THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO gEECORPJune 1, 1981 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XV, Number 1CONTENTS1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDAL PRESENTATION TO JOHN NEF2 THE 379TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS : ' ' INSIDE AND OUT' '— George J. Stigler5 SUMMARY OF THE 379TH CONVOCATION5 THE 380TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: ' ' SYNTHESIS ANDDIVERSITY"— David N. Schramm7 THE 380TH CONVOCATION: HONORARY DEGREE7 SUMMARY OF THE 380TH CONVOCATION8 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEAUTUMN QUARTER, 198010 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 198113 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1978-79 DOCTORAL DEGREE RECIPIENTSMEMORIAL TRIBUTES: HANS J. MORGENTHAU21 — Ira Katznelson21 — Milton Rakove23 — Kenneth Thompson26 — Tang TsouMEMORIAL TRIBUTES: WILLIAM HOULDER ZACHARIASEN28 — S. Chandrasekhar29 — Julian Goldsmith3 1 COMMITTEES ON APPOINTMENT INEQUITIES31 NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICYTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1981 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDALPRESENTATION TO JOHN NEFThe University of Chicago Medal was presentedto John Nefon November 13, 1980. Following arethe remarks of Robert W. Reneker, Chairman ofthe Board of Trustees, at the presentation.Our purpose on this occasion is to pay honor to arare and exceptional friend of the University bygiving to him the University of Chicago Medal.The medal was established by the Trustees in1976 as the highest honor the Board of Trusteescan give to a friend of the University. The resolution which created the medal instructs us to give itonly to someone who has shown "an unusual andsympathetic understanding of the unique qualitiesand character of this University and its aims." Ittells us to look for "continuing dedication" and"personal commitment."We think John Nef fits the bill perfectly, and itis a great pleasure and an honor to have him andhis wife, Evelyn, with us to receive this medal.John Nef was born almost on the doorstep ofthe University, the son of one of the most prominent members of the original faculty. He was achild and a boy in the company of the great menand women who founded this institution.Having taken his undergraduate degree at Harvard and then his Ph.D. at the Robert BrookingsGraduate School, he became a member of ourfaculty more than fifty years ago. He was ateacher here for almost forty years and the authorof a long list of publications — books and learnedarticles — which have earned the respect of hiscolleagues everywhere. We recall that, when hewas a very young faculty member, he publishedhis study The Rise of the British Coal Industry,which became a classic immediately. Since thenhe has written many books not only on economichistory but on civilization and government and thefuture of man which are known to whole generations of scholars and thinkers in this country andin Europe. It is almost forty years since John Nef, with thecollaboration of some great figures at theUniversity — Frank Knight, Robert Redfield, andMr. Hutchins — established the Committee on Social Thought. John founded it; he supported it; heguided it as its chairman for twenty -five years,giving to it and to the University his energies, hisimagination, and the benefits of his enormous andengaging curiosity; and he has continued to support it since he retired thirteen years ago.The committee has brought into this communitymany of the world's leading thinkers andartists — to teach, to work, to discuss their ideas.And the committee's own faculty has included,through the years, some of the most distinguishedscholars and teachers on this faculty and some ofthe University's most valued citizens. To haveconceived such an academic department tookgreat vision and spirit; to have founded and led itobviously took determination and courage. Thecommittee has been a lasting, we hope a perpetual, gift to the University, a gift of intellectuallife and — what is not to be discounted lightly — ofsocial and mental liveliness. It has brought greathonor to the University through the years, and Ihave never heard it said that that honor was anything but deserved. It is a unique institution, oneoften envied but never successfully imitated.A great deal has been written about the committee's work and its aims and John in his ownwritings about it repeatedly emphasized its aim ofseeing man as a whole and pursuing researchwithin that total vision. Some years ago he wrote adescription of it which includes one paragraph onwhat is expected of students in the Committee onSocial Thought, and I think that paragraph tellsabout John and about the committee he founded.He wrote:Students are expected to gain an understandingof philosophy which will permit them to makeuse of all new and particular knowledge in rela-1tion to human happiness conceived as a whole,both for individual human beings and for societies. Students are expected to gain an understanding of history which will enable them torecognize how all sides of human activity are interrelated. They are expected, further, by a combination of study and practice, to acquire thegood taste and form in their writing and discussion which will enable them to make the most effective use of their discoveries.That is some vision! And the accomplishmentsof the students of the committee, and of its faculty, through the years have justified that vision.In the 1960s, John Nef s restless efforts to helppeople focus their attention on the large questionsof the future of mankind led him to found theCenter for Human Understanding, which has beensponsored by the University and which he has ledTHE 379TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:INSIDE AND OUTBy George J. StiglerDecember 12, 1980Economics is the study of rational behavior — ofthe principles that guide one in most efficientlyachieving given ends. Economics tells us how resources should be allocated to get the most out ofwhat we have. That definition is my major premise.Man is a rational animal. My teacher, ProfessorFrank Knight of this University, pointed out thatthis proposition needs no proof because manfreely concedes its truth. Very well, that is myminor premise.One need not be a student of syllogisms to seewhere we have arrived: all of man's deliberative,forward-looking behavior follows the principles ofeconomics. The conclusion of a syllogism doesnot require or perhaps even admit of new proof,but I should add that economists freely concedethis conclusion, at least at Chicago.One part of the domain of this modest disciplineis known as the theory of general equilibrium. It both here on campus and in Washington. Again,like the Committee on Social Thought, it hasshown us the great range of John's interests, hisgreat compassion for humanity, and his ability tofind and to show others where there is hope in adifficult time.John Nef is indeed a rare and exceptional friendof the University of Chicago. His whole life hasbeen bound up with that of the University, and hehas made the work of his life a gift to theUniversity — a gift of the years of his life, a gift ofhis inventiveness, foresight, tenacity, and hardwork, a gift of his vast acquaintance with theworld's leading thinkers, and continuing gifts ofsupport for programs in the University.It is my honor, on behalf of the Trustees of theUniversity, to present to John U. Nef the University of Chicago Medal.asserts that the innumerable persons and parts ofthe modern world are interdependent: that by athousand different channels the actions of onepart influence other parts of our society. If theArabs increase the price of oil, this raises the priceof chickenfeed — literally chickenfeed — becausebroilers gain less weight from given food whentheir coops are cooler. If Russia has a wheat cropfailure, the price of bagels is raised— not much, Iadmit — in Israel. When Reagan was victorious, Iassume that there was a decline in the prices ofstocks of companies making bumper stickers.The particular application of this interconnection of the parts of society that I wish to elaborateon today involves university life and the societyaround us. I speak first especially to those of youwho — unlike President Gray and me — are contemplating leaving academic life. To you mythesis will be that nothing fundamental willchange: all of the important things in this worldhave penetrated into academic life, or, if youwish, have entered also the afterworld. If universities had to obey a law on truth in labelling — avicissitude I earnestly pray will not be visitedupon us — commencement would be relabelled:And Now, More of the Same. This is a cheerfulthesis: it says that you are not novices but ratherold hands at the affairs of life.The most direct continuity with the life you2have been leading will be that you shall continueto learn. Economists have given the name ofhuman capital to the capacity for producing valuable services that you have been acquiring, and Iwould guess that at this moment on average yougraduates have on the order of $400,000 worth offuture producing power within each of you. Gibbon said he refused to reveal his income because itwould arouse the envy of some and the contemptof others, and for the same reason, I shall notestimate the present value of the baccalaureatedegree in Sanskrit and the doctorate of medicine.But in any event, if you entered the labor markettomorrow and never learned another thing, yourstarting salary would be the most you would everearn, for you would become a continually moreobsolete productive instrument.Instead you will engage in what we call on-the-job training, and that training will in effectdouble the amount of capital you possess at (say)the age of 40. Your starting salary will be the lowest you will ever receive, not the highest. If youand we have done our work well, you will be fast,efficient learners, and long after you have forgotten the facts and theories we supply, you will possess superior skills to analyze problems and toassess evidence.A second main continuity of your life will be theubiquitous role of competition. Inside the university, you may believe, rivalry is muted, but youshould not be deceived by its polite demeanor.Even in an age of inflation of grades, which we arefrequently told is upon us, there is ample scope forcompetition and substantial rewards for superlative performance. You are not averse to thischallenge, or you would have chosen one of thehundreds of universities and colleges whose intellectual lives are more sedate than ours.As for faculty research, and I remind you thatall great universities are research universities, thevigor of competition is frightening. It is common,for example, for young scholars of impatient ambition to seek to earn their spurs by launchingattacks on established scholars. My friend MiltonFriedman earned his first fame, while a graduatestudent at this University, by demonstrating anerror in the work of England's premier professorof political economy. In due time quite a fewyoung economists have returned the complimentto Friedman, usually with more painful results.Competition will be ubiquitous in your futurelife, and equally so whether you enter a profession, the Board of Trade, or government orchurch service. Many people look upon this un ceasing, many-sided rivalry as morally or psychologically stultifying, but that seems to me torepresent a superficial view of the varied roles ofcompetition. While you are competing withothers, still other people are competing foryou — for your services, your patronage, yourfriendship. It is their competition that endows youwith freedom: their competition for you means,for example, that you need not work at a type ofjob or for a type of employer you dislike: competition gives us alternatives, and alternatives giveus freedom. Again, competition is a consequenceof a desire to excel, and I cannot believe that it hasbeen absent from any lofty achievement. The onlysocieties within which competition is wholly absent are the rigidly traditional systems such asthose in which the social insects live, and eventhey face the competition of other societies.Let me mention in passing one interesting manifestation of the continuity of the University's relationship to you. Suppose that you change yourname, move to some improbable place, grow abeard — a task rather difficult for half of you, butone that cannot be shirked in a university wheresexual discrimination is unthinkable — and join anaboriginal tribe. By these devices you may wellescape any possible tracing by the FBI, creditors,or a deserted spouse. You will, however, continueto receive regularly the requests of the AlumniOffice for contributions.And now let me turn the argument around andpoint out how extensively the world has enteredinto the university. Universities have always responded to the main forces in the society in whichthey dwelled — after all, their students and facultyand funds all come from that outside world. Thesurprise, over long periods, has been how slowlywe have responded. Our curriculum, for example,has been constructed out of three roughly equalparts: what the students wish, what the facultylearned, and what the faculty wished it hadlearned. The gowns we wear are so ancient that itis unknown, except surely to Dean Weintraub,whether the liripipe or tail of the doctoral hoodwas designed to carry a bible or a bottle. Butnotice that we eventually adapt to the times andwear such garb only on the most solemn occasions, such as commencement and termination.This permeability of academic life has saved itfrom sterility. There have been times when universities have been insulated from their worlds byrich endowments and freedom from outside controls. One such place and time was England about1740. Here is what one observant teenage student3different outside world better equipped than mostpeople of your age to deal with it.Prosper in it, and in time send to us somethingthat chancellors of the exchequer have not yetlearned how to depreciate — your splendid children.George J. Stigler is the Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofEconomics and the Graduate School of Businessand Director of the Center for the Study of theEconomy and the State.SUMMARY OF THE379TH CONVOCATIONThe 379th convocation was held on Friday, December 12, 1980 in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.Hanna H. Gray, President of the University, presided.A total of 313 degrees were awarded: 38Bachelor of Arts, 8 Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciences and the PritzkerSchool of Medicine, 22 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 7 Master of