THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDJanuary 7, 1976 An Official Publication Volume X, Number 1CONTENTS1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFEIN REGENSTEIN4 ADDENDUM TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CANTEENAND HARPER LIBRARY USE5 RESCUE REGENSTEIN7 THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN REGENSTEIN LIBRARY: ARESPONSE10 A JOINT STATEMENT11 DID YOU GET WHAT YOU CAME FOR?13 SUMMARY OF THE 356TH CONVOCATION14 JOHN T. WILSON ELECTED PRESIDENT14 D. GALE JOHNSON APPOINTED PROVOST14 TRUSTEE ELECTION14 ROSENBERGER MEDAL TO MENUHIN14 ERRATUMTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLERL-D "fey©Copyright 1976 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUALITYOF LIFE IN REGENSTEINTo: President John T. WilsonJune 18, 1975The Committee you appointed has met five timesduring this quarter in an attempt to formulatewhat the problems really are about Regensteinand to come to preliminary suggestions aboutwhat needs to be done. As your title for the Committee was perhaps intended to suggest, the problems have come to seem much more complex thanwas clear in the initial notion of "mobilizingfaculty and student goodwill, to reduce mess anddestruction."On the narrow matter of "appealing to the public," we have published one "Gadfly" in theMaroon [see copy attached, "Rescue Regenstein"] and arranged for one public displayof books and journals destroyed by carelessnessand vandalism. But we do not expect that suchefforts will in themselves have much effect unlessat least some of the problems we address beloware solved.The effort to improve "the quality of life inRegenstein" is obviously part of the larger University effort to preserve and improve Libraryfacilities. Our Committee has not deliberately attempted to go into those aspects of the care ofRegenstein that are more appropriately the concern of the Library Board: overall budget, maintaining and increasing collections, provision ofadequate staff, etc. But starting with the problemas it originally appeared in initial conversations,we have had to let that problem lead to whateverseemed directly pertinent to it; in what follows,we do skirt at many points on matters beyond ourjurisdiction, however that is defined.Our original problem might have read something like this: Students and faculty are in a surprising degree abusing Regenstein by carrying foodinto reading areas, by spilling coffee on carpets, by making cigarette burns on tables, by muddyingchairs with footprints, by leaving litter about theplace, by engaging in loud conversation in readingareas, and even by theft and mutilation of booksand journals. When the chairman of this Committee first took on the assignment, he saw it asprimarily a matter of mobilizing campus morale toeliminate or diminish these abuses, abuses that heassumed were, except for the last named, for themost part unintentional. But now it has becomeclear that the problem of respectful treatment byusers is related to at least the following additionalmatters.1. The Reasons Underlying Current Abuse ofRegensteinA. The "Social Center Vacuum." There is goodreason to believe that the design of Regenstein asan attractive, comfortable, spacious building accidentally led to its present combination of functions. On a campus with no "social center," Regenstein has suddenly, by its very success as themost attractive place to be on campus, day ornight, become "the place to go to meet yourfriends." Students often say that it is "the onlyplace to go," and though this is obviously an exaggeration during many hours of the day, it is nota great exaggeration in the late evening hours.The result is that students are using it for twofunctions that are potentially destructive of itsfunction as a library. First, they go to it, in greatnumbers, not to do research or to read its booksbut to find a comfortable study hall. Students ingreat numbers (but we do not know any hardfigures here) apparently carry their own books in,read them there, and carry them back out, withoutneeding Regenstein' s unique facilities at all. Second, students are using it as a center of campuslife, in two senses, one that seems to us appro-priate, one that is questionable. It has first become a center of intellectual discussion — a placewhere one can meet others engaged in one's ownfield and carry on conversation about intellectualproblems. Though the building does not designateany areas as specifically for this purpose, thewhole building in a sense does so — sometimeswith the result of disturbing those who need privacy and quiet. But it has, secondly, become aplace to go, especially on weekends and evenings,hoping to find a friend or a date. The level ofconversational noise in some sections duringsome hours makes study in those sections impossible; there seems to be a danger that this practicewill spread to other areas, unless steps are takennow either to ban talk altogether except in privaterooms or to construct a canteen area where goodtalk could take place appropriately.Some have said that the Library is overcrowded. This does not seem clearly to be true. Itis simply overcrowded in some areas where thesocial purposes are extreme. The total numbers ofusers can be accommodated for the designed purposes.B. The Design of the Canteen. The most visiblecenter of such troubles is the small canteen and itsgeneral overspill into the Library proper. Despiteearly differences about many matters, we havecome to clear agreement about the messy canteenand the mess that it sends out into the Library:The canteen is, as it stands, a serious (thoughentirely understandable) mistake. Some have saidthat it should be removed entirely; some have saidthat it must be enlarged. Nobody has said that ourproblems can be solved so long as it is kept as it is.In a purely technical sense, the problem aboutthe canteen is that — given the level of use that itinevitably attracts — it cannot help "spilling over"into the Library. Since there is no check point orbarrier between the canteen and the readingareas, and since there is a totally inadequate spacein the canteen proper, it seems unavoidable thatmany people find that, rather than stand gulpingtheir coffee, or sit on the floor, they simply takethe elevator back to their desks, coffee cup inhand. In retrospect, it can be seen that the presentdesign simply invites the abuse that we are observing.When (A) and (B) are put together, the Committee finds itself agreeing not only that the canteen will not do, but that a choice from amongvarious possibilities for canteen change must bemade quickly.We therefore recommend that, depending on what is revealed by analysis of true costs, including the present cost of present damage to Regenstein because of present arrangements, one of thefollowing three measures be taken, our preferencebeing in the order listed.