THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 1ECOEDNovember 9, 1979 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XIII, Number 5CONTENTS165 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONFIDENTIALITY ON MATTERSOF FACULTY APPOINTMENT170 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1976-77 and 1977-78 DOCTORATES— Julie C. Monson186 THE 374TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: RATIONAL DISCOURSEBy Dr. Albert Dorfman187 SUMMARY OF THE 374TH CONVOCATION188 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: HAROLD ROSENBERG190 TO THE ENTERING STUDENTS, By Jonathan Z. SmithTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1979 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONFIDENTIALITYIN MATTERS OF FACULTY APPOINTMENTMay 22, 1979I. Introduction1The University of Chicago and similar universitiesperform three major functions that justify theirexistence and contribute to the well-being of society: 1) the discovery of important new knowledge;2) the communication of knowledge and the cultivation in students of the understanding and skillswhich enable them to engage in the further pursuitof knowledge; and 3) the training of students forentry into professions which require for theirpractice the mastering of a systematic body ofspecialized knowledge. The effective discharge ofeach of these functions requires outstanding faculty working in a collegial atmosphere.In intellectual matters, as in many other matters, the whole amounts to more than the sum ofits parts. A university faculty is not merely anassemblage of individual scholars; it possesses acorporate life and an atmosphere created by theresearch, teaching, and conversation of scholarswhich stimulates and sustains the work of colleagues and students at the highest possible level.While research and teaching are the work of individuals, these individuals depend for their effectiveness on the maintenance in the University ofthe conditions which make for stimulation, tolerance, and openness to new problems and ideas.There must be a feeling of mutual respect andtrust among faculty members.A critical function of the faculty of the academicunits responsible for recommending appointmentsis to bring to the academic staff of the University1. Much of this introduction quotes from or paraphrases the1972 Report of The University of Chicago Committee on theCriteria of Academic Appointment (The Shils' Report).The present report deals with confidentiality matters relatingto faculty appointments; other aspects of confidentiality aredealt with in:Report of Informal Committee on Student Records in TheUniversity of Chicago Record, November 3, 1967.Report of the Committee on University Records in The University of Chicago Record, February 4, 1971 .Student Information Manual 1978-1979, pp. 38-45. individuals who will carry on research and teaching at the highest level and who will contribute tothe intellectual community of the University. Theappointive groups in the academic units also passupon the reappointment, promotion, and grantingof permanent tenure to faculty members on theacademic staff. These activities may be describedas the appointive process. The appointive processplays a central role in determining how the University will perform its major functions and contribute to the social interest. It is a complex process involving painstaking and conscientiousjudgment. .At the University of Chicago primary emphasisin the appointive process is placed on academicexcellence. Distinction is indicated by the qualityof the research and the productivity of the scholaror scientist. Qualitative factors are also essentialin judging teaching ability and contribution to auniversity's intellectual climate. Measures ofquality are difficult to develop and quantitativemeasures are likely to be of little use. What issought is excellence in all aspects.II. The Need for ConfidentialityThe contribution of the University to society derives principally from the various activities of theseveral faculties of the University. These facultiesare largely self-governing bodies, as recognizedby the statutes of the University. Their form ofadministration is collegial rather than hierarchial;that is, decisions are reached through a process ofcollective deliberation.In a collegial form of administration the processof decision depends upon rational persuasion andconcern for the common good. When difficultchoices must be made in a group in which thereare disagreements about the merits ofalternatives, it is vital that deliberation be conducted with as full and open a discussion as possible among the members. Frankness in speakingone's mind to one's colleagues is essential for thecollegial system to work well. It is precisely thebelief that things said or written are shared onlywith members of the collegium in arriving at adecision that encourages the members to discuss165the matters at hand with the fullest candor and toaccept the decision after it has been reached.Nowhere is the expectation of confidentialitymore important than in the appointive process.Because members must work with one another aspeers over a number of years, and in the case oftenure appointments perhaps over a number ofdecades, the utmost candor is essential in theevaluative process. Once a decision is reached,those who opposed as well as those who supported the decision must join together to carry itout. Confidentiality of the deliberations by members of the deliberative body and by those withinthe University to whom recommendations aretransmitted is necessary to maintain the mutualtrust and respect necessary for effective self-government of a university organized on a collegial basis.Members of appointive bodies are under obligation to respect the confidentiality of discussionsand documents within the University. The principles which justify the refusal to disclose to anyoneoutside the University the substance of documents and discussions which are essential in appointment are equally applicable to disclosures toothers within the University. Members of the appointive bodies must treat their deliberations anddocuments as confidential.A. The Threat to ConfidentialityWe live in a world where governments seek toachieve many worthwhile goals. Governmentshave long supported and nurtured universities, recognizing the special contribution they make tothe social good. More recently, governments havesought to eliminate discrimination against womenand minority groups. There have also been newlaws which have attempted to provide some measure of privacy of information obtained by thegovernment. At the same time other new lawshave provided that government make availablemore information about its actions so that government activity will be increasingly open to public scrutiny.These worthwhile goals of governments maysometimes be in conflict with each other as well aswith other worthwhile goals. With the advent ofbroad government investigations of employmentpractices of universities, coupled with the recentlaws that provide public access to almost all information in the government's possession, theconfidentiality of the university appointive processes is threatened.Perhaps the clearest example of this problemarises from the interaction of two kinds of governmental activity, the first concerned with equal opportunity in employment, the second with thedissemination of information about the conduct ofgovernmental business. Thus, in seeking to determine whether a university's appointment practices are free of illegal discrimination, governmentagencies may request access to documents writtenwith the -understanding that they are to be held asconfidential — letters from referees outside theuniversity, evaluations of an individual by otherfaculty members, records of departmental discussions, and the like. If such documents, orcopies of the documents, become part of the record in a governmental inquiry, they may then become available to the candidate in question underthe Privacy Act2 or to the public at large under theFreedom of Information Act.3 In these circumstances, of course, the commitment to preserveconfidentiality is destroyed.We recognize that a private institution may berequired by law to turn over confidential information to governmental entities, ranging from grandjuries and criminal investigative authorities toregulatory agencies and investigative committeesof the legislature. The ''standard access provisions" inserted by regulation in federal researchgrants and contracts which demand governmentaccess to information as a condition for the awardare tantamount to legal compulsion for any research institution, since such grants and contractsare essential if research work of the highest quality is to be carried on.While governmental investigative powers areoften phrased in the broadest of terms in laws,2. The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a, requires, among otherthings, that an individual be permitted to review and copydocuments belonging to the federal government (whether or notprepared by the federal government) which contain informationabout him and which are retrievable by his name or by a numberor symbol assigned to him. The exemptions from disclosure,which are in any case discretionary with the agency, enable theprotection of information given to the government, under pledgeof confidentiality, in federal employment eligibility matters; butcontain no equivalent protection, even on a discretionary basis,for similar information provided on a confidential basis to a private employer and later acquired by the government.3. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, provides,among other things, that an agency must permit a person toexamine and copy whatever agency documents he requests. Therequest does not have to be supported by any need or reason.One of the exemptions from disclosure, which are again discretionary with the agency, enables the prevention of "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," but this is not applicable where the subject of the information has no objection to itsdisclosure. The discretionary exemptions also protect internalgovernment documents that reveal advice-giving or deliberation,in order to preserve the frankness and candor essential to thoseprocesses; no equivalent protection, even on a discretionarybasis, is provided for similar documents obtained by the government from a private entity.166regulations, or contract clauses, the use of suchpowers in a particular situation is subject to thediscretion of a particular official; that discretion,moreover, may be limited by constitutional constraints and judicial interpretations designed forthe purpose, among others, of protecting the individual and institutional values mentioned earlier.In a free society, no governmental investigationcan have as its object the truth at any cost; otherwise, unreasonable searches and seizures wouldbe legitimate. In every case, the responsible investigator balances the need for the information(including the availability of alternative modes ofobtaining it) against the harm produced by the investigation to important rights of individuals andinstitutions. To some extent that balancing process will be reviewed by the courts, but frequently, by the time a court decides, significantdamage may already have been