Science in theDivision of the Physical Sciences, 43 Master ofArts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 15Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 6 Master ofArts in the Graduate Library School, 1 Master ofArts in the Committee on Public Policy Studies, 3Master of Arts in Teaching in the Division of theSocial Sciences, 2 Master of Science in Teachingin the Division of the Social Sciences, 92 Masterof Business Administration in the GraduateSchool of Business, 1 Doctor of Law in the LawSchool, 1 Doctor of Medicine in the Division ofthe Biological Sciences and the Pritzker School ofMedicine, 12 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divisionof the Biological Sciences and the Pritzker Schoolof Medicine, 11 Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of the Humanities, 20 Doctor of Philosophyin the Division of the Physical Sciences, 36 Doctorof Philosophy in the Division of the Social Sciences, 3 Doctor of Philosophy in the GraduateSchool of Business, 9 Doctor of Philosophy in theDivinity School, and 1 Doctor of Philosophy in theSchool of Social Service Administration.George J. Stigler, the Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofEconomics and in the Graduate School of Business and Director of the Center for the Study ofthe Economy and the State, delivered the convocation address entitled "Inside and Out." THE 380TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:SYNTHESIS AND DIVERSITYBy David N. SchrammMarch 20, 1981To put me into a proper sense of perspective, mysecretary, upon hearing that I was giving thecommencement address, told me what she remembered that her commencement speaker hadsaid. It went something like this, "You may notremember the exact words that I say but there isone thing you should not forget ..." She forgotthe rest.Despite the fore warnings of the impact my talkwill have, I am very pleased to have this uniqueopportunity to address future leaders of diversefields. In the audience there are no doubt peoplewho will become world leaders in medicine,maybe someone who will do a unique new translation of an ancient Sanskrit manuscript, a potential Nobel Prize winner, a cabinet member, aPulitzer Prize-winning writer, and probably even amovie or television star. In fact, if one looks atprevious Chicago classes, these are all quite reasonable possibilities.Before this diverse audience of creative people,I thought I might mention what I feel has playedan important role in discoveries and breakthroughs in many fields — that is, the synthesis ofthe diverse.A breakthrough on a problem, many times,seems to occur when somebody brings to bear onit information obtained in some field with whichmost workers in the original field are unfamiliar.As an example, let me mention what has beenhappening lately in the study of the very earlyuniverse — the Big Bang. Astronomers, over thepast sixty years, led off by the important work ofEdwin Hubble in the 1920s (who, I might mention,was on our 1907 Big Ten champion basketballteam) showed that the universe was expandingand the galaxies were flying apart from each other.Hubble not only saw that it was expanding, henoticed that it was expanding in a very specialway — in a way that did not distort things and thatfilled all of space uniformly.However, not until the mid-1960s was itestablished that this necessarily implied that theuniverse started from very, very hot, dense initialconditions — the Big Bang — rather than expansion5in a steady state with new matter being created tofill in the gaps. The Big Bang option was verifiedby the observation of a background radiationthroughout the whole universe. (The backgroundradiation was discovered by accident; it was thenoise in an antenna built to track the Telstar satellite.) This radiation was left over from when theuniverse was hot and dense; thus, the universeevolves and changes with time. In other words, itages, like we creatures that dwell in it.As we work back and look at earlier and earliermoments in the universe, we eventually reach theevent where space, time, and everything that weknow about the laws of physics — or anything elsefor that matter — fail. This is in some sense a pointof origin; perhaps it is the creation event. To studythe universe as one approaches this early time requires knowledge of the elementary particles ofmatter. So, while astronomy and cosmology havetraditionally studied the very, very large, it is nowclear that to understand some of the problems inour early history we have need to study the very,very small.In particular, the developments out at Fermilaband other major particle physics centers haveshown us that matter is not just the three elementary particles we remember from high school(neutron, proton, electron) but that the neutronand proton are made out of three quarks each, andthese quarks seem to be true point-like particlesthat do not take up any space at all. As peoplestudy quarks at higher and higher energies, andthus smaller separation distances, they continueto see quarks as having no size; they only interact.Even in the old atomic view, matter is mostlyempty with the mass being concentrated in theneutrons and protons of the nucleus. However,we are now reaching the view where matter iscompletely empty, with the mass being containedin points that occupy no space and the only thingsthat give matter its size, shape, and dimensionsare the forces between the points. Thus, the StarWars quote "May the force be with you" mayhave validity.The study of these forces has led to tremendousbreakthroughs in recent years. It appears that,where we used to think there were four differentforces, there may only be one grand unified force,and all forces are really part of this grand unifiedforce. These developments in particle physicstheory are now finding that their testing ground isno longer the accelerator but the events in theearly universe. The energies where the forcesunify may only have been reachable in the Big Bang. This grand unified force seems to be whatproduced the quarks in the universe in the firstplace back in a very, very early time.It also seems that the events in the very, veryearly universe tell us how many types of particlesthere are in the universe and tell the acceleratorpeople what types of things they might expect tofind. So we have seen the merging together of twovery diverse fields, the study of the very large andvery small, with answers to problems in each ofthe fields coming from the other.After that rather detailed discussion of one caseof diversity leading to synthesis, let me just mention a couple of others. Paul Samuelson's (anotherUniversity of Chicago graduate) Nobel Prize-winning work in economics involves, in effect,applying some variational calculus techniques toeconomic problems.The nontraditional approach to a problem mighteven come from dreams rather than other traditional fields of study. For example, the discoveryof the benzine ring followed a dream about asnake eating its tail. While my examples aresomewhat specific, I hope you might find in liberaleducation here at Chicago bits of knowledge outside the blinders of traditional courses of study.When a field puts blinders on it tends to stagnate. Action occurs when two or more disciplinesor modes of thought stimulate each other. Thestimulation can be obvious as in the previousexamples, or maybe it is more subtle with the influences coming from the almost forgotten conversations held long ago in Burton-Judson or atJimmy's.Some of us worry that the bureaucracies, bothgovernmental and corporate, frequently fail torecognize the need for diversity in looking for solutions to future problems. New ideas which leadto future productivity come in the most unexpected ways. Who would have thought that thespace race coupled with the fact that the UnitedStates had smaller rockets than the Soviet Unionin the early 1960s would lead to the ubiquitouspocket calculator of today? If instead of going tothe moon, the government had just spent moneyon trying to make smaller computers, I wonderwhether people would have been sufficiently firedup and open to new inputs to have made the progress that occurred.I worry that extreme emphasis on short-term,goal-oriented applied research can channel thingsso much that cross fertilization fades. Hopefully,you will prevent this fading with the diversity of aChicago education. Our diversity comes not just6from the courses of study but from all parts of theUniversity being on one campus to enable interaction of different fields (medical students haveeven been known to date Far Eastern studies concentrators, physicists might even spend timetalking to people in creative writing). With thisbackground you will, I hope, be able to keep thecross fertilization going.I wish you luck in your synthesis and yourever-growing diversity.David N. Schramm is Professor in the Departments of Astronomy and Astrophysics andPhysics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege and Chairman of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics.THE 380TH CONVOCATION:HONORARY DEGREEPresentation of Mary Douglas Leakey by RussellH. Tuttle, Professor in the Department of Anthropology and in the Committee on EvolutionaryBiology.Madam President, it is a great pleasure to presentMary Douglas Leakey for the honorary degree ofDoctor of Science. Mrs. Leakey is the Director ofResearch at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and SeniorResearch Fellow at the Louis Leakey MemorialInstitute of Prehistory and Palaeontology,Nairobi, Kenya.She pioneered the minute excavation of Africanarcheological sites in a manner that allowed detailed reconstructions of the lifeways and ecological relationships of early Hominidae.Her efforts at Olduvai Gorge are now in theirfifth decade, and she has recently conductedstudies at Laetoli, Tanzania. Her work has led todramatic new perspectives on the kinds and ratesof postural, technological, and other behavioralchanges that occurred during the early phases ofhominid evolution.Her noteworthy fossil discoveries include themost complete skull of a Miocene ape {Proconsulafricanus), which some experts believe to represent the general stock from which later apes andperhaps the Hominidae evolved; the nearly complete cranium of Australopithecus boisei, which,with other fossils, demonstrated that more than one quite distinct form of the Hominidae livedcontemporaneously during the early Pleistocene,and a trail of humanoid footprints which indicatethat bipedal locomotion had evolved as early as3.6 million years ago. Mrs. Leakey's monographon the artifacts from Olduvai Gorge is an unrivalled classic in African prehistoric archeology.In recognition of her distinguished contributions, Madam President, it is my privilege topresent Mary Douglas Leakey for the honorarydegree of Doctor of Science.SUMMARY OF THE380TH CONVOCATIONThe 380th convocation was held on Friday, March20, 1981 in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel. HannaH. Gray, President of the University, presided.A total of 317 degrees were awarded: 36Bachelor of Arts, 1 Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciences and the PritzkerSchool of Medicine, 20 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 6 Master of Science in theDivision of the Physical Sciences, 42 Master ofArts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 11Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 5 Master ofArts in the Graduate Library School, 3 Master ofArts in the Committee on Public Policy Studies, 1Master of Arts in the School of Social ServiceAdministration, 105 Master of Business Administration in the Graduate School of Business, 1Doctor of Ministry in the Divinity School, 11Doctor of Philosophy in the Division of theBiological Sciences and the Pritzker School ofMedicine, 21 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divisionof the Humanities, 15 Doctor of Philosophy in theDivision of the Physical Sciences, 38 Doctor ofPhilosophy in the Division of the Social Sciences,and 1 Doctor of Philosophy in the Divinity School.One honorary degree was conferred during the380th convocation. The recipient of the Doctor ofScience degree was Mary Douglas Leakey, Director of Research at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,and Senior Research Fellow at the Louis LeakeyMemorial Institute for Prehistory and Palaeontology in Nairobi, Kenya.David N. Schramm, Professor in the Departments of Physics and Astronomy and Astrophysics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and inthe College and Chairman of the Department ofAstronomy and Astrophysics, delivered the convocation address entitled "Synthesis and Diversity."7REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMAN FOR THEAUTUMN QUARTER, 1980By Stephanie P. BrownerJanuary 20, 1981Many of the students who sought the aid of theOffice of the Student Ombudsman this quarter expressed the frustration and anger we all feel whenas individuals we are lost in the bureaucracy of acomplex institution. On occasion, the students feltconfused by the bureaucracy; at other times, theywere frustrated by a lack of communication; orthey were stymied by certain policies or procedures. These problems arise because: 1) essentialinformation is located in various offices throughout the University and no one individual can answer all questions; 2) students are not always informed when their forms and applications are incomplete and at times they are given incorrectinformation; and 3) University policies are, for themost part, designed to handle most of the peoplemost of the time and cannot always handle particular problems adequately.The confusion students feel is often due to asimple matter such as not understanding fall registration procedures. This quarter, however, moreserious problems arose when students did notclearly understand the procedure for paying hospital bills. Many students do not have health insurance through the University and thereforemust follow a procedure outlined in a pamphlet onstudent health and insurance requirements. Thispamphlet, however, is a fairly long and detaileddescription of the Student Blue Cross-Blue ShieldPlan. Most students, like most people, do not readsuch materials. Three students this quarter repeatedly received bills and threats of collectionagency action because they did not know that theyshould pay the bill themselves and then submit thevoucher to their own insurance company for arefund. The Student-Faculty Advisory Committeeto Student Health has recommended a clearer andless bureaucratic presentation of the same information. The frequency of such problems indicates that this is a pressing problem and that thisinformation needs to be communicated more