(Note that the following recommendations forthe canteen, though approved by the Committee,are probably rendered nugatory by the move described in the "Addendum" below. It seems tothe chairman likely that had the Committeeknown of the plan described there, their preference for (a) would have been changed to (b).In any case, those Committee members whocould be reached by the chairman said that theyfavored the new Reserve Room plan, but that itwas important not to allow that plan to hamperefforts to improve the Hutchinson Commons areaas an important wing of the whole Regenstein-Hutchinson-Reynolds-C Shop "complex." Properly planned, we could have in this area of thecampus a social center appropriate to this campus, with the Library as the center but without theabuses now increasing.)a. The canteen should be closed, but only afterwe have provided a. radically stepped up food service and social arrangement in the ReynoldsClub-Hutchinson Commons-C Shop area. Wemust underline the importance of a major provision of food services in the evenings in Hutchinson Commons if this proposal is to work. It isimpossible for us to predict what an opening up ofHutchinson Commons for food services throughout the day and evening would cost, in relationship to how much income there could be from it,but we stress once again that the present policy ofhaving food spilling over into the Library is costing us a good deal.b. If such a radical shift should prove impossible, we recommend as the second favored alternative that the present canteen in Regenstein beboth expanded and sharply cut off from the regular entrances to the Library proper. The most attractive placement, to all members of the Committee, is the present Reserve Room area, with anexpanded snack bar and with doors shut off to theLibrary proper.c. If the Reserve Room cannot be used, werecommend expansion of the present canteen toinclude the present staff canteen and provision fora staff canteen elsewhere. But this will makesense only if a physical barrier is built betweenfood and book areas.The essence of our recommendations here lies infour points:2i. Somehow food services must be sharply shutoff from book areas. We recommend a physicalbarrier, with Library entrances quite separatefrom canteen entrances.ii. Library staff must be strongly encouraged tohelp enforce restrictions on food and to believethat they will have most of the campus behindthem when they encounter resistance.It should be noted that the present situation isso "loose" that nobody is policing it. The Libraryofficials tell us that staff members will not, for themost part, even so much as remind students of thepolicy against food in the Library. We know ofinstances in which food has been carried throughthe main entrance, visible to the guards, and yetnothing was said. When one of us asked whatwould be required to lead staff members to carryout policies, the reply was, "Only clear evidencethat the University community was back of thepolicies." The resulting circularity seems obviousand dangerous: we can't even inform people ofpolicies until we are convinced that they alreadyknow of and believe in them. It seems to us thatthe absolute minimal measure to convinceeveryone that we mean business about keepingfood out is to keep food out, physically in theimmediate area of the canteen and with a firmguard-policy at the front entrance. Some havesaid that there will always be some who will sneakfood in — in briefcases, etc. Probably so. Butfewer will do so if the general policy is clear andfirm.iii. Faculty and students must be continuallyreminded that the staff cannot do the enforcingalone. In the fall, whatever committee continueswith this problem must work steadily to educatethe campus to responsible support of staff in policing whatever patterns are decided on.iv. Maintenance must be modified to supportthis new program. But this problem merits a separate section below.2. Underuse of Harper LibraryIt seems clear that Harper Library is now radically underused. It is sad indeed that such an attractive facility has not somehow yet fulfilled itspromise as a major undergraduate center. TheCommittee is not clear about how much we canhope to reverse this situation, but we believe thateven if we can only hope to increase Harper usageto some degree, the diminishing of traffic in Regenstein would help, however minimally, with theproblem.We have not had time to determine what might be done to enhance the "attractiveness" ofHarper: it is highly "attractive" but it does notattract. (See "Addendum.") No doubt one reasonfor low levels of student use is that many facultymembers do not use Harper; a very large numberof reserve books for undergraduates are nowbeing placed in Regenstein reserve rather than inHarper reserve. We have considered the possibility of requiring all undergraduate instructors toput their reserve books in Harper, and we thinkthis possibility should be carefully explored. Butwe recommend, in place of specific recommendations of that kind, that a subcommittee be appointed in the fall to deal with the problem ofHarper — what one librarian has called the "expensive overstuffed morgue."3. Need for Improved MaintenanceEveryone concerned has agreed that the maintenance level in Regenstein is now poor. We do notknow why that is so, but we are sure that poormaintenance contributes to an attitude ofcarelessness on the part of faculty and students.On a recent morning after Memorial Dayweekend, the Library was an absolute messthroughout. Of course this can in one sense beblamed on the users. But it seems likely that, asone librarian put it, the present maintenance leveland practice is contributing considerably to theproblem. We recommend that someone in youradministration who is qualified to deal with theintricacies of maintenance services make a specialstudy of why maintenance tasks are not now beingperformed at optimal level. Is there, as one Library official told us, a problem about a buildingsupervisor who does not care? To work onmaintenance without trying to deal with misbehavior of users would perhaps be absurd, but inconjunction with our other recommendations wefeel that there should be a thrust in this directiontoo.4. Problems of Regenstein Library Policies andStaffOne of the biggest surprises to the chairman ofthis Committee was the discovery of the depthand breadth of hostility toward Library policiesand staff. Again and again faculty members andstudents have expressed not simply annoyancebut anger because of some experience of mistreatment or injustice, imagined or real. Surveysshow that a large percentage of users feel thatstaff members are discourteous and indifferent to3problems. Among the more frequent complaintsare these:a. Fining policies are extreme and inherentlypunitive. There is a widespread notion, quite unwarranted, that Regenstein imposes fines forprofit; the public simply does not know that income from fines goes not to the Library but intogeneral University funds. This misinformationcan no doubt be corrected. But it seems likely thata fining policy ought to be clearly directed to getting books returned. The present policy of notreminding users that books are due leads to theaccumulation of many large fines by users who byno means intend to be remiss. Many students believe, however unjustifiably, that the policy is deliberately designed to ensure that fines will belarge, in order to gain income.b. Communications going to the public are saidto be offensive in tone.c. Staff members are said to be often rude tousers. Interestingly enough, the staff membersmost frequently accused of offense in this respectare those on the circulation desk, and they areusually themselves students.Regardless of how