THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGOApril 3, 1976 An Official Publication Volume X, Number 2CONTENTS15 INSTALLATION OF JOHN T. WILSON AS NINTHPRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO19 THE 56TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTY29 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: ARTHUR HEISERMAN, 1929-197530 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEAUTUMN QUARTER, 197533 OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY33 DEANS AND CHAIRMEN35 CENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTY FELLOWS37 VISITING COMMITTEES44 TRUSTEE ELECTION44 TUITION INCREASE45 ROOM AND BOARD INCREASES45 DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1976 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDTHE 357TH CONVOCATIONINSTALLATION OF JOHN T. WILSON AS NINTH PRESIDENTOF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGORemarks by GAYLORD DONNELLEYMarch 4, 1976It is a personal pleasure, and an honor I have asChairman of the Board of Trustees, to announceofficially what you all know:On December 9, 1975, the Board of Trusteesunanimously elected John T. Wilson President ofThe University of Chicago.It is his wish that there be no elaborate ceremonies for his installation. He asked, in fact, thatthis ceremony be a small part of the regular Convocation on March 19; but, since I have to be outof the country at that time, we both thought youmight do us, and yourselves and the University,the pleasant honor to have a brief ceremonytoday. John's desire was to return to older ways,when the early presidents went into office seriously, but quietly and among friends. So I willmake a brief announcement. He will give a brieftalk. We have had a good prayer and there is goodmusic. The agreement and affection among all ofus will be understood quickly.The Board named John Wilson Acting President of the University on February 6, 1975. Acommittee of Trustees had been appointed tobegin the consideration of a new president, andthe faculty had elected a committee of members ofthe faculty to meet with us. The first recommendation of that combined committee of Trusteesand faculty was to nominate John as President. Atthat time, last Spring, he asked us to look longer,and at many possible nominees. We asked for andreceived suggestions from students, alumni, faculty, educational leaders, and others across theland. Finally, in November, having consideredhundreds of possible candidates, the combinedcommittee once again asked him to accept itsnomination. And he did. We are grateful.It is good to be led by a man we know. John wasfirst here in the early sixties. As he reminded us atthe Trustees' dinner for the faculty in January, he was guided into the University by the much-lovedPat Harrison, who had himself been Acting President at one time. John worked personally withGeorge Beadle in that period, and undoubtedlyone of George Beadle's great contributions to theUniversity was bringing John Wilson to it. LaterEdward Levi had the wisdom and charm to enticehim back to serve as Vice-President and Dean ofFaculties, and then as Provost. They, too, made agreat team. I think the Trustees' election of himas President, with the advice of the faculty committee, tells all of us what no praise could say ofhim.The University of Chicago has had a brief, butglorious, history. There are among us, both amongfaculty and Trustees, people whose parents andgrandparents were here at the beginning. Thememory is living, and the purposes of this University give life to that living memory. And wehope it will give life to the presence and the powerof this University, forever. For the Trustees, Ithink I can say that our hope is backed by ourdetermination, all the gifts we can give and find,and a pride that nothing else we do can satisfy usso much as the success of this University.Our fellow Trustee Ben Heineman reminded usall more than two years ago that "the first, theprimary, and the most vital responsibility of theTrustees . . . is the . . . selection of the Presidentof the University." The duty, he said, is greatestin an elite private university. Consequent on thatis the duty to support the President within theUniversity and before the world, for through himthe community that is this University speaks. ThePresident is its voice, to you from us Trustees andfrom you to the world. In an age of complexityand change, this may seem to some of us anenormous, and a strange, obligation for an individual. But that is precisely the point of it. There,we think, is the wisdom of it. We are proud to beable to support a community of individuals who15know how to live the life of intellectual andspiritual dedication together. That is the secret ofits freedom, of our freedom, a secret that theworld is forgetting quickly. If you think sometimes, as I know you must, that the Trustees donot quite understand that, believe me, we knowthat each of you and each of us understand it indifferent ways; but we do know that secret and wekeep trying to know it better. The fact that wekeep trying to know, and to support, should assure you, as the fact of your dedication and youramazing achievement assures us. In his first public talks as President, John Wilson has called upthe voice of Mr. Harper and the early Trusteesand has made us remember, as Glen Lloyd put itat the installation of George Beadle as Presidentin 1961, that this private University is a public andnational resource. The Trustees have, with youTHE 357TH CONVOCATIONRemarks by JOHN T. WILSONMarch 4, 1976I.The origins and purpose of these occasions in thelife of the University are not entirely clear. Mr.Goodspeed's history tells us that, despite Trusteeopinion to the contrary, Mr. Harper did not wantan inaugural ceremony. Upon asking Mr.Rockefeller's advice, he received confirmingcounsel. Thus a chapel service was held on theUniversity's opening day, but there seems to havebeen no other formalities.Mr. Judson and Mr. Burton both came to thePresidency following periods as Acting President.Each requested of the Trustees that "no elaborateceremony" mark his installation. Mr. Mason, ourfourth President, reportedly had an intense distaste for ceremony and rebelled at the thought ofany at all; an announcement from the convocationplatform was sufficient for him. In a letter to Mr.Hutchins, shortly before he was installed as fifthPresident of the University, Mr. Harold Swift,then Chairman of the Board, wrote, rather wist- and your President, a shared conviction, that, ifthe human mind and spirit are to flourish, thisUniversity is absolutely necessary to the world.So, there is a sense of happiness among ustoday. Anyone with normal sensibilities mustknow that that joy has nothing to do with the condition of the world or the confidence any of us hasin himself; it comes from our trust in this man andin one another, in the men and women who arethis University.It is my duty, and my great honor and pleasure,to announce to you officially that, as of December9, 1975, John T. Wilson is the President of TheUniversity of Chicago, and publicly and formallyto install him in that office now.Gaylord Donnelley is Chairman of the Board ofTrustees of The University of Chicago.fully, that although he had never seen one at theUniversity, "... I know of no better way to introduce you to the general public of Chicago thanthrough a formal inauguration."With this variety of precedents to choose from,it seemed to me appropriate, under present circumstances, to follow the "within the family"pattern adopted by Mr. Judson and Mr. Burton.The Trustees have graciously acceded to mywish.II.Each of the men who has stood in this place hasspoken, in his fashion, of the honor, of the responsibility, and of the apprehensions he felt regarding the task which he was about to undertake.With perhaps more reason than any of them, Iecho such feelings. The thoughts which Mr. Burton expressed at the time closely parallel my own.Indeed they are so similar that, upon readingthem, I experienced a strong feeling of kinship.As he put it — following his remarks on honor andresponsibility — ". . . the attainment of the Presidency . . . was not among my ambitions, still lessINSTALLATION OF JOHN T. WILSON AS NINTH PRESIDENTOF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO16among my expectations. Cherished ambitions Ihad . . . and for the fulfillment of these I had distinctly in mind that I should, at about this time,retire . . . from . . . administration."Those of you who are heads of institutions ofhigher learning, and especially Mr. Beadle andMr. Levi, will understand Mr. Burton's perspective on the magnitude of the President's task. Explaining why he had been persuaded in the end toaccept the Trustees' invitation, he stated simplythat he ". . . had long ago decided that anythingthat could be finished in my lifetime was necessarily too small to engross my full interest."III.The Articles of Incorporation of the Universitystate that the institution is to provide "... opportunities for all departments of higher education topersons of both sexes on equal terms ... to establish and maintain a University in which may betaught all branches of higher learning. ..." Although there was much divergence of thoughtamong the principals during the period prior to theestablishment of the University, there was littledoubt in Mr. Harper's mind as to what he envisioned. Writing to his close friend Mr. (H.L.)Morehouse during the period when he was considering accepting the Trustees' invitation to bethe University's first President, Harper statedthat he had a plan for the University which would". . . revolutionize College and University workin this country." The plan was set forth in thewell-known Official Bulletins, whose publications preceded the opening of the University.At Harper's death the plan was still more visionary than real. But, the subsequent transformation of the plan into reality, starting withHarper and continuing throughout the administrations of his successors, is a remarkable achievement, especially to one who has assumed the responsibility for its continuance. It has been aptlydescribed by Edward Levi as "disturbingly impressive."Fundamentally, and from the very beginning,Harper was determined that the Universityshould be composed of outstanding faculty inevery department and school. The stress was onthe individual. The basic proposition was that theUniversity should "... make the work of investigation primary." As a corollary to this proposition, there was the added assurance that the valueof teaching would by no means be overlooked.Thus was established the dominant characteristicof the University — a devotion to inquiry and theadvancement of knowledge, through the efforts of outstanding individuals. To this commitment theUniversity will continue to adhere.The proposition that serious higher learning involves cultivation of the intellect as well as thesearch for truth was to await the Presidency ofMr. Burton before being diligently pursued withinthe University. After a period of some thirtyyears, the University, in Burton's view, hadreached a stage in its development when graduateand undergraduate work should each stand on itsown merit and receive the attention which eachin its own way demanded. Neither should be hindered or compromised by the other. This proposition, enhanced by a set of arrangements whichbring into interdependent play the strengths of theGraduate Divisions, the Professional Schools,and the College, seems to me to underlie the present conception of the College, primarily wroughtby Mr. Levi.We hear much these days of the decreasingvalue of humanistic learning and the rising importance of vocational training, even in higher education. Others tell us that learning proceeds throughsome mysterious existential process that involvesrubbing elbows with the real world, whatever onany given day the real world may be thought tobe. We are pressed for justification of liberal education. There is a failure to recognize the fact thathistory is not only the record of decisions andactions, but also the clash of ideas and values. (1)The exposure to ideas of mankind since their appearance in forms that might properly be called"civilized," (2) the analysis, and (3) the evaluation of these ideas in the primary intellectual disciplines is central to the cultivation of the intellect. With whatever variations there have beenthrough time, this enterprise is the core of undergraduate education at Chicago.Modifications in undergraduate study, from thebeginning to the present, have made the Collegeperhaps the "yeastiest" academic unit in theUniversity. At the same time, there has been during this period no serious doubt of the high valueof general education for undergraduate students.Nor has there been doubt in the assumption thatsuch an education can be pursued most advantageously within the context of ". . . greatgraduate schools where freedom of the mind isencouraged, and where fine libraries and goodlaboratories furnish the best means for independent study." In pursuing this course, the University has always been fortunate in attracting students who revel in such an opportunity. And itmust continue to do so, to insure the University'scontinued intellectual enrichment.17IV.Since I have reviewed recently, in the budgetmessage of last September, and in the State of theUniversity message of November, the pressingbudgetary problems of the University, I will notintrude upon the ambience of today's occasion byrepeating this litany. But having made referenceto Mr. Judson, and there being some similaritybetween this period and that covered by his administration, I cannot resist referring to a letter,now somewhat amusing, written by then-President Judson to Mr. (H.C.) Morrison of theSchool of Education. Mr. Morrison had inquiredabout the "financial history and policy of theUniversity." Mr. Judson, after pointing out thatMr. Harper had consistently run a deficit in eachof the early years of the University, stated thatwhen he succeeded as head of the institution itseemed clear that the University could and shouldbe administered on "safe business principles."He somewhat proudly pointed out that he had announced his policy at the outset "... with thehearty and