effectively.Confusion and frustration also arise when thereis a lack of communication. We handled severalproblems this quarter that arose from misunderstandings between students and students, students and professors, and students and administrators. A number of students this quarter, for example, complained that the lab assistants in alarge science class were not helpful and that therewas little correlation between labs and lectures.After six students made similar complaints, Ispoke with the professor of the course. He wasconcerned and, although he disagreed with particular complaints, he assured me he would investigate the problem. Subsequently, we referredall students directly to the professor.In most situations, the students themselves canbest explain the problem. Often the ombudsmanneed only direct the student to the appropriateprofessor, staff member, or administrator.Indeed, at times a student may have a responsibility to relay his or her complaint to theappropriate authority. For example, a female student told us that she had been harassed by a University employee. She was concerned that this nothappen to another student, but she did not want tobe involved personally in pursuing the complaint.Following an investigation, the employee was removed from the University.The head of the office involved suggested thatwhen students find themselves in such situationsthey should call University security immediately.On the other hand, sexual harassment is a difficultproblem, and some students may prefer to discusswhat happened and what action they want to takewith a fellow student, professor, administrator, orthe student ombudsman.Administrators have a responsibility to listencarefully and closely to students' complaints. Twostudents came to this office when they felt theircomplaints about the lack of janitorial services intheir building were not taken seriously by theMarried Student Housing Office. The studentswere angry and frustrated when told their building"was known for its tenants' destructiveness"and that nothing could be done. A meeting of thetenants and Mr. Minn of Married Student Housinghas been suggested and will take place early thisquarter.Administrators and staff members, by virtue oftheir experience, often have an overview of student problems that enables them to provide amore complete explanation of rules, regulations,and consequences. In some situations this mayrequire going beyond students' inquiries, anticipating potential problems, and helping to prevent them. When students do not understand whythey have run afoul of the system they becomefrustrated and angry.For example, at the beginning of fall quarter,five students came to our office angry about loansthat had not arrived although all had applied on8time. For many students, a loan is their onlysource of income. When loan checks are late, astudent becomes worried; he or she spends timecalling and visiting offices to locate the source ofthe problem; and often the student must take outan emergency loan from the University to makeends meet until the government loan arrives.Problems in the loan office, perhaps unavoidable, resulted in the late processing of many loanapplications. These students were particularlyangry because the loan office never notified themthat their loans would be late. If they had known,they would have been saved many trips to the loanoffice and could have made alternative plans. Asixth student was told twice that her applicationwould be sent out by the following Friday. (Allguaranteed loans must be processed at the University and then sent to the federal or state government.) On a third visit, the student discoveredthat the application was still in the office. She insisted that the application be signed and sent outright then. The form was sent but only as a resultof the student's persistence.The loan office did make a concerted effort toprocess all loan applications as quickly as possible, and most students received their loan checksby the middle of the quarter. Bureaucratic problems, however, will always arise and complicateour lives. A complete explanation of the situationcan make the difference between small inconveniences and persistent, annoying problems.Foreign students often must deal with moreoffices of the University than other students, andtherefore they are more likely to encounter problems. Several foreign students came to this officewith problems that were aggravated by differentunderstandings and assumptions based on different cultural backgrounds.One student was surprised and angered when itwas suggested that he show his passport as analternative to his student identification card, whichhe had left at home. In his country a request to seeone's passport is associated with police suppression of dissidents. Mediation by the ombudsman,who heard both sides of the story, helped the student and the staff members involved to realizethat neither party had intentionally behaved in anunreasonable manner.Often such misunderstandings can be neitheranticipated nor prevented. When they do occur,communication, either directly between the twoparties or with the aid of an intermediary such asthe ombudsman, may be the only avenue tounderstanding.Despite sufficient information and clear com munication, a few students who sought our helpfelt certain policies did not adequately handletheir particular situations. For example, due to themany different ways the library is used, the librarystaff often has a difficult task trying to set policiesthat serve all patrons.Notices for overdue books, for theonost part,are sent through the United States mail. On occasion, notices are lost and the patron is charged forall delays in returning the books. As particularinstances arise where the patron claims he or shenever received a notice, the library staff mayeither uphold the fine or reduce the fine if the storysounds convincing — it is a matter of judgment.Students who complained about library fines feltthey should not be responsible for lost notices. Inmost cases, we referred the students to the appropriate librarian, and most students were satisfiedwith the librarian's decision. At other times,mediation by our office was helpful.A parallel but more pressing case arose when astudent's parents refused to contribute financiallyto her education. The College, through its Officeof College Aid, has decided, as have many othercolleges, that it cannot accept a student as independent simply because the parents refuse togive the student financial help. This is a policydesigned to enable College Aid to assist thegreatest number of students whom they determineas needy.Many students can and do qualify for federalloans and grants when they pass federal criteriaused to ascertain independence. This student,however, could not make ends meet although shereceived the maximum amount of assistance fromthe federal government. The College, on the otherhand, did not feel it could make an exception. Thestudent has investigated alternative sources offinancial aid and hopes to be able to remain inschool.In some of the cases we handled this quarter,the student helped to create his or her own problem by not reading the Time Schedules or by notreferring to the Student Information Manual.Each quarter there are students who forget toregister or do not pay bills on time. They then findthat they cannot pick up their loan checks, cannotuse the library, or that, the class they want is full.The University is a community in which a variety of people come together for diverse reasons.Students must inform themselves, follow procedures that allow for the University to operateefficiently and productively, and comply withpolicies that serve most of the people most of thetime.9Administrators, staff, and faculty, on the otherhand, must provide accurate, complete, andtimely information. Moreover, their experiencewith many problems should never prevent themfrom taking students and their problems seriously.Problems that seem routine in a bureaucracy areoften unique and urgent to the individual concerned.The Office of the Ombudsman exists preciselyto refer individual students to the proper channels, to clarify confusing situations, to bring together and mediate between conflicting parties,and to suggest exceptions and changes in University policy should this become necessary.Stephanie P. Browner is the University Ombudsman for the 1980-81 term.Appendix: StatisticsThe Office of the Ombudsman received eighty-fiveproblems during the fall quarter. Of these, seventyrequired some action. The other fifteen studentsneeded information or explanations or theywanted to discuss possible action.In addition, fifty-two people called or stoppedfor directions, quick information, or legal aid information and referral.Academic AffairsGrade AppealOther 31114Student AffairsAthleticsHousing and CommonsHospitals and ClinicsStudent EmploymentStudent Activities 61452532Administrative AffairsFinancial Aid and LoansFacilities and SecurityRegistrar and BursarLibrary 1366833Miscellaneous 6Fall Quarter Total 8510 REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 1981By Stephanie P. BrownerApril 14, 1981Academic problems are among the most difficultand delicate problems that students bring to theOffice of the Student Ombudsman. Twenty-fivestudents, more than a third of all those who came tous with problems this winter, came with academicproblems. Sixteen of these were questions orcomplaints about grades received for coursescompleted in a previous quarter. Although mypredecessor, Bruce Lewenstein, noted a steadyincrease in the number of academic problemsbrought to the office, this is a significant increasefrom previous years when the average number ofgrade appeals was five or six each quarter, andacademic problems made up 10 percent to 20 percent of the cases at the Ombudsman's Office.Seven of the sixteen students simply wanted todiscuss the problem and register a complaint; theydid not want our office to take any action or tospeak with the professor. In the other nine, wesuggested that the student talk with the professor;we also spoke with the professor ourselves,served as mediator, and referred the student toother faculty or administrators. One of the ninecases in which the students kept in touch resultedin a grade change and another resulted in a retakeof the final exam. Most of the students, however,remained unhappy with the grade and dissatisfiedwith the explanations offered.Unlike many of the more routine problems students encounter with bureaucratic policies,academic dilemmas remain persistently unique.The type of course, the teaching style of the professor, the expectations of the student, and all thevarieties of class situations and student/professorrelations make each problem distinct. Despite abasic similarity in the view of the student — "Ihave been graded unfairly" — the particulars of thesituation make a general solution to these problems virtually impossible.Academic evaluation is a very difficult but important part of a traditional education. Althoughstudents derive a variety of rewards from highereducation, not the least of which may be the pleasure of learning for its own sake, grades are notinsignificant. Grades are generally considered areflection of a student's achievement with respectto particular standards. Students depend ongrades, in part, to understand such standards andto know how their work compares with these generally accepted standards. On a more practicallevel, grades are used for graduate and professional school admissions and also by prospective employers as indications of a student'sacademic performance and ability.The problems that students have brought to ouroffice might be divided, from the student's perspective, into three categories: the grade is unfairbecause: 1) the professor or a teaching assistant"misled" the student, 2) the professor grades unreasonably hard, or 3) the professor was unfair orbiased for reasons about which the student canonly conjecture. On the whole, the view we received of these problems was from the student'sperspective, because we dealt most frequentlyand most extensively with students. Consequently, we will discuss these problems as thestudents presented them to us.The assistant ombudsman and I cannot evaluate the academic work itself, and hence we couldneither finally judge the validity of the student'scomplaint nor the fairness of the professor'sgrading. University policy assigns responsibilityfor evaluating and grading students' work in eachparticular course to the professor of that course.Our role was, most importantly, to help the students clarify what they felt was unfair about thegrade or to inform them of the procedure for contesting it.Six of the sixteen students felt that they hadbeen misled by the professor. More specifically,two students felt that the professor had changedthe procedure for computing the grade from thepolicy stated at the beginning of the quarter. Oneof the students simply wanted to talk about thesituation with us. The other student claimed thatthe professor departed from his original statementabout the relative weight of each assignment andof the final exam. The student's grade was between a B and C and he felt the professor gave toomuch weight to assignments from early in thequarter. The professor explained that the studentwas 5 out of a possible 130 points away from a Band that he simply did not feel he could change thegrade to a B. Often professors do not want torestrict the final grade of a course to a mathematical computation of the grades on individual assignments. This gives the professor room to include other pertinent factors such as classroomparticipation or unexpected problems. Studentsthemselves do not necessarily want grades strictlycomputed on a point system. Misunderstandings,however, may be avoided when professors clearlystate the guidelines they use for determininggrades both at the beginning of the quarter and also later in the course when students are moreinvolved in work for the course. Likewise, students should ensure that they understand theguidelines and, if they have questions, talk withthe professor, preferably early in the quarter.The other four students who felt they weremisled claimed that the professor had assuredthem that they would get a particular grade if theyperformed well on the remaining assignments andexams. In one of the cases, the professor said thatshe never made such a promise. She said that shedid tell the student that there was a possibility thathe would receive the higher grade if he did well,but that she could not promise anything. Inanother complaint, the student claimed that theprofessor said, "Don't worry, you'll do fine." Thestudent's grade was between a B and a C and hepresumed