THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 0 1ECOEDFebruary 4, 1971 An Official Publication Volume V, Number 2CONTENTS35 REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE ONUNIVERSITY RECORDS36 REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMAN FOR AUTUMNQUARTER 197039 TUITION INCREASE39 ALBERT V. CREWE APPOINTED DEAN,PHYSICAL SCIENCES40 DR. LEON O. JACOBSONREAPPOINTED DEAN40 IN MEMORIAM40 NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILOF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OFBUSINESS40 NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTSTHE UNIVERSITY OF. CHIC AGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLERThe University of Chicago Record, previously published by the Office of the Secretary of the Faculties, is now being published by the Office of the Vice Presidentfor Public Affairs. It will continue as anofficial publication of the University issuedregularly during the academic year.The University of Chicago Record hasbeen published regularly since November3, 1967. The original University Recordwas first issued on April 3, 1896, and waspublished until the Autumn Quarter of1933.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORTS OF THE COMMITTEEON UNIVERSITY RECORDSNovember 18, 1970TO: President Edward H. LeviFROM: The Committee on University RecordsFirst, with regard to investigations by legislative committees, the University must, of course,obey the law. It is the judgment of the Committee that the course of action which is mostconsistent with that obligation and with thetradition of University freedom is the presentUniversity policy; namely, not to supply anydocuments except subject to a valid subpoenafrom a body having the power to issue it.Second, on the matter of "covering" publicmeetings, the Committee is agreed that the University ought to encourage the use of its facilitiesfor public meetings properly sponsored by students and faculty members, and regards it asappropriate for the University community to beinformed about the content of such meetings.The Committee is further agreed that it is properfor Public Information Office employees to attend any public meetings on campus, with theclear understanding that no employees attendingsuch meetings should attempt to disguise thefact of their employment or the purpose of theirattendance. If written reports are made of suchmeetings, no use should be made of such reports in disciplinary proceedings except subjectto the safeguards contained in the new councillegislation on discipline, particularly the requirement that witnesses be made available in theproceeding.Third, the Committee is agreed that the University should neither approve the carrying outon campus of undercover activities nor employpersons whose records contain suggestions ofcontinued affiliation with organizations engagedin undercover work. Such activities and affiliations are antithetical to the purposes of a University and destructive to its functioning.Fourth, the Committee has considered thematter of photographic records and concludedthat while photographs are not inappropriatemeans for identifying those in violation of University regulations, photographs taken for suchpurposes and used for disciplinary proceedings ought not to be retained beyond the time necessary for such proceedings.Philip B. Kurland, ChairmanWayne C. BoothNorton S. GinsburgRobert HaselkornRoger H. HildebrandJanuary 14, 1971Dear Mr. President:I enclose herewith, at the direction of theCommittee on University Records, a report toyou in response to inquiries addressed to us.We think that the propositions contained inthe report call for the following conclusionsabout the arrest at Robie House on the eveningof 12 January 1971. First, as we understandthe facts, the F.B.I, agents did have a warrantfor the arrest of a person on the premises and,therefore, had they disclosed that fact, wouldhave had a right of access to the building whichshould properly have been afforded them. Second, again on our understanding of the facts,the F.B.I, agents did not inform the Universitysecurity officer that they had either a warrantor probable cause for arrest. Under those circumstances, access to Robie House should nothave been made available to them merely on thebasis of a request to talk to a person on thepremises, at least without the permission of thatperson.We trust that the enclosed report satisfactorilyanswers the questions about University policiesraised by the incident of 12 January.Sincerely yours,Philip B. KurlandJanuary 14, 1971TO: President Edward H. LeviFROM: The Committee on University Records1. It is and has been University policy to exercise its power and authority to prevent interference with the University's distinctive purposeand function: the search for knowledge andits dissemination. Persons and organizations thatdo or would inhibit the right of freedom of in-35quiry have no place on this campus. Their presence is neither desired nor condoned.2. The University is, however, a member ofthe larger society whose laws are no less bindingon the University than on other individuals andorganizations. The University has and must continue to abide by the laws of the communitywithin whose jurisdiction it finds itself.3. Our past reports to you have touched onthe subjects of privacy of student records, evenas against demands for government scrutiny,and the action and intention of the Universityto prevent invasions of freedom of inquiry