unanimous consent of the Board ofTrustees ..." to be as follows:1. That the University should be administered onthe same basis as any safe business, that is, thatexpenditures should never exceed income unless, ofcourse, some extraordinary contingency shouldoccur.2. That the President should never recommend tothe Board of Trustees any expenditure unless he atthe same time could point out the means of meeting itThese two policies have been strictly followed tothe present day and are thoroughly established in theInstitution. No one could depart from them if hewould, and no one would if he could.... it is extremely unlikely that the reverse willever occur again.Although Mr. Judson' s spirit may have beenhovering disapprovingly, it is my judgment thatwe all should be grateful for the wisdom of mypredecessor who, along with the Board of Trustees, adopted a policy of prudent deficits over thepast few years, thus putting a higher value on theconservation of the real resources of the University, namely the faculty and the student body,than on a balanced budget. I believe the budgetary practices of Mr. Harper, which seemingly always pressed the outer limits of available resources, will probably continue to characterizethis University. The real issue, and the propercriterion against which an administration shouldbe measured, is the maintenance of academic distinction. V.Mr. Chairman: I should like to close these remarks on a personal note. In a very real sense, itreflects in essence the influential factor in persuading me to reverse my initial decision againstperforming a role in this afternoon's ceremony.I have spent considerable time in the archivesof the University during the last year and I amstruck by the extraordinary power that this placehas exhibited in generating a body of folklore andmythology, second only to its intellectual power.The summer of 1892, although a time of greatexpectation prior to the opening of the University, also was, like the present, a time of apprehension. There were then, as now, intensiveefforts to attract to the neophyte institution scholars of distinction, against all of the conditions,real and imagined, with which we are quite familiar. Among the correspondence of that summerthere is a letter which struck such a poignant notewith reference to our own experience that I wouldshare it with you. It is a letter from W. G. Hale,one of the first faculty members recruited, to Marion Talbot, who, along with Alice FreemanPalmer, was to join the faculty which opened theUniversity. The text is as follows:My dear Miss Talbot:I hope you will turn a kind ear toward Mr.Harper's propositions. We are going in time — notinstantly — to have a great University in Chicago,and it seems to me it might well be an attractive ideato you [to] help shape its policy, at the outset, insome important lines. And you mustn't think of"missionary work," either. Chicago is not what theaverage reader of Eastern newspapers imagines. Iwent out, on my first visit, with full New Englandprejudice; but I have come to see how greatly likablethe place is, and am already strongly attached to anumber of people. There is life and happiness inChicago.Sincerely yours,W. G. HaleAnd indeed there is life and happiness inChicago, as there will continue to be in the future.And in the future, as in the past, The Universityof Chicago will be dedicated to quality — in its faculty, in its students, and in the conduct of all of itsresponsibilities, while pursuing life and happinessin the work to which it is dedicated. We arepleased and proud to be a part of that future.John T. Wilson is President of The University ofChicago and Professor in the Department ofEducation.18THE 56TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by JOHN T. WILSON"A THOUSAND YEARS HENCE"January 7, 1976Until about a month ago I anticipated that thiswould be the second instance in the history ofthese occasions that there would be a stand-in forthe President. Although I did not look forward tothe prospect, there were sentimental aspects related to it, because, had it occurred, I would haveshared the honor with Pat Harrison, who servedas Acting Chancellor in what he referred to as the"interregnum" between the presidencies of Mr.Kimpton and Mr. Beadle. It would have beenfitting that Pat and I share such a relationship because in many ways he was my institutional Godfather, introducing me to what Larry Kimptoncharacterized as this "weird and wonderfulplace." I owe Pat for many hours of tutorials,uncovering buried bodies and closeted skeletons.I am happy, at long last, to publicly acknowledgemy indebtedness.In anticipation of having some degree of responsibility for indoctrinating a successor to Mr.Levi, I spent part of last summer browsingthrough the archives of the University, particularly the section that includes the views on theUniversity of preceding Presidents andChancellors.1 It was fascinating reading and soilluminated the relationships between past andpresent in the University, that I decided to use mynotes for this evening's exercise.From the many impressions which I carriedaway from my browsings, two strike me as beingextraordinarily important in shaping the characterof the University: The first is the incrediblyvisionary imagination shown in Mr. Harper'sconcept and plan of the University. The second is1. I am indebted for help with the archival materialto: (a) the November 1973-March 1974 exhibition ofdocuments and iconographic materials in the JosephRegenstein Library (now available in a monograph entitled One in Spirit); (b) the manuscript of a book [TheIdea of The University of Chicago], to be publishedin the spring, describing the history of the Universityas seen through the public documents of its Presidentsand Chancellors, edited by Mr. Don Bruckner and Mr.William M. Murphy. the reflected influence of the University itselfupon each chief executive officer, as he took holdof and, in turn, was taken hold of by the University. Within the framework sketched by Harper,each President and Chancellor has furthered andhas shaped the plan. Each in his way has testedand modified, however slightly, the boundaries.Harper's concept and Plan of the University iscontained in six Official Bulletins, which madetheir appearance between January of 1891 andMay of 1892. The first established the overall organizational structure of the University. The"fleshing out" is contained in the other five.The importance of the Plan to Mr. Harper andthe degree of his dedication to it is reflected in hisremarks at the University's first Convocation, 1January 1893:We have met this evening together with our friendsas members of the University to celebrate for thefirst time a day which we may confidently believeeven a thousand years hence will be celebrated in thesame spirit though in different form. Do we realizethe meaning of it all? There is a feeling of uncertaintyand anxiety connected with first days and the firstdoing of things. There is also sublimity and solemnity if the cause is high and holy and if being such thesignificance of it is appreciated.First days are always days of uncertainty and anxiety, but they are also days of peculiar interest andsignificance. The very uncertainty which attendsthem adds to this significance; for there is during thisperiod of indefiniteness a possibility of developmentwhich no longer exists when fixity is once attained.Our first days have seen little, perhaps too little, ofthis seemingly necessary uncertainty. From the beginning there has been a definiteness of plan which tosome doubtless has appeared premature. Time willshow — time indeed has already shown — that it is thedefinite conception which has power to move men toaction; and if this conception is only sufficientlyflexible, the possibilities of growth are not diminished by the definiteness.Two elements of the Plan constituted the mostimportant influence in controlling the organizationand growth and the spirit of the University: (1)the principle of individualism, from the point ofview of both student and instructor, which Harperdescribed as "all-powerful," and (2) the principleof flexibility, which he indicated as being corollary to the principle of individualism.19The principle of individualism was especiallydominant in Harper's conception of the characterof the University's faculty. In his first annual report (strangely enough unpublished), he pointedout that it was necessary:... to recognize from the beginning that whatevermight be the outlay for buildings and for equipments,the character of the University depended whollyupon the character of the men chosen to fill thechairs of instruction.And what kind of men were these to be? He replied:... It is only a man who has made investigation whocan teach others to investigate. . . . Promotion ofyounger men . . . will depend more largely upon theresults of their work as investigators than upon theefficiency of their teaching, although the latter willby no means be overlooked.This emphasis upon faculty is to be found in thestatements of every chief executive officer sinceHarper. The most colorful reiteration is made inthe inaugural address of Mr. Hutchins. As Hutch-ins put it:... It cannot too often be repeated that it is men andnothing but men that make education. If the firstFaculty of the University of Chicago had met in atent, this would still have been a great University.And what was the key to gathering this kind offaculty? Mr. Hutchins, supporting the Harperdictum that "... with money and with men thehighest ideals may be realized . . . ," stated flatlythat the way to get a good faculty was "... amatter of money."I should note that in speaking of "men" Harperand Hutchins, of course, meant "men andwomen," for there have always been women onthis faculty. If either were speaking today, hewould recognize the need for more care in expression in such matters.To those of you who are young and for whomthese past few years have been the first confrontation with relative austerity, let me say that a stateof insufficient funds in this University started withMr. Harper. From the very beginning, indeedeven before the beginning, he was beset withfinancial worries. While negotiations to establishthe University and to persuade him to be its President were still in progress, Harper, in correspondence with Mr. Goodspeed, pointed out that hewas:. . . laboring on three distinct points: one or two ofthem I think I can get into shape, but the third is a stickler. It does not seem probable to do what oughtto be done . . . with the money we have in hand.There must in some way be an assurance of an additional million. How this is to be obtained, or where,is the question. If Mr. R. is dead in earnest, possiblythe cash will not be so difficult as we may think.The "Mr. R." to whom Harper referred wasJohn D. Rockefeller, who was to become one ofMr. Harper's two great allies in such hours ofneed. The second, of course, was God. We are allfamiliar with President Harper's legendary beliefin prayer and his timely use of this technique inthe presence of Mr. Rockefeller on one of his recurrent visits to appeal for funds to wipe out theregular annual deficit. The power of this allianceis especially striking when one remembers thatthe God to whom Harper prayed was the God ofour fathers and not one of the many synthesizedversions of modern theologians, and that Mr.Rockefeller's dollars were of 1890 vintage, not theanemic issuance currently available.Even after the successful launching of the University, through the magnificent efforts of thecitizenry of Chicago, Harper had to face the Panicof 1893. Mr. Hutchins was to struggle through theGreat Depression of 1929 and Mr. Kimpton wasto face the staggering costs of neighborhood redevelopment. In the light of this history, the last fiveyears have been, as I have said, years of relativeausterity.By the time Mr. Judson succeeded Mr. Harperas President, graduate work was well established.As for professional schools, although Harper'sPlan called for schools of Theology, Law, Engineering, Education, Fine Arts, Medicine, andMusic, only Divinity, Law, and Education were,in fact, functioning by 1906. But for both graduateand professional education the future strength ofthe University was anticipated from the beginning.Of all the concepts in the Plan, one gets theimpression that undergraduate education, outlined in Official Bulletin Number 2, was the leastwell-developed in the Harper years. ClearlyHarper viewed undergraduate work as being subordinate to graduate study, going so far as to hopethat the first two years might be accomplishedoff-campus or through the affiliated schools, thus"... permitting the University ... to devote itsenergies mainly to the University Colleges and tostrictly University work."It was not until the Presidency of Mr. Burtonthat undergraduate education seems to have comeinto its own. In the President's report for 1922-23,we find this statement:20. . . We have reached a stage in our developmentwhen of the two great fields of the University'swork, graduate and undergraduate, each must standon its own merits, each must receive that discriminating attention which its own character demands , neither must be hindered or compromised bythe other . . .Mr, Burton called for facilities, including a Central College Building, classrooms, offices, roomsfor undergraduate organizations, and "... ifpracticable, a theatre and assembly room ... tocreate a College consciousness ..." He appointed a Commission on the Future of the College in September of 1923 to pursue what HaroldSwift, then Chairman of the Board of Trustees,termed Burton's "dream of the colleges."The report of the Commission became a part ofthe development campaign launched in 1924, butbecause of Burton's death in 1925 and the briefPresidency of Mr. Mason which followed, no action was taken. The Commission's work wasrefined by a Senate Committee in 1928 and againby the Senate in 1930. The action which finallyresulted was a major organizational change creating four graduate divisions and the College. Thereorganization is of less interest than what wasbeing attempted, in relationship to Mr. Harper'sPlan.Of this we will let President Hutchins speak forhimself (Convocation address, June 1933):What the University