THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECOEPMarch 16, 1977 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XI, Number 1CONTENTS1 REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENTENROLLMENT (1977)5 REPORT OF THE DEANS' BUDGET COMMITTEE FOR1977-7810 FINAL REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR1975-7611 OMBUDSMAN APPOINTED FOR 1976-77 TERM11 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEAUTUMN QUARTER, 197614 RESEARCH AND SOCIAL POLICY16 SUMMARY OF THE 361ST CONVOCATION17 THE 57TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTY30 NEW VISITING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN APPOINTED30 UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES30 DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD30 ERRATUM31 ANNUAL UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL SERVICE31 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: GUSTAVUS FRANKLIN SWIFT IIITHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1977 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEEON STUDENT ENROLLMENT (1977)I. Review of the ProblemIn the five years preceding our report of March1974, 1 the Quadrangles enrollment of the University had dropped by over a thousand students.Failure to meet earlier enrollment projections hadcontributed directly to growing budget deficits.In response to that situation, we proposed newenrollment goals which we believed to be "necessary, achievable, and well within the teachingcapacity of our faculty." We made eighteen specific recommendations for attainment of the proposed goals, fifteen for immediate gains, and threefor sustained growth.In the two following years the falling trend wasreversed; enrollment actually surpassed the proposed minimum goals (see Table I). But in thecurrent year 1976-77, enrollment has againdropped, with a consequent reduction in theacademic budget.TABLE I: ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONSYear EnrollmentProposedin 1974 Actual ProposedNow1973-741974-751975-761976-771977-781978-791979-801980-81 760078008000820084008600 749677928022785180008200840085001. Report of the Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment,The University of Chicago Record 8, no. 4 (May 28, 1974):97-102. In his November 9 address on "The State of theUniversity, 1976, "2 President Wilson commentedon the drop in autumn quarter enrollment:". . . this raises a serious question," he said, "regarding the general strategy that has guided ourplanning. We have assumed that the University,with strong and continuing recruiting efforts, couldreach a level of approximately 8,500 students, witha College of approximately 2,700 to 2,800. Theassumption of a faculty of approximately 1 ,000 isbased upon these enrollment projections." Shortlythereafter the president reconvened this committee for a review of the problem. We present herethe results of that review.Briefly we find that our 1974 report is still relevant. The gains in 1974 and 1975 were due in part toefforts by many academic units toward improvedprocedures for recruitment, procedures usually including our "recommendations for immediategains" (q.v.). Further gains of this nature are stillpossible, but in order to reach and maintain anenrollment of 8,500 it will be necessary to implement more widely our "recommendations for sustained growth" — especially those for developmentof new programs.We present here a review of the figures, goals,and recommendations of the 1974 report, and weexpand upon our recommendations for sustainedgrowth.II. Current Enrollment FiguresTable II shows a comparison of current enrollmentfigures with those for 1973-74.It is encouraging to note that in the College theincrease in enrollment has been accompanied by2. The State of the University, 1976, John T, Wilson, President, The University of Chicago Record 10, no. 6 (Dec. 1, 1976):171-183.1steady or even improved scholastic qualifications.SAT scores, for example, have risen from 623(verbal) and 641 (math) in 1973-74 to 630 (verbal)and 652 (math) in 1976^77.The current faculty size, 1,045 (the "net budgetcount"), is larger than that assumed (1,000) in ourearlier report. The student-faculty ratio, now 7.5,is still lower than it has been throughout most of theUniversity's history and lower than it is at mostother private universities (cf. Table II of 1974 report).III. GoalsTable I shows a comparison of actual and proposedenrollment figures. Taking into consideration thecurrent enrollment and the applications in hand asthis report is being written (January 1977), we donot think it realistic to return to the schedule ofTABLE II: QUADRANGLES ENROLLMENT1975-74 1976-77 % ChangeCollege 2146 2441 + 13.7%DivisionsBiological Sciences(excl. Medicine)HumanitiesPhysical SciencesSocial SciencesTotal Divisions 2417414241396*2802 28064142512542600 + 16.2%-13.5%0.0%-10.2%- 7.2%SchoolsBusinessDivinityLawLibrary ScienceMedicineSSAPublic PolicyTotal Schools 6422384941034363972310 86627750588442379112568 +34.9%+ 16.4%+ 2.2%-14.6%+ 1.4%- 4.5%+ 11.2%QuadranglesDegreeCandidatesStudents-at-Large ,SpecialsTotal Quadrangles 72582387496 76092427851 + 4.8%+ 1.7%+ 4.7%^Includes 124 students then enrolled in the Schoolof Education. goals given in the original proposal. The applicantpool for 1977-78 cannot be substantially increasedso late in the academic year. With renewed effort,however, it should be possible to meet the scheduleshown in the last column of the table.IV. Review of Recommendations for ImmediateGainsIn this section we offer further recommendationsor renewed exhortations concerning the "immediate gains" items of the 1974 report.A. College Admissions Schedule: Summer SequencesIn response to our recommendations, the Collegeis admitting both freshmen and transfer students inall quarters. Since the winter quarter of 1975, 98students have entered the College at times otherthan the autumn quarter. The summer quarter hasproved to be a particularly advantageous startingtime for many of those students because of theavailability of core course sequences. It has oftenbeen difficult, however, to recruit on the basis ofthose sequences when their continuation has beenin doubt. One cannot recruit effectively withoutknowledge many months in advance of what thereis to offer. Prospective students know the price ofenrollment, they shop early, and they want toknow what we can promise them.New Recommendation. Areas of the College ordepartments offering summer core sequencesshould annually discuss the enrollment projectionsfor those sequences with the dean of students in theCollege and should make commitments on continuation of their offerings for two to three years . Inno case should those offerings be dropped withoutat least nine months' notice.B. Graduate Area Recruitment from the College.The professional schools and the Division of thePhysical Sciences have given considerable attention to enrollment of our own College graduates,but in many other graduate areas this potentialsource has been ignored.The selection committee for Danforth GraduateFellowships found, for example, that few candidates had received any kind of useful advice frommembers of the faculty concerning graduateschool, and that the vast majority of the candidatesdid not consider graduate work at The Universityof Chicago as one of their options. To ignore suchstudents is both unmannerly and self-destructive.To withhold graduate opportunities from all of ourCollege students because it may be good for someof them to go elsewhere is unwarranted paternalism.2Exhortation. Departments should give responsibility to specific members of the faculty to seek outand offer assistance to students in the College whointend to do graduate work.C. Divisional Admissions MachineryWhen special efforts have been made to giveprompt, cordial responses to student inquiries, toinvite prospective students to the campus, and toexpand personal contacts between faculty and prospective students, the results have usually beengratifying. In the Department of Far Eastern Languages and Civilizations, for example, a five-folddrop in enrollment over a period of years was reversed and the original level was regained by diligent efforts of this sort.Exhortations. 1. There are still departments whichfail to make admissions decisions, or fail to notifyapplicants of admissions decisions until April 1 , thetime for aid decisions. It is a matter both of courtesy and of the University's direct interest to eliminate such delays.2. Many departments have prepared and continually update brochures giving lively accounts ofthe opportunities for study and graduate research.We renew our recommendation that similarbrochures be prepared by all departments andcommittees as supplements to the divisional announcements. It is not enough to give an account ofthe hurdles to be surmounted. Design expertiseand a library of existing brochures are availablethrough the Office of the Dean of Students in theUniversity.3. In our March 1974 report we urged (items 11and 12) that the faculty cooperate in making contacts with prospective students now approachinggraduation at other campuses, and do so not onlyas representatives of their own academic fields butalso as representatives of the University. In thiscapacity, a few members of the faculty have visitedliberal arts colleges, particularly in the MiddleWest, in each of the last three years; and there isabundant evidence that their efforts have stimulated serious inquiry by college seniors to the University's graduate departments and professionalschools. These recruiting efforts have been coordinated by the Office of the Dean of Students in theUniversity. We urge that more members of thefaculty participate.D. Public InformationProspective students choosing among colleges anduniversities notice where current students are gaining success. We are missing opportunities to bragabout our own students. Furthermore, we are missing opportunities to tell about the characterof the campus. As we said before,1 "eighty yearsof 'public information' have failed to inform thepublic that this is a private university with a largecampus and a small college."Exhortation and New Recommendation. The University's public relations activities of the type specifically aimed at potential students should bebrought to life (see item 15 of 1974 report). Therevitalization will require energy, talent, and thedevelopment of an effective working relationshipwith the faculty. We recommend appointment of afaculty committee to develop policies for theseactivities and to oversee their implementation.E. Part-Time StudentsWe reiterate our recommendation (item 3 of 1974report1) that special tuition rates be considered forpart-time students. Reduced rates should be appropriate for students who do not require the services normally used by full-time students. The Returning Scholar Program is an example of successful implementation of such a policy. It is essentialto examine this question on an area by area anddegree by degree basis.V. Review of Recommendations for SustainedGrowthRecruiting efforts can succeed only when the programs of study are attractive. In this connection wewish to repeat the following sentence from our 1974report: "From time to time the University hasbrought about or has accommodated itself to majorchanges in the character of the student body withrespect to geographic origin, age at entrance, previous education, length of residency, and educational goals."We must again adjust to such changes in thecharacter of the student body. The adverse trendsin the national economy, in government-supportedstudent aid, and in the academic job market — allnoted in 1974 — pose difficulties for our potentialstudents which we can accommodate by offeringshorter, and hence less expensive, degree programs, by offering or expanding programs for students who have been forced to delay educationalgoals, and by offering new preprofessional or professional programs in areas for which job opportunities are increasing. The needed development inour curriculum can be made in a manner which iscompatible with the University's academic history, goals, and standards.Before pursuing curriculum development, weoffer a few remarks of encouragement and exhortation.The feasibility of increasing enrollment with current resources, despite national trends, has beenwell demonstrated. The Social Sciences DivisionalMaster's Program and the Divinity School Master's Program are notably successful examples.Each has been revitalized and each has enjoyedthoughtful and energetic leadership. The formerhas been growing and, in addition, has proved to bea good source of Ph.D. candidates. The latter hasimproved in both number and quality since beingunified and redesigned as a one- instead of a two-year program.Exhortation. Besides intelligent planning, eachnew program must have (a) a sustained trial, (b)early and continuing advertisement, and (c) vigorous leadership. A catalog listing is not sufficientadvertisement; if you don't tell about it, nobodywill come. A committee, however wise, is not sufficient leadership; if the program succeeds it willusually be because an individual makes it succeed.We cannot design specific programs in thiscommittee, but we can identify certain areas forwhich there is growing demand and for which programs could be developed using resources alreadywithin the University.One area, as we shall show, is liberal education.Two others, government service and communications, can best be developed following the University's traditional emphasis on the compatibility ofliberal education with professional and preprofessional training. The University has expertise inthese areas and experience in a variety of formatsfor integrating liberal and professional studies. TheA.B.-M.D. program of the College and The Pritzker School of Medicine is a current example inanother growing area.A. Liberal and Interdisciplinary Education1. Master's Programs. Potential students for TheUniversity of Chicago usually have had or expectto have a liberal undergraduate education. Thereare many others, however, who wish to pursueaspects of liberal or at least general education asmaster's candidates, either on completion of undergraduate studies or later in life. Some are seeking to supplement inadequate or excessivelyspecialized undergraduate education; some areseeking a basis for choosing careers; and some,after a number of years of work, are interested inextending their general education for personal orcareer objectives.The divisional master's programs generally havethe capacity to serve those goals. They should benurtured with teaching talent and continuing leadership. In many instances departmental master's programs can also serve those goals if they aregenuine programs, well distinguished from the arrangements used to console unsuccessful Ph.D.candidates.2. Returning Scholars. The Returning ScholarProgram provides an attractive opportunity forstudents whose undergraduate studies have beenlong interrupted or delayed. With continuing attention we would expect that program to grow.B. Professional Education1 . Government Service . Increasingly , governmentservice, especially in local, state, and regionalposts of the federal government, is attractinggraduates from prestige institutions. Moreover,those institutions are developing programs in public administration leading to "public policy" degrees. Since the University has launched a Committee on Public Policy, we offer no recommendations on program development.We note, however, that there is another kind ofgovernment-service market composed of individuals already holding government posts, who maytake one-year courses at government expense. Wehave had such students — good ones — in manyareas, including statistics, meteorology, andsociology, but we have not had our share of them.We reiterate the recommendation from our 1974report (item 18) that a special office be establishedto find effective contacts in the various government agencies. It would not take many fully subsidized students to pay for such an office. (Effortshave been made to implement our related recommendation concerning recruitment of foreign students.)2. Communications : Liberal Arts. Careers injournalism and communications, including publicrelations, professional editing, publishing, andwriting for business organizations are available forstudents with strong backgrounds in the liberal artsand in specific academic disciplines. The schoolsof journalism do not enjoy a monopoly. With nospecial program whatever, this University hasproduced a surprising number of successful individuals in this area. If we were to advertise and toprovide a special placement service — the only significant service provided by some journalismschools — we could attract many more.It seems likely that we could attract fifty to ahundred students to a master's degree programemphasizing basic disciplines in the social sciencesand humanities. This is not a proposal for a curriculum in journalism. Students in the program4would study in regular disciplines. Their careerobjectives would be met by selected professionalcourses and internships.VI. ConclusionThe recent reports of the president2 and of theDeans' Budget Committee3 leave no doubt concerning the seriousness of the enrollment problemfor the well-being of the University. The importantconclusion of our review is that we can confirm theopening assertions of our 1974 report. The problemis, indeed, "susceptible