bypolice surveillance or otherwise. We are concerned here with the problem of access to individuals, as distinguished from access to papersand information, located on this campus. Ourposition here parallels that which we have already taken.4. The University is under no obligation, doesnot, and should not undertake to make availableto police officials individuals whom they maydesire to see or confront. This means thatbuildings should not be opened or an individual'spresence secured merely to accommodate policewishes. This is not to deny the propriety ofpolice conduct, but simply to reject the proposition that the University should be regarded as ameans of effecting such governmental objectives.An active role by the University in such activities is inconsistent with its mission.5. Where the law requires that the Universitymake access to University premises and personnel possible, however, the University must obeythe command of that law. Thus, where appropriate officials have a warrant for an arrest orsearch, or probable cause for arrest or search.the University may not prevent nor interferewith the execution of that lawful authority. It isobliged, rather, to make available, to the extentthat the University has the necessary control,premises or persons who are properly the subjectof such lawful inquiry.6. It is the Committee's understanding thatthe propositions set forth above apply not onlyto the premises owned and operated by the University, but to premises, like Robie House andInternational House, whose security protectionhas been undertaken by the University.Respectfully submitted,Philip B. Kurland, ChairmanWayne C. BoothNorton S. GinsburgRobert HaselkornRoger H. Hildebrand REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMAN FOR AUTUMNQUARTER 1970January 27, 1971In Autumn Quarter 1970 the Ombudsman's office kept records on fifty complaints. Althoughthere were from ten to twenty other complaintsbrought in and requests for information answered, the records cover all serious actions ofthe office and a number of less serious eventsand situations. The cases on which I have filesare impossible to classify; a list of categorieswould have to be at least twenty strong, andthis would defeat the purpose of classification. Ihad cases involving housing, both University andnon-University owned; Student Health and Student Health Insurance; the College advising system; the question of academic status, both ingraduate and undergraduate programs; Campussecurity; the availabiity of gym facilities; etc.Cases concerned sums of money ranging fromtwenty-five cents to somewhat over one thousanddollars, and problems ranging in seriousness fromthe establishment of a book drop outside theCollege Library, or the excusing of library fines,to the releasing of transcripts and to certain individuals' continued status as students in theUniversity.The Ombudsman is not endowed with anylegislative power; however, like the EmperorAugustus, although to a somewhat lower extent,he is endowed with a degree of "auctoritas." Incases where I felt that students had exhaustedthe available channels of action open to themand had not been treated justly, my recommendations were for the most part either followed oreven bettered (for example, in terms of financialgenerosity). In a number of cases, however, Ihave felt that while the students had exhaustedthe open channels, they had not in fact beentreated unjustly; in these cases, I informed thestudents of my views (none of them agreed).Most of my cases, however, have involved thegiving of information, rather than the questioning of existing procedures or standards. Afterall, as I said above, I am without power to makeadministrative decisions; but I do often knowwhich administrator should be asked to make orchange a decision. Therefore, I have frequentlyadvised students to return to their doctors, theiradvisers, or their teachers, as the case may be,and to discuss their problems with the peoplewho they felt had caused them. More often thannot this has resulted in the resolution of such36problems, most of which arise from misunderstandings anyhow.Beyond the complaints that were brought in,I have had the opportunity to reflect and toinvestigate on my own initiative. Below I presentfour general reflections provoked and documented by the cases I have seen this quarter, together with the results of an investigation I undertook on my own initiative.First, there are too many students here thatshould not be here. Some lack the academicability necessary for survival; some the psychological stability (?) necessary to live in the extremely permissive Hyde Park community (withregard, for example, to sex and drugs), especially if they come from rural or some suburbanbackgrounds; some are for other reasons unable to conclude their studies and never, oronly after inordinately prolonged effort, manageto earn degrees. This situation is reflected inthe traditionally high drop-rate in the College,and similar cases occur in some areas of theDivisions. It is hard to say what can be doneabout this. I myself feel that the question ofacademic admissions standards deserve far fullerpublic debate than it has received, and that theUniversity is now in a position that is not completely self -consistent. If we are to admit studentswho are very likely to fail if left to their owndevices, we should clearly make some intelligentcommitment to preserve them as students. If not,are we admitting students for the