THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECOEDApril 4, 1980 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XIV, Number 2CONTENTS33 UNIVERSITY AWARDS AND PRIZES49 PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENROLLMENTREPORTS OF VISITING COMMITTEES60 — Graduate School of Business61 —Divinity School62 —Law School63 — Library ~~>64 — Oriental Institute64 — Visual Arts65 VISITING COMMITTEES71 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE SPRING QUARTER, 197975 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 197978 THE 375TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: POLICY, RESEARCH, AND POLITICALTHEORY, By James S. Coleman80 THE 375TH CONVOCATION: HONORARY DEGREES83 SUMMARY OF THE 375TH CONVOCATION84 UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEETHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1980 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDUNIVERSITY AWARDS AND PRIZESOn January 15, 1980, at its regular meeting, theCouncil of the University Senate adopted the following resolution, presented by the Spokesman:On behalf of the Committee of the Council, Imove that the Council accept the Report of theFaculty Advisory Committee for UniversityAwards and Prizes (the Rosenberg Committee),and that the Committee be discharged withthanks for its thorough and thoughtful report.I move, further, that the Council endorse theprinciples and procedures recommended by theRosenberg Committee, including the establishment of a Committee on Awards and Prizes.That Committee should be charged:— to provide advice regarding the establishmentof awards and prizes;— to review nominations for all-Universityawards and to forward those nominationswhich it endorses to the Council of the University Senate for action;— to review activities relating to all awards andprizes given within the University and to report annually to the Council and to the Boardof Trustees.REPORT OF THE FACULTY ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITYAWARDS AND PRIZES1.0 PreambleOn June 12, 1979, Hanna Holborn Gray, presidentof the University, in response to a request fromthe Council of the University Senate, announcedthe appointment of an Advisory Faculty Committee on University Awards and Prizes. Thecommittee is composed of eight members:Irwin H. Rosenberg, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, ChairmanAlfred T. Anderson, Jr., Associate Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences Bernard S. Cohn, Professor, Departments of Anthropology and HistoryRalph Lerner, Professor, Social Sciences, TheCollegeWendy O' Flaherty, Professor, Divinity SchoolPaul E. Peterson, Professor, Departments ofPolitical Science and Education and the CollegeHarry V. Roberts, Professor, Graduate School ofBusinessGeoffrey R. Stone, Professor, Law School1.1 Charge and Statement of PurposeThe charge given to the committee by the Councilreads as follows:Advisory Faculty Committee on UniversityAwards and PrizesThe committee is asked to considerUniversity- wide medals and prizes, the policiesand criteria that should govern their establishment and definition, and the procedures thatshould apply to their award. The committee willwish to consider whether awards given for'public service' necessarily create the appearance of corporate political endorsement,whether such awards can be defined in conformity with the traditions and practices of theUniversity, and whether guidelines forestablishing awards and procedures for selecting and approving their recipients can beadequately and clearly developed for the future.The committee should study the backgroundand purpose of University medals and prizes,including the Pick Award, and should seek todescribe what the faculty's role in defining andmaking these awards should be, and how thatrole is best carried out. The committee shouldconsider its task against the background of alarger range of awards that are offered at theUniversity by particular schools and departments and by organizations such as theAlumni Association.33The committee is asked to make its report tothe president and to the Council of the University Senate as early as possible in the autumnquarter of 1979.The committee met nine times between June 24and November 11. After a preliminary session toanalyze issues posed by the events surroundingthe awarding of the first Pick Award for International Understanding, the committee proceededalong several lines of inquiry:1 . A request was made to faculty and the University community to provide written commentson the issues. Faculty members who had writtento President Gray were asked for permission toread their letters and comments.2. Information was requested from eight universities, public and private, regarding their ownpolicies and procedures on university-wideawards and prizes.3. Individual members of the committee wereassigned responsibilities for examination of University files and archives concerning the originsand procedures of a number of University awardsand honors and for writing preliminary accountsfor discussion by the committee.4. Extended discussions were held with formerpresidents Edward Levi and John Wilson andwith President Hanna Gray. Several members ofthe selection committee for the Pick Award wereinterviewed by members of the committee.5. In the later phase of its work, members ofthe committee drafted sections concerned with issues and recommendations. These were then discussed at length and often substantially modified.6. The entire report, which went through threemajor revisions, was then discussed and reviewedby all members of the committee.The committee would like to express appreciation to Jonathan Kleinbard, Albert Tannler, KnoxHill, and Elnora Spratte for their unstinting helpand cooperation.2.0 Awards at the University of Chicago2.1 ClassificationThe committee has found it helpful to think of twodimensions for the classification of awards andprizes: (1) what an award is supposed to honor; (2)location within the University of responsibility foreach award.The committee has considered the followingpossible reasons for granting an award:1. Academic excellence and scholarship.2. Service to the University. 3. Creative or intellectual achievements thatwould not ordinarily be classified as research orscholarship.4. Public service and achievement.In terms of University organization, we havethought of the following categories:1. University- wide awards.2. Area awards, say, awards given by a divisionor a professional school.3. Alumni awards.4. Awards for service made exclusively by theBoard of Trustees.2.2 Honorary DegreesAlthough the charge to this committee did not include review of the University's policy with respect to honorary degrees, the committee thoughtthat since the standards and procedures followedwith respect to these degrees have proved to be sowidely endorsed, the committee's study couldbenefit from a review of those practices.Many faculty members who wrote to PresidentGray, the Committee of the Council and/or to theCommittee on Prizes and Awards, expressedgreat pride in the ' 'tradition and policies" of theUniversity in conferring honorary degrees "forsignal contributions" to a scholarly or scientificfield or area (quotations from Martin E. Marty, forthe Committee on Honorary Degrees, to Deansand Chairmen of Departments and Committees,October 5, 1978). The University of Chicagostresses the "importance of the criterion of scholarship" which makes this "University's policy onhonorary degrees different from that of most otherinstitutions" (President Levi, Council of the Senate, February 10, 1970).Professor Hellmut Fritzsche, chairman of theCommittee on Honorary Degrees, summarized forthe Council of the Senate on February 10, 1970 the"unwritten guidelines followed by the committee" in recommending recipients for this honor.He said, "Academic scholarship was the primaryconsideration; political public servants were notas such appropriate recipients; candidates shouldnot be overly honored. ... It should be possiblefor the recipient to attend the convocation atwhich he is honored" (Council Minutes, February10, 1970). The pride faculty members take in regard to honorary degrees is based not only on thecriteria that we try to follow but also on the procedures which have developed throughout ourhistory to ensure the worthiness of the candidatesrecommended to the Board of Trustees for honorary degrees.34Honorary degrees are granted under Statute 25of the University of Chicago:. . . The (honorary) degrees of Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Music, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Science, and Doctor of Humane Lettersare conferred upon the recommendation of theCouncil of the University Senate. These degrees are granted only for specific achievementsin such fields as scholarship, discovery, or administration. At the convocation the presidentrecites the specific ground upon which thesedegrees are conferred, and the recipients mustbe present in person.The criterion set forth in the statute — "specificachievements in such fields as scholarship, discovery, or administration" — dates back to the inception of the granting of honorary degrees in1898 (The President's Report 1898-99, p. xxxiii).Under the original Regulations of the Universityof December 26* 1890, it was stated that "no honorary Degrees will be conferred by the Universityof Chicago" (The University of Chicago, OfficialBulletin, No. 1, January 1891), but by 1898 President Harper had changed his mind on the question and with the consent of the Senate, a bodycomposed of the head professors, recommendedthat President William McKinley be the first recipient of a Doctor of Laws degree from the newUniversity (Thomas W. Goodspeed, A History ofthe University of Chicago: The First QuarterCentury, Chicago, 1916, reprinted 1972, p. 402).President Harper described the manner ofnomination and review of those recommended forhonorary degrees:For the purpose of nomination it was providedthat the several departments of the Universityshould be divided into five groups, as follows:Group I, Philosophy and the Social Sciences;Group II, Literature and the Linguistic Sciences; Group III, Mathematics and the PhysicalSciences; Group IV, the Biological Sciences;Group V, the Theological Sciences — in eachcase the Department recommending to theGroup, the Group to the University Senate, andthe Senate to the Board of Trustees. In the fieldof Administration the University Congregationwas to take the place of the Group, and any tenmembers of the Congregation were to have thecorresponding place of a Department. It wasprovided that in no case should the UniversitySenate make a recommendation to the Board ofTrustees until six months after the nomination by the Group or by the Congregation; and furthermore that the number of degrees conferredin any one year should not exceed the numberof Groups in existence at that time (The President's Report 1898-99, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv).The Congregation referred to was a body composed of all the officers of administration and instruction above the rank of Associate, all Doctorsof Philosophy of the University, officers ofaffiliated colleges when elected by the Congregation, and representatives of the Doctors andBachelors of Law, Bachelors of Divinity, Mastersand Bachelors of Arts, Literature, and Science.The Congregation was to meet quarterly, andmore often if necessary. There was to be a quarterly Congregation dinner (Goodspeed, op cit.,p. 39).Apparently the Congregation did not functionas intended in relation to honorary degrees, as in1910 after discussion in the University Senate of"a definite policy to be followed by the Universityconcerning the giving of honorary degrees," acommittee of three professors was appointed byPresident Judson to act with him in regard to thequestion (The University Senate, August 18,1910). The committee recommended that astanding committee of the Senate, of seven members and the president, be appointed "to take thismatter in hand." Those seven appointed were torepresent seven groups of departments. The facrulty committee affirmed that the University ofChicago shall grant honorary degrees, the groundsbeing Harper's formula of specific achievementsin such fields as scholarship, discovery, or administration, and that such degrees would begiven systematically rather than sporadically. Thestanding committee would submit its recommendations to the Senate for advice and then therecommendation would be sent to the Board ofTrustees ("Report of the Senate Committee onthe Granting of Honorary Degrees," Minutes ofthe University Senate, October 15, 1910).By the action of the Senate in 1910 and with theapproval of the Board of Trustees, the basic procedures were established for granting honorarydegrees. Since 1910, two major changes have developed in relation to the policies guiding thegranting of honorary degrees: (1) that an honorarydegree shall be awarded for scholarship andscholarship alone; (2) that retiring presidents ofthe University and chairmen of the Board ofTrustees are the only exception to this rule.During the 1920s, relatively few honorary de-35grees were awarded. The recipients were a variegated group that included Marshall FerdinandFoch, who was honored as "a distinguishedteacher of the art of war, greatest leader of men inthe world's greatest conflict." Former Governorof Illinois Frank O. Lowden was honored for hisdistinguished service in public administration andhis having enacted the civil administrative code ofIllinois. In a memo written by Ernst Freund summarizing a discussion of the Political Science Department, it was reported that the recommendation was based upon "scientific and not on political achievement' ' and that recognition for distinction in public administration was "one of thegrounds on which the University confers the honorary degree" (Ernst Freund, "Memorandum toPresident Judson in the matter of the conferring ofan honorary degree on ex-Governor Lowden,April 22, 1921). In 1924 Harold Swift, chairman ofthe Board of Trustees, suggested to PresidentBurton that the University, which at that time wasin the midst of a fund-raising campaign to complete the building of the campus, should "hook upmore closely with the city" and suggested honorary degrees for Charles H. Wacker, the"father" of the "City Beautiful Plan," and forFrederick Stock, conductor of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. These men, Swift thought, were"outstanding in their devotion and the accomplishment of civic work." Swift went on toobserve, "I think such recognition of them wouldhelp us tremendously" (Swift to Burton,November 17, 1924, Special Collections, Regenstein Library, Harold Swift Papers). Theywere in fact awarded degrees:In the 1930s many of the honorary degrees wereawarded to distinguished and influential collegeand university administrators, judges, and menwho had made major contributions to the management and direction of public research institutions and bodies, such as the Field Museum,National Academy of Sciences, the Brookings Institution, and the Social Science Research Council. A number of our own faculty members wereawarded honorary degrees.In summary, during the University's first fiftyyears, the criteria for awarding honorary degreeswere broad. Two presidents of the United States,foreign ambassadors (one of whom, CountJohann-Heinrich von Bernstorff, Imperial German Ambassador to the United States, had hisdegree rescinded), theologians, medical educators, men of public affairs, philanthropists, theCrown Prince of Sweden, as well as distinguishedscholars and scientists all qualified for honorarydegrees. During the 1940s and 1950s, the Universitycontinued to honor a broader spectrum of distinction than is our current practice, but there was acontinuing process of narrowing the specificationof the criteria for awarding honorary degrees.A turning point appears to have been the granting of thirty -five honorary degrees to the world'smost distinguished scientists and scholars at theFiftieth Anniversary Convocation, September 29,1941. At the time of the Fiftieth Anniversary Convocation, a University press release described therecipients in the following terms:The men and women selected to receive degrees are drawn from the pioneering fringe ofadvanced learning. Scientists and scholars inmany cases unknown to the general public, theyhave made fundamental far-reaching contributions to the underlying bases of their respectivefields of learning (Regenstein Library, SpecialCollection, Harold Swift Papers, Box 20, Folder 8).In 1948 the Committee of the Council and theCouncil moved to formalize the criteria and procedures for the granting of honorary degrees.President Hutchins stated, in a discussion of thepreliminary report of a committee appointed torecommend on policies relating to honorary degrees: "the only justification for honorary degreesis to promote the things the University is interested in — this means scholarship and real contributions to science and understanding, rather thansuccess in business or promotional fields" (TheCommittee of the Council of the Senate, May 11,1948, p. 343). Some members of the Committee ofthe Council argued that the criteria should bebroadened to include "recognition for creativeachievements in the arts and for distinguishedprofessional service" (Quincy Wright, ibid., June8, 1948, p. 349). President Hutchins supported therecommendations of the committee to limit theawarding of honorary degrees for contributions"to education, scholarship, and science."Hutchins argued that it was difficult to judge excellence in the creative fields and that there were"possibilities for exploitation to gain financial benefits through the granting of honorary degrees inthe field of public service," (ibid., p. 349).Even after the discussions of the late forties,degrees were awarded to Albert Schweitzer foraccomplishments as a scholar and as a medicalmissionary and musician; to a distinguished surgeon; to medical educators; to the vice-presidentof research of the Union Carbide and CarbonCorporation, who was honored as an "eminent36scientific industrialist." A number of facultymembers of the University of Chicago were alsohonored with degrees in the 1950s.The practice of honoring former chairmen of theBoard of Trustees started in 1929 with a degree ofDoctor of Laws conferred on Martin Ryerson, andcontinues to the present. In 1951 Robert MaynardHutchins became the first retiring president of theUniversity to be honored with a degree. Not onlydid Hutchins receive a degree for leadership of theUniversity, but Emery T. Filbey, Vice-Presidentand Dean of the Faculties (a position comparableto provost of the University) was honored as a"superior teacher . . . organizer and promoter ofresearch, astute administrator" (1955). When therecommendation of Filbey reached the Board ofTrustees, Harold Swift, the former president ofthe board, raised questions with PresidentKimpton about the wisdom of the practice of honoring faculty members and of honoring"contributions to administration of the University." Swift suggested that this practice couldcause difficulties among faculty, and among administrators in the University. Fay-Cooper Cole,Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, was the lastfaculty member to receive an honorary degree forcontributions made to the University while a faculty member (November 11, 1955).Harold Swift, who had considerable knowledgeof, and interest in, the University's traditions andpractices, raised the question with PresidentKimpton of honoring Carl Sandburg, the poet andbiographer of Lincoln. He suggested that the University was more interested in poetry than wasany other university in the midwest, pointed to thenumber of distinguished poets who were alumni ofthe University, and reported that Dean Wilt hadsaid that a degree for Sandburg would be stimulating and helpful to the Humanities Division (Swiftto Kimpton, January 7, 1952, Regenstein SpecialCollections, Swift Papers). Kimpton thought thatthe suggestion was a good one, but as the "committee on honorary degrees is violently opposedto making any awards in the field of creativearts," it could not be done (Kimpton to Swift,January 11, 1952).In May 1960, a convocation was held in celebration of completion of the new Law Schoolbuildings, and distinguished judges as well as DagHammarskjold, Secretary General of the UnitedNations, were honored with degrees. The LawSchool faculty, two years earlier, had recommended that Queen Elizabeth II be awarded anhonorary degree on the occasion of her visit toChicago in June 1959. This recommendation wasunanimously rejected by the Committee on Hon orary Degrees (The Committee on Honorary Degrees, October 24, 1958).Observations1. The "traditions," "criteria," and "standards"by which we confer honorary degrees and inwhich faculty members of the University takesuch pride have evolved over time. In the first fiftyyears of the history of honorary degrees, therewas a use of the honorary degree to connect theUniversity to extra- academic constituencies byhonoring great leadership in public and civic affairs, to represent our connections to public andscientific bodies, to show our respect for variouscreative activities, and to tie ourselves to sisteruniversities by honoring outstanding educationalleadership. With the decline and demise of thesefunctions of the honorary degree program, gradually more attention was paid to broadening thescope of the granting of prizes and medals and tousing them to signify our continued concern withthe extra- academic world about us.2. With the exception of retiring presidents andchairmen of the Board of Trustees, for at least thelast twenty years the University has granted honorary degrees only for scholarly and scientificachievement.3. The procedures by which recommendationsare made and scrutinized have during the last tenyears become more and more exacting with increasing amounts of documentation being required to maintain the very high standards we aspire to in those whom we honor with our honorarydegrees.4. There has been discussion in the Committeeon Honorary Degrees and in the Committee of theCouncil about the question of the term "administration" in Statute 25 and the practice of honoringretiring presidents and chairmen of the board.When these questions have come up, it has beenagreed that our "traditions," "criteria," and"standards" are so widely known and agreed toby faculty, officers of the University, and members of the Board of Trustees, that we can rely onpresent procedures to maintain our current practices.5. The success of honorary degrees appears toderive from a combination of publicly-knowngoverning bodies — Department, a Committee ofthe Council on Honorary Degrees, the Committeeof the Council, and the Council itself — all ofwhom are involved in the process, and the creation of common understanding about the criteriawhich are denominated our "tradition."6. The system works as well as it does becauseof the process of socialization into the values37which are symbolized by the honorary degrees.The Committee on Honorary Degrees is chairedby a faculty member, and there are nine otherfaculty members on it, along with the presidentand the provost. Membership on the committeerotates, and is representative of all academic unitsin the University. The Council of the Senate hasfifty-one members with staggered terms, and theseven-member Committee of the Council iselected each year from the council. Hence at anygiven time a significant number of faculty members, representative of all the faculties, have beeninvolved in the process of nomination, scrutiny,and affirmation of recipients of honorary degrees.2.3 Award Case History StudiesAs the criteria of scholarly and scientific achievement were being applied increasingly as the solebasis for awarding honorary degrees, the University gradually turned to other types of awards andprizes to recognize accomplishment in the arts,professions, and public service. Although thesepractices occurred somewhat independently ofone another, a historical review of these developments suggests that the one set of changes wasin many ways the mirror image of the other. However, the increasing importance of awards andprizes as ways of recognizing nonacademicachievements was never given the thorough administrative attention the question deserved.Changes were ad hoc and incremental rather thanexpressions of a fully developed University policy.2.3.1. The Rosenberger Medal. Mr. and Mrs.Jesse L. Rosenberger had been students at the oldUniversity of Chicago, and this connection combined with family tradition led them to be interested in the new University. They had endowedlectures and fellowship funds for the University,and in 1917 they gave one thousand dollars, laterincreased to two thousand dollars, for theestablishment of a prize or medal to be known as"The Rosenberger Medal, Founded by Mr. andMrs. Jesse L. Rosenberger, Awarded by the University of Chicago" (Letter of Gift, April 5, 1917).This medal or award was for "recognition ofachievement through research, in authorship, ininvention, for discovery, for unusual public service, or for anything deemed of great benefit tohumanity" (ibid.).ProceduresIn 1924 a faculty committee composed of C. F.Axelson and J. Spencer Dickerson submitted a report to the Board of Trustees for the selection ofthe honoree and the awarding of the medal. Theyrecommended:1 . That a standing committee of the UniversitySenate on awards of the Rosenberger Medal beappointed by the president of the University tomake recommendations to the president of theUniversity from time to time — these recommendations when approved by him to be submitted to the Board of Trustees.2. That the recipient of the medal shall bechosen in recognition of achievement of contemporaneous interest, that is, the conferring ofthe medal should be contemporaneous with theinterest aroused by the person who has invented something, or written something, or discovered something which would be regarded asof "benefit to humanity."3. That the medal shall be awarded once inthree years at a June convocation, but if someparticularly significant discovery or achievement should be regarded as worthy of recognition, the medal could be awarded more oftenthan three years, permitting the income to accumulate to make good any slight overdraftwhich might be necessary.4. That the medal shall be presented at a Juneconvocation, as above, the recipient if possiblebeing present. The absence of the recipient,however, not to stand in the way of conferringthe medal.5. That the medal shall always be of gold.These recommendations were approved by theboard on February 9, 1924 (Minutes, Board ofTrustees, February 14, 1924). It would appear thatthere was a three-member faculty