intellectual freedom.James W. Cronin is University Professor in theDepartment of Physics, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in the College.Mr. Yovovich was the Student Ombudsman forthe 1973-74 academic year. His term ended onAugust 30, 1974. The following Reports were received on January 21, 1975, and on January 28,1975.January 21, 1975During the Winter Quarter of 1974 the StudentOmbudsman's office handled 78 official complaints and, to a greater degree than last quarter,provided answers to a number of informationalquestions as well as informal complaints and problems. Again this quarter undergraduates broughtforth more complaints than did graduate students.The variety of the problems voiced attest to the SUMMARY OF THE 353RD CONVOCATIONThe 353rd Convocation was held on Friday,March 21, 1975, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, Acting President and Provost ofthe University presided.A total of 355 degrees were awarded: 37Bachelor of Arts, 17 Master of Arts in theHumanities, 37 Master of Arts in the Division ofthe Social Sciences, 4 Master of Arts in Teaching,4 Master of Science in Teaching, 3 Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of Medicine, 12 Masterof Science in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 6 Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 13Master of Arts in the Graduate Library School, 7Master of Arts in the School of Social ServiceAdministration, 127 Master of Business Administration, 3 Doctor of Law, 1 Doctor of Ministry, and 84 Doctor of Philosophy.James W. Cronin, University Professor in theDepartment of Physics, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in the College, delivered the Convocation Address entitled, "Particle Physics and theUniversity."diversity of the interests and concerns of studentsat the University.Some of the most interesting of this quarter'sproblems were those in which a cooperative interaction of several departments was necessaryand sufficient to solve the problem.Students enrolled in a music class came to us toseek an improvement in the poor condition of themusic listening room at Regenstein Library. Fourof the eight stereos were out of working order foran extended period of time because their stolencartridges were not replaced. A further problemwas that many more students were unable to listen to their assignments because 13 broken headphones were not fixed. JVe spoke to several Library officials to find out why no corrective actionhad been taken. Through the administration, in-REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 197478eluding the music librarian, the administrative assistant for physical plant, and the associate director of general services, there was a mix-up as towho was going to handle the repair of the headphones and replacement of the cartridges.After the prod, the problem was solved and themusic listening facilities once again became wellfunctioning.Another problem concerning the conditions forwomen at Bartlett Gymnasium was brought to ourattention. When Bartlett was opened for Sundayuse during the Winter Quarter, the pool was designated for use solely by men. A student, feelingthat this was quite unfair, spoke to several persons at Bartlett, the athletic director, as well as toan assistant dean of students. None of them wassympathetic to her feeling that women, too,might like to swim at Bartlett on Sundays.We spoke to the athletic director and were ableto convince him that coeducational swimming onSundays was feasible and so Sundays were madecoed swim days at Bartlett. Unfortunately, afterseveral Sundays of such an arrangement, the athletic director was besieged by complaints frommen who believed that women either infringed ontheir right to swim nude or that women were causing unbearable conditions of overcrowding. Theathlet director submitted to these demands, offering what he felt to be a workable compromise:women would be allowed to swim from 10:30 a.m.to 2:00 p.m. (coed swim), and only men would beallowed in the pool from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m.In order to accommodate the displaced femaleswimmers, the director of women's athletics arranged to change hours at Ida Noyes Hall's poolin order to have a women-only hour from 3:30 to4:30 p.m. on Sundays.Again, at Bartlett, a student complained to several gym staffers that it was exceedingly coldthere. They agreed but said that they couldn't doanything about it. After the student contacted us,we called the Plant Department and spoke to anengineer who promised (and kept it) to correct theheating problem.The importance of improving