has been trying to do may bebriefly stated: it has been trying to become a university. Of the changes that have taken place thosepopularly known as the New Plan have been theleast important. They have attracted most attentionbecause they are most easily understood and are ofthe greatest interest to the general public. . . . Butthey cannot compare with the performance of thetask upon which the University has been engaged,which is the task of clarification.The first step was taken in 1930, when the fivedivisions were established. This made it clear thatwe thought there was a distinction between generaleducation and advanced study. General educationwas to be the function of the college, advanced studyof the upper divisions and professional schools. Thisaction defined a college, and a university, and byimplication a college in a university. A college is aninstitution devoted to general education. A university is an institution devoted to the advancement ofknowledge. A college in a university is an institutiondevoted to discovering what a general educationought to be.As we all know, there were problems with the"Hutchins College" — not the least of which werethose internal to the University. About a yearafter he explained what the University had been trying to do, Mr. Hutchins was again to speak ofthe "undergraduate problem," as follows:The undergraduate problem may be treated in twoways by an institution of higher learning: it may beabandoned or it may be solved. We are hoping tosolve it. We are hoping and believing that increasingly there is greater sympathy within the facultywith the problems of undergraduate education,greater interest in the utilization of the researchforces of this institution for the stimulation of effortin the proper way in undergraduate education. Theadministration and Trustees expect from each department an understanding and sympathy with theproblem of the undergraduate, the problem of thegraduate student, and with the right performance ofintensive work in the discovery of new knowledge.Each man in a department need not combine thesefunctions; but each department, through whatevermedium it may choose, and in whatever administrative way it may think best, is responsible for allthree. . . .About undergraduate education we could talk along time. I will merely cite the case of the professorwho dreamed he was lecturing to undergraduate students and woke up and found that it was true.Some twenty years later, in what can bethought of as a continuing drama, Larry Kimptonalso was to speak of the University's undergraduate program. In a somewhat discouragedtone, he cast his remarks in the direction of theCollege, rather than toward the Departments:. . . But there are many unresolved problems withthe College itself. At what point does the "staffmeeting approach" become a deadening lock stepcrippling the individual genius of those who gladlyteach? And how gladly do those who only teach?Then there is this troublesome business about science. The critics of science in the College have forthe most part the inestimable advantage of not knowing what is taught there which gives a fine free-swinging quality to their literary approach. But thereis more here than the outrage of ignorance; there is aclash of ideology that is, we hope, not irreconcilable.Science is done as well as thought; verbal facility isno substitute for scientific activity. And this leads onto the problem of the relationship between the College and the divisions. Like the relationship betweenthe United States and the Soviet Union, everybodyagrees that it ought to be better. But the analogy is anunfair one.Some twenty years still later, we continue to beconcerned with undergraduate education. In assessing the relationship of the College to the restof the University, I am frequently told of thebenefits the College derives, but I rarely hear ofthe benefits which go in the other direction. It ismy judgment that the Quadrangles would be amuch less exciting place without the presence of21the group of bright and enthusiastic young peoplewho make up the College. In addition, the Collegeprovides an opportunity for distinguished scholarsto present the essence and basic principles of theirlearning for the benefit of undergraduates — an opportunity which seems natural in a dynamic liberal arts curriculum.Of all of the characteristics of the University inMr. Harper's Plan, the one which appears to be ofhighest value to him is what he refers to as the"unity and oneness" of the University.On Saturday morning October 1, 1892, whenthe work of the University had just begun, Harpersaid "... the question before the faculty is howto become one in spirit if not necessarily one inopinion." Ten years later we find him referring to"the Saturday morning" on which this new spiritmanifested itself in its fullness, stating that it ". . .may well be regarded as the date of the spiritualbirth of the institution." That the spirit had comeso early in the history of the University was tohim "of surprise and satisfaction."This "oneness in spirit" is a repetitive theme inthe statements of all of the University's chief executives. Max Mason, at the time of the laying ofthe cornerstone for Wieboldt Hall, speaks of the"unity which pervades all of the activities of theUniversity." Larry Kimpton refers proudly to"the tradition ... of unity and oneness . . .wherein we have no discrete empires." EspeciallyRemarks by JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IVJanuary 7, 1976Though I was raised in New York and I live inCharleston, West Virginia, I do feel a sense ofcoming home when I come to Chicago. Myfather-in-law lives here, as you know, and a trip toChicago or Washington gives me a chance to explain the Democratic view of life to him.There is another reason for my feeling at homehere — a reason that relates to this splendid university. When Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science almost a century ago, she made noprovision for a marriage ceremony in that church.So when it came time for Sharon and me to bemarried a few years ago, it fell to me to choose a in Mr. Levi's catechism of the University, thequality of unity holds a unique place. It is themost frequently recurring point in his manystatements, described poignantly from time totime as "the sense of wholeness and a certainquality of magic." In the margin of my notes Ihave written: "Harvard has more money;Chicago has more University."On the occasion of his last Trustee- Facultydinner, Mr. Hutchins, in his superbly eloquentstyle, stated that:It is the glory of the University of Chicago that,since its foundation ... in good times and bad, whilechief executive officers have come and gone, it hashad a sense of its mission. It has had an idea, apurpose. It has stood for something.In an earlier setting, he had expressed a doubtthat, in America, we had achieved a University.But going on, he added that if we hadn't, "... theUniversity of Chicago is the place that has thebest chance of becoming one."It is in the nature of this University to be always in a state of "becoming." Not to be so is tobe intellectually dead. With our purpose, with ourhistory, and with our character, that is a mostunlikely state — even "a thousand years hence."John T. Wilson is President of the University andProfessor in the Department of Education.church in Chicago in which the ceremony wouldtake place. Without hesitation, I chose the University of Chicago's Rockefeller Chapel. And Imust tell you that I felt very much at homethere — knowing that both the Lord and my greatgrandfather were smiling down upon us.My life is now a public one (or hopefullyso) — I'm running for a political office in West Virginia. Therefore, I want to worry out loud withyou about the public person — a much underrated,much overrated, and really quite important entity.I ask you to consider: "What is the proper role ofthe public man or woman — the elected publicservant — in this year of 1976 as we begin our thirdcentury as a nation?"THE 56TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTY22Many of his or her duties are the same as theywere on the day that George Washington wassworn into office in New York City in 1789. Thepublic servant should be honest. The public servant should be able to think in a clear, conciseway and to express himself in accurate English.The public servant should command theconfidence and respect of the electorate. The public servant should be, in fact, a public servant. Butin the fragmented complexities of modernAmerica, there is more to the job than this.There is not time tonight to deal with the entirecatalogue of catastrophe and anxiety that makesup the front page of every day's newspapers, butlet me focus on a single issue. It is a single issuethat embraces almost the whole spectrum of public issues as we know them — from unemploymentto education, from inflation to Angola. It hascome only gradually to our attention, and I believe, in fact, that it was first perceived and publicized by Democrats. You surely remember thefictional Irish character, Mr. Dooley, who said inthe early days of this century: "History alwaysvindicates the Democrats, but seldom in theirlifetime. They see the truth first, but in this country, nothing is ever officially true until a Republican can see it."So, without seeming to be overly partisan, letme quote briefly the Chairman of the DemocraticNational Committee as he opened the Democratic Convention in Miami four years ago: "It is timeto level with the American people," he said. "It istime to stop promising people what simply cannotbe delivered by God or Man or the DemocraticParty. We must stop the overpromising and un-derdelivering that have debased and disillusionedus all."This is familiar rhetoric today, but it was a newkind of political speaking in 1972. And it was oneof the first indications that we were approaching agreat watershed in our history — the time when wewould pass from the traditional American policyof plenty to a probable new American policy ofscarcity. I believe that this transition from"more" to "less" — from profusion to restraint— is the most complex public issue we have everfaced. And I want to suggest a role for the publicservant that will help all of us pass over thatwatershed with our institutions intact. Perhapsnot unchanged, but intact. For we shall have todevelop a greater sense of community in thisperiod than we have had in the past.All the nations that have become industrializedin the past two hundred years have been built onthe idea of increasing abundance. This increasing abundance has been a fact; it has also been an ideadeeply ingrained in the entire outlook of the people. The classic example — the nation representingthe very essence of industrialized success — is, ofcourse, our own. Two centuries ago, we were twomillion people in the thirteen separate little political entities strung out along the coast of an unknown continent. We have grown — under theaegis of the most extraordinary political documentever written — into a multiracial, multidenomina-tional nation of two hundred and eight millionpeople, spread today across that entirecontinent — a vast Disneyland in which five percent of the world' s population uses up forty percent of the earth's natural resources.The New World was the greatest bonanza of alltime. There were endless — or seeminglyendless — virgin resources. There were endless— or seemingly endless — supplies of air and waterto absorb the new industrial wastes at no cost.People responded to these gifts with remarkableachievements in science and technology and industry. They came to believe that the abolition ofpoverty would lead to the abolition of inequality,injustice, and fear — and that perhaps a new nobility, the nobility of the common man, wouldemerge. Well, to a considerable degree, our devotion to gain has been gainful. All our dreams havenot come true, but our fight against the historicfact of poverty has been a measurable success.But today, because of a complex interaction ofworld politics, available resources, populationpressures, and environmental concerns, the United States has come to the end of the line on EasyStreet.Already, we are beginning to change our waysof living. Equally important will be how wechange our ways of thinking. For our institutionsand our ideas — embodied in success stories likethe Horatio Alger story — have always had athrust toward more. More . . . more . . . more.Now, as we tighten the national belt, as webring our use of resources into line with the availability of resources, the public servant must makehimself more accessible than ever to the peoplewho elected him. He will be hearing of moreneeds and he will have to say "no" to a greaternumber of them. People will be angry and fearfuland querulous as they move from comparativeplenty to comparative restraint. But because ofthe complexity of these changes, it is equally important that the public man or woman stays inclose touch with places like the University ofChicago. For only in the many interrelated socialand scientific disciplines of a learned institution23can the new restraint be truly understood and explained. And only here can the future be envisioned with any accuracy, or range of accuracies!The difficult part of a conscientious politician'sjob will be that because we are dealing with thebottom line of a budget, that bottom line is alwaysnecessarily translated into the fulfilling or thedenying of a human need. So the person whoproposes a policy of restraint and scarcity in myown state of West Virginia, for example, had better know what he is talking about. In parts of theMountain State, people have been restrained andthings have been scarce for a long, long time. Butnow that there seems at last to be a way of breaking through to a better life, now that we have thesecond fastest rising per capita income of anystate in the country, the people will not come easily or willingly to policies of restraint that they donot understand very clearly.But no matter how compelling the human factor, the personal feeling, or group or politicalpressure, the public servant must bring knowledge and pressure together to come up with policy, and a line-item budget. He must do thispromptly, for he will stand or fall on