to major improvement"and "significantly dependent on faculty effort."Both assertions have been verified by the successes that have been achieved. We have citedexamples in the College and in departments, divisions, and schools where new recruiting proce-3. Report of the Deans' Budget Committee for 1977-78, thisissue of the Record: 5-9.December 1, 1976Universities and colleges, private and public, arefacing financial problems associated with the sluggishness of the economy, with financial stringencies of governmental budgets, with the end of aperiod of rapid expansion, and with the onset ofreduced enrollments. Lower numbers of studentsin turn are related to a decline in the size of the agecohort groups, to restricted teaching opportunities, and to reduced levels of scholarship support.A survey by the American Council on Educationhas observed that: "Progressive deterioration hasbeen occurring in the financial condition of highereducation as a whole in recent years. Furthermore,the process of decline appears to have acceleratedduring the past three years under the joint influenceof inflation and recession in the national economy.Private institutions generally have been harder hitthan those in the public sector."1 And as Clark1. Lyle H. Lanier and Charles J. Anderson, A Study of theFinancial Condition of Colleges and Universities: 1972-1975(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, October1975 [ACE Special Report: Office of Administrative Affairs andEducational Statistics]), p. 75, 77. dures and new educational programs of high quality have been effective in attracting able students inwelcome numbers. Adverse national trends havebeen taken into account and accommodated byimaginative planning. In many instances successhas been achieved by individuals or entire departments working outside of accustomed degree programs.The goals we have proposed should be achievable if every academic unit and every individualwill explore opportunities to contribute. Again, it isa matter of utmost necessity that we do so.Robert N. ClaytonGary D. EppenRoger H. Hildebrand (Chairman)Morris JanowitzPhilip KuhnGerson M. Rosenthal, Jr.Kerr has observed, "Research universities havebeen affected most adversely of all."2These problems face The University of Chicagoin especially severe terms because it has a longhistory of being an academic overachiever in relation to its financial base. It has engaged in adventuresome risk taking in budgeting. With the advantage of hindsight, one may note an overexpansionof the size of the faculty in the decade 1960-70: thenumber of faculty members increased from 813 in1960-61 to 1 139 in 1970-71 , without a corresponding increase in continuing financial resources. As aresult, dangerous gaps developed between incomeand expenditures.The Deans' Budget Committee in 1973 recommended that this gap between receipts and expenditures be reduced as rapidly as possible, and inany event, within three years.3 By rigorous austerity the budget deficits have been reduced in each2. In foreword to Earl F. Cheit, The New Depression in HigherEducation — Two Years Later (Berkeley, California: The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973), p. v.3. A Special Message to the Entire University from PresidentLevi on the 1974-75 Budget, University of Chicago Bulletin 1,Extra (January 7, 1974).REPORT OF THE DEANS' BUDGETCOMMITTEE FOR 1977-785succeeding year. By 1976-77 the gap between unrestricted income and expenditures has been reduced to zero. The 1976-77 unrestricted budget isfragile and vulnerable to variations on the incomeside, but it is in balance, though precariously.Two adjustments have been made to the 1976-77budget in the course of the current calendar year:one in late spring reduced what was considered anunrealistically high income projection from unrestricted gifts; the other in the fall decreased expected income from student fees, after enrollmentfell about four hundred below estimates on whichthe budget was based. The first adjustment required extraordinary support from restricted fundsand a higher level of payout from endowmentfunds. The second adjustment forced disproportionate reductions in all flexible segments of thebudget.Upward pressure continues on wages, salaries,and other inflation-driven costs. A further rise inoperating costs will result from increases in theprice of natural gas and electricity and from thecompletion of two new buildings that will requiremaintenance. Certain components in the highereducation price index have shown unusually sharpincreases in recent years. On an index of 1967prices at 100, utilities reached an index of 219 in1975_76 (i.e. , more than a doubling in price in eightyears). The highest figures of all are in the library:periodical subscriptions have an index of 268, andbooks and monographs have an index of 239.Professional salaries with an index of 162 havemoved at about the same rate as general inflation.As D. Gale Johnson has pointed out, the peak ofUniversity salaries was reached in 1970-72 interms of deflated dollars. Since then faculty members at The University of Chicago have sufferedlosses in purchasing power, although faculty salarylevels here have kept pace with those of othermajor universities.4 Inflation has obviously imposed a substantial tax on earnings.After a series of difficult budget limitations overrecent years, it was hoped that some relaxation offinancial stringencies could occur once the budgetwas balanced. Alas, it is clear that the most optimistic estimates of receipts from all sources forthe 1977-78 budget year will not be sufficient tocompensate for the anticipated effects of inflation.Indeed, taking into account certain necessary adjustments, most of the 1977-78 unrestricted budgetcan be at only about the same dollar level as thebudget for 1976-77, as adopted in April 1976. Thismeans that the size of the budget in terms of de-4. D. Gale Johnson, "The University Budget, 1976-77," TheUniversity of Chicago Record 10, no. 5 (November 5, 1976):145-148. * flated dollars will have to be smaller in 1977-78than in 1976-77.Under these conditions, it is difficult to see howincreases in levels of salaries and wages can bemade without attrition in the size of faculty andstaff.The president and the provost have demonstrated great skill in coordinating unrestricted andrestricted funds available to the University forsupport of the research and teaching activities andrelated services and facilities. Restricted fundsmake a substantial contribution to the University.Unrestricted funds provide the ultimate reservoirout of which must be paid all expenses not coveredby other funds. It is this central budget, supportedby unrestricted funds, which is the subject of attention by the Deans' Budget Committee.Recommendations1 . Efforts to increase student enrollment should beactively continued. The recommendations of the"Report of the Advisory Committee on StudentEnrollment" (the Hildebrand Committee5) shouldbe carried through insofar as possible.The size of the possible budget is highly sensitiveto the level of student enrollment. Drops in studentenrollment will have to be matched by budget cuts.Unrealized enrollment projections have in the pastresulted in difficult budget readjustments.The age distribution of the population of theUnited States has been extensively studied. Theage cohort groups from which college students aredrawn will not increase in size over the next decade; on the contrary they will decline. The number of 18-year-olds, the typical age group for entering college students, will be approximately steadyfor the next three years (1977-79) and will declinethereafter through 1992, dropping by 26 percent inthis period.6 The number in the 20-24 age groupwill rise slightly until 198 1 , then drop through 1995 .Of course not all members of any age cohortgroup become students in institutions of higherlearning. An analysis by Humphrey Doermann examines the reservoir of potential college students.He notes that the number of high school graduateswho may go on to college each year will decline by15 percent by 1984 and by 22 percent between nowand 1990.7 He goes on to observe that the number5. The University of Chicago Record 8, no. 4 (May 28, 1975):97-102.6. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports,Series P-25, No. 601. Projections of the Population of the UnitedStates: 1975 to 2050 (Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1975), Table 7, Series 1, p. 42-66.7. Humphrey Doermann, "The Future Market for CollegeEducation." Prepared for the College Examination Board Colloquium, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, May 16-18, 1976.6of students prosperous enough to pay full tuition atprivate colleges and academically able enough todo satisfactory work at most of them is a relativelysmall portion of the total high school graduatepopulation. It was estimated that only 9 percent ofhigh school graduates of 1976 scored 450-800 onthe verbal scholastic aptitude test and came fromfamilies with incomes permitting parental contributions toward college expenses of more thanabout three thousand dollars a year. Only 4 percentof high school graduates were in the correspondinggroup with SAT verbal scores of 550-800. Ourinstitutional peers are trying hard to enroll morestudents from these small poolsA Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching study predicts that external factors willresult in universities and high-quality liberal artscolleges enrolling a declining share of the totalnumber of students in institutions of higher learning.8In The University of Chicago, programs at themaster's level, such as those in the departments ofEnglish and economics, the Divinity School, andthe Divisional Master's Program in the Social Sciences, offer a promising means of maintaining desirable levels of enrollment and fulfilling importantacademic functions.2. Tuition for 1977-78 should be increased by $ 100a quarter over the level of 1976-77. Although substantially higher than it was five years ago, TheUniversity of Chicago's undergraduate tuition (Table 1) continues to be markedly lower than that atcomparable institutions. In 1976-77 it is more than$500 lower, for example, than the tuition at Columbia College, the next lowest of ten comparable,private, national, university-connected colleges,and almost $900 lower than that of the two highestof these colleges. Furthermore, its rate of increaseover the past five years has been lower than at allbut one of these ten colleges. Room and boardcharges for freshmen in dormitories are also belowthe average of these ten schools.The University's graduate tuition in the divisions, which ranked sixth among these same tenuniversities five years ago, is now the lowest by asubstantial margin, $300 lower than Northwestern' s, which ranks next lowest, and almost $800lower than the graduate tuition at Princeton orYale. Again, the rate of increase over the last fiveyears has been significantly lower than that at anyof the other schools listed.8. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,More Than Survival: Prospects for Higher Education in a Periodof Uncertainty (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975), p.69. Although no announcements have yet beenmade, our best information is that all the schoolsare finding it necessary to increase their tuition for1977-78 by $300-$400 over the current year. Evenwith the recommended increase, therefore, tuitioncharges at The University of Chicago will still besubstantially lower than those of comparable institutions.Comparisons aside, the recommendation for anincrease of this magnitude appears to the Committee to be both regrettable and unavoidable. Weemphasize that the lower tuition levels at Chicagoform scholarship assistance for all students. Wenote that tuition income still covers less than half ofthe educational costs of the University —considerably less than half when it is recognizedthat about $7 million of the University's income isdirected back to students in the form of directscholarship relief toward their educational expenses at the University. We recommend that theincrease in tuition be accompanied by an augmentation of student scholarships where the need isgreatest.3. Further study should be made of the possibilityand desirability of increased tuition differentialsamong the various units of the University.4. The size of the faculty should be further reduced. A special committee is examining the sizeand composition of the faculty. From theviewpoint of the budget, however, no alternative isseen to further reductions in the size of the faculty,possibly at a more rapid rate than in recent years,and toward a lower goal. A limited budget and thedesirability of increasing salaries to help offset inflation point toward that conclusion.Stringent controls need to be exercised on thesize of the faculty, on new appointments, and onappointments to tenure. In similar budget situations, some universities have frozen new appointments or appointments to tenure for shorter orlonger periods. An absolute embargo on appointments reduces flexibility, falls unevenly and fortuitously where individuals retire or resign, andprevents appointment of new and younger faculty.But the natural tendency of units of the Universityto resist any reduction in size of faculty could leadto the need for a draconian measure such as afreeze on new appointments. Such a measure is notrecommended at this time.The maintenance of a balanced faculty in aperiod of contraction is an extremely difficultprocess. Perhaps the whole pattern of senior andjunior faculty and of tenure and nontenure ap-7Table I: COST SURVEY OF TEN UNIVERSITIES: 1971-72 and 1976-77A. UNDERGRADUATE1INSTITUTION TUITION AND REQUIRED FEES % INCREASEChicago 1971-72 1976-77( 9) 43%(10) $2475 (10) $3527Columbia ( 2) 2876 ( 9) 4042 (10) 41%Cornell ( 3) 2800 ( 7) 4110 ( 7) 47%Harvard ( 3) 2800 ( 8) 4100 ( 8) 46%MIT ( 7) 2750 ( 5) 4160 ( 5) 51%Northwestern ( 8) 2700 ( 4) 4260 ( 2) 58%Pennsylvania ( 6) 2780 ( 6) 4124 ( 6) 48%Princeton ( 3) 2800 ( 2) 4300 ( 3) 54%Stanford ( 9) 2610 ( 3) 4287 ( 1) 64%Yale ( 1) 2900 ( 1) 4400 ( 4) 52%1. University of Chicago tuition and fees in 1976-77 range from $515 to $873 lower than in other listedinstitutions.B. GRADUATE ARTS AND SCIENCES2INSTITUTION TUITION % INCREASEChicago 1971-72 1976-77(10) 38%( 6) $2625 (10) $3630Columbia ( 8) 2500 ( 8) 3990 ( 4) 60%Cornell ( 3) 2800 ( 4) 4110 ( 8) 47%Harvard ( 3) 2800 ( 5) 4100 ( 9) 46%MIT ( 5) 2650 ( 7) 4000 ( 7) 51%Northwestern (10) 2295 ( 9) 3930 ( 1) 71%Pennsylvania ( 9) 2450 ( 6) 4050 ( 2) 65%Princeton ( 1) 2900 ( 1) 4400 ( 5) 52%Stanford ( 7) 2610 ( 3) 4275 ( 3) 64%Yale ( 1) 2900 ( 1) 4400 ( 5) 52%2. University of Chicago graduate tuition for 1976-77 ranges from $300 to $770 lower than in other listedinstitutions.Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate rank in amount of fees. Rank 10 indicates lowest amount of tuition and required fees among these 10 universities.8pointments needs to be reexamined. A suggestionhas been made that tenure be granted only at thelevel of full professor following current practice inthe Graduate School of Business. Anymodifications of this nature should be thoroughlystudied by an appropriate committee with full faculty participation and should take full account of,but not necessarily be controlled by, recommendations of groups such as the American Association of University Professors. Perhaps newtypes of appointments need to be devised. In aperiod of contraction there is grave danger of anundesirable aging of the faculty and of an excessiveproportion of faculty on tenure.Possible size of the faculty is related to bothteaching and research. Student fees constitute asignificant portion of the unrestricted income of theUniversity; teaching responsibilities to bothgraduate and undergraduate students are important considerations for the size and composition ofthe faculty. The proportion of the total faculty effort which is devoted to undergraduate teachingwill doubtless need to continue to increase. Directfaculty salary support from research projects andother types of outside funding (so-called facultysavings) and payments for indirect costs (overheadon research projects) together make up a substantial fraction of the core budget of the University.Any substantial reduction of such payments couldforce a corresponding cut in the University budgetand hence in the size of the faculty and staff thatcan be supported. On the other hand, reductions infaculty and staff could adversely affect receipt ofresearch grants and hence the level of such outsidepayments. More vigorous efforts on the part offaculty to secure grants providing salary supportcould help ease the budgetary pressure for reducedfaculty size.5. Strenuous efforts should be made through conservation measures to reduce substantially theconsumption of fuel and electricity. Price rises beyond the control of the University have resulted inrapid increases in the proportion of the budgetneeded for utilities and heating. If fuel prices continue to skyrocket, and if offsetting conservationmeasures are not adopted, the entire unrestrictedincome from the endowment of the University soon could be absorbed in this one expense alone.Perhaps some analysis needs to be made oftrade-offs. How many degrees lower temperaturewould library users tolerate to make possible thepurchase of needed monographs, or students tokeep down the level