interoffice communication is well indicated above. It is bothheartening and necessary in these belt-tighteningtimes to know of (or to help bring about) suchcooperation.A less happy conclusion was found for theproblem of the student whose automobile was adamaged bystander of last fall's minibus accident.Several hundred dollars damage was done to thestudent' s car and he cannot affort the repairs nowand does not want to have to wait up to three years for a court to assess claims and decidewhich driver involved in the accident must paythe costs. At this point, despite the sympathy of aUniversity insurance officer, neither theUniversity's insurance company nor the otherdriver's company are willing to pay for the damages to the student's car. Among the problems ispossible admission of liability for damages if onepays the bills. I guess we can only hope for aquick case.Nonsmokers at the University began to assertthemselves more this past quarter. Through anumber of unrelated complaints, we were informed of smoking in nonsmoking areas of Regenstein Library, potentially hazaradous smokingat movies and concerts at Mandel and QuantrellHalls, and bothersome smoking in classrooms.We have suggested to Regenstein officials tohave more clearly designated smoking and nonsmoking areas and to enforce these designations.They have promised to carry through this action.Fireguards are now enforcing the anti-smokingrules at films and concerts. We asked the office ofStudent Activities to ask student film and concertorganizers to state firmly the ban on smoking ateach event. These measures have been quite successful and welcome.Smoking in the classroom needs to be broughtup and discussed in the individual classes so thatindividual class needs are taken into account inpossible designation of smoking areas or othersuch measures. It is important, though, that individuals point out their objections and desires.The emergency student loan program has become quite efficient recently. Its intent, to provide loans on short notice to students needingmoney urgently, is being served. Past problems of"credit lectures" and uncooperativeness are notoften heard. The Office of Student Accounts hasbeen very helpful to the students we have referredto them for emergency loans.Again this quarter as last quarter, we haveheard a number of complaints about the unfairadvantage afforded to users of calculators duringexaminations, particularly in the introductorychemistry sequence. Last quarter we thought theproblem had adequately been solved by the professor of the sequence, who planned to limit thenumber and importance of calculated answers andso minimize the advantage to calculator users inexams. Since the professor did not want to banoutright the use of calculators, his proposal of thisalternative seemed attractive. It turned out, however, that a number of students still felt the solution was unfair, that even if numerical answers79were not heavily counted, the time saved by usinga calculator on these problems could help in doingthe rest of the examination. This was, however,the status of the problem until the spring quarterof the sequence at which time a new professortook over the instruction. In response to our suggestions and after consulting with the class as awhole, his decision was to provide an option tostudents. They can freely use calculators inexams, but if they chose not to they will receivean extra amount of time to do the exam in order tocompensate them for the time advantage calculator users otherwise would enjoy. This planwas well received by the class and appeared to bea good solution for the remainder of the calendaryear.For the future, though, there may be a need forsome type of calculator policy — one which at theleast extends to College courses in which thereare a number of people who will not go further inthe sciences and for whom an investment in a calculator would be wasteful despite possible competitive pressures for better performance onexams.During the Winter Quarter, the faculty of theArt Department, because of pressure from theRegistrar's Office, voted to eliminate the practiceof placing on students' transcripts Studio Art 209.January 28, 1975During the Spring Quarter of 1974 the Office ofthe Student Ombudsman investigated 87 formalcomplaints as well as a number of informal complaints and points of information.As has been the case in the past two quartersthe complaints have been concerned with a variety of areas within the University. Although therewere multiple complaints about several areas nopart of the University stood out as a total disasterarea for students.The