much reason there is or isnot for this public hostility, it is widespread. Onefaculty member refused to serve on this Committee because he felt that "never in his life had heworked in a Library in which he was treated sorudely and in which the policies were so contraryto agreeable work." Many students have said thatthe Committee should not work on the problem ofmess in Regenstein, which is merely a symptom,but should work on the real problem, which ishostility to the Library and its authorities.The Committee has obviously not had time toconduct any sort of study of the validity of thesecharges, of the causes for the hostility, or of possible cures. But we are convinced that there is aproblem that will be extremely difficult to dealwith. We therefore urge upon any continuingcommittee that they take "the public relations ofthe Library" as a major topic for study.5. ConclusionA great deal more work will be required on theseproblems before any marked improvement can behoped for. Facts are needed about costs and attitudes and present functions in relation to long-range plans. Unless other committees or administrative branches are in some way to be chargedwith the "branches" of the problems as we seethem, we recommend that a successor-committeeshould be named, perhaps including some, mem bers who are expert in each of the many areastouched on. Or you might want to appoint a groupof sub-committees or task-forces to work on (a) arange of public appeals, the original impetus ofthis Committee; (b) data-gathering about sourcesof widespread hostility; (c) improvement of publicrelations in the Library; (d) improvement of socialfacilities in Reynolds- Hutchinson area or, alternatively, choosing and implementing as soon as possible a revised canteen pattern, isolated from theLibrary proper; (e) improvement of maintenance,etc.What the foregoing amounts to is a Committeeconsensus that no quick and easy measures— monitory, hortatory, or administrative — can beexpected to make much difference in dispellingthe surprisingly intricate problems that currentlyinterfere with the "quality of life" in RegensteinLibrary. Instead, the compound costs, in dollarsand in deliberate cooperation on the. part of theLibrary's staff and users, need to be calculated sothat new policies can be formulated to improvethe functioning and treatment of our Universitylibraries.Wayne C. Booth {Chairman)G. G. ForneyEdwin GerowAkira IriyeJessie McClennanJanel MuellerPhilip RemlerClifford TabinAnthony TurkevichADDENDUM TO RECOMMENDATIONSFOR THE CANTEEN AND HARPERLIBRARY USEThe day after a draft of this report was discussedby Committee members, the chairman learnedthat one of the possibilities that we had discussed,but had not quite dared to recommend, has cometo seem highly feasible to the Library administrators.Our report as debated says that it is essential tostep up the use of Harper Library, and we havealso suggested the possibility of putting allundergraduate reserve books in Harper. In ourmeetings we tried out the suggestion on eachother and on the librarians that all reserve booksbe placed in Harper, but that seemed too drasticto put in the written report. Now it appears that4money can be saved and efficiency increased byshutting down Regenstein reserve, turning thatarea into a canteen area, and moving all reservebooks to Harper, with the provision that WeissCoffee shop be open throughout the hours of reserve. And this will make possible keeping thereserve desk open for two more hours daily.Though we might expect that there will initially besome anxiety expressed by some students aboutsuch a move, the obvious advantages of havingreserve books much closer to most classes willsoon be clear to everyone. Or so it looks to thechairman and to the small number of Committeemembers (about half ) whom he has been able toreach. It should be stressed, however, that theremay be bugs in this plan that only careful reviewwould reveal. One graduate student came to thechairman, in some distress, having heard from aLibrary staff member that the plan was beingtalked of with enthusiasm; he had heard that theRESCUE REGENSTEINBY WAYNE C. BOOTHSome months ago officials at Regenstein Libraryasked a consultant how they could make best useof the recent gift designed to maintain the interiorin its original quality. After a tour of the wholebuilding during a busy period, he reported carpetsstained with spilled coffee and ground-out cigarettes, tables scarred with beverage marks andcigarette burns, upholstery dirtied with footprints,litter in quantities suggesting that neither usersnor maintenance personnel cared about it, andsmoking and eating throughout the building. Hisconclusion was that the University had built a social center along with a library, and that unlesspatterns of use and maintenance could be radically improved, the money "might as well be sentback." Do your replacements in good tough plainplastic, he said, making the library as unattractiveas possible to all but those who want to use it as alibrary.Naturally disturbed by this report and by learning that tens of thousands of dollars worth ofbooks and journals are destroyed by razor-bladeincisions and by careless usage, Acting President whole of Business East would be used for reservefacilities, thus diminishing the undergraduatefacilities. He had been an undergraduate here,was proud of Harper as a home for the College (atlast!), and he felt that the proposed move not onlywould downgrade the College once more but thatit would produce great inconvenience for peoplewho do most of their work in Regenstein but whowant to get reserve books. He claimed to speakfor misgivings on the part of some Library staff,and it seems likely that there will be others withmisgivings. But unless more serious objectionsare found than he was able to raise, the chairmanstill thinks the general plan a good one. It seemslikely that the plan should either be put into effectduring September and announced as a fait accompli, or we should be prepared for considerablediscussion in the fall.Wayne C. Booth (Chairman)John Wilson asked me if I would chair a committee of students and faculty members to study "thequality of life in Regenstein."The deliberate ambiguity in the Committee'stitle was immediately reflected in the variety offormulations we have received about "what theproblem is." Nobody has denied that there is aproblem, but the explanations and proposalsrange far and wide:"It's just this generation of students — theydon't care about preserving things. There's reallynothing that can be done about it.""The destruction is really an expression ofdeep-seated and justified hostility. Many studentsand faculty members resent the Library 'bureaucracy.' Being often mistreated by Library staffand by Library policies, they naturally feel hostiletoward an institution that seems hostile to them.""The essential problem is simply the result ofone grand initial mistake; there should have beenno concession at the beginning to those whowanted food facilities in Regenstein. If we shutdown the canteen, most of the problem will goaway, though it would have been better if from thebeginning the decor had not been made so muchlike that of a country club.""The real problem is that this campus has noother social center, and Regenstein has