pleasure offlunking them out? If we actually intend toeducate such students, then the existing institutional commitment is inadequate in quality andorganization; the major commitment has beenmoney, not thought, as results show. As to thestudent who simply cannot gather himself together sufficiently to earn a degree, it seems tome that in such cases the mercy that would prolong their time at the University of Chicago maybe, in fact, no mercy. At least the first problem,and to my mind the second, deserve more acknowledgement than they seem to have received.Second, there are too many people around herewho just don't listen. All too many of the complaints I have received, for example, about thelack of information given out by College advisers,have turned out to be contradicted by the advisers' written records. If students don't readtheir mail and won't come in when called, thereis little that can be done for them.* On the*And I really think University of Chicago studentsshould be too smart to use that "I didn't understand" story against documentary evidence. other hand, too many administrators refuse tolisten to students' stories at all. Even if a studentis in the wrong, and irritatingly so, the relevantadministrator is obliged to give him a fair hearing, and many administrators do so. But far toooften real injustices are refused any consideration by staff or administration members; sometimes through impatience with a particular individual or with the irrationality of students;sometimes, seemingly, as a general principle. Ican offer no real solution, but I can suggest thatif we would all read and answer our mail andlisten when we're spoken to, and if some of uswould remember that students, staff, and administrators are all human beings (surprisingly fewpeople seem to keep all of these facts inmind simultaneously), University communications would be vastly improved.Third, the University's policies towards students in a very special sense are inadequatelydefined. The University has never publicly defined how far it is in loco parentis. In many areas— for example, graduate school counseling forCollege seniors — some students feel that they areleft far too much on their own. Similar complaints have been made by graduate studentswho thought they should have been told moreclearly the deadline for Student Health Insurance registration, College students who felt theavailable advising was inadequate, and one student to whom University Realty allowed a farlonger rope for hanging himself than any commercial landlord would have extended. Otherstudents, who resent being called in for personaltalks by advisers (or dislike Admissions and Aid'scriticism of I's) seem to feel the reverse. Itseems to me that both the University and mostof the students would benefit from an explicitundertaking on the part of the University totreat students either as children (needing frequent counseling, responsible for their actionsonly morally, not legally) or as adults (responsible for their own behavior and capable of mostnecessary self-government and discipline), ratherthan a mixture of the two.I will conclude my general observations on aless exalted note. This University needs moreathletic facilities. The present facilities aregrossly inadequate to serve the needs of a largenumber of athletic teams and a large populationof organized and informal intramural athletes;this lack, together with other problems arisingfrom poor communications with Physical Education staff, has given rise to several cases thathave reached me, and it seems to me that new37construction will have to be the answer, at leasteventually. Until then, pick-up basketball willcontinue to be a phenomenon possible only"every other day"* and recognized student activities may continue to be crowded out of preferred meeting-times and/ or places.Last fall I decided to investigate the role ofstudents in the appointment and reappointmentof faculty members. I sent out inquiries in latefall to eighty-two department heads, deans, etc.,and to about forty student groups. The responseto the first set of letters was fairly low (abouttwenty-five percent), and I sent out a follow-upletter at the beginning of the Winter Quarter.The results of my survey, which was centeredaround the decision made for the 15 Decemberdeadline (which concerned, for the most part,the re-appointment or promotion of assistantprofessors) follow.Four departments and two collegiate divisionsseem to make the largest effort to collect studentopinion and forward it to the decision-makers.In one collegiate division student reports arewritten on re-appointment cases, and forwardedto deans and provost; in the other, a joint student-faculty evaluation of teaching ability becomes part of the record of the case. In two departments student recommendations are submitted to deans with those of the faculty; in athird, student recommendations go to thedepartment's faculty committee; in the fourth,the department chairman holds meetings of students who have had the teachers who are up forconsideration, and sends "sense of the meeting"reports to his dean along with his faculty's report. In two departments student reports confirmed the existence of these systems in substantially the same form as had the department heads.In all cases the systems appear fairly satisfactoryto the parties involved: In one, the students feltthat they had succeeded in countering a badfaculty recommendation; in another, the department head wrote that, while the evidence provided about teaching ability could have been"more abundant and more revealing," neverthe-*That is, yesterday and tomorrow, but never today.See Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson),Through the Looking Glass (1896 ed.), in TheComplete Works of Lewis Carroll (New York,n.d.), pp. 196-197: "'You couldn't have it if youdid want it,' the Queen said. 