cases capsulized below are intended not somuch to show which problems we most spent timeor effort on but rather to illustrate instances of The listing of the course on the transcript was forthe purpose of recognizing outstanding work ofCollege art students in studio art. The objection ofthe Registrar to transcript recognition was mainlybased on the reason that these students paid notuition for Studio Art 209. The art faculty thusdecided not to place the course on transcripts anylonger.After hearing of this decision 10 undergraduatescontacted us about possible remedies. Theirprime concern was that our undergraduate artstudents would be placed at a disadvantage withother college students applying to Master of FineArts programs. The elimination of transcript recognition would not allow for indication of theirstudio art activities, which at the College are limited because of the number of requirements inother areas of study.What was worked out and proposed by MidwayStudios' staff and voted and accepted by the ArtDepartment was to print "Honors Program" onstudents' transcripts and to place letters from faculty members describing what honors programimplies (recognition of the above studio activities)in the students' graduate school letters of recommendation file.Paul G. Yovovicheither efficient or inefficient procedures in theUniversity and how they were or could be improved.Continuing a pattern of recent academic quarters was the condition of the women's lockerfacilities at Bartlett Gymnasium. This quarter'scomplaints concerned the deteriorated shape ofthe locker room and the curtailment of the towelservice for women. We have suggested ways touse more efficiently the existing small lockerroom. Although these suggestions have not beenadopted, the room could be maintained better. Ithad not been. Furthermore, the self-service towelpolicy which had been established several quarters before was cut out because of towel loss. TheREPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THESPRING QUARTER, 197480loss, first estimated by the athletic director to be50 in two weeks turned out to be less than 50 infour months.Our suggestions that a Bartlett Gym stafferhand out towels was adopted and the facilitieswere brought back into reasonable shape. Itshould not be necessary, though, to have to complain in order to have reasonable service.Other facilities also had their problems. Earlyin the quarter we received a request from a student asking us to see if there was any way to getanother security phone for Stagg Field. There hadbeen several incidents ranging from arguments tonear-fistfights there. We secured a promise fromthe director of campus security to bring up thematter at the next meeting of the campus securityboard which evaluates such problems.Meanwhile, another student complained to usthat she had several times recently tried to use theStagg Field track but was unable to because of anumber of youngsters riding their bicycles on thetrack. We again contacted the director of security,who quickly responded by having his officers observe the area more closely. He also expected tohave a security phone installed near the tenniscourts (close to the track) if the expense wouldnot be exceedingly great. When we later contacted the students again, we were told that theStagg Field facilities were in a safe state.Spring Quarter marks the search by studentsfor next fall's housing. With the tightness of thelocal housing market exacerbated by the condominium craze, many frictions and unpleasan-tries arose in the competition for space.One problem arose when, of a departing groupof three students living in a University apartmentbuilding, two promised to bequeath the apartmentto a new threesome while the third roommatepromised the flat to yet a different student group.In resolving the problem, it became clear thatfinding your own successors in housing was not afair system. The resolution was to list all University apartments available to students with theStudent Housing Office and allocate the apartments on a first-come, first- served basis fromthere.When the third member of a group which hadwon an apartment in the 1400 East 57th buildingdecided to live elsewhere, the remaining two invited another student, who also had participatedin the lottery, to join them. This arrangement wasdisallowed by the Student Housing Office and thestudents complained to our office. The HousingOffice's ruling was based on a desire to insurefairness to all lottery participants particularly those who had placed higher in the drawing thanthe newly adopted third but had not gottenspaces. A situation which