that this meant he would get a B. Hereceived a C for the course, but because he feltthat he would endanger his relationship with theprofessor and the department, he did not pursuehis complaint.In another situation, a student requested apass/fail option immediately following the final.Such requests must be made before the last assignment or exam. The professor, however,agreed. Later he reneged. The student spoke withthe professor and also with the dean of students inher division who said that the matter was at thediscretion of the professor. The professor is notsure the student deserves a pass and has decidedto give her another take-home exam.The fourth student complained that, althoughthe professor assured her, after she earned a B onthe mid-term, that she would receive nothinglower than a C, she received a D. Later when thestudent reminded the professor that she was anundergraduate (the course was a graduate-levelcourse), he said that he had made a mistake. Hedecided that she deserved a pass. Ordinarily, agrade cannot be changed to a P after the grade hasbeen submitted to the Registrar's Office, but thedean of students allowed an exception in this case.At times professors may forget how seriouslystudents are concerned with grades. A professormay reassure a student about his or her generalprogress without realizing that the student mayinterpret this as an indicator that he or she willreceive a specific grade. When students ask abouttheir standing in a course, professors need to becareful to inform them as accurately as possible.On the other hand, students must listen carefully,make sure that they understand the professor'sevaluations, and not misconstrue these comments. Clear communication between professorand student about expectations and performance11might reduce misunderstandings and thereby prevent the frustration that both the professor and thestudent feel when, at the end of a quarter, thestudent is surprised at his or her grade.A second common theme in students' complaints was that the professor graded too harshly.Three students claimed that they did not receivethe grades they felt they deserved on specific assignments. One of these students felt verystrongly that the professor had taken too manypoints off on particular problems on the finalexam. The student went over the exam with theprofessor but was not satisfied. He also felt thatthe professor was difficult to talk with and uninterested in students. When we talked with theprofessor, he said that he did not understand whythe student had gone to our office and that such astep was unnecessary. Students come to our officefor a variety of reasons and professors should notbe surprised or offended that a student who isunhappy with a grade wants to discuss it with theombudsman. Any investigation we may pursue isopen and unbiased.We referred the student, an undergraduate, tothe collegiate master of the division. The masterexplained to the student that only the professormay change a grade. The master added that he hadheard other complaints that the professor in question was an unreasonably strict grader. The master spoke with the professor. The professor plansto re-evaluate his grading standards but did notchange the grade in question. It is important forstudents to share their complaints with a dean, amaster, or the ombudsman so that a record can bekept. If there are a number of complaints aboutany one professor's grading policy, then the deanor master may want to discuss it with the professor. This may not resolve the particular complaint, but it may help professors re-evaluate theirgrading standards when necessary.Another resolution of specific complaints whichhas been used occasionally is a second evaluationof the work by a professor other than the one whooriginally graded the work. This option was notused in any of the complaints brought to our officethis quarter, but it is a recourse that has servedwell in resolving grade disputes. As stated earlier,the instructors make the final decision aboutgrades, but when they agree to obtain a secondopinion, most professors take it very seriously.We informed many of the students that this wasone possibility. Only a few felt that a secondevaluation was appropriate, and these studentsfound the original professor adverse to the suggestion or other professors reluctant to give a second opinion. Professors may feel unable to evalu ate work when they are unfamiliar with the particular field or with the requirements of the coursein question. On the other hand, the student maybe reluctant to jeopardize his or her relations withthe professor who graded the work or with thepotential second reader by seeming to ask professors to take sides or judge one another. Yet insome cases, a second evaluation may be necessary to resolve a grade dispute. When it is, professors should be willing both to do such a reviewand also to seriously and graciously consideranother professor's opinion. On the other hand, astudent must not abuse this type of solution andrequest a second grading simply because he or shewants a higher grade.The third and most common complaint was thatthe professor had simply been unfair. These students felt that they had been graded unfairly,although they did not feel that the professors weregenerally unfair or unreasonable. Some studentsspeculated about why the professor was biasedand others simply asserted that they deserved ahigher grade. As in all grade complaints, we referred the student back to the professor. This wasthe most basic and important step: not only is theprofessor the one who changes a grade, but theprofessor and the student are the ones who understand the situation and the problem most completely. When the student remained dissatisfied,we suggested that the student talk with his or heradvisor or with the chairman of the department.We also referred college students to the senioradvisor or the collegiate master and suggested thatgraduate students could go to either the academicdean or the dean of students in their division orschool. One student talked with all these peopleand was still dissatisfied. He wanted to pursue hiscomplaint because he felt very strongly that theprofessor had not been objective in the finalevaluation of his work. The collegiate master decided that the complaint should be investigatedand dealt with it in a formal manner: the dean willgather all necessary information and make a finaldecision which may be appealed only to the provost. In a case such as this, a student's claim thathe or she was graded unfairly is not only a complaint about the grade, but it may also be a seriouscharge against the professor.In summary, it is University policy that only aprofessor can change a grade. When the Ombudsman's Office receives a complaint, we takethe following steps. First, we help the studentclarify what he or she feels was unfair, whether itwas a grade on a particular assignment, the computation of the grades, the general standards, orany other specific problems. Second, we explain12the University policy and recommend that thestudent talk with the professor. We also suggestthat the student talk with the department chairman, an advisor, a dean, or a master. Third, if thestudent wishes, we talk with the professor andinvestigate the complaint. Fourth, if there are anumber of complaints about a particular course orprofessor, we talk with the professor about thecomplaints we have received and also with theappropriate dean or master.In most complaints about grades, we cannotmake a final judgment about the work because todo so requires an evaluation of the work itself. Insome cases we can assess the fairness of particular decisions or we can judge if everyone involvedhas been honest and direct in their dealings witheach other. Each complaint must be understoodand judged with regard to the particulars of thesituation.On the other hand, the wide range of particularsituations and specific complaints must not inhibita more general investigation and discussion ofgrading policy and procedure. Although there isno one solution to these problems and the cause ofthe increase in complaints is unknown, thenumber of complaints we heard this quartersuggest that there is an increase in the number ofstudents who feel they have been graded unfairly.Discussion within individual departments, divisions, and schools as well as a campus-wide discussion including faculty and students might helpclarify the problem and point to possible solutions.Stephanie P. Browner is the University Ombudsman for the 1980-81 term.To: Charles D. O'Connell, Vice-President andDean of StudentsFrom: Julie C. Monson, Director of Career Counseling and PlacementThe following tables document the employment ofstudents who received doctoral degrees during the1978-79 academic year. Results of similar surveysprepared annually since 1971 are included, per- Appendax: StatisticsThe Office of the Ombudsman handled seventy-three problems during the winter quarter. Of these,sixty-two required some form of action and theremaining eleven required only advice or information.More than fifty other people called or came tothe Ombudsman's Office for directions, information, or legal aid referrals.mitting a comparison of the employment patternsof graduates for almost a decade. Data have beenobtained from several sources: the departmentsand professional schools, the Office of CareerCounseling and Placement, the Alumni Association, and the graduates themselves. Of those receiving degrees during the year in question, information was obtained for all but 5 persons, or2.1 percent.A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1978-79DOCTORAL DEGREE RECIPIENTSAcademic AffairsGrade AppealOther 16925 (34%)Student AffairsAthleticsHousing and CommonsHospitals and ClinicsStudent EmploymentStudent Activities 3834220 (27%)Administrative AffairsFinancial Aid and LoansFacilities and SecurityRegistrar and BursarLibrary 624517 (23%)Miscellaneous 11 (16%)Winter Quarter Total 7313Information from surveys of this kind is, ofcourse, valid only for the time at which it is requested. A number of the individuals now havedifferent jobs or are now seeking employment because their first positions were temporary ratherthan tenure-track appointments. Because the survey has been conducted in the same manner andat the same time for nine years, however, trendsin employment can be reliably documented.Several trends are clearly observable: Therehas been a continued decline in the number ofdegrees awarded over the past decade, and thepercentage of graduates employed in teaching orresearch in higher education has declined. In spite of the decline in numbers, the percentage ofgraduates entering different professional areas hasremained fairly constant, with slight, recent increases in the percentage of graduates obtainingemployment in business and industry and highereducation administration.If this survey has documented a drop in thenumber of graduates receiving the Ph.D. and adecline in the percentage of graduates in highereducation, it has also affirmed the remarkablerecord of this University's graduates in findingemployment in colleges and universities. This is arecord of achievement in difficult times.TABLE I: EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Ph.D.'sNINE-YEAR COMPARISON BY OCCUPATION1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79College and UniversityTeaching and/orResearch 65% 63% 60% 65% 59% 57% 66% 53% 48%College and UniversityAdministration 1% 2% 2% 0 2% 2% . 3% 2% 5%School Teaching andAdministration 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%Business and Industry 2% 1% 5% 4% 3% 4% 5% 7% 9%Government 3% 5% 4% 6% 6% 3% 2% 6% 6%Non-ProfitOrganizations 5% 8% 6% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 4%Postdoctoral orContinued Education 19% 16% 16% 13% 16% 18% 16% 18% 21%Other: Self-employed,Military or ReligiousService, orUnknown 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 4% 4%Not SeekingEmployment orUnemployed 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 3% 3% 3% 2%TOTAL: No. Ph.D.'s inU.S. Job Market 398 400 446 392 383 357 324 338 240TOTAL: No. Ph.D.'sAwarded, inc.Foreign 435 450 497 436 444 382 371 381 28514^ en »o vO m cn oo oo rn oo © 00 oo oovO r^ ^f r^ ON iO rn T-H to cn!Tf© to <0 © -H ^T ^t ON ^r T-H rn CN Tj- ON m CNI CNI cn ra to CN5^ ra z OO Tfr tj- t-h cN en <N ^C <& CN CN2 ofa oo vo cn CN (N r-H VO , m o ti >o in © ^H CM CN © CNl t_hvo vo r^r- on oo ON CN en ^t m oo m r- on xf m T-H © © CN m T-H§ t-h cn r-CN t-h CN en oo< fa N O (N O O © © — © © © © © © - © © © © ©t/j COCO § <N © <N © o © © © © © (N © © © © © © © © ©ooX! co fa T-H O — < o o © © ,__, © © © © © © © © © © © ©o JGOc O § en cni t-h o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©.2C/3p fa CN © <N o o © © <N © © © © © © © © © © © ©> xi2 s ^ § ^- O -3" © o © © ON (N © © ^ © ,-H © © © © © ^PhCQ fa <M T-H T-H o © © © — © © © © © © © © © © © ©COO § OO O OO © © © © OO © © © © © © © © © © © ©^ 00 <N OO -*t ^O c~) c*~) © un <-< © © ^t tooo ^¦' rn -H ON VO rf T-^ VO —^ t-h" CN-^ ^~© ^ M OO HH Tt Tl" ON rvi 00 m © m on CN T-H (N (N M >o T-H^ £ to ^t o HH (N en On CN -^o <N <NPfa -H ITi \C CN CN —< to vD r*-\ O >n >n ^ © © CN <N © (N T-Hvo to (N© r- en ON <N en ,^- ^D <0 m »o oo ^f <N T-H © © CN m ©§ ON en to CN en ^Dfa r- <n «o © i-H © T-H <N © © © ^- -* © O © T-H O (N ,_,8 '3CO w CN CN T—*§ © ON t-hoo t-h vo en t-h © Tj" © Tf m r-- "3- "*t ^ ^ © © © m ©>s fa 00 N \0 © © ; | <N © ON ^o © © © © © © ©Ph ^ § XT lO ONto t-h rn © CN ro »o m © © r- m © © © © © T-H © OS fa ON t-h OO © © © © m © <N © -h © © © T-< O © ©i— 1 T-H 1—1^ O M CO en © © CO ON r-* 0 .-H t_ O T-H © T-H O T-H © ©en CN ^fa r- o r- CN T-H © en , © © -^ © © © © CM © © © ©.2 -dPQ CO § VD i— < «oCN CN en on © ra ^J" © © © © © © © ON © © © ©^_, C/3o c 00 •-^ >>S3 -2 ^T3 »> "^«j S o< w .£w C t«-. oo -.Q'SQ43 rO 43Ph IX, Ph ©13©©fa 00 Octf. \3.2 3^ *SU too -">> GO'35 ^> <uc 5£ O C/3c.oonCcopPh H &, 00s <uw o© u cO 43cd P(U Ht-H <^*S P4 c> -P v¦a i ooc c wD cd ^U > a^ < T3 ^ ^C g t»ctf O D5? ta *§?i • - ^ *-rt S S C!S s * ja -¦^ t3 «o a o¦§< s g s.o ° =3 o ogo 03 O Z X5O"Oha°?CO 0>o*>HCOop< .g x> c o-£ w 3 a^ ^ CO P-l© 3 O O& Ph iz; ^ g©Sp ©J5115j>UJOzUJO(0—I5a2oCQu.Ozo>2UJUJar-ZUJS>-22uiCQ 1- H cn ^h <ncn cn >o © © »o »0 © ©T-H©-©©© T-H © © ©to t^ © r^VO ^-t »0CN CN cn t-h © cncn o\ © CN T-H © ©T-H©©©©^- © ©©©©©© CN © ©On © © ©©Ophthalmology to © ©.©T-H © T-H © © © ©© © © © © © © © .