of tuition, or faculty to increase the level of salaries, or typists to make possible higher wages?6. Review should be made of all portions of thesupport services budget to attempt to reduce costs.In inflationary times there is danger that the support budget will be allowed to increase morerapidly than the academic budget. The central purposes of the University are education and research. These purposes should receive the highestpriority and should have first call on Universityresources. Service activities should be reviewedconstantly for appraisal of their contribution tothese central purposes. On the other hand, cuttingsupport services too sharply may endanger centraleducational and research activities.SummaryThis is an austere but realistic budget report. It willbe disappointing to students who are faced with anincrease in tuition, roughly proportional to the rateof inflation. It will be disappointing to the facultywho are confronted by further reductions in numbers and possible decline in real income measuredin constant dollars. It is disappointing to administrative officers who had hoped to have more flexibility with a budget more resilient once balanced. Itis disappointing to the many loyal workers infacilities and services of the University. Fortunately the University has a president and a provostwho understand well its financial problems. Theywill need the good will, support, and sacrifices offaculty, students, staff, and administrative officersif The University of Chicago is to make the difficultadjustments required by its present financial position.Chauncy D. Harris, ChairmanJoseph M. KitagawaWilliam H. KruskalRobert B. UretzKarl J. Weintraub9FINAL REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR 1975-76The quarterly report of the student ombudsmanserves primarily to call community attention togeneral problem areas in which the office has beeninvolved. To the extent, however, that the reportsimply keeps the resources of the office visible itserves a separate, but important purpose. Over theyears the reports have usually focused on particular problems and on interesting aspects of our investigations. In my final report I wish to discussbriefly the office itself, for while many students andfaculty are fairly familiar with it, the generally lowprofile of the office and the ever-changing nature ofthe student population combine to give it a lowerthan optimal "recognition factor." Moreover,even among those somewhat familiar with it, theoffice is often misunderstood.Created by former President Edward Levi in1968, the office was the first of its kind run by astudent. The ombudsman is an independent,salaried officer of the University charged with thehandling and resolution of individual studentgrievances. Not a student advocate, he is expectedto make a thorough and impartial investigation ofevery complaint before taking any action. Whenthe facts are clear, he refers complaints to appropriate areas of the University, suggests remedialsteps in the settlement of specific problems, andcalls attention to injustices and abuses of discretion.The power of the office consists entirely in ourperseverance and in our ability to persuade thosewith authority either to assist an individual student, or occasionally, where possible, to take stepsito alleviate a generally unacceptable situation.Over the terms of eight ombudsmen, the office hasearned a reputation for competence and fairnessthat encourages members of the faculty and administration to cooperate closely with our efforts.Though we do not always agree with students'views of their cases, or press the cases as theymight wish, we have been able to resolve well overhalf of all cases to the satisfaction of the studentsinvolved.Individual cases, of course, vary greatly in substance, complexity, and resulting degree of difficulty; but cumulative experience makes handlingof many cases almost routine. Former ombudsmen, in describing their case loads, havefound it useful to categorize cases according tobasic cause. Perhaps most intractable are thosedue to inadequate facilities. Largely a matter of determining priorities in a budget crisis of severalyears' duration, some of these problems can bealleviated through sustained attention and creativeand competent management — not always easy tocome by — but most will not be truly solved untilspecific funding becomes available for them. Theobvious example, often the object of our efforts, isthe still desperate need for better athletic facilities.While the renovation of the Field House will notcompletely solve the problem, it represents a verysignificant commitment by the University andgenerous outside donors.Other cases must be charged to unclear, unbending, or deficient policies and rules. Wnen a singlepolicy or rule causes a number of similar problems,the ombudsman will usually try to suggest improvements. Isolated grievances, especially wherea policy is basically sound, will usually be resolved, if possible, through some kind of individualaccommodation.A third type of case arises out of individual circumstances, interpersonal dealings, or personalityconflicts. We often act as intermediary in thesecases or sometimes try to resolve such a problemthrough direct dealings with responsible administrative superiors.Finally, and seemingly unavoidable, are thoserecurring problems for which no adequate explanation is available and which must apparently becharged to the nature of a computerized Universitybureaucracy. The most obvious cases in this category are bills from the University medical center,which, long since paid, continue to generatemonthly statements which are eventually accompanied by threatening notices from a collectionagency. The ombudsman's office has been handling such bills for years, always with excellentcooperation. Eventually, each individual bill getsstraightened out, but efforts to solve the generalproblem have met with very limited success. Theombudsman functions in this type of case simplyby investigating and then keeping the facts of thecase before the appropriate administrator as longas necessary.Any effort to categorize in this way will probablybe either incomplete or oversimplified, but perhapscan be helpful by providing an indirect indication ofthe resources available to the ombudsman's office.Whether ultimately he can help with any particulargrievance may not be clear at first, but his responsibility extends to all University of Chicago stu-10dents and to grievances of every magnitude. Anyone interested in learning more about the officeshould drop in to talk or consult previous reports.Every spring, a new ombudsman is appointed bythe president on the recommendation of a student-faculty committee chaired by the dean of students.The half-time position is open to any Universitystudent, and interested students should apply byletter to Vice-President and Dean of StudentsCharles D. O'Connell by early spring quarter.Bruce CarrollJanuary 27, 1977As in years past, most complaints handled by theombudsman's office fell into several routinecategories: student housing; hospital bills; plantoperations (late buses, inadequate upkeep, and soon); financial and employment difficulties (long-delayed loans or paychecks, disagreements withfinancial aid decisions, grievances with employers,need for emergency loans); and academic complaints (grades felt to be unfairly or unexpectedlylow, chronically late professors, unclear requirements). Again, as in years past, a few routinephone calls resolved most of these complaints tothe satisfaction of the student. Some issuesemerged as more complex, however, and led tolarger investigations and, in some cases, to suggestions of policy changes.Let me mention in passing two successesachieved at least partially through the persistenceof this office. First,' the hours of the studentgynecology clinic, long the subject of complaint,have finally been expanded from two to threehalf-day sessions each week, with appointmentsset aside at each session for emergencies. The lagtime between phone call and appointment has beencut from six to four weeks , and the clinic's manageris attempting to cut this further. Second, wall posters were obtained for the expanded RegensteinLibrary canteen after a number of student complaints about its barrenness, and the issue ofsoundproofing for the canteen is being explored bythe library at our request.The libraries were the focus of our first majorcontroversy this year. In September the newgraduate Committee for Public Policy Study OMBUDSMAN APPOINTEDFOR 1976-77 TERMVirginia Blanford, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of English, has been appointed studentombudsman for the 1976-77 term. She is the ninthstudent to hold the position since it was establishedin October 1968.The appointment was made by John T. Wilson,President of the University, upon the recommendation of a student-faculty committee of threestudents and three faculty members and the deanof students in the University.(CPPS) and the College computation center weremoved into the Wieboldt Reading Room in HarperLibrary, reducing the space for library use inWieboldt to about 40 percent of its original size.Students accustomed to using the comfortable andwell-lit Wieboldt complained to us and to HarperLibrary personnel. Some 150 students signed petitions protesting the decision to reassign the space.Our initial inquiries into the decision-making process left some questions unanswered, and Assistant Ombudsman Jonn Salovaara undertook an extensive investigation of the process by which College library space could be reassigned to anothergroup in the University. His report determined thatrepresentatives of all the involved parties had beenconsulted and had approved the decision (althoughthe Harper librarian had been consulted after thefact), but that their approval was based on a widelyheld misconception that all of Harper Library isused well under its capacity all the time. Since theCommittee on the Quality of Life at Regenstein(CQLR) last year recommended that efforts bemade to encourage fuller undergraduate use ofHarper, and our own observations indicated thatWieboldt, because of its good light and climatecontrol, was the most consistently attractive of theHarper reading rooms, we find it unfortunate thatthis particular space was relinquished for otheractivities.This office made several recommendations tothe Office of the President as a result of our investigation. We acknowledged the obvious need of theCPPS for space. We also acknowledged, since renovations in Wieboldt had already begun, that theassignment of that particular space was an accomplished fact. We urged, however, that the WieboldtREPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 1976nspace be returned to library use at the end of itstwo-year "temporary" assignment to the CPPSand that other space be found for the committee atthat time. We also suggested that the recommendations of the CQLR for improved lighting andclimate control in the rest of Harper Library beeffected as soon as possible in an attempt to accommodate Wieboldt habitues in other parts of thelibrary which are at present substantially less comfortable. A Plant Department study is under way todetermine lighting alternatives, but the rising costof energy seems to prohibit efforts at this time toimprove climate control in the large reading rooms.On a more general level, we hope that future spacedecisions of this magnitude are made on the basisof full investigations of alternatives and do not putundue weight on hearsay evidence.We also received a number of complaints this fallabout lengthy delays in processing loans. Loandelays seem to result primarily from two problems:confusion over the need for a GAPSFAS form (thebasic financial information form now required forvirtually all federally administered loans) and incomplete applications of one sort or another. Inseveral cases, students have been misinformedabout the need for a GAPSFAS or have not beeninformed for several months that an application isnot complete. A good rule of thumb for studentsapplying for loans is to request a GAPSFAS formunder all circumstances.When students have come to us with tales oflengthy processing delays, we have been able, forthe most part, to shake loans loose — but not beforestudents have gone weeks or, as in one case,months assuming (with assurance from the LoanOffice) that a loan would be forthcoming "anyday." Constantly changing federal guidelines andholdups in Washington, where all federally insuredloans must be approved, explain some delays, but asignificant part of the responsibility for loan delaysmust be assumed by the Loan Office here. TheLoan Office must attempt to move applicationsmore quickly off desks and into processing andmust make some systematic effort to notify students more quickly when additional information isneeded.We also confronted delays in the handling ofwork-study applications. Much of the difficultythis year was with "one-shot" problems: newstaff, new and inevitably more complex federalguidelines, an increased eligibility pool due to anunexpected increase in the funds available. Particularly for graduate students, the number of offices involved in the application process for work-study funds (divisional deans of students, the Loan Office, the work-study coordinator) caused confusion and delays. We have been assured, however,that the various offices are working to coordinatetheir responsibilities in order to expedite work-study job assignments.In mid-November we received a number ofcomplaints from students whose registration forthe winter quarter had been restricted because oflate tuition payments. Given the situation we uncovered, I am amazed that we didn't receive more.Some 1,300 undergraduates and 300 graduate students received notices of restriction, although allbut about 300 had in fact paid or made arrangements to pay autumn tuition before the noticeswere mailed. As a result, lines stretched from theBursar's Office into the Administration Buildinglobby, and most students spent a half hour or morein line (during the last week of the quarter whenstudents' time is most precious) only to be told,when they reached the front, that the restrictionhad already been lifted. Students who brought thisto our attention had already straightened out theirown situations but wanted to make known theirfrustration with the system. As a result of manycomplaints to the bursar — ours among others — theDean of Students' Committee on Registration andthe Bursar's Office are reassessing the entire matter of restricting registrations and hope to have amore appropriate response to late tuition paymentsby next registration period.Finally, this fall we confronted the problem ofdivisional and departmental responsibility tograduate students. Graduate and professionalschool students, of course, make up some two-thirds of the student population at Chicago. Rules,policies, and routes of appeal are all rather clearlyspelled out for undergraduates (who also have theCollege advisers available to guide them throughthe labyrinth of requirements), but graduate students often seem left to meander along their ownpaths. In one instance, a Ph.D. candidate beganconsulting this office well over a year ago when itseemed clear to him that he was not receiving appropriate guidance from his dissertation adviserand committee. He even suspected that hostileattitudes towards his work within his departmentmight prevent him from obtaining a degree. Thisoffice made a number of contacts with the department and division involved and, when the studentin fact was not recommended for the Ph.D. afterdefending his dissertation, initiated an investigation of the department's behavior toward the student over the past several years. The student andhis department are now outlining specific supplemental work which he will undertake, with much12closer attention from his advisers, in order onceagain to defend his research for the Ph.D.A second student in another division was accepted into the Ph.D. program but was terminatedafter failing his preliminary exams. The studentargued, however, that the written regulations of hisdepartment required only grades of 70 on each ofthe three prelims — which he had obtained — inorder to pass. An unwritten rule of the department,we were told on investigation, required an averageof 72 on the three exams. We aided the student inseveral appeals, to no avail. We learned in thecourse of this that the department in fact had spentmany hours debating this case and no doubt hadfulfilled its responsibilities to the student. But theproblem remains that the student lacked clear written guidelines explaining what was expected ofhim; the available written guidelines were misleading.In another instance, a student who had failed herprelims twice and had been terminated from herPh.D. work came to us, not to appeal her termination, but simply to record her complaint: four successive advisers had left the University, yet at notime had her department provided advice or guidance to help her find an adviser outside her department or to refocus her dissertation so thatsomeone still available in the department mightfunction as a reader. She felt her failures on theprelims resulted from the time and energy she hadhad to expend tracking down new dissertation advisers every few months.A fourth student left residency convinced that hehad completed the requirements for an M. A. degree, only to be