done.Government investigations, especially whencarried on by those unfamiliar with the appointiveprocess, may be threats to confidentiality that arein fact threats to the quality of performance of theUniversity. The relationship of investigations tothe appointive process, therefore, warrantsfurther analysis.B. The Appointive ProcessThe appointive process involves a careful study,by members of the appointive groups, of thewhole record of the candidate being consideredfor appointment with emphasis on the candidate'spublications and manuscripts. Included are evaluations of the originality, rigor, and significance ofthe candidate's research and of the likelihood thatthe candidate will become or remain an outstanding leader in a particular field of study. The evaluations also include a careful consideration of thecandidate's teaching ability, both in the classroomand seminars and in the guiding of graduate students' research. Information about the candidate's contribution to the intellectual activity ofthe universities where he or she has worked is alsotaken into account. There are many steps in theappointive process, some involving preparation ofdocuments that produce a written record andothers which involve collective discussions thatare not recorded verbatim or usually even in substance. As we describe the stages of the appointive process, the importance of preserving theconfidentiality of both the written and the oral information on which decisions are based will beclear.The appointive process usually starts with theproposal of a candidate or candidates foracademic appointment by a member of the faculty or upon application from a candidate. It thenmoves to the assembly or submission of a curriculum vitae of the candidate. The materials considered may include, in addition to published writings that are in the public domain, research plans,teaching plans, or unpublished manuscripts thatare the candidate's private property. Such material is often valuable in the appraisal of a candidate. The candidate ordinarily submits the documents with the understanding that they will beused only to assess his or her intellectual merits,that they will not be circulated beyond the groupresponsible for appointment decisions and thatthey will be held confidential by those persons.Some scholars are reluctant to disclose their plansor research findings to the general public beforethey are published, because of the apprehensionthat their ideas or findings may be used by otherswithout proper acknowledgement.Evaluations of the candidate are then sought.These usually take the form of letters from informed individuals within and outside the University in the candidate's special field, both whenan initial appointment is being considered andwhen there is a question of reappointment, promotion, or tenure. The evaluations can be properly made only by persons who have the necessary expertise in the fields in which the candidateswill teach and do research. The assessment of acandidate's intellectual and academic qualifications cannot be made by persons who are not similarly qualified; the relative merits of different candidates cannot be assessed by persons who do notknow the literature of the subject and whose intellectual experience does not permit them to render a competent judgment.In the present state of specialization of teachingand research in universities, no individual or smallgroup can pass adequate judgment on the scholarly qualifications of appointees in an entire university. Professors of literature, however outstanding they may be, cannot assess the achievements of mathematicians, physicists, economists,or archeologists; chemists cannot judge theacademic quality of candidates for appointment insociology or philosophy and so on. The composition of appointive bodies in universities invariablybears this condition in mind.The external referees provide their assessmentsas a professional collegial duty, with no personalreward but with the expectation that others willreciprocate when the need arises, and with thesatisfaction of performing a duty incumbent onthose in the academic profession. The assessments are frequently time-consuming tasksinvolving the rereading of papers, evaluating the167candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and comparing them with those of other possible candidates. Many referees are willing to furnish such afrank appraisal to a small, informed group of theircolleagues at another university with the understanding that it will be kept confidential; there aremany indications that they would not do so if theevaluation were to become publicly available.There seems to be evidence that already evaluations are becoming less candid as the danger oftheir broad dissemination is felt by outside referees. A letter that says "X is a competentteacher and researcher" tells appointment groupsnothing they need to know (unless it can be readas damning with faint praise).The written assessments of external and internal expert assessors usually go to an appointmentscommittee or subcommittee in the appropriatedepartment or school. There is then a frank anddetailed discussion in which the members of thecommittee exchange and discuss their evaluationsand those received from outside. No stenographicrecord of these discussions is made. Often theonly record of the discussions is a report of thedecision made. When a decision is reached as aresult of the discussion, the committee brings awritten or oral recommendation for action on thecandidate to a more inclusive appointive bodysuch as the department as a whole or to the department chairman or dean.It is important to recognize the difference between this faculty appointment procedure and thatof the customary procedure followed in industry.In industry one individual in a supervisory position usually makes an evaluation of the personsunder his or her supervision. The manager hasauthority over them; they usually report to themanager in their day-to-day operations. In theuniversity situation, the appointments committee,as well as the more inclusive appointive body, ismade up of the candidate's peers. They are the.candidate's colleagues — or may become and remain so for many years to come. They are, to besure, willing to comment publicly upon the dataand ideas set forth in the individual publishedworks of the candidate (and frequently do so inscientific and scholarly journals) but that is quitedifferent from an explicit and comprehensiveevaluation of the person's total worth as a scholar.To make public such comprehensive evaluationsof the total quality of the scholar is, inevitably,either to diminish their candor in the future or toplace an intolerable strain upon relations amongcolleagues.The outcome of the appointment considerationmay not be complete consensus. Yet it is essential that the members of the collegium be satisfied thatthe decision reached is a result of full and openconsideration of the candidate; they must feel secure that there has been complete candor in theevaluation of the work and promise of the candidate.* At the end of extensive discussion amongcolleagues^ a collective decision has been made.Although there may have been many differencesduring the discussion, once the decision isreached, it is a firm and unified decision as presented to outsiders, and as presented to the candidate. This united acceptance of the decision is animportant form of support for a new individualjoining the faculty or a faculty member continuingin a more senior rank.As previously indicated, the recommendationof the appointments committee or subcommitteeusually goes to a broader appointive group, or tothe department chairman, who adds an evaluationand recommendation, and then forwards it to thedean of the division or the professional school.The recommendation is again reviewed at thisstage, and the dean adds his or her own recommendation before transmitting the matter to theprovost and to the president who decide whetheran appointment is to be made. At each of the several stages the recommendation is scrutinized tomake certain that it is supported by persuasiveevidence, that it is the result of proper procedures, and that criteria other than those of intellectual and academic quality have beenexcluded.III. RecommendationsThe preceding section has stressed the need forconfidentiality in several aspects of the University's operations. 4 In view of this need, the Committee on Confidentiality in Matters of FacultyAppointment recommends the actions outlined inthe paragraphs that follow.A. Disclosure Where Not Required by LawWhere the law does not compel disclosure, theUniversity should not release confidential information acquired, opinions expressed, and con-4. We have used the phrase "the University" in these recommendations. Many of the recommendations speak to what theUniversity officers should do in response to governmental requests for information. Many faculty members in the Universityalso receive requests for information from government andnon-go Vernmental organizations which pose many of the samedilemmas for confidentiality. This is especially true for thosewho, by virtue of various departmental or professional schoolactivities, have responsibility for department or school files containing confidential material. It is our hope that this report willserve to make all concerned more sensitive to the need for theprotection of confidentiality of files, records, and statistics.168elusions reached during the appointive process;i.e., in appointment, reappointment, promotion,or granting of permanent tenure. The materials tobe held confidential include, but are not limited to,curricula vitae, plans of research, and unpublished manuscripts submitted by candidates;recommendations or appraisals from within andoutside the University community, including referees' reports on written work; discussions, conclusions, and votes by committees and departments, whether or not reflected in writtenminutes; intra-University reports and recommendations, such as the report of an appointmentgroup to the department chairman, or the recommendation of the chairman to the dean; and notesof interviews with candidates or prospective candidates. The candidate may, however, be advisednot only of the final action taken but, at the discretion of the responsible official, may also be given asummary of his or her strengths and weaknessesas indicated in the evaluations. Of course, there isusually somewhat later a public announcement ofthe fact of new appointments and promotions.B. Disclosure Where Required by LawThe University may be required by statute or contract to furnish to the government certain information collected as part of the appointive process. Inresponding to requests for such confidential information by governmental authorities, the University should bring to the attention of the responsible government officials the institutionalvalues discussed above and should make everyeffort to persuade them to conduct their investigations in such a manner as will achieve theirinvestigative goals without at the same time impairing those institutional values. Such efforts onthe part of the University may include judicialproceeding designed to restrain investigators fromactions that would impair the functioning of theUniversity.In particular, the following positions should