that policy atelection time. It is perhaps one of the greateststrengths of the American system that we can, ifwe wish, throw our public servants out of officeon schedule. (Sometimes even ahead ofschedule!)With this policy in his hand, the politician mustreturn to explain to the people and enlist theirsupport. This, too, is no easy job. Not only inWest Virginia, but in any state, the person whobrings the news of the new scarcity will not bepopular. In an earlier day — with an open frontier,an unpolluted sky, and a flowering technology— the great American apple pie was big and growing. But now the pie is shrinking, and the old inalienable right of a man to get as much as he can isnothing but a design for disaster.I cannot emphasize enough to you my feelingthat only when the public servant has, regular,coherent contact with the people can sense bemade out of anything so complex. We have almostforgotten the remarkable effectiveness of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fireside chats," but I commend a re-reading of them to any of you today.The fireside chats had a recognizable label. Theyhad a recognizable style. They were not patronizing. And they were remarkably detailed in layingout not simply what had been done, but what thePresident was proposing to do. Quite simply, Mr.Roosevelt wanted the people in a time of trouble to know what was going on. He did not win onevery point, of course. But in those early days ofthe New Deal, he did manage to enlist the peopleand to create a unanimity of feeling that we experienced only one more time as a nation — duringthe days of the Second World War.Again I will say that in this chain of public activity, the link between the public servant and theuniversity is an important one. Indeed, many ofthe people prominent in our political life havecome from the universities, and the flow of ideasfrom the universities has been endless. People inpublic life will not divert a university like this onefrom its primary path of teaching and research, ofcourse, and I do not propose this. My feeling isthat we must continue to call upon our academictalent for information and critical judgment, andthat the need for this communication will geometrically continue to grow as the difficulty of publicmanagement continues to grow.The process of setting public policy is not thesame as the process of uncovering knowledge,and we will always run the risk that thepolitician's schedule of need is not synchronizedwith your schedule of research. Yet, as both aTrustee and a candidate for public office, it seemsquite clear to me that we must find the ways tomaintain both quantity and quality of research— so that in a time of scarcity, the one commoditythat will not be scarce is knowledge. But, in anultimate sense, we cannot be absolutely sure thatwe will be successful in this. We cannot be absolutely sure that our flow of funds — from both private and public sources — into the intellectualcommunity will be maintained. If that time ofscarcity does come here, too, then we will all havethe responsibility to look very carefully at whatwe can do and what we can't. Do we yet understand the possible consequences of this? As Trustees, our job is to keep the University of Chicagoapart from the law of real scarcity. Fortunately,self-examination is not something new at the University of Chicago. If any institution can defythe new scarcity, the University of Chicago can.Our momentum is formidable, but we must bealert.I must say, as we move into this watershed yearof 1976, I am confident that the faculty, the administrative officers, and the Trustees will continue to guide the University of Chicago along aconstructive and humane path, and that the University, following a unique American tradition,will continue to serve this nation with distinctionand to diminish ignorance everywhere.I have not described a new role for the public24servant here tonight. But I believe I have described a forgotten role or a neglected role. It is arole that must be played to the hilt in 1976 and theyears ahead. It must be pursued with the kind ofintensity we have seen before only in times of waror great national crisis. This, too, is a time ofcrisis.Fortunately, those of us who plan to go downinto the great tangled vineyard of American politics have many sage predecessors to guide us aswe play our role and the people play theirs. WithJefferson, we must inform their discretion througheducation. With Henry David Thoreau, we mustsimplify. With Robert Hutchins, we must dedi cate ourselves to service and sacrifice rather thanto profit and power. With Adlai Stevenson, wecan say that the nation, like the planet, is toosmall for anything but a semblance of civilizedbehavior. And with Harry Truman, we can reiterate that political power is only something on loanfrom the people."While in power," said Mr. Truman, "it is always a good idea to keep in mind where you camefrom — and where you are going when it is allover."John D. Rockefeller IV is a Trustee of the University.THE 56TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by JARL E. DYRUDJanuary 7, 1976My talk tonight is a comment on these lines ofWallace Stevens:The mind is a violence from within protecting usfrom a violence without. It is the imagination pressing back against the pressure of reality. It seems, inthe last analysis, to have something to do with ourself-preservation: and that, no doubt, the expressionof it, the sound of its words, helps us to live ourlives.Once a year we have this extraordinary gathering of people dedicated to a common concern— the life of the mind. During the year, most of usattend one or more meetings of professional interest groups, but those meetings address onlyselected segments of mental activity. Usuallythey have their own special languages, as obscureto the rest of us as the dialects of Welsh coalminers or down-east fishermen.On this occasion we meet without that easyidentification of task-oriented groups. In fact,each of us in an important sense comes alone. Webring our personal appreciation of having a placein the life of this University at this particular time,which is not a task, but a situation, the conditionwe find ourselves in.We do many different things, all essential to themission of the University. It is that mission I havechosen to speak about tonight. A university is a social institution that has adual burden. It carries a significant part ofcivilization's memory which it must transmit insome reasonably orderly fashion to the next generation, plus the obligation to add to it, not onlynew information, but new ways of looking at andorganizing information. The former is work, thelatter is play. I use work in the sense of doingsomething well-defined and goal-oriented, as opposed to play, which is doing something more unstructured and open-ended. Working out an ideais not performing the same function as playingwith one. In that sense, much of what we callchildren's play is really the very serious work ofchildren as they strive for mastery of a particulardevelopmental skill. Much of what the facultycalls scholarly work is really play if it results inan original contribution.These definitions of work and play make important distinctions for us. When Edward Levi wasasked if he were afraid the faculty would unionize,he replied, "Not at all, none of them would admitthey were working."That's only half true. When we teach, we sharewhat we have learned, which is work. When weteach well, we share by encouraging our studentsto combine work and play by giving them, as wellas ourselves, the exhilarating opportunity to thinkat the outermost edge of what we know. The balance is critical. They must know the fine-grainedworking out of a problem that occurs before the25imaginative leap can take place. This is training inthe life of the mind. It involves bringing intoawareness our automatic ways of looking at factsas well as calling into question our most cherishedassumptions.Such training results in expanding consciousness, without drugs.Yet why do we struggle so earnestly to developand maintain a life of the mind? After all,everyone already has one. As a faculty, we arecommitted to the value of improving on nature, tothe liberal art of becoming a reasonable human,which is an advanced exercise in civilization.This is not to say that to become broadly conscious is without hazards. It provokes anxiety tostand with one foot in prosaic reality, and theother in a transformed, numinous world of strangeapprehensions. To plunge off to either side is tolose more than can be gained. Yet this balancingact is a gamble we all must take who enjoy a particular pleasure in thinking. This vertical split between the known and the unknown is best tolerated, can even be deeply pleasurable, when weknow we are not alone. We probe across the border of the unknown by doubting, that believing actof suspending judgment until new impressions aretaken in. This is quite different from the sicknessof our time, which is doubting as negation, as if todoubt is to be certain. There must be a sharedfaith in finding a larger pattern of greater fitness,symmetry, and proportion as a result of doubting.We need to belong to a believing community ofscholars. That is why we are here. We need response and challenge from colleagues as well asstudents to test our thinking. Such a community isfortunately not time-bound. The company youkeep includes leaps across decades and centuriesin the books we read. It includes the eideticthrong of past acquaintances, so that when wewithdraw into solitude and inactivity as a part ofthe creative process, we are really thinking in thepresence of those no longer present.Searching for meaning does not begin in theteacher-student relationship. Giving identity toobjects, events, and experiences in one's environment has been with us ever since Adam namedthe animals. One of man's most striking characteristics is that he is a pattern maker. He not onlynames natural objects, and gives names to groupsof them, but he names thoughts, feelings, and relationships perceived in time or space and groupsof them. He is perpetually organizing such termsinto one sort of scheme or another which providesanswers to the questions that grow out of his experience. This tendency to weave a seamless garment of meaning appears in the fantasies andfairy stories of children, their ideas about wherethey came from, where they go when they go tosleep or die, and the like. In adults, they appearin, among other things, conspiratorial views ofpolitics and history, delusional systems and compulsive rituals, in the rationalizations that pass forexplanations and understandings in everyday life,and in even the best scientific theories and intellectual inventions. The test of these geometries ofmeaning does not lie in their ultimate truth, but intheir usefulness. They must be shared beliefscompatible with the larger life of the community,at least to the extent that they permit one to live inone's community with a degree of comfort andparticipation.One of the hazards of our need to achieve closure is a tendency to ignore conflicting data. Thisgives one the opportunity to develop theories thattake into account only selected aspects of aperson's relationship to his environment and thento generalize widely, if not wildly. For example,an economic, psychological, or biological theorybecoming confused with an explanation for or in-tepretation of all of life. The temptation to concentrate one's own and one's student's imagination in this fashion is great, because narrowing thechannel gives much greater force and intensity toone's arguments. It provides one with a feeling ofassurance, mastery, even excellence.In the inaugural lecture given by James ClarkMaxwell as professor of Experimental Physics atCambridge University in October 1871, he said inpart:But when the action of the mind passes out of theintellectual stage, in which truth and error are thealternatives, into the more violently emotional statesof anger and passion, malice and envy, fury andmadness; the student of science, though he is obligedto recognize the powerful influence which these wildforces have exercised on mankind, is perhaps insome measure disqualified from studying this part ofhuman nature.Maxwell went on to say:We cannot enter into full sympathy with these lowerphases of our nature without losing some of that antipathy to them which is our safeguard against ourreversion to a meaner type, and we gladly return tothe company of those illustrious men who by aspiring to nobler ends, whether intellectual or practical,have risen above the region of storms into a cleareratmosphere, where there is no misrepresentation ofopinion, nor ambiguity of expression, but where onemind comes into closest contact with another at thepoint where both approach nearest the truth.26I quote Maxwell at some length because hisstatement illustrates that other source of anxiety,the split mind of our Judaeo-Christian heritage.This horizontal split between higher and lowerimpulses also has its risks, even more than Maxwell imagined. It can defeat the very goal he hadin mind. If one tends to be obsessional, the mindruns faster and faster in ever widening circles ofpoint-missing behavior when trying to ignoresignals from below. If one tends to be hysterical,the impulse finds its way more or less thinly disguised into the ongoing stream of behavior,where it is dealt with either by denial or, if it is tooblatant for denial, then by some specious reasoning.Freud saw his therapeutic task as broadeningone's awareness so that the thinking, evaluating,option-seeking mind could have the opportunityto apply some executive skills to the demands ofimperative impulses arising from below.I would go further and argue here that both themind-body and the objective versus subjectivesplits have always been unnatural compromisesfor us. Even though many of the cues that colorour moods and influence our behavior may notreach consciousness at all, we are far better offnoting their effects and taking them into account.Our natural position is not in one compartment ofthe mind but at the center, receiving and evaluating information from all directions.The nature of such information and how it isprocessed becomes all the more remarkable