told that he lacked an elective andeither would have to return to Chicago or take asuitable course at another university. The studentcontended that he had fulfilled the written requirements of the program. When we inquired, thedepartment responded that a course the studentwas counting as a required elective was "never"counted that way — although nothing in the departmental bulletin suggested that. At our request,the department is rechecking the student's recordin an effort to award him the M.A. degree on thebasis of courses already taken.Finally, a student informed us that she had had towait some six months for the results of her preliminary exams — well into another academic year — sothat termination from her Ph.D. program at thatpoint meant an entire year was lost to her in pursuing a degree elsewhere; and still another studentappealed for help when she was refused admittanceto a Ph.D. program despite outstanding grades asan M.A. student. The department's response in this case: the faculty of the department had discussed the student's work several times in full sessions and had concluded that the grades did notaccurately reflect the teachers' judgment of thestudent's intellectual abilities. Grades wereawarded, in other words, for effort rather thanquality.All these cases are different, but each reflects abasic question about the quasi-contract enteredinto by the student and the University when astudent is accepted for graduate work. Each demonstrates the lack of real guidelines of responsibility for either student or department in the graduatedivisions. We are, of course, reluctant to recommend that the relationship between student anddepartment be formalized to the point that departments lose their flexibility to admit or keep onstudents whose work on exams does not reflecttheir real ability. On the other hand, we feel a needfor somewhat more formal guidelines — or at leastclearer ones — than now exist. We suggest thateach department has the responsibility to makesure that what is written down about its programscoincides with fact. We suggest that each department has the responsibility to inform studentswhen they enter a degree program of the precisepoints at which and reasons for which they may beterminated from the program, and thereafter toinform them promptly and clearly of the results ofpapers and examinations. We suggest that eachdepartment has the responsibility to inform students whose work is inadequate promptly andspecifically of the department's misgivings, ratherthan assume that a student will discover his ownproblems when members of the faculty refuse towork with him or when he senses hostile attitudestowards his work within the department. Wesuggest that each department has the responsibilityto provide each degree candidate with an adviserwho can fully and appropriately guide his research,or to inform the student promptly that his project isnot within the competence of the department andthat he would be better off elsewhere. Finally, wesuggest that each department has the responsibilityto assess a student's work honestly, both by meansof grades that accurately reflect teachers' opinionsand by means of frequent conferences betweenstudent and adviser, so a student will not be misledabout departmental opinion of the quality of thatwork.Six students out of 5,000 does not, on the face ofit, constitute a major problem. But six studentsbringing similar problems to the Office of the Ombudsman in one quartern a substantial number andmay be said to reflect a problem of larger dimen-13sions within the student population as a whole.With the help of the divisional deans of students,we hope to work out some recommendations forwritten guidelines.On the whole, autumn quarter 1976 was not anextremely busy time for the ombudsman's office.I hope this reflects the University population'sgrowing familiarity with the University bureaucracy, or perhaps more efficient functioning of"the proper channels." It would be ideal, ofcourse, if students could be familiarized to such anTHE 361ST CONVOCATION ADDRESS:By Edgar G. EppsDecember 10, 1976Convocation is a very pleasant ceremony becauseit involves the recognition of accomplishment. Thegraduates and their friends and relatives come together to participate in this rite of passage duringwhich the University gives formal acknowledgment to the graduates for completion of this phaseof their education. It is also traditional on suchoccasions for the speaker to point out that theceremony represents both an end and a beginning.Most of you have long careers ahead of you; mostof you have many years of service to render; andfor most of you education will continue to be animportant part of your lives long after you leavethis institution. Indeed, if this institution hasserved you well, it has whetted your appetite forlearning to such an extent that you are hooked forlife.My colleagues continually remind me that this isa great university. The greatness is attributed to thequality of the research and scholarship producedby its faculty and students. It is expected thatgraduates of this institution will have developed ahealthy respect for inquiry, curiosity about thecore problems in their respective fields, and acapacity for critical analysis that can be applied towhatever endeavors they undertake after leavingthe University or the College. Research is respected both for its intrinsic value and for its potential contributions to the solutions of human problems. While the University tends to emphasize theimportance of research as a means of seeking answers to fundamental questions about the nature of extent with the workings of the faculty and administration that the route of complaint or appealwas always obvious and always worked. It wouldbe ideal if we could cause student, faculty, administration and staff to be constantly sensitive to oneanother's problems. The constantly changingstudent body, however, makes that ideal an impossibility; it seems unlikely that the ombudsman's office will ever be entirely without work.Virginia L. Blanfordthe universe, the general public is more concernedabout the application of research results to thesolution of current social problems. This addresswill focus on some of the problems encounteredwhen attempts are made to use research to informsocial policy. For those of you who may ask whythis should be of concern to a graduation class, Iwould reply that among these graduates there arepersons who will make valuable contributions toresearch during their careers and there are personswho will be actively engaged in the policy-makingprocess at levels that will affect the lives of largenumbers of people. Of course, some of ourgraduates will perform in both roles. I hope theywill approach these roles with an attitude of questioning which will help them to avoid some of themore glaring errors of current attempts to use research to inform social policy.Research and social policy seem to be based onassumptions that are to a large degree incompatible. The researcher is dedicated to seeking increasingly accurate answers to increasingly complexquestions (or increasingly complex answers to increasingly simple questions); the policy maker isinterested in using research results to justify past orfuture decisions. While few people are taken in bythe myth of complete objectivity in scientific research in these skeptical times, objectivity continues to be the ideal of the scientist and serves asthe justification for taking research results seriously. Even if we concern ourselves with only thatresearch which is conducted in the best scientifictraditions, we must acknowledge that values areRESEARCH AND SOCIAL POLICY14involved throughout the research process: in theselection of a problem for study, in the design of theresearch methods, in the interpretation of the results, and in the selection of a medium throughwhich to communicate the results to colleaguesand the public. While researchers, in the pursuit ofobjectivity, may fail to recognize the impact oftheir own values upon their work, policy makers,in the pursuit of political goals, are likely to be verymuch concerned with the relationship of researchresults to value positions that may affect their political fortunes. If we pursue this discussion farenough, we might conclude that scientists andpoliticians make strange bedfellows.However, by starting with a different set of assumptions, we could conclude that the whole scientific enterprise is inherently political. This line ofinquiry would begin with questions about the selection processes involved in determining who becomes a scientist, who is excluded from the process, and whose interests are served by the screening process. We might follow with questions aboutthe reward systems of universities and researchinstitutes and the effect these have upon tenuredecisions and the allocation of resources. Wemight conclude by observing that the communityof scientists in America does not reflect the socialcomposition of the pluralistic society in which welive, that this results in the virtual exclusion of thecultural experiences and resulting values of somegroups from the research enterprise. To the extentthat this perception is correct the whole enterpriseis biased. And to that same extent the integrity ofscientific research is compromised.One source of incompatibility betweenresearchers and policy makers lies in the fact thatresearchers usually come to their work with a set ofquestions geared to furthering understanding in aparticular field of specialization, while policy makers are seeking solutions to problems they are currently facing. The researchers' questions in thiscase are not designed to answer the questionsposed by the policy maker. Unfortunately, policymakers, in their search for information to supportspecific policies, utilize whatever results are available, frequently taken out of context and used forpurposes for which they were never intended.Equally unfortunate is the tendency for researchers to be seduced by the publicity that oftenadheres to the use of their work by politicians. Theresearcher turned advocate frequently goes far beyond acceptable limits in his interpretations of research results and sometimes reaches conclusionstotally unsupported by his data. I might add thatsome advocates go outside their own fields of com petence and become pseudoscientific experts onmatters about which they have little knowledgeand less understanding.By way of illustration, I will refer briefly to a fewproblems that are currently troubling policy makers and discuss the kinds of answers researchersare providing. For example, in the field of education we might ask: What are the effects of schooldesegregation on children's cognitive and socialdevelopment? How effective is bilingual-biculturaleducation compared to other approaches for children whose first language is not English? We mightalso ask what research can tell us about methods ofreducing violence in schools, lowering dropoutrates, or improving the quality of teaching. In eachinstance, the quality of answers provided by researchers is unsatisfactory for policy-making purposes. A University of Chicago professor mayreach one conclusion about the impact of desegregation, for example, while an equally renownedHarvard professor reaches the opposite conclusion. What accounts for these differences? Different research methods or analytic strategies? Different value positions? A combination of these?Obviously a combination of factors is involved. Tosome extent the problem is intrinsic to social science research because the conditions under whichresearch is undertaken do not lend themselves toneat experimental designs. This makes it difficultto untangle cause and effect relationships and frequently precludes the kind of replication that helpsto make researchers in other fields cautious aboutreporting marginal research results. In the socialsciences we are sometimes faced with the situationin which a generalization based upon the results ofa single study of a restricted sample becomeswidely accepted because it is repeatedly cited inthe literature until it takes on the force of conventional wisdom. It may influence subsequent research for years before someone takes the time andeffort to examine the study carefully and point outits limitations.These problems are not limited to social scienceresearch. Many of you are familiar with the controversy over the harmfulness of marijuana. Someresearchers have proclaimed that the drug causesharmful effects ranging from brain damage to birthdefects. Other researchers have been equally convinced that marijuana smoking is no more harmfulthan tobacco smoking. Again the conflicting research reports can be attributed to differences inresearch methods, inability to experiment withhumans , and the influence of personal values in theinterpretation of research results. My last exampleis taken from the recent concern for environmental15safety. Whether one is concerned with the impactof auto emissions on the quality of the air webreathe, the effect of wastes from industrial plantson the marine life in bodies of water, or the dangerof nuclear plants to all forms of life, one can findresearchers to support vastly different policies. Insome areas the problem is less how much is knownabout the basic processes involved, than howmuch is known about the various types of costsinvolved. Invariably, there is a tendency to interpret research to fill value positions when the information is inadequate for the purposes to which it isapplied.All of these limitations suggest that attentionmust be paid to the uncritical use of research bypolicy makers. I am advocating a type of skepticism which asks questions about research sponsorship as well as who benefits from the results ofresearch. Both the quality of the research and theappropriateness of the research for the purposesunder consideration should be subjected to carefulscrutiny before it is used for making policy.In conclusion, it appears that much research andsocial policy are to some extent incompatible at thepresent time. I mean by this that frequently research, because of inadequacies of measurementtechniques, or flaws in research design, or inadequate conceptualization of problems, or biasesin interpretation of results, cannot provide simplestraightforward answers to practical questions.Thus, practitioners are faced with conflicting results, or competing expert witnesses or consultants, and, therefore, cannot depend upon researchor researchers to lend unequivocal support to positions for or against a particular policy. On the otherhand, policy makers may ignore even the strongestresearch results when they feel that it is expedientto go in another direction. Therefore, while it isappropriate to appeal for better quality research sothat practitioners may have more faith in science, itis also appropriate to recognize that social andpolitical values and relative power positions willdetermine how even the best research results areused.David Cohen, in a presentation at a recent conference on social research and social policy sponsored by the Desegregation Research Unit of theNational Institute of Education, pointed out aninteresting paradox. Many people are not awarethat better research design and statistical analysiswill increase, rather than decrease, the amount ofdisagreement among researchers. As techniquesimprove, the questions and issues become increasingly complex and opportunities for second guessing and reanalyses increase exponentially. Thus, reanalysis is likely to become a real growth industry. As a consequence, the lack of agreementamong social researchers on major policy issues isnot likely to be resolved in the near future.Edgar G. Epps is the Marshall Field IV Professorin the Department of Education.SUMMARY OF THE 361 STCONVOCATIONThe 361st Convocation was held Friday, December 10, 1976, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, President of the University, presided.A total of 382 degrees were awarded: 39Bachelor of Arts, 34 Master of Arts in the Divisionof the Humanities, 63 Master of Arts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 14 Master of Arts in theDivinity School, 13 Master of Arts in the GraduateLibrary School, 1 Master of Arts in the School ofSocial Service Administration, 2 Master of Arts inTeaching, 9 Master of Science in Teaching, 1 Master of Fine Arts, 9 Master of Science in the Divisionof the Biological Sciences and The Pritzker Schoolof Medicine, 13 Master of Science in the Divisionof the Physical Sciences, 90 Master of BusinessAdministration, 1 Doctor of Medicine, and 103Doctor of Philosophy.Five honorary degrees were conferred duringthe 361st Convocation. Recipients of Doctor ofHumane Letters degrees were Hugh Kenner,Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities atThe Johns Hopkins University; and Arnaldo D.Momigliano, Professor of All Souls College at Oxford University, Grote Professor Emeritus of Ancient History at University College in London,Professor of the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa,and Alexander White Visiting Professor in the Departments of Classical Languages and Literaturesand History and in the Committee on SocialThought at The University of Chicago. Doctor ofScience degrees were awarded to Sydney Brenner,a member of the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology at Cambridge,England; and Kenneth Geddes Wilson, Professorof Physics at