bemaintained:1. The request for confidential informationshould be questioned if it goes beyond what isreasonably necessary in order to shed significantlight upon the matter under investigation. Investigation of an alleged violation of law or contract within a particular department should notordinarily be deemed to justify a request forUniversity- wide confidential information.2. Even within the narrow scope of proper investigation, it may be that disclosure of names andother identifying data drawn from confidential information is not essential. Where that is so, such information should be deleted before access isprovided.3. The copying of University files endangersconfidentiality to a particularly high degree, especially where such copying is done by federalagencies, since the Privacy Act and the Freedomof Information Act may make such informationfreely available to the individual to whom thedocuments refer or even to the public at large. Forthis reason the reproduction of documents containing confidential information and the taking ofnotes embodying such information should be opposed and such reproduction should be resolutelyresisted.C. Seeking Changes in Existing Law and RegulationsWith respect to categories of governmental investigation that have widely varying characteristics, it may be necessary to balance the government's need for information against the University's need for confidentiality on a case-by-casebasis. The regulations of the Office of FederalContract Compliance, for example, require access"for the purpose of . . . inspecting and copyingsuch books, records, accounts, and other materialas may be relevant to the matter under investigation," leaving it to the investigator to specify whatmaterial "may be relevant" and to determinewhat portions of the material which "may be relevant" should nonetheless not be demanded because of incommensurate destruction of othervalues. What has evolved is a series of individual"accommodations" with various universities inwhich the concessions made by the most vulnerable or least concerned institution tend to establishthe norm for discussions with other universities.This sort of haphazard resolution is inappropriateto the importance of the issues involved.Federal law is also inadequate with respect tosubsequent disclosure of investigative informationobtained by the government. With very limitedexceptions, the Freedom of Information Act requires all such information to be made public uponrequest. It is particularly perverse that the deliberative activities of the federal governmentitself — memoranda which set forth evaluationsand recommendations — are exempted from mandatory public disclosure in order to protect theintegrity of the advice-giving process, while similar activities of private associations have no suchprotection. Although there may be a need for disclosing some kinds of confidential information togovernment investigators for specific purposes,there is no persuasive reason why such information should be placed in the public domain.169We recommend, therefore, that the University,in association with other institutions of highereducation, seek a revision of applicable federallaws and regulation's, with the object of 1)establishing clear and reasonable prescriptions regarding the permissible scope of access to information that can be demanded of universities atvarious stages of grant or contract compliance investigations and similar matters and 2) limitingpublic disclosure of confidential university information acquired in the course of federal investigations.The relatively standardless intrusion into theprivacy of free associations, followed by broaddissemination of the information thus obtained, isa problem for many institutions in our society. Forreasons given above, it is particularly destructiveof the university, which depends upon a dis-A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1976-77 AND 1977-78 DOCTORATESTo: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsSeptember 13, 1979Beginning in 1971, Anita Sandke, Director ofCareer Counseling and Placement for many years,prepared annual surveys on the employment ofpersons who received their doctorates from theUniversity of Chicago. Continuing that tradition, Iam pleased to submit a report on the employmentof Ph.D.'s for the two academic years of 1976-77and 1977-78. Data for 1976-77 were compiledunder the direction of Mrs. Sandke and analyzedin preliminary form by Miss Joan Huebl. Data for1977-78 were compiled with the help of Mrs. Mar-lene Richman.Information on the employment of each personreceiving the doctorate was obtained in the springfollowing the year the degree was awarded. In thespring of 1978, departments were requested toprovide employment information for graduateswho received their Ph.D.'s during the previousyear, 1976-77. Individuals for whom the department had no recent information were sent lettersrequesting employment information. Recordsmaintained by the Alumni Association and theOffice of Career Counseling and Placement werealso consulted. The same procedure was followed tinctively frank and sustained relationship amongits members. It is appropriate, therefore, that universities should take the lead in seeking suitableprotections for themselves and for all other freeinstitutions.Sidney Davidson, ChairmanNorman M. BradburnRobert M. GrantRobert HaselkornMark G. InghramHarold A. RichmanJanet Rowley, M.D.Antonin ScaliaEdward ShilsRobert E. StreeterWilliam J. Wilsonin the spring of 1979 for 1977-78 graduates. Foreach year, information on employment for all buta few individuals was obtained. We were unableto obtain information on three persons who received their degrees in 1976-77 and eight personswho received their degrees in 1977-78. -A difficulty with surveys of this kind is that theinformation acquired is accurate only at the time itwas submitted. The job a person holds within ayear of receiving the Ph.D. may be temporary.The survey results may be accurate, therefore,only for the short time during which the graduateor department responded and may not reflect accurately the present employment of these persons. On the other hand, similar surveys havebeen conducted over the past eight years and wecan therefore compare the results of surveys conducted at approximately the same time of year forprevious years' graduates. Such a comparison isshown in Table I.Another difficulty encountered with this reportis that the information we receive is not alwaysclear on whether a teaching position secured by agraduate is tenure track or temporary. We areaware of the increasing incidence of non-tenuretrack positions, particularly in the humanities. Ifeven a few of these graduates continue in the poolof applicants for academic positions along withthis year's, and perhaps next year's, graduates,the pool of job seekers will continue to grow. Ipropose to include such information more precisely in next year's survey.For the most realistic picture of the employ-170ment of the University's Ph.D. graduates, a survey conducted five years after the granting of thedegree might be more revealing. By that time,graduates on postdoctoral fellowships and the approximately 5 percent of our graduates who continue their education beyond the Ph.D. would beemployed, and those in temporary positions theyear after graduation would have resolved theirtemporary status one way or another. Despitethese disclaimers, however, we present the following information with some pride. It is apparent, as we hear of the situations at other nationalprivate research universities, that a University ofChicago Ph.D. has a significant employment advantage even in a constricted job market.In 1976-77, the University awarded a total of371 Ph.D.'s, 47 to foreign students with temporaryvisas. The tables in this report include informationonly on non-foreign students, persons we can assume are in the U.S. job market. For the year1977-78, 381 Ph.D.'s were awarded, 43 to foreignstudents. Thus the survey accounts for the employment of 324 doctoral graduates in 1976-77 and338 doctoral graduates in 1977-78. For both years,25 percent of the Ph.D. recipients were women.Tables II through IV provide data on the employment of the 1976-77 Ph.D. graduates. TablesV through VII have data on the 1977-78 Ph.D.'s.For each year, information is given on over-allemployment by division and professional school(Tables II and V), employment by departmentwithin each division (Tables III A-D and VI A-D),and categories of employers (Tables IV and VII).1976-77 Ph.D.'s — Employment SummarySixty-two percent of the graduates receivingPh.D.'s from the divisions, 176 students, reportedpositions in college or university teaching or research. With the additional 38 Ph.D.'s awarded bythe professional schools, the number of graduatesin higher education teaching or research, was 214,or 66 percent, a higher figure than for the yearspreceding 1976-77 or the year following (See TableI). Of the remaining one-third of the Ph.D's, 2.5percent were employed in college or universityadministration and 11.4 percent in non-academicemployment in business, industry, government,or non-profit organizations. Three persons, 1 percent, were self-employed. Thirty-seven persons,11 percent, reported postdoctoral fellowships. Ofthese, 32 were from the Divisions of the Biologicaland Physical Sciences. Four percent of the totalPh.D.'s were seeking further education or training, primarily in medicine.Of the ten individuals, 3 percent of the total,reported in the survey as unemployed, two women in the Social Sciences did not seek immediate employment. Seven of the eight Ph.D.'swho sought placement without success had beenawarded degrees in the Humanities, one in theSocial Sciences.1977-78 Ph.D.'s— Employment SummaryOf the 338 Ph.D. recipients in 1977-78, 52.7 percent found employment in teaching or research inhigher education. This is substantially lower thanthe 66 percent of the previous year. However, it isinteresting to note that 55 percent of the graduatesreceiving their degrees in the Humanities in 1977-78 found teaching or research positions in collegesor universities. In 1977-78, 63 percent of the persons awarded doctorates in the Division of SocialSciences reported employment in college or university teaching or research.Forty- seven individuals receiving their degreesin 1977-78 (14 percent) held postdoctoral fellowships. Of these, 36 received their degrees in thephysical or biological sciences. Almost 20 percentof the Ph.D.'s were self-employed or found employment in business or industry, government,non-profit organizations, or religious service. Thisrepresented a sharp increase over the 14 percentof 1976-77 graduates. Another 4.4 percent are pursuing further education or training, again primarily in medicine. Only 2.1 percent are employed incollege and university administration and another2.1 percent have teaching or administrative positions in public or private schools.The number unemployed this year at the time ofthe survey was nine, or 2.7 percent. According toour information, one is limited in her search because of the location of her husband' s work andthree are seriously underemployed. The remainder are unemployed and actively seekingwork. Eight of the nine have degrees in theHumanities.In 1976-77, 215 graduates reported employmentin college or