come to5fill what was a great gap in student life. There isno reason why a library cannot be both a libraryand a social center, especially on a campus wherestudy is taken as seriously as it is here.""A great deal of the heavy evening use is byundergraduates who do not use Regenstein booksat all. They simply bring their own books and useRegenstein as a study hall. For that purposeHarper would do as well, but since Harper is thefurthest thing from a social center at this point,and since its hours are not as convenient, all of thetraffic goes to Regenstein.""The only problem I see is that the canteenarea is so inadequate. It is too small, the food islousy — and naturally everyone must 'overflow'back into the reading areas."Proposals for "the Cure"In spite of this surprising diversity of opinionabout the problem, and in spite of a widespreadconviction that nothing can be done about it, theCommittee has met so far (four times late thisquarter) on the assumption that a problem of thiskind, on a campus of this kind, cannot be totallyresistant to thought and good will. It is clear fromour discussions that a vast majority of studentsand faculty members are proud of Regenstein andconcerned about its future. We want to preserve itas one of the greatest working libraries in theworld. But how do we do that? Suggestions haveranged over the following:1. Shut down the canteen completely. Thissuggestion is usually combined with a recommendation that facilities in Reynolds Club, the "C"Shop, and Hutchinson Commons be greatly improved and hours lengthened.2. Redesign the canteen, enlarging it but shutting it off completely from the Library proper.Post a guard to see that no food leaves the snackarea, and make sure that no food crosses othercheckpoints.3. Improve maintenance. A clean floor discourages litter. Litter attracts litter. Make surethat when the day starts, things look good.4. Carry on a large-scale publicity campaignabout the problem(s). Build exhibits of damagedbooks (one will be mounted next week). WriteGadfly columns for The Maroon. Plant spots onWHPK. Organize all "Friends of Regenstein" so that their vocal concern will be heard. Design asmall "FOR" button— etc.5. Make a major effort to attract larger numbers of users to Harper Library, especially thosewho are looking mainly for a study hall and not forresearch facilities. This effort to ease the crowding might or might not include requiring or at leastencouraging all faculty members to place reservebooks for undergraduate courses in Harper.6. Look for ways to improve the staff members' treatment of users. The Library should appoint a local "ombudsman" specifically chargedwith handling complaints and also a full-time person working on the whole range of issues theCommittee is considering.Everyone who has been close to Regenstein' soperations from the beginning has remarked thatthe current troubles are relatively new. As onestudent said: "At first, Regenstein was treatedwith as much respect as Harper is now. Nobodywould think of turning Harper into an eveningclub, but somehow that seems to be happening atRegenstein." One could argue that we are simplysuffering the fruits of a great success: Regensteinhas indeed become, as our commonplace has it,"the heart of the campus," and naturally its popularity produces strains and signs of use. But themembers of the Committee are convinced that itis time now to reverse the recent decline. Thoughthe problems are obviously of the kind that cannotbe easily or completely solved, surely we areunited in dependence on and respect for our greatLibrary.The Committee will meet one more time thisquarter and will then submit a preliminary reportto President Wilson. It will then continue to worknext fall. If you have suggestions about any ofthis, please get them to one of the following beforeTuesday evening:Faculty members: Edwin Gerow, Akira Iriye,Janel Mueller, and Anthony Turkevich.Students: Gerry Forney, Jessie McClennan,Philip Remler, and Clifford Tabin.Wayne C. Booth is the George M. Pullman Professor in the Department of English, in the College, and in the Committee on the Analysis ofIdeas and the Study of Methods. This article isreprinted with permission from "Gadfly," TheMaroon, May 30, 1975.6THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN REGENSTEIN LIBRARY: A RESPONSENovember 11, 1975This response has been prepared by the Library'sPublic Service Committee, appointed by StanleyMcElderry September 11, 1975. The Public Service Committee was asked "to review the recommendations of the Committee on the Quality ofLife in Regenstein ... to formulate and recommend needed policies, to develop appropriateprocedures for implementation, and to propose apublic information program to gain acceptance ofthese policies."The Public Service Committee believes that theJune 18, 1975, Report on the Quality of Life inRegenstein (QLR) has some serious deficienciesand that it is important to the continuing searchfor solutions that we identify these deficiencies.There are three areas in which we concur withthe QLR Committee.We concur that the Regenstein Library does filla social-center vacuum and that there is anunderuse of Harper Library. The Library doesseek solutions to the misuse of these two facilitiesand will be actively working on this matter during1975-76. We look forward to the assistance of theCommittee on the Quality of Life in RegensteinLibrary in formulating options and in developingacceptable and enforceable policies which willcorrect present abuses.Second, we wholeheartedly concur with thefinding that the canteen is "as it stands, a serious(though entirely understandable) mistake" andthat food service "must be sharply shut off fromthe book and reading areas." Clearly, the mosteffective long-term solution to the presence offood and beverages within the book and readingareas of the Library will be a combination of architectural changes and a subsequent program ofeffective policy enforcement by the Library.Physical changes are now under study by Libraryand University administrations with the aid of architectural consultants.We see the issue of smoking in Regenstein asseparate and distinct from the food and beverageissue. We join the QLR Committee in condemn ing the cigarette-related mess and are prepared tourge new graphics within the Library to publicizethat the general rule is no smoking except in thoseareas specifically set aside for this purpose. Thearchitectural openness of this building, which isso aesthetically pleasing, makes clear boundariesbetween smoking and non- smoking areas difficultto define. We are planning to develop recommendations for better definition of these smokingareas.The QLR Committee's third factor contributing to mess and mutilation of the building and Library sources is the need for improved maintenance. We would concur in their recommendationthat persons responsible for this University service be urged to give careful study to the problemand to come forward with solutions at the earliestpossible moment. Any public facility used as intensively as is Regenstein Library will becomemessy without constant and conscientious custodial attention. All too often Regenstein Librarydoes not reflect such attention and this institutional failure to maintain a clean and orderly facility may be