committee responsible for selection of the awardee of themedal from 1924 to 1955. Professor WilliamBloom of the Anatomy Department and laterProfessor William T. Hutchinson of the HistoryDepartment chaired the committee. In 1955 Chancellor Lawrence A. Kimpton changed the composition of the committee at the suggestion of Vice-President R. W. Harrison to be two deans and thedean of the faculties. Harrison suggested that thischange "would get rid of the academic reluctanceto accept administrative suggestion" (Rosenberger file, Harrison to Kimpton, September 22,1955). From the forties to the early sixties themanner of nomination appears to have been suggestions directed to the committee from membersof the faculty.From the first granting of the medal in 1924 to38Frederick G. Banting — "In recognition of his service to humanity in the discovery of Insulin" — themedal was awarded every three years, at thespring convocation. In 1966 Edward H. Levi, thenprovost of the University, suggested that the prizebe given each year or so to several persons distinguished for contributions to an area of activity,and the committee be changed to reflect the designated area of educational, artistic, or professionalexcellence the University wished to honor. In1968 the first group of awardees under this planconsisted of five men who had made major contributions to medical education or to the supportof medical research. In 1970 it was the turn of thesocial scientists who honored Pendleton Herring,long-time President of the Social Science Research Council, and Ralph Tyler, for many yearsDirector of the Center for Advanced Studies in theBehavioral Sciences. In 1971 it was the turn ofphysical sciences, and in 1973, three people concerned with the management and direction ofmuseums, opera companies, and the encouragement of modern musical composition were rewarded. In addition, in 1973 the Juilliard StringQuartet was honored. In 1975 a major change wasmade in the form of presentation. Instead of thespring convocation as the occasion for awardingthe medal, a dinner was held in Hutchinson Commons when Yehudi Menuhin received it. Themost recent Rosenberger Medal was given at adinner in Hutchinson Commons to J. Irwin Miller,Chairman of the Board of the Cummins Corporation, for his public service in relation to the WorldCouncil of Churches and for his encouragement ofcontemporary architecture in Columbus, Indiana.In the fall of 1973 the form of the nominatingcommittee was changed again to be a standingcommittee of six faculty members, under thechairmanship of D. J. R. Bruckner, Vice-President for Public Affairs. This committeeserved until May of 1978, when Bruckner informed the members that the committee had beendischarged — it having been decided by PresidentWilson and approved by the board that henceforththe award would be made by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of a joint faculty andtrustee committee, the president appointing thefaculty members and the chairman of the Board ofTrustees appointing the trustee members. Thiscommittee has not yet been appointed.Observations1. It is clear from the files that Mr. Levi since themid-sixties and Mr. Wilson from the early seventies were seeking to reformulate the award. They did not want the medal to be seen as a "poorman's honorary degree." Mr. Levi wanted to useit to honor artistic performance and support forthe arts and humanities. The establishment of adinner in the autumn quarter, he hoped, wouldavoid the ambiguity of having the Rosenberger recipients together with the honorary degree awardees, add to the luster of the award, and provide anoccasion to invite friends of the University to visitthe campus.2. Since 1924 there have been forty-one recipients of the medal. The range of activities andaccomplishments honored have been varied to thepoint of being almost unclassifiable. Contributionsto medicine and medical research education andthe financial support of these activities seem topredominate. This is followed by contributions tothe performing arts and the shaping of publictaste. The Rosenberger Medal also appears tohave been used to honor distinguished contributions to the University by its own faculty anddeans (for example, James Henry Breasted andDr. L. T. Cogge shall) and members of the Boardof Trustees. Until the early sixties most of therecipients had a direct connection with the University or the City of Chicago. The medal has alsobeen used to honor contributions to internationalpeace, and foreign and public affairs.3 . The committee has not been reappointed as afaculty /trustee committee.2.3.2 Benton Medal For Distinguished Service. Inthe fall of 1967, a dinner was planned to celebrateWilliam Benton's twenty-fifth anniversary aschairman and publisher of the EncyclopediaBritannica. It was suggested that the Universityaward Benton an honorary degree or the Rosenberger Medal or that it name the administrationbuilding in his honor. For reasons that are notdisclosed in the University's records, it was decided instead to create the Benton Medal. It is notclear how this decision was made or by whom. Itis clear, however, that this was the first awardinitiated by the University itself rather than by adonor.From the outset there was confusion as to thenature of the award. Senator Benton apparentlybelieved that the award was for "contribution tothe University," whereas Edward H. Levi statedin December of 1967 that he "had thought that itmight be for public service and contribution to theUniversity." Recognizing the disagreement, Levinoted that "we had better clean all this up including a mode of determining recipients and the standard."39At the dinner, which was held on February 1,1968 and was attended by some 470 guests, thematter was left unresolved. Various speakersstressed different aspects of Benton's achievements, including his contribution to the University. The procedures to be followed in the futurewere, however, explicitly detailed in the program:All future awards of the Benton Medal will bemade by the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago and the President of the University upon the recommendation of a faculty-trustee committee. The faculty members of thecommittee will be appointed by the President,who will select them from among the Fellows ofthe Center for Policy Study. The Trustee members will be appointed by the Chairman of theBoard.Thus, although the procedure was settled, thestandard remained obscure.In November of 1968, Charles Daly suggestedto Edward H. Levi that the Benton Medal beawarded again. Levi demurred, suggesting thatthere should be a longer interval between bestowals of the medal. Levi also expressed concernas to the proper standards to be employed.In April of 1971, Edward H. Levi, in a letter toJohn T. Wilson, stated that "we need (1) a procedure for selection and (2) an agreed upon timeinterval — not more than once every five years."Casting doubt upon the continued viability of theprocedures established in 1968, Levi declared that"as to the procedures, it could be trustee only, ortrustee-faculty, or a recommendation from agroup (Committee of the Council) or like Rosenberger." Levi suggested that Paul Hoffman wouldbe "considered qualified — a former Trustee of theUniversity, etc." Interestingly, Senator Benton inDecember of 1967 had suggested that Hoffmanwould be a good second recipient.Three months later Gay lord Donnelley, chairman of the Board of Trustees, after consultingwith Levi, set up a committee to select a secondrecipient of the Benton Medal. The committeeconsisted of Levi and Wilson as representatives ofthe administration, and Donnelley, George Ran-ney, Hermon D. Smith, and Jay Pritzker as representatives of the trustees. It does not appear thatthe decision to award the medal to Hoffman involved any consultation with the faculty.At a dinner on April 13, 1972, attended by 350persons, the Benton Medal was awarded to PaulHoffman. Once again, the precise substantivecontent of the medal was left uncertain. Although the speeches and press releases examinedHoffman's many accomplishments in public service, it was emphasized that the medal wascreated to honor the "most extraordinary serviceto the field of education and to the University."On May 3, 1976, John Wilson, in a letter to theBoard of Trustees' Committee on Budget, attempted to clarify the situation:As a result of some confusion and lack of unanimity on the part of the initial selection committee, it proceeded to make the first award for"distinguished service" (presumably based oncontributions to the University) and not for"public service." However, this was not thepurpose of the medal as approved by the Trustees. Moreover, the first two recipients of themedal (Messrs. Benton and Hoffman) were, infact, noted for their "public service."Four days later, Wilson wrote to ProfessorsMargaret Rosenheim, John Hope Franklin, andChauncy Harris, asking them to serve on a committee to select the next recipient of the BentonMedal. In accord with the procedures set out in1968, all three faculty members were Fellows ofthe Center for Policy Study. Wilson's lettersuggested that Hermon D. Smith would be a fineperson to receive the award and that they notmeet formally as a committee if they concurredwith this recommendation. Within days, Professors Rosenheim, Franklin, and Harris responded individually to Wilson in writing thatthey approved the recommendation after readingthe accompanying dossier. As a consequence thecommittee never "met." On May 18, Wilsonpassed this recommendation on to Gaylord Donnelley. A trustee committee was constituted onJune 26 to consider the matter. On August 2Robert Reneker proposed to the Committee onBudget that the medal be awarded to Smith. At adinner on December 1, 1976, attended by 240guests, the medal was awarded. This time, theemphasis was clearly on "public service." Indeed, the medal itself was engraved "For Distinguished Public Service." Like Benton andHoffman, however, Smith had made importantcontributions to the University as well as to thepublic generally.Most recently, in an April 1978 letter to D. J. R.Bruckner and Allison Dunham, John Wilsonspecifically referred to the Benton Medal as anaward for "Distinguished Public Service" andre-embraced the procedures initially set out in1968.40ObservationsFrom the beginning, there has been confusionover the characteristics of the Benton Medal andover the procedures to be employed in selectingrecipients. This confusion is due largely to the absence of any coherent policy governing theestablishment and administration of awards andprizes generally. As a result of this lack of policy,the administration was able to exercise virtuallyunguided discretion in its handling of this award.The 1976 revisions seem helpful, for they attempted to sharpen the focus of the award. Giventhe varied professional achievements of Benton,Hoffman, and Smith in the fields of education,politics, business, international relations, and social service, the emphasis on distinguished publicor professional service seems historicallyjustified.2.3.3 University Of Chicago Medal. On May 3,1976, John Wilson proposed to the Committee onBudget the establishment of the University ofChicago Medal. The purpose of this medal "is torecognize distinguished service of the highestorder to the University by an individual or individuals over an extended period of time." Wilsonindicated that, in his view, there was "not at present an appropriate way of publicly recognizingthe contribution of an individual or individualswho . . . through dedicated and extended service,made a significant difference in the developmentof the institution as a whole." Procedurally, Wilson suggested that "the award be made by theBoard of Trustees, through an appropriate committee of trustees, on the basis of recommendations arising within the board itself or fromthose brought to the attention of the board by anofficer of the University." On the same day, Wilson recommended that this medal be awarded toHelen Regenstein and Florence Lowden Miller.The board apparently accepted the recommendation, for the awards were bestowed shortly thereafter.ObservationsThis medal, which grew out of Wilson's desire toencapsulate in a separate and explicit manner theservice-to-the-University aspect of the BentonMedal, is an example of an award given by theBoard of Trustees for service to the University.2.3.4 The Albert Pick, Jr., Award. The awardoriginated in a discussion between Chauncy Harris, director of the Center for InternationalStudies, and two of the directors of the Albert Pick, Jr., Fund concerning ways in which thememory of Albert Pick, a former trustee of theUniversity of Chicago, could appropriately behonored. Although a number of alternatives wereconsidered, the directors of the fund were particularly interested in giving an award for international understanding, thereby underliningAlbert Pick's own special interests in the Peopleto People Program and other international activities. Upon the recommendation of ProfessorHarris and the president of the University (thenJohn Wilson), the Board of Trustees approved theestablishment of the award.As compared to other awards given by theUniversity — the Rosenberger Medal and theBenton Medal — a greater effort was made in thecase of the Pick Award to specify the nature of theaward. In the agreement reached between theUniversity and the Albert Pick, Jr., Fund, it wasdetermined that:... the individual to receive the award wouldbe one who has contributed significantly tointernational understanding. He might be a government official, scholar, journalist, religiousleader, writer, concerned citizen, or moulder ofpublic opinion. His contribution might be madeby dramatic leadership or example, by writingthat illuminates a particular international problem, or by negotiation in the settlement of anespecially dangerous, intractable, or complexinternational or national problem.Although much of the language of the awardwas broad enough to allow the selection committee considerable latitude, the concluding segmentcontained such specific language that it couldexercise strong influence on the thinking of aselection committee. (Indeed, many of the persons seriously considered by the selection committee had been involved in complex internationalnegotiations.)According to the terms of the award, the selection committee "is to be appointed by the President of the University on the recommendation ofthe Director of the Center for InternationalStudies and the Provost." It further directs thatthe committee is to be "made up mainly, but notexclusively, of faculty members of the Universityin the field of international studies." In sum, theseprocedures were more carefully elaborated than inthe case of the Rosenberger and Benton Medals.The award is not clear as to the locus of finalauthority in the selection process. In the case ofthe Benton, Rosenberger, and University of41Chicago Medals, the nominee is approved by theBoard of Trustees. In the case of the Pick Award,the agreement says that the committee, once appointed, has the authority to "select" the recipient of the Award. There is no reference to a review by the president, the Board of Trustees, theCouncil of the Senate, or any other body. Perhapsit was understood that any committee appointedby the president must report its selection to thepresident for his or her approval. In fact the committee did report its recommendation to the president on the only occasion on which the award hasbeen made. However, the committee, in its reportto the president leaves little doubt that the committee viewed its decision with respect toMcNamara as a "selection," not a mere recommendation.At the time the award was created, there was nopublic announcement, nor was the formation ofthe selection committee announced by the University. According to those most closely involved,the failure to announce the award's establishmentand the committee's formation was an oversight.However, neither the Benton Medal nor the University of Chicago Medal was announced publiclyprior to being awarded to the first recipient. Itappears that in recent years awards have not beenregarded as of intrinsic public interest apart fromthe selection of the first person to be honored bythe award. On the other hand, the lack of information and publicity with respect to theseawards has limited the University community'ssense of involvement in the process.In May 1979, the Albert Pick, Jr., Award waspresented for the first time. The recipient wasRobert McNamara. The committee which nominated Mr. McNamara was appointed by PresidentJohn Wilson. It consisted of six faculty membersand two well-informed observers of internationalaffairs with long-time associations with the University. The committee members were:William H. McNeill, Robert A. Millikan Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofHistory, Chairman;Robert McC. Adams, Harold H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in the Oriental Institute and the Departments of Anthropologyand Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations;Akira Iriye, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Far Eastern Languages and Civilizations;Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Political Science;Robert S. Ingersoll, Deputy Chairman of theBoard of Trustees; John E. Rielly, President, Chicago Council onForeign Relations;D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofEconomics and Provost, ex officio;Chauncy D. Harris, Samuel N. Harper Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofGeography and Director of the Center for International Studie s , ex officio .The selection committee provided its ownframework for deliberation. Its formation inMarch 1978 was not publicly announced by President Wilson. The committee did not call for recommendations from various units of the University, from the faculty at large, or from any widerpublic. It met on two occasions — May 17, 1978and October 16, 1978. The first meeting was devoted to suggestions of possible nominees byvarious committee members. The second meeting, which six of the eight members attended, decided upon the committee's recommendations.Between these two meetings a research assistantof the committee's chairman gathered limited biographical information from public sources (biographical dictionaries, newspapers, etc.) concerning each of the individuals nominated. Thesedocuments provided the documentary basis forthe discussion at the second meeting. At the endof this meeting, each member of the committeewas asked to order his preferences. The two persons absent from the second meeting were subsequently polled.Through these procedures the committeeranked its nominees. When circumstances madeits first selection inappropriate, the committeerecommended that the award be given to RobertMcNamara. This selection was not based on extensive discussion or upon intensive investigationinto his work at the World Bank or elsewhere.When the committee submitted its selection toPresident Gray, it did not provide any supportingmaterial explaining the rationale for its choice.At the same time, there is no evidencewhatsoever — and a good deal of contraryevidence — that the committee was pressed by anypersons inside or outside the University. The veryprocedure the committee followed makes such influence most unlikely.The new president of the University, who hadnot previously been well-informed about the creation of the Pick Award or the selection committee' s composition, accepted the recommendationsof the committee after first ascertaining that theaward had been duly established and that thecommittee, which consisted of people knowledge-42able in the field of international relations, hadacted within the procedures designated for theaward. This award was conferred on May 22, 1979at a dinner on the University campus to which 211members of the faculty and other guests of theUniversity were invited. A medal and the prize of$25,000 were given in association with the award.ObservationsThe procedures by which the Albert Pick Awardwas established and its first nominee selected aretroublesome in several respects. The award wasestablished without any significant consultationwith faculty. The language of the award was restrictive in certain respects. In the establishmentof the award it was not made clear that the committee' s selection was subject to the approval ofany higher authority, whether that be the president, the Council of the Senate, or the Board ofTrustees. The committee did not seek advice fromthe University community as to which individualsmight be appropriate recipients of the award.There were no lengthy deliberations within thecommittee nor careful elaboration of convincingdocumentation in support of the candidateselected. The process was also confounded by thefact that the committee was appointed by onepresident and reported to a second, who had virtually no information about its existence and activities prior to receiving its final report. Since theprocedures established did not require higher-level review and the time when the final reportwas produced coincided with major administrative changes within the University, the substantive work of the committee did not receive the review that is usually associated with major personnel decisions. As a result, the University was notwell-prepared to defend the decisions when criticisms were made.Although some of the elements involved werepeculiar to this specific situation and are not likelyto recur, it is also noteworthy that, apart fromhonorary degrees, awards and prizes given by theUniversity of Chicago have often been madewithout a careful process of consideration and review. Indeed, in many ways the processes associated with the Pick Award were more carefullystructured than with the Rosenberger or BentonMedals. Some of the lessons to be learned fromthe administration of the first Albert Pick Awardneed to be applied more generally to the practiceof giving awards and prizes.The Committee on Awards and Prizes discussed at length the problem of adequately defining the criteria forjudging contributions to "international understanding." Some members argued that contributions to "international understanding" are likely to be defined in the context ofAmerican or Western foreign policy. To the extent that this is so, they argued, the award willinevitably be political in character or will be perceived as such by the larger community. Othermembers maintained that there are means bywhich one can define contributions to international understanding without giving the definition this kind of restrictive political meaning, andthat there are faculty members competent to formulate such a definition. All members of thecommittee agreed, however, that the award in itspresent form is ill-defined, and the committeeconcluded that a redefinition in view of the competence within the University and a substantialmodification in procedure would be required toachieve the goals for which the award wasestablished.3.0 Analysis3.1 IssuesThe questions that emerge from an analysis of thepractices, precedents, and expressions of concernby members of the University community are:1. Why should the University give awards atall?2. What questions of corporate responsibilityare raised by the giving of awards?3. What are the principles and considerationsthat should guide University officers, faculty, andtrustees in evaluating proposals for establishingawards and prizes at the University of Chicago?Stated differently, what are the features of anaward or prize that identify it as appropriate to thecharacter of this University?4. What procedures for selecting the award recipients would most appropriately make use of theexpertise of the University community while respecting the prerogatives of both trustees and faculty members?3.2 Why Does the University Give Awards?When the committee began its work, it attemptedto ascertain what University practices had been inestablishing prizes and awards and in determiningprocedures and criteria for nominating andselecting candidates. The preceding sections reveal that University practices have been varied,fluctuating, and often unclear. Any effort to statea general policy must thus return at least initiallyto first principles.Many groups and organizations bestow awardsupon individuals. The organizational reasons fordoing so are obvious and commonplace. Suchawards enable the organization to attract attention43to itself in the larger society; they provide opportunities for eliciting financial support; and theyallow the organization an opportunity to demonstrate its own discernment in distinguishing excellence in the activities of others. But as much asthese factors may explain the propensity of organizations to give awards, they are not by themselves sufficient justifications for this Universityto undertake such an activity. At least two additional criteria must be satisfied. First, the bestowal of awards must reflect a judgment that theachievements are deserving of special recognitionby the University. This might mean that the University admires the individuals being honored andhas regard for their excellence, or that it wants todraw attention to the quality of their achievements, or that it wants others — students, facultymembers, graduates — to emulate these achievements, or that it wishes to proclaim that the activity being pursued by such individuals deservessupport. Unless a judgment along these lines iscarefully made in each instance, the bestowal ofan award is likely to diminish the University andfail to serve the private or organizational functionsof prize giving.The second essential criterion is that the awardmust fall within an area of activity in which theUniversity has demonstrated competence. In theabsence of this competence, we ought to leave thehonoring to others. An award or prize made in thename of the University ought to show our competence, but to do so, the choice ought to be anexpression of our competence. We might honorsomeone who is worthy of honor, but if we are notcollectively — that is, as members of someacademic unit—judges of the kind of competencethat individual is said to possess, we can only besaid to have made a lucky hit or to have followedgenerally accepted opinion. In neither instancewould credit redound to us, nor would the honorto the individual be valuable."Demonstrated competence" is by no means tobe confused with assertions of competence. Aslittle as we would offer an honorary degree on thebasis of an account in the New York Times orWho's Who, should we make any awards on thebasis of common knowledge or hearsay. As littleas we would give weight to judgment withoutestablishing the competence of the judge, shouldwe undertake to be judges ourselves withoutestablishing our competence so that all who caremay see. In these matters