themore we know about the human brain. For a longtime it was thought that there was some point topoint representation of objective reality in thebrain. We realize now that not only our perceptions but even our sensations have a high degreeof subjectivity about them.With regard to this Vernon Mountcastle wrote:Each of us believes himself to live directly within theworld that surrounds him, to sense its objects andevents precisely, and to live in real and current time.I assert that these are perceptual illusions.Contrarily, each of us confronts the world from abrain linked to what is "out there" by a few millionfragile sensory nerve fibers, our only informationchannels, our life lines to reality. . . .Afferent nerve fibers are not high fidelity recorders, for they accentuate certain stimulus features,neglect others. The central neuron is a story tellerwith regard to the nerve fibers, and it is never completely trustworthy, allowing distortions of qualityand measure. . . . Sensation is an abstraction, not areplication of the real world. . . .Each of us lives within the universe — theprison — of his own brain. Projecting from it are millions of fragile sensory nerve fibers, in groups uniquely adapted to sample the energetic states ofthe world around us: heat, light, force, and chemicalcomposition. That is all we ever know of it directly;all else is logical inference.This isolation of consciousness within eachperson is fortunately ameliorated from the earliestinteractions between mother and child. That iswhere our inferences begin. It is true that theelementary brain structure (the wiring diagram) islaid down genetically. But the functioning of thisstructure is developed and maintained only by anappropriate pattern of environmental stimulationat critical times in a relationship with significantother persons, who provide the emotional contextthat makes patterned learning possible. From thatpoint on these brain functions are subsequentlystrengthened and modified by the accumulation ofday-to-day experiences.There are some structural characteristics of thehuman mind. We know there is a language propensity. We know that we think in dichotomies,by contrast or similarities. However, we have notightly wired sequences. No instinctive patternsof response waiting to be activated by the appropriate cue. In that sense we must agree that weare not as much like Rousseau's noble savage aswe are like William James' amorphous monster,awaiting the "cultural genes" of ritual and symbolto become human.This process begins at birth. In infancy, rhythmic patterns of interaction develop that are asgratifying as melody lines, sometimes in synchrony, sometimes in alternation, leading and responding. As socialization develops, alternationgradually predominates, but the sequences thatrun smoothly continue to reduce tension and thusbring pleasure. The disjunctive sequences are distressing to both mother and child. The development of speech, with its greater specification inexpression of what one is thinking, follows on thecurve of development, long after the major emotional patterns of interaction have been developed.What is to be marvelled at here is that we cancommunicate with one another from the earliestmoments of life. And yet, why not? We were conceived in dialogue. The infant can comprehendthe concept of two before he can comprehendone. He has no sense of self until he has taken intohis mind another, so that he can engage in innerdialogue.We know that our minds are capable of an almost infinite series of discriminations. Faced withthis flood of perceptual possibilities, we would beoverwhelmed unless we had some patterning27method for making the distinction betweensignificant and non- significant differences. Theworld is full of such facts, but we can't even pickone out from its background unless we have ascale of values that enables us to attributesignificance to it. In infancy, the representation ofobjects in our minds achieves constancy evenunder conditions of altered light and perspective.We must have that constancy and yet we mustchange to adapt to changing conditions. How dotransformations occur without chaos? To mymind they occur by continuing to develop a set ofsymbols shared with someone else. Symbols arecapable of reinterpretation.The early requirements for the satisfaction ofneeds are simple: food, warmth, and bodily contact. Even before we approach language, needsbecome more complex. There must be room forplay. We need to experiment with sharing ideas.There is risk involved in adding variations thatcall for new responses to the old reliable modesof interaction. Placing the topic of interest, a ball,a block, a nonsense syllable, into the public areabetween the infant and the other is a wholly newventure in thinking. The ball rolls, the block becomes a car, the nonsense syllable becomes thesignifier of something else. We are in a dilemmafrom early on, the price of rigidity being the cessation of our evolving consciousness, and the priceof flexibility being anxiety. If we can agree thatthe child develops his own brain functions in relation to others who are significant to him, and thata significant portion of this creation takes placebefore the acquisition of language, we can recognize that many of what seem to us to be our mostinnate mechanisms of thought are really acquiredpatterns of thinking — biases toward the data.Thinking further about our ways of thinking,Heisenberg, writing on atomic physics, illustratedthis essential subjectivity as follows:The conception of the objective reality of theelementary particles has thus evaporated in a curiousway, not into the fog of some new, obscure, or notyet understood reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents nolonger the behavior of the elementary particles, butrather our knowledge of this behavior.His thinking at this point had achieved a primacy over so-called objective reality. We havefinally come from our prolonged flirtation with objective reality as wholly other to a recognition ofthe participation of the observer and his point ofview in our creation of what we call reality. Whatwe see is that science keeps the evolution of con sciousness growing through a series of enlargingpatterns, each leading to a greater sense of symmetry and proportion in our concept of nature. Itfollows that the exploration of nature, by logicalinference and consensus, is the exploration ofhuman consciousness.We can now be fairly comfortable with the notion that even at the level of sensation we haveexperiences only because we have achieved someconsensus with our fellow beings. This is no meanachievement. We are not terribly well-matchedcomponents of an information system. We are nota like-minded community. Each of us has his fullshare of flaws and peculiarities. What is at issueis the mastery of internal as well as externalsources of information so that we can remain atthe center of a sound and open mind. Not an easytask when news that the sky is falling is hammeredaway at us instantaneously from around the worldon a twenty-four hour basis. Yet this keeping inshape must be managed if we are to achieve anexpanding consciousness in ourselves as well asin our students. A teacher, at times, must be comforted by Alfred Russell Wallace's comment,"What a small gap exists between the mind of asavage and that of a philosopher," realizing thatwe are sometimes one, sometimes the other, depending on how harassed we may be. Certainlywhen one feels helpless and overwhelmed, thedemoralized person, teacher or student, experiences himself as the object rather than the subjectof his perceptual and cognitive difficulties. Hecannot hear, or see, or think straight.Just as El Greco took over his astigmatism andturned it into a useful tool for his integrated artistic expression, we must master our idiosyncraticexperience and find communicable meaning in it.I would not go quite so far as to say that life is fullof sound and fury, signifying nothing, but it is,until we put our minds to it. It is ambiguous andthus dependent on the form we impose upon it. Astorm on Lake Michigan, a curving line in thephotograph of a cloud-chamber; these are notproducts of our mind, but what they mean to usis. The ways in which we make interpretations,sometimes called our imagination, determines notonly how we look, but what we see. We project anagenda related to the particular story line we arefollowing. We achieve integrity in our lives and inour teaching, not through the isolation of pure intellect regarding objective reality, but through theconstant struggle to reinterpret our experience sothat it may be shared.Teaching is sharing to the best of our ability.In this most difficult enterprise, the context of28this University, and the contact we have withinit, provide an optimum setting for the re-interpretations which are the life of the mind. Thecontinuing health and well-being of that context isthe mission of the University.Dr. Jarl E. Dyrud is Professor and AssociateChairman of the Department of Psychiatry andDirector of Clinical Services in the Department.MEMORIAL TRIBUTEARTHUR HEISERMAN, 1929-1975No one I know tried to form his life as consciously as Arthur did. He was not a medievalistby accident, he was not a Catholic by inheritancebut by choice, he did not become the complexman he was by haphazardness. The decorum andthe enlightening beauty of his long walk withdeath was absolutely true to his life and in thetradition of the great man who was his patronsaint and model, the man of all seasons, ThomasMore.Every now and then Arthur and I talked aboutdeath. Of course he'd thought about it a greatdeal, and those who loved him thought of it also.One notion we discussed goes back into westernthought to the pre-Socratic philosophers, and, ifwe weren't mistaken, is not out of step with modern biology. The notion is that death is writteninto the contract of individuality itself. Colonycreatures have no real death because they have noseparate existence. I think of this now because,writing this, it occurs to me that Arthur's earlydeath is somehow related to the very intensity anddistinction of his individuality. If Arthur looked insome ways older than his years, it was because hewas. He simply felt more, lived more in one hourthan most of us in twenty. He felt more about atree, a stranger on a bus, a painting, a sentence,than most people feel about what they love themost. He enjoyed a greater variety of things thananyone I know; and he had an extraordinarycapacity for expressing enjoyment. No onelaughed better than Arthur. He was a great laugher. At some cartoon a six-year-old wouldhave thought beneath him, Arthur roared as if thegreat comics of the world were behind it.He was a fantastic audience. He could makeyou feel that your stupidities were fine insights,your ninth-rate jokes the delight of mankind. Andthen, no one was better with troubles. Since Arthur was exceptionally conscious about himself,he knew his own capacity for every sort of feelingand behavior, high and low, good and bad, themost absurd and the most sentimental. Because ofthe self- awareness and the ironic acceptance itbrought with it, Arthur let his friends feel thattheir own idiocies, contortions, and disastersdidn't exile them from humanity. If he didn't encourage their foolishness, he still made them— made us — feel not just understood but accompanied. That is the summitry of friendship, ofhuman sympathy.I think Arthur understood his own exceptionalforce early — his mother was especially helpfulthere — and understood further that this force required some sort of balance, some form or formswhich would not suppress but help him realizeand express it. Literature, the church whose masswe just celebrated, music, and then medievalcreativity were there for him. He told me whatbuildings such as this one meant to him when hecame here as a seventeen-year-old from Indiana.To see the art of glassmaking transfigure the unbearable force of the sun into a sacred space oftranquility and exaltation was a deeply feltparadigm for him.In the neo-medieval university, medieval studybegan to be more and more important for him.The way in which its cathedrals expressed thatgreat desire for a universe which loves as well asmeans, the way in which the great poems ofChaucer and Dante fused sublimity with the mostordinary, ribald, profane, and pathetic human actsignited his intelligence.He became not only lover and scholar ofmedieval solution, he tried to become a modernversion of what lay behind it.Many of us here know the two Arthurs, theGreat Laugher and the Man of Decorum andDuty, the teacher and father who believed asdeeply in institutions as in personality, in restraintas in passion. Like More, like Chaucer, likeDante, Arthur not only understood the humanmeaning of institutions, he served them, not justas teacher of many interests, but as tenacious,skillful, and often exhausted administrator. Hewas a constant worker. He studied, he taught, hewrote and did not use knowledge as cloister or29arsenal. Knowledge made him not justmedievalist but alert, skeptical, yet almost naivelypassionate modernist. He was a marvelousteacher because he could expose the past in thebones of modernity. And he was a remarkablewriter, because he could rejuvenate old texts aswell as write brilliant ones of his own.A word about his elegant if little-knownfictions. Into these Arthur poured such intensitythat he had to invent for it forms too complex formost to grasp. His disappointment that so fewunderstood what he was doing led to his feelingthat he had failed himself, that he hadn't realizedhis force and talent. I have almost never heard ofa remarkable man who did not feel this way. Nomatter how outwardly triumphant, such internaldisappointment becomes bitterness; although toothers it appears an exemplary modesty.In Arthur's extraordinary and clairvoyant intelligence lay a belief that the force in him, thwartedby not finding adequate expression for all of it,turned somehow into the internal enemy whichfinally defeated, or appeared to defeat, him. Hisfinal, and, perhaps, his most beautiful accomplishment is the way he defeated it. Arthur keptmerry before fright, his dignity became more andmore intimately personal, intimately— as we usedto say — Arthurian; he