my predecessor termed"treading the line between student advocate andadministration apologists" ensued. As happenson occasion, we must simply re-explain the administrative position and its logic to the studentsand hope they appreciate that the greater good ofstudentdom is hopefully achieved.The strictly academic area was not without itsproblems. In one undergraduate course the professor announced during the fourth week of thequarter that a final examination would be requiredin addition to the already announced final paper.The class was completely surprised by the announcement and we were contacted by severalstudents who felt that the professor's move wasquite unfair. Our conversations with the professorwere unable to dissuade him from his decision.Class requests had similar results. We spoke toseveral persons in the College Dean of Studentsoffice, each of whom told us there was nothingofficial that could be done.We must, under the present set up, rely on thegood graces of the faculty not to mislead studentseither intentionally or unintentionally about thecontents and requirements for their courses. Certainly, a system whereby a course's projected requirements could be announced definitely duringthe first week of the quarter (or earlier) wouldallow students to evaluate and allocate their timerequirements among the courses they elect totake.An important characteristic of an efficient administration is its ability to react to and handleirregular situations. The following cases indicatehow two University offices have been as successful in responding to student problems as otheroffices have been unsuccessful.A student had thought that the next Universitypayday was a week before it actually was, at theend of the spring quarter. Without the paycheck,the student would be unable to pay for his fare tohis distant hometown. Since he would not be aregistered student for the summer, he was noteligible for an emergency student loan. The Officeof Student Accounts responded positively to oursuggestion that the student immediately be given aloan in the amount of his anticipated paycheck,the loan to be repaid automatically by the issuedpaycheck. The Student Accounts group responded as quickly as was necessary to the student, who had to leave his dorm that very day. Allwent smoothly despite the small amount of timeavailable to process the transaction.81A student on whose foot a lesion had grown tothree contacted us because his request to see adermatologist at Student Health would only gethim an appointment in four weeks. This did notsit well with the anxious student. We spoke to theStudent Health director who had assured us andthe student that the lesions would not spread andthat they were not dangerous. However, becauseof the student's concern, the Student Health people arranged for an appointment for the student tobe squeezed into the busy dermatologist's nextday's schedule.In the above cases the University offices werewilling to inconvenience themselves in order tohelp students. All too often, this type of attitude islacking. Even regular requests have been rudelydenied or made unpleasant. So far this year, Ihave seen an increased commitment on the part ofmany University staffers to offer the kind of assistance and cooperation which we all would like tosee in the University community.Paul G. YovovichVISITING COMMITTEESVisiting Committees are "official" committees ofthe University, provided for in the By-Laws andreporting directly to the Board of Trustees of theUniversity. They are composed of individualsselected by the Board for their varied insights,interests, and abilities relating to a given academicarea.Upon the recommendation of the Dean or Director of the academic area involved, and with theconcurrence of the President, the following persons were appointed members of the VisitingCommittees.Visiting Committee to the Department of ArtClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Edwin BergmanMrs. Eugene DavidsonStanley FreehlingAllan FrumkinRichard Hunt John RewaldFranz SchulzeHerman SpertusClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Frederick AsherScott HodesH. W. JansonM. A. LipschultzMrs. Robert Mayer (Chairman)Mrs. Mary M. McDonaldMrs. C. Phillip MillerFrank H. WoodsClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Lewis ManilowMrs. Henry T. RickettsRaymond SmartCouncil for the Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of MedicineClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Marshall BennettDr. Robert M. ChanockHarold H. Hines, Jr.Thomas F. Jones, Jr.Burton KanterEverett KovlerRobert G. MyersDavid D. PetersonMilton