university teaching or research.Twenty- seven percent of this group listed employment with research universities that aremembers of the Association of Graduate Schools(AGS). Another 21 percent were employed withinstitutions holding membership with the Councilof Graduate Schools. For the following year,1977-78, of the 178 graduates in teaching or research in higher education, 34 percent were employed by AGS member universities; 33 percentwith CGS member universities and graduateschools. See Tables III and VII.In looking over the data collected during theperiod between 1971 and 1978, several observations come to mind. (See Table I). The first is the171relatively constant nature of the employment patterns for students awarded the Ph.D. by the University of Chicago. Most categories show variations of only a few percentage points. The largestspread throughout the seven-year period is in thepercent of Ph.D.'s in the category of teaching orresearch in higher education; the difference of 13percentage points between 1976-77 (66 percent)and 1977-78 (53 percent) is the widest spread overthe entire period in any one category. In view ofthe recent contraction of positions available in colleges and universities, these statistics demonstrate a remarkably stable record of employmentfor the University's doctoral graduates.A second obvious observation is the decline inthe total number of persons receiving the Ph.D. (including foreign students) from 497 in 1972-73 to381 in 1977-78. It may be that, left alone, the balance of supply and demand finds its own equilibrium. Finally, the percent of each year's doctorates who are unemployed when surveyed thespring following the awarding of their degreescontinues to be very small. That does not meanwe need feel sanguine over the plight of those having difficulty finding appropriate employment. Itonly indicates that the graduates themselves, withthe help of their supporters within the University,are making a very creditable showing in a difficultemployment situation.Julie C. MonsonDirector, Career Counseling and PlacementTABLE I: EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Ph.D.'sEIGHT-YEAR COMPARISON BY OCCUPATIONCollege & UniversityTeaching and/orResearch 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-7865% 63% 60% 65% 59% 57% 66% 53%College and UniversityAdministration 1% 2% 2% 0% : 2% 2%- 3% 2%School Teaching andAdministration 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% .1% 2%Business aridIndustry 2% 1% 5% 4% - 3% 4% 5% 7%Government 3% 5% 4% 6% 6% 3% 2% 6%NonprofitOrganizations 5% 8% 6% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6%Postdoctoral orContinued Education 19% 16% 16% 13% 16% 18% 16% 18%Not Seeking Employmentor Unemployed ^ 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 3% • 3% 3%Total: No. Ph.D.'s inU.S. Job Market 398 400 446 392 383 357 324 338Total: No. Ph.D.'sAwarded, Incl. Foreign 435 450 497 436 444 382 371 381172O H 6 • ~* r» -*¦r- rj- cmen en r-» r» en r->cn m © »o en on On rt ON envo cn ©Tfi-^rn©©tj- oo ^ vo vo i-" cn *-hCN *"* cn vo »n"^ © CN"^ CN 00 ON©mi-i ON CNON 00O 00 CNoo en tTCN CN cn »n ^ oo«o CN CN ONCN CN 00 © ^CN^mcN©VO © O ^t U-l 00 r- . ^H ^ CN ^hcn © t^ ©cnt/3oX5oCO13G*S£ <COCO fa ^ o ^t ¦¦<o o <o © © © ©© © © © "*" © ©©©©©©^ © © © ^ © © © © © ©© © © ©©COo fa W© ^o © © © © © ©© © © © ~H © ©©©©©©© © o ¦© O O O © © © ©© © © ©©(5 CO fa W -h N© O OCN CN © © © ©© © © © CN © ©©©©©©ON © ©' © © © © »-h © © ©© © © ©©¦ffl to •*-« o ~ON CN r- © © © ©© © © © ~ © ©©©©©©r- © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Divisons © 00 TJ- ^>CN Tf 00en cn ©•cnr- r-» en r--cn en © 00 Tf vO 00 ON ^ ©CN CN ©' > «n t-h* en ^VOvo 00 « y£) in ^ r^i O on r^ oq"* CNT* CN 00 enfa CN 00 ^too r-VO vo ©Tt en ^CN CN CN »o ^ 00•O CN CN ONCN CN © cn '—'CN'— imcN©.VO »0 ©Tj-TfOO^©CN ^h ^ CN ^cn © r- ©'mCO GO fas « io *ON © ON© CN 00 © cn i-h mO « ^ N cnt^ -<* © cn cn vo ^ ©vo © CN ©~ © ^ ©CN£ co to t-* en tj-8 3* © CN © CN*-« cn © cn —< © © ^ © © © ©Tf © ©^O^H^-H©©CN © © ©~ © © ©©aX fa¦ s <o © u->© CN 00"* en © © © ©© © © © *-< CN © © © © ^ ©oo *-< ©cn©©©©CN © © ~© © VO ©©.2-3PQ. CO fa ON © ON.r- © c-en en cn ^ © m ^t © © © © *-* © ©r- © ©cn^h^©© ~ © or-< © © ©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation College&University Teachingand/orResearch College&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/or Administration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit Self-Employed ReligiousServiceNotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed e5173."c3O ' H VO © VO vo © i-* r» ^ © © CN ^ CN © CN © © ~to"a ON © ONr- © r-cn cn cn ^-< © cn Tf © © © © *- ©r- © ^pf cn ~ ~ © ^H © ©i-< © © ©Radiology tos ©.©©..cn © cn © © © ©© ^H © ^ © © © © © © ©© © © ~ © © © © © ©.^ © '© ©©Pharmacological andPhysiological Sciences tos. . © © ©CN © CN © © © ©© ~ © ~ © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©£h O © ©© .Pathology to © © ©«o © »o © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©¦© " © ¦ © © © © © 0 © ©TT © © ©Microbiology to ^H © 1-*CN © CN © © © ©~ *-¦ © CN © • © © © © ~ ©© © ©©.©©© © © ©© © © ©©Committee onImmunology to¦s © © ©TJ" © Tt © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©~ © © ~ © © © © © ©CN © © ©©Genetics to © © ©r-, © *m. © © © ©o r- © ~ © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Committee onEvolutionary Biology to'2 ©. © ©^H © ^H © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©,©©©. © © © © ^ © © © ©© © © ©©Biopsychology to CN © CNCN © CN © © © ©^H © © ~H CN © © © © © ©^ © ©©©©'© © © ©', © © © ©©Biophysics andTheoretical Biology to © © ©>0 © «o © © © ©© cn © cn © © © © © © ©CN © © © © © © © © ©© © © © '©Biology to cn © cn^- © -* T-H ¦*-, o CN¦ - 1-1 i-« © CN *-• © ©©.©©©<-< © © © ~ © © © © ©© © © ©©Biochemistry to CN © CN(O © in ~ © © ~^ ^ © CN © © © © © © ©*-« © © © © © © £h O ©CN © © ©©Anatomy to ~ o ~cn © cn © © © ©© © ~ ^ ¦r* © © © © © ©^ © © © © © © © © © : '¦©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation .College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed 1c174BoH H «o cn m © © © © as en © cn © © t-hcn © © r- ©s 4015203815 © © © ©© © © © ~ CN ¦ © © © © — <oo ^ © cn © © ©CN © © ^© © so ©©RomanceLanguages andLiteratures s CN © CN^ o *-< © © © ©© © © © CN © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©© © — ©©Philosophys CN © CN © © © ©© © © © CN © © © © © ©^O © © CN © © © © © ©© © ~ ©©NewTestament s © © ©m © m © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©cn © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Near EasternLanguages andCivilizations to i-« o ~cn © m © © © ©© © © © © ~ © © © © ©en © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Music tos ^H O ^CN © CN © © © ©© © © © "- © © © © © ©CN © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Linguistics tos © © ©T-H ^ O © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Ideas andMethods to © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © • © © ©© © ~ ©©History ofCulture Si.s © © ©~ o ^ © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©© — ' © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©GermanicLanguages andLiterature to CN © CN© © © © © © ©© © © © *-< — © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©English tos r- © t^CN © CN ©. © © ©© © © © »o © © © O © "-<as © © i-« © © © © © ^© © CN ©©Committee on theConceptual Foundations of Science Si. © © ©~ o ~ © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©— © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©Classics to © © ©T-H O ^ © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ©© © ~ ©©Art to © © ©"*¦ © Tf © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©"3- © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed cos175TABLE III C: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT— DIVISION OFTHE PHYSICAL SCIENCES— 1976-77ocrCDg.oo ¦oCDo>o ¦er&oo'oCD*DoCDGO CD oCD Q3o'S3- CD3p *0CO So"TotalBase DataPh.D.'s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.'s in Job Market M F M F M F M F M/'F M F M F T14 45 29 2 7 00 07 0 1 00 01 ° 17 17 110 0 19 21 018 2 2 01 01 0 60 714 346 4 671750Postdoctoral Fellows .University of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 0 04 20 04 2 0 02 00 02 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 1 06 00 07 0 0 00 00 00 0 1 012 20 013 2 114015OccupationCollege & UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege & University* AdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofitSelf-Employed 3 00 00 01 00 00 00 0 2 00 00 01 01 01 00 0 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 7 10 00 04 10 00 00 0 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 24 10 00 06 11 01 00 0 25o •07110Not WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot Employed l1 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 1 00 00 0 1 ,00Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01. Medical School1761^¦i^o>iUIOzLUO</>-J<ooC/>LULLOzo55>5LU<a.LUQ>mLU2>-OLUQLU-ICQ< "3oH H O U~> V)vo cn cn © cn cn v~i _* »o ^h Tf cn oo cn© -H(NH CNfa¦a 109512058946 O cn ^-h cnO »-« <~ CN Tj- _ ,-H ^- I ,-* CN ~-. enr- ¦t © cn cn no *— >vo © CN ©*-. © ^ ©CNSociology fa 00 -h hoo -<*.¦«¦ © © © ©o o o o vO ~ © © © © ©cn © ©©©'—'© • © © ©© © © ©©SocialThought fa ^H O ^Hcn ^h cn © © ~ ^Ho o o o © © © © © © ©-* © ©©©—<© © © ©© © © ©©Psychology fas <*• o "* o o © ©o o o © cn © © © © © »— '.CN © ©©©'—© © © ©~ © © ©©PoliticalScience s 00 O 00t^ o l> © ^ © ^© © © © vO © © © ~ © ©Tf © © ~ ~ © ©_ © © ©© © © ©HumanDevelopment fa . «n © «r>1-* © *-H © ~ © ~© © © © cn © © © © ^- ©*- © © © © © © © © ©© © © ©.©History fa >0 O <00> *-< »0 © © © © cn © © © © © ©ON © © © ^ *— © © CN ©© © ^ ©Geography fa CN ^H *-Hcn o cn © © © ©© © © © ^ o © © © © ©CN © © ~ © © © © © ©© © © ©©Education fa O ^ ON«o cn cn © © © ©© © © © vo o *-« ~ © — « ©00 "^1- © © © © — ¦ © © ©© © © ©©Economics fa en h n«o ~* Tj"N ^ *-h © © © ©© © © © CN © © © © © ©CN © © *-< © -i-i © © © ©© © © ©. ©Cognition andCommunication fa..s _* ^- ©o o.o © © © ©© © © © © © © © © © ©© © © © © © © ' © © ©© © © ©©Anthropology fa Tfr © <<tr- »-h vo . © © © ©© © © © tJ- © © © © © ©lO © © © © r-N © © © ©• © © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed I5 <D aT3 JCa% E«« <L><L> c<D£o n£H U177TABLE III E: EMPLOYMENT BY PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS— 1976-77GraduateSchoolofBusiness GraduateLibrarySchool IS-& s?