prudence suggests thatwe do well to be our own strictest critic, especially when claimants for that honor are notwanting. If this is granted, then we ask of all possibleobjects of honoring by the University whether ineach instance we know whereof we speak. Ofsome few things, it may safely be said, we knowbetter than anyone else; of other things we areexcellent judges, but not uniquely so; and so on,down to matters where we speak with no authority at all. When we honor in matters at the core ofour concern, we can do so with a relatively highdegree of confidence. As we move to the periphery of our concern as a university, the seriousnessand weight of our judgment diminish. Neither theUniversity nor the honoree nor the larger public islikely to be deceived for long about that.Where, then, does our competence lie? Certainly, if anywhere, in that concern which is ourreason for being: scholarship, learning, research,teaching. Even here, of course, there is no unanimity, and controversy is familiar enough. Butthe issue is not whether the honored individual is apopular choice, but rather whether the choicedemonstrates our discernment. Here two pointsneed to be made that are well-illustrated in thepolicy respecting honorary degrees. In honoring ascholar, neither the University nor the sponsoringdepartment or school is proclaiming an orthodoxyor certifying its acceptance of that individual'swork as definitive. The intended public statementis, rather, that here we have an individualachievement — whether inside or beyond theacademy — that has made a significant differencein how problems are conceived or resolved. As acommunity of scholars, we take special pleasurein making judgments of this kind, judgments thatissue from our special competence. The honorarydegree policy displays another aspect of discernment. For the University to give an honorary degree to someone who is already laden with honorsmight show several things, but it would not show afine capacity for discerning excellence. We demonstrate that by seeking candidates who have notalready been widely acclaimed and whoseachievements might be recognized more widelyand supported more fully because of our havinghonored them. Analogous considerations obtainfor various awards and prizes: for example, theQuantrell Award for excellence in undergraduateteaching and a number of academic awards madeat the annual Student Honors Assembly.Although the competence of the University inthe areas of scholarship, learning, research, andteaching is readily acknowledged, this by nomeans exhausts the instances in which it speaksfrom strength. The University has also demonstrated the capacity to recognize excellence that44cannot strictly be called scholarly. Many of theeducational programs of the University preparestudents for professional careers in business, law,medicine, public policy, social service, education,and the creative arts. Various prizes and awardsmade by the University and by its professionalschools are expressions of the University's legitimate evaluations of professional excellence. Theawarding of the Rosenberger Medal for achievements in the fine arts may be viewed in the samelight. In recognizing excellence in an area where itprovides training and instruction, the Universityencourages an area of activity to which it hasalready made a commitment. In all these instanceswhat is being honored is a special excellence thathas made a difference — and a difference for thebetter — in matters whereof the University or oneof its academic units is competent to judge.The University is likewise competent to evaluate who has served it well in nonacademic ways.Here the prototype would be the University ofChicago Medal. Because the Board of Trustees isin a position to know, it is proper for it to rewardthose whose dedication and ingenuity have furthered the principal concerns of universities ingeneral and this University in particular. Similarly, the dean of students and the Student Activities Office are well situated to know whichgraduating seniors have made outstanding contributions to campus life; the Howell Murrayawards are accordingly rightly placed in theirhands.More problematic is our honoring individualsfor achievements in areas that are not our principal concern and where we may have no specialcompetence as a university. A daring explorer, adissenter of great moral authority and courage, ahumanitarian: these are people whom we mightrightly wish to honor as individuals or as a nation.But what qualifies the University as a universityto speak on these matters? Although it is understandable that we might wish to hold up such rareindividuals as models, our honoring activity needsto respect the peculiarly limited character of auniversity community. We may wish to listen tosuch individuals, to speak with them, and to taketheir measure. But for this University to go beyond that, one would need to make a special case.3.3 The Question Of Corporate ResponsibilityCorporate responsibility should not be consideredonly in the context of a University narrowlydefined as a legal entity composed of specificbodies whose functions, obligations, and responsibilities are known and governed by its charter and statutes. The University of Chicago is.also a "community" composed, not only of itslegally constituted bodies — for example, Board ofTrustees, faculties, and officers — but also of students, alumni, staff, and friends who feel themselves attached to and part of the University. It isalso seen as a "community" in the public arena.This perception of the University as a communitygrows and is maintained by its individual and collective achievements in science, scholarship, andeducation, and by its traditions and experiencesthrough time. A further means by which the University is seen to exercise its community responsibilities is by recognizing and honoring various kinds of achievements.The conferring of awards by a university,whether in the form of honorary degrees or medals and prizes, raises inevitably the question of theboundaries of corporate responsibility and corporate endorsement. It is here advisable to distinguish between corporate endorsement and corporate recognition. Honorary degrees, prizes, andawards all involve corporate recognition of theachievements of outstanding individuals insignificant areas of research or practice. At thesame time, these awards in no way imply that theUniversity, as a corporate entity, endorses thespecific research findings that it is recognizing.This is most obvious in the case of honorary degrees, which are frequently awarded to individuals whose work may have been sharply challengedby members of the University community. Thesame applies to nonscholarly achievements.Members of the University community who havenot, in fact, played a part in these decisions mightregard themselves as having no responsibility forthem. However, as the reaction to the first PickAward so vividly demonstrated, members of theUniversity do regard themselves, and are regarded by others, as somehow responsible for decisions made in the name of the University.If we are inevitably going to give the impressionof corporate responsibility, when awards andprizes are given, it behooves us to make the actualresponsibility as "corporate" as possible, by involving as much of the University community aspracticable in the decision-making process. Thepolicy on honorary degrees is instructive. Thisaward, which appears to be viewed as a corporatestatement on the part of the University, evolvesthrough a process of selection consistent with thatsense of corporate responsibility. There is broadinvolvement of faculty members in the initialnominations, there is peer review of the documentation of scholarly excellence, and there is45approval by the elected faculty representatives inthe form of the Committee of the Council and theCouncil of the Senate before final approval by theBoard of Trustees. Thus the notion of corporaterecognition in the conferring of honorary degreesis acknowledged by the University and accountsfor many of the procedures that have beenadopted.In the case of awards and lectureships andprizes given at the level of the divisions or thedepartments or the committees, the corporate recognition appears to reside in those bodies thathave the responsibility for selection. All-University awards and prizes — such as the Rosenberger, the Benton, and the Pick Award — asawards for achievement in the public domain,may be perceived to imply widespread recognition within the University community. Suchrecognition could never be held to imply unanimous approval, but should at least indicate thatrepresentative groups within the University community have given serious consideration to theevaluation of the achievements for which theaward is given.This evaluation, in the case of honorary degrees, takes the form of detailed written documentation; such a process becomes simultaneously more important and more difficult as theUniversity community turns its attention from therealm of scholarship in which its competence isunchallenged (the realm of honorary degrees) tothe realms of nonacademic achievement that mustbe evaluated in the potential recipients of theRosenberger, Benton, and Pick awards. Despiteinevitable disagreement and controversy, such aprocess of review makes explicit the Universitycommunity's awareness of the complexity of theintellectual and political judgments implicit insuch an evaluation, and so provides solid groundson which to explain, if not necessarily to validate,its ultimate choice of the recipient.Such documentation should also serve tominimize, if not to obviate, another problem ofcorporate recognition, the problem of the "corpo-rateness" not of the awarding body (the University) but of the recipient of the award: To whatextent does an award given to an individual for aspecific achievement imply recognition of anything about the awardee other than the specificachievement cited in the award?It is evident that careful specification and documentation of achievements are essential if thestatement being made by the University is to beperceived accurately. Even with the precision ofsuch documentation in the case of honorary degrees, there will be controversy not only about the specific scholarly achievement but also aboutother aspects of the awardee 's career. Such controversies can be avoided only by refraining frommaking awards altogether. It is certainly withinthe traditions and the competence of the University to deal with such controversy by intelligentdiscourse and then finally by persuasive argumenton the merits of the case.In the case of all-University awards for publicservice, the problems of corporate responsibilityand corporate competence are undoubtedly compounded. We can ignore those problems only bytrivializing the sense in which the Universitystands for a commitment to a set of common principles and obligations. There are in fact many circumstances in which the community is far frombeing of any truly corporate mind, for the University is composed of men and women with highlydivergent views. As one leaves the relatively narrow realm of collective professional competence,those divergences come to the fore, and resentment at the presumptuousness of others to speakfor one in these nonacademic matters is easilyunderstood. These are feelings that do not needencouragement.Our self-restraint in acting as a community, farfrom diminishing us, is the condition for our surviving as a community. In this context, we cherishthe University's honorable, painstaking, and sofar effective defense of its freedom and the freedom of its individual faculty members and students to speak their minds as researchers and ascitizens and to engage in lawful political acts aslong as they are understood not to imply any corporate endorsement by the entire Universitycommunity. By acting with a clear awareness ofour special position — at once fragile andprivileged — we are better able to confront our options: Either we can remove all risk of controversy by not giving awards at all, or we can runthat risk with confidence that any award we properly choose to make in fact expresses the collective sense of this special kind of community.4.0 Recommendations4.1 PrinciplesAfter reviewing the history of awards and prizesat this University and considering the reasons forand the risks of giving awards or prizes at this orsimilar institutions, we conclude that it is appropriate, and to its benefit, for the University to givevarious awards. In addition to the honorary degrees and the awards for service to the University,there are good reasons to give awards for excellence and service in the professions and in the artswhen the procedure ensures that our standards of46excellence are maintained and the traditions ofbroad consultation and review that characterizeour behavior as an intellectual community arepursued.In endorsing the principle of giving awards andmedals, the committee does not endorse all thereasons that might motivate decisions to giveawards. As far as possible, for example, the development functions of the University should usepublic and private mechanisms other than thoseafforded by the awarding of public prizes. Thespecial expertise and competence of faculty members, which might be publicized by the selectionof an outstanding recipient for an award or prize,is, in the final analysis, best demonstrated to society at large by acts of scholarship, leadership, andperformance rather than by reflected illumination.The committee recommends that the followingset of principles guide our practices in the administration of awards and prizes:1 . Awards or prizes should be conferred by theUniversity only when there is an identifiable domain of expertise within the University that iscompetent to judge performance in the field forwhich the award is named. The closer the award isto the recognition of scholarly achievements, theeasier it is to identify the presence or lack of sucha competent body. In the case of the professionsor the creative and performing arts, professionalschools or departments — or units within the University involved in training for thoseendeavors — are likely to have the competence forjudging excellence. In considering awards in thefields of public policy, public service, or publicadministration, the utmost diligence must beexercised at the earliest stages to identify whetherthere is a body of expertise within the Universitythat is especially competent to judge such excellence.2. The most attractive awards are those whichcontribute to and grow from the University'scentral concern with scholarship. Whenever possible, awards should contribute directly to thestimulation of scholarly interactions at the University by taking the form of lectures, seminars,performances, and exhibits on the campus of theUniversity.3. To the extent that an award recognizes performance that is not measured by the familiarcriteria of scholarship within the University, therationale for establishing the award should bescrutinized with particular attention to the presence of programs within the University that mightbenefit from the recognition and the stimulationassociated with the proper administration of anaward or prize. Beyond this, in addition to identifiable expertise, there should be a persuasive argument of the benefits of identifying theaward with the University of Chicago.4. An award or prize should be defined and theprocedures for selection constructed not to avoidcontroversy and disagreement — which are alegitimate part of the intellectual life of theUniversity — but rather so that the fitness of thehonoree can be documented clearly and persuasively.5. The University's policy on honorary degreesis recognized and enthusiastically endorsed by theCommittee. An important lesson to be learnedfrom that policy is that the University seems to bevery well served by a diligent standing committeewhich receives and judges carefully prepared andreasoned recommendations from faculty units andwhich, in turn, presents its recommendations tothe scrutiny and deliberation of the Council of theSenate before recommendations pass to the president and Board of Trustees.6. Not only the prerogatives to give or not togive awards, which reside with the Board ofTrustees, but also the expertise and experiencerepresented in that body should be recognized indesigning procedures for awards and prizes.4.2 Recommendations Regarding Existing AwardsWe recommend the following modifications andredefinitions of existing all-University awards. Allawards should be conferred in a way that reflectsthe competence of the University. All awardsshould provide the opportunity for the awardee tospend a period of time at the University. The recipient may give public lectures or performances,teach, conduct seminars, or otherwise interactwith students, faculty, and other members of theacademic community. Each award should have adistinct focus. The Rosenberger Medal should beconferred for outstanding achievements in thecreative and performing arts, the Benton Awardfor public service through professional excellence, and the Albert Pick, Jr., Award for contributions in the international field. A particularlyattractive way by which the Albert Pick, Jr.,Award might foster international understandingwould be to enable outstanding individuals fromother nations to experience and enrich the life atthis University.4.3 ProceduresThe committee recommends the establishment ofa standing committee on prizes and awards. Thiscommittee would have several functions: (1) toprovide advice regarding the establishment of newawards and prizes; (2) to aid in the identification of47the appropriate body of competence within theUniversity which can be charged with the responsibility of selecting those to be honored; (3) toact in the case of all-University awards as an additional review and to approve recommendationsbefore they are forwarded to the Council of theSenate and the Board of Trustees; and (4) to collect information relevant to all awards so that activities in this sphere can be reported yearly tofaculty members and trustees. The committeewould be appointed by the president of the University in consultation with the Committee of theCouncil of the Senate and with the ExecutiveCommittee of the Board of Trustees. The chairperson would be a faculty member. (We suggestthree other faculty members and two trustees, onerepresentative of the alumni organization, and oneother representative of the University community. Members would serve staggered three-yearterms.)4.3.1 Procedure for Establishing a University-wide Award. A proposal for establishing a newall-University award or prize which recognizesperformance consistent with the traditions of excellence of the University and identifies a body ofcompetence for selection should be referred to theCommittee on Prizes and Awards in the form of awritten definition of the excellence to be recognized by the award. Members of the Committee on Prizes and Awards might be useful resourcepersons in the drafting of a proposal so that itwould conform with University practices and therequirements of the decision making and reviewprocess. The committee would consider the written proposal and recommend approval or disapproval or a proposed modification to the proposers. If and when the draft proposal was approved, the committee would forward a recommendation for approval to the president alongwith recommendations for the selection process.The president might wish to consult with theCommittee of the Council and the Council of theSenate before forwarding his or her recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which has the finalresponsibility for establishing awards at the University. If the Board of Trustees should act favorably upon the award, the president should proceed to initiate the process of selection only aftera public announcement of the award to the University community with the full text of the chargeto the selection committee and with a statement ofthe nature of the award and the selection process.4.3.2 Selection Process for University-wideAwards. A selection committee's membership should be announced so that its members mightreceive recommendations and comments from theUniversity community. A selection committeeshould be appointed by the president in consultation with the Awards Committee, the Committeeof the Council, and the Executive Committee ofthe Board of Trustees. A selection committeeshould carry out its deliberations and forward itsfully documented recommendations to theAwards Committee, which would pass these recommendations to the Council of the Senatethrough the Committee of the Council. For service awards and divisional or departmentalawards, the Committee on Prizes and Awardswould review the documentation and record theselection for its yearly report to the Council of theSenate. The process should have the same degreeof openness during the initial phases of a nomination and the same degree of confidentiality duringthe final deliberations of the Awards Committee,Selection Committee, and the Council of the Senate as is the case with honorary degrees. Once arecommendation for approval has been forwardedto the president and the Board of Trustees andapproved by the Board of Trustees, the public announcement of the award could be made.4.3.3. Procedures for Other University Awards.Awards for service to the University and alumniawards should be established by the Board ofTrustees and the alumni organization, respectively. "Area" awards should be conferredby divisions, departments, and other units withinthe University. The Committee on Prizes andAwards could be a resource when new awards areconsidered in these categories. All new awardsshould be reported to the committee with theirspecifications to enable the committee to maintainan accurate record of awards conferred by theUniversity.The selection process for these awards wouldvary. In general, for service awards the selectioncommittee should be appointed by the chairmanof the Board of Trustees, for alumni awards by thepresident of the Alumni Association, and for areaawards by the appropriate dean, departmental orcommittee chairperson. Recipients of theseawards and a description of the excellence recognized by the award should be reported to theCommittee on Awards and Prizes so that it mayperform its reportorial function to the Senate andthe Board of Trustees.4.3.4 The Review Function of the Awards Committee. This committee recognizes that the definition of an award in the abstract without the cruci-48ble of the selection process may fail to anticipatesome of the questions which are raised during theselection process. The Committee on Awards andPrizes should use its review of selected recipientsto evaluate the description of the award and theprecedents set by the selection. The AwardsCommittee should accept the responsibility forrecommending to the president modifications inthe characterization of an award when suchmodifications are required.4.3.5 A Comment. This committee is aware thatthe procedures recommended in this report, byadding additional levels of review and consultation, add to the administrative and bureaucraticPRELIMINARY REPORT OFTHE COMMITTEE ONENROLLMENTTwo previous committees (1973, 1977) examinedthe size of enrollment in the University. After reviewing past planning for the size of the facultyand student body, they concluded that it was feasible and desirable to increase the size of the student body to approximately 8,500 by 1980. At thesame time they assumed a faculty reduction toabout 1,000.While their conclusions derive from severalconsiderations, three emerge as central:1 . The traditional character of Chicago as a research and predominantly graduate universityshould be preserved;2. Any expansion of the student body mustmaintain standards of excellence in the graduate,professional, and undergraduate programs;3. A larger university is necessary in order tomaintain the scope and depth of intellectual activity. Put another way, preservation of the facultysize and the range of programs in research andinstruction depend on the generation of additionaltuition income.The problem arises because it is apparent thatthe goal of 8,500 students by 1980 cannot bereached. In fact, present trends suggest that enrollment may fall from the 1978-79 total of 8,003(7,781 degree candidates plus 222 students-at-large) to 7,200 to 7,400 by 1983-84 unless something is done to alter the situation. Further, faculty size was 1,014 in 1978-79.Focusing attention only on total enrollment, complexity of the process and that such practiceswould require additional effort on the part of faculty, trustees, and members of the Universitycommunity. Awards conferred by the University,whether for scholarship or service, reflect on thestandards of excellence and the sense of responsibility of the University. Therefore, suchawards deserve a procedure no less exacting thanthat for selection of honorary degree recipients,including open nominations, a diligent and scholarly selection process, peer review, and, for all-University awards, approval by the most representative faculty body of the University and finalreview and approval by the Board of Trustees.however, is misleading. Enrollment goals of 8,000or even 7,750 might be accomplished in ways thatare destructive of the character of the University.We must consider not only the total size of thestudent body but its quality and its distributionamong the various parts of the University — thegraduate divisions, the College, and the professional schools.Chicago has been traditionally a graduate university with the divisions and schools constitutingfrom 65 to 70 percent of the enrollments over thelife of the University. But to say that Chicago ispredominantly a graduate university is to obscurethe change that has taken place recently in therelative sizes of the divisions and the professionalschools. If one ignores the abnormal years aroundWorld War II and its aftermath, the divisions constituted slightly over 40 percent of the studentbody from the late 1930s through the early 1970s,with the professional schools ranging between 21percent and 27 percent (Table I). The increase inthe relative size of the professional schools beganaround 1965 and reached its present proportion ofabout one-third by 1972. The divisions maintainedtheir relative size of about 40 percent until 1972.Since then they have steadily declined in relativesize until they now constitute 33 percent.The College has always played an importantrole in the life of the University. While its sizeappears small compared with the combinedgraduate enrollments, it has been, in fact, largerthan the combined enrollments of the professionalschools for the past forty years. Except for a fewyears during World War II, however, the Collegehas been smaller than the divisions. Only