a contributing factor in the disregardshown by some users.It is in the fourth factor identified by the Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein Library that we must offer our disagreement anddeep concern. The QLR Committee identified thepolicies and staff of Regenstein Library as the recipient of widespread faculty and student hostility. Thus, by inference, these policies and staffare contributing to the attitudes and actions ofthose library users who leave messes and mutilateor steal library materials. We regard this inferenceas simplistic. Certainly the case is not sufficientlydocumented or adequately presented for the workof a University of Chicago faculty and studentcommittee.The Report of the Committee on the Quality ofLife in Regenstein Library does not mention theoccurrence of dangerous fires in the Library at theend of the Winter Quarter 1975. They do not describe the mood of tension and concern within theUniversity community during the Spring Quarter1975 over these disturbing occurrences. They failto recall that the Library staff bore the brunt ofdissatisfaction expressed by many users of thebuilding toward the security measures which wereintroduced by University administrators in theirefforts to protect the safety of both users and resources in the building. Failure to state this prevailing condition is a serious shortcoming of theCommittee's investigations.The QLR Committee cites anger and hostilitytoward Library policies and the treatment someusers allegedly received. However, the Committee does not provide documentation for the opinions upon which their conclusions have beenformed. What survey showed that "large percentages of users feel staff members are discourteousand indifferent"? How large are "large percentages"? Which "communications are said to beoffensive in tone"? How many Library communications did the Committee read and which onesare, in their judgment, offensive? How was theinformation gathered upon which the Committeebases its statement that " Staff members are saidto be rude to users"? What is the definition of"widespread" in the Committee's statement that"Regardless of how much reason there is or is notfor this public hostility, it is widespread"? Towhat extent does the Committee believe the public hostility is reasonable? Why does the Committee not make a stronger issue of the misunderstanding of the fact that Library fines do not accrueto the benefit of the Library budget? Why does theCommittee content itself with inadequatedocumentation in a section of its report which isgiven such major treatment? "Many studentshave said ..." and "Again and again, we heardstatements like ..." are entirely inadequate tosupport the allegations. Another report, on thissame subject, might have cited high praise andappreciation from an equal number of faculty andstudents. Anonymous anecdotal impressions byself- selected respondents cannot substitute forsystematic data gathering in a serious effort to findunderlying causes. Such causal reporting of eitherfavorable or unfavorable comments about theLibrary is inadequate to the issues being discussed.We are not unmindful of the fact that in thethousands of daily contacts between users andLibrary staff there are incidents which are to beregretted. We do not condone rudeness when itoccurs. We do not condone policies which are notuniformly and fairly enforced. We do not condonepublic displays of short temper or frustration. We hope that such incidents will be promptly reportedand that factors contributing to this behavior canbe eliminated.The purpose of the Committee on the Qualityof Life in Regenstein Library was to address themisuse of the building. In view of the quality oflife everywhere in this decade, when so manyabuse so much elsewhere, the problem of causeand effect becomes most complex.Does the QLR Committee seriously believethat food and drink are brought into the Regenstein building because of resentment against theLibrary staff and policies? Does the Committeethink that smoking in non- smoking areas can bechanged unless there are more and more prominent signs, backed up by a staff to enforce them?Is loud talk and disturbance primarily an expression of resentment? Do students mutilate andsteal materials out of hostility to the Library andits staff?Clearly, the QLR Committee does not intend toimply this simplistic causation. Yet their Reportsuggests and invites this interpretation.Another possible set of explanations whichmerit attention by the QLR Committee are thosedescribed by Harry G. Johnson in his paper entitled, "The Organization and Retrieval ofEconomic Knowledge," presented at the International Economic Association, July 1975. He suggests "that affluence tends to be accompanied bya blurring of the line between the work and theplay-cum- social activities of the student body.One relevant aspect is the tendency towards moreor less continuous 'snacking,' ..."Johnson goes on to suggest that "the problemsof theft and vandalism reflect . . . the general increase in permissiveness towards illegal actionspromoted by the ambiguity and shifting nature ofthe line between 'free' and 'scarce' goods andbetween public and private property created bythe progress of affluence. With the free provisionof certain kinds of goods, and the consequent encouragement to waste them, goes ... an associated attenuation of property rights, and of respect for them, in respect of certain kinds ofgoods. Given the large role of the opulentlyillustrated perishable magazine (often 'givenaway' to customers) and of the paperback bookin modern literate life, there is an understandabletransference of ideas to include the tearing ofpages and pictures out of the library books andjournals if they are particularly important to theindividual's interests, and the purloining ofwhole books from libraries on the rationalizationthat if they need a copy badly enough they can8easily buy another one. This problem of contemporary libraries fits easily into the more generalsociology of white collar crime." These ideas maycontribute significantly to an understanding ofuser behavior in Regenstein in 1975.The Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein Library formed its impressions anddrafted its conclusions during Spring Quarter 1975in the midst of a campus mood of deep concernand frustration. Furthermore, these impressionsare but snapshots of a library organization intransition. It is unfortunate that the QLR Committee was unable to resume its investigationsafter returning to work Fall Quarter 1975. Prior tothe appointment of the QLR Committee, the Library administration had fashioned plans to reorganize public departments to improve servicesand to make other changes which would increasethe effectiveness of the organization. The Libraryadministration may have regarded it as imprudentto discuss proposed changes prior to the timewhen those actions could be effected.A review of Library actions during the pastseveral months will reveal many reasons to believe that the QLR Committee was wrong tocharge that Library administrators appear helpless in dealing with the situation they face. (Note,of course, that the annual reports of the Directorof the Library and the policy statements of theLibrary Board document severe financial problems which have