§'¦* TotalBase DataPh.D.'s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.'s in Job Market M F M F M F M F M F T9 12 07 1 20 30 120 2 0 10 00 1 5 40 05 4 34 92 132 8 43340OccupationCollege & UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege & UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofitSelf-EmployedReligious Service 7 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 19 20 00 00 00 00 00 01 0 0 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 4 40 00 00 01 00 00 00 0 30 80 00 00 01 00 00 01 0 380001001TABLE IV: COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND/OR RESEARCH EMPLOYMENTOF 1976-77 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Ph.D.'s BY TYPE OF INSTITUTIONDivisions Professional Schools TotalBio. Phy. Soc. Div. Lib.Sci. Hum. Sci. Sci. Total Business Sch. Sch. SSAPh.D.'s in U.S. Job Market 46 53 50 135 284 8 22 1 9 324Ph.D.'s in College and UniversityTeaching and/or Research 11 39 26 101 177 8 21 1 8 215University of Chicago 4 2 , 3 6 15 1 2 0 2 20Association of GraduateSchool Institutions 3 10 13 26 52 4 0 1 0 57Council of GraduateSchool Institutions 0 6 7 19 32 1 8 0 4 45State College orUniversity 1 8 2 25 36 0 1 0 2 39Private College orUniversity 3 10 1 17 31 0 5 0 0 36Community or Jr. College 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2Foreign University 0 1 0 6 7 2 • 3 0 0 12Seminary 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 41780)qQ.oo<oXou.o>-CODCLU>00r*-o>i—U.OHZLUs>-oUJ>LUCD< ON t^ -H -H io vq vq cn rn ^t vq r-; Tt# OO cn CN CN CN vo «o to '— < ©' Tf © CN CNB5 ©Z T-H m 00 On Tt Tt r- 00 r- t^ CN ON ON Tj- ^-h >o CN ON 00H 00 Tf en CO ¦<* «> CN ^ ^en cnc2O fa 8 CN cn en o «o - - r- ^i- on -h © CN T-H CO VOs T-H vo <o r- — TJ- CN »o VO VO to >o © m ~+ cn T-H VO CNON co <o CO "«J- enCN CN T_l< fa CN O CN o o o o CN © © © © © © © © © © ©COCO £ vo o vo ~ © o ~ m ~ © © © ^ © o © © © ©c CO fa O o o o o o © © © © © © © © © © © © ©s#oco o s CN O CN o o © © - © © © © ~ © © © © © ©> 43 fa to T-H Tfr o o © © ^ © © — ©©—<© © © © T-2 S£ s OCN — ON o © © © m - ~ © ~- © ro © © © © ©p*co3PQ fa - O — < o o © © — © © © © © © © © © © ©s ^t co i— ' o o © © On © © — < — © © © © © © ©r- W) t^ © oo oo oo © cn T-H l> ^ ^f# o »o © ^ CN vd >o >o © © <o © cn CNo •^^©z __ oo en 00 TT rj- vo 00 •O VO © r- r- © ^ >o CN ON r-m cn on cn Tf ^t CN ^ ^13 m CNoH <N VO VO CN ^ © >o ON r— i ^_ VO Tj" ON © © CN t-h cn »ofa 00 r-» ms ON CN l> *> £ Tt *-¦ ON ^f »o t m co o rn cn — vo CN^t en "-< ^J- ©CO CN CN<-> -n fa r? CN Onco *- CN © en CN - - ^ -x r- © © © © — -fi & co.© s enCN O enCN O t-h ro rn <0 VOvO m V~) On on en © © © © CN ^>s>, .J fa TT *— > cn O O © © - © © CN © © © © © © © ©-C £Ph ^ s <0 © '— ' CN en ^ VO •O © © t M - O O T— 1 T— 1 ©CN ~8 © o © © ^f © © cn cn cn © © CN t-* CN ^tg fa m '-^3ffi s en ^£ O CN © CN CNCN © 1—1 © CO © -H © cn ~.2 '3 fa »o — ' "fr © CN - © © »"H © © © © © © © ©PQ co s 00 O 00 en cn CN 00 VO © © © CN *-> © © T— © © ©m en '"^ T—1X! 3O ^ou.22 *-- COO c >> CO s-co >>oralFellowsityofChicag.S.Institutio CO u & '2 3 CO08 T3< b.s 3,o3CO3 d> u> ^O'2 ^.2 § | 2< 1 2S .2f- So|o ¦g usinessandInduovernment onprofit eligiousService elf-Employed 3.oen 3.S -oe 3 c oJ* a sc3 COqJ3 C C/500 *•.O J3 «£33 w «-2 > <u§'2 6 3SPo o 0) > <U 30) 3co Wo o ©33cc Ph fc £ Ph H 0 U u CO qq O Z P< CO Z fe z z ^179Total H en *-« cn ^" «fr CN ©i-x CN ¦ r- ©¦ ohcnhoo 1-H © © ©fa »o ^ Tt00 © 00en en ^ r-n © CNen en cn oo ^ & © ©*-*©©©©VO © © © CN ~-< © © ©" ©' © ooCommittee onVirology © © ©en o en © © © ©© © © © © © OOOOOOo o ooooo © © o ocn © © ©©Radiology • fas © © © .CN © CN © © © ©© © © © o © oo©©©©*-< © o o ~ © © © © © ©© © © ©©Pharmacologicaland PhysiologicalSciences fa © © © © © © ©© ~ © ^ © © © © © © © ©© © ooooo'©- ¦ © © ©© © © ©©Pathology fas ^H © ^.CN © CN © © © ©© ~ © ~. ^h © © © © © © ©© : © . '© © © © © © ©'©©'.~ © © ©©Microbiology fas' CN © CN~ © ~ '¦ ~ © © -H© ^ © ~ ©* o © ^ © © © ©© © OOOOOO © © ©© © © ©©Committee onImmunology fa © © ©CN © CN © © © ©<-« © © »-« o © © ©. © o © ©© © OOOOOO © © ©.^ © © • ©©Genetics fa.s. © © ©~ © ~ © © © ©© © © © o © '©©©©©©© © ©;© © © © © © © ©~ © © © ¦©Committee onEvolutionary Biology fa¦ a © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © © © o © -© ©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ' ©©Biopsy chology fa¦ S © © ©cn © cn © © ©.©'© ^ © ^' © © ©'©©.©¦©©CN © ©.OOOOO © © ©© © © ©©Biophysicsand TheoreticalBiology fa © © ©¦vcose © © ©•©© CN © CN o © © © © oo o© © © © ~ © © © ©: © ocn © © ©©Biology fa CN *-< i-<00 © 00 © ~© ~© Tt ^ >0 © © o © © © © ©CN © '©©©—•©¦© © '© ©© © © ©©Biochemistry fa © © ©r- © f- © © © ©N cn ^ vo © © ©"©.©©©©© © © © © © © © o o ©~ © © ©©Anatomy fa © © ©CN © CN ~^o © © ©© © © © © © © © © © o o~ © ©©©©©© © © ©'^ © o ©oBaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed si313oH H OS -rf </-> © CN © CN vo i—i ©cncn«o©'—icn cn *— ' »o «ofa3732223530 © © © ©© CN © CN tj- © ©cNcncN©©t^ ^ © ^ © cn © ~CN CN i-< CN~ © cn ^-South AsianLanguages and Civilizations fa2 © © ©© © ¦ ©' © © © © .© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Slavic Languagesand Literatures fa *-¦ © *-* ¦ © © © ©© © © © ~ © ©©©©©©© ~ ©©©©©© © © ©© © © o©Romance Languagesand Literatures fa2 >o © «o.^H © ^H © © © Q-© © © © Tt © ©©©©©©¦ ~ © ©©©©©© © © ~© © © ©©Philosophy faS © © ©vO © vo © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©cn © ©©©©©©• © © ©i-^ © CN ©©New Testament andEarly Christian Literature fa ~ © ^M© © © ¦ © © © ©© © © © © © © © © ^-< © ©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Near Eastern Languagesand Civilizations fa2 © © ©Tt © Tf © © © ©© © © o. © © ©©©©©©CN © © © © ^ © © © © ©© © © ©Music fa ~ © ~CN © CN © © © ©© © © © '«-* © ©©©©©©~ © ©©©©©© © © ©© © ~ ©©Linguistics fa2 CN CN ©*o CN cn © © © ©© © © © © ...© ©©©©©© ¦^ © © ~ © i-< © © © © ©© © © ©©Ideas andMethods fa2 ^ © ^© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©History ofCulture fa ^H © ^-^H © ^M © © © ©© © © © © © © © ~ © © ©~ © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Germanic Languagesand Literature fa2 cn © cn© © © © © © ©© © © © ~ © © © © ^< © ©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©Far Eastern Languagesand Civilizations fa © © ©~ © ^H © © © ©© ~ © ~ © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©English Languageand Literature fas. 1410001410 © © © ©o ~ © ~ «0 © © i-h CN © © ©cn © ©©©©©.© ^H © ©© © © "©•Conceptual Foundationsof Science fa © © © '© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Comparative Studiesin Literature fa ^t © tj-© © © © © © ©© © © © ^ © © ~ © © © ©¦© © © © © © © © © ~ ©© © © ©Classical Languagesand Literatures fa2 ^ O ~© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©¦©©©©© © ©©©•©©© ^ © ©© © © ©©Art fa2 CN © CNCN © CN © © © ©© © © © ^ © ©©©©©©© © © © ©. ~ © ~ © © -H© © "© ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed 1i181TABLE VI C: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT— DIVISION OFTHE PHYSICAL SCIENCES— 1977-78> >3 3"o o•d 33- O*•*3 o3-cd3 2. ¦«2 3o trcd *<o' co tr2. g,CD OSICD Jfi6'D . 3*CD3o' ¦¦¦3o'(/5 CO35"o*TotalBase DataPh.D.'s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.'s in Job Market M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T5 00 05 0 9 34 15 2 5 00 05 0 0 10 00 1 11 00 011 0 20 06 014 0 1 00 01 0 51 410 141 3 551144Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 0 01 00 01 0 0 02 01 03 0 0 01 00 01 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 2 09 00 011 0 0 00 00 00 0 2 013 01 016 0 2.13116OccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofitReligious ServiceSelf-Employed 0 00 00 01 00 01 00 00 0 0 00 00 01 20 00 00 00 0 4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 10 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 01 02 00 00 00 0 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 15 10 00 0"4 22 01 00 00 0 16006. 2100Not WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot Employed 0 01 01 0 1 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 1 01 01 o 111Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0182*o3O H "3- CN CNVO CN tJ- CN »0 ^- 00 On "3- vo©©©©©00 ~ ^ r-H © © cn ento1234120210339 '— i (si O eni—i en -* wn CNvo m «o On On m © ©vO © © ©© © © ©©Sociology fa r- —< voIT> ~ "3" o o o oo o o o «* © ©©©CN©©© © ©CN©CN©© © © ©© © © ©©SocialThought fa en © en-N © ~ o „ 0 „o o o o CN © ©©©©©©~ © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Psychology fas Tf O -sfr- © r- o — o —O CN O CN — © ©©©CN©©cn © © m © © © © © © ©© © © ©©PoliticalScience fa »n o >/->On tj- >o o o o ©© o o o ^t © © © ~ © © ©en © ©©cn©©© © © ©© © © ©©Committeeon Planning fa o o oo o o © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©HumanDevelopment fa mom^ o ~ — © © ~© © © © © © ©©© — ©©~ © ©©©©©© © © ~© © © ©©History fa ^- O TtCN ~ ^CN CN © © © ©© © — < ~ en © ©©©©©©© CN CN CN ^-< © © © © © ©© © CN -Geography fa o o oo o o © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Education fa On O On00 r-- ~ © © © ©© © © © rj- ^h -h«©CN©©<o '-' m © ~ »— © © © © ©© © © ©©Economics fa CN — < ~OO VO CNCN CN © © © ©— — © CN — © ©©©©©©vO © © © rf © © © © © ©© © © ©©Cognition andCommunication fa o o o^ — o © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Anthropology fa ^- O Tf*-H O — © © © ©© © © © ^f © ©©©©©©00 © © CN — © © © © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupations CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed 3©CJ*c183TABLE VI E: EMPLOYMENT BY PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS— 1977-78¦ w e ¦g-Isro <B.inosroo O i-to o-o cra13 a °¦I.e. -So' C/3TotalBase DataPh.D.'s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.'s in Job Market M F M F M F M F M F T14 13 011 1 20 51 119 4 2 00 02 0 6 20 06 2 42 84 138 7 50545Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 1 00 00 01 0 1 o0 00 01 0 1001OccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofitReligious ServiceSelf-Employed 9 10 00 0101 00 00 00 0 13 11 01 00 11 00 03 10 0 1 00 00 00 00 01 o0 00 0 3 21 00 00 00 01 o0 00 0 26 42 010112 02 03 10 0 30212.2240Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 118413 00 00 CN ON CN CN en T-H 00© m r- T-H VO 00 VO iocn3<CO 00 «o CN i—i CN o © CN T-HVI CO© COo CN ~ O o o o ~ O o"8amo J3"35 oCO en ^ o T-H CN © ^ m CN«M CN© >uft* sc/33 CN o o "* VO © o «o «oPQ13 en 00 o cn CN CN T-H T-H ooH as rt m r- T-H *SS »oCN*oCO CN ON 00 ^—i ,— 1 o ON rt o"* 00 CO ^t CN enei *-"*oG CO"3#© CO*V1 ^* SO o VO o o o T-H t!-tj-*> >>s Phs <n VO CN ON CN CN m m^ vo ro T-He"5CO CN r-* ^ ^t CN o o en m6S15 "3 >> >>J* C3 I-H ."p <L> uu 03 <D yj 00 0)a > Ui JD > <us T3Cod 00ax3 o '3 >'3 15U *3 OST3 a <u go CD o o u & Ui 03 Oin "-h 3 .2>— a 00 cd 2 o u O 3 ^3JU <t> u H- Joo T3 3CO H 0)00 O *-i C+-I . - 2 •*13 "3u «4Ho <D00 o*oUc00'So o t3 a |1/3 15U 0)'333o o ^11 <tH l-Ho t-h— . o•«¦• oID P4 >*3 •5 ¦4— > 8-S 8 ^Oh Ph D Cu CO U P- < u185THE 374TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:RATIONAL DISCOURSEBy Dr. Albert DorfmanAugust 31, 1979Madam President, candidates, friends and relatives, trustees and colleagues. We meet today tocelebrate a rite of passage which marks intellectual achievements. For these achievementswe come together in this assemblage to sharepride and satisfaction.Your presence certifies the mastery of the skillsand knowledge of your respective fields. Althoughthe content of the curricula of different disciplinesvaries greatly, all of you have shared the experience of membership in this University for an important period of your life. It is, therefore, appropriate to consider not the diversity of your education, but the essence of the experience.This institution, like all great universities, defines its mission as the acquisition and transmission of knowledge. These goals, although important, only partially express the role of universitiesin the human endeavor. In the enthusiastic pursuitof our own research, we sometimes lose sight ofthe meaning of that activity. Whether concernedwith natural or social sciences, philosophy oresthetics, a university must be a haven for rationaldiscourse and an appreciation of human values.The acquisition of knowledge is only meaningfulas a human activity. The planets rotate and cellsmetabolize without our understanding or intervention.Rational discourse requires the availability ofaccurate and evaluated information and freedomof