Cornell University. Gaylord Donnelley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of TheUniversity of Chicago from 1970 to 1976, receivedthe degree of Doctor of Laws.Edgar G. Epps, Marshall Field IV Professor inthe Department of Education, delivered the principal convocation address, entitled "Research andSocial Policy."16THE 57TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by John T. Wilson"TELEGRAPH STAGG FOR PLANS"January 12, 1977Having recently, in the State of the Universitymessage, reviewed for the faculty the seriousacademic problems confronting the University, Idecided that this evening I would exercise my prerogative and turn, with some sense of relief, toanother aspect of University life — nonacademic,but not unimportant.Last spring quarter, when it was necessary toconsider future directions for physical educationand athletics within the University, I recalled frommy browsings through the archives an entry in oneof Mr. Harper's "Redbooks" (Redbook II):"Telegraph Stagg for plans." The memory of thiscryptic note stimulated me to return to the archivesin search of new perspectives on the problem.I found myself fascinated by both the individualsand the events in this aspect of the University'shistory. Now, I realize that presidents of this University do not often address the faculty on thesubject of athletics — although both Mr. Judson andMr, Hutchins found it useful to do so at differenttimes and for different reasons. Knowing the nature of this audience, I nevertheless decided to takethe risk. I also count on the fact that, at least amongsome of you, I will be viewed as being in respectable company, having long shared the view expressed in Plato's Republic that physical educationis an important component of general education,and indeed the good life. Moreover, this has been ayear in which the problems of physical educationand athletic programs and facilities have been ofmore than ordinary concern within the Universityand among many of its friends.President Harper's appointment of AmosAlonzo Stagg as chairman of the Department ofPhysical Culture and Athletics reflected one,among many, of his remarkable conceptions ofhow things ought to be in the University. It was thefirst time that the head of such a department hadbeen accorded not only a faculty rank, but tenure,in an American university. Harper felt strongly that the physical educationand athletic program should have a close relationship to the educational goals of the University. Inone of his early convocation addresses he pointedout that:Under the proper restrictions it is a real and essentialpart of the college education. The athletic field, likethe gymnasium, is one of the University laboratoriesand by no means the least important one. ... It maynot be denied that evils arise in connection with thework, but this is the fault of the management, not ofthe work itself. (Convocation address, 1896)As chairman of the Department of Physical Culture and Athletics, Mr. Stagg reported directly tothe president. In some respects he appears to havefunctioned in a somewhat privileged manner.There is, for example, the following letter to President Harper from Mr. Stagg (March 24, 1896),which will turn all chairmen present here tonightgreen with envy:President Harper:I understand that I am not to be hampered in anyway in my work through this arrangement of finances;that Major Rust [Henry A. Rust, the comptroller] isnot to request reasons why this or that expenditure;that I am not compelled to explain to him for whatpurpose certain money is to be used; that I am to putmy own interpretation upon "extraordinary bills"and am not to be called to account by him for thesame; that so far as Major Rust is concerned, mypresentation of statements and vouchers for moneyreceived and spent by me is sufficient.Sincerely,A. A. StaggThe Department of Physical Culture and Athletics was organized (October 1, 1892) with Staggas director and associate professor. There werefour additional staff, including Dr. Alice Foster,who was in charge of, as Stagg put it, "the women's work." The activities of the departmentwere governed by one of the first four statutoryboards to be created by the Trustees, the Board ofPhysical Culture and Athletics.From the beginning of the University, compulsory physical training was a requirement for gradu-17ation. Ten quarters work was originally requiredunless "excused on account of disability or othersufficient reason." There were difficulties in theenforcement of the requirements, and the annualreport of the director for 1897 notes that "... ithas been necessary in three or four cases, to havestudents remain in residence after their other University work was completed" in order to earn theirphysical education credits.The record of the "women's work" during thefirst five years is sketchy. However, with the appearance in 1897 of the incomparable Miss Gertrude Dudley as an instructor in the department,matters quickly were better organized. The Dudleyprogram for women was built around three"branches": gymnastics, corrective work, andteam and individual athletics per se. In the firsttwo, the women's program was much like themen's, but in athletics there was a difference. Athletic activity for women was considered muchmore a health-giving and recreational function incontrast to the competitive, character-buildingfunctions assumed for men. "Teams" representedvarious classes and they played each other. Later,games between houses were instituted and, in thisrespect, the University has the women to thank fortwo important developments in its structure andfunction: the development of the house system andthe initiation of intramural competition in sports.Competitive team activities in various sportsheld a special value for both Mr. Harper and Mr.Stagg. Before accepting the appointment that hadbeen offered him, Stagg had felt some doubt aboutMr. Harper's attitude toward athletic activities,fearing that the high intellectual standards being setfor undergraduate work would lead to an underem-phasis on intercollegiate competition in favor of aphysical education program only. But when he putthe question of intercollegiate athletics to President Harper, the reply was: "I am most heartily infavor of them [athletics]. I want you to developteams which we can send around the country andknock out all the colleges. We will give them apalace car and a vacation too." Stagg notes:"These words made me very happy." (Extractsfrom letter written by A. A. Stagg to his family,January 20, 1891)Harper and Stagg found themselves in closeagreement regarding what they hoped to accomplish and how they were going to do it. Both viewedathletics as being important in the development ofthe University, as well as being inherently the highroad to character building for the individual participant.Winning athletic teams, while promoting the ex ternal image of the University, also had a significant impact on the student body. Mr. Stagg personally controlled the awards of the University ofChicago emblem, the "C," to those athletes whowere judged by him to combine outstanding performance with those personal qualities that he desired to encourage. Athletes quickly came toachieve prominent status on campus and were regularly chosen to be class presidents, leaders of thewings at formal dances, and fraternity officers.But despite the emphasis on character buildingand adherence to high principles, trouble wasahead. In response to an attack on western intercollegiate football which appeared in a nationalpublication after the 1905 season (Outing Magazine) and which mentioned The University ofChicago unfavorably, the University Senate tookup the question of intercollegiate athletics. Thereport which it finally adopted described the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust obtainingwithin and among the conference schools, whichwere, in effect, supposed to police themselves withrespect to conference rules. The Senate reportfurther stated that "intercollegiate football, if notall intercollegiate contests, should be discontinuedfor a term of years."At two special meetings of the conference held inearly 1906, Chicago's delegates (Acting PresidentJudson at the first and Dean Albion Small of theGraduate School of Arts and Literature at the second) arrived with instructions to press for the suspension of intercollegiate football. Eventually,however, the faculty acquiesced in the conferenceproposals to reform rather than to discontinue thegame. The details of the proposed reforms are lessimportant here than is the fact that an externalagency was introduced into a position to influencepolicy making within the University — namely, theWestern Intercollegiate Conference.There appears to have been relatively little presidential or faculty direction of physical educationand athletic practices within the University between the Harper and the Hutchins years, althougheach of the presidents from time to time gave voiceto the University's ideals in athletics.The fact is that Mr. Stagg' s was the dominantpersonality in all phases of athletics during theseyears. Perhaps the clearest index to his influenceand status was the number of direct appeals hemade to the Trustees when he felt that the Senateor other faculty bodies were bent upon interferingin his programs. The Judson years particularlywere marked by serious problems: recruitment ofplayers in ways that bent both University and conference regulations; scalping of tickets; special18favors to players during team travel; professionalplaying under assumed names; and drinking andgambling at games. Administrative actions andpersonal appeals to the fraternities by Mr. Stagg tocorrect their evil ways were only partially successful.The conference reforms of 1906, while havingsome salutary effects on intercollegiate athletics,were not able to withstand a continuing erosion ofamateur standards. Mr. Stagg' s annual report for1921 notes that recent developments in the ethicsof sports in western universities were rivalled onlyby the epochal happenings of 1906. During theyear:The disbarment of certain western football stars onaccount of playing in postseason professional footballgames, together with the increase of professional basketball, brought the issue between professional andamateur sport to a head. . . . After the developmentsof the autumn and winter of 1921-22, the directors ofathletics in the conference voiced their allegiance tothe amateur principle by the appointment of John L.Griffith as commissioner of athletics.The lesson to be learned from all of this seems tobe that if you are unable to control institutionalpolicies within the University, join a group. If thatalso fails, hire a "front man" to whom responsibility may be delegated. That way, if things go wrong,there is at least someone who may clearly beblamed.The Burton years showed a subtle shift in athletic policy. Though intercollegiate competitionremained the most visible part.of the program, thedepartment began to move towards a policy ofathletics for all students.The presidency of Mr. Mason coincided with asharp decline in the University's football fortunes.In fact, after 1925, Chicago was no longer a conference contender in any of the major intercollegiatesports. The declining fortunes spawned a variety ofproblems. As did Mr. Judson and Mr. Burton before him, President Mason discovered what atwo-edged sword excessive alumni identificationwith athletic teams can be.There had been a small alumni reaction after abad basketball season in 1921 . By 1928, the generaldecline in athletic performance had generated amajor alumni uprising, triggered by disastrousfootball seasons in 1926, 1927, and 1928. TheChicago Alumni Club, a sports-minded organization (not to be confused with the Chicago chapterof the College Alumni Association) appointed acommittee to investigate both athletics and Collegestudent life in general. This group got up a provocative questionnaire, stimulated considerable ill feelings, and promoted its own candidate to succeed Mr. Mason as president.But the Trustees had other ideas and appointedMr. Hutchins. Football continued its slide, interrupted only by the remarkable Jay Berwanger'sthree years on the team. Meanwhile, a variety offactors inside and outside the University, includingthe Great Depression, were having their effect. In1939, the Trustees voted to discontinue participation in intercollegiate football. This, in turn, ledeventually to Chicago's withdrawal in 1946 fromthe Western Conference.In the Hutchins period, athletics were to becomea means of recreation, not of character building.This gradually became clear when, in 1933, with adegree of drama and turmoil befitting one who hadachieved the status of a national folk hero, Mr.Stagg retired to be succeeded by T. Nelson Metcalfas athletic director and chairman of the department.Physical education classes became optional.Their purpose, it was explained, was to teach students useful recreational activities, but it was up tothem to recognize the value of the classes. Sportsemphasized were tennis, golf, ice skating, andbowling — activities that would be of continuingvalue in later life. Mr. Metcalf and his staff continued to be faculty members, but the name of thedepartment was changed to the Office of PhysicalEducation and its director now reported to thedean of students. The Board of Physical Cultureand Athletics was dissolved and replaced by aBoard on the Coordination of Student Interests.This board was responsible for the intramuralfunctions of the Office of Physical Education.Course requirements became the responsibility ofthe Division of the Biological Sciences.In 1941, because of a state of Illinois legal requirement, compulsory physical education wasreinstated for early entrants to the College. In 1946,this action was extended to encompass all undergraduates. In 1947-48, two additional changeswere made. First, all physical education and athletic functions — teaching, intercollegiate, intramural, and recreational — were made part of theresponsibilities of the University dean of students.Second, the chairman of the men's division and thechairman of the women's division of what was nowthe Department of Physical Education, were mademembers, ex officio, of the College faculty. TheBoard on the Coordination of Student Interestsseems to have faded away about this time.The Hutchins-Metcalf plan extended to intercollegiate athletics, the primary features of the planbeing that:19Each sport be so conducted as to assure that thestudents devote only as much time and effort to athletics as is beneficial to their general welfare . . . [and]In each sport an endeavor be made to find a level ofcompetition in which teams meet other teams of itsown calibre. An ideal schedule was considered to beone in which there were evenly matched competitionand the team won approximately as many contests asit lost.