caused a decrease in the bookspurchased and a 12 percent reduction in Librarystaffing since 1970-71 . This is another factor in thepublic services of the Library which was ignoredby the Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein Library.) A chronicle of changes and accomplishments of the last few months follows:The public services departments of the Libraryhave been reorganized and staff reassignmentshave been made where appropriate. A new position, Associate Director for Public Services, hasbeen created and filled. A review of fines andsanctions has been initiated. All forms and lettersused in communicating with users are under review and will be changed if found to be offensivein tone. The policy on the use of carrels has beenclarified and an effective enforcement procedureis in operation to clear those which become"permanently" occupied. Suggestions receivedare answered personally and promptly wheneveran address or telephone number is provided. TheQLR Committee's recommendation that a Library ombudsman be created was responded to inOctober when Vice-President Johnson and Library Director McElderry announced that an As sistant Student Ombudsman, Susan Temple ton,would deal with Library matters. She has beenworking with the new Associate Director for Public Services, Howard Dillon, and this arrangement shows promise of good results for all concerned. The Committee also recommended thatthe Library have "at least one person at high levelwhose assignment is in large part to improve dealings with the public." The new Associate Director for Public Services has assumed that role beginning October 1. He may be reached at hisoffice in Regenstein Library 188 or by telephone(753-2954).Continuing the list of changes and actions underway, the Director of the Library has receivedand made available for staff review the architectural study he had initiated some months ago.This study considered the heavy, and sometimesinappropriate, use of the building and recommends changes which will be responsive to theproblems. A thorough review of the presentmaintenance arrangements was included in thatstudy.Meanwhile, the Director of the Library has justmade public information which for many monthshad to be kept confidential. There is under reviewby the Library Board a proposal from the Director to bring the John Crerar Library to The University of Chicago campus and to enhance sciencelibrary resources and services to this University.This is a bold and farsighted initiative which contains prospects for a solution to long-rangefinancial problems for both the John Crerar Library and the science libraries of this University.It is for these reasons just cited that the PublicService Committee of the Library regrets that thereported investigations did not extend into FallQuarter 1975 in order to more accurately reflectthe imagination, initiative, and deep concern forthe welfare of Library users which is presentwithin the Library.We commend the Committee on the Quality ofLife in Regenstein Library for their willingness toserve on this important study group and for theircommendable efforts such as the Gadfly article inthe Maroon and their sponsorship of the Libraryexhibit of mutilated books and journals. It is ouropinion that the importance of their work and theobjective of their labors has been obscured by aninferior report with little documentation, incomplete research, and inaccurate reporting of staffattitudes toward users and administrative resolveto find responsible solutions to real problems.The Public Service Committee of the Library iscommitted to finding solutions to problems in the9use of Regenstein Library which are notpiecemeal or punitive. We shall continue to explore opportunities for improving services andwill welcome constructive suggestions from faculty and students. We seek effective and long-term improvements in the quality of life withinthis building which we are told repeatedly by visitors is without peer as a library research facility.We offer our full cooperation in the ongoing workof the Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein.Public Service Committee of Regenstein LibraryFrederick Clark, Library Development OfficerPatricia Clatanoff, Assistant Reference Librarian(Chairperson)Howard Dillon, Associate Director for PublicServices, ex officioHoward Harris, Assistant Systems LibrarianAlice Kniskern, Assistant Librarian, South AsiaCollectionPatricia Wilcoxen, Acting Head, Circulation Services, ex officioA JOINT STATEMENTNovember 24, 1975The Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein and the Library's Public Service Committee are working together to resolve the issuesidentified above. We are confident that the collaboration will result in improved public services toLibrary users, a better understanding of Librarypolicies, and effective ways to address the problems of food, smoking, noise, and the mutilationand theft of Library materials.We are agreed that the problems to be faced aredifficult in themselves and are also complicated byfinancial constraints. Nevertheless, if the University community will join with us to look towardsolutions, we are certain that progress will be continued and substantial.Committee on the Quality of Life in RegensteinAnnette BrandesBrian A. GerrishEmile KarafiolJanel MuellerArnold W. RavinPhilip RemlerWilliam A. Ringler, Jr.Anthony TurkevichPublic Service Committee of Regenstein LibraryFrederick F. ClarkPatricia ClatanoffHoward DillonHoward HarrisAlice L. KniskernPatricia Wilcoxen10THE 356TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:DID YOU GET WHAT YOU CAME FOR?BY ALBERT V. CREWEDecember 12, 1975There is a story that Enrico Fermi, the modernhero of the physical sciences, was prone to suchcaprices as challenging the powers of estimationof his students by asking them to calculate thenumbers of piano tuners in Chicago. It is not anunreasonable question to ask, even of a physicist,especially since the answer can be checkedagainst the Yellow Pages. I do not know a goodanswer to the question and only mention it herebecause one can apply the same methods to thematter of Convocation Addresses, and in thiscase one can guess that a total of 450,000 suchaddresses have been given. This is a safe guessbecause this number cannot be checked againstany available reference material, but whether thenumber is right or wrong, it does serve to indicatethat the number of precedents is very large.One might conclude from this that there can benothing new to say on this auspicious occasion,but such a conclusion is not supported by the evidence. Education is by no means a static occupation, and its very dynamism generates endlessideas about its past, present, and future.Any avid listener to such addresses over the pastseveral years will have noted two main approaches to the subject.The first of these approaches is to treat the occasion as a final opportunity to complete the educational process. That is to say, it is a goldenopportunity to have the last word. The other is toaccept it as an equally golden opportunity to havethe first word on the next phase of the futurecareers of the new graduates.In defiance of this tradition, I shall not attemptto follow either of these approaches, but insteadwill ask you a question: "Did you get what youcame