communication. The freedom to communicateis so ingrained in academic tradition that detaileddiscussion hardly seems appropriate. Yet we havewitnessed even within academia vociferous protests against individuals based on their real or perceived political views. Members of universitieswho would guard with their lives their ownacademic freedom, sign petitions and participatein intimidating demonstrations Against freedom ofinquiry and speech of their colleagues.The evaluation of information for reliability andsignificance is less frequently appreciated as acondition of rational discourse. All of you havebeen rigorously trained in tins skill in your fieldsof endeavor. In diverse areas of learning, techniques have been developed for this purpose irre spective of whether the data are observational orexperimental. It is generally assumed that rationalindividuals will come to mutually acceptable conclusions if faced with the same reliable facts.When working within their area of expertise,trained scholars have little difficulty with this concept. We critically examine the evidence of colleagues down to the finest detail. However, as weleave our own fields, our behavior changes. Important decisions are made on the basis of minimalevidence, rumor or unqualified opinions. This isparticularly true when considering questions forwhich definitive answers are not readily available.We live in a complex technological society inwhich rational discourse is necessary for important choices. You, as future leaders of society,will play a major role in these choices. In thisarea, democratic societies face a crisis. The increasing complexity of technological advancescalls for difficult decisions. Many require participation of the entire citizenry. The problems ofevaluation of data have increased enormously asthe nature of the sources of information haschanged. The creation of an entire cult of publicrelations and information officers places emphasisnot on the dissemination of information, butrather on the effects of the presentation on therecipient. The aim is not to enlighten, but to influence and to .manipulate.Unevaluated so-called "scientific breakthroughs" are daily disseminated in sixty-secondbursts to millions of people. Choice of informationis made not on validity or importance, but on pictorial attractiveness. Confusing and conflictingreports result from a falsely created sense ofurgency. The most cautious and dedicated expertsare enticed and cajoled to express, minute-by-minute, offhand appraisals of complicated technical problems. Pseudoe vents are created both bygovernment and media. The reactions of selectedindividuals are portrayed as typical. The public isbombarded by epistles of hope and fear. In myown field of medicine, each day brings news of acure or a catastrophe.The result is confusion rather than illumination.An important consequence is the loss of confidence in appropriate expert opinion. When validdata are available, they are lost in the morass of186conflicting meaningless messages. Rational discourse aimed at solving important problems becomes impossible. At this time, when there is anappropriate growing concern for the implicationsof advancing technology on the environment andthe well-being of mankind, it becomes particularlyimportant to separate the search for and theevaluation of information from the decisions as tohow to use this information.Man is a curious animal who seeks to understand his environment, his biological and behavioral self. In the course of this inquiry, information is generated which usually can be used for theimprovement of man's condition, but also can beused to his detriment. The prediction of the long-term effects of technology is neither easy noralways possible. A simplistic approach to the prevention of deleterious effects is to stifle curiosity.It is sometimes suggested that if only we couldcease the search for new knowledge, the ills of theworld would be cured. This approach has beentried unsuccessfully many times in the past. Nomatter how many laws are made, or indeed if inquiring minds are destroyed, the search forknowledge goes on. The genie is out of the bottle.No people, no government, no religion can control the minds of all men. The increased understanding of living matter during the past quarter ofa century represents one of the great achievements of the human intellect. Beyond lie vistasboth intellectually and esthetically awesome. Apessimistic view is that the technology that stemsfrom curiosity may destroy mankind. Perhaps themutation that produced intelligence is indeed lethal. Whereas such an eventuality is possible, anoptimistic view is that intelligence will lead to increasing wisdom in the use of knowledge for theenhancement of the quality of life.We must face the dilemma of the ever increasing scientific knowledge which inevitably leads totechnological change on the one hand and ourconcern that such changes not diminish the quality of life on the other. We must develop institutions for the best possible evaluation of theuse of new knowledge. Cost benefit ratios must beexpanded to include many factors such as short-and long-term effects on environment, estheticsand human satisfactions. We must understandthat the search for knowledge is an activity whichis part of the craving for freedom and dignity.When that knowledge is obtained, the decision asto how it should be used must be made in terms ofhuman values. But such human values will not beserved by the termination of inquiry. We whohave had the benefit of membership in a community of scholars bear a special responsibility. Whether in our areas of expertise or in our concern for broader societal decisions, we must remain devoted to rational discourse and its use tothe betterment of the human condition.Dr. Albert Dorfman is the Richard T. Crane Distinguished Service Professor, Departments ofPediatrics and Biochemistry , Committees on Genetics and Developmental Biology, and the College.SUMMARY OF THE374TH CONVOCATIONThe 374th convocation was held on Friday, August 31, 1979 in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.Hanna H. Gray, President of the University, presided.A total of 486 degrees were awarded: 58Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 12 Master of Science in the Division of the BiologicalSciences and The Pritzker School of Medicine, 38Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities,5 Master of Science in the Division of the PhysicalSciences, 66 Master of Arts in the Division of theSocial Sciences, 12 Master of Arts in Teaching, 7Master of Science in Teaching, 9 Master of Arts inthe Divinity School, 7 Master of Arts in theGraduate Library School, 4 Master of Arts in theCommittee on Public Policy Studies, 3 Master ofArts in the School of Social Service Administration, 196 Master of Business Administration, 1Doctor of Law, 7 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Biological Sciences and The PritzkerSchool of Medicine, 17 Doctor of Philosophy inthe Division of the Humanities, 12 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Physical Sciences,24 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of theSocial Sciences, 3 Doctor of Philosophy in theGraduate School of Business, 1 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divinity School, 2 Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Library School, and 1 Doctorof Philosophy in the School of Social Service Administration.Dr. Albert Dorfman, Richard T. Crane Distinguished Service Professor, Departments ofPediatrics and Biochemistry, Committees on Genetics and Developmental Biology, and the College, delivered the convocation address, entitled' ' Rational Discourse . ' '187MEMORIAL TRIBUTEHAROLD ROSENBERG1906-1978By Saul BellowHe said to me once, "I've heard of old age, andsickness and death, but as far as I'm concernedthose are merely rumors." He was visibly notwell, not young, but he refused to be affected bymedical or actuarial data or depressed by the contemplation of mortality. We were drinking martinis and discussing a variety of things. We refilledthe glasses and began another discussion. Once hesaid to me, "You smaller guys are more reactivethan we overextended ones. When somebodysteps on my toe it takes longer for the message toreach my brain." But one ad vantage of his greaterbulk, he conceded, was that it enabled him to absorb more liquor. rTwo years ago I made the mistake of telephoning him in his hospital room too soon aftersurgery. His voice was thick and his tone wasdelirious. He said, 'This is if!"Well, not quite, but very nearly. He was, however, in a state beyond wit, beyond discussion,and that was the worst of signs.I was introduced to Harold nearly forty yearsago by the late Philip Rahv. Rahv had a sense ofresponsibility towards the young writers he published in the Partisan Review. Fresh fromChicago, I was under his protection, and he saidthat I must meet Harold Rosenberg. We walkedalong Second Avenue, the three of us, andstopped for a cup of coffee at the Cafe Roy ale.There followed a long discussion of some problemin Marxist theory. This did not interest megreatly. But I knew I had met a most significantperson who did not, however, behave as significant persons generally do. Someone has written that Harold had a workaday absurdist view ofhimself. That's about right. He was a regal person, he walked with a sort of regal swing of hislong stiff leg, he had spots of ruddy color on hiswidely separated regal cheek bones, but he had nointerest whatever in being what the British used tocall "a superior person." He had no airs, no timefor airs, he was thinking too busily for that. Histhoughts were clear, consecutive, imaginative, informally presented. His ideas were not meant toentertain. In argument the pitch of his voice wasvery high, with especially emphatic sounds thatseemed to come from the region of his back teeth.He was not a dreamy conversationalist. He listened as closely as he reasoned. If you shot in-188 sights from the hip, as Eastern intellectuals likedto say in the slang of the Far West, he turned awayfrom you. When I came to know him well he toldme that it was his daily habit, before he sat downto write, to think. An extraordinary thing, to be soearnest and passionate about thought as to thinkbefore touching the typewriter, and to think vigorously. Few writers will do that. My own tendency is to give myself a holiday after I have had asingle thought, to reward myself, to take a briefrest.Harold was not only a close, ingenious rea-soner, he was also shrewd. I became aware yearsago that as a matter of high policy many writersavoided shrewdness as possibly injurious to theimagination and believed, many of them, that indog-eat-dog, anti-poetic, business America theymust lay practical judgment on the altar, distinguishing themselves from the philistines by thissacrifice. Harold withiiis grasp of real questionssaw this quite correctly as comical, a confusedand often disastrous form of highmindedness, ordim-wittedness. He often gave me to understandthat I was being stupidly lofty. I'm greatly in hisdebt for that. I wish he'd done it oftener and morepointedly. I came to find it wonderfully bracing.He was invariably funny about it, and criticismthat made me laugh was immediately accepted.His was never a sadistic intelligence. If