StinsonArnold R. WolffClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)George W. BeadleOrville C. BeattieNathan BedermanB. E. BensingerPhilip D. Block, Jr.Nathan CummingsDr. Catherine Lindsay DobsonWilliam E. Fay, Jr.Maxwell GeffenOscar GetzDr. Robert J. GlaserStanford GoldblattDr. John Green, Jr.Hunt HamillJ. Ira HarrisRobert HartmanDr. Charles HugginsWallace D. JohnsonLawrence A. Kimpton82Martin J. KoldykeDr. Clayton LoosliJohn D. MabieElmer NicholsonLyle E. PackardA. N. Pritzker (Chairman)Dr. Clarence ReedJoseph Regenstein, Jr.Dr. John Shedd SchweppeEarl W. ShapiroDr. Harold ThompsonJohn Earl ThompsonMrs. William WrigleyCouncil on the Graduate School of BusinessClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)William O. BeersKarl R. BendetsenEugene P. BergJames W. ButtonWilliam A. Buzick, Jr.Donald N. FreyRalph E. GomoryThomas HancockWilliam G. KarnesRaymond A. KrocAlvin W. LongRay W. MacdonaldJohn A. MattmillerOscar G. MayerHart PerryEli ShapiroT. M. ThompsonC. R. Walgreen IIIChristopher W. WilsonWilliam T. YlvisakerClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Norman Barker, Jr.Allan S. BlankPhilip D. Block, Jr.James BurdW. Newton Burdick, Jr.Raymond N. CarlenMarvin ChandlerGranger CostikyanW. Leonard Evans, Jr.John P. GallagherW. L. Hadley GriffinRobert C. GunnessDavid K. HardinLawrence A. KimptonHarry W. Kirchheimer John H. KornblithC. Virgil MartinWilliam C. MushamPeter G. PetersonBeryl SprinkelRobert D. Stuart, Jr.M. P. VenemaC. Lee Walton, Jr. (Vice-Chairman)Theodore O. YntemaClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Thomas G. AyersEdmund F. BallRoland Bar stowArchie BoeWallace BoothRobert E. BrookerFairfax M. ConeWillie DavisCharles H. DavisonJames H. EvansRobert P. GwinnIrving B. Harris (Chairman)Robert S. IngersollDavid JonesHarvey KapnickThomas A. KellyPaul F. LorenzT. W. NelsonElmer NicholsonEllmore C. PattersonRobert W. RenekerRalph S. SaulGeorge L. ShinnAllen P. StultsJ. W. Van GorkomArthur T. WoerthweinJoseph S. WrightVisiting Committee to the CollegeClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Barbara Phelps AndersonRochelle AschheimArthur A. BaerDr. Richard Allen ChaseIra Corn, Jr.John F. Dille, Jr.John T. HortonWilliam H. JosephsonJohn Godfrey MorrisKeith I. ParsonsChristopher PeeblesMartha P. Saxton83Robert B. SilversDaniel C. SmithHodson ThornberPhilip C. WhiteClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Edward L. Anderson, Jr.Robert J. GreenebaumCarl F. HovdeAlbert Pick, Jr.Saul S. ShermanDr. Nancy E. WarnerThe Hon. Hubert L. WillClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)John J. BerwangerVirginia ButtsEmmett DedmonFrances T. FreemanJoan N. HertzbergDr. Deirdre HollowayW. Rea KeastJulius LewisE. Wilson LyonRichard MerbaumBradley Patterson, Jr.Charles H. PercyWilliam ProvineDr. Mina S. ReesDavid B. TrumanRobert C. Upton (Chairman)F. Champion WardVisiting Committee to the Divinity SchoolClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Rosecrans BaldwinKenneth BlockRobert E. BrookerMarvin ChandlerJohn ColmanMrs. Patrick CrowleyMilton F. Darr, Jr.Charles H. DavisonJames C. Downs, Jr.Donald A. GilliesStanley HillmanCharles W. Lake, Jr.Leo R. NewcombeKeith I. ParsonsJames T. RhindGeorge L. SeatonWeathers Y. SykesGeorge H. Watkins Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Russell M. BairdSolomon BernardsRobert L. Berner, Jr.Ralph A. L. Bogan, Jr.Leo J. Carl inJohn F. ConnorEmmett DedmonR. Neal FulkJohn GallagherJohn GiuraGlen A. LloydMrs. John NuveenNomenee B. Robinson, Sr.Robert StuartSamuel StumpfClinton YouleClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Herbert BronsteinEarl B. DickersonGaylord DonnelleyKingman Douglass, Jr. (Chairman)Robert G. MiddletonDr. C. Phillip MillerGeorge F. SislerVisiting Committee to the Graduate School ofEducation and the Department of EducationClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Mrs. Richard AlschulerManuel FinkRobert McDougal, Jr.Harry M. Oliver, Jr.James F. RedmondPeter TodhunterGeorge H. Watkins (Chairman)Dr. Vida B. WentzClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)David E. BellCharles BentonJohn L. BurnsWilliam S. Gray IIIErnest R. HilgardLawrence A. KimptonAndrew McNally IIIHenry RegneryMrs. Daniel C. SmithClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Kenneth B. ClarkLawrence Cremin84Max I. StuckerClint E. YouleVisiting Committee to the Center for Far EasternStudiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Neal BallRobert L. BeanS. N. DoolittleShohei HaraJames H. IngersollPeter T. JonesEugene M. KeysMrs. Lucy LeungMrs. Edward H. LeviSimon C. S. LingRobert