for?" Since this is not a suitable occasionfor dialogue, I will attempt to answer the questionfor you, and the answer is "No!"Many, if not most of you, came here wanting toknow all about this or that subject or to becomethis or that kind of professional, and you musthave discovered by now that we do not know "allabout" any subject, and we cannot make you become anything. We can only provide you withencouragement and some assistance. The reason for this state of affairs is probablyobvious to you by this time. What we call knowledge is far from being absolute in any sense. Itchanges rapidly in all fields and not just in a subtleor inconsequential manner, but rather in the basicconcepts and fundamental philosophy.For example, Isaac Newton achieved his immortal fame by providing us with a rationalframework which allowed us to understand themechanical aspects of the Universe. His explanation was beautiful and elegant and it survived forover two hundred years.Ultimately, however, this theoreticalframework was unable to cope with new observations and stood in need of revision. However, thenecessary changes did not come in the form of asimple revision but came instead as a profoundchange in basic philosophy — Einstein's Theory ofRelativity. This theory itself is even now beingsubjected to experimental and theoretical tests,and it is fair to assume that it will ultimately befound wanting. In that case, Newton and Einsteinwill then represent but two giant steps along theroad to a more complete understanding.Darwin's immense contribution must surely beviewed in the same light. He replaced a traditionaland mythical view of man's heritage with a beautiful explanation of biological evolution, but surelywe cannot expect it to be more than a good approximation to some ultimate truth.As a physicist I cannot refrain from mentioningthat other great revolution in philosophicalthought — the transition from a predestined Universe to one based upon indeterminacy — a revolution which occurred through an understanding ofthe statistical properties of matter and of Quantum Theory and which has now pervaded allphilosophical thought.Although I have picked examples from the past,it is not too difficult to select more recent ones.In the study of astronomy I was taught — andlearned — the structure of the Universe as perceived through the lenses and mirrors of the greattelescopes, most of which are still unsurpassed insize and quality. Later, however, new techniquesof radio astronomy and then ultraviolet, infrared,and X-ray astronomy yielded new facts and ob-11servations which are even now revising our concept of the Universe, so that most of the facts andknowledge obtained in my college days are certainly incomplete, and quite possibly wrong.Other fields of knowledge abound with similarexamples — perhaps better ones — of these changesand challenges. From Leakey to DNA, fromFreud to the Continental Drift.If we can say anything at all about futureknowledge, it is that such changes and challengeswill continue to occur.The problem of teaching, then, is that of copingwith the present and the past in the context of anunknown future. This problem is exacerbated bythe fact that the teaching faculty are also engagedin their own investigations with the sole aim ofmodifying our understanding and extending ourknowledge.Virtually all of us on the faculty have at onetime or another experienced the feeling that whatwe are teaching is quite wrong. Even at the mostelementary level these doubts arise.We may show you how to analyze the mechanical problem of a bouncing ball and at the sametime secretly wonder what precisely happens atthe moment of impact. We may teach that thecharge on an electron is equal and opposite to thaton a proton. But how equal? What do we reallymean by equality? What are the consequences ofinequality?At the more advanced levels, the discrepanciesbetween known facts and reality are more apparent, and it becomes easier and more necessary toadmit ignorance. Ignorance reigns supreme at thelevel of enquiry.Any expectation of being taught this or thatsubject or to become this or that kind of professional is, therefore, doomed to failure. All that wecan do is to provide material and incentive to yourown desire to know or become.In this context, then, we can be accused ofbeing charlatans. We create a demand for acommodity — knowledge— and we also providethe means for acquiring it. But in reality, we donot provide anything which can be considered tobe of lasting value. Are we, then, engaged in oneof the oldest and most established confidencetricks of all time?There are those who think so. The ephemeralnature of the knowledge we provide is troublesome to them, and they turn to other avenues forconsolation — avenues such as astrology andEastern mysticism, which can provide a positivephilosophy unhampered by the need for any connecting logic. Then again, others find themselves troubled bythe consequences of enquiry. Knowledge of allkinds has an uncanny way of becoming useful.When it became known that plants requiredwater, it was a natural consequence to provideirrigation. When the motions of the heavenlybodies were understood, it became known whento plant seeds. When metals were discovered andmetal working developed, it became possible tomake better tools. Each of these monumentalsteps had its negative side, however. Flora canonly be improved at the expense of fauna, andbetter tools mean better weapons. Closer to ourtime, both Einstein and Darwin were at the sametime sources of great enlightenment and equallygreat social upheaval.The negative aspects of new knowledge havenow become a primary concern. Should we abandon efforts on genetic engineering and laser fusion? Can we ever circumscribe an area of potential learning and say, "Thou shalt never know"?I think not. The development of the humanmind was the last major step in biological evolution. In fact, one can argue that it obviated theneed for any future evolution. We were able tosolve problems posed by the immediate environment, to create and to ask abstract questions andprovide answers. One can argue that the principalstep in this direction was probably the development of the capability of asking "WHY?" It is atleast interesting to consider the possibility thatthis has become the natural successor to biological evolution, that the eternal question "Why?"and its succession of interim answers provides thedriving force for the development of modern man.As is the custom in scientific circles nowadays,we turn to the young of the species for clues to theancestral development of the entire species.The first utterances of our children are simpledeclarative sentences. "See the snow." "This ismy house." Could a viable civilization have developed which was based on such a communication system? No, because it could only lead to aneternal conflict, a conflict which we see in ourchildren. A statement "This is my cave" needonly be answered by "No, it is my cave" forconflict to begin — a conflict which cannot be resolved.The next utterances of our children have always begun with the question "Why?" and it isthis phase of their development which signals thebeginning of a serious dialogue with their elders.Johnny asks "Why is the grass green?" From ourrelative position of such