(T. N. Metcalf, "Athletics at The University ofChicago")However, things did not work out well with theHutchins-Metcalf plan and, in 1955, Mr. Kimptonmade a series of proposals for change. The proposals argued that a strong — and visible —intercollegiate athletic program would help boththe tone of the College and its public image, whichwere then thought to be responsible for sharplydeclining enrollments.But in early 1956 the faculty voted not to resumeintercollegiate football. Paradoxically that sameyear, Walter Hass, who had been both athleticdirector and football coach at Carleton College,succeeded Nelson Metcalf. He had, for the moment, no football team to coach at Chicago, but hemade it clear from the start that he would like tohave one.The new program under Mr. Hass, while continuing physical education and recreational sports,included several significant departures from priorintercollegiate athletic policies. First of all, thebasketball team, under the coaching leadership ofJoseph Stampf, a former Maroon star, began torange beyond the confines of the Chicago area.There was also a renewed emphasis on competitionand on recognition, especially through participation in postseason tournaments.Other elements were added to the programwhich departed from policies and practices underthe Hutchins-Metcalf plan. Most important werethe Stagg Scholarships for men, joined later by theDudley Scholarships for women. Thesescholarships were patterned on the RhodesScholarships, with no requirement for participation in University athletics. A second importantchange was in keeping with the University's concern that fun be had — and be seen to be had — by itsCollege students. This was the revival of the tradition of the World's Largest Drum, reincarnated inthe form of the World's Largest Kazoo.The decision to construct the Regenstein Library on Stagg Field and the fading, over the years,of various controversies of the Hutchins era madefootball considerably less controversial. In 1957, seemingly with the tacit approval of all concerned,the University joined a national football club organization and listed the team from Mr. Hass'sfootball "class" as a club, although it was handledin the same way as other varsity sports. In 1966-67and again in 1967-68, Student Governmentadopted resolutions proposing that football betreated as a varsity sport. The Maroon followed upthe second of these resolutions with an editorial tothe same effect and, indeed, began treating footballas a varsity sport in its printed schedules of athleticevents.The student members of the newly-createdFaculty-Student Advisory Committee ori CampusStudent Life (FSACCSL) were consulted by thedean of students in the fall of 1968 about returningfootball to varsity status. They indicated no concern with the issue as an issue, saw no problem inreturning football to varsity status, and — like SGand the Maroon — argued simply that a student whoplays the sport has a "right" to recognition (i.e., avarsity letter) equal to that given students in othersports.Thus, by 1969 the value of the symbol, "no football at Chicago," was much attenuated. That year agroup of students appeared before the Committeeof the Council (April 1 , 1969) with a petition bearingsome 1 ,000 student signatures asking that footballbe made a varsity sport at the University. TheCommittee of the Council approved a proposal bythe dean of students to that effect. The Council ofthe University Senate approved the move unanimously. The academic deans also approved it andthe Committee of the College Council gave itunanimous support.And so, on April 2 1 , 1969 — the centennial year ofAmerican football, and some 30 years after it hadbeen discontinued at the University — the Trusteesapproved the awarding of varsity letters to University students who played football.Informal relationships have existed between theUniversity and the Midwest Collegiate AthleticConference since 1950 when the University hostedthe Midwest Conference's first indoor track meet.It was not until 1973, however, that the commissioner of the conference and the director of athletics at Carleton College, representing the conference, visited Chicago and met with representativesof the College faculty, the Department of PhysicalEducation (Men and Women), and the dean ofstudents to express official interest in having theUniversity join the group.Finally, in May 1975, the faculty representativesof the conference extended an official invitation tothe University. In October of that year, after ap-20propriate consultation with the undergraduateOrder of the "C", the College Executive Committee, the Committee of the Council, and the FacultyAdvisory Committee on Athletics, President Levirecommended and the Trustees approved the University' s joining the MCAC on a two-year trialbasis, effective with the 1976-77 school year. TheMCAC at present has no formal conference arrangement for women's sports.The trial period was decided upon because ofseveral differences in practice between the University and the conference schools. They are threein number: the Stagg Scholarships, which we sayare not athletic scholarships in any usual sense inwhich that term is used; the conference's transferregulation, which forbids transfer students to participate in varsity sports during the first year afterthey transfer; and a conference regulation thatmembers of the athletic department faculty notvisit secondary schools. Sometime before the endof the two-year trial period, the differing conceptsof "amateurism" as seen by the conference and aspracticed by the University will be discussed and amoment of truth again will be faced by the University.With the revival of interest in athletics and recreational sports, the need seemed clear for a governing structure that would have direct ties withthe University faculty, even as the Department ofPhysical Education and Athletics remained administratively under the Office of the University Deanof Students. Consequently, on the basis of a recommendation of a faculty committee which wasestablished to review the University's programs inathletics and with the concurrence of the (then)Department of Physical Education for Men and forWomen, the Committee of the Council, and theCouncil of the University Senate, the Trustees established, in June of last year, a new Universitygoverning board: the Board of Athletics and Recreational Sports. It replaces an ad hoc facultycommittee appointed by the provost which hadserved effectively as a board since 1970.Last year also saw the retirement of Mr. Hass, the University's third Director of Athletics since1892, and the appointment of the second Mr. Metcalf as Assistant Dean of Students and Director ofAthletics. In addition, acting upon faculty and administrative recommendation, the Board of Trustees established, effective July 1, 1976, a singleDepartment of Physical Education and Athletics.The merged department, chained by Miss MaryJean Mulvaney, formerly chairman of the women's division, encompasses men's and women'sintramurals, recreational sports, the required physical education program, and varsity athletics.As I said at the beginning, it may seem odd that ina University dedicated to the highest standards ofscholarship and in a year which has seen usawarded two Nobel prizes, one should be discussing on this, or for that matter any occasion, physical education and athletics. But the history of thesubject, in even as brief a form as I have been ableto outline tonight, indicates that it, like the Collegecurriculum, can be taken so seriously as to lead toundesirable ends. Under such circumstances, athletic programs tend to develop a functional autonomy, leading to lives of their own, frequently ina Frankenstein-like form. That seems to me to bethe case among many universities today and particularly in the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The actions that have been taken withinthe University this year are directed toward developing and maintaining an appropriate perspective on physical education, intercollegiate, andrecreational sports programs. They are intended tomeet the particular needs and standards of TheUniversity of Chicago. Whether they satisfy anyother place or any other body is not a relevantquestion. If we keep that in mind, I believe we cangenerate and sustain activities that, without intruding upon our academic selves, will stimulate asense of participation and enjoyment and thus enhance the total life of the University.John T. Wilson is President of The University ofChicago and Professor in the Department of Education.21THE 57TH ANNUAL BOARDFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by STANFORD GOLDBLATTJanuary 12, 1977It is with great delight and not a little fear that Iapproach the task of speaking to you tonight. It isan honor and a challenge, to say the least, to sharethe platform with such distinguished speakers.It is fascinating to trace the development of therole of The University of Chicago in governmentalpolitics. In the early years it sought no role, andnone was forced upon it. It received the greatestgift which government can give to an independentcenter of higher learning and research — it was leftalone.The scientists who participated in the ManhattanProject sensed a new era after the war. From thispodium in 1947, Professor Hogness eloquently toldof a number of faculty members who fought hardand successfully to insure that peacetime atomicenergy would be placed under the control of acivilian agency.From that time on, federal programs to fundresearch at private institutions have plunged theUniversity into the active politics of seeking andmaintaining governmental grants. The whole of ourrelationship with the Argonne National Laboratory could provide a graduate course in federaladministrative politics. Federal laws and initiativeson the prevention of illegal discrimination, on theprivacy of academic records, on medical care forthe aged arid the poor, have drawn the Universityevery day closer into federal politics.At the state level, activity also continues togrow. The new era began with the much celebratedconfrontation between Robert Hutchins and theinfamous Broyles Commission in 1949. It is saidthat Laird Bell, in counseling Hutchins prior to hisappearance to answer charges that the Universitywas teaching un-American subjects, suggested thatmembers of the Illinois State Senate might not takekindly to the famous Hutchins caustic wit. Belloffered Hutchins $50 for each sarcastic remark thatHutchins didn't make, payment to be made uponwritten proof. Hutchins was brilliant; the day wassaved. Bell's costs, if any, remain a mystery.Perhaps the most significant examples of political activity have been closer to home. The University has come to have an intimate relationship with TRUSTEES' DINNERthe city of Chicago and has often provided criticalintellectual resources to benefit the city.When Hyde Park became the first federal urbanrenewal area in 1954, The University of Chicago,under contract from the city, prepared the formalplan. Later, members of the University, acting onbehalf of the Association of American Universities, framed section 1 12 of the Federal Housing Actof 1959. This section provided that when a university spent money for campus expansion in accordance with an approved city plan, the city couldclaim federal matching funds as if the city had spentthe money on federally approved programs. Investments by the University for student housingand campus expansion in Hyde Park-Kenwoodand the creation of the south campus provided$42,000,000 in federal matching funds for the cityof Chicago at no cost to the city.The University of Chicago has been willing toprotect itself and its ideals when threatened, willing to become politically active when circumstances have made it necessary. It has been aneffective political force at the federal, the state, andthe local level. It now faces three major problemareas which require interaction with governmentwithin the universe of The Pritzker School ofMedicine and the Hospitals and Clinics. Unlesswe recognize the critical nature of these challengesand prepare for a proper and measured response,the future of at least this important part of ourUniversity is gravely threatened.Allow me to describe briefly these three formidable sets of problems. This is not the place nor amI the person to deal with any of them in depth. Thiscan only be a call to arms.First, at the federal level there is the spectre ofgovernment injecting itself into the core ofacademic freedom — the right to establish admissions policies and curriculum. In 1972 the federalgovernment developed a program of capitationpayments to medical schools to combat the perceived "doctor shortage." Under this stimulusseveral medical schools, ours included, increasedtheir size. Last year Congress passed the HealthProfessions Educational Assistance Act which,among other things, conditions eligibility for capitation on a most curious and disturbing basis.22Each year several hundred American collegegraduates, unable to secure admission in domesticmedical schools, enter medical schools abroad.Schools in Guadalajara, Dublin, and Heidelbergare popular choices. Upon graduation they aretreated as any other foreign medical graduate.They must pass a rigorous entrance exam to qualifyfor postgraduate education in U.S. hospitals.Many do not pass and, because at least one year ofpostgraduate study is required for a license inevery state, many of these students may not practice in this country.In accordance with regulations not yet published, every medical school's eligibility for capitation grants will be conditioned upon its reserving anumber of positions to be filled by transferringexpatriate students. These students apparentlymust be admitted without regard to their ability tofulfill the specific academic entrance requirementsof the individual medical school. Here is an example of the federal government seeking to implementan awkward solution to a perceived problem andblundering into the traditional domain of academicfreedom — the right to establish qualifications foradmissions.Another provision of the same law attempts togenerate more postgraduate training in "primarycare" areas: family care, pediatrics, and generalinternal medicine. Congress has determined thatduring the three years starting in 1977 the nation'smedical schools must provide 35, 40, and then 50percent of first-year residency programs in thesemedical areas. In a dazzling disregard for logic, thelaw provides that if all of the nation's medicalschools taken together do not meet this standard,then each medical school must do so individually tomaintain its eligibility for capitation grants. In thissituation, the federal government is using the capitation program with the open intention of restricting academic freedom to establish curriculum.As we measure our response to these threats toour independence, we must remember that weshall receive $328,000 in federal capitation grantsfor this academic year. The reduction from the1974-75 figure of $788,000 has resulted from reduced congressional appropriations. Yale, Stanford, and Indiana University have indicated thatthey will forfeit capitation support rather than surrender control over admissions and curriculum.The second area demanding our attention involves restrictions by the state of Illinois on thereimbursement for medical services provided towelfare patients. In 1965 the federal Medicaid lawprovided funding for medical care for welfare recipients but left the responsibilities for administra tion to the individual states. The states not onlydisburse money (about half of which they mustprovide themselves) but also determine the natureand range of the services for which they will reimburse.The cost of Medicaid was wildly underestimated. Much-heralded medical inflation has notbeen the only cause. The number of those eligiblefor welfare payments has grown beyond all expectations, particularly during the recent recession.Further, many states have been extremely generous in defining the services to be made available towelfare recipients and there is widespread indication of substantial overutilization of these services.Finally, levels of administrative efficiency in manystates have been very low.Some states have been more successful thanothers in handling the financial burdens ofMedicaid. Illinois has been among the worst. Thewelfare patient volume has been high, not onlybecause of a high concentration of urban poor, butalso because of broad and laxly defined standardsof eligibility. The administration of the programhas been noteworthy for its inefficiency and itsinability or unwillingness to purge wrongful andfraudulent practices.Faced with a shortage of money, the state hastaken drastic action. The level of cost reimbursement for all hospital services was frozen on October 6, 1975, by administrative order of the IllinoisDepartment of Public Aid. After much public fuss,the state has agreed to pay 70 percent of the costsnot reimbursed by reason of the freeze. Even withthis partial thaw, the draconian action by the statehas reduced our revenues for the fiscal year endedJune 30, 1976, by $360,000. The cost continues togrow. The most chilling aspect of this controversyis that the cost freeze was intended only as aninterim step. Its purpose was to provide time forthe state to create machinery to subject all aspectsof cost reimbursement to review for reasonableness and necessity. The prospect of the stateanalyzing operating efficiencies and even settingreimbursement rates now looms large. Severalstates are far along in the review and control ofexpenditures and the prospective establishment ofrates.In the cost reimbursement freeze we share theproblem with all hospitals serving welfare patients.We have one Medicaid problem uniquely our own:repayment for professional fees. We are the onlymedical center in Illinois with essentially all full-time doctors. The state has continuously maintained that the cost of all of our doctors' salaries isincluded in our room cost and has steadfastly re-23sisted repayment for professional fees. We havereceived nothing for professional services rendered through 1973. A lawsuit has been filed topreserve our claim for over $3,500,000 in feesbilled, but legal questions involving state immunityon such matters cast grave doubts on our chancesfor collection. Since 1974 we have been paid forprofessional fees on a compromise basis underwhich we receive 70 percent of fees arbitrarilyestablished by the Illinois Department of PublicAid. This compromise is costly to us, and the statecontinues to ignore the fact that we establish ourfees in accordance with what is usual, customary,and reasonable in our community, as required bythe federal legislation.We face the continuing prospect of providingmedical services to the welfare poor. Unless thestate can generate additional funds or more effectively control its Medicaid program, we also mustface the prospect of not being fully compensatedfor these services. "Thorstein Veblen used to deplore the fact that in California they taxed the poorto send the rich to college. One wonders how hewould react to a system which taxes the virtuous tosend the improvident to the hospital."1 Our stategovernment has not only developed the bad habitof living beyond its means, it is now living beyondours.The third major source for alarm comes from theNational Health Planning and Resources Act of1974. Under this federal act more than 200 geographic areas have been set up for the planning andcoordination of medical resources. The goal offacilities planning is laudable; the maldistributionof facilities and services has caused terrible waste.There are thousands of empty beds in the U.S.while certain areas of the country are sadly under-provided. Expensive procedures are unnecessarilyduplicated.The impact on us — a research institution, ateaching hospital, a referral care facility on thesouth side of Chicago — is problematical. The citylimits of Chicago now define our Health