F. McCulloughWilliam J. McDonoughEdward F. SwiftClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)A. Robert Abboud (Vice-Chairman)James AbegglenKunihiko AdachiJames AlsdorfRichard BechtoltJack BeemWilliam BeersJames F. BereJoseph BlockCharles L. BrownLeland CarstensLester CrownEmmett Dedmon (Chairman)Louis F. Dempsey IIIRichard EdwardsJeannette Shambaugh ElliottRita HauserCharles HuckerRobert S. IngersollPaul R. JudyPhilip KlutznickMrs. Samuel T. Lawton, Jr.Mrs. John LongEmerson LyonsDwight PerkinsWilliam Wood PrinceMrs. Robert PritzkerMrs. George A. RanneyJohn D. Rockefeller IVLee SchoolerWilliam SibleyJonathan Spence Mrs. Lyle SpencerOliver StatlerMrs. Philip K. WrigleyVisiting Committee to the HumanitiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)James W. AlsdorfArthur A. BaerCharles BentonEdwin A. BergmanLeigh B. BlockMrs. George V. BobrinskoyMichael BraudeGaylord DonnelleyPaul FrommJames R. GetzLeo S. GuthmanCharles C. Haffner IIIDenison B. HullSigmund W. KunstadterEarle LudginMrs. C. Phillip MillerClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Peter B. BensingerBowen BlairGwendolyn BrooksMrs. Lester CrownMrs. Edison DickStanley M. FreehlingMrs. Maurice P. GeraghtyBertrand GoldbergDaggett HarveyMrs. Sidney G. HaskinsMrs. Glen A. LloydAnthony L. MichelWilbur C. MunneckeGeorge A. PooleBryan S. Reid, Jr.Norman RossRudy L. RugglesCalvin P. SawyierMrs. Farwell P. SmithGeorge B. YoungClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Mrs. Eugene A. DavidsonMrs. Frank D. MayerMrs. Gilbert H. OsgoodMrs. Walter P. PaepckeMrs. Paul S. RussellMrs. Richard L. SelleJoseph R. Shapiro85Alfred C. Stepan, Jr.Gardner H. Stern (Chairman)Mrs. John P. WellingMrs. Frank H. WoodsVisiting Committee to the Law SchoolClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)William W. DarrowEli E. FinkThe Hon. Marvin E. FrankelWilliam B. GrahamWilliam N. HaddadThomas L. NicholsonKarl F. NygrenThe Hon. Barrington D. ParkerF. Max SchuetteMilton Shadur (Chairman)The Hon. Herbert J. SternLowell C. WadmondClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Ingrid L. BeallThe Hon. George N. LeightonMichael E. MeyerGeorge A. Ranney, Jr.The Hon. Alvin B. RubinCharles D. SatinoverJustin A. StanleyMarvin T. TeppermanKenneth S. TollettThe Hon. Philip W. ToneHarold A. Ward IIIDonald J. YellonClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Laura BanfieldThe Hon. Robert H. BorkFrank H. DetweilerJohn DoarAnthony C. GilbertRichard M. HarterPeter T. JonesAbe KrashMary Lee LeahyThe Hon. Harold LeventhalJudson H. MinerJay A. PritzkerBernard G. SangGeorge L. Saunders, Jr.Wallace J. Stenhouse, Jr.Stephen E. TallentJerome S. WeissThe Hon. John Minor Wisdom Visiting Committee to the LibraryChairman: Daniel J. Edelman (term expiringSeptember 30, 1976)Class 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Thomas R. FurlongMrs. Stanford GoldblattMr. O. B. HardisonGordon N. RayMrs. Herbert Vance, Jr.Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)A. Robert AbboudRobert S. AdlerRoger BensingerDavid BorowitzEugene A. DavidsonWilliam DixJames R. DonnelleyDaniel J. EdelmanRichard EldenW. Leonard Evans, Jr.Katharine GrahamGertrude HimmelfarbStephen McCarthyMrs. C. Phillip MillerMrs. John NefMax PalevskyGeorge A. PooleVictoria Post RanneyMrs. Joseph RegensteinHermon D. SmithRalph TylerRobert A. WallaceEdward H. WeissClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Mrs. Michael ArlenVisiting Committee to the Department of MusicClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Milton BabbittBruno BartolettiMrs. Maurice CottleMrs. James H. DouglasCarol FoxMrs. Martha Asher FriedbergPaul FrommMs. Raya GarbousovaTito GobbiBertrand GoldbergMargaret Hillis86George IrwinGeorge Fred KeckNorman RossSir Georg SoltiPeter Gram SwingMrs. J. Harris Ward (Chairman)Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Mrs. A. Watson Armour IIIMrs. Granger CostikyanMrs. Lester CrownBenny GoodmanMrs. John GrayMrs. Henry MeersAlbert NewmanRobert SempleMrs. Robert D. Stuart, Jr.Lowell WadmondClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Mrs. Ralph BrownMrs. William W. DarrowMrs. William R. Dickinson, Jr.Mrs. Willard GidwitzVisiting Committee to the Oriental InstituteClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Arthur S. BowesMrs. G. Corson EllisJohn W. B. HadleyMrs. John H. LivingoodAlbert H. NewmanWilliam J. RobertsClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Harvey W. Branigar, Jr.Gardner H. SternMrs. Chester D. TrippRoderick S. WebsterMrs. Roderick S. WebsterClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Russell M. BairdMrs. Russell