© © © ©*-H © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Virology to © © ©CN © CN © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©CN © © ©©Radiology to © © ©T-H © T-H © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©^ © ©©¦©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Pharmacological andPhysiologicalSciences to T-H © ~H"3" © rj- © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©^ © ©©©©©© T-H © ©<n © © ©©Pathology to t^ © t-h© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© T-H © ©© © © ©©Microbiology to © © ©cn © cn © © © ©CN t-h © rn © © ©©'©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Immunology to © © ©T-H © T-H © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©T-H © © ©©Genetics to t-H © t-Hcn © cn T-H © © T-H© cn © cn © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © . ©©Evolutionary Biology to © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Biopsychology to © © ©T-H © t^ © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©o ¦ © ©©©©©© © © ©T-H © © ©©Biophysics andTheoretical Biology to © © ©»0 »-H Tfr © © © ©*-*- cn © ^t © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Biology to2 cn © coCN © CM T-H T-H © CN0 _< © T-H *"H © ©©©©©©*-H © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Biochemistry to T-H © ^HCN © CM © © © ©© -H © T^ O © ©*-<©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©T-H © © ©©Anatomy to © © ©T-H O ^ © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©¦X-T-H © © ©©<BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed eoca2161 H On cn \o cn © © cn © rj- ©fOT-HT-HT-H©cn ©fa3019212818 © © © ©cn © © cn t-h rn ©cn©t-h©©Q\ r-H © T-H T^ © T-H © © T-H ©T-H © T-H ©©South Asian Languagesand Civilizations fa T-< © T-H© © © © © © ©© © © © T-< © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Slavic Languagesand Literatures fa T^ © T-H© © © © © © ©© © © © © T-H ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Romance Languagesand Literatures fa © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Philosophy fa T^ © ^HOO © 00 © © © ©T-H © © T^ -H © ©©©©©©»0 © ©©T-H©©© © © ©T-H © © ©©'"New Testament & EarlyChristian Literatures fa © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Near Eastern Languagesand Civilizations fa T-H © T^CN © CN © © © ©CN © © CN © © ©-H©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Music fa © © ©CN © CN © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©CN © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Linguistics fa T-H T^ ©^fr CN CN © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©T-H © ©©©©©© © © ©© © T-H ©©Ideas and Methods fa © © ©CN © CN © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©T-H © ©©©©T-H© © © ©© © © ©©History of Culture fa CN © CNCN © CN © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©T-H©©CN © ©©©©©© © T^ ©© © © ©©Germanic Languagesand Literature faS T^ © T^© © © © © © ©© © © © © T-H ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Far Eastern Languagesand Civilizations fa T-H © T^cn © cn © © © ©© © © © T-H © ©©©©©©CN © ©t-h©©©© © © ©© © © ©©English fa &\ o o\>o © »o © © © ©© © © © 4-J^ ^ ©T-l©©©©Tt t-H © © O © © © © © ©© © © ©©Conceptual Foundationsof Science fa © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Comparative Studies inLiterature fa © © ©T-H © T-H © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©T"< © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Classical Languagesand Literatures fa © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©© © ©©©©o© © © ©© © © ©©Art fa T-H © T-HT^ © T-i © © © ©© © © © T-H © ©©©©©©T-H © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearch CollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed toee1713 H t^ T-H VO© <N OO cn cn © <o cn n- cnt^ooooi-HT-HT-H © T-H © »oto80271926125 © *-< © T-<cn t-h © rf <N © 0©^f^-©©T-H© ti- ^r-rt^-T-HT^©cn © T-, ©© © © CNSocial and OrganizationalPsychology to © © ©T^ T^ © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©©© © ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Sociology to <N T-H _© m r^ © © © ©© © © © *-h © ©©©©©©©VO © ©T-H©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Social Thought to © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©©© © © © © © © Q © © © ©© © © ©©Psychology to Tt t-h rnT^ © T-H © *-H © T-H© © © © — < © ©©©^©©©© © ©©©^©©© © © ©© © © ©©Political Science to m © cnOO CN VO © © © ©© © © © — < © ©©T-HT-H©©©»0 © ©©©T-N©©© © © ©© © © ©©Human Development to Tf © XTVO © ^ © © © ©cn © © m CN © © © © CN © © ©-H © © © © T^ © © © © © ©© © © ©History to «o © >or- t-h ^D © © © ©© © © © CN ©©©©©©©t^r- © cncnt-h©t-h^h© © T-H ©© © © CNGeography to2 © © ©cn cn ^h © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©©T-H © ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Education tos r» © r-^o cn cn © © © ©© ^ © _ Tf © ©©CN©©©©cn -3- T-nrn©©©©© © © ©© © © ©Economics to © © ©h >n n © © © ©© © © © 'o © © © © © © © ©r-~ © ©T-nrnT-H©©© © © ©© © © ©©Cognition andCommunication to © © ©© © © © © © ©© © © © © © ©©©©©©©© © ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Anthropology to CN © CNCN CN © © © © ©© © © © — < © ©©T-H©©©©© © ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed Miscellaneous NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed eoscp t; J-Ha 4DaT-H T^c/1 C/)<u <uT3 T318<zg0)COUJu.oDCCL£r-ZLU2>3sLU ciiOOXoCO>UJ-JCD 131 H tj- cn t-hcn cn © © © © CN m © CN t-h © t-h t-h t-hCN © © © ©to r- — • vor- cn w->CN CN © © © ©© © © © un © ©©©©©t-h©r» cn ©cNt-h©t-h©t-h © © ©© © © ©©Social ServiceAdministration to2 CN © CNCN © CN © © © ©© © © © t-h © © © © © © t^ ©© © ©CN©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Graduate LibrarySchool to T-H © T-Hcn cn t-h © © © ©© © © © T-H © ©©©©©©©© ^ ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Divinity School to CN © CNTf © "*" © © © ©© © © © CN © ©©©©©©©-t—ON CN © © T-H © T-H © T^ © © ©© © © ©©Graduate Schoolof Business to CN T-H T^00 © 00 © © © ©© © © © T-H © ©©©©©©©OO © ©©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearch CollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed Miscellaneous NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed eosep G eiO cncnrtOOh 43hJ &zo55UJ Sa. inuj oQzQQ QK COZ -ILU <> CO§=UJ>UJ-4CO< 131 H VO t^ Tt © CN ^ VO »0 © © ON "?j-. © © © © © T-H ©to 00 CN VOTf <0 ON</-> t-h rn © © _< _<© cn cn «o CN © ©CNt-h©©©cn © © t-- cn © © © © © ©© © T-H ©©Statistics to © © ©CN © CN © © © ©© © ^ _ © © ©©©©©©T-H © ©©©©©© © © ©© © © ©©Physics to CN T-H T-H<n r^ oo © © T-H T^© (^ _H ^f © © ©©©©©©© © ©cnT-n©©© © © ©© © © ©©Mathematics to T-H © T-H^ CN CN © © © ©© © © © T-H © ©©©©©©T~< © ©T^©©©© © © ©© © © ©©GeophysicalSciences to CN © CN<0 © »0 © © © ©© CN © CN T-H © © © T-« © © ©© © ©T-HCN©©© © © ©© © © ©©Chemistry to2 cn t-h cn»/¦> VO ON © © © ©© »0 t^ vo © © ©CN©©©©© © ©CN©©©© © © ©© © T-H ©©Astronomy andAstrophysics to © © ©cn © cn © © © ©'© CN © CN © © ©©©©©©-h © O o o'o O O © © ©© © © ©©BaseData Ph.D.'sAwardedForeign(Temp.Visa)Ph.D.'sinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation CollegeandUniversityTeachingand/orResearchCollegeandUniversity Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Nonprofit ReligiousService Self-Employed NotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed aocs19TABLE VIII: COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND/OR RESEARCHEMPLOYMENT OF 1978-79 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Ph.D.'sBY TYPE OF INSTITUTIONDivisions Professional Schools TotalBio. Phy. Soc. Div.Sci. Hum. Sci. Sci. Total GSB Sch. GLS SSAPh.D.'s in U.S. Job Market 32 46 45 86 209 9 16 2 4 240Ph.D.'s in College and UniversityTeaching and/or Research 5 30 15 42 92 9 11 1 1 114University of Chicago 2 1 1 1 5 2 0 0 0 7Association of Graduate SchoolInstitutions 0 7 8 14 29 4 1 1 0 35Council of Graduate SchoolInstitutions 1 11 10 23 45 7 2 0 0 54State College or University 2 13 8 24 47 1 3 1 0 52Private College or University 1 12 5 12 30 5 6 0 1 42Community or Jr. College 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2Foreign University 0 2 1 5 8 1 0 0 0 9Seminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2TABLE IX: EMPLOYMENT OF 1978-79 Ph.D's:COMPARISON OF UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO GRADUATESAND NATIONWIDE GRADUATES*University of Chicago NationwidePostdoctoral Study 21% 18%Postdoctoral EmploymentEducational InstitutionsBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofitOther 539642 4612954Unknown 2 7Not Working or Unemployed 2 —information on nationwide Ph.D.'s is from "A Profile of 1978-79 Ph.D.'s,"published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, December 8, 1979. The NationalResearch Journal is cited as the source of data for the "Profile."TABLE X: EMPLOYMENT OF 1978-79 Ph.D's: A COMPARISON OF UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO GRADUATES AND NATIONWIDE GRADUATES* BY DIVISIONBiologicalSciences Arts andHumanities PhysicalSciences SocialSciencesU. of C. U.S. U. of C. U.S. U. of C. U.S. U. of C. U.S.Postdoctoral Study 81% 49% 9% 6% 36% 42% 6% 11%PostdoctoralEmploymentEducationalInstitutionsBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNonprofit 16300 25882 74722 66534 332090 132971 57899 459139Other, Unknown, orNot Working 0 8 6 16 2 8 9 13"Information on nationwide Ph.D.'s is from "A Profile of 1978-79 Ph.D's" published in the Chronicle of HigherEducation, December 8, 1980. The National Research Council is cited as the source of data for the "Profile."20MEMORIAL TRIBUTES:HANS J. MORGENTHAU,1904-1980Remarks by Ira KatznelsonWe gather to honor the life, the work, the memoryof Hans Morgenthau, a scholar who fulfilled theTalmudic injunction found in Pirke Avot: "Hewho learns in order to teach will be afforded theopportunity both to learn and to teach. But hewho learns in order to practice will be offered theopportunity to learn and to teach, to observe andto practice." Such a man may be measured inmany ways, not the least by the scholarship andworldly engagement of his pupils. Our collegium,enriched as it was by Hans Morgenthau, is fortunate to hear in this memorial gathering from threeformer students whose craft and lives he helpedshape. They are: Professors Kenneth Thompsonof the University of Virginia, Tang Tsou of theUniversity of Chicago, and Milton Rakove of theUniversity of Illinois-Chicago Circle.Ira Katznelson is Professor in the Department ofPolitical Science and in the College and Chairman of the Department of Political Science.Remarks by Milton RakoveI first encountered Hans J. Morgenthau in the fallof 1948, when I came to the University of Chicagoas a graduate student in the Department of Political Science.I can still remember the day I first walked intothe lobby of the Social Science Research Buildingand checked the roster of the political science faculty which was posted in the lobby — QuincyWright in international law, Leonard White, inpublic administration, Herman Pritchett in constitutional law, Herman Finer in comparativegovernment, David Easton in political theory,Leo Strauss to come the next quarter in politicaltheory, and Hans Morgenthau in internationalpolitics and political theory. It was like readingthe honor roll in political science in America.A great university has two major obligations toits student s — to communicate existing knowledgeto them and to train them to search for newknowledge that can help the human race live better and more meaningfully on this planet. ThisUniversity, and that department and its faculty,performed exceptionally well in fulfilling thosetwo obligations. Hans Morgenthau was in theforefront, not only in terms of accomplishing those objectives but also in making us aware ofthe pitfalls that could waylay us on the road to theachievement of those goals.I want to talk about Hans Morgenthau as a man,as a teacher, as a scholar, and as a member of thehuman race.As a man, he was difficult to get to know. Hewas, as Henry Kissinger has pointed out, a shyand gentle man. He was not easy to communicatewith, on a personal level, either as a student or asa colleague or as a friend. While he was an exceptionally cultured man in terms of his educationand outlook, he had a single-minded intense interest in the dynamics of politics and the role ofpower in the realm of politics. It was next to impossible to engage him in small talk on any subject. He was intolerant of people who wanted towaste his time on such matters.He faithfully carried out his obligations as afaculty member in counseling and advising students on their research and academic problems,but he would make short shrift of those who cameby to chat. I remember the time when I was hisresearch assistant, and two students were waitingto see him during his office hours. The secondstudent asked the first student if he would be inMorgenthau' s office for a long time, since hewould not need more than twenty minutes. Thefirst student replied that he wouldn't be in therefor more than twenty minutes either. Morgenthaudisposed of both of them in about five minutes. Hewas a consistently busy man who used his time tothink, read, and write when he wasn't lecturing.Morgenthau was the exception in academic life,a great teacher as well as an outstanding scholar. Inever saw him carry an outline or a note into aclassroom or a public lecture. He would sit in hisoffice beforehand, organizing the material in hismind. In the classroom or on a lecture podium, thesubject matter would come forth, unfolding stepby step, point by point, building from the foundation to an eminently well-reasoned out and logicalconclusion. He would use the lecture not so muchfor communicating factual information but ratheras a means for expounding theory, arousing interest, and stimulating challenge. Thebest parts of his classes were the exchanges withstudents who had been aroused and sometimesappalled or horrified by what he had said. Hesometimes laid an intellectual trap for the unwaryor naive by his gentle, unassuming, low-pressuredelivery. But he was quick in response, biting inhis comments, and unwavering in holding hisown. If the purpose of great teaching is to arouseinterest, stimulate controversy, and encourage21further research, Morgenthau was a great teacher.He had a commitment to his conception of aprofessor as not just a purveyor of knowledge butas a full time expositor of the transcendent truthsof human existence. When he was teaching atColumbia in 1959 and a faculty member there hadbeen fired for participating in a television programon which he had lied publicly after being fed theanswers to the questions in advance, Morgenthauwrote (in The New Republic on December 21,1959) in response to students who disagreed withhis position that the faculty member had to bedischarged by the university:You recognize no relation between a teacher'sgeneral attitude toward the truth and his way oftransmitting knowledge, because you do notrecognize an organic relation between transmitted knowledge and an objective, immutabletruth. Yet the view that knowledge is butconventional — one