ServiceArea. After a bit of political scuffling, the HealthSystems Agency for this area has been made a partof the city government. It is now reasonable toexpect that the activities of the Health SystemsAgency will not be inconsistent with the programsand goals of the mayor, or whoever else willdominate the administration of the city.In the short run the function of this agency willbe restricted to reviewing applications for certifi-1. R. S. Morison, "Rights and Responsibilities: Redressing the Uneasy Balance," The Hastings Center Report, 4, No. 2 (April 1974): 4. cates of need for any capital expenditures in excessof $100,000 or for technically innovative equipment. The Health Systems Agency is furthercharged with creating a long-range health systemsplan which will set goals and priorities for themaintenance and creation of health care facilities.We can expect that this agency will ultimately beused to implement all federal initiatives in the allocation and use of medical care resources. Forexample, in the event of national health insurancewe can look to the network of health systems agencies to administer cost reimbursement and tomonitor the efficiency of the entire health careindustry.Although the presence of this new administrative body does not immediately inconvenience us,we must recognize its potential and prepare to dealwith it. The long-range plan which it will preparemust address itself to what hospitals will give whattreatment to which patients. To maintain our position as a major provider of tertiary medical care, toavoid the prospect of becoming a Cook Countyhospital on the south side, to protect our affiliationwith Michael Reese Hospital on a basis which willbe mutually satisfactory, we must prepare ourselves to help shape the long-range medical plan forthe city of Chicago.There are several ways in which we can react tothese areas of present and potential incursion bygovernment into our traditional domain. One is toretreat. The broad range of governmental activitywould require retreat on a massive and total scale.We could determine that a private universityshould no longer operate a medical school or, atleast, should not seek to operate a hospital. Suchdecisions would be both unrealistic and ill-advised.It is inconceivable that this University could excise such an integral organ as the Medical School.Much of its distinguished reputation rests onthe quality of the Medical School. Furthermore,the "pure science" component of the Divisionof the Biological Sciences would be immeasurablycrippled without the faculty, students, and appliedresearch supported by its clinical alter ego.Surely a medical school cannot exist without ahospital. While legal separation of the Hospital andClinics is probably possible, it would not enable usto avoid our responsibilities. Furthermore, the experiences of others indicate that medical schoolsoperating solely through hospital affiliations have aset of problems which easily might be judged equalto or worse than our own. We must admit thatradical surgery would be only an in extremischoice.Another possible approach would be to hope for24help from outside. Perhaps some political deus exmachina will understand our need for independence. Waiting for deliverance is foolish. It is alsonot enough to rely on those with whom we sharesome interests.Where we share interests with others in the capitation issue, we must add the great weight of ourprestige to the balance. Where the problems areuniquely ours, as in reimbursement for professional fees, we must act alone. On matters relatedto the Health Systems Agency, there may be important differences in interests — both present andpotential — among those institutions to which wemight otherwise look for aid and support. To speakquite bluntly, in the circumstances where anagency of government will be carving up the resources for the delivery of medical care — funds,facilities, and particularly patients — we must actfor our own interests with decisiveness and vigor.That is really my message tonight. We cannotignore these problems. We cannot hope they willgo away. We cannot hope that others will fight ourbattles for us. We must leave our shelter and fightfor ourselves. The stakes are high.First, we must develop an overall plan. We mustgather together the prodigious resources of thisUniversity to evaluate the pressures, the dangers,and the opportunities which are most certainlygrowing in this crucial area. We must use theseresources to build a plan which will address itselfnot only to our specific needs but also to the broadsocial policy questions which are involved. Ourspecial institution can make a significant contribution to our nation and to our community by bringing forward innovative and thoughtful answers.We must have a specific University policy on ourwillingness to do without capitation grants. Wemust determine whether the amounts of the grantsare worth allowing the federal government to establish admissions standards for expatriate medical transfers and to determine the percentages ofpostgraduate training to be devoted to primarycare. If we wish to protect our rights to set admissions and curriculum policies, we must prepare toreplace or forgo the funds.We should go beyond pressuring the state ofIllinois for repayment for Medicaid services. Wemust have a University position on the nature ofthe welfare-medicine system our state should haveand can afford. We should also determine the amount of welfare care which our University Hospital and Clinics should provide under such a system. Perhaps there is a special opportunity for us tohelp in the creation of a rational plan for the statenow that we have a new and apparently open-minded administration.We must participate in the long-range planningfor medical care delivery within the city ofChicago. Providing expertise for the city is not anew role for us. Only by being part of the planningprocess can we act to insure that our part of theoverall system will be consistent with the purposesfor which we operate a hospital and clinics.Next, we must aggressively pursue shorter-range strategies to accomplish the basic plan. Wemust develop and maintain good lines of communication with appropriate government officials. Wemust speak out in public, through all appropriatechannels, to bring critical information to our various constituencies — our alumni, our specialfriends, and the public at large. We must mobilizesupport to protect the University and the principleswhich it represents.Let me conclude by focusing on the role ofTrustees. We have some special obligations. First,we have the critical responsibility to educate ourselves. These are difficult and tangled issues withbroad-reaching social policy and political aspects.In order to fulfill our duties we must study theseissues and understand them.We then must offer our services in whatever waymay be most useful.A number of years ago Mr. Heineman gave astirring speech on trusteeship. He pointed out all ofthe many important obligations of a Trustee. Wemust now add the role of political activist to thatimposing list.This great University is important to us. Wemust act to protect it when it is threatened. Ourobligation is even greater when the threat is not toour institution alone, but also to the principles onwhich it is based. It is appropriate and necessarythat we act resolutely to protect the financial integrity of our University and its ability to continue inpursuit of the highest standards of research,scholarship, and the best education for first-ratestudents.Stanford Goldblattis a Trustee of the University.25THE 57TH ANNUAL BOARDFOR THE FACULTYRemarks by EDWARD W. ROSENHEIMJanuary 12, 1977Of course it is gratifying to be asked to speak onthis occasion. It has also been somewhat terrifying.I am as aware as any of you that in the ThursdayMorning Quarterbacking which annually followsthis gathering, the quality of the speeches is a topicof importance second only to the quality of thefood. To be asked to represent the faculty,moreover, holds its special terrors. The facultyspeaker is expected by his colleagues to be simultaneously inspiring, hilarious, worshipful, iconoclastic, exhaustively documented, and brief. Whenhe disappoints these expectations, his failure islikely to be discussed with that forthrightness andzest that are among the finest flowers of collegial-ity.My principal misgivings tonight, however, arisenot from the infrequent shortcomings, but from thetriumphs of my predecessors, particularly the recent ones. As you know, of the four latest addresses by faculty members on this occasion, twowere of such high quality that the speakers wereawarded Nobel Prizes. And I am confident that ifthe sages of Stockholm had been sufficiently imaginative to award Nobel Prizes in Far Easternstudies and psychiatry, all four of my immediatepredecessors would have been similarly honored.A further source of uneasiness as I contemplatedtonight's task has been the recognition that thefaculty speaker has customarily drawn for his orher remarks upon a "specialty" — an area of experience and expertise — to provide materials forthe instruction and delight of the assembled listeners. For me, the relationship between such limitedareas as I have staked out and the requirements ofthis occasion has seemed discouragingly remote. Ihave, to be truthful, acquired a familiarity — greaterperhaps than that of anyone in this entiregathering — with a body of Anglican sermons, delivered on the thirtieth of January each year between 1661 and 1745, to lament the execution of themartyred King Charles the First on that date in1649. 1 originally pondered offering some remarkson this topic tonight; but it occurred to me that,though doubtless instructive, they might likewisebe rather lugubrious and lacking in immediate rele- TRUSTEES' DINNERvance to this occasion. Then it occurred to me thata better formula for tonight would call for my having something special to say, but about a matter ofgeneral interest — that I should broaden my topic,but preserve my English teacher's identity. So I setto work to turn out a number of titles for my remarks, in which one set of nouns, such as crisis,crossroad, condition, and collapse could be al-literatively mixed in combinations with another setof terms such as criticism, culture, conscience, andconsciousness. This did achieve some very arresting titles; but, unhappily, whatever the title I produced, I didn't seem to know anything that was"special" — and very little more that was"general" — about the matter at hand.Thus I viewed the challenge of tonight's occasion with a kind of blank despair, until, a while ago,a single episode provided, if not a solution to myproblem, then what we students of eighteenth century literature call a viable option. Early last quarter I was asked, together with a distinguishedyounger colleague from another area of the University, to spend an evening of informal discussionwith a group of new students in one of the dormitories. The student chairman for the eveningfirst introduced my colleague with a just and enthusiastic account of his considerable credentials.He then proceeded to introduce me with a singlesentence, as follows: "This is Mr. Rosenheim, whohas been here longer than anyone."The statement was obviously a distortion. In thisvery room there are men and women who havebeen here at least a year, and possibly two years,longer than I have. But the chairman's assertioncomes close enough to the truth so that it providedme with an instant insight into my "specialty." Ihave, I said, specialized in being here a long time. Iam an expert old-timer. I supported this convictionwith an account of various qualifications. I knowthe words to all three verses of the alma mater. Ihave never, in over forty-one years, stepped on theseal in Mandel corridor. Beginning at the age ofseventeen, with a full head of hair, I have allowedno Chicago barber beyond the Reynolds Club tocater to my ever-diminishing tonsorial needs.Contemplating these remarkable achievements,and contemplating too the venerable, recurrent26patterns of this occasion — food and snow and drinkand snow and eloquence and snow and sub-zeroweather and snow — I sharpened and upgraded therole in which I am now appearing. For I concludedthat what I wished to talk about in the rest of myremarks this evening is "tradition" — and that, if Iwear any special label, it is that of a traditionalist ofsorts.In the autumn of 1935, when — together withsuch other innocents as Emmet Dedmon, WallyBlum, and Hart Perry— I arrived here as afreshman, each of us was given a little bookletcalled the Student Handbook. Amidst its assortedlore and information, there was one page headed"University Traditions." Of the sixteen traditionslisted in this formidable catalogue, I shall mentiononly a few samples. In addition to the injunctionconcerning the Mandel corridor seal, to which I'vealready referred, we were told that "the 'C Bench[the C-shaped bench in front of Cobb] is for theexclusive use of seniors and 'C men — freshmen,beware"; that we should say "University ofChicago — not Chicago University" ; that "all typesof high school insignia are taboo on campus"; that' 'fraternities are never to be referred to as 'frats' ' ' ;and that, in the palest adumbration of certain futuredevelopments, "our women are 'Universitywomen' — not co-eds!" The final "tradition" simply consisted in the sinister statement:"Freshmen: Beware of the Botany Pond."As you may imagine, these were specimens of"tradition" that even we neophytes did not takeseriously for long. In fact, we rather quickly cameto feel that what was chiefly traditional aboutChicago, as opposed to many other institutions atthat time, was a disdain for these trivial rites andtaboos, with their lost origins and undeterminedfunctions. And despite my private pieties about theseal in Mandel corridor, it is really not this kind oftradition for which I urge your respect this evening.Nevertheless, I shall argue that close to the heartof this essentially intellectual community there is areliance upon forms of tradition which, if not aspuerile as those of the handbook, are primarilyritual, resistant to analysis, and taken on faith. Inhis Autobiography, Gibbon unabashedly defendssuch a tradition as pride of ancestry. "The satiristmay laugh, the philosopher may preach," he says,"but Reason herself will respect the prejudices andhabits which have been consecrated by the experience of Mankind." The aspects of tradition I amconcerned with are indeed manifested in habits —and, if you will, in prejudices as well.I should like to mention three aspects of ourconduct and belief within the University — aspects that plainly overlap with one another — which seemto me to proceed chiefly from tradition. There is, inthe first place, a principle of humaneness in the lifeof this institution (and doubtless of some others)that is almost entirely traditional. It covers a verybroad spectrum — ranging from vital principles ofdecency to transient questions of decorum. Interestingly enough, the latter kind of question —limited and particularized as it is — often arises inthe exercise of our professional capacities asteachers, investigators, authorities of one kind oranother.This, at any rate, is true of the humanities, as Iwould suggest by a specimen from my own recentexperience. Late in a career relatively free fromsuch assignments, I have found myself (as havesome of you) the member of a panel of consultantsto a large dictionary. Its covers are open to almostany locution used by anyone, but its editors areanxious to distinguish between formal and variouslevels of informal use — and our panel exists to helpthem do so. In a recent questionnaire, for instance,I was asked whether or not I would employ informal discourse (perhaps including this speech?) anumber of different locutions. Here are three fairlytypical items from that document:(1) Downplay is both a transitive verb ("to minimize,make little of ") and a corresponding noun. Wouldyou accept these examples on a formal level? "Thedelegate, himself a Catholic, downplayed reportedanxiety over the abortion plank." "The Russiansquietly shelved a campaign for-a new . . . peace conference, and this press treatment reflects the downplay."(2) Are the following examples of newer senses of tilt(as intransitive verb and noun) acceptable? "The administration's decision was to tilt toward Pakistan inits conflict with India." "Depending on their politicaltilt, convention delegates returned home buoyed ordepressed."