in 1978did the College become larger than the divisions.Preliminary figures for 1979-80 suggest that the49TABLE I: ENROLLMENT PROPORTIONS OF UNIVERSITY UNITS BY YEAR(Degree Candidates Only)Year Divisions Schools College TotalEnrollment1939-40 44% 27% 29% 57301948-49 49 20 31 82101958-59 42 21 36 58021968-69 41 27 32 83351978-79 33 33 34 7781trend that began in 1972 is continuing strongly.The relative balance between the College and thedivisions is moving further in the direction of theCollege.Analysis of the ProblemWhy has enrollment consistently fallen below thegoals outlined by the previous committees? Ananalysis of the data presented in Table II indicatesthat the problem lies in the steady drop in applications for doctoral work in the divisions, particularly in the Humanities and Social Science Divisions. In the College and the professionalschools applications are up sharply. While totalapplications to the University are up about 19 percent over the decade 1968-78, applications to thedivisions are down about 37 percent. During thesame period, total University enrollment is down by 7 percent. Increased enrollments in the Collegeand the professional schools have not offset thedecline in enrollments in the divisions.It has been possible to offset somewhat the decline in the number of applications to the divisionsby increasing the admissions rates. It appears thatwe are now reaching a limit in what can be donewithout eroding the quality of the graduate student body. We have examined the data on a department by department basis. There is variationamong departments in the rate at which applications have declined and even occasional halts tothe trend, but there is little doubt that we are experiencing a prolonged and steady decline in applications and that the decline is sharpest for thehumanities and social sciences.We have secured some limited data on applications for graduate study in the arts and sciences atTABLE II: APPLICATIONS AND ENROLLMENT 1968-78(Standardized 1968-69 = 100)aYear Divisions College SchoolsApplications Enrollment Applications Enrollment Applications Enrollment1968-69 100 100 100 100 100 1001969-70b 76 95 101 90 110 1001970-71 89 85 93 85 113 991971-72 81 87 72 81 135 991972-73 93 86 110 80 164 1041973-74 85 81 94 83 177 1011974-75 80 83 94 87 188 1061975-76 79 82 103 92 202 1121976-77 71 75 113 94 194 1121977-78 70 77 107 98 180 1111978-79 62 73 126 102 175 114a. Base1968-69 5,460 3,454 2,122 2,598 5,273 2,283b. 1969-70 appears to have been an exceptional year. The sharp decline in applications to the divisions may be connected withthe abolition of the military draft.50comparable large, research-oriented universitieswith whom we compete for graduate students. Itis clear from these data that the decline is notrestricted to the University of Chicago, but iscommon to universities similar to our own. Whilethe decline has not been greatest at Chicago, it hasbeen among the highest. Past committees havecited the neighborhood, climate, housing, and thequality of life at the University as important factors affecting our application rate. Some or all ofthese factors are probably still important. The relatively small amount of graduate financial supportwe give may also be an important factor affectingapplication rates. We shall return to this pointlater in the report.We view the problem of declining divisional applications as a general one facing all graduateresearch-oriented universities.How long will the problem last? It is extremelydifficult to make any precise predictions. Somedemographic projections can be made, however,at least on the basis of people now alive. Theseprojections suggest that there will be an upturn inthe demand for college teachers beginning in theearly 1990s, becoming sharper after 1995. Projections of the demand for college teachers aresubject to a great deal of imprecision and dependheavily on assumptions about the rates of facultyretirement, which will be affected in some unknown way by the change in the retirement law,and on the proportion of high school graduateswho go on to college. Assuming that the decline inapplications has been in large part due to the decline in perceived academic job opportunities, wecould begin to see an increase in applicationsanywhere from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s,depending on what happens with enrollments andretirements. It thus seems likely that we are facinga problem that will be with us for at least five toten years and perhaps longer.To summarize, we see the problem as basicallyone of a steady and continuing decline in applications for graduate programs which prepare scholars for academic careers. These are the kinds ofprograms which have been traditionally strongestat Chicago. While every effort should be made toencourage qualified applications, we are pessimistic that the decline can be halted by extraefforts of our own, although such efforts are veryimportant in slowing the rate of decline.Possible Types of ResponsesOf the several possible types of responses to thisproblem, five were judged to merit exploration.All address the problem of enrollment, but they have rather different consequences for the University.Type 1 . The simplest and most obvious way toincrease enrollments would be to expand the professional schools, particularly those such as Business and Law, for which there are a very largenumber of applications. We have already seenthat this response has been occurring over thepast decade and that the professional schools constitute a higher proportion of the students in theUniversity than ever before.It appears to the committee that the professional schools are for the most part alreadyoperating at, and in some cases slightly beyond,capacity. Expansion of these units for which thedemand is highest would require additions to thefaculty and new or expanded facilities. Growth ofthe professional schools without concomitantgrowth in other parts of the University would alsofurther change the relative balance among thevarious parts of the University. We feel, therefore, that the question of growth of the professional schools should be examined separately.For the purpose of our analysis, we have assumedthat the professional schools will either remain thesame size or constitute the same proportion of thetotal student body.Type 2. Another possible response to the problem would be a change in the relative emphasis inthe divisional graduate programs from the Ph.D.to the masters degree or, to put it more accurately, from an emphasis on the preparation ofscholars for academic careers to preparation forother types of careers for which advanced work invarious disciplines is appropriate. Such advancedwork might be at the Ph.D. level but would bemore oriented toward careers in nonacademic research, business, or government.To a considerable extent such a change hasbeen going on already as an adaptation to changing academic employment opportunities. The Divisional Masters program in the Social ScienceDivision has been one conspicuous success. Itsstudents now make up more than 10 percent ofthat division's enrollment. A number of other initiatives are under way. The variation in opportunities for or appropriateness of such alterations inemphasis is so great, however, that the committeedoes not feel it can draw any general conclusionsfor the University as a whole. Where suchchanges or program developments appear reasonable, we strongly encourage their vigorous development and continuation. We would simply caution against any plunge into more applied programs for which there might be considerable stu-51dent demand if it means that new resources orfaculty would have to be secured to mount suchprograms at the level of quality expected at thisUniversity.Type 3. Since to a considerable extent the divisional and college faculties overlap, one response to the decline in graduate divisional enrollments would be to increase significantly thesize of the College. The success of the admissionsoffice in increasing the number of applications tothe College and our continuing success in attracting excellent undergraduates suggest that this response may be a viable alternative, despite a declining national pool of high school graduates.What are the consequences of such a policy?Table III presents the results of projecting a 3 percent annual decrease in the number of graduatestudents and a 3 percent annual increase in thesize of the College. These rates appear to be reasonable in light of our experience over the pastdecade.The purpose of these projections is not to setany goals for what the size of the University andits parts should be but merely to trace out theconsequence of a deliberate policy to maintain aroughly similar size in the face of a continuingdecline in applications in the graduate divisions.A major consequence of this policy would bethat the ratio of divisional graduate to undergraduate students would change from approximately 50:50 in 1978-79 to 40:60 in 1983-84, withundergraduates then in the majority. The committee takes no position about whether this outcome is desirable or undesirable, but it is clear that such a change in balance between graduateand undergraduate students would have importantimplications for the types of courses offered andthe teaching obligations of faculty.Since the College has been growing over thepast five years and already is bigger than the divisions, it might not appear to be much of achange for this trend to continue a bit further.Discussions with the College dean and masters,however, suggest that the faculty have not fullyrecognized the implications for teaching and curriculum that are implied by the changes during thepast few years. Further change in this directionwill require some considerable change in the wayfaculty members view their teaching obligations.In order to make these implications clear, we needto look more closely at the College program andhighlight enrollment-related problems.The College has traditionally placed a strongemphasis on liberal education while at the sametime providing opportunities for students to pursue more advanced work in particular disciplinesin close proximity with a graduate faculty. Indeed,Chicago's strength and comparative advantage asa college lie in this rare combination of generaland disciplinary education. The success of thiscombination lies in a curriculum which structuresstudents' studies so that they avoid, on the onehand, the pitfalls of premature specialization and,on the other hand, dabbling in a variety of intellectual disciplines.Much of the structure of the curriculum is provided by the core courses. Each undergraduate isrequired to take a year-long sequence of coursesTABLE III: PROJECTION A— COLLEGE GROWTHStudents 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 ProportionIn 1983-84Divisions (3%/yr.decrease) 2350 (30%) 2280 2212 2146 2082 27%College (3%/yr.increase) 2753 (36%) 2836 2921 3009 3099 40%Total Divisionsand College 5103 5116 5133 5155 5181Schools (exceptMedical) 2175 2175 2175 2175 2175Medical 420 420 420 420 420Total Schools 2595 (34%) 2595 2595 2595 2595 33%Total Quadrangles 7698 7711 7728 7750 7776 100%52TABLE IV: CORE AND SECOND QUARTET COURSES1975-76 AND 1977-78Core Courses(Number ofQuarter Courses) 1975-76 1977-78FacultyTaught Non-FacultyTaught Total FacultyTaught Non-FacultyTaught TotalBiological SciencesHumanitiesPhysical SciencesSocial SciencesSecond Quartet3Foreign Language 38 (93%)69 (62%)32 (100%)49 (59%)143 (70%)77 (66%) 3420346140 411113283204117 38 (90%)65 (68%)27 (100%)49 (64%)181 (65%)100 (59%) 4300229868 42952776279168bEnrollment1st year + transfers 783 752TOTAL 2401 2540a. Extra divisional courses have been combined with second quartet.b. The five foreign languages offered by the Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations are included in 1977-78.in the biological sciences, humanities, physicalsciences, and social sciences. In addition to thecore, a series of basic courses, while not requiredof all students, plays a central role in the curricu-lar requirements of the collegiate divisions andconstitutes a portion of the "second quartet" ofliberal arts courses. Among the most prominent ofthese are: the basic mathematics coursesthrough calculus, organic and inorganic chemistry, the elementary foreign language courses, theHistory of Western Civilization and the Non-Western Civilization courses. All of these are to avarying degree enrollment- sensitive, that is, asenrollment increases, extra courses are requireddirectly in some fairly clearly defined ratio. Forexample, if current class size were to be maintained, an extra humanities core course (or section of a course) would be required each quarterfor approximately each additional twenty enteringstudents.Of course, the degree of sensitivity of coursesto enrollment depends on class size. In many corecourses, particularly in the humanities and socialsciences and in basic mathematics and foreignlanguage courses, class sizes have traditionallybeen fairly small. Increasing class size is one wayto handle a larger student body, but decisionsabout class size must also take into account theimportance of small class sizes to our ability toattract undergraduate students. Table IV displays the number of core coursesgiven in 1975-76 and in 1977-78 as well as data onsome selected basic courses that are central to thecurriculum. These figures give us some idea of themagnitude of the teaching requirements impliedby different College enrollments and the degree towhich these requirements are currently being metby regular faculty members. Note that a reductionin the number of entering students resulted in areduction in the number of core courses offered,but that the increase in total enrollment in theCollege resulted in an increase in the number ofsecond quartet courses offered. (Included here areextra-divisional courses that function as secondquartet courses for some students.) The increasein the number of foreign language courses offeredto undergraduates is due not only to the increasein students but also to the fact that five foreignlanguages offered by the Department of SouthAsian Languages and Civilizations were availableto undergraduates in 1977-78 but not in 1975-76.While some improvement in the proportion ofcourses taught by regular faculty in Social Sciences and Humanities has occurred between1975-76 and 1977-78, we still have a way to go,even at present enrollments, before we are meeting our obligations in staffing the core and thebasic courses with regular faculty.In addition to the courses that play importantroles in the general education part of the cur-53riculum, increasing the size of the College willalso have implications for elementary courses inspecific disciplines that are either required forconcentration programs (the prerequisites prescribed by the faculty of the department offeringthe prerequisites and also, in many cases, by faculty of other concentration programs as well) orare obvious entry points for study in a disciplineand therefore are taken by a large number of students who want to find out whether they wouldfind a field interesting to them. The effects of thegrowth of the College have already been felt in anumber of such courses which now must be repeated several times a year, for example, Behavioral Sciences 200 and introductory economicscourses.While the sensitivity of such courses to enrollment change is less than that of the core coursesand more difficult to estimate because of shiftingrequirements and popularity of fields, it is clearthat growth in the size of the College will require ashift of faculty attention toward elementarycourses in their fields (courses which either serveas introductions to their disciplines or are provided as a "service" to other disciplines that findit desirable to provide their students with somegrounding in a different discipline). To meet theseobligations responsibly will require much morecoordination and commitment to providingcourses on a regular and frequent basis than hasbeen common among many of the faculty of thedivisions. It is not a commitment to be takenlightly.The present size of the College, about 2,700,requires approximately 715 freshmen and 100transfer students each year. If the College were toexpand to 3,000, then 800 freshmen and 100transfer students would be needed each year. A3,200-student College would require 950 to 975new students a year (combination of freshmen andtransfer students). A College of 3,200 studentswould have obvious implications for the recruitingand admissions process, advising, and for housingand other facilities. The staff and budget of thesevarious support services would have to be substantially increased in order to handle the effectsof an expanded recruiting and applications process.A larger College would have important consequences for the housing system. Assuming thatthe University remained at 8,000 students, therewould be sufficient space for entering students,although there might be some difficulties in converting graduate units to undergraduate use. Sincefreshmen are required to live in University hous ing, there might occur a very large concentrationof freshmen in the housing system, which someconsider educationally undesirable. There mightwell be fewer places in the housing system forupper-class students and graduate professionalstudents.A larger College would also increase the pressure on certain student activity space, especiallyIda Noyes, and might require remodeling of suchspace for more intensive use. The need for thecreation of additional student amenities — acinema, for example — would no doubt be moresharply expressed.Other basic facilities and services — food, athletics, library and study space — would not be affected greatly by a shift in the ratio of graduateand undergraduate students.In sum, although some strains on currentfacilities would result, there appear to be no serious facility or budget constraints that argueagainst the expansion of the College, providedthat the total Quadrangles enrollment remains inthe neighborhood of 8,000.Type 4. Another strategy would require adjusting the size of the University to keep the ratio ofgraduate division and undergraduate students approximately at the 1978-79 level of 33 percent ofthe student body in the divisions, 33 percent in theschools, and 34 percent in the College. Such astrategy would entail reducing the size of the College over the next few years instead of expandingit. Table V presents projections of enrollments invarious units of the University based on the sameassumptions of decline in graduate divisional enrollments as were used in Table III and usingthese figures to determine the total enrollment forthe University in 1983-84. The enrollments in theCollege and professional schools are then determined by the ratios. Note that in order to preserve the 1978-79 ratios of graduate, undergraduate, and professional school students, theenrollments in the professional schools would alsohave to decline somewhat. Because the sizes ofthe various units for 1979-80 are already determined, reductions in the College and schoolscould not begin until 1980-81 .It appears inevitable that a necessary concomitant of Type 4 is a reduction in the size of thefaculty. Because of the complexity of facultyteaching and research activities, it is extraordinarily difficult to make more than the mosttentative guess at what the magnitude of the reduction would need to be. Table VI presents oneestimate based on the rather simpleminded application of current student/faculty ratios to the pro-54TABLE V: PROJECTION B— ADJUSTMENT TO GRADUATE ENROLLMENTStudents 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Proportionin 1985-84Divisions 33% 2350 (30%) 2280 2212 2146 2082 33%College 34% 2753 (36%) 2591 2429 2267 2105 34%Schools (exceptMedical) 2175 2057 1944 1831 1717Medical 420 410 395 380 365Total Schools 33% 2595 (34%) 2467 2339 2211 2082 33%Total Quadrangles 7698 7338 6980 6624 6269TABLE VI: FACULTY PROJECTION FOR B(At 1978-79 Student/Faculty Ratios)1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84College & Division (9.1/1)Schools, Except Medical(14.8/1)Medical (1.4/1) 571147296 561147300 535139293 510131282 485124271 460116261TOTAL 1014* 1008 967 923 880 837*Budget count of faculty in academic areas as of 10/78.jected enrollment figures. The purpose of constructing Table VI is not to make any accurateprediction of reduction in faculty size but rather togive some idea of the order of magnitude of faculty reduction that is implied by Type 4. The conclusion that emerges from this exercise is that reductions in faculty size are roughly proportionalto reduction in student size. A 19 percent reduction in the size of the total student body over thefive-year period implies approximately a 17 percent reduction in the size of the entire faculty anda 19 percent reduction for the divisions and College.A reduction in the size of the faculty in presentcircumstances has many implications for thecharacter of the University that must be thoughtthrough in discussions of this option. The mostobvious, given the tenure structure, is that themean age of the faculty would go up. Reduction offaculty size, taken together with the changes inthe retirement law scheduled to go into effect in1982, would sharply reduce opportunities forjunior faculty appointments. The proportion of thefaculty on tenure would increase. For individualacademic units the consequences may be varied. There are, no doubt, many special circumstanceswhich will make this policy more or less obnoxious to particular departments or schools.Any responsible policy of faculty reductionwould entail measures that would be painful andacademically injurious in detail. If the quality ofthe faculty in departments that teach large numbers of undergraduate and graduate students is notmaintained, the essential divisional and Collegeenrollments will decline either in numbers orquality more than in our present worst estimates.In such departments, therefore, faculty reductionscannot be much reduced. It follows that the contemplated faculty reductions cannot be across theboard. It is probable that, in areas where the principal reductions would have to be made, it wouldno longer be possible to afford a faculty largeenough to maintain programs of high quality incertain subfields of study and perhaps in certainentire fields.If a policy of reducing faculty size is adopted, itis of the utmost importance that it should be deliberate and based on faculty decisions about theUniversity's academic objectives in research andteaching. It should not be an opportunistic one of55not filling positions vacated by retirement or resignation. Only by a very thorough discussionthroughout the University can the full consequences of an overall reduction in size of the University of the magnitude indicated in Table VI beunderstood.Type 5. The first four strategies assume that little or nothing we might do can arrest the decline inapplications and enrollment in Ph.D. programs inthe graduate divisions of the University. This response makes a different assumption — that imaginative action might slow the decline, if not halt itentirely. It is based on two judgments which, unfortunately, cannot be supported by firm evidence.1. Present studies of the diminishing demandfor Ph.Ds in academic jobs are too pessimistic.By the early 1990s, the number of teaching jobswill again be increasing; therefore, Ph.D. trainingshould anticipate that occurrence by expanding itsnumber in the late 1980s. The period of contraction, therefore, may last only five to seven years.2. The University of Chicago can and shouldrun counter to the trend. The assumption has beenmade elsewhere in this report that the College canexpand in the face of the declining number ofcollege-age people. For somewhat different reasons the University may be able to slow the rate ofshrinkage in its graduate programs to a greaterdegree than other universities.Perhaps it would be useful to review the "basecase," that is, the University enrollment patternsin 1985 if no action were to be undertaken. Weassume that the professional schools would remain constant at about 2,000. If the Collegereaches the steady state implied by enteringclasses of 850 students (including transfers), College enrollment should level off at 2,800. We assume the divisions will continue to decline somewhat to about 1,900 by 1985. If 8,000 studentsremain a precondition for the University's financial equilibrium, then the problem is how to raisethe student body by 800 students— from 7,200 to8,000.Earlier we concluded that the professionalschools with sufficient demand to consider expansion (law, business, medicine) were at capacity. Itis doubtful that their faculties would wish to expand. Even if they did, further expansion wouldrequire additional faculty appointments. Earlierwe judged also that the College, if a sufficientlyvigorous recruiting effort were maintained, couldattract more students without lowering the overallquality of the student body. Suppose the College were to grow by 400 to a total size of 3,200. Thatmeans a way would have to be found to expandthe graduate divisions by 400 over the base caseso that the overall profile would be:Schools 2,500 31%College 3,200 40%Divisions 2,300 29%8,000 100%Is that possible? How could it be done? In effect, our objective is to stabilize the enrollment ofthe divisions at about the 1979-80 level. Earliercommittee reports made useful suggestions forimproving recruitment procedures (summarized inAppendix A). We endorse these suggestions andurge their continued vigorous implementation.An additional powerful tool in recruiting the desired quality and number of graduate students isfinancial aid. Between 1969-70 and 1977-78, federal fellowship aid to divisional students fell from$3.7 million to $2.1 million. The University's fellowship funds for divisional students from unrestricted funds held fairly constant as enrollmentdeclined: $2,272,000 or_$690 per enrolled studentin 1969-70; $2,310,000 or $872 per enrolled student in 1977-78. But tuition increased sharply:$690 represented 31 percent of the 1969-70 tuition, while $872 represented only 22.2 percent ofthe 1977-78 tuition. Other costs for graduate students also rose. Among ten comparable graduateprograms, Chicago is either last or next to last infinancial aid for its graduate students. It offers thefewest teaching opportunities, it is third from lastin available research assistantships, and is next tolast in the number of students receiving aid.Chicago is eighth in the proportion of those admitted who actually matriculate.It seems likely that the present financial aidprogram has cost the University graduate enrollments, especially in the Humanities and SocialSciences Divisions. More importantly, the smallamount of available aid makes it very difficult forus to