he likedyou he might say devastating things. But this wasbecause you had a right before the seat of judgment to hear the charges against yourself. It wasassumed that you had the brains to think themover. Without a trace of pettiness or ill-nature,you were invited to take a cold drink of objectivity. He never objected, when his own turn came,to swallowing the same beverage.Many years ago in Chicago he said he wanted tolisten to something I had written. The hour waslate, and after I'd read aloud for fifteen or twentyminutes and observed that he was nodding, I said,"I'm putting you to sleep." He said, "On the contrary, you're keeping me awake." I laid this pieceof work aside. There you have criticism in its mosteffective form.Going through Harold's essays to prepare fortoday's event I realized anew how many times hehad waked me up. I would like to speak brieflyabout two of his characteristic pieces in whichthemes are developed to which he returns againand again. The first of these, "Tenth Street,"opens with the statement that choosing a place tolive has been a problem of the first order for artistsin America. "Where in this country can one livelike an artist?" he writes. " 'Like' suggestsimitation — the question is therefore one of style.The setting chosen by the artist reflects his conception of art."This thought sent me back to a passage in Ec-kermann's Conversations with Goethe in whichGoethe, considering the same problem, comparesGermany unfavorably with France. The culturallife of Germany was, he said, a miserable thing.Men of brains and talent were scattered all overthe country. "But now," he told Eckermann,"conceive a city like Paris, where the highest talents of a great kingdom are all assembled on onespot, and, by daily intercourse, strife, and emulation, mutually instruct and emulate each other;where the best works of both nature and art, fromall the kingdoms of the earth, are open to dailyinspection — conceive this metropolis of theworld, I say, where every walk over a bridge oracross a square recalls some mighty past, andwhere some historical event is connected withevery corner of a street. . . ." And Goethe continues in this vein.This is not an advantage that can be reproduced. Europe cannot be transplanted for"artistic" purposes. In his "Tenth Street" essayHarold shrewdly observes that modernGreenwich Village is a transplant, an imitation ofParis; its little trees, its crooked streets weremeant to make painters feel more painterly."Greenwich Village was the gate through whichAmerican artists entered the twentieth century assemi-Frenchmen," says Harold. In reaction tothis, American painters "learned to speak in themodern idiom." The Village nevertheless had agood effect as a bad example. It was an eye-opener for "the artist who wished to begin withhis own reality." Nobody could "mistake TenthStreet for an aesthetic creation." The artists'block with its liquor shops, its poolroom andmetal- stamping factory was identical "with rotting side streets in Chicago, Detroit and Boston."There was nothing picturesque to see. There wasonly the unmitigated urban U.S.A. "Here,"Rosenberg writes, "de Kooning's conception of'no environment' has been realized to amaximum."The point of view is not entirely new. WyndhamLewis declared in 1914 that what creative artistsrequired most Qf all today was a cultural desert or,as he said of America, intending it as praise, "awholly excellent vacuum." To yearn like poorMiniver Cheevy for the cultural wealth of the pastis not only melancholy but pernicious. Let theimagination begin with what we have got, withoutnostalgia for Paris or Paradise. The same writerswho refused to be shrewd also tried to makethemselves cozy with the salvaged remnants of cultural ideals long cherished elsewhere. Poetswent on protesting against the unpoetic, antipo-c etic U.S.A., but painters threw the unpoeticU.S.A. into the hopper and got something out ofit. What Harold saw in Tenth Street was "a practical accomodation made available by the block'slack of character. In this neutral zone, whosefeaturelessness would drive a simple criminal intoa depression, the tramp may pursue his surrenderof personality while the artist engages in findingthe point at which his begins."Here, then, is a neutral American space inwhich people discover or create themselves. Thisis one of Rosenberg's postulates. He quotes withstrong approval the painter de Kooning's reply toan interviewer's question: "Are you nostalgic forold art?" "What I'm nostalgic for is cement,"says de Kooning.Rosenberg observes that American abstract art,art "without a foreign return address" was thecreation of immigrants and the sons of immigrants. He says, "Apparently, the role for newcomers in the aesthetic affirmation of America hasbeen as significant as in the physical explorationand building of it. "Critics developing this line of interpretationwould cease to burden us with essays on"Jewish" novelists.History has reduced Goethe's Paris, that richcenter of art and thought, to a city of the culturalrank of Buenos Aires. Foreigners used to go thereto live like artists. That is no longer possible.Modern art can have no fixed locations. The painters who settled in Tenth Street could not expectto remain there. The steam shovel was coming.The future would be an excavation.But the setting chosen by the artist did reflecthis conception of art. Simple location was unimportant. In a business society of advancedtechnology the artist must not expect to drawstrength from an "art-life." Strength came fromthe creative spirit, and its principal manifestationwas in style. By his emphasis on the importance ofstyle Rosenberg makes one of his most valuablecontributions to criticism.Modern society, he believed, accepts the stylescreated for it by the mass media, by architects andcity planners or by product designers. Not onlythe contemporary public but also scholars andcritics are blind and deaf in this respect and regardstyle as a quality of no consequence.It is on this point that Rosenberg and I, whatever our other differences, were in completeagreement. I understood that he came regularly tothe University of Chicago not in order to beamong eminent persons but to preach the gospel189of style. He preached to the young men andwomen who were most likely to listen to his message.I have a letter he wrote to me in August 1975.He says, "We charge into the problem of democracy head on. And what is the problem? Not of thepeople but of the cultural leaders of the people.. . . The lack of sensitivity to style is simply appalling."I shall let him speak for himself now, quotingfrom a speech ("Spectators and Recruiters")given at this University in 1967:"Modern technological society exerts a constantly increasing pressure on each of the arts tomerge into processes with which they bear a historical affiliation but which have been transformedby more efficient techniques. . . . One step further. . . and the novel is displaced by the community-study, the psychological case history, by the spythriller; painting blends into room decoration, thehandicrafts, commodity design, color and lightdemonstrations. . . . None of the arts has aguaranteed life as an intellectually significantidiom. Indeed, all have shown themselves susceptible to sinking into routine and being practiced asminor crafts."In terms of their traditional functions, the artshave largely lost their reason to exist. Art worksare no longer needed by society as cult objects, asornament, as commemoration of events or persons. Omitting the issue of style, works of art satisfy no demands which the modern world cannot satisfy by different means. Hence the art ofthe past cannot serve as a model and as an incentive for continuing efforts by artists living today. ... In terms of inherent energies, all the artsare dead— they are brought back to life only bybeing re-invented. Each art constantly awaits rebirth at the hands of an artist."And the instrument of this resurrection?"Style," "the manner of doing." He adds, "bymeans of their critical ingredient, the fine artshave over the centuries succeeded in revealing thestruggles of the mind against collective obsessions."Harold took up the challenge of the new world,its cultural wildness, "the mysterious disease ofits monstrous cities" as the poet Mandelstam described it, and succeeded in showing that thehuman spirit would resist, must resist, and bywhat means it would make its resistance. Insteadof denouncing the "wasteland" outlook, as I wasinclined to do, he understood that the gods wouldstill speak to us. Art was the name of the languagethey would use. We must make ourselves fit tohear them and to reply. This was what our humanity was for.m^Saul Bellow is the Raymond W. and Martha Hil-pert Gruner Distinguished Service Professor inthe Committee on Social Thought and the Department of English.TO THE ENTERING STUDENTSBy Jonathan Z. SmithSeptember 24, 1979I cannot resist a slightly impertinent and just a bitboastful preface to my prepared remarks. In theeditorial section of last Friday's issue of TheChristian Science Monitor, there was a columnwhich opened with the following paragraph:Thinking about young people I know going offto college for the first time, I have wonderedwhy their elders do not burden them with publicadvice, as they do when those same youngpeople — by then a little older — go out into theworld. An autumnal "Commencement Address" would seem at least as appropriate as avernal one. Today, you will have from me, as is traditional onopening day, one such addresss. Wednesdaynight, as is likewise a tradition, you will both hearand have an occasion to discuss the annual "Aimsof Education Address" delivered by a distinguished member of our faculty.It is no accident that we, in Chicago, do doublewhat the Monitor laments the lack of elsewhere.For I trust that you will discover that one of thecharacteristics of this institution is a continualconcern for publicly articulating what it believesitself to be about.It is my happy task this afternoon to be one ofthe first to welcome you to the College of the University of Chicago. Today, you join a long line ofcolleagues past and present.190In a profound sense, when I have uttered thesetwo inextricably interrelated words — "college"and "colleague" — I have said it all. A college is,quite simply, a society of colleagues. As such, theterm may be applied to a wide variety of gatherings and constituted bodies. You may think of theVatican's College of Cardinals, this country'sElectoral College, or one of our own extracurricular groups, the Collegium Musicum. Aglance through the several columns devoted to theword in the Oxford English Dictionary revealsthat a college may be any sort of club (quite frequently, one devoted to drinking or smoking), anascetic society, an insane asylum, a poorhouse, aprison, and, more exotically, "a college of curte-zans" or "a sad college of executioners." College, in its current sense of the word, restricted toa society of colleagues devoted to undergraduateeducation, has been, and can be, all or each ofthese things. Yet, I trust, none of these is why weare here today.To stay with the Dictionary just a bit longer, asis the case with the word "religion" (indeed, theL-I-G in religion and the L-E-G in college are derived from the same hypothetical Latin root, according