(3) What is your opinion of the new coinage, prioritize(i.e., to establish priorities among . . .), as in "a firstattempt to prioritize the tasks facing the new administration"?Now, the very existence and motley compositionof the panel I've mentioned imply that one's answers to such questions are not firmly authoritativebut mere opinions, however thoughtfully reached.In many cases, it's possible to invoke certainorthodoxies — sets of rules — but such rules aremutable, often contradictory, and often merecodifications of tradition rather than demonstrableagents of logic or clarity.In consequence, I suspect that even the professional's answer to many such questions arises froma pure sense of decorum. Language is, in one way,related to good manners. It involves "habits and27prejudices" which may lack rational foundation;but to violate or ignore them without good reasonis, somewhat indecorously, to depart from what isagreeably customary and expected. Thus I havebeen reluctant to inflict upon others the slight senseof pain I experienced on my first encounter withprioritize. If, however, a colleague from, say, thesocial sciences makes it clear that the term has forhim a usefulness which merits its acceptance overpossible alternatives — well, then, I shall happilydownplay my misgivings and tilt toward its inclusion in the formal vocabulary. In either case, although I should not be able to call my decision"correct," I should want to consider it humane.I have labored this very trifling specimen only tosuggest how tradition can penetrate into very particular details of a sort normally associated withspecialized judgment. At the other end of the spectrum, the tradition of humaneness embraces suchmajor and permanent principles as those we associate with democracy — principles that profoundly help to shape the character of an entireuniversity. In this University an obvious exampleof this is the tradition of welcoming into theacademic community persons of intellectual excellence and the promise of excellence, in indifferenceto those matters of birth, belief, and appearancethat are now outlawed as criteria for admission oremployment. Long before HEW or Brown vs.the Board of Education or the currency of wordslike ethnicity, this University regarded thesenow-outlawed considerations as irrelevant — not, Ibelieve, as an official, written policy, but as a tradition, a habit of thought. I must also admit immediately that there have been areas and activitiesin the University in which this tradition has beenevaded or ignored. But this is almost inevitablewith traditions, they being by definitionunenforceable — except, I suppose, by such meansas the dread Botany Pond. My point is that suchviolations were, at least tacitly, recognized forwhat they were — clear departures from a clear tradition. It is one of deep concern for the affairs of themind, unaffected by criteria which elsewhere, andalas, with comparable power of tradition, operatedto the frustration of the educational process itself.A second, almost entirely traditional dimensionof our careers within this University is a sense ofgenuine identification with the institution. By thisphrase I do not mean the same thing as completeloyalty or confidence in the University's superiority. Our climate is at its best one of amiable turbulence; our ranks are filled with dissenters; we havehad our savage and unlovely controversies. But thehallmark of a community like ours is not its seren ity. We are a community, I believe, because of asense, however begotten, in each of us that his orher identity is significantly defined by membershipin the University. We are all aware of symbols ofthis sense of community: this evening's gatheringis one; the expressions of our common joy or common sorrow as we gather in Bond Chapel areanother instance; so, too, I think are those occasions, so happily exemplified in recent months,when we rejoice quite selflessly in the honor doneour colleagues and, through them, our University.Such a tradition, however, has very practicalconsequences for the character of the University.It engenders a climate hospitable to collective undertakings, to the inventive exploration of novelproblems by teams of marvellously mixed talentsand trainings, under rubrics which defy the conventions of the college catalogues. It means thatenergetic, sustained discourse among peers is somuch the order of the day that talk of the need for"dialogue," which one hears elsewhere, heresounds singularly jejune. And informal conversation is so memorable an ingredient in the academiclives of many of us that I suggest, if we were ever todesign a new seal for the University , a Round Tablemight be the most appropriate emblem.These qualities of academic life doubtless obtainin other institutions; they should, indeed, be foundwherever some sense of community is engenderedamong thoughtful, articulate people devoted tosignificant common problems. But I believe thetradition of identification with the University hasalso had some rather special consequences for itscharacter. I shall not labor our triumphant survivalthrough various kinds of challenge and uncertainty. But I do venture the guess that it is traditionas much as anything else that has led the greatmajority of our number to continue living in theUniversity neighborhood—as a kind of rebuke tovirtually every other, comparably located university in the nation. For most of us, to be sure,adherence to this tradition has ultimately been asource of pleasure; this fact should make it no less asource of pride.A third tradition has to do with what is often,perhaps pretentiously, called the mission of theUniversity. Most frequently, that mission is assumed to be the responsible pursuit of investigation and the communication of its results. Ourplans and policies and judgments — some of themhugely ambitious and far-reaching, others intenseand often agonizing in their particularity —commonly proceed from this conception of theUniversity's function. It is a conception which isnot expressly set forth in charters or statutes and28which is not even writ very large in the observations of our founding fathers. In much of therhetoric in which it is invoked, it is frankly calledthe "traditional mission" of the University. Likeso many important traditions, it is really neithernative nor new; its roots lie in old and powerfulbeliefs and practices involving learning and its advancement. It survives with us because of, yetonce more, what Gibbon calls our prejudices andhabits — and because of what I hope you will let mecall our faith.As a mild paradox, it is the traditional mission ofthe University which is the leaven to our traditionalism, the shield against our fatuous or servile acceptance of received beliefs. In an institution traditionally committed to free investigation,the dominant spirit must be — if I may borrow thename of a distinguished journal — one of criticalinquiry. This state of mind is a sort of first cousin toskepticism. It leads to candid, unblinking, systematic, serious inquiry. But at Chicago this in quiry is carried out in a manner to reflect stillanother of this University's traditions — the tradition of high spirits and of hope.Earlier I spoke with some levity of my remarksbeing those of a sort of specialist. By now you willrecognize that they have been exceedingly,perhaps excessively, general. You will probablysuspect that this has been deliberate — that aftermany years of attendance at Trustees' Dinners, Ihave wanted to speculate a little about qualities ofthe University which somehow make themselvesstrongly felt at this event. Perhaps you will evensuspect that I have sought, not so much to analyze,as to celebrate these traditions of mutual respect,of collective good will, of common commitment.And if, in fact, you have suspected these things,then your suspicions are correct.Edward W. Rosenheim is Professor in the Department of English and in the College and Editor ofModern Philology.29NEW VISITING COMMITTEECHAIRMAN APPOINTED Helen CreticosScott KingThomas SchultzAt the meeting of the Board of Trustees on January13, 1977, Robert C. Gunness was appointed chairman of the Visiting Committee to the Division ofthe Physical Sciences. He succeeds Peter G. Peterson.UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEESFaculty Members for 1976-79IPeter F. Dembowski, ChairmanIsaac AbellaLeslie J. DeGrootRobert Z. AliberErica ReinerIISidney Davidson, ChairmanBenjamin S. BloomAlfred HellerNancy HelmboldDonald N. LevineIIIMartin E. Marty, ChairmanPatrick BillingsleyPastora CaffertyRory W. ChildersDonald F. LachIVDavid M. Bevington, ChairmanPeter R. HuttenlocherTetsuo NajitaAlfred L. PutnamAudrey D. SmithVRoger H. Hildebrand, ChairmanWalter D. FacklerJacob FrenkelBeatrice GarberKenneth PrewittStudent Panel for 1976-77CollegeBetty Burns Divisions and SchoolsJohn CheronisOtto DreydoppelMichael LatimerBradley LewisJonathan LowerMary NissensonMary K. O'BrienRichard PassarelliJoan WrightDISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDThe Disciplinary Review Board has authority toreview decisions of University disciplinary committees set up under procedures adopted by theCouncil of the University Senate in May of 1970.All members, other than the dean of students in theUniversity, serve one-year terms beginning in thewinter quarter of each academic year. Members for1977 are:Donald Finn, graduate student;Hellmut Fritzsche (Chairman), Professor in theJames Franck Institute, in the Department ofPhysics, and in the College, and Director of theMaterials Research Laboratory;Daryl Koehn, undergraduate student;William H. Kruskal, Dean of the Division of theSocial Sciences and Ernest DeWitt Burton Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofStatistics and in the College;Charles D. O'Connell, Vice-President and Deanof Students in the University and Associate Professor in the Humanities Collegiate Division.ERRATUMIn the Record, Volume X, number 5, page 159,there was a reference to Dr. A. Rosemary Murrayas Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University. Dr.Murray is Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University.30ANNUAL UNIVERSITY MEMORIALSERVICEOn Sunday, November 7, 1976, at 11:00 a.m. inRockefeller Memorial Chapel, the University heldits annual memorial service for those members ofits community who died during 1975-76.E. Spencer Parsons, Dean of Rockefeller Memorial Chapel and Associate Professor in the DivinitySchool, delivered the sermon, "More Than WeRemember." William B. Cannon, Vice-Presidentfor Business and Finance and Professor in theSchool of Social Service Administration, read portions of Psalm 90; and R. Bruce McPherson, Director of the Laboratory Schools, read selections fromMatthew 13. The necrology:FacultyHerbert S. AnkerArthur R. HeisermanRalph G. JohnsonRobert L. MillerFaculty EmeritiLudwig BachhoferLeon CarnovskyGail M. DackAlfred E. EmersonMartin E. HankeThorfin R. HognessLeonard V. Koos Kaspar RiemschneiderKurt RossmanGustavus F. SwiftEdward A. Kracke, Jr.Violet MillisHans RothfelsJames K. SeniorJ. Marvin WellerJohn A. WilsonNapier Wilt Georgia BryantMaria BurjanElizabeth ButterfieldJohn W. DavyRuth DoubtAnthony DudiakRamona Lee FeilLaura FleetmanRoy ForreyPaul GillerlainIda GrayCheryl GreenbergHerbert Leslie GreenerHerbert E. HarraldMose Harris, Jr.Jesse HintonCaroline HuettLeola JohnsonRobert R. KasalFrancis Kinishi Robert Louis PryorJoseph PullenWarren RunbergFrank SchmidtMargaret SchultzGust E. SkoglundAnatole StoneMargaret SunSteve SwierkElla SykesChrist G. TasovachMaureen TaylorKenji TodaWalter TomasekLola TuckerMiriam Van HespenSadie VickermanFelisberto VillarLudwig WorkWives of Faculty and Faculty EmeritiEsther Carlson Annabelle JohannsenPauline Willis Hill Dorothy E. Whitford Related Boards and Associated StaffLouis T. Amps Thomas QuarnstromWilliam H. Browne III Edward P. RickenRaymond M. Giugler Roslyn E. SawlFrank H. Ilcewicz Robert N. SchnelleEarl R. Maske William C. SeilerEdward J. Meisenbach Leo D. StupurRobert Neidner Frederick H. TebeauAlumni and Former Members of the UniversitySilent prayers were offered for all alumni andformer members of the University.Trustee WifeLeah B. Poole MEMORIAL TRIBUTEStudentsFrank Walter BrenartBruce Leppard ColeMarc DudnikovStaffLeodevico A. AfallaJosephine AltbachWilliam H. AndersonOscar BallarielAlyssa H. BargenJean P. BarkleyErik M. BergOrvel BlakeJimmie Bland Catherine A. HeifetzRoyal Joseph NaperHilda da SilvaSven A. MagnusonL. Stephen MatthewsMary Hughes McDanielDon C. McGiffinMary MortMary O' GradyJohn Joseph O'MaraLula PiercePaul Pierre GUSTAVUS FRANKLIN SWIFT III,1916-1976Gustavus F. Swift, grandson of the founder ofSwift and Company, was a Chicagoan born andreared, as not many members of the Universityare, and Chicago was home to him throughout hislife. His education was begun here at the FrancisParker School and the Chicago Latin School, buthe graduated from the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut in 1935. He then entered Harvard Collegefrom which he received his A.B. degree in classicsand fine arts in 1939.In the autumn of 1939 Mr. Swift began graduatestudies at Harvard University in anthropology and31archaeology but became ill and discontinuedshortly thereafter. When he resumed graduatework, it was in prehistoric Aegean archaeology atthe University of Cincinnati in 1940. In 1941 hebegan his studies in Near Eastern archaeology,history, and languages at The University ofChicago, back home once more.After only one quarter at Chicago, Mr. Swiftresponded to the call of wartime Washington andwent to work in the Signal Intelligence Service,from which he was not to return until January 1946.He then resumed his graduate studies at Chicago.He was a research assistant at the Oriental Institutefrom 1952 to 1965 and earned his Ph.D. degree in1958 with a dissertation on pottery excavated in the'Amuq by the Institute's Syrian expedition.In 1960 Mr. Swift began a long and significantassociation with the Harvard-Cornell explorationof Sardis, the ancient capital of the Lydian Empire,in western Turkey. He became senior archaeologist and administrative officer of the expedition, and he and his family spent the summersfrom June to September each year at Sardis from1960 to 1966, in 1968 and 1970. He continued hisassociation with that exploration to the time of hisdeath, publishing preliminary reports of the workannually in the years 1961 to 1967 and in 1969 and1971. His final publication of the Lydian MarketPlace and other areas of Sardis for whose exploration he bore primary responsibility was in progressat his death.On July 1 , 1969, in response to an invitation fromthe Oriental Institute upon the retirement of thelate P. P. Delougaz, Mr. Swift became the firstfull-time curator of the Oriental Institute Museum,without any required faculty or field duties. Hisappointment was announced at the banquet onMay 7, 1969, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary ofthe founding of the Oriental Institute. It seemedthen that the Museum had at last come of age andwas no longer to be a mere stepchild of the Instituteand the University. Mr. Swift entered upon thecuratorship with many an idea, and he was notaverse to talking about them, taciturn man thoughhe was. He not only envisaged programs dealingwith the physical makeup and increased staff of theMuseum but volunteered to take upon himself relations with the public and the raising of funds. Hehad to keep telling himself in 1969 that the beginning would have to be modest, impatient though hewas, but before his untimely death his constantpondering and investigating had begun to bear results in support from the Institute and its friends,from the University, and latterly from the federalgovernment. Numerous innovations in and about theMuseum, which are already taken for granted asessential, were initiated by Mr. Swift, such as thepost of conservator; a conservation laboratory;and organized, usable archives of, for example, therecords of the Institute's field expeditions. It wassome three years ago that he began inquiries, uponhearing about the possibility of a showing of objects from the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamen in theUnited States, to see whether the Oriental Institutecould foster and participate in a showing of them inChicago. He lived to direct the initial planning andto begin preparations for the Institute's participation in just such an exhibition at the Field Museumin 1977.Mr. Swift, as the scion of an old Chicago business family, was involved in the world of corporations as few scholars, certainly archaeologists, areprivileged or required to be. He was or had been amember of the boards of directors of several companies, such as the Wedron Silica Company, theCal-Sag Terminal Company, and the Calumet Development Corporation in the Chicago area, andthe Del Monte Properties Company in PebbleBeach, California. He was also in demand andserved long but unostentatiously on the governingboards of such civic organizations as the John G.Shedd Aquarium Society, the Hyde ParkNeighborhood Club, the Hyde Park- KenwoodCommunity Conference, and the Scholarship andGuidance Association of Chicago.Despite this large involvement, Mr. Swift's activity in both the Chicago society and the nationalorganization of the Archaeological Institute ofAmerica was central to his interests, and he wastreasurer of both at the time of his death. In 1965, inrecognition of his archaeological accomplishments, he was made an Honorary ResearchFellow of Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University.The Oriental Institute owes a great debt to GusSwift for these seven years, pioneering years inwhich he helped launch it into its second half-century by assuming a post within it which wasnew both to him and to it and for the way in whichhe thoughtfully and persistently began developinghis conception of the task he had taken up. Heinitiated a new era for the Museum, and both heand his wife, Eleanor, gave without fanfare of theirtime and very considerable abilities much beyondany measure that duty would have demanded.George R. Hughes is Professor Emeritus in theOriental Institute and in the Department of NearEastern Languages and Civilizations .32THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingftEerars.OSCOo zT* I omS c ?33 P "DS > -n CO- 3POSTAAID,0,ILLTNO. o3§2z o i-f o m¦^ T* oCO 3