compete for the very best graduate applicants who have aid offers from several other universities.Two factors may be of interest in considering asignificant increase in the unrestricted Universityaid made available to graduate students. First,there are costs associated with the other responses described above. A reduction in the sizeof the faculty may mean that there will follow anew period of faculty expansion once graduate enrollment begins to increase. It seems likely thatthe reductions would be accomplished gradually56and only completed by 1985. If our earlier judgment about the time that graduate enrollment willbegin to increase is correct, some additional faculty appointments will be needed in the late 1980s.There are surely expenses associated with dismantling and then reconstructing a portion of thefaculty in that short a cycle.The second consideration draws on an historical observation. Clearly, the decline in graduateenrollment poses a threat to the basic character ofthis institution. A College/division ratio describedin Type 3 would result in a university very similarto its eastern counterparts, which have the undergraduate programs as the dominant central focusof the institution. There will be disagreement, nodoubt, among the faculty about the desirability ofsuch a change at this University. It is important,however, that everyone understand that we cannot change the College/division ratio to the degreeimplied in Type 3 without making many otherchanges in the life of the University, most particularly in the teaching responsibilities of the faculty.For an increase in graduate aid to be effective, itwould have to be large and given wide publicity asan indication of the University's commitment tograduate education and its belief that it is of vitalimportance to the country to continue a flow ofeducated young scholars. It would probably alsohave to be combined with realistic career counseling and placement programs within departments or divisions to inform students ofcareer opportunities othex than traditionalacademic ones for which Ph.D. training is relevant. Such efforts might have to be conducted incooperation with other graduate-oriented universities.Substantial increases in financial aid will, ofcourse, put a strain on an already strained budgetand pull resources away from other importantneeds. It is also not clear that even substantialincreases in aid will completely halt the decline inapplications and enrollment. The Physical Sciences Division has supported virtually all of itsstudents, and it has also experienced a decline inapplications and enrollment. The Biological Sciences Division, after a number of years runningagainst the trend, has begun to experience a decline in enrollment in spite of ample aid. Higherlevels of aid may slow the trend, but other factorsaffecting the perception of career opportunitieswill continue to be important.It should also be emphasized that increases infinancial aid are not a substitute for faculty efforts in recruitment at the departmental level. Extensive individual attention and work by faculty ondepartmental admissions committees will continue to be essential if we are to attract goodgraduate students.In sum, it is clear that Chicago ranks low compared with other universities in the amount of unrestricted university aid it has offered to graduatestudents. While a substantial increase in aid is notcertain to increase the number of applicants andstudents to the targeted levels and would create asevere pressure on the budget, a bold commitmenton the part of the University might go far in reversing the rate of decline we have been experiencing in the past few years. It is certainly analternative that deserves the most careful attention.ConclusionThe size of the University — its faculty, programs,and budget — are predicated on a student body ofapproximately 8,000, divided roughly equallyamong the divisions, professional schools, and theCollege. We are faced with the prospect that wewill fail to maintain that size because of decliningenrollments in the graduate divisions. In considering various possible responses to this problem,we have tried to look for solutions that will preserve the character of the University as a researchinstitution, maintain the high quality of the student body, and allow us to remain sufficientlylarge to sustain the intellectual richness that is ourhallmark. No one response recommends itself asthe ideal solution to the problem. No one responseis without attendant dangers.Of the five possible responses discussed above,we consider two to be unsatisfactory. Expandingthe professional schools, while most likely to produce the desired total number of students andmaintain the graduate character of the University,could not be accomplished without altering thebalance between the divisions and the professional schools. It would necessitate expansionof the faculty and facilities of the schools and areduction of faculty size in the divisions. This inturn would affect the range of programs of research and instruction in the University, making itdifficult, if not impossible, to maintain a College ofthe current size.Increasing significantly the number of masterslevel programs suffers from the disadvantage thatit is not clear the demand is really there. To aconsiderable extent, masters level programs arealready being strengthened. We strongly encour-57age these efforts as long as they are in keepingwith the general character of the divisions. But wedo not see new programs that would attract manynew students without hiring a different type offaculty.The remaining three responses all have advantages and disadvantages that should be carefullyweighed by the faculty. Expanding the Collegewould appear to be the path of least resistance,especially since we seem to be making progress inattracting a greater number of high quality undergraduates. But of all the responses, it is potentially the most radical in its effect on the University because it reverses the historic relation between the divisions and the College. If a structured curriculum, faculty-taught courses, andsmall class size are to be maintained as standards,the faculty must alter the distribution of its teaching. If there is greater recourse to graduate students as teachers in elementary or lower-levelcourses, one of the important aspects of theChicago College may be lost, and we may becomeless attractive to students. Either way, the distinctive character of the College and the University will be lost.Reducing the overall size of the Universitywould enable us to maintain the relative balanceamong the different parts of the University andpreserve its graduate character. While reducingthe size of the College seems to run counter toprevailing wisdom, it would allow us to be moreselective in admissions at all levels, graduate andundergraduate, and to avoid some costs that mightbe entailed in providing facilities for an expandedundergraduate student body. Its greatest, andperhaps fatal, flaw is that it implies a reduction infaculty size that would reduce the richness anddiversity of the University and even further reduce the opportunities to hire new junior faculty.Greatly increasing graduate student aid as ameans to reduce the decline in graduate studentenrollment is an attractive response in that itwould maintain the strength of the graduate programs, a high-quality student body, and a largeenough faculty to preserve our intellectual richness. It is, however, the riskiest of the responses.It is not at all certain that increasing the amount ofaid available will produce the necessary increasein graduate student enrollments even if very largesums were devoted to the effort. It would not helpthe University's financial position; indeed, itmight make it so bad that the ability of the University to continue at a high level of excellence wouldbe undermined. Much would depend on the length of time before a natural increase in enrollmentswould begin to occur.Still, the University has faced other threats toits existence, and we have survived and prosperedby taking risks. The situation facing us in regard tograduate enrollments is a threat to the existence ofthe University as we have known it. It should berecognized as such, and the response should becommensurate with the recognition of that threat.The committee is not prepared at this time totake a position for or against these responses. Wefeel that their implications for the future of theUniversity are very serious. They must be discussed in the widest possible circles. We recommend that this preliminary report be circulated tothe faculties of the University with a request thatit be fully discussed and that the reactions of thefaculties be reported. It might be appropriate for aformal mechanism to be instituted to obtain thesereactions, perhaps through the Council of theUniversity Senate.We have drafted this report so as to create thesharpest possible contrast among the differenttypes of responses, and to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each under the assumption that only one type of response would bechosen to be implemented. We have adopted thisstrategy of presentation deliberately in order toclarify the issues involved and to help the facultiesto understand the consequences of five types ofresponses.We understand that it is possible, even likely,that in the response the University ultimatelyadopts, several of these types will be mixed.However, since the objectives determining thedifferent types are not all compatible, certainmixes would be irrational (for example, to combine an objective of securing an enrollment of8,000 regardless of composition with an objectiveof restoring the traditional proportion of studentnumbers in the divisions, College, and professional schools regardless of the effect on enrollment). Even so, objectives that are incompatible in their extreme forms would notnecessarily be so when scaled down. As a illustration, the following objectives taken from Types3, 4, and 5, scaled down, do not seem incompatible: (1) an increase in College size thatwould not secure an enrollment of 8,000 — say anincrease of 2 percent a year for three or fouryears; (2) supporting the quality of enrollment inthe divisions and reducing their expected numerical decline by special fellowships and other programs; and (3) retaining a proportion of student58numbers in the divisions, College, and professional schools closer to the traditional one thatan enrollment of 8,000 would allow by a reductionof total enrollment and of faculty less than in apure Type 5 response.The direction the University should take mustbe decided by its faculty after a thorough exploration of the possibilities. Only an extensive facultydiscussion and debate can establish what type ofresponse mix would have solid faculty support.The committee would be willing to meet againat the conclusion of the faculty discussion and tryto formulate a recommendation for the most appropriate response or mix of responses.Norman M. Bradburn, ChairmanAlan DonaganPhilip C. HoffmanNorman NachtriebTetsuo NajitaThomas L. WhislerJonathan F. Fanton, ex officioCharles O'Connell, ex officioJonathan Z. Smith, ex officioAPPENDIXSummary of Recommendationsfrom Previous Enrollment Committeesfor Actions to Increase Enrollments*A. Recommendations for Immediate Gain1. Beginning in the spring of 1974, transfer students should be admitted to the College at thebeginning of all quarters.2. Beginning not later than the academic year1974-75, freshmen should be admitted to theCollege at the beginning of some or all quarters inaddition to autumn.(These two recommendations were implemented.The review in 1977 further recommended thatareas of the College or departments offering summer core sequences should annually discuss theenrollment projections for those sequences withthe dean of students in the College and shouldmake commitments on continuing their offerings*" Report of the Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment." The University of Chicago Record. Vol. VIII, No. 4,May 28, 1974. 97-102."Report of the Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment"(1977). The University of Chicago Record. Vol. XI, No. 1,March 16, 1977. 1-5. for two or three years. In no ease should thoseofferings be dropped without at least nine month'snotice.)3. The University should make an effort to attract part-time students. This will require that ourrecruiting efforts and literature be amended to indicate that such students are welcome. It will alsorequire that appropriate provision be made for advising part-time students. The needs of these students should be taken into account in thescheduling of classes. We recommend special tuition rates for part-time students.4. Graduate areas of the University should giveincreased attention to the enrollment of our ownCollege graduates. Departments should give responsibility to specific members of the faculty toseek out and offer assistance to students in theCollege who intend to do graduate work.5. Copies of all preapplications or letters of inquiry about graduate programs should be sent tothe appropriate departments or program chairmenimmediately upon receipt by the University.6. Applications should be sent promptly to theappropriate departments or program chairmen.7. Departments should respond promptly toboth inquiries and applications with letters thatare as personal and individual as possible. Departmental faculty must take the main responsibility for individual letters, phone calls, andvisits to our campus and for introducing potentialstudents to the University and its community aswell as to opportunities for study in particularareas.8. Except in those areas where there is assurance of an applicant pool far exceeding the capacity for admission, the practice should end ofholding all applications for admissions decisions,regardless of quality, until a fixed date.9. The number of students admitted to graduateprograms should not be limited by the availablestudent aid even in areas where full tuition andstipends are customary.10. Offices of the divisional deans of studentsshould coordinate recruitment within their areas.11. The Dean of University Students should setup procedures to assist faculty members in making contacts with prospective students approaching graduation.12. Faculty members should cooperate inmaking such contacts (Item 1 1) not only as representatives of their own academic fields but as representatives of the University.13. Our relatively successful record in careerplacement should be emphasized in recruitment59literature. Placement efforts for nonacademic positions should receive special attention.14. A committee should be appointed to advisethe Dean of University Students and the divisionaldeans on the Divisional Announcements.15. Public information of the type specificallyaimed at potential students should be handled bythe Office of the Dean of University Students.(In the 1977 review a further recommendation wasadded that there be appointed a faculty committeeto develop policies for these activities and tooversee their implementation.)B. Recommendations for Sustained Growth16. Departments that do not now have activemasters programs should promptly explore thefeasibility of developing such programs and attracting suitable candidates by vigorous recruit-REPORTS OF VISITINGCOMMITTEESThe University's sixteen visiting committees,consisting of knowledgeable and concernedfriends of the University, link the Board of Trustees with the departments and divisions of theUniversity. Meetings with deans, faculty, and occasionally students are held at least once andoften several times a year. The chairman of eachcommittee presents an annual report to the Boardof Trustees on the activities of his visiting committee. These reports provide the trustees withinsights into the operations of the University andform part of the basis on which University decisions and policies are founded. The annual reports of six visiting committees follow.REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ONTHE GRADUATE SCHOOL OFBUSINESS, 1979This report is submitted to the Trustees on behalfof the Council on the Graduate School of Businesscovering activities of about fifteen months.Our report comes at the end of a period of comprehensive self-study and planning for theGraduate School of Business. The study, the mostcomplete since the reorganization of the school inthe middle fifties, was enhanced by the re-accreditation survey performed last year by theAmerican Assembly of Collegiate Schools of ing. The importance of improved masters programs should be recognized as a University objective.17. Opportunities should be sought to linkapplicant-rich and applicant-poor programs inways that will attract more students while makingfuller use of existing faculty.18. An office of "Special Student Enrollment"should be established under ^the Dean of University Students. The duties of the office would be (a)to develop information concerning opportunitiesfor individuals in government service to takeone-year university programs under the Government Training Act and (b) to develop informationon programs sponsored by foreign governments,foundations, and other groups in the private sector which support study for foreign students whocould be attracted to the University of Chicago.Business (AACSB). That the report of the re-accreditation survey was favorable, and was butone of many favorable citations accorded theGraduate School of Business last year, will be nosurprise.Perhaps the first, certainly the most noticeable,manifestation of this study and these plans is thecompletion of the Haskell Hall remodeling and thetransfer of the building to the Division of the Social Sciences on Friday, September 21, 1979. TheAnthropology Department has moved into Haskell and work on Walker Museum can begin. TheWalker construction work will be completed bySeptember 1981. At that time, the business schoolfacilities will be complete — three beautiful, well-equipped buildings, all designed to enhance theefficiency of the Graduate School of Business.Meanwhile, much of the staff is housed temporarily on the upper floors of the UniversityBookstore. Other programs resulting from thestudy and the planning will cause changes in theschool and, as with the building work, sometimesdislocation. All of these plans share a singlegoal— the continued leadership of the school inmanagement education and research. The visitingcommittee report is not the place to detail theseplans, but attention may well be called to twoareas where council members have been involved.Two council committees have been formed,both assisting in programs concerning the marketing of the Graduate School of Business. Theseassignments grew out of the 1978 meeting of thecouncil, the agenda for which focused on market-60ing programs for recruitment of students and forplacement of graduates. John P. Gallagher accepted the chairmanship of a committee to explore, with selected Chicago metropolitan areacorporations, a cooperative program designed tooffer a combination of full-time and evening studyand employment. Edward J. Williams took responsibility for a committee to assist in severalplacement programs. The Williams committee(jointly with the Bay Area Graduate School of Business Club) has held a luncheon, sponsored byChevron, Inc., intended to increase the number ofBay Area firms recruiting on campus. A well-planned one-day conference on summer jobs andinterim hiring was held on Monday, October29, 1979.Briefly reporting on other council activities:1. The Midyear Economic Review Dinnermeeting of the council was sponsored by International Harvester Company and hosted by Archie McCardell. Speakers were members of theForecast Panel, Professors Irving Schweiger andWalter Fackler, and Mr. Beryl Sprinkel of theHarris Trust.2. A special committee of the council was appointed to choose a faculty member to receive theMcKinsey Award for Excellence in teaching. Thecommittee, Raymond N. Carlen (chairman),Norman Barker, Jr., Arlys Conrad, and ThomasP. Kelly, awarded the $10,000 prize to ProfessorJohn E. Jeuck, the Robert Law Professor of Business Administration.3. We decided to re-institute the practice ofrotating members off the council after appropriateperiods of service and to attract a considerablenumber of new members. We further decided toappoint vice-chairmen as follows: James Olson,New York City; Wallace Booth, Los Angeles; andIra Corn, Jr.y Dallas. These appointments give usleading individuals in key parts of the country onwhom we may call for special purposes in theirareas.4. The council met on campus on Wednesday,October 31, 1979. Dean H.J. Zoffer of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Businesstalked at the luncheon segment of the meetingabout the findings of the reaccreditation surveyteam which he headed on behalf of AACSB. In theafternoon session, Merton H. Miller, the EdwardEagle Brown Professor of Banking and Finance,led a fascinating discussion on the "Invisible Halfof the Graduate School of Business." Highly encouraging reports of the work of our subcommittees were also presented.5. It is our intention to have a spring 1980meeting as well as one in the autumn and to in clude spouses in at least some part of one of themeetings. Plans are going forward for the 1980Economic Forecast Review Dinner to be held inlate May.It is both our purpose and expectation that thiscouncil will become an increasingly effective influence in support of the excellent leadership ofDean Rosett and of the equally excellent work ofthe associate deans, staff, and faculty.Weston R. Christopher sonChairmanNovember 15, 1979REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEETO THE DIVINITY SCHOOL, 1979Following a now well-established pattern, theVisiting Committee to the Divinity School metonce in the autumn, winter, and spring quarters.Meetings are held in Swift Hall beginning at 4:00p.m. The afternoon session is devoted to a themeof importance to Divinity School faculty and students, followed by a brief business meeting thatincludes reports on the school from the dean andhis staff and on the work of the committee fromthe chairman or other members. After dinner (inSwift Hall or at the Quadrangle Club) a memberof the faculty speaks to the committee. An experiment of holding meetings on different days ofthe week proved to be less successful with regardto attendance than abiding by a fixed Wednesdayafternoon and evening of each quarter. (Attendance for the three meetings was as follows: autumn, 50; winter, 41; spring, 37.)On November 29, three members of the Divinity School faculty reported on the seminarsthey had led as part of a conference on "The University and Change in the Catholic World," whichhad been held on campus in early autumn. Severalmembers of the committee, incidentally, participated in various functions during the conference.Martin E. Marty, David Tracy, and Bernard O.Brown provided interpretations of conference deliberations and led the committee in a lively discussion of topics that had emerged. In the evening, Professor James M. Gustafson gave an account of his experience as the University's Barrows Lecturer in India in the spring of 1978.In the winter quarter, two new senior membersof the Divinity School faculty directed the committee's attention to current biblical scholarship.Professor Hans Dieter Betz reported on his re-61search on the Sermon on the Mount, and the lateProfessor Samuel Sandmel, the Helen A. Regenstein Professor of Religion, responded. A thirdnew member of the faculty, Assistant ProfessorRobin W. Lovin, spoke at the evening session onFebruary 27 about the relation of his work in social ethics to Divinity School programs.The spring meeting of the committee is normally devoted to presentations by Divinity Schoolstudents. This year four students at differentstages of degree programs and from differentareas of study addressed a question that is normally reserved for senior scholars: How Has YourMind Changed? All of the students commented onhow study at the Divinity School had effectedmodifications in their scholarly and professionalinterests and commitments.The afternoon session on May 17 also includedthe presentation of the John Gray Rhind Award toMr. David Frantz, a ministry student, for giving"notable promise of a significant contribution tothe life of the church." The award was establishedby Mr. James Rhind, a member of the visitingcommittee, in honor of his father.In the evening, Professor Wendy O' Flaherty, anew appointment in the History of Religions program of the Divinity School, compared herteaching and research experiences in England,the Soviet Union, and California with what shehad found at Chicago.As a result of a brief letter from the chairmanthere has been a generous response from themembers of the committee to cover both the costof our meetings and the publication of In Contact.The latter is a newsletter sent widely to personswho have interest in the Divinity School and,thus, fulfills a purpose of the visiting committee tocommunicate with the larger public about thework and needs of the school.A gift from our fellow member, Mrs. John Nu-veen, has made possible the renovation of thesecond floor wing of Swift Hall. The "John Nu-veen Wing" will provide the home for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion, forwhich there are regular reports at our meetings.Dedication of the Nuveen Wing will take place onOctober 3, 1979.After ten years as chairman of the committee, Ifeel an infusion of new ideas and leadership will beproductive — and I am delighted Elmer Johnsonhas agreed to succeed me. He has both lecturedand participated in seminars at the school and thushas demonstrated a real interest in the school'sactivity.In closing I should say a word about what it has been like to work with Joseph Kitagawa during histwo terms as dean of the Divinity School. I onlywish I could turn the clock back and relive thewhole experience — such has been my pleasureand reward in knowing this man.Kingman Douglass, Jr.ChairmanOctober 2, 1979REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEETO THE LAW SCHOOL, 1979The Visiting Committee to the Law School met onNovember 30 and December 1, 1978 on the Midway. Once again attendance was remarkable, withmore than forty members present.The program opened with Dean Norval Morris's report of major developments at the schoolduring the past twelve months. The ensuing program covered subject matters of long-standinginterest to the committee, including faculty recruitment and minority admissions.This report will not cover in depth these particular areas. None of the issues raised was new:All have been reviewed in committee reports forprevious years. While the deliberations of thecommittee evidence that there are no easy answers, interest in and concern about these problem