persisted without self-pityJanuary 26, 1976The Office of the Ombudsman probably bestserves the University when we help find resolutions to problems which would not be pursued atall were the office and its resources unavailable tostudents. Several such problems were among themore than one hundred cases of widely varyingcomplexity which came our way during AutumnQuarter. Our effectiveness, of course, variessomewhat with the difficulty of a case, but giventime, facilities, faculty-administration cooperation, and the specific charge to go out and solveother people's problems, we are capable of handling a wide range of administrative mistakes,miscarried policies, and otherwise violated student expectations. or mockery, taught his classes, lovingly divertedand guided his children, even, heroically, workedagainst the terrible creeping weakness to finish hisbook only days before his death. It was theradiant accomplishment of a marvelous spirit.Arthur believed, no, he was sure, as he told adaughter this week, that there was a form of personal survival. The strength of his belief sweetensthe difficult times for those who survive him.Some, like myself, less spiritually gifted than Arthur, can hold to another form of survival, onemore personal even than his writing, almost aspersonal as the presence of his wonderful andwonderfully endowed children. For me, andperhaps for some of you, Arthur is simply a permanent part of thought. In those inner councils ofsensibility and decision, Arthur is there, ironic,tender, cautionary, intrepid, wise and wild both.At this occasion, during which we say, "Goodbye," some of us can also say: "Here you arestill, dear Arthur, and will always be."Richard G. Stern is Professor in the Departmentof English, in the College, and in the Committeeon General Studies in the Humanities. His remarks were made during memorial services forArthur Heiserman, which were held in BondChapel on December 12, 1975.One aim of this report, and an important function of the office, is to call attention to generalproblem areas as we perceive them. While simplediscretion and the confidential nature of manycases rule out discussion of much of the reallyinteresting business of righting wrongs, description of the circumstances which gave rise to manycases will inform the University community, andat the same time suggest to the individual readerhow the Ombudsman might in some instance be ofservice.The office has but one limitation. Our "power"consists entirely in our perseverance and in ourability to persuade those with authority to exercise it either to assist an individual student or toalleviate a generally unacceptable situation. Inmany cases, of course, our investigation will re-REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 197530veal a clear injustice, where, resources permitting, redress is nearly automatic. But a good manycases, especially those involving possible changesin or exceptions to standing policy, finally turn onjudgments of reasonableness. When a given expectation seems reasonable, we will usually workto meet it. Such judgments often involve difficultchoices among conflicting values and differingperspectives with regard to matters of fact.A number of students, for example, came tothis office unhappy about decisions and policies ofthe Office of College Aid. Contrary to the apparent wishes of a number of students and facultymembers, the College awards financial aid almostsolely on the basis of need. And much to the dismay of many students who, for various reasons,wish to be considered independent of their parents, the office expects all parents to contribute totheir child's Chicago education to the reasonablelimit of their ability to do so. A fairly thoroughinvestigation convinced me that these and otheraid policies are reasonable; that is, guidelines fordetermination of need and resultant aid are generally fair.Where the College aid office errs in calculationor misinterprets financial information, we havebeen able to help correct mistakes. If a studentfeels his aid has been determined unfairly, we willcertainly look into his case. Generally speaking,however, exceptions to the carefully consideredpolicies of the office are hard to come by. Theoffice has apparently been understaffed, for manystudents did not receive their aid decisions untilvery late summer. Furthermore, many studentsfeel questions about their cases are poorly or toohastily answered. Our office would like to see thesituation corrected.Student housing is another area where policiesoften receive criticism. Almost without exception, for instance, students are held to the roomand board contract to which they agree before thebeginning of an academic year. While one can easily understand why a student might wish to bereleased from this particular obligation, it is hardto see why, except in extraordinary circumstances, the University should grant such a release, for the University must base its plans forthe entire year on the number of contracts in forceat the beginning of Autumn Quarter. Except incases where specific treatment of individual students violates a reasonable expectation, theHousing Office is not likely to grant exceptions toits long-standing policies.Administrative response to individual complaints and suggestions passed on by this office has been good in most areas. But the nature of theprimary problems in at least three of those areas issuch that even the most assiduous individual efforts within the confines of existing systems andfacilities offer the University community onlytemporary relief from very intense frustration.Since the deteriorating conditions of our greatlibrary are the present concern of the Library'sPublic Services Committee and of the nonpartisan student-faculty "Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein," I will leave off here withbut a mention of the incredible accumulation ofgarbage, crowded and misused study areas, andflagrant disregard for smoking restrictions. One ofthe assistants in the office has been given specialresponsibility for complaints about the library,and we continue to refer the grievances of libraryusers to these committees with the expectationthat so much high level attention will reverse current deplorable trends.The soon-to-begin renovation of the FieldHouse will scarcely begin to meet the desperateneed for more and better athletic and recreationalfacilities on this campus. Again, the signs of highlevel concern are obvious, and I expect new construction to follow a recent reassessment of priorities. Serious grievances in this area indicate thatthe future of athletic programs at Chicago deservesno less careful attention than the future of ourfacilities. Scholar athletes at this university demand a renewed commitment to excellence in theplanning and administration of athletic and recreational activities on all levels.Students who use the Billings HospitalEmergency Room continually receive bills thatshould be directed to the Student Health Service.A dismaying percentage of students referred fromthe Student Health Clinic to specialty clinics alsoreceive misdirected bills. The problem has beenkicking around for years, and for years studentshave been unable to discover the relatively simpleprocedure for correcting the errors. If only students were affected, the situation would be intolerable. With the whole patient population vulnerable, it is just outrageous, and the University isthe biggest loser. A major reorganization of thewhole billing system seems long overdue when,after trying for months to straighten out a bill, apatient can receive solemn assurance that henceforth the computer will behave itself, only to hearin a few days from a collection agency.We have suggested that a special note to University students be programmed into the computer printout billing statement which students sooften erroneously receive. While this will not al-leviate the greater, system-wide problems, itshould help students cope with the situation. Inthe meantime, anyone with questions or incorrector misdirected bills should either bring them to theOmbudsman for referral or take them directly toMs. Ivy Annamunthodo at the Student HealthClinic.A good many students have also had problemswith tuition billing, loans, loan repayment, andother financial arrangements handled by theOffice of Student Accounts, the Bursar, and theComptroller. We can trace most of the AutumnQuarter delays and many of the other problems torecent computerization and the until recently uncertain status of the University's charter to participate in the Federally Insured Student LoanProgram. The Bursar, Mr. Lory Weaver, hasbeen very helpful in rectifying billing and loanmix-ups. When special arrangements have beennecessary to insure that a student's case will behandled fairly, Mr. Weaver has been willing andable to make them.The Student Gynecology Clinic is another areawhere the cases which come to us are very muchalike. Almost without exception women complainof an excessive wait for appointments. At onepoint during Autumn Quarter the wait was oversix weeks. Furthermore, the clinic is open onlyfive hours weekly, with one session on Wednesday and another on Friday. Consequently, students complain that they are unable to arrangeappointments which do not conflict with inflexibleclass and work schedules. Many students in theSchool of Social Service Administration, for example, are committed to field assignments all dayMondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. When thetiming of specific tests or procedures is especiallyimportant, further difficulties arise, for the necessary predictions are at best tentative when madesix weeks in advance. The only way to overcomethese problems has been to use the emergencyroom or to get a special referral from the StudentHealth Clinic to the regular Gynecology Clinic.While Ms. Ivy Annamunthodo, AdministrativeAssistant for the Student Health Service, hasbeen able consistently to make these arrangements, they do not represent a wholly satisfactorymechanism for meeting an apparently increasingdemand for routine gynecological care. We areinformed that a nurse with special instruction ingynecological care might well ease the demand onphysician time if she were to perform routinescreening and simple procedures such as Papsmears. Relatively simple innovations along theselines will allow some extension of clinic hours and significantly improve the quality and availabilityof medical care in this highly personal and sensitive area.Complaints concerning College curriculumhave little in common save when we receive morethan one complaint about an individual class.When a student voices his dissatisfaction withstaffing, scheduling, subject matter, organization,or grading criteria in a specific class, we invariably refer the complaint to the Master of the appropriate Collegiate Division, to the Dean of Students in the College, and often to departmentchairmen. Although changes in courses or curricula are made primarily through the efforts offaculty, we have helped, by calling attention tolegitimate student concerns, to correct apparentmistakes and serious oversights. As intermediaryin this and other areas, we protect the individualstudent from possible faculty vindictiveness oranimosity.One of our specific efforts along these linesmight eventually help to achieve a classroom "detente" between smokers and non-smokers. Wehave made a standing offer to write or phone anyindividual professor and request that he segregatehis classroom for the benefit of those who objectto tobacco smoke. This is not a good solution, ofcourse, but it may be the best there is. To date theresponse has been quite encouraging.Throughout the quarter, we have also referred anumber of complaints, questions, and suggestionsregarding the various University bus services.When service does not meet reasonable expectations, for whatever reason, students have a responsibility to report their observations. We arehappy to refer this information, along with theresults of our investigations, to the Plant Department and to the Campus Bus Committee, which isresponsible for planning routes and schedules.When needs are clearly indicated, changes will bemade, but only after careful consideration. At oursuggestion, incidentally, two students have recently been appointed to serve on the committee.Cases which fall outside the foregoing areashave generally been very particular in nature. Weusually spend much more time on them and encounter more difficulties in their investigation.Examples of the highly particular cases include:hiring discrimination on the basis of sex; "election tampering" by a faculty member who choseto disregard the binding vote of a student group;disagreement between a student and a student organization over right to membership in the organization; a request for extended access to a verylimited campus facility, which would require spe-32cial exception to a very sound policy; a graduatestudent's concern that his department had notfulfilled its obligations with regard to his instruction and guidance; an allegation of classroomcheating, where one of the students involved requested procedural advice; questionable performance of a staff member whose position requiresextensive contact with students; a disputed procedure for returning examination results, wherebystudents are not informed of their performance onspecific sections which might be of particular in-OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITYPresident: John T. WilsonProvost: D. Gale JohnsonVice-President for Business and Finance: WilliamB. CannonVice-President for Development: Eugene GerweVice-President for Public Affairs: D. J. R.BrucknerVice-President and Dean of Students: Charles D.O'ConnellVice-President for Academic Resources:Chauncy D. HarrisVice-President for Community Affairs: JonathanKleinbardVice-President for the Medical Center: Dr.Daniel C. TostesonVice-President-Comptroller: Harold E. BellTreasurer: Mary PetrieSecretary of the Board: Walter V. LeenDEANS AND CHAIRMENThe CollegeDean: Dr. Charles E. OxnardDean of Students in the College, Dean of CollegeAdmissions, and Associate Dean of the College: Lorna P. StrausCollegiate Divisions and Their MastersBiological Sciences: Dr. Godfrey