conception of truth to besuperseded by another — while seemingly supported by the radical transformations ofphysics, finds no support in the fields of knowledge dealing with man. . . . The teacher of suchknowledge is not only the recorder and transmitter of what goes by the name of knowledgein a particular time and place, but he is also andforemost the guardian and augmentor of a permanent treasure. . . . This is a profession whichrequires the dedication and ethos of the wholeman. Of such a man, it must be expected that hebe truthful not only between 9 and 10 a.m. whenhe teaches, but always.Morgenthau' s commitment to the exposition oftranscendent truth as a classroom teacher wasonly another dimension of the same commitmenthe had as a scholar. He had an uncanny ability tosearch out the basic issue of a political situation,to expose and discard the shibboleths and mythsbehind which actors on the political scene disguiseand distort the reasons for their actions, and tocall a spade a spade. He had little use for thecontemporary preoccupation of political sciencewith the quantification of data, the programmingof computers, and the application of mathematicalformulae to the area of political behavior. Hefound inspiration for his research in the transcendent truths of political philosophy and soughtverification in the lessons of history. He was, asKen Thompson and others have pointed out, apolitical philosopher, a political theorist, and anhistorian, as well as a political scientist. Heunderstood, only too well, the limitations of ra tional science, when applied to the irrational processes of politics and the difficult-to-predict behavior of politicians.As a member of the human race, he brought tohis life-long participation in public life the sameprinciples he held true to as a teacher and scholar.He did not embrace popular causes or follow thelead of public opinion. He followed the tenets ofone of his favorite aphorisms, the source of whichhe was never able to identify, "We are not born tobe happy, but to do our duty. And we all, ourselves, are happy when we know what our dutyis."Morgenthau did his duty as he saw it, as a citizen, as well as an academic. He criticized politicians and public officials when he thought it necessary, exposed their practices and opposed theirpolicies when he felt they contradicted the publicinterest. By doing so, he barred the door to participation in political and governmental public lifefor himself. While he talked and wrote of the realities of power and how it had to be used in thepolitical arena, he was incapable of playing thatgame himself. He was a political philosopher, nota politician, and a moralist who recognized thereality of immorality and power in public life, butcould not and would not bring himself to make thecompromises needed to participate actively in thegame he described so well. He remained true towhat he thought were the transcendent truths ofhuman existence as a member of the human race,as well as an individual, a teacher, and a scholar.He told the students at Columbia:Human existence, not in its animal but in itscivilized qualities, cannot find its meaningwithin itself but must receive it from a transcendent source. ... In the measure that yourlife approaches its natural limits you will become aware of the truth of that observation. Forwhen you look back on your life in judgment,you will remember it, and you will want to beremembered, for its connection with the thingsthat transcend it.Those of us who knew Hans Morgenthau as heapproached the natural limits of his life knew thathe never wavered, never compromised his beliefs,and never lost his faith in transcendent truth as alimitation on political reality.I would like to close with the words of his sonMatthew's favorite prayer from the service for theJewish mourner's Kaddish, "The departed, whomwe now remember, have entered into the peace oflife eternal. They still live on earth in the acts of22goodness they performed and in the hearts ofthose who cherish the memory." There arethousands of us still here whom he taught, inspired, and set an example for, who will alwayscherish the memory of Hans J. Morgenthau.Milton Rakove is Professor in the Department ofPolitical Science at the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle.Remarks by Kenneth ThompsonAn assessment of Hans J. Morgenthau' s contribution to scholarship particularly at this University must take note of his influence as a professorand teacher. Measuring that influence lies beyondthe more familiar analytic skills calling as it mustfor estimates within the realm George F. Kennanhas described as "the infirm substance of imponderables." Yet for those who belonged to successive generations of his students, Morgenthaucast a long shadow upon their life and work. Hisintellectual heritage was an uncompromisingly realistic approach to politics. The legacy of PoliticalScience 261 (his famous introduction to international politics), of his Contemporary DiplomaticProblems, of Philosophy of International Relations, or of his Aristotle course was that of amind at work playing out in the classroom thesearch for truth about man and politics. What remained following an exposure to Morgenthau wasnot pages of notes, lists of hypotheses, or graphsof conceptual schemes. His goal was to leave theimage of the teacher-scholar at work boldly asserting general principles while cautiouslyexploring the limits of policymaking weighteddown with contingencies and blind groping.To be more specific, teaching and scholarshipwere part of a unified whole for Morgenthau. Theywere his life and vocation. What he offered hisstudents was a living example. When he feared,unnecessarily as it turned out, that his teachinghad come to an end, he spoke of his life no longermaking a difference. Teaching was the ground ofhis being and this he communicated to others in anage and a culture where scholarship meant something else, whether advocacy, reform, or science.Morgenthau' s vision of scholarship was none ofthese. The continuity of his thought was rooted infundamental principles of international relations,not in advocacy of a particular foreign policy orinstitutional reform or methodological breakthroughs. He was a striking exception to the rulethat American intellectuals who seek influencemust associate themselves with a political move ment, a political party, or a prevailing international trend such as internationalism or isolationism. He was more serious about his principlesthan his politics both in his profession and in national and international affairs.Morgenthau' s first contribution to scholarship,then, was in reestablishing the link betweenteaching and scholarship. Both Scientific Man vs.Power Politics and Politics Among Nations werelectures first and treatises second. Speaking without notes, punctual to a fault, a refugee in a newland, he shaped the broad outlines of his thoughtin classrooms and lecture halls pausing to analyze,if oftentimes to dismiss, criticisms from Americanaudiences. The anvil on which he hammered outthe main tenets of his political realism containedelements of idealism, legalism, and public administration. If he stirred reactions from thespokesmen of these schools of thought, he shapedthe contours of his own political thought in hisresponses. Not only was his scholarship to bearthe imprint of his answers to critics but also themark of his criticism of certain dominant trends inAmerican political science, exemplified at this institution in the works of Charles E. Merriam,Quincy Wright, Leonard D. White, and HaroldLasswell. If he had been a lonely recluse inattentive to the main currents of contemporarypolitical thought, we would have been denied thefull vigor and thrust of his argument. If he hadbeen interested in personal attacks and self-vindication, his philosophy would have lost muchof its enduring value. The late 1940s and 1950swere the Golden Age of international relationsscholarship at Chicago precisely because a littleknown German- American scholar ventured forth,first in the classroom and thereafter in his writings, to challenge the prevailing ideas and optimistic assumptions of the Chicago School ofpolitical science while for the most part showingrespect for the persons who put them forward.His first American publication, Scientific Manvs. Power Politics, as Professor Tang Tsou hasargued, was "a critical examination of all the currents of philosophical thought that brought the'scientific approach' into being. ... In formulatingthis critique, he developed, with varying degreesof explicitness, a philosophy of history and a philosophy of political action." (Truth and Tragedy,42) Given the political and intellectual climate ofthe mid- 1940s, an immigrant associate professorat a great university required moral and intellectual courage of the highest order to warn thatAmerica and the West, as the Roman Empire be-23fore them, were threatened by the "general decayin political thinking" and more specifically by"the belief in the power of science to solve allproblems and, more particularly, all politicalproblems." (Ibid., 43)On the book's publication, the most powerfulleader of the Chicago School advised his youngercolleague he might prefer to teach a course in administrative law. A decade and a half later, however, when the trustees and staff of the Rockefeller Foundation instituted a program in legal andpolitical philosophy intended to provide opportunities for younger scholars inquiring into the greatissues of power and justice, freedom and authority, Morgenthau had become required reading. AsAmerica came of age as a world leader, studentsof politics discovered that Scientific Man "in itsrestatement of some of the fundamental principlesof politics and political action . . . [was] a book . . .[to] be read with profit by men of all times andplaces." (Ibid.) It rescued American political science from its parochialism as in Tang Tsou's discovery thatTo a student from China with only a superficialand bookish knowledge of Western politicaltradition and philosophy, these positive reformulations were reminiscent of the nature ofpolitics and basic political principles that he hadlearned, both from reading and through personal experience in a society and polity vastlydifferent from that of the United States. (Ibid.)My own experience in Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica supported and confirmed Tang's conclusions. For example, modern political scienceleft me ill-prepared to understand persistentproblems such as the strength of tribalism in Africa or the nature of political authority in LatinAmerica. Instead I turned to Morgenthau whoquestioned the belief of modern rationalists thatthe historic process was a struggle between reasonand unreason "with reason steadily gainingground and certain of ultimate victory." (Scientific Man, 38) I remembered his invoking thewisdom of Mr. Justice Holmes "that historic continuity with the past is not a duty, it is only anecessity." This brought me closer to ThirdWorld realities that set limits to foreign assistance.If Scientific Man led to a great debate betweenthe political behaviorists and the political philosophers, Morgenthau' s epoch-making text, PoliticsAmong Nations, ushered in a decade of controversy between political idealists and political.realists. Parenthetically, the controversy amongpractitioners was less intense than among schol ars, much as had been the case with ScientificMan. The natural and biological scientists whowere colleagues on the staff of a large privatefoundation took indeterminacy for granted andgreeted with undisguised skepticism the latter-dayefforts of social scientists to reduce human problems to scientific equations. Similarly, the earlyadmirers of Politics Among Nations were moreoften in Washington, for example in the PolicyPlanning Staff of the State Department, than inprominent university chairs in international relations. His identification of politics with powerand interest sent out shock waves of concern andalarm throughout the scholarly community. In1948, power politics was a highly questionable andcontroversial phrase at the University of Chicago.It epitomized an ancient evil that world government and public administration were to eradicateso that people could live in a civilized world.American political theorists condemned Morgenthau 's "Germanic way of looking at things."Overlooked was his early emphasis on the limitations and proper use of power, its integral relation to national purpose and the constraints of national interest. Forgotten too was his extendedanalysis of international morality and the role ofethics, mores, and law. Consider his words:From the Bible to the ethics and constitutionalarrangements of modern democracy, the mainfunctions of these normative systems has beento keep aspirations for power within sociallytolerable bounds.It was not theologians such as ReinholdNiebuhr or Paul Tillich who criticized Morgenthau nor defenders of a public philosophy such asWalter Lippman who took offense. It was ratherthe liberal reformers, rationalists, and international lawyers for whom the inevitable tensionbetween morality and politics was but a passingphase of a less civilized era. Ironically, his mostsevere critic in the late 1940s reemerged threedecades later to call for bombing Middle East oilfields to protect American interests and power.Whatever reviewers and publishers might havesaid in the 1940s, Politics Among Nations becamethe classic text in international relations.Thousands upon thousands of students havelearned about international politics through abook now in its revised fifth edition. Professionalsocieties have devoted panel discussions to suchthemes as "Morgenthau and His Critics." Organizations engaged in public education such asthe Foreign Policy Association, who at first resisted the truths about politics Morgenthau setforth, turned to him as their chairman. And the24most scholarly of postwar secretaries of state wasto proclaim: "Hans Morgenthau made the studyof contemporary international relations a majordiscipline. All of us who taught the subject afterhim, however much we differed from one another,had to start with his reflections." (Henry Kissinger, The New Republic, August 2 and 9, 1980,12) It would be difficult to point to another work inthe social sciences whose formative influence wasgreater than Politics Among Nations.What followed Politics Among Nations, however, was not universal public acclaim nor well-deserved recognition for Morgenthau but the continuation of an unending search. He wrote in"Fragment of an Intellectual Autobiography:"Our aspirations, molding our expectations, takeaccount of what we would like the empiricalworld to look like rather than what it actually is.Thus endlessly, empirical reality denies the validity of our aspirations and expectations.