areas have persisted for some time. Welcomenews to committee members since the 1978meeting was the announcement of two strong newfaculty appointments: Frank H. Easterbrook andR. Lea Brilmayer.The space needs of the Law School werestressed with respect to the library, the MandelClinic and office requirements for members of thefaculty. If these needs were to be met by newbuildings, substantial additional funds would berequired. On the other hand, one route deservingof further exploration is some form of accommodation with the College regarding the availabilityof a portion of the east wing of Burton- Judson thatappears to be underutilized by College students.On another front attention was directed to the urgent need of support for on-going acquisitions forthe Law Library.There were ample opportunities for committeemembers to assess the capabilities of members ofthe faculty. Professor Franklin Zimring spoke onFamily Law at the November 30th luncheon. Onesession of the two-day meeting was concerned62with the teaching of anti-trust law and of insurance. In all, twelve members of the facultywere participants in various sessions.Student-related issues were given a prominentplace in the program. One full session, a follow-upto that of a year ago, was devoted to the problemsof admissions in the aftermath of the SupremeCourt decision in Bakke. Another session coveredthe school's expanding role in the placement ofgraduates. A third session was presented by students at the school: It gave them the floor to airtheir views of the school — its strengths andshortcomings.It is perhaps worthy of note that the formaltwo-day program is only one means for committeemembers to learn about the school. Of real importance are the many opportunities for committee members to meet with students and faculty.These informal gatherings have proved of value toall concerned.Undertaking to express a consensus for forty-plus members of a Law School Visiting Committee is hazardous. Certainly the performance of theschool's graduates attests to the quality of theeducational experience it offers. It is safe to saythat all of us left feeling closer to the school andinterested in helping in some way commensuratewith our respective capabilities.Gerhard Casper assumed the deanship of theschool last January and will put together the program for the committee this fali. Norval Morrishas returned with considerable relish to the faculty of the school to join former deans EdwardLevi and Phil Neal. To Dean Morris we extendour gratitude for his distinguished leadership ofthe school these past years. And our best wishesto Frank Ellsworth as he leaves his many friendsat the Law School to assume the presidency ofPitzer College in California.George A. RanneyChairmanMay 24, 1979REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEETO THE LIBRARY, 1979The Visiting Committee to the Library in conjunction with the University of Chicago LibrarySociety hosted the reception and dinner held tomark the opening of the Berlin Collection exhibitin April 1979. The committee gathered before thereception to hear a report given by Director Stan ley McElderry on the impact of inflation on thecollection development of monographic and serialholdings. Curator of Special Collections RobertRosenthal spoke on the history of the collection,the impact of the collection upon the Universitylibrary and, in the case of the latter, gave as illustration specific books which were on display. Theexhibit, celebrating an early event in the history ofthe University, was well-received by those whoattended, which included more than 225 membersof the two sponsoring organizations and descendants of the nine donors who made possiblethe acquisition of the Berlin Collection.By the written statement of the purpose of thevisiting committees we know that they "exist toprovide a link between the University and the outside community." The library exists to providethe link between the students and scholars and thedisciplines they are studying. With this in mind weelected to hold, as an experiment, a joint meetingwith the members of the Visiting Committee to theDepartment of Music. Easley Blackwood's gift ofhis manuscripts and correspondence gave furtherimpetus to this decision. On October 23, 1979, thetwo committees met and listened to reports fromboth the director and the chairman of the department. Stanley McElderry reported on the successachieved by Julius Lewis's Library Task Force insoliciting more than $779,000 in endowed bookfunds (an increase of $300,000 since last report)and on the number of endowed funds, which hasmore than tripled since 1970. Also, the fiscal report was a much brighter one than that given inthe springtime for the book budget for the librarywas given an additional $1,000,000 for acquisitions in the academic budget. This seems to be inrecognition that the University library is the heartof academic life.Chairman Philip Gossett reported on the pastsupport given by the Visiting Committee to theDepartment of Music to the Music Library. Thissupport has included purchases of books, manuscripts, and facsimiles and the preparation of aroom for the Jazz Archives. Following these reports Mr. Blackwood played tapes of his musicwritten for the scalatron, explained themathematical concepts of his compositions,and convinced us that his alien music was verylistenable.I hope that we will hold a joint meeting onanother occasion with one or more of the divisionsand departments of the University. The work ofthe library is so interwoven with the programstaught that we should consider books and theirrelation to the business of learning.63I am pleased to welcome two new members toour committee, Phillip Miller and T. KimballBrooker. Both are children of individuals withlong and close relationships to the University ofChicago, and I am happy that this second generation will have the opportunity to meet with andwork closely with members of the academiccommunity.It is with real regret that I learned of StanleyMcElderry' s plans to retire as director in 1980.We have appreciated greatly his cooperation andstrong support of the Visiting Committee to theLibrary. We will continue to work with him andhis successor and the Library Board to providethe greatest support and assistance possible.Gaylord DonnelleyChairmanNovember 7, 1979REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEETO THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, 1979The Oriental Institute observed its sixtieth anniversary year by conducting excavations or archaeological surveys in North Yemen, Iraq, Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt. Volume 100 of theOriental Institute Publications series appeared,containing the first part of the Epigraphic Survey's record of the Khonsu Temple at Thebes inUpper Egypt. The Assyrian Dictionary sent its"Q" volume to press, and the long-awaited HittiteDictionary completed the manuscript for its firstpublished fascicle. The institute received a newgovernment grant to prepare a Demotic (lateEgyptian) dictionary for publication; and twoformer grants, for the Hittite Dictionary and for astudy of ancient society and economy inMesopotamia, were renewed. Individual research projects on ancient settlement patterns,economic and social institutions, and political andcultural history continued apace.The Institute Museum proceeded in its renovation of its major galleries by clearing out and beginning to redesign its Palestinian Hall. The institute also co- sponsored an exhibit of ancientNubian textiles at the Art Institute from late Maythrough early August.A continuing problem is obtaining matchingmoney from private sources to qualify for fullfunding of National Endowment for theHumanities grants for such esoteric projects as the Demotic and Hittite dictionaries and the Turkish Archaeological Salvage excavations. Thevisiting committee sponsored a successful fund-raising dinner for the Demotic Dictionary in lateMay, but additional and more far-reaching fund-raising efforts are needed.Margaret Bell CameronChairmanOctober 12, 1979REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEEON THE VISUAL ARTS, 1979The Visiting Committee on the Visual Arts is stillnew and rather small, even for a departmentalcommittee. I am pleased to report, however, thateleven new (and very distinguished) memberswere added in my first year as chairman, makingtotal membership just over thirty. It is my hope toadd a number of additional members in the currentacademic year. There is so much interesting activity in the visual arts at the University that realizing that hope should not be difficult.There were two meetings during the 1978-79academic year. At the winter meeting, the committee had a private view of the Decorative Designs of Frank Lloyd Wright exhibit guided byKatherine Keefe, curator of the Smart Gallery.That was preceded by a lecture on Wright's earlydevelopment by Joseph Connors, assistant professor of art. After dinner Charles Cohen, chairman of the Art Department, described the manyprograms and activities of the department and thecommittee was honored by a brief speech by Mrs.Gray on the role of visiting committees. At the fallmeeting, Edward Maser, director of the SmartGallery, guided a tour of the Boy del ShakespearePrint exhibit after a lecture on the subject by Professor Francis Dowley.During the spring quarter, the Robert B. MayerMemorial Lectures brought several distinguishedscholars to campus to give public lectures onChinese art and to conduct seminars for studentsin the lecturers' area of specialization. This is thefirst year that the lectures focused on a subjectother than contemporary Western art. Membersof the visiting committee have contributed enoughto match Mrs. Robert B. Mayer's generous challenge grant and sufficient funds therefore exist toassure another series of lectures in the comingyear. It is my belief that the lectures are a consid-64erable adornment to the University as a whole. Itwould be splendid if their permanence could beassured.The committee has also endowed a book fund,the income of which is used to make purchases forthe Art Library. Thanks to a matching grant, theVisiting Committee on the Visual Arts Fund nowamounts to almost $20,000. While this goes only alittle way toward meeting the Art Library's pressing needs, it is a good beginning.In the 1979-80 year, the first meeting is plannedat Midway Studios to let members of the committee see, in those impressive surroundings, that thevisual arts are practiced as well as studied at theUniversity. Naturally, all committee functions aredirected toward increased communication amongpeople devoted to the visual arts, both those fromthe community at large and the faculty and students of the University. That communication isenriching to those of us on the committee and has,I believe, led to constructive support of the University's expanding efforts in the area.Julius LewisChairmanSeptember 14, 1979VISITING COMMITTEESVisiting committees are official committees of theUniversity, provided for in the by-laws and reporting directly to the Board of Trustees of theUniversity. They are composed of individualsselected by the board for their varied insights,interests, and abilities relating to a given academicarea.Upon the recommendation of the dean or director of the academic area involved, and with theconcurrence of the president, the following persons were appointed members of the visitingcommittees.Council for the Division of the Biological Sciencesand the Pritzker School of MedicineA. N. Pritzker, ChairmanGeorge W. BeadleOrville C. BeattieNathan BedermanWilliam O. BeersMarshall Bennett Philip D. Block, Jr.John J. BurnsDr. Robert ChanockDr. Walter A. ComptonNathan CummingsDr. Catherine L. DobsonMrs. Frederick J. EarlyWilliam E. Fay, Jr.Maxwell GeffenOscar GetzDr. Robert J. GlaserStanford J. GoldblattDr. John Green, Jr.Hunt HamillJ. Ira HarrisMaurice R. HillemanHarold H. Hines, Jr.Dr. John R. HognessDr. Charles B. HugginsWallace D. JohnsonThomas F. Jones, Jr.Burton KanterDr. Attallah KappasMartin J. KoldykeEverett KovlerAlbert L. LehningerJohn D. MabieDr. Paul MarksRobert G. MyersLyle E. PackardDavid D. PetersonFrank W. PutnamDr. Mitchell T. RabkinDr. Clarence ReedJoseph Regenstein, Jr.Robert A. SchoellhornEarl W. ShapiroMilton E. Stinson, Jr.John Earl ThompsonDr. Cornelius A. Vander LaanArnold R. WolffCouncil on the Graduate School of BusinessWeston R. Christopherson, ChairmanWallace W. Booth, V ice-Chairman — Los AngelesIra G. Corn, Jr., Vice-chairman — DallasJames E. Olson, Vice-Chairman — New YorkJean AllardNorman Barker, Jr.William O. BeersEugene P. BergHarold G. BernthalPhilip D. Block, Jr.William R. Breuner65Robert E. BrookerJohn H. BryanMichael H. BulkinJames W. ButtonRaymond N. CarlenMarvin ChandlerArlys M. ConradFrank W. ConsidineJames W. CozadDonald N. FreyJohn P. GallagherJames J. GlasserRalph E. GomoryJerome S. GoreRobert C. GunnessRobert P. GwinnAllan C. HamiltonDavid K. HardinJames W. HardingIrving B. HarrisKarl F. Hoenecke4 Robert HoffmanRobert S. IngersollDavid J. JonesHarry W. KirchheimerJohn H. KornblithCharles W. Lake, Jr.Mrs. Bernice E. LavinJames H. LeonardAlvin W. LongPaul F. LorenzRay W. MacdonaldJohn MadiganJohn A. MattmillerOscar G. MayerGail M. MelickWilliam C . MushamJoshua A. MussGeorge V. MyersEllmore C. PattersonHart PerryPeter G. PetersonPhilip J. PurcellRobert W. RenekerRobert P. ReussJohn M. RichmanGeorge G. RinderRobert F. SchnoesGoff SmithJoseph SondheimerBeryl W. SprinkelPhilip W. K. Sweet, Jr.Robert C. UptonCharles R. Walgreen IIIKenneth T. WessnerEdward J. Williams Christopher W. WilsonErnest R. WishLawrence M. WoodsJoseph S. WrightWilliam T. YlvisakerTheodore O. YntemaJack M. YoungVisiting Committee to the CollegeArthur W. Schultz, ChairmanBarbara P. AndersonEdward L. Anderson, Jr.Rochelle D. AschheimWarren H. BaconNorman Barker, Jr.John Jay BerwangerBland B. Button, Jr.Virginia ButtsDr. Richard Allen ChaseJohn F. Dille, Jr.Robert J. GreenebaumMrs. Joan N. HertzbergJohn T. HortonCarl F. HovdeVernon JordanWilliam H. JosephsonJulius LewisE. Wilson LyonLeslie MaitlandJohn G. MorrisBradley H. Patterson, Jr.Christopher S. PeeblesWalter PozenWilliam ProvineMina S. ReesSaul S. ShermanDaniel C. SmithLouise Hoyt SmithRobert C. UptonF. Champion WardDr. Nancy E. WarnerPhilip C. WhiteEdwin P. WileyThe Hon. Hubert L. WillVisiting Committee to the Divinity SchoolElmer W. Johnson, ChairmanRussell M. BairdRosecrans BaldwinRobert L. Berner, Jr.Kenneth BlockHerbert Bronstein66Leo J. CarlinMarvin ChandlerJohn C. ColmanJohn F. ConnorPatty CrowleyMilton F. Darr, Jr.Gaylord DonnelleyKingman Douglass, Jr.Stephen P. DurchslagJohn P. GallagherDonald A. GilliesJohn GiuraJames D. HemphillCharles W. Lake, Jr.Dr. C. Phillip MillerLeo R. NewcombeMrs. John NuveenMrs. Leonard J. O'ConnorKeith I. ParsonsMrs. John Shedd ReedMrs. Robert W. RenekerJames T. RhindGeorge L. SeatonGeorge F. SislerRobert StuartWeathers Y. SykesGeorge H. WatkinsClinton YouleVisiting Committee to the Center for Far EasternStainesWilliam J. McDonough, ChairmanNeal Ball, Vice-ChairmanA. Robert AbboudJames C. AbegglenGeorge R. BakerDavid S. BatsonRobert L. BeanJack D. BeemJames F. BereFranklin A. ColeThomas H. CoulterJohn DayEmmett DedmonLouis F. Dempsey IIIJeannette Shambaugh ElliottFrank GibneyMortimer B. HarrisJames H. IngersollRobert S. IngersollMrs. Robert S. IngersollShigeyasu KatoProf. Mary S. LawtonMrs. Edward H. LeviMrs. John Sterry Long Emerson J. LyonsRobert F. McCulloughBarry L. Mac LeanMrs. Robert H. MalottKenneth F. MontgomeryMrs. Robert A. PritzkerIra QuintMrs. George A. RanneyIwao ShinoJohn L. SoongMrs. Lyle SpencerEdward F. SwiftVisiting Committee to the Division of theHumanitiesEdwin A. Bergman, ChairmanJames W. AlsdorfCharles BentonBowen BlairMrs. Andrew BlockMrs. George V. BobrinskoyMichael BraudeMrs. James R. CoulterMrs. Lester CrownMrs. Edison DickGaylord DonnelleyMrs. Kingman Douglass, Jr.Stanley M. Freehling.Lee A. Freeman, Jr.Paul FrommMrs. Willard A. FryBertrand GoldbergRichard GrayLeo S. GuthmanCharles C. Haffner IIIFranklin E. HorwichMrs. Glen A. LloydEarle LudginMrs. Lewis ManilowMrs. Frank D. MayerMrs. Frank D. Mayer, Jr.Robert L. MetzenbergMrs. C. Phillip MillerMrs. Ralph J. MillsMrs. Gilbert H. OsgoodMrs. Walter P. PaepckeGeorge A. PooleBryan S. Reid IIINorman RossMrs. Donald RumsfeldMrs. Paul S. RussellCalvin P. SawyierJoseph R. ShapiroAlfred C. Stepan, Jr.Gardner H. Stern67Charles SwansonMrs. John P. WellingMrs. Frank H. WoodsGeorge B. YoungVisiting Committee to the Law SchoolJames T. Rhind, ChairmanG. Marshall AbbeyThe Hon. John AshcroftRichard B. Berry manJack CorinblitGeorge J. CotsirilosLinda Van Winkle DeaconSamayla Dodek DeutchJohn A. EcklerThe Hon. George Clifton Edwards, Jr.Ronald L. EngelJames H. EvansLee A. FreemanThe Hon. Daniel M. FriedmanThe Hon. Thomas G. GeeProf. Mary Ann GlendonIrving H. GoldbergJames C. GoodaleThe Hon. John F. GradyJames E. HautzingerC. J. HeadLeo HerzelMrs. Roberta S. KarmelRobert KarrerHoward R. KovenMs. Lillian KraemerMorris I. LeibmanThe Hon. Charles L. LevinThe Hon. Hans A. LindeThe Hon. Prentice H. MarshallCheryl White MasonBarbara W. MatherKenneth F. MontgomeryDonna M. MuraskyBernard J. NussbaumMs. Michele L. OdorizziThe Hon. Barrington D. ParkerThe Hon. James B. ParsonsKenneth C. PrinceThe Hon. Charles B. RenfrewThe Hon. Abraham RibicoffDavid M. Rubens teinRebecca SchneidermanMichael L. ShakmanPerry J. SnydermanPaul M. StokesRicki Rhodarmer TigertRobert J. VollenFrederick A. Yonkman Visiting Committee to the LibraryGaylord Donnelley, ChairmanEvelyn Stefansson Nef, Vice-ChairmanMrs. Michael ArlenRoger BensingerJohn H. BentonAndrew K. BlockDavid BorowitzT. Kimball BrookerEugene A. DavidsonJames R. DonnelleyDaniel J. EdelmanRichard EldenDr. Stanton A. FriedbergMaurice FultonMrs. Raymond W. GarbeAnn Dudley GoldblattO. B. HardisonGertrude HimmelfarbMrs. Michael J. KlowdenJulius LewisHenry Luce IIIJohn Peter McDonaldAndrew McNally IVPhilip L. MetzgerMrs. C. Phillip MillerPhillip MillerJeffrey C. NealKenneth NebenzahlFranklin B. OrwinMax PalevskyGeorge A. PooleVictoria Post RanneyGordon N. RayMrs. Joseph Regenstein, Sr.Mrs. Robert W. RenekerRutherford RogersSamuel RosenthalMrs. Earl W. ShapiroHermon D. SmithJames H. StoneRalph TylerMrs. H. Alex Vance, Jr.Dr. Robert Ash WallaceEdward H. WeissVisiting Committee to the Department of MusicMrs. Marian S. Harris, ChairmanMrs. A. Watson Armour IIIMrs. Etta Moten BarnettBruno BartolettiArnold BerlinMrs. Thomas Boodell, Jr.68Mrs. Kenneth A. BroGitta Gradova CottleMrs. Lester CrownAnita Staub DarrowMrs. Stanton FriedbergPaul FrommMrs. Isak V. GersonMrs. Willard GidwitzBertrand GoldbergBenny GoodmanMrs. Joan HarrisDonal HenahanMargaret HillisDr. Imre HornerPaul C. HumeMrs. H. Thomas JamesGeorge Fred KeckMrs. Irl H. Marshall, Jr.Albert H. NewmanLucille OllendorffDr. Maria Weigl PiersHenry RegneryMrs. James T. RhindNorman RossSir Georg SoltiJohn SteinerMrs. Robert D. Stuart, Jr.Mrs. J. Harris WardVisiting Committee to the Oriental InstituteMrs. George G. Cameron, ChairmanMrs. John Livingood, Vice-ChairmanRussell M. BairdMrs. Russell M. BairdArthur S. BowesHarvey W. Branigar, Jr.Robert E. BrookerMrs. Cameron BrownIsak V. GersonMrs. Isak V. GersonAlbert F. HaasMarshall M. HollebMrs. Marshall M. HollebWilliam O. HuntJohn F. MerriamMrs. John F. MerriamMrs. C. Phillip MillerAlbert H. NewmanMrs. Albert H. NewmanWilliam J. RobertsAlice Judson RyersonMaurice D. SchwartzJeffrey R. Short, Jr.William M. SpencerMrs. Theodore D. Tieken Mrs. Chester D. TrippRoderick S. WebsterMrs. Roderick S. WebsterVisiting Committee to the Division of the PhysicalSciencesMalcolm K. Brachman, ChairmanEdwin N. AsmannWallace B. Behnke, Jr.Dewitt W. Buchanan, Jr.Donald W. CollierC. Russell CoxEdward E. David, Jr.John H. DoedeWilliam L. EversHerbert FriedmanLeo GoldbergHerman H. GoldstineRobert C. GunnessRobert P. GwinnRobert M. HalperinJames S. HudnallRobert M. HuntJohn S. IvyArthur L. KellyWinston E. KockCharles W. Lake, Jr.John O. LoganFrank W. LuerssenJames A. McDivittThe Hon. Hans MarkEdward A. MasonJoseph E. MayerPeter G. PetersonRobert A. PritzkerThe Hon. Harrison H. SchmittHarold B. Smith, Jr.Horace D. TaftErnest H. VolwilerGerald WestbyLynn WilliamsSam B. WilliamsJoseph S. WrightChen Ning YangVisiting Committee to the Committee on PublicPolicy StudiesRobert S. Ingersoll, ChairmanAlan S. BoydJames H. DouglasStanford J. GoldblattRobert C. GunnessIrving B. Harris69Neil F. HartiganBen W. HeinemanJames HogeFerdinand KramerMorris I. LeibmanJohn W. McCarter, Jr.Walter J. McNerneyMichael H. MoskowArthur C. Nielsen, Jr.Richard B. OgilviePeter G. PetersonDon K. PriceArthur E. RasmussenHermon D. SmithElmer B. StaatsCharles B. StauffacherSydney Stein, Jr.Edgar B. Stern, Jr.Donald C. StoneVisiting Committee to the Division of the SocialSciencesJames W. Button, ChairmanMrs. Richard AlschulerMrs. Edwin AsmannWilliam H. AveryVincent BarabbaThomas J. BataCharles BentonGeorge T. BogertMrs. George T. BogertWilliam H. Brady, Jr.Cameron BrownMrs. Cameron BrownPeter B. ClarkWilliam N. ClarkJane CoulsonJohn S. CoulsonThomas DittmerJoseph EpsteinJustin M. FishbeinMaurice FultonF. Sewall GardnerMartin GardnerLA. GrodzinsHuntington HarrisAugustin S. Hart, Jr.Margaret HartJames H. IngersollJoseph KraftJ. Roderick Mac ArthurAndrew McNally IIIRichard M. MorrowJohn U. NefEvelyn Stefansson Nef Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr.Harry M. Oliver, Jr.Leslie PaffrathDavid ProwittHenry RegneryMax Schiff, Jr.Arthur W. SchultzMrs. Charles P. SchwartzLeo ShapiroRobert M. ShehanLeonard SilkArthur L. Singer, Jr.Lyle M. Spencer, Jr.Beryl W. SprinkelEdgar Stern, Jr.Max I. StuckerPeter N. TodhunterRichard WareGeorge H. WatkinsClinton YouleVisiting Committee to the School of Social ServiceAdministrationArthur E. Rasmussen, ChairmanJoseph P. AntonowMrs. John J. BerganPhilip D. Block, Jr.John A. Bross, Jr.James Brown IVJohn ChancellorDr. Kenneth B. ClarkDavid W. DanglerWilliam W. DarrowSidney EpsteinCharles R. FeldsteinMrs. Robert L. FooteMrs. Zollie S. FrankMrs. Herbert S. GreenwaldIrving B. HarrisMortimer B. HarrisStanley G. Harris, Jr.Mrs. Ben W. HeinemanDavid C. HilliardMrs. W. Press HodgkinsPeter HuntDr. Anna J. JulianGeorge KelmMrs. Lazarus KrinsleyElliott LehmanMrs. Robert B. MayerHenry W. MeersMrs. Bernard D. MeltzerKenneth F. MontgomeryPaul L. MullaneyKenneth Newberger70Mrs. George A. RanneyJoseph Regenstein, Jr.James T. RhindLawrence K. SchnadigMerrill ShepardHermon D. SmithGardner H. Stern, Jr.Bernice WeissbourdMaynard I. WishnerVisiting Committee on Student Programs andFacilitiesMrs. Samuel W. Block, ChairmanWilliam H. AbbottMrs. Lester AbelsonRussell M. BairdFrank P. BaxpehlerJohn Jay BerwangerJohn CallawayMrs. Hammond Chaff etzFoster O. ChanockArie Stephen CrownLester CrownJohn P. DaveyBernard J. DelGiornoMrs. Maxine DusterFrances Moore FergusonMrs. Raymond GarbeWilliam S. Gray IIIRobert J. GreenebaumMrs. William G. KarnesJonathan KovlerFerdinand KramerJohn G. LeviRobert N. MayerMrs. Adolph R. NachmanHart PerryMrs. George A. RanneyJim RuddleRobert E. SamuelsMrs. Leo SingerDaniel C. SmithMrs. Richard J. SmithEdward StacklerMrs. Harold E. StraussMrs. George H. WatkinsMrs. Richard WehmanBernard WeissbourdJoel F. ZemansVisiting Committee on the Visual ArtsJulius Lewis, ChairmanEdwin A. BergmanLeigh B. Block Gail M. EldenRichard EldenMrs. Owen FairweatherFrancis G. Foster, Jr.Mrs. Francis G. Foster, Jr.Stanley FreehlingAllan FrurhkinBruce GrahamRoger S. GriffinSherryl W. GriffinLeo S. GuthmanMrs. C. Daggett HarveyJohn HerrmannMrs. John HerrmannRichard HuntH. W. JansonEarle LudginMrs. Harold T. MartinMrs. Robert B. MayerMrs. C. Phillip MillerRuth Stein NathJohn RewaldMrs. Henry T. RickettsFranz SchulzeHoward ShankJoseph R. ShapiroHerman SpertusFrank H. WoodsREPORT OF THESTUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE SPRING QUARTER, 1979By Gail J. HankinsAll aspects of life in Hyde Park contribute to thequality of the student's experience at the University. Ultimately the sum of his experiences shapeshis attitude towards his alma mater. Some aspectscontribute more significantly than others. Two ofthe most important for each student, however, arehis living situation and the evaluation of hisacademic work. Severe difficulties with a roommate, for example, can be detrimental toacademic work and may have a negative effect onother aspects of life.During the spring quarter, the ombudsman's aidwas sought by students who had problems in thesetwo areas. In my report this quarter I shall discusssome of the most serious of these grievances.Following this I shall report on steps currentlyunder way to alleviate problems with hospital billsand comment on the events of May 22.71Student HousingTwo groups of students came to the ombudsmanafter disciplinary action had been taken againstthem by the Housing Office. Although the natureof the students' alleged transgressions and thedisciplinary measures taken were considerablydifferent, the students' complaints were quitesimilar. In both cases the students felt they hadnot been informed of the complaints against themin time to alter their behavior, nor had they beensufficiently warned of the consequences of theirbehavior. Any "warning" they received wasvague, they claimed, or had been given in the"distant past." They further maintained they hadnot understood the gravity of being called before adisciplinary committee from the Housing Officeand had not been aware of the severe measures itcould impose. Finally, both groups protested that"the punishment did not fit the crime." Indeed,they did not understand what the hullabaloo wasall about in the first place. They felt their actionshad been misperceived.Let's look at each of the groups' arguments.The students faulted their resident heads for notwarning them clearly enough and soon enough toallow them to amend their behavior. In otherwords, the resident heads did not say, "If youcontinue to do such and such, you are running therisk of having the Housing Office impose aminimum penalty of A or a maximum of B on you.Should you engage in this behavior again, I willnot reprimand you but will bring the matter directly to the Housing Office."This does not seem quite fair. The resident headmay not have been aware of their behavior. Resident heads, I assume, do not know everything thatgoes on in their houses. (And I imagine there aremany students who are mighty glad they don't.)But let us assume that a resident head knows of aparticular incident, although he does not witness ithimself. It is brought to his attention by a studentwho has been disturbed. The resident head mustthen weigh the seriousness of the complaint anddecide how to proceed. He is in the unenviableposition of not wanting to escalate the problem byhis intervention, of not wanting to meddle in asituation which may best be worked out by thestudents themselves, and of not wanting to falselyaccuse someone if the evidence is circumstantialor hearsay.It is unfair to expect the resident heads to predict what the Housing Office may do. What actionthe Housing Office ultimately takes depends uponwhat the student does in the meantime. That, ofcourse, is up to the student. The best the resident head can offer is to inform the student of the rangeof possibilities at his disposal.Yet, the resident head has been presented witha complaint. He is the one person responsible forthe well-being of all the residents of the house. If acomplaint has been brought to him, he has an obligation to investigate it. In this way his job resembles mine. When a student comes to me with agrievance — even if he's come only to registerit — the complaint must be investigated for anumber of reasons: 1) Without conducting an investigation, it is impossible to know the other sideof the story. 