M. BairdMrs. Margaret B. Cameron (Chairman)Arthur DixonIsak V. GersonMrs. Isak V. GersonRobert C. GunnessAlbert F. HaasMrs. Albert F. HaasMarshall M. HollebMrs. Marshall M. HollebWilliam O. Hunt Mrs. C. Phillip MillerWilliam M. SpencerVisiting Committee to the Division of thePhysical SciencesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Robert S. AdlerLuis W. AlvarezEdwin N. AsmannMalcolm K. BrachmanCharles L. BrownEdward E. David, Jr.James B. FiskDonald N. FreyHerbert FriedmanLeo GoldbergMarvin L. GoldbergerHerman H. GoldstineCrawford H. Greene waitRobert P. GwinnJohn S. IvyWinston E. KockE. J. LedderJohn O. LoganJoseph MayerDale R. SnowLeif J. SverdrupHo ranee D. TaftWernher von BraunGerald WestbyLynn WilliamsJoseph S. WrightClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Robert C. Gunness (Vice-Chairman)Peter G. Peterson (Chairman)Visiting Committee to the Division of the SocialSciencesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)William H. AveryThomas J. BataCharles L. BrownSilas Strawn CathcartPeter B. ClarkIrving A. GrodzinsFrederick G. JaicksJohn J. Louis, Jr.Charles J. MerriamArthur C. Nielsen, Jr.Arthur W. SchultzRichard L. Terrell87Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Edgar B. Stern, Jr.Class 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)James W. Button (Chairman)James H. IngersollBeryl W. SprinkelFrank H. WoodsVisiting Committee to the School of Social SAdministrationClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Mrs. John J. BerganMrs. Robert L. FooteMrs. Zollie FrankIrving B. HarrisElliot LehmanKenneth F. MontgomeryJoseph Regenstein, Jr.Lawrence K. SchnadigMerrill ShepardMrs. Bernard A. WeissbourdMaynard I. WishnerClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Philip D. Block, Jr.James Brown IVSidney EpsteinCharles R. FeldsteinMrs. Howard GoodmanMrs. Herbert S. Green waldHarry H. Hagey, Jr.Mortimer B. HarrisMrs. W. Press HodgkinsMrs. Lazarus KrinsleyMrs. Remick McDowellClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Joseph P. AntonowJohn A. Bross, Jr.Dr. Kenneth B. ClarkMrs. William M. Collins, Jr.William W. Darrow,Stanley G. Harris, Jr. (Chairman)Mrs. Ben W. HeinemanMrs. Robert B. MayerHenry Meers Mrs. Bernard D. MeltzerPaul L. MullaneyMrs. George A. Ranney, Sr.Hermon D. SmithGardner H. Stern, Jr.Visiting Committee on Student Programs andFacilitiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Jean M. BlockLawrence B. ButtenwieserMrs. Hammond ChaffetzSolon B. CousinsLester CrownFerdinand KramerRobert N. MayerMrs. John J. McDonoughJames RuddleJoseph R. ShapiroMrs. Louis Skidmore, Jr.Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1975)Arthur BaerW. Leonard Evans, Jr.Frances Moore FergusonHoward MillerKenneth H. NealsonLucille BraussBernard WeissbourdDr. Douglas WhiteClass (term expiring September 30, 1976)William H. AbbottHope AbelsonRussell M. BairdJohn Jay BerwangerBernard J. DelGiornoJohn Dille, Jr.Robert Greenebaum (Chairman)Virginia KarnesMichael NemeroffMrs. George Ranney, Sr.Sharon RockefellerRobert E. SamuelsDaniel C. SmithDr. Andrew ThomasMrs. George H. Watkins88TUITION INCREASEThe University of Chicago will increase tuitionrates for the 1975-76 academic year.The tuition rates have been approved by theBoard of Trustees, acting on the recommendationof the administration and the Dean's BudgetCommittee. In December 1974, the Committeesuggested that tuitions be raised at least $70 perquarter from current levels.Beginning in the Autumn Quarter, 1975, tuitionincreases for a normal three-quarter academicyear will be as follows. In order to help students meet the costs of aprivate education, the University will continue tosupport and offer a wide range of student aid. For1975-76 the University will devote $5 million fromits general funds for direct student aid and morethan $1 million in endowed scholarship funds.According to a recent survey by The New YorkTimes, the average tuition increase at a number ofprivate colleges and universites was 10 percent.For example, Yale University will be the firstmajor private institution to raise tuition above$4,000 for an academic year (to 4,050); and Stanford University announced a 13 percent increase(to $3,810), the largest in its history.1975-76 1974-75 $ increase % increaseCollege $3,210 $3,000 $210 7Divisions 3,420 3,210 210 6.5SchoolsMedicine 3,420 3,210 210 6.5Law 3,690 3,300 390 11.8Business 3,750 3,450 300 8.7Divinity, Education^Library, and SSA / 3,360 3,150 210 6.7Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingHXw5o3no1o — !zTJ I o lm -r c 333 P •bs > ¦a*0O i-r- >S O !-co ~i iCI§ i25 S* !I* O m = i*" r: oCO 3 !