(Truth and Tragedy, 16)In 1951, he published his first comprehensivetreatise on American foreign policy, In Defense ofthe National Interest, singling out as a fundamental error the view that moral principles andthe national interest were opposed to one another.On the contrary, he maintained:The choice is not between moral principles andthe national interest, devoid of moral dignity,but between one set of moral principles derivedfrom political reality and another set of moralprinciples derived from political reality. (InDefense, 33)He called on Americans to relearn the principlesof statecraft and political morality that had guidedthe founding fathers and had continued, often inmoralistic disguise, through the first century of therepublic's existence. In a revised edition of Defense that was to be published in paperback butwas withdrawn after his death in an act of publishing cowardice without parallel, he had writtenof "the expansion of the national interest to comprise not only the interests of a particular nation tothe exclusion of the interests of all other nationsbut certain interests of other nations as well"(Partisan Review, 1980, 580) mentioning in particular the avoidance of nuclear war and the promotion of nuclear arms control and disarmamentand the preservation of the national environmentand the availability and distribution of food. Heconcluded:Thus in our age the content of the nationalinterest in certain respects transcends the limits10.of a particular nation and comprises the inter ests of a number of nations similarly situated.(Ibid.)Morgenthau wrote prolifically about Americanforeign policy examining, testing, and applying hiscentral principles of interest, power, and morality.In The Purpose of American Politics, which heconsidered one of his most important if neglectedworks, he called attention to the role of transcendent purpose giving meaning to the day-to-dayoperations of foreign policy; for America thatpurpose was equality in freedom. He consideredspecific foreign policy problems in Vietnam andthe United States (1965), A New Foreign Policyfor the United States (1969), and Truth and Power(1970), maintaining throughout that indiscriminateanticommunism was not a sufficient basis for asound American foreign policy and that policiesemployed with relative success in Europe shouldnot be transferred uncritically to Asia and theThird World. The University of Chicago Pressmade available a further dimension of his scholarship in publishing his essays in three volumesPolitics in the Twentieth Century (1962) as it did inpublishing Dilemmas of Politics (1958).With his death, his unpublished works on Aristotle and Lincoln await a dedicated and informededitor. Of Lincoln, he wrote:What I am trying to do ... is to pierce thoselayers of myth . . . which have on the one handdenigrated Lincoln and on the other hand haveglorified him ... to understand wherein thegreatness of Lincoln consists. (Gauss Seminar,Princeton, October 12, 1972, 2-3)He provided a tentative answer to his ownquestion saying:I know of no statesman who while he was actingand under conditions of utmost gravity and difficulty was always looking at himself, the world,and the men around him like a God with complete objectivity. (Ibid., 17)He continued:We have had examples of statesmen or militaryleaders who after the event . . . reflected onwhat they had been doing. But Lincoln is continuously aware of the moral, political, and intellectual implications of what he is doing.(Ibid.)He concluded:This is, I think, the greatness of Lincoln — hisprofound sense of justice toward himself, to hisfellow men, and to the political and military issues with which he had to deal.25Morgenthau' s unfinished manuscript gives us aglimpse of the greatness of Lincoln. It also provides a final glimpse into his own greatness and hisscholarly preoccupations until the end. In describing Lincoln, he quotes Emerson: "Thereneeds but one wise man in a company and all arewise so rapid is the contagion." To sum up hisscholarly life and to honor his memory, can we domore than to repeat: "One wise man . . . and allare wise" or one lifetime of scholarship and thepathway is less darkened? Or if he should find thistoo pretentious, we might conclude with his ownwords:What remains is a searching mind, conscious ofitself and of the world, seeing, hearing, feeling,thinking, and speaking — seeking ultimate reality beyond illusion.This was the mission of his scholarly journey.Kenneth Thompson is Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Virginia.Remarks by Tang TsouWe assemble here to celebrate the memory ofHans J. Morgenthau. In so doing, we also celebrate a period of time in which the University ofChicago stood at the forefront of new developments in the study of international politics andpolitical theory in the United States, just as it hadno peers in many other fields. Professor Morgenthau was one among many scholars who contributed to this pre-eminence of the University.At the same time, it was the University ofChicago which provided Morgenthau with the opportunity, and perhaps the most challenging placein the United States, for him to develop his philosophy of political action and his theory of international politics which directly and forcefullyconfronted the prevailing outlook and assumptions of that time. It was in his capacity as a visiting professor with a two-quarter appointment thathe presented a series of four public lectures entitled "The Scientific Delusion and the Problem ofInternational Order," announced unpretentiouslyon mimeographed sheets. These lectures were developed into a book, Scientific Man vs. PowerPolitics. It was published in 1946 when he servedas an associate professor with a three-year term.This controversial and, at the time, not too wellreceived book is not a work on methodology in thenarrow sense. Rather, it is a critical examinationof all the currents of philosophical thought thatbrought about the scientific approach to the study of politics — an intellectual tendency which wasrapidly revived after the Second World War andwhich was to dominate the field of political science in the years to come. As "scientific man" isa product of the modern age, Morgenthau' s bookis nothing less than a fundamental critique of thepolitical and moral philosophy of the modernWest and a call for a re-examination and reformulation of its philosophy, morality, andstatecraft. Published at the beginning of thepost-war era when many Americans were lookingforward to a Pax Americana in an American century, this book was far in advance of its time. Nowthat American power has been on the decline formany years, American technology andproductivity — the pride of the Americanpeople — are in danger of being surpassed by thosein a nation with a different cultural orientation,American liberalism has run out of new ideas formany years, and fundamentalism and obscurantism are once again raising their heads, it has anew relevance not anticipated or recognized bymany of us. It is, indeed, a book that can be readwith profit by men of all times and places.In formulating his critique of the civilization ofthe modern West, Hans Morgenthau also developed in this early work a philosophy of politicalaction with varying degrees of explicitness. Thisphilosophy takes within its purview fundamentalchanges and revolutions in society and humanthinking. It is generally recognized that Morgenthau puts power and the struggle for power at thecenter of his philosophy. It is often said that hesees power as an indispensable means of achieving moral ends. It is also suggested that he integrates moral and power considerations in his philosophy, or alternatively that he places moralityabove power. Quite true. But to stop at thesestatements is to miss his tragic sense of human lifeand his thoroughgoing political realism expressedin this book. He does not believe that the conflictof power and morality can be reconciled in principle or in any single political act. In one of the mostprofound statements of the problems of ethics inpolitics Morgenthau writes:Neither science nor ethics nor politics can resolve the conflict between politics and ethicsinto harmony. We have no choice betweenpower and the common good. To act successfully, that is, according to the rules of the political art, is political wisdom. To know with despair that the political act is inevitably evil, andto act nevertheless, is moral courage. Tochoose among several expedient actions the26least evil one is moral judgment. In the combination of political wisdom, moral courage, andmoral judgment, man reconciles his politicalnature with his moral destiny.This passage is the key to Hans J. Morgenthau,the philosopher, at least at this stage of his life.Having laid the philosophical groundwork,Morgenthau turned to the task of putting down onpaper his theory of international politics. In thewinter of 1946, during his first year as an associateprofessor with a three-year term, he had someonemake a stenographic transcript of his lectures inhis course. With his prodigious energy and tremendous power of concentration, he turned thetranscript into a 489-page book in little more thana year. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle forPower and Peace was published in 1949, when hehad served as an associate professor with indefinite tenure and was recommended for a fullprofessorship. Politics Among Nations became awidely used textbook. But it is an unusualtextbook. It is a classic very much in the traditionof Holland's Jurisprudence, and Oppenheim'sInternational Law. When he taught at the University of Chicago, a torrent of books and articlesflowed from the pen of this distinguishedprofessor — books and articles too well known tobe named, too numerous to be listed. A revolutionin American thinking on international politics andforeign policy was wrought with Morgenthauplaying a major role. As Kenneth Thompson hasaptly written:In the 1970s, no responsible public figure inAmerican life dares speak scornfully of the needto consider the national interest in formulatingAmerican foreign policy. No secretary of statecan pretend the world is rid of internationalrivalries of power politics. ... No political scientist writing about peace will neglect the roleof diplomacy.The University of Chicago offered Hans J.Morgenthau not only an opportunity but also anintellectual challenge which helped shape his firstbook in English, further stimulated his prodigiousenergy, and continued to confront him in all hisremaining years at Chicago. For the Departmentof Political Science was the fountainhead of thescientific study of politics. Its long-time "chief,"Charles E. Merriam, was the author of New Aspects of Politics, which heralded this development. Morgenthau' s philosophy of internationalpolitics downgraded the legal and scientificanalyses of international relations championed by Quincy Wright. But in this central area of his intellectual pursuit, his way was eased considerablyby the generous, tolerant, and liberal spirit of thatvenerable professor. On his part, Morgenthau,generally considered to be a "conservative" in hisbasic philosophical orientation, very frequentlycame down on the "liberal" side on concreteforeign policy issues. The amazing complexityand seeming paradox in his pattern of thought,which have not been adequately explained, alsocontributed to a relationship of mutual respect andtolerance.Thus, the participation of Morgenthau marked aturning point in the history of the Department ofPolitical Science at least since the time of CharlesE. Merriam. From that moment up to the presenttime, its distinction and its strength have stemmedfrom the coexistence and competition of intellectual currents at diametrically opposite polesalong the various dimensions of the field rangingfrom political philosophy, ethics, methodology,concrete methods of analysis, to policy issues.The appointment of Professor Leo Strauss,through the efforts of Morgenthau, added to itsdiversity and deepened the philosophical cleavage. At first, the coexistence and the competitionwere maintained not without difficulty and hurtfeelings. They were maintained, nevertheless, asif guided by an invisible hand — invisible at least tooutsiders and to participants at the bottom of theacademic hierarchy. This balance wasstrengthened and the diversity was widened whenthe department, under the leadership of MortonGrodzins, enlisted a group of the brightest youngscholars ever appointed to any department anywhere in the United States in a brief span of twoor three years — young scholars who stood at theforefront of new developments in political science. At about the same time, Morgenthau set uphis Center for the Study of American ForeignPolicy with a number of research associates recruited from Europe and the United States. Inthese years, the department reached another newpeak in its eminence, particularly in politicaltheory and international politics. It was the subject of envy by other universities and its memberssoon became targets of recruitment by its competitors.This pattern of coexistence and competitionbetween intellectual currents at diametrically opposite poles has now become an established tradition of the department. An integral element of thistradition is a willingness to take risks in makingoffers to scholars who espouse unorthodox viewsand countercurrent ideas. To all of us, the preser-27vation of this tradition is the only way to maintainthe distinction and position of the department incompetition with other universities and, hopefully, to surpass them.In celebrating the memory of Hans J. Morgenthau, we are paying tribute to a teacher and acolleague whose profound philosophical insight,sweeping historical perspective, simple and yetcomplex theory of international politics, andmoral courage in advancing unpopular views onforeign policy we now sorely miss. In celebratingthe memory of Hans J. Morgenthau, we are alsocelebrating at once a glorious period in the historyof our university and the beginning of a livingtradition of our department. May we keep the treeof our memory of Morgenthau forever green atour University. May we have once more a teacherand a colleague like Morgenthau who would perpetuate his challenge to us to ask the most fundamental historical and philosophical questions andto inquire into the basic political principles —questions and principles not only relevant topressing policy issues but relevant in all seasons.Tang Tsou is Professor in the Departments ofPolitical Science and Far Eastern Languages andCivilizations and Principal Investigator of theModern