2) If one student is upset about someparticular issue, how many others feel the sameway but don't take it upon themselves to complain? 3) Finally, problems or unfair proceduresdo not change unless they are challenged. Sometimes results may be achieved merely by identifying an area of weakness and suggesting how itmight be improved.Thus, I feel, for the benefit of all the students inthe house, the resident head must investigate eachcomplaint brought to his attention. I would arguefurther that the student charged with a complainthas a right to know where he stands, especially ifcontinuation of this behavior may have seriousconsequences.Granted, the resident head is in a delicate situation. Granted, he runs the risk of offending somestudents. But he will probably offend someone nomatter what course of action he decides upon —including taking none at all.The students' second and third points resultedfrom their surprise at the measures available tothe Housing Office.In talking with the student, the resident headcould clarify the options of the Housing Office indealing with troublesome or irresponsible housemembers and thereby explain why the studentfalls into this category. After such a warning thestudent cannot claim to be surprised.I should add at this point that I do not accept theargument that students were not aware they weredoing something offensive. Students at this university are not — or should not be — so hopelesslynaive. But I do think that they often do not perceive their behavior in the same way the University does. They may think the University will becontent to chalk it up to their immaturity and slaptheir wrists rather than holding them fully accountable for their actions. In reality the oppositeholds true. Students are held responsible for theiractions. The resident head should dispel any illusions a student may have about this.Except in cases where there is concrete evi-72dence that a student has engaged in behaviorwhich endangered the lives of others, a studentshould not be brought before a disciplinary committee without a relatively recent warning and theopportunity to amend his ways.If a student has endangered the lives of others, Iwould argue that he thereby forfeited his rights toprior warning. After all, he is liable to arrest if heinjures someone.The student should be fully cognizant of thegraveness of the University's action and, therefore, should not be surprised by the committee'sdecision. The committee on the other hand isobliged to consider the evidence judiciously. If itis circumstantial or inconclusive, the student mustbe given the benefit of the doubt that he wouldreceive in a court of law. A severe reprimandand/or warning that if conclusive evidence isfound he will be removed immediately from student housing or not be allowed to live in thehousing system, may cause the student to reevaluate and adjust his behavior.Academic ProblemsStudents come to college to learn. They are informed of their progress by means of comparativeevaluation of academic work. Problems arisewhen a student does not feel his work has beenevaluated fairly. Sometimes the professor makesan error in computation, in copying a grade, or inreporting the grade. Usually the difficulty is resolved quickly once the error is brought to theprofessor's attention. Frequently, however, theproblem is not so simple. Sometimes the subjectivity of an evaluation is questioned, or complaints arise concerning the decisions involvingthe cut-off point between two grades.Students are very concerned about their gradesbecause of the power they hold over their future.A low grade, an F or sometimes even a C, may bara student from pursuing a certain career. Instructors are aware of this and generally evaluatestudents' work with due care and consideration.However, when students are unaware of theevaluation procedures or when they feel that theirwork has not been evaluated equitably, problemscan and do arise. Therefore it is essential that students understand the standards which will be usedto evaluate their work, as well as the work onwhich their grade will be based. This should beexplained to them in as much detail as possible atthe beginning of a course.A number of problems with grades werebrought to my attention during the spring quarter.In several cases the student's grade was border line and the professor decided the student's workdid not warrant the higher grade. In seeking resolutions to these and other academic problems, Iheard several suggestions for revamping thegrading system. Underlying each is the goal ofmaking the process of evaluation and the evaluation itself a more accurate reflection of the student's work. Some of these ideas have more meritthan others in my opinion. But all are provocativeand deserve the attention and consideration of theuniversity community.One suggestion was to submit student workanonymously to the professor for evaluation toeliminate the possibility of personal bias.Anonymous submission would be difficult to institute. In fact, it might be totally out of the question for courses in which classroom participationconstitutes part of the grade.It was suggested the +'s and — 's routinelyawarded by many professors and recorded bysome departments in their own records appear onthe transcript and be reflected in the GPA.A third suggestion involved abolishing the present system of letter grades and replacing it by apoint system. Such a system would eliminate thedouble penalty students are subjected to incourses in which grades are based on points.Presently, at the end of the course the numbersare translated into letter grades. In the processfine distinctions among the students are lost.Later, the Registrar's Office transposes the lettersback into numbers in computing the GPA. Notonly does a point system offer the advantage ofmore accurately reflecting the student's work in aparticular course, but it allows finer distinctions tobe made in grading.The term of a new president is an appropriatetime to examine old policies and procedures.Perhaps it is time for a thorough review of thecurrent grading system by a faculty- student committee.As of the summer of 1979, a note stating themean and median GPA of the classes of 1979 and1980 has been added to the transcript of everyCollege student. The average GPA shows whatthe University has long maintained: here, gradeinflation does not exist. I would like to see theUniversity take this one step further and make theGPA itself a more reliable measure of the student's work.Student HealthIn my report for the 1979 winter quarter I drewattention to one area in which we had considerable success in resolving problems — that of er-73roneous medical bills. Despite the frustration wesometimes experienced in finding our way throughthe labyrinthian hospital bureaucracy, our effortswere generally successful. However, even whenwe could solve the problem for the student —which sometimes tooks months — he or she mightcontinue to receive troublesome bills because thecomputer was not brought up to date.The problems with the billing system must beserious, we reasoned, for students often gave upafter a few vain attempts at finding their waythrough the maze. I therefore requested that theAssistant to the Ombudsman, Paul Rehmus, lookmore deeply into this matter.He discovered that the situation was muchworse than we suspected. It was characterized by:a lack of communication among departments, noseparation of students from the rest of Billings'clientele, and ineffective clerical staffing. Eventually though, he did find several ways through themaze. Depending upon the type of insurance policy involved, certain procedures should be followed.* These procedures are identified in abrochure available at the Student Health Clinicand at various locations around campus. In addition, the Student Health Clinic hopes to publicizethese procedures through a series of articles in theMaroon.In the course of his investigation Mr. Rehmusbrought the problem to the attention of David M.Bray, the Executive Director of University Hospitals and Clinics. At least partially as a result ofMr. Rehmus's efforts, a committee has beenformed to investigate the problems with the billingsystem. It will'seek ways to simplify the system asa whole and to handle students as a group. We canhope to see the first fruits of the committee's workin the course of the 1979-80 academic year. Mr.Rehmus's competent investigation of this problemhas provided a service to the entire universitycommunity.Events of May 22On May 22 this campus saw the largest display ofpolitical activism since the winter of 1969. On the22nd the first Albert Pick, Jr., Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding was presented to Robert S. McNamara,President of the World Bank and former United*After this report was written, the Student Health Servicedeveloped a new system for students with bills. It now advisesall students with billing problems to bring their bills directly tothe Student Insurance Officer in Room O-104 at the StudentHealth Service. States Secretary of Defense. Let me record thebackground of the Pick Award as it is describedby President Gray in her letter of May 14 to theUniversity Senate:Albert Pick, Jr., was a graduate of the University, a Trustee and Life Trustee who died inDecember 1977. He was especially interestedand active in the issues of world peace andinternational understanding. In January 1978the Albert Pick, Jr., Fund established the AlbertPick, Jr., Award for Outstanding Contributionsto International Understanding and suggestedthat this award be administered by the University of Chicago. The Board of Trustees accepted in February 1978, with the stipulationthat the selection process be vested in a committee composed primarily of University faculty to be appointed by the President of theUniversity.After months of intermittent consultation thecommittee recommended that Mr. McNamara bethe award's first recipient. The committee offeredthe prize to him and he accepted. Only when theUniversity announced the first recipient of theaward was the University community-at-large informed of the establishment of the award, the appointment of the committee, and its mandate.This set the stage for the formal protest by themany members of the University who vehementlyopposed the selection of Mr. McNamara. Theprotest activities were coordinated by an ad hoc4 ' Committee of May 22 . "My purpose in reviewing these facts here is notsimply to record the events or to debate the issues. This was done thoroughly at the teach-insand in the Maroon. Rather, my purpose here is todiscuss the role the ombudsman can and shouldplay in political issues — such as those surroundingMay 22 — which involve the whole University.As I see it, the ombudsman occupies a uniqueposition in the administrative hierarchy. On theone hand he is an administrator. But on the otherhand he is a student. He is the only administratorwho must be a member of the student body. He isin fact primarily a student.As a student the ombudsman is vitally interested in all aspects of the University that irritatestudents or generate problems for them. He isinterested in learning what University of Chicagostudents perceive as unfair policies and in whatareas they think the University should be taking acloser look at itself and what it stands for.For these reasons the ombudsman sometimes74finds himself walking a narrow line betweenworking with administrators and working for students. Because he is a student he often is an effective advocate of student interests. But his effectiveness lies not in Ms persuasiveness nor in Mstenacity (causing administrators to yield just to gethim off their backs) but in his objectivity andsense of fairness.In order to be perceived as impartial and fair, itis essential that the ombudsman not align himselfwith any interest group or campus organization.Therefore, when I, in my capacity as a Universityofficial, was asked to sign a petition regarding theaward to Mr. McNamara, I did not do so. Personal feelings were put aside because of my conviction that the credibility of the ombudsmanwould, in the long run, be diminished if the officewere to associate itself with a particular group onapolitical issue.The ombudsman is also not a campus activistwho seeks to reform those areas of the Universityhe believes warrant change. The ombudsman bestserves the University when he looks at eachgrievance brought to his attention with a judicialeye, conducts his investigation with an openmind, evaluates the situation according to thehighest ethical standards, and recommendschanges to those who have the authority to implement them.When the campus community as a whole iscaught up in a political issue as it was this spring, Ibelieve the ombudsman must set aside personalfeelings — as he should in all cases — and attempt toanalyze and evaluate both sides of the issues atstake.It may be the case, as it was this year, that theombudsman's aid will not be sought. Yet, had agroup of students come to me saying that theythought the University should not give the awardto McNamara and requested my assistance inmaking their dissent known to Mrs. Gray andother University officials, I certainly would havefound such a request appropriate. I would haveattempted to investigate the matter and to bringthe students into contact with those who made thedecision. Where my role as ombudsman wouldhave ended (and must end if the ombudsman is tomaintain his credibility as an impartial judge)would have been when the students began to organize protest activities.At that kind of juncture, the ombudsman hasthe choice of aligning himself and being identifiedwith a cause — however just — or pursuing his dutyto work within existing University channels. Theombudsman can and should make his point of view known by talking with and writing to theappropriate University officials, but if he were totake a public stance on such a controversial issue,the ombudsman's credibility as an objectivespokesman would be diminished.Gail J. Hankins was the University Ombudsmanfor the 1978-79 term.REPORT OF THESTUDENT GMBUDSHAMFOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 1979By Bryce LewemsteQEniOf the ninety-seven cases handled by the Office ofthe Student Ombudsman during the autumnquarter, at least half involved conflicts betweenefficient operation of the University and an idealstandard of fairness. These conflicts generallyarose when the circumstances of an individualstudent ran afoul of procedures designed to handlemost of the people most of the time.For example, the Registrar's Office routinelysends an official copy of all grade reports to thehome addresses of college students. One studentcame to the ombudsman's office, seeking to havetwo official copies sent: one to her home addressand one to her father, who is separated from hermother but contributes to her education. According to Registrar Maxine Sullivan requests for thiskind of dual report are infrequent. It would beinefficient to design an entire system that wouldmake the rare dual reports possible. Mrs. Sullivansuggested an easy alternative which satisfied thestudent: The dean of students in the College canarrange to send an official copy of the grades tothe student's father.Many cases involving administrative rales require little effort to find solutions within normalprocedures, such as the case above. Some, however, require administrators to make exceptionsto established procedures. At the beginning of theautumn quarter, students frequently wish tochange the board contracts they have signed theprevious spring. Several students complained tothe ombudsman's office during the first week ofschool after secretaries at the housing office toldthem that the deadline for board contract changeshad passed.The staff of the housing office told me that thedeadline had indeed passed. Technically, it passedas soon as the students signed their contracts. In75fact, the housing office allowed changes for a fewdays at the beginning of the quarter, but had toimpose a cutoff date in order to plan for efficientoperation of the food service.To provide a compromise between theestablished procedures and the unfairness perceived by students, the housing office made anexception to its own policy and prepared a formon which students might request board contractchanges. The housing office attempted to act onthose requests within a week. I later heard thatmost of the people who had come to the ombudsman's office received the changes they desired.Procedures are established for a good reason: toprovide an efficient means for making routine decisions in an office. In general, procedures andpolicies attempt to be fair. An exception to a ruleis usually no fairer than rigid application of a rule.It is certainly not fair to set aside a rule "justbecause I'm a student," as some students believe.But neither is it fair to treat people as though theyare undeserving of fair procedures precisely because they are students.In one of my major cases this quarter, I believedthat a student was denied due process because hewas a student. He had been fired from a job at theUniversity and discovered that there were nogrievance procedures available when he wished toprotest his dismissal. The department head ultimately responsible for the dismissal would notdiscuss the matter with him.The department head agreed to meet with me,however, and I investigated the incidents leadingto the dismissal. I determined that, although therewere misunderstandings and perhaps undulyharsh positions on both sides, the departmenthead had the right to order the dismissal. He mayeven have been justified in doing so.During this investigation many people told methat the absence of formal grievance proceduresallows informal procedures to operate efficientlyand solve most job-related problems. Severalpeople described the immediate case as the firstmajor grievance in two or three years.As ombudsman, I believe my duty is to fairness;my charge from the president is both to help resolve specific complaints and "to call attention toinjustices or abuses of discretion." While I recognize that the University must operateefficiently, I try to find solutions which give students fair treatment. I found the absence of grievance procedures for some student employees unfair.The need for elaborate reporting and recordkeeping for formal grievance procedures might obstruct the efficient solution of most problems.However, that efficiency becomes unfair when theinformal procedures cannot cope with strongfeelings on both sides.The dean of students, Charles O'Connell, isalso concerned by the lack of grievance procedures for students employed by the University.He is now working with the director of personnel,Edward Coleman, to see if some relatively simpleprocedures can be devised which will take intoaccount both the efficiency needed most often andthe formality needed on occasion for fairness.Sometimes, written procedures become toorigid in time. Attempting to create better systems,administrators abandon the written\ proceduresand develop new ones. In the interests of efficiency and flexible application, the new procedures may never be published. But neither are theold procedures, now forgotten and ignored by theadministrators, ever explicitly renounced. It isthen unfair to continue presenting those obsoleteprocedures to students.For example, a graduate student was appealinghis grade of low-pass on a foreign language examrequired by his department. He believed he deserved a high-pass. He based his appeal on a 1972publication from the Office of Test Administration, which stated that the final grade would bedetermined by the total point score of a combinedtranslation and vocabulary test.Investigation showed that his grade actually depended on the scores in the individual parts of theexam. This new system had evolved over the pastseven years, but had never been explicitly substituted for the old system. The 1972 guidelinecontinued to be circulated. Although the newsystem was in fact applied more flexibly than theold standards, the student had been given an unfair expectation of how his test would be graded.After several discussions among the graders,the test administrators, and the student's dean ofstudents, the Office of Test Administrationgranted the appeal. The student now has a high-pass grade recorded. His problem, however,raises both administrative issues involving efficiency and fairness and academic issues regardingthe relative importance of translation and vocabulary on foreign language exams.The hardest problems involving fairness occurwhen an efficient procedure is seen as fair bysome and as unfair by others. Then there is noright answer. This happened in one of the severalcases which were caused by the delayed beginningof the autumn quarter.As one result of that delay, some students in thebusiness school were required to register before76their dormitories officially opened. They werecharged for an extra night's lodging. Their dean ofstudents, Lubosh Hale, made arrangements toreimburse the affected students.As with many procedures at the businessschool, the reimbursement operated on the market principle. Those students concerned about thecost of the extra night's lodging would find outabout, and seek, the reimbursement. Those students for whom the marginal cost of the lodgingwas immaterial would not bother.At least two students, however, were upset bythe extra charge and did not learn about the reimbursement procedure. They came to the Ombudsman's Office. I agreed with their analysis thatfairness indicated that all people affected by theconflict between registration and housing contractdates should be notified of the available reimbursement.I discussed the situation with Mr. Hale and hisassociate Emma Pitcher. Then, at my request, thehousing office identified the affected students andMrs. Pitcher notified them of their eligibility forthe reimbursement.Many people will argue that nothing can bemore fair than efficient operation of the marketprinciple. But in my role as mediator between students and complaint-generating procedures, I recognize that not all people believe in that argument. They believe that other, less pragmaticstandards of fairness apply.One ultimate standard commonly mentioned isthe fairness expected among members of a community. Some students, when they perceived theimmediate cause of their problem as unfair, attributed that cause to a problem with this ultimatestandard. Several mentioned a "lack of community" in their complaints. They thought that theadministrators involved in their problem weremore concerned with administrative efficiencythan with fostering a University community.In the rush to tighten budgets and eliminatewaste, administrators are properly concernedabout efficient operation. But it would be a mistake for University administrators to act as thoughefficiency were the final goal. One of the mostimportant parts of the University is the spirit ofcommunity. Fairness contributes to that spirit. Itis that spirit which makes the University morethan a place to study, to teach, and to conductresearch; that spirit makes the University a placeto live.Bruce Lew enstein is the University Ombudsmanfor the 1979-80 term. Appendix: DetailsIn almost seventy of the ninety-seven cases thatcame to its attention, the ombudsman's officeacted by relaying complaints to the appropriateoffice, setting up appointments for students withthe officials most suited to solve their individualproblems, asking an office such as Financial Aidor the Student Health Service to help find missingforms and then relaying necessary informationand instructions to the student, and negotiatingwith professors and administrators to find solutions to conflicts not resolved by established procedures. In the remaining thirty cases, the ombudsman's office served mainly as an information/referral service and as a sounding board for students seeking advice before pursuing their ownproblems. (Breakdown of cases in the accompanying table.)An additional sixty-four people called ordropped by the ombudsman's office seeking everything from the phone numbers of variousoffices to a campus source for free furniture. Ninepeople were seeking legal aid information.Forty-five cases came to the ombudsman'soffice before the fifth week of the quarter. Thenthere was a three- week lull, during which onlyfour new cases came to the office. The remainderof the cases came after the seventh week, withmany not arriving until the last week and a half ofthe quarter.Graduate and undergraduate students came tothe ombudsman's office in roughly equal numbers.Information/Discussion Action TotalAcademic AffairsGrade Appeal 2 1 3Other 8 8 16Student AffairsAthletics 1 3 4Housing & Commons 4 15 19Hospitals & Clinics 1 4 5Student Employment 2 1 3Student Activities 0 2 2Administrative AffairsFinancial Aid 1 5 6Facilities & Security 1 9 10Registrar & Bursar 5 13 18Library 1 1 2Miscellaneous 4_ 5_ 9_Total 30 67 9777THE 375TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:POLICY, RESEARCH, AND POLITICAL THEORYBy James S. ColemanDecember 18, 1979The University convocation takes place fourtimes a year. These are important points for reflection and self-examination. In June, greatestattention is properly paid to undergraduates receiving their first university degree. In August, itis appropriate to focus upon the new Ph.D.s whoare eager to get their degrees before reporting totheir first teaching jobs in September. In Marchand December, it is useful to address some of theother activities of which the university is composed. I shall do that today. But I do it notprimarily as a matter of interest for those of usnow occupying the university as its faculty, butfor those of you who, receiving your degrees now,will be occupying it in the future. It is to you,then, that my comments about policy, research,and political theory are directed.Within the last fifteen years a new phenomenonhas arisen in the social sciences in the UnitedStates — though properly speaking, it