vast knowledge, how canwe answer him? Only by a succession of approx-12imations. We may say, or imply, that we definegrass to be green. That is what the color means.Later, much later, we say it is green because ofthe chlorophyll, and even later still we may speakof absorption spectra and the nature of molecularstructure. But we still have not answered thequestion because we do not really know what"green" is.Since we know that all our children passthrough this questioning phase, we can presumethat it is common to all children, and so to allmankind.It is then but a short step to believing that theability to ask "why" and the ability to find somereasonable answer would allow conflicts to be resolved and, what is equally important, for knowledge to be gained. It appears, therefore, to lie atthe very roots of our civilization. Man must ask"why" because it is his very nature to do so, andhe must attempt to answer his own question. Justas in the case of Johnny's question, however, wenever get the real answer, and perhaps we neverwill.To return to my original theme, then, it is almost necessarily true that we did not satisfy youroriginal needs and that you did not get what youwanted.What did we give you? The best answer that Ican find to this question lies in a modern parable.My daughter, who is now a junior in college, isaddicted to just one thing, and it may safely beassumed that she has never missed a televisionreplay of The Wizard of Oz during the lastfifteen years. Perforce, I am now an expert on thisversion of the children's story by L. Frank Baum.Having read the book, I might add that the movieis an improvement on the original.You know the story. Dorothy is lost (in adream, that is) and finds that the one person whocan help her find her way home is the greatWizard of Oz, and she follows the Yellow BrickRoad to the Emerald City to find him. Along theway she has many adventures and meets threeindividuals who could also profit from a meetingwith the Wizard: the Cowardly Lion who wantscourage, the Scarecrow who wants a brain, andthe Tin Woodsman who wants a heart.I will ignore the various adventures, since theyonly serve to heighten the expectations, and willproceed directly to the finale.Upon arriving in the presence of the greatWizard, their first and most traumatic discovery isthat he is a fake. He is not a Wizard at all, but anordinary everyday person, not capable of performing miracles such as the ones they need to be performed. Nevertheless, he has an unexpectedattribute— wisdom. And as they explain their predicaments, he finds a solution for each.To the Lion, he gives not courage but a medal.Not the attribute of bravery, but merely the trappings. To the Tin Woodsman he gives not a heart,but a clock which beats with the same rhythm. Tothe scarecrow he gives not a brain, but a diploma.Again not the attribute of learning, but merely asymbol.To Dorothy he gives nothing but the realizationthat she can make her own wish come true.To each one, therefore, the Wizard who wasnot a Wizard gave nothing of substance but everything of value, a deeper understanding of themselves.There is no Wizard here either, and if we havegiven you anything at all, let it be that whi©h wasgiven by the great one of Oz. Less than you expected but more than you hoped for.Albert V. Crewe is Dean of the Division of thePhysical Sciences and Professor in the Departments of Physics and Biophysics and TheoreticalBiology, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege.SUMMARY OF THE 356thCONVOCATIONThe 356th Convocation was held on Friday, December 12, 1975, in Rockefeller MemorialChapel. John T. Wilson, President of the University, presided.A total of 412 degrees were awarded: 51Bachelor of Arts, 23 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 2 Master of Fine Arts, 60Master of Arts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 8 Master of Arts in Teaching, 8 Master ofScience in Teaching, 3 Master of Science in theDivision of the Biological Sciences and ThePritzker School of Medicine, 15 Master of Science in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 22Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 12 Masterof Arts in the Graduate Library School, 93 Master of Business Administration, 1 Doctor of Law,1 Doctor of Jurisprudence, 2 Doctor of Medicine,and 111 Doctor of Philosophy.Albert V. Crewe, Dean of the Division of thePhysical Sciences and Professor in the Departments of Physics and Biophysics and TheoreticalBiology, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege, delivered the Convocation Address, entitled "Did You Get What You Came For?"13JOHN T. WILSON ELECTED PRESIDENTTo: The University of Chicago RecordFrom: D. J. R. BrucknerVice-President for Public AffairsOn December 9, 1975, the Board of Trustees ofthe University elected John T. Wilson Presidentof the University and a Trustee.The election followed a unanimous recommendation of a committee of seven members of thefaculty and seven Trustees which had been established to propose a candidate. The committeesubmitted its recommendation to the Trusteesthrough the Chairman of the Board of Trustees onNovember 24, 1975.Mr. Wilson is the ninth chief executive of theUniversity. He had been Provost since 1969 andhad been designated Acting President on February 6, 1975.D. GALE JOHNSON APPOINTEDPROVOSTTo: The University of Chicago RecordFrom: D. J. R. BrucknerVice-President for Public AffairsOn December 15, 1975, D. Gale Johnson wasdesignated Provost of the University.Mr. Johnson is the Eliakim Hastings MooreDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Economics and in the College.He had been Vice-President and Dean ofFaculties since February 13, 1975.TRUSTEE ELECTIONTwo new members have been elected to TheUniversity of Chicago Board of Trustees. Theyare:Mrs. Glen A. Lloyd, civic leader and member of The University of Chicago Women's Board andof the Visiting Committee to the Division of theHumanities.John T. Wilson, President of the Universityand Professor in the Department of Education.ROSENBERGER MEDAL TO MENUHINThe Rosenberger Medal was given to YehudiMenuhin at a dinner in his honor held in the Dining Room of Hutchinson Hall on December 6,1975.John T. Wilson, President of the University, inconferring the medal, read this citation:Yehudi Menuhin, in recognition of your great gifts tomankind in music, in performance, in standards, innew understanding and discovery; in education andin the happy international relations of human understanding and enjoyment, I present to you the Rosenberger Medal on behalf of The University ofChicago.This was the 40th presentation of the medalwhich was established in 1917 by Mr. and Mrs.Jesse L. Rosenberger, both alumni of the University.ERRATUMIn the last issue of the Record (Volume 9,Number 6, page 170) Karl Weintraub, the authorof the "Memorial Tribute to Louis Gottschalk,"was wrongly identified. The biographical noteshould have read:Karl J. Weintraub is Dean of the Division of theHumanities, the Thomas E. Donnelley Professorin the Department of History and in the College,and Chairman of the Committee on the History ofCulture.14THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingHXm9o£oo8ogS3r2.ONo zTJ X om £ c 33D 9 "TJ?> .0)so 1 " OPOSTAGAID,0,ILLINTNO.31 O3-* O rn a¦*¦ ~ oCO 3