S. GetzHumanities: Jonathan Z. SmithNew Collegiate Division: Charles W. Wegener terest to them; and a dispute whether certain disciplinary actions should be recorded on a studenttranscript. While we are not always successful inresolving problems either general or specific innature, the Office of the Ombudsman has a responsibility to look into nearly any grievance astudent may have. If in doubt, one has nothing tolose by bringing the matter to us.Bruce CarrollPhysical Sciences: Norman H. NachtriebSocial Sciences: Keith M. BakerThe Division of the Biological Sciences and ThePritzker School of MedicineDean and Vice-President for the Medical Center:Dr. Daniel C. TostesonAssociate Vice-President for the Medical Centerand Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs:Robert B. UretzAssociate Vice-President for the Medical Center(Medical Services) and Chief of Staff: Dr.Henry RusseAssociate Vice-President for the Medical Center(Business and Finance): David M. BrayAssociate Vice-President for the Medical Center(Development): John J. Piva, Jr.Departments and ChairmenAnatomy: Dr. Ronald SingerAnesthesiology: Dr. Donald W. BensonBiochemistry: Dr. Donald F. SteinerBiology: Hewson H. SwiftBiophysics and Theoretical Biology: RobertHaselkornMedicine: Dr. Alvin R. TarlovMicrobiology: Bernard S. StraussNeurology: Dr. Barry G. ArnasonObstetrics and Gynecology: Dr. Arthur LeeHerbstOphthalmology: Dr. Frank W. NewellPathology: Dr. Werner H. KirstenPediatrics: Dr. Samuel S. SpectorPharmacological and Physiological Sciences: Dr.Alfred Heller33Psychiatry: Dr. Daniel X. FreedmanRadiology: Dr. John J. FennessySurgery: Dr. David B. SkinnerCommittees, InstitutesBen May Laboratory for Cancer Research: El-wood V. Jensen, DirectorCancer Research Center: Dr. John E. UltmannCommittee on Clinical Pharmacology: Dr. LeonI. GoldbergCommittee on Developmental Biology: Aron A.MosconaCommittee on Evolutionary Biology: Lynn H.ThrockmortonCommittee on Genetics: Bernard S. StraussCommittee on Immunology: Dr. Frank W. FitchLaRabida-University of Chicago Institute: Dr.Samuel S. Spector, DirectorFranklin McLean Memorial Research Institute:Dr. Leon O. JacobsonCommittee on Virology: Bernard RoizmanZoller Dental Clinic: Dr. Robert C. Likins, DirectorThe Division of the HumanitiesDean: Karl J. WeintraubDepartments and ChairmenArt: Herbert L. KesslerClassical Languages and Literatures: ArthurW. H. AdkinsEnglish: Stuart M. TaveFar Eastern Languages and Civilizations: PhilipA. KuhnGermanic Languages and Literatures: Kenneth J.NorthcottLinguistics: Howard I. AronsonMusic: Robert L. MarshallNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations: Edward F. WenteNew Testament and Early Christian Literature:Robert M. GrantPhilosophy: Ted CohenRomance Languages and Literatures: Peter F.DembowskiSlavic Languages and Literatures: EdwardWasiolekSouth Asian Languages and Civilizations: J. A. B.van BuitenenCommittees and CentersCommittee on Analysis of Ideas and Study ofMethods: Charles W. Wegener Committee on Comparative Studies in Literature:Edward WasiolekCommittee on the Conceptual Foundations ofScience: Arnold W. RavinCenter for Far Eastern Studies: Tetsuo Najita,DirectorCommittee on General Studies in the Humanities:Janel M. MuellerCommittee on History of Culture: Karl J. WeintraubThe Division of the Physical SciencesDean: Albert V. CreweDepartments and ChairmenAstronomy and Astrophysics: Eugene N. ParkerChemistry: Stuart A. RiceGeophysical Sciences: Ralph G. JohnsonMathematics: Felix E. BrowderPhysics: Yoichiro NambuStatistics: Michael D. PerlmanInstitutesInstitute for Computer Research: Robert L.Ashenhurst, DirectorEnrico Fermi Institute: John A. Simpson, DirectorJames Franck Institute: Ole J. Kleppa, DirectorThe Division of the Social SciencesDean: William H. KruskalDepartments and ChairmenAnthropology: Raymond T. SmithBehavioral Sciences: Norman M. BradburnEconomics: Arnold C. HarbergerEducation: Philip W. JacksonGeography: William D. PattisonHistory: Karl F. MorrisonPolitical Science: Kenneth PrewittSociology: Evelyn M. KitagawaCommittees and CentersCommittee on African Studies: Ralph A. AustenCommittee on Comparative Study of New Nations: Philip J. Foster and Aristide R. Zolberg(Joint Executive Secretaries)Center for Far Eastern Studies: Tetsuo Najita,DirectorMorris Fishbein Center for the Study of the History of Science and Medicine: Allen G. Debus,Director34Committee on International Relations: Morton A.KaplanCommittee on Latin American Studies: PhilippeC. SchmitterCenter for Middle Eastern Studies: Leonard Binder, DirectorCommittee on Slavic Area Studies: Jeremy R.AzraelCommittee on Social Thought: Saul BellowCommittee on Southern Asian Studies: Edward C.Dimock, Jr.Center for Urban Studies: Brian J. L. Berry, DirectorThe Graduate School of BusinessDean: Richard N. RosettAssociate Dean: Robert L. GravesThe Divinity SchoolDean: Joseph M. KitagawaAssistant Dean: Anne CarrCENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTYFELLOWSRobert Z. Aliber, Professor in the GraduateSchool of Business.George W. Beadle, President Emeritus and theWilliam E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology andin the College; Honorary Trustee of The University of Chicago.Saul Bellow, Professor and Chairman in theCommittee on Social Thought and Professor inthe Department of English.Brian J. L. Berry, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Department of Geography and in theCollege and Director of the Center for UrbanStudies.R. Stephen Berry, Professor in the Departmentof Chemistry, in the James Franck Institute, andin the College.Leonard Binder, Professor in the Departmentof Political Science and Director of the Center forMiddle Eastern Studies. The Law SchoolDean: Norval MorrisThe Graduate Library SchoolDean: Howard W. WingerThe School of Social Service AdministrationDean: Harold A. RichmanAssociate Deans: John R. Schuerman and Laurence J. HallThe University Extension DivisionDean: C. Ranlet LincolnThe Oriental InstituteDirector: John A. BrinkmanThe University LibrariesDirector: Stanley McElderryFine ArtsUniversity Director: Herbert L. KesslerWalter J. Blum, the Wilson- Dickinson Professor in the Law School.Jerald C. Brauer, the Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professor in the Divinity School.John A. Brinkman, Professor and Director ofthe Oriental Institute and Professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and in the College.D. J. R. Bruckner, Vice-President for PublicAffairs and Director of the Center for PolicyStudy.Gerhard Casper, Professor in the Law Schooland in the Department of Political Science.S. Chandrasekhar, the Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments ofAstronomy and Astrophysics and Physics, in theEnrico Fermi Institute, and in the Committee onthe Conceptual Foundations of Science.James S. Coleman, University Professor in theDepartment of Sociology.James W. Cronin, University Professor in theDepartment of Physics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in the College.Kenneth W. Dam, Professor in the LawSchool.35Allison Dunham, the Arnold I. Shure Professorof Urban Law in the Law School.Dr. Jarl E. Dyrud, Professor and AssociateChairman of the Department of Psychiatry andDirector of Clinical Services in the Department.Edgar G. Epps, the Marshall Field IV Professor of Urban Education in the Department ofEducation.John Hope Franklin, the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History.Dr. Daniel X. Freedman, Chairman and theLouis Block Professor in the Department ofPsychiatry.Milton Friedman, the Paul Snowden RussellDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Economics.Jacob W . Getzels, the R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Education and Behavioral Sciences.Julian R. Goldsmith, the Charles E. MerriamDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences.Harry Harootunian, the Max Palevsky Professor of History and Civilizations and Chairman ofthe Far Eastern Studies Program in the College,and Professor in the Department of History.Chauncy D. Harris, Vice-President forAcademic Resources, the Samuel N. Harper Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofGeography and in the College, and Director ofthe Center for International Studies.Neil Harris, Professor in the Department ofHistory and Director of the National HumanitiesInstitute in the Division of the Humanities.Philip M. Hauser, the Lucy Flower Professorin the Department of Sociology and Director ofthe Population Research Center.Roger H. Hildebrand, Professor in the Department of Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.Philip W. Jackson, Chairman of the Department of Education and the David Lee ShillinglawDistinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Education and Behavioral Sciences.Morris J anowitz, Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Sociology and in theCollege and Director of the Center for Social Organization Studies.D. Gale Johnson, Provost of the University,and the Eliakim Hastings Moore DistinguishedService Professor in the Department ofEconomics and in the College.Harry G. Johnson, the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Economics and Editor of the Journal of PoliticalEconomy.Morton A. Kaplan, Professor in the Department of Political Science and Chairman of theCommittee on International Relations.Edmund W . Kitch, Professor in the LawSchool.Philip B. Kurland, Professor in the Law Schooland the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor in theCollege.Ralph Lerner, Professor of Social Sciencesin the College.Edward H. Levi, President Emeritus, Honorary Trustee, and the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in theLaw School (on leave of absence).Julian H. Levi, Professor of Urban Studies inthe Division of the Social Sciences and ExecutiveDirector of the South East Chicago Commission.James H. Lorie, Professor in the GraduateSchool of Business.Saunders Mac Lane, the Max Mason Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofMathematics, in the Committees on ConceptualFoundations of Science and Analysis of Ideas andStudy of Methods, and in the College.Martin E. Marty, Professor of the History ofModern Christianity in the Divinity School andProfessor in the Committee on the History of Culture.William H. McNeill, the Robert A. MillikenDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History.Bernice L. Neugarten, Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and in the College.Stuart A. Rice, the Louis Block Professor andChairman of the Department of Chemistry, theLouis Block Professor in the James Franck Institute, in the Department of Biophysics andTheoretical Biology, and in the College.Harold A. Richman, Professor and Dean of theSchool of Social Service Administration.Margaret K. Rosenheim, the Helen Ross Professor in the School of Social Service Administration.Dr. Janet Rowley, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Medicine, in the Franklin McLeanMemorial Research Institute, and in the Committee on Genetics.Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Professor in theDepartment of Political Science and in the College.Robert G. Sachs, Director of Argonne National Laboratory, and Professor in the Depart-36ment of Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.Edward Shils, Distinguished Service Professorin the Committee on Social Thought and in theDepartment of Sociology.John A. Simpson, Director of the Enrico FermiInstitute and the Arthur Holly Compton Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofPhysics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege.Dr. David B. Skinner, Chairman and the Dallas B. Phemister Professor in the Departmentof Surgery.Dr. Donald F. Steiner, Chairman and the A.N.Pritzker Professor in the Department ofBiochemistry and Professor in the Department ofMedicine and in the College.George J. Stigler, the Charles R. WalgreenDistinguished Service Professor of American Institutions in the Department of Economics and inthe Graduate School of Business, and Editor ofthe Journal of Political Economy.Bernard S. Strauss, Professor and Chairman ofthe Department of Microbiology and of theCommittee on Genetics and Professor in the College.Sol Tax, Professor in the Department of Anthropology and in the College and Director of theSmithsonian Institution Center for the Study ofMan.Dr. Daniel C. Tosteson, Vice-President forthe Medical Center, Dean of the Division ofthe Biological Sciences and The Pritzker Schoolof Medicine, and the Lowell T. CoggeshallProfessor of Medical Sciences in the Departmentof Pharmacological and Physiological Sciences.Anthony Turkevich, the James Franck Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofChemistry, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and inthe College.Paul Wheatley, Professor in the Department ofGeography, in the Committee on Social Thought,and in the College.John T. Wilson, President of The University ofChicago and Professor in the Department of Education.Robert R. Wilson, Professor in the Departmentof Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute, andDirector of the Fermi National AcceleratorLaboratory.Albert Wohlstetter, University Professor in theDepartment of Political Science.Aristide R. Zolberg, Professor in the Department of Political Science and in the College.Elinor Langer (non-faculty fellow) VISITING 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 on the Visual ArtsClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Edwin A. BergmanMrs. Eugene A. DavidsonStanley FreehlingAllan FrumkinRichart HuntJohn RewaldFranz SchulzeHerman SpertusClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Frederick M. AsherScott HodesH. W. JansonM. A. LipschultzEarle Ludgin (Chairman)Mrs. Robert MayerMrs. Mary M. McDonaldMrs. C. Phillip MillerFrank H. WoodsClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Lewis ManilowMrs. Henry T. RickettsRaymond L. 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 Kovler37Robert G. MyersDavid D. PetersonMilton E. 