to some authorities), two root meaningsfor college have been proposed: one chosen withanother, or, one bound together with another. Theformer proposal emphasizes the mutual decisionof colleagues joined together in a college; the latter, their covenant with one another. Both ofthese understandings are true for this College,even if they be found lexicographically wanting.Both, if I read current newspapers correctly, arebelieved lacking or threatened in many other educational institutions, especially as they face thedecade ahead which begins in a very few months.Both proposals are worth some reflection.At one level, the first understanding, one chosen with another, seems obvious. It is the centralpresupposition of the process that has broughtyou to this place today. It has been so since youfirst applied, it has informed the various stages ofadmission, and of your acceptance; it will guideyour choice of courses, activities, friends, andstyle while you are here; and it will remain in forceuntil you receive your degree, in this very sameplace, several years hence. This is, indeed, theproud tradition of private education, the claimedright and attendant responsibility to choose andreject our colleagues, be they faculty or students.The difficult and sometimes painful right to ignorepressures of the moment be they external or internal, be they from budget or alumni or governmentor perceived social requirements, in constitutingthe membership of our College. This is not to deny the reality of the pressures just named; they arethere and they are often unrelenting. Nor is it todeny them some validity. For, alas, at times external pressure has been necessary in some institutions to prevent the use of irrational criteria.Rather it is a claim that we mutually ch©ose oneanother for good and stated reasons. It is not amatter of whimsy.It is this that leads inevitably to the secondunderstanding of college, that of being bound together. For the good reasons by which we chooseare related to the goals for which we choose, tothe "that" which binds us together. A "that," abinding, which, appearances to the contrary, isnot in conflict with our proclaimed freedom.For some institutions, and most particularly andpersistently for this College, that which binds ustogether has been termed general education. Hearme well . . . for, contrary to what you may havebeen led to believe by the press and by the publicthrashing about of some prominent universities,general education is not an affair confined to one'sinitial year, some teen-age enthusiasm, some caseof "puppy love" which you are expected to outgrow as soon as you reach your majority. Thoseinstitutions that offer that vision of general education are guilty of fraud because they present amode of conduct, of inquiry, as an introductoryexperience that will never recur again. To the contrary, here, in this College, general education isthe common language, our lingua franca, ourkoine, that enables us to be colleagues, each withthe other, our first year, our fourth year, ourgraduate years, our years as students, our years asfaculty.This language is one spoken unabashedly bythis College, at times with a wider circle, thosefew institutions that one of my colleagues termsthe "quiet leaders" in liberal education. This is atime when it is particularly incumbent on each ofus to strain to hear the voices, the conversationsof these quiet leaders, institutions which have setforth for themselves a mission uniquely suited totheir own resources, character, and aspirations;institutions which have been at work, year in andyear out, refining both vision and practice in acollegial enterprise of mutual education. Thesequiet leaders may not garner the headlines, theywill seldom be thrust forth as models for exportand emulation, but they have been tested by time,they have found their niche within their institution's ecology. For they know well that general education is, in fact, quite particular; thatthere is no more embarassing academic spectaclethan a course of study that attempts too much.I well recall the day I thought I had finally "ar-191rived" as an academician. It was my firsj call froma college president asking my advice. The institution was considering launching a program in religious studies, and a committee (what else!) haddrawn up a job description for the initial appointment. They were seeking an individual who possessed a deep love for liberal learning and greatexpertise in both Sanskrit and Medieval Latin, anindividual who would lead a religious revival oncampus, but be committed to no particular religion. The best I could suggest was that there was astate hospital for the insane several miles downthe road from this college. Perhaps there wassome individual sufficiently schizoid as a patientthere to fill the bill!A general education offering, or its quite typicalform, a core course, cannot simultaneously serveas an initiation to college for recent high schoolgraduates, an introduction to a variety ofacademic disciplines, a wrestling with fundamental texts and issues of the Western world, an attempt to achieve common literacy, a program inremedial reading, a process of socialization, and asource of topics of conversation for bullsessions — not to speak of such extracurriculargoals as providing a dignified W. P. A. project forunderemployed faculty from graduate programs,or their frequently indigent students. There are,after all, less than seventeen full days of teachingtime in a typical academic year, less than onehundred hours of class meetings per year-longcourse. We cannot do everything. This, indeed, isthe most general particularity about general education that I can utter. Its genius, its excitement,is that it is an occasion for institutionalizedchoice.We (and I mean both faculty and students) donot reflect often enough on the delicious yet terrifying freedom true college education affords byits temporal constraints. We do not have to"cover" everything. As long as we do not allowourselves to be misled by that sad heresy that hasdisfigured collegiate education since World WarII, that the bachelor's degree is but a preparationfor graduate study, there is nothing that must bestudied, nothing that cannot be left out. This,then, is what our conversation needs to be about.This is what binds us together as colleagues. Howto responsibly seize this freedom? How to accomplish something significant in a course thatdoes not necessarily lead to a formal course ofstudy? These are not issues that will readily besolved by recourse to some formulae; they willnot be solved by limiting pur horizons to somespecified set of courses/6r classics.I do not want to simplify this discussion, nor anticipate your part in the conversation in theyears ahead. Let me only provide a few possibleguideposts from a not disinterested perspective.I would propose two iron laws. First, that general education should not be an occasion for faculty or students to talk through their hats. One isseeking a perspective to bring to a subject matter,the bringing is a rigorous process of inquiry, thesubject matter must be known full well. We areattempting disciplined generality not interdisciplinary banality. Second, that general education should not require students to integrate whatthe faculty either can or will not. The task of testing what is truly fundamental, what is capable ofinteresting generalization must be the explicit profession of both faculty and student. It must be apart of the craft of each course and not the byproduct of a series of elective s no matter howwidely distributed.This leads to several correlative observations.A course that is consecrated to general educationcannot, by its very nature, be a survey. As I havealready suggested, it is required to be incomplete,to be self-consciously selective. Indeed, this quality of being partial (in both senses of the term)must be a part of the endeavor, an explicit objectof reflection in the course. What one seeks to master is a variety of fussing lenses through whichto view the world, lenses which, because of theway in which our mind and perceptions are constituted, alter and create the world. What would itbe like to inhabit the world as focussed, ascreated, by a particular figure or discipline? Whatlanguage would I have to master in order to translate my perception of the world and my humanityinto theirs? What are the consequences attendanton affirming or denying that the world is as it appears when focussed by one of these partiallenses? These are the questions appropriate to acollege.A pragmatic consequence of this (which youshould experience over and over again at this College) is that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the appropriate style of collegiate education is that of a seminar, a discussion, working atprimary materials. For what we aim at is nothingshort of discovery, discovery of the way the worldis as refracted through these lenses when evaluated by our own critical intelligence and testedagainst our disciplined experience. Each discovery made by a colleague in class must be honored as a true discovery, even if some expertknows that it has been discovered before, even ifsome expert knows that it has been discovered tobe "wrong." In the service of discovery, beyondany particular subject matter, a condition of our192being colleagues is the willingness to undertakemutual training in the art of bringing private perception and judgement into the realm of publicdiscourse. This is the discipline requisite to thecollegial enterprise.This process is no "mere academic matter," itis central to our lives as citizens (which is but thebroader term for what I have been calling colleagues). You and I shall be engaged together inthis College in political activity, for we will laborand talk together, not in order to produce wealthydoctors or learned scholars (although such may bethe happy by-products of our work). We will labortogether in the hope that we may become bettercitizens, individuals who know not only that theworld is more complex than it first appears, butalso that, therefore, interpretive decisions must bemade, decisions which entail real consequencesfor which one must take responsibility. We willlabor together in the hope that we may be individuals who refuse to flee from this responsibility by the dodge of disclaiming expertise; that we may beindividuals who stand under a solemn covenant toapply the fundamentals that we have discoveredto each new fact and experience.Today, it is my privilege on behalf of our College to invite you to become our colleagues and,by this invitation, to wish you many years ofdamned hard work.We have now come to a traditional moment inthis day's proceedings as students leave this placeto join in their college house receptions, and parents leave to cross the street to theirs. For withmy welcome to all of you comes a symbolic parting. Now parents go one way; students another. Iwish you each well in your separate paths.Jonathan Z. Smith is Dean of the College, William Benton Professor of Religion and HumanSciences in the College, and Professor in the Divinity School and in the Division of theHumanities.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE-PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Buildingo Z3 i o' O-313D O " "01^ -o; i^p >s 05 - —» 2?F Oj! S2z O 1-1 0 m*55 03