China Project.MEMORIAL TRIBUTES:WILLIAM HOULDER ZACHARIASEN,1906-1979Remarks by S. ChandrasekharWilliam Houlder Zachariasen was an activemember of the Physics Department of this University for forty-one years: from 1930 to 1971.During this period, he served as chairman of thedepartment during 1945 to 1949 and again during1956 to 1959; and he was the dean of the Divisionof the Physical Sciences for three years between1959 and 1962. A closer look at his status at theUniversity, particularly during his earlier years, isrevealing. Zachariasen was appointed as an assistant professor in 1930 and he remained as anassistant professor for the ten following years. Butduring these same years, he had completed hisextensive investigations on the structure of silicates, written his series of papers on polyatomicfluids, oxo-radical salt- structures, and on diffuse X-ray scattering, besides his famous paper on"The Atomic Arrangement in Glass." At long lastin 1945, he was finally promoted to a full professorship when his beautifully organized andoriginal book on the theory of X-ray diffractionand his monumental studies, during the Waryears, on the crystal chemistry of the transuranicelements were already of the past. I cannot recallany similar instance of such delayed recognition. Iknew Zachariasen well already during thoseyears. Yet, I cannot remember his ever havingcomplained about his own status though he wassometimes bitter about the much less delayed recognitions of his colleagues.Zachariasen' s attitude during those and lateryears conformed to what another friend of mineonce remarked as the best one could have: "Tosnap one's fingers at fortune, good or bad, and topersevere towards one's goals and towards one'spurposes; for, in the end, posterity will give us allour due and humble places." Zachariasen maintained this noble attitude all his life; it had awholesome and yet a somewhat sobering effect onhis friends.With Zachariasen' s appointment to a full professorship in 1945 and almost simultaneously tothe chairmanship of the Physics Department, thegreat thaw began: the department made a leapforward the like of which we have not witnessedsince. Not only was the department strengthenedby the addition of many very distinguished namesand by the inception of two new institutes, thestructure of the department was also radicallychanged. The by-laws of the department whichenabled for the first time the collective participation of all of its members in its policies and in itsgovernance were drafted and enacted. And in initiating all these changes, Zachariasen maintaineda constant vigilance on standards with an equalconcern for the personal welfare of his colleagues.Maintaining the highest standards was, in manyways, Zachariasen' s primary concern. And hewas, forever, watchful of his colleagues strayingaway from those standards. May I digress for amoment to illustrate how, on an occasion, he triedto restrain his colleagues? The promotion of ayoung man was under discussion. To some it appeared that the accomplishments of the candidatewere not commensurate enough with the promotion that was sought. But those who thoughtotherwise tried to persuade the skeptics with theargument that the candidate was, after all, stillyoung. At this point Willie intervened to ask, "Isit being suggested that the young man will eventu-28ally blossom out in the manner of GrandmaMoses?"It will be hard to enumerate on this occasion themany ways in which Zachariasen served his science, his university, his colleagues, and hisfriends. But one facet of his personality dominated all else: his complete and total lack of ostentation.Combined with Willie's lack of ostentation wasa self-effacement which was often painful to hisfriends. While he was generous in his praise of theaccomplishments of others, he never gave any indication that his own pursuit of science was everconstant and was ever of the highest quality. Several of us here will recall that it was only withgreat difficulty that he was persuaded to give acolloquium touching on some salient features ofhis work, prior to his retirement.On the occasion of the celebration, similar toours, devoted to the memory of the great physicalchemist Josef Loschmidt, Ludwig Boltzmann recalled his first meeting with Loschmidt and hisfirst attendance at a concert of the ViennaPhilharmonic Orchestra in Loschmidt' s companyand how at that concert Beethoven's Eroica Symphony was played. Boltzmann further recalledthat, returning from this concert, he had remarkedto Loschmidt that, instead of the Scherzo of thethird movement, he would have preferred a loftycelebration of the Apotheosis of the Hero. Towhich, Loschmidt responded:So, you would have done better than Beethoven. Have you ever been to the funeral of adear friend whom you have truly admired? Atthe end, do you see your friend going toHeaven? No! You return to the routines of yourdaily life; and they will appear to you in contrastso inane that you will hardly be able to suppressan ironic smile. That is the Scherzo! The finale,on the other hand, is a vision of Nature againstwhich background your friend assumes hismodest place even as the routines of your owndaily life pale against the background knowledge of your friend.I believe you will understand why, on this occasion, I have recalled to you this interpretation ofLoschmidt of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony.Yes! We have had men amongst us.S. Chandrasekhar is the Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments ofAstronomy and Astrophysics and Physics and inthe Enrico Fermi Institute. Remarks by Julian GoldsmithWillie Zachariasen became an idol of mine when Iwas an undergraduate. To one interested inmineralogical and crystal chemistry he was themaster. During the years of World War II, I wasinvolved in research on glass, and Zachariasen' sdrawing depicting the general nature of the atomicstructure of silicate glasses had been published intexts more frequently than any other illustration Iknow of. He had accomplished so much by theearly 1940s that I accorded him the respect due apatriarch of science and agreed with a colleaguewho, not knowing him, and1 on the basis of hisoutput, considered Zachariasen amazingly productive for anyone of such an advanced age. I was24; Willie was 36. Shortly after this period, I returned to the University, got to know Willie a lotbetter, and was impressed by his retrogression,age wise.I tell you this in part to convey the respect accorded Willie in fields other than physics orchemistry. Crystal structure analysis, crystalchemistry, and crystal physics are of concern to abroad spectrum of scientists — mathematicians,physicists, chemists, biologists, and mineralogists, among others. For example, Zachariasen 'scontributions to mineralogy are many and perhapsnot well known to those not familiar with thegeological or mineralogical literature. But I am nothere to talk about Zachariasen the scientist; Iwould rather touch upon a few considerations,feelings, moods, attitudes, and impressions, thesum of which depict the flavor of Willie as a person, or at least the person I saw for many years.Willie was a devotee of the billiard room of theQuadrangle Club and played every day after aquick lunch. Willie and Mark Inghram got me involved about twenty years ago, and the favoritegame among the regulars is a frustrating one called"Cowboy Pool." Willie was the leader of thegroup, made up of people of diverse and unrelatedinterests. He set the tone and developed the rules,designed to eliminate the trivial and make thegame more challenging — typical of Willie. He setthe standard for gamesmanship, repartee, razzing,hexing, friendly insult, amateurism, andcamaraderie that made winning or losing of littleimportance. His influence made the game a subtleRorschach test, and the real nature of the playersbecame quickly evident. Willie's humor andstrength of personality pervaded the room. Hehad a rapier-like wit. Zachariasen' s axiom remains in effect, and Zachariasen' s rules are inviolate. We miss his style and the class he added to29what may sound like a sterile activity. With Willieit wasn't.Willie's positive spirit was expressed in his useof certain words. One of his favorites was marvelous, and he spoke of many things as being marvelous. His inner humor was always close to thesurface and had a subtle and intellectual slant.When going over the budget while dean of theDivision of the Physical Sciences he would countin Norwegian with an exaggerated accent, andwhen going over the roster of the division, usedpet names for many. S. K. Allison became "Skal-lison," and if your name began with a J — watchout! He had a way of looking over the top of hisglasses that had a disarming effect, particularly onDorothy Johnson. Dorothy once wrote to a hotelin England for a reservation for Willie, and typedhis title as "Dean of the Division." The responsewas addressed to the Reverend Dean W. H.Zachariasen, and Willie nearly split his sides.WHZ — the image of a man of the cloth.Willie took the deanship of the division not because he wanted to be dean — this I know — butbecause he felt that the division was in trouble,needing academic as well as fiscal bolstering. In afew short years he worked wonders, and in addition, succeeded in raising the salaries of the faculty, especially selected members, to the pointthat a national standard was set. Things havechanged, however. His insistence on quality wasnonrelenting, and his influence on the division wasenormous. He never lost touch with his colleaguesas colleagues and kept a bottle of a soothing syrupin his desk for those who felt distraught. Althoughhe refused to apply for grant support for himself,he single-handedly brought in the ARPA programthat helped support a large segment of the divisional faculty, cutting across departmental andinstitute boundaries. It still does, now under theaegis of the Material Research Laboratory Program of the NSF. In less than his full term, heresigned, feeling that he had accomplished whathe set out to do.He enjoyed exaggerating gallantry, and nowoman went unkissed. He had two pet phrasesthat expressed a relaxed appreciation of the skillsor accomplishments of others — "How do they doit?" and* of his own, "It's not an easy thing todo." A number of years ago Ethel and I joinedWillie and Mossa on a marvelous trip on a Norwegian coastal steamer over the North Cape. TheZachs had never been above the Arctic Circlebefore, and when we first saw the midnight sun,Willie stared, raised his arms, and said, "How dothey do it?" Willie loved the University and expressed it byword and deed, through difficult as well as goodtimes. His entire career was spent here. His deeplove for Mossa, Ellen, Wnd Frederick was expressed mostly by deeds and only warily bywords, never overtly or with anything approaching sentimentality. But it could be felt. Willie andMossa' s closeness was exemplified in the conciseknot-like and focussed sound of their mutualname — the Zachs. Could anyone not love them?Willie was an ebullient guest and the Zachs werespecial hosts. The success of an evening might begauged by how many times Mossa said, "Oh,Villy!" It was in the course of such evenings thatWillie's extraordinary depth and breadth in art,music, and literature might be revealed — he neverovertly displayed his knowledge and love of literature and the arts. He relaxed with detectivestories and knew them all!He had an aversion to people who take themselves too seriously, and when he resigned fromthe deanship, he referred to himself as the "Un-dean," and then an " Antidean." At the same timehe scorned any scientific activities that were, tohim, intellectually inadequate. His own intellectual endeavors continued after formal retirement, and he had made arrangements for thepublication of a major work on the crystalchemistry of the actinide elements shortly beforehis death. It was "Antiwillie" to fall back onlaurels, and he would subscribe to Pearson's law,which says that "If you're coasting, you are goingdownhill."I am not competent to discuss his weaknesses,but I know of two. One — I have never heard himswear or tell an off-color story, although he wouldinvoke the name of the Devil in Norwegian nowand then when he missed a billiard. Two — henever ate vegetables. In a more serious vein, hisweaknesses amplified his strengths.Willie was a strong man. He was the only man Iknew who didn't "walk on eggs" after a heartattack. As metals may be replaced or coated byothers in an electromotive series, he has ennobledmany by his touch. He was a man other men couldlove. It is difficult for me to accept the fact that heis not with us. If you believe in an afterlife, youcan be assured that wherever he is has beensignificantly improved. This world can ill-afford tolose a man of his ilk.Julian R. Goldsmith is the Charles E. MerriamDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Geophysical Sciences and in the College.30COMMITTEES ONAPPOINTMENT INEQUITIESA Committee on Appointment Inequities (Faculty), advisory to the provost, was formed in 1971and has existed since that time. This year a relatedcommittee, the Committee on Appointment Inequities (Academic Nonfaculty), has beenestablished. The members of the two committeesare:Committee on Appointment Inequities (Faculty)Don Swanson, Chairman(2-year term beginning 1980-81)Kathleen Conzen(4-year term beginning 1980-81)David Bevington(3-year term beginning 1978-79)Irving Kaplansky(4-year term beginning 1978-79)Werner Kirsten(3-year term beginning 1978-79)Committee on Appointment Inequities (AcademicNonfaculty)Don Swanson, Chairman(2-year term beginning 1980-81)Kathleen Conzen(Appointed for 1980-81) Irving Kaplansky(Appointed for 1980-81)Judy Nadler(2-year term beginning 1980-81)Eric Simmons(1-year term beginning 1980-81)NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICYThe University of Chicago reaffirms its policy ofproviding equal opportunity in employment for allqualified persons and prohibiting discrimination inemployment on the basis of race, color, religion,sex, national origin, age, handicapped status orveteran status; this policy includes the commitment to maintain a work environment free fromharassment based upon sex. If any person has acomplaint, it should be taken to the individual'ssupervisor, department chairman, departmenthead, dean or director. Complaints may also betaken to the Director of Personnel or the Affirmative Action Officer, each of whom also hasestablished procedures for review. All complaintswill be investigated in a prompt and confidentialmanner.31THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDRoom 200, Administration Building"Z CV'.' £"""; -f«km *";? *~o mm jrH OzlO Fi—CO c>s2 OO rnCO