cannot besaid to be in the social sciences. The phenomenonis a kind of research that may be genericallytermed "social policy research." It has includedsocial experiments such as income maintenanceexperiments, housing allowance experiments, andhealth insurance experiments, and evaluations,such as the hotly-debated evaluations of HeadStart, and including evaluations of hundreds ofother programs in education, in communitymental health centers, in welfare reform, in employment training programs, and other areas ofsocial policy.Some of this social policy research has beencarried out at universities. Some has been carriedout at independent research organizations whichhave sprung up and grown in the 1970s much asdid the physical research laboratories like Argonne in the 1940s and 1950s. Some of these research organizations are large and relatively stable. Others, which have grown like mushroomsaround Washington, are small, and many haveshort lifetimes.Until this new "social policy research," acommon complaint of social scientists was that policy makers never paid attention to research; itwas never used. This complaint is still heard, butit is more muted now. For much of this recentresearch has been extensively used. The evaluations that found little effect of Head Start probably prevented massive expansions of the program, though they did not overcome the momentum of the existing program. The income maintenance experiments which showed the great impactof income maintenance programs in increasing divorce and inhibiting remarriage were partly responsible for killing the recent negative incometax proposals in Congress. The evaluationsshowing strong educational benefits of SesameStreet gave impetus to the growth of that programand its descendants. The examples could be continued at length.So the question is no longer: "Why is socialresearch not being used in social policy?" It is,rather, a more serious question: "Is the extentand nature of its use beneficial to society orharmful?" So long as the research that social scientists engage in is irrelevant to the functioning ofsociety, they can be safely left to play in theirsandbox. But when it begins to be used, it is necessary to examine a little more closely what isgoing on.The question of whether social policy researchis beneficial or harmful cannot yet be answered; itis still too soon. The answer is not, however, thesimple one; it is not merely a question of whetherthe research is well done and technically correct.Let us assume that to be the case, and ask thequestion again: Assuming that social policy research gives correct answers to the questionsposed for it: Is its introduction into policy-makinga good thing or a bad thing? The answer to thisquestion depends largely on what effect it has onthe distribution of power in society.To begin an answer, it is useful to turn to athread of neo-Marxist political philosophy thathas become strong in Germany, and has particularly found voice in the sociologist Jurgen Haber-mas. Habermas envisions a "rational society" asa pre-eminent danger of the future: a society witha feedback process from policy effects back to78policy makers, bypassing the political process andemasculating the class interests generated by theinstitutional structure of society. The vision is ofsocieties in which there is "the end of ideology,"to use Daniel Bell's imagery, governed by non-political technocrats informed by sophisticatedfeedback mechanisms.And the feedback mechanism, of course, is thisrecent arrival on the political scene, social policyresearch. Thus in this vision of the future, socialpolicy research undermines the normal politicalprocesses by giving the technocratic policy makers that most important weapon: information.This suggests that social policy research aidsthe centralization of power, helping to create amonolithic authority system. But observation ofcases of such research suggests that matters maybe somewhat different. A number of examplessuggest that social policy research is more usefulto outsiders than to insiders, more useful to thepotential opponents of policy than to the policymakers themselves.In my experience, this observation holds withsurprising regularity: research on effects of HeadStart was most helpful to opponents of HeadStart, because it found few effects; the incomemaintenance experiments were most helpful toopponents of the proposed policy, because theydid find effects; research in effects of school desegregation has been used by plaintiffs in courtcases to oppose student assignment policies inlocal school districts, and so on. The generalization does not hold in every case, but does inmany.Why? I believe the most fundamental reason isthat research results, when they show defects ofpolicy, legitimate opposition to the policy. Policymakers have already the legitimation provided bypolitical authority, and have little need for additional legitimation. But opponents, lacking thepower of political authority, gain the legitimacy of"scientific truth" or "scientific evidence," whichcan constitute an important weapon in the political struggle.Why this contradiction between the neo-Marxist vision of the "rational society" and thegeneralization I have just remarked upon? Onesource, I think, is the failure of Habermas andothers to recognize the powerful legitimation thatscientific evidence provides for alternative values.Its potential role in subverting political authorityis similar to that which religion has always provided, as a competing way of defining what is"right."Another source of the difference, however, isan implicit assumption of Habermas that is met in some social policy research, but not all: an assumption that the feedback process is one inwhich the research questions are posed by thepolicy maker and the research results are privately transmitted back to the policy maker. Inthe examples I cited earlier where policy researchis more useful to outsiders than insiders, the research results were openly published, and the design was broad enough to address a variety ofinterests.Social policy research in the United States hovers near the borderline of meeting the assumptionof private communication between researcher andpolicy maker. One can see the proximity of theborderline through examples. The result on divorce which affected the negative income tax proposals was first found in 1974 by sociologists atStanford University. The results were first deniedby the experiment's designers in the Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare, then bottledup, then obscured, until they finally came into theopen for policy deliberation in Congressionalhearings in 1978. There are numerous other suchexamples, despite the existence of some laws andsome procedures which facilitate the pluralisticuse of policy research.What can be said, I think, is that social policyresearch can come to have an effect on publicpolicy in the direction of undercutting pluralism,or it can come to have an effect in strengtheningpluralism, depending wholly on how it is institutionalized. The examples I've given indicatesome of the elements that should be taken intoconsideration if pluralism is to be strengthened.More generally, however, this is a matter forpolitical theory. The political theorists and practitioners who designed the American Constitutionwere very attentive to insuring pluralism in political decision-making: separate branches of government to provide checks and balances, and abicameral legislature. But the society they dealtwith was small, comprehensible, and not one inwhich information about its functioning was ascarce good. As a consequence, their politicaltheory had no place for pluralism in the systematicprovision of information about societal functioning. There was the freedom of speech amendmentwhich helped insure a free press, but otherwiselittle. Into this vacuum came, from early days,certain institutions, especially Congressionalhearings, and agency hearings in the executivebranch. Along with these institutions came theextensive structure of interest group representation which above all provides information —certainly not unbiased information, but information nevertheless.79Now, however, with the explosive growth ofsocial policy research, which can constitute a private instrument, privately used, for governmentagencies, or a public instrument, publicly available for pluralistic use by any and all, an augmentation of political theory is necessary. In its absence, the danger is that he who pays the pipercalls the tune, and that social policy research becomes a private instrument of governmentagencies, undercutting the structure of interest-based political pluralism in the society.What is the university's role in this? It is toprovide the autonomous base for social policy research. Nearly all the examples I know in whichpolicy research has arrived at results that throwdoubt on federal policies and has insisted that theresults be publicly available, are cases in whichthe analyst was not in a contract research organization wholly dependent on government funds,but was a university faculty member.And the university's role as well is to providethe context within which a political theory of information pluralism comes to be developed. Forsuch a theory, followed by institutionalsafeguards, will help insure that the vision of a"rational society of the future," governed as amonolithic authority system, will not be realized.And it is not we, who are at the university now,but those of you who are leaving it, who are receiving your degrees now and will be occupyinguniversities in the next generation, to whom thistask will fall. I commend it to your attention, and Iam confident you will be equal to the task.THE 375TH CONVOCATION:HONORARY DEGREESPresentation of Philip E. Converse by J. DavidGreenstone, Professor, Department of PoliticalScience and the College.Madam President, I am honored to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters Philip E. Converse, RobertCooley Angell Distinguished College Professor ofSociology and Political Science at the Universityof Michigan.Professor Converse has been the leading scholar of his generation in fashioning the development of empirical electoral studies withinpolitical science and political sociology.His landmark research into American electoralbehavior has illuminated both the general processes of opinion formation and the specific roleof elections in democratic societies. It has advanced the frontiers of survey research methodology while elaborating the substantive theories thathave come to define the study of electoral behavior. These theoretical contributions distinguishbetween short-term electoral forces, includingissue and candidate orientation, and longer-termidentification with political parties. These forcestogether shape the voting decisions of individualsand create intelligible patterns of continuity andchange in the American regime.It is my very great pleasure to present PhilipConverse for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters.Presentation of Lee J. Cronbach by Benjamin S.Bloom, Charles H. Swift Distinguished ServiceProfessor, Department of Education.Madam President, I have the honor to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters, Lee J. Cronbach, Vida JacksProfessor of Education at Stanford University.Professor Cronbach' s writings on test validation and his leadership in setting standards for theconstruction, validation, and interpretation ofpsychological and educational tests have beenmajor forces in the improvement of the testingprocedures used in schools throughout the world.His work on the evaluation of educational materials and instruction has led to systematic improvements in both of these areas. Because of hisefforts and example, each new piece of work bycapable scholars can now have a cumulative effecton the development of educational theory, educational curricula and programs, and on the methodsand materials used in schools and colleges.Perhaps the greatest gains to education haveemerged from his long quest for ways of adaptinginstruction to the specific aptitudes, learningstyle, and needs of the individual student. Professor Cronbach' s research on aptitude-instructional treatment interaction has supportedthe basic idea that no one educational method orprocedure can be equally effective for all students. Most important, this work has inspired ageneration of educational scholars to search for80ways in which the curriculum, the instruction, andthe instructional material can enable a larger proportion of the students to learn more effectively.It is my privilege, Madam President, to presentLee J. Cronbach for the degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters.Presentation of Otis Dudley Duncan by Leo A.Goodman, Charles L. Hutchinson DistinguishedService Professor, Departments of Sociology andStatistics.Madam President, it is a great privilege to presentas a candidate for the honorary degree of Doctorof Humane Letters Otis Dudley Duncan of theUniversity of Arizona.Professor Duncan is recognized as one of theoutstanding social scientists of our time. His workon path analysis dramatically changed thecharacter of quantitative sociological analysis. Inaddition, no sociologist has had a greater impacton the study of occupational mobility and prestige. His work on mobility has not only been replicated around the world, it has also significantlyinfluenced the development of surveys in theUnited States, England, Germany, Japan, andseveral other countries. His innovations in thisfield continue to the present day.Duncan's contributions go beyond the areas ofoccupational mobility and prestige. He has alsohad a major role in the development of humanecology as a field within sociology and in the development of structural models for the measurement and analysis of various social processes.Finally, Professor Duncan's impact on the discipline of sociology is evident in the many distinguished scholars who were his students and, indirectly, in numerous other intellectual descendants engaged in research and teachingthroughout the world.It is my pleasure, Madam President, to presentOtis Dudley Duncan for the honorary degree ofDoctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of Clifford Geertz by Ralph W.Nicholas, Professor, Department of Anthropology and the College.Madam President, I present as a candidate for thehonorary degree of Doctor of Humane LettersClifford Geertz, Professor of Social Science at theInstitute for Advanced Study. The understanding of human cultures as symbolic orders has, over the past quarter century,been fundamentally shaped by the wide-ranginganalytical and comparative studies of CliffordGeertz. His interpretive theory of culture hasdeeply influenced scholarship throughout the social sciences and the humanities; the analyticalexample of his work has become a model of original investigation in disciplines far removed fromanthropology.Among anthropologists, respect for CliffordGeertz 's intellectual achievement begins with hisprolonged and arduous ethnographic studies conducted over many years in Java, Bali, andMorocco. Each element in the theoretical edificehe has constructed was wrought in that personalconfrontation with alien systems of meaning andmotivation which characterizes the most superioranthropological fieldwork. His numerous contributions on such apparently disparate subjects asreligion and ritual, economic development, kinship, agriculture, play, and the Oriental bazaarcarry conviction because each of them arises fromfield investigations that were rigorous, but acutelysensitive to the patterns of significance of peopleswhose views of the world are very different fromhis own, demanding, but always empathically attuned to the discovery of meaning.A great many scholars have learned from Clifford Geertz how to interpret the cultural documents of everyday life, and anthropology looks tohim for the modern standard of ethnographicstudy.It is my great privilege, Madam President, topresent Clifford Geertz for the honorary degree ofDoctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of Erving Goffman by Donald N.Levine, Professor, Department of Sociology andthe College.Madam President, I present as a candidate for thehonorary degree of Doctor of Humane LettersErving Goffman, Benjamin Franklin Professor ofAnthropology and Sociology at the University ofPennsylvania.In preparing for the doctorate which he received at this University in 1953, Erving Goffmanembraced three of the orientations which had distinguished the "Chicago School" of sociology: asubstantive interest in the forms of interactionwhich organize everyday social life, reflecting thedepartment's attention to Georg Simmel; a81methodological interest in fine-grained reportagebased on close observation of human transactionsin natural settings, following the department'sconcern for representing the lifeways of urbanneighborhoods and social types; and an analyticinterest in the ways human actors constructworlds of meaning and personal selves, derivedfrom local attention to the work of pragmatistphilosophers.In the gallery of ingenious papers and monographic studies which he produced in the subsequent quarter century, Goffman synthesizedthese traditions in a highly distinctive manner andframed an analytic perspective that provided akey for transforming the field of microsociology.Exemplary in the scientific rigor with which hehas searched for the regularities of the interactionprocess, Goffman has humanized the enterpriseby substituting the metaphors of play and theaterfor the older metaphors of organisms and mechanical systems. By discovering and interpretinginvisible patterns of interaction in public placesand the hidden devices by which humans sustaintheir sense of selfhood, he not only has revitalizedthe social psychological tradition of the oldChicago school and transmitted it in unforgettableterms to the international community of scholarsbut has created a new angle of vision for theunderstanding of human experience.It is with great pleasure, Madam President, thatI present Erving Goffman for the honorary degreeof Doctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of Lawrence Stone by Mark A.Kishlansky, Assistant Professor, Department ofHistory and the College.Madam President, it is my privilege to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters Lawrence Stone, Dodge Professor of History at Princeton University.Lawrence Stone is one of the world's foremostsocial historians. He has made seminal contributions to a wide range of topics involving Englishsociety in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His first major achievement was the Crisisof the Aristocracy published in 1965. This massivestudy of the customs and fortunes of England'sruling class has justly been described as the singlemost significant work on English history producedin the last generation.Stone has pioneered the use of a broad range oftechniques in historical analysis, making path-breaking contributions to the study of social mo bility, literacy, and the causes of revolution. In allof this work he has displayed a unique ability tocombine thorough research with incisive generalization.The recent culmination of Stone's interest in thecross-fertilization of social scientific inquiry withhistorical data came with the publication of Family, Sex and Marriage: England 1500-1700 in late1977. After a decade of research into the mostunpromising of historical sources, Stone produceda sensitive analysis of the social mores of the English. This work will define the categories of exploration in English family history for generations.It is my privilege, Madam President, to presentLawrence Stone for the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of Jean-Pierre Vernant by James M.Redfield, Professor, Committee on SocialThought, Department of Classical Languages andLiteratures, Committee on General Studies in theHumanities, and the College.Madam President, I have the honor to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters Jean-Pierre Vernant, Professorof Comparative Ancient Religion in the College deFrance.Heir to a great French tradition in social theory,Jean-Pierre Vernant has renewed his intellectualinheritance; and he has laid the lastinggroundwork for an anthropology of the earlyGreeks, and thus for a fresh understanding of ourcentral cultural heritage.Over the past twenty years he has set before usa brilliant profusion of interlocked essays. A brilliant stylist, he approaches the ancient texts not asisolated masterpieces but as evidence for a livingculture which belonged, not to a cultural elite, butto a whole people. Applying a rigorous method tohis immense erudition, he has set himself to decode the hidden meta-language of Greek culture,the underlying categories of myth, cult, and socialaction. An enterprise of such fundamental originality can be accomplished only by a majortheoretician; Jean-Pierre Vernant has establishedhimself as a leading figure among modern studentsof myth and cult. As such he has become the intellectual patron — and friend — of a generation ofscholars; under his direction and still very much inprogress is a broad program of integrated research, making possible the effective collaboration of many gifted individuals. Jean-Pierre Ver-82nant's most lasting intellectual monument maywell be this collective effort, which promisessomething little short of a total reading of earlyGreek culture in the terms of structuralism andsymbolic anthropology.It is my great privilege, Madam President, topresent Jean-Pierre Vernant for the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters.Presentation of William S. Vickrey by Lester G.Telser, Professor, Department of Economics andthe College.Madam President, I am honored to present as acandidate for the honorary degree of Doctor ofHumane Letters William S. Vickrey, McVickarProfessor of Political Economy at Columbia University.William S. Vickrey is the author of a classicwork in the economics of public finance, Agendafor Progressive Taxation (1947). This book is oneof perhaps three dominant works in the theory ofincome taxation in the past half century, and onmany subjects its pronouncements remain definitive and unqualified.One of Vickrey' s distinctive contributions is theconcept of cumulative lifetime averaging under anincome tax. More than just a solution to the technical problem of income averaging, this contribution of Vickrey' s brought new understandingand insight to the whole concept of income taxation.Vickrey has also made major contributions tothe economics of transportation and of publicutility pricing, as well as to the theory of auctions.He is the leading inventor of ingenious methods ofpricing designed to reduce congestion and to improve the use of transportation systems. In thearea of public utility pricing, his work has led toimaginative solutions to pricing problems in fieldsas diverse as water supply, electric energy, andtelecommunications. Finally, in the theory of auctions he produced a result of profound importance, which sowed the seeds of much furtherwork by others.It is my pleasure, Madam President, to presentWilliam S. Vickrey for the honorary degree ofDoctor of Humane Letters. SUMMARY OF THE375TH CONVOCATIONThe 375th convocation was held on Tuesday, December 18, 1979 in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.Hanna H. Gray, President of the University, presided.A total of 365 degrees were awarded: 39Bachelor of Arts, 5 Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciences and The PritzkerSchool of Medicine, 25 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 1 Master of Fine Arts, 5Master of Science in the Division of the PhysicalSciences, 60 Master of Arts in the Division of theSocial Sciences, 24 Master of Arts in the DivinitySchool, 6 Master of Arts in the Graduate LibrarySchool, 3 Master of Arts in the School of SocialService Administration, 2 Master of Science inTeaching in the Division of the Social Sciences,111 Master of Business Administration, 4 Doctorof Law, 1 Doctor of Medicine, 17 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of Medicine, 5 Doctor ofPhilosophy in the Division of the Humanities, 16Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 30 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Social Sciences, 6 Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Business, 2 Doctorof Philosophy in the Divinity School, and 3 Doctorof Philosophy in the School of Social Service Administration.Eight honorary degrees were conferred duringthe 375th convocation. Recipients of the degree ofDoctor of Humane Letters were: Philip E. Con-yerse, Robert Cooley Angell Distinguished College Professor of Sociology and Political Science,University of Michigan; Lee J. Cronbach, VidaJacks Professor of Education, Stanford University; Otis Dudley Duncan, Professor of Sociology,University of Arizona; Clifford Geertz, Professorof Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study;Erving Goffman, Benjamin Franklin Professor ofAnthropology and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania; Lawrence Stone, Dodge Professor ofHistory and Director of the Davis Center for Historical Research, Princeton University; Jean-Pierre Vernant, Professor of Comparative AncientReligion, College de France; and William S. Vickrey, McVickar Professor of Political Economy,Columbia University.James S. Coleman, University Professor in theDepartment of Sociology and member of theCommittee on Public Policy Studies, delivered theconvocation address, entitled "Policy, Research,and Political Theory . "83UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEEThe following members of the faculty have agreedto accept appointment to three-year terms, beginning January 1980, to the University DisciplinaryCommittee:I.Robert N. Clayton, ChairmanMichael MurrinStarkey DuncanDolores G. NortonPeter WhiteII.Janellen Huttenlocher, ChairmanRene de CostaRichard HellieManley ThompsonIra WoolIII.Richard A. Epstein, ChairmanJohn WestleyJames BruceGodfrey GetzElizabeth KutzkaIV.Hewson Swift, ChairmanPaul M. HirschCarolyn KilleanKarl MorrisonWilliam Pollack84 V.John H. Law, ChairmanGosta AhlstromBill DardenBernard McGinnSusan StodolskyThe following students agreed to serve on theUniversity Disciplinary Student Panel for 1979-80:Hugo AhnRobert ApplebySteven BennerBarbara BochnovicGeorge CaseTed EhretShaun FullmerNathan FunkDavid JaffeDavid KimJeff LaskyMarcia McCabeLawrence McNallyRon MichaelJohn NashLeslie PerlmanLaura SilvestriTony StewartCarol SwansonSusan TurkJames UrbanDavid WaldekGreg WendtJunet YusonTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE-PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building•js* cc yr Has3H©O3Eo>aooo©m*s o no z¦o I offli c 33J P TJso U ¦_. 3POSTAGAIDiO,ILLINTNO.31 oS-*. O ni*55 i)