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 J. GoldblattDr. John Green, Jr.Hunt HamillJ. Ira HarrisDr. Charles HugginsWallace D. JohnsonLawrence A. KimptonMartin J. KoldykeDr. Clayton LoosliJohn D. MabieLyle E. PackardA. N. Pritzker (Chairman)Dr. Clarence ReedJoseph Regenstein, Jr.Dr. John Shedd SchweppeEarl W. ShapiroJohn Earl ThompsonMrs. William WrigleyCouncil on the Graduate School of BusinessClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)William O. BeersKarl R. BendetsenEugene P. BergJames W. ButtonDonald N. FreyRalph E. GomoryThomas HancockWilliam G. KarnesRaymond A. KrocAlvin W. LongRay W. MacdonaldJohn A. MattmillerOscar G. MayerHart PerryEli ShapiroT. M. Thompson38 C. R. Walgreen IIIChristopher W. WilsonWilliam T. YlvisakerClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Norman Barker, Jr.Allan S. BlankPhilip D. Block, Jr.James BurdW. Newton Burdick, Jr.Raymond N. CarlenMarvin ChandlerW. Leonard Evans, Jr.John P. GallagherJames J. GlasserW. L. Hadley GriffinRobert C. GunnessDavid K. HardinLawrence A. KimptonHarry W. KirchheimerJohn H. KornblithC. Virgil MartinWilliam C. MushamPeter G. PetersonPhilip J. PurcellBeryl W. SprinkelRobert D. Stuart, Jr.M. P. VenemaTheodore O. YntemaClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Thomas G. AyersEdmund F. BallRoland Bars towArchie BoeWallace BoothRobert E. BrookerFairfax M. ConeWillie DavisCharles H. DavisonJames H. EvansRobert P. GwinnIrving B. Harris (Chairman)The Hon. Robert S. IngersollDavid JonesHarvey KapnickThomas A. KellyPaul F. LorenzT. W. NelsonEllmore 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 D. AschheimDr. Richard Allen ChaseJohn F. Dille, Jr.John T. HortonWilliam JosephsonJohn G. MorrisKeith I. ParsonsChristopher S. PeeblesRobert B. SilversDaniel C. SmithHodson ThornberPhilip C. WhiteClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Edward L. Anderson, Jr.Robert J. GreenebaumCarl F. HovdeAlbert Pick, Jr.Walter PozenSaul S. ShermanDr. Nancy E. WarnerThe Hon. Hubert L. WillClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)John Jay BerwangerVirginia ButtsEmmett DedmonFrances T. FreemanJoan N. HertzbergDr. Deirdre HollowayW. Rea KeastJulius LewisE. Wilson LyonRichard MerbaurhBradley H. Patterson, Jr.The Hon. Charles H. PercyWilliam ProvineMina 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. Brooker Marvin ChandlerJohn C. 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. WatkinsClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Russell M. BairdRobert L. Berner, Jr.Leo J. CarlinJohn F. ConnorR. Neal FulkJohn P. GallagherJohn GiuraElmer W. JohnsonMrs. John NuveenRobert StuartClinton 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 Department of EducationClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Mrs. Richard AlschulerManuel FinkRobert McDougal, Jr.Harry M. Oliver, Jr.James F. RedmondPeter N. TodhunterGeorge H. Watkins (Chairman)Mrs. Peter L. WentzClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Charles BentonWilliam S. Gray IIIAndrew McNally IIIHenry RegneryLouise Hoyt Smith39Class 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Dr. Kenneth B. ClarkLawrence A. CreminMax I. StuckerClinton YouleVisiting Committee to the Center for Far EasternStudiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Neal BallRober L. BeanSidney N. DoolittleShohei HaraJames H. IngersollPeter T. JonesEugene M. KeysLucy LeungMrs. Edward H. LeviSimon C. S. LingRobert F. McCulloughWilliam J. McDonoughEdward F. SwiftClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)W. Stewart AddisThomas H. CoulterMrs. Robert H. MalottIra QuintErwin A. SalkClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)A. Robert Abboud (Vice-Chairman)James C. AbegglenKunihiko AdachiJames W. AlsdorfRichard L. BechtoltJack D. BeemWilliam O. BeersJames F. BereJoseph L. BlockCharles L. BrownLeland C. CarstensLester CrownEmmett Dedmon (Chairman)Louis F. Dempsey IIIRichard EdwardsJeannette Shambaugh ElliottRita E. HauserCharles O. HuckerThe Hon. Robert S. IngersollPaul R. JudyPhilip M. KlutznickMrs. Samuel T. Lawton,- Jr.Mrs. John Sterry Long Emerson J. LyonsDwight H. PerkinsWilliam Wood PrinceMrs. Robert PritzkerMrs. George A. RanneyJohn D. Rockefeller IVWilliam SibleyJonathan D. SpenceMrs. Lyle SpencerOliver StatlerMrs. Philip K. WrigleyVisiting Committee to the Divisionof the HumanitiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)James W. AlsdorfCharles BentonEdwin A. BergmanMrs. Andrew BlockLeigh B. BlockMrs. George V. BobrinskoyMichael BraudeMrs. James R. CoulterGaylord DonnelleyPaul FrommMrs. Willard A. FryJames R. GetzLeo S. GuthmanCharles C. Haffner IIIJoan B. JohnsonSigmund KunstadterEarle LudginLinda M. MayerRobert L. MetzenbergMrs. C. Phillip MillerMrs. Luther I. ReplogleClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Bowen BlairMrs. Lester CrownMrs. Edison DickStanley M. FreehlingMrs. Maurice P. GeraghtyBertrand GoldbergDaggett HarveyMrs. Glen A. LloydGeorge A. PooleBryan S. Reid, Jr.Norman RossCalvin P. SawyierGeorge B. YoungClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Mrs. Eugene A. Davidson40Mrs. Frank D. MayerMrs. Gilbert H. OsgoodMrs. Walter P. PaepckeMrs. Paul S. RussellMrs. Richard L. SelleJoseph R. ShapiroAlfred C. Stepan, Jr.Gardner H. Stern (Chairman)Mrs. John Paul 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 I. Shadur (Chairman)The Hon. Herbert J. SternLowell WadmondClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)The Hon. Harry A. BlackmunThe Hon. James M. BurnsBrian B. DuffBert H. EarlyRaymond G. FeldmanDaniel FogelElizabeth Bonner HeadThe Hon. Ivan Lee Holt, Jr.Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr.Jerome S. KatzinThe Hon. Abner J. MikvaByron S. MillerAlexander PolikoffMaurice RosenfieldThe Hon. Mary Murphy SchroederThe Hon. Leland SimkinsThe Hon. John Paul StevensMaurice S. WeigleClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)The Hon. Robert H. BorkFrank H. DetweilerJohn DoarAnthony C. GilbertRichard M. HarterLaura Banfield HoguetPeter T. Jones Abe 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 WisdomVisiting Committee to the LibraryClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Thomas R. FurlongMrs. Stanford J. GoldblattO. B. HardisonGordon N. RayMrs. H. Alex Vance, Jr.Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)A. Robert AbboudRoger Ben singerDavid BorowitzEugene A. DavidsonWilliam S. DixJames R. Donnelley (Vice-Chairman)Daniel J. EdelmanRichard EldenW. Leonard Evans, Jr.Katharine GrahamGertrude HimmelfarbStephen McCarthyMrs. C. Phillip MillerEvelyn Stefan s son NefMax PalevskyGeorge A. PooleVictoria Post RanneyMrs. Joseph RegensteinHermon D. SmithRalph TylerRobert A. WallaceEdward H. WeissClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Mrs. Michael ArlenDaniel J. Edelman (Chairman)Visiting Committee to the Department of MusicClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Milton BabbittBruno BartolettiGitta Gradova Cottle41Mrs. James H. DouglasCarol FoxMrs. Martha Asher FriedbergPaul FrommRaya GarbousovaTito GobbiBertrand GoldbergMargaret HillisGeorge M. IrwinGeorge Fred KeckNorman RossSir Georg SoltiPeter Gram SwingMrs. J. Harris Ward (Chairman)Class 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Mrs. A. Watson Armour IIIMrs. Granger CostikyanMrs. Lester CrownBenny GoodmanMrs. John D. GrayMrs. Irving B. HarrisDonal HenahanMrs. H. Thomas JamesMrs. Henry W. MeersAlbert H. NewmanMrs. Henry PaschenRobert SempleMrs. Robert D. Stuart, Jr.Class 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Anita Straub 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 LivingoodAlbert H. NewmanWilliam J. RobertsClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Harvey W. Branigar, Jr.Mrs. Cameron BrownMrs. Albert NewmanGardner H. SternMrs. Theodore TiekenMrs. Chester D. TrippRoderick S. WebsterMrs. Roderick S. Webster Class 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. HuntMrs. C. Phillip MillerWilliam M. SpencerVisiting Committee to the Division of the PhysicalSciencesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Luis W. AlvarezEdwin N. AsmannMalcolm K. BrachmanCharles L. BrownEdward E. David, Jr.James B. FiskDonald N. FreyHerbert FriedmanLeo GoldbergHerman H. GoldstineCrawford H. GreenewaltRobert P. GwinnJohn S. IvyWinston E. KockEdward J. LedderJohn O. LoganJoseph MayerDale R. SnowHorace D. TaftWernher von BraunG. H. WestbyLynn WilliamsJoseph S. WrightClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Robert A. HalperinJames S. HudnallClass 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)Robert C. Gunness (Vice-Chairman)Peter G. Peterson (Chairman)42Visiting Committee to the Division of theSocial SciencesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)William H. AveryThomas J. BataCharles L. BrownSilas Strawn CathcartPeter B. ClarkLA. GrodzinsFrederick G. JaicksJohn J. Louis, Jr.Charles J. MerriamArthur C. Nielsen, Jr.Arthur W. SchultzRichard L. TerrellClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Jane CoulsonJohn S. CoulsonMaurice FultonHuntington HarrisAugustin S. Hart, Jr.Margaret HartLyle M. Spencer, Jr.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 SiAdministrationClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Mrs. John J. BerganMrs. Robert L. FooteMrs. Zollie FrankIrving B. HarrisElliot LehmanKenneth F. MontgomeryKenneth NewbergerJoseph Regenstein, Jr.Lawrence K. SchnadigMerrill ShepardBernice WeissbourdMaynard I. WishnerClass 2 (term expiring September 30, 1978)Philip D. Block, Jr.James Brown IV David W. DanglerSidney EpsteinCharles R. FeldsteinMrs. Herbert S. Green waldMortimer 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. DarrowStanley G. Harris, Jr. (Chairman)Mrs. Ben W. HeinemanMrs. Robert B. MayerHenry W. MeersMrs. Bernard D. MeltzerPaul L. MullaneyMrs. George A. RanneyHermon D. SmithGardner H. Stern, Jr.Visiting Committee on Student Programs andFacilitiesClass 1 (term expiring September 30, 1977)Mrs. Samuel W. 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, 1978)John P. DaveyBarbara Cook DunbarFrances Moore FergusonIra J. FistellH. Jonathan KovlerKenneth H. NealsonRay RahnerMrs. Richard J. SmithLucille StraussMrs. Richard WehmanBernard Weissbourd43Class 3 (term expiring September 30, 1976)William H. AbbottMrs. Lester S. AbelsonRussell M. BairdJohn Jay BerwangerBernard J. DelGiornoJohn F. Dille, Jr.Robert Greenebaum (Chairman)Mrs. William KarnesMichael NemeroffMrs. George A. RanneyRobert SamuelsDaniel C. SmithDr. Andrew ThomasMrs. George Harry Watkins TRUSTEE ELECTIONTwo new members have been elected to theBoard of Trustees of The University of Chicago.They are:Edwin A. Bergman, president, chief executiveofficer, and a director of the U.S. ReductionCompany.Robert H. Malott, chairman of the board andpresident of FMC Corporation, Chicago.TUITION INCREASEThe University of Chicago will increase tuitionrates for the 1976-77 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 1975, the Committeesuggested that tuitions be raised at least $70 perquarter from current levels.Beginning in the Autumn Quarter 1976, tuitionincreases for a normal three-quarter academicyear will be as shown in the table below.In order to help students meet the costs of aprivate education, the University will continue tosupport and offer a wide range of student aid. For 1976-77 the University will devote $5 million fromits general funds for direct student aid and morethan $1 million in endowed scholarship funds. TheUniversity also expects to have more than $5 million in available loan funds.Tuition rates at the University will remainsignificantly lower than rates at many other national private universities. Expected tuitions andfees for 1976-77 at some other institutions reportedly will be: Yale University, $4,475; Northwestern University, $4,200; Stanford University,$4,274; Harvard University, $3,950; and the University of Rochester, $4,000.Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of Students1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 $ increase1975-76 to 1976-77 % increaseCollege $3,000 $3,210 $3,420 $210 6.5Divisions 3,210 3,420 3,630 210 6.1SchoolsMedicineLawBusinessDivinity, Education, 1Library, and SSA / 3,2103,3003,4503,150 3,4203,6903,7503,360 3,6304,0504,0503,570 210360300210 6.19.88.06.344ROOM AND BOARD INCREASES DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDRoom and board rates in the University HouseSystem will increase by an average of 10% for the1976-77 academic year.The University's residence halls and food services (excluding the student housing operation inthe Shoreland Hotel), as a unit, are expected tohave an operating balance of $75,000 in 1975-76;when the non-operating costs of debt service onoutstanding mortgages are included, the overallnet deficit is expected to be $260,000— the deficitis divided into $210,000 for housing and $50,000for food services. The increase is necessary toachieve a similar operating balance of $75,000 in1976-77 and should again hold the net non-operating deficit to $260,000.Typical room and board charges for an enteringstudent at the University will be as follows.Double roomFull boardTotal 1975-76 1976-77 % increase$ 7301,0701,800 $ 8001,1751,975 9.69.89.7Single RoomFull boardTotal $ 9001,0701,970 $1,0001,1752,175 11.19.810.4 The Disciplinary Review Board has authority toreview decisions of University DisciplinaryCommittees set up under the procedures adoptedby the Council of the University Senate in May of1970. All members, other than the Dean of Students in the University, serve one-year terms beginning in the Winter Quarter of each academicyear. Members for 1975 are:Evelyn Asch, undergraduate student.Hellmut Fritzsche (Chairman), Professor in theJames Franck Institute, in the Department ofPhysics, and in the College, and Director of theMaterials Research Laboratory.William H. Kruskal, Dean of the Division of theSocial Sciences and the Ernest DeWitt BurtonDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Statistics and in the College.Charles D. O'Connell, Vice-President andDean of Students in the University and AssociateProfessor in the Humanities Collegiate Division.Warren Post, graduate student.Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of Students45THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building^ rn> c:<r> ^o *«*<r* oo\oo xui- o 53 U* >o rn asm ocS >rn rnH2rn*** o2! Of"4s IUI o.o zUS US sM933NXoos_ o z ^§ s3D 9 ¦b2 > -n w= 0 l'_ |POSTAGAID0,ILLINTNO.31 o<Q0)3N-tO m¦* rz 5*(/> 3