'The rule is, jamto-morrow and jam yesterday — but never jam today.' " This basic text on university administrationhas been far too much neglected in the theory ofthis University's operations; but it has had itsrevenge in practice. less, "student participation in our Department'spersonnel deliberations has been careful, valuable, and significant."In some twenty-five cases department headsor deans said that they did feel that studentopinions of teaching ability were important andhad been taken into account in their decisions,if there had been any. In several cases the department heads felt that their departments weresmall enough so that informal contact withstudents provided sufficient information. Onesuch department head, whom I interviewed,called in one of his active graduate students atthe end of our interview; the graduate studentconfirmed that informal procedures did, in hisopinion, adequately reflect student opinion inappointment cases. On the other hand, anotherdepartment head's letter cogently points out thedangers of informality:I personally feel that it would be very valuableto have some mechanism for gauging studentopinion. Insofar as we do take it into accountin making decisions about appointments andpromotions — the Department is small enoughthat the faculty and students know each otherwell — but it is very easy to misjudge whatrumors and gossip filter through.In other cases, departments either used course-evaluation questionnaires to get an idea of student opinion (the reports from one of the twocollegiate division committees were used by several graduate departments in the correspondinggraduate division). Still other departments contacted or tried to contact all or some remainingstudents of the professors in question, or wroteletters to former graduate students. Almost allof these respondents, with one or two significantexceptions, felt that students' opinions were ofvalue only in the assessment of teaching ability.In many cases department heads reported anabsence or a very low degree of student responseto the soliciting of their opinions (twenty percent in one case, two out of twenty in another,none in a third case).In four cases there was no account taken ofstudent views; for two of them, all I received wasthe information that there was no formal or informal student participation. In a third, the shortness of students' time in the department and thelimited nature of their contact with faculty wereused to explain the situation (this was a clinicaldepartment). In the fourth case, the departmenthead wrote that he felt that student participationgenerally gives rise to "complications," the students being inexperienced, and that he is reluc-38tant to risk a man's career in such a situation.In addition, when he had tried to engage studentparticipation in an appointment case some yearsago, "the students did not really wish to be involved, were unwilling to speak clearly, and afterit was all over seemed to show signs of regret."The incomplete faculty response and the moreserious low level of corroborative student responses, together with the need to respect confidentiality, make it hard to come to conclusions.However, two points seem worth noting. In thefirst place, where students are unwilling even toanswer letters or questionnaires, much less togather their fellows' views, student opinion willprobably not be very accurately reflected in faculty decisions; on the other hand, there areprobably few faculty who would object to anefficient student-run evaluation of teaching thatprovided useful data. Second, the faculty members who feel that informal contacts with students give them sufficient knowledge of students'views might re-evaluate this opinion; in somecases, the very absence of a formal mechanismmay be inducing them to think they know students better than they in fact do. Almost all thefaculty members contacted seemed to feel thatstudent opinions should only be considered inthe evaluation of teaching, not research; almostall of them did also feel that teaching is a significant issue in re-appointment and promotiondecisions.* On the whole, I feel that while inmost divisions and departments the faculty sincerely want student opinions on teaching, andwhile in some areas, student, faculty or jointinitiatives have provided such information, onthe whole the opinions of students could be moreefficiently exploited for information. I myself feel that if student opinions were betterknown, they would be more closely reflected inthe actions taken on faculty appointments. Anylasting improvement will have to come from thejoint and intelligent action of faculty and students.Tony Grafton*I have debated this point elsewhere. See my Gadflyin The Chicago Maroon for January 15, 1971, andDonald Levine's letter, ibid., January 22, 1971.Reprints from the Record may be orderedat a nominal cost. TUITION INCREASEThe University of Chicago will increase tuitionby $50 a quarter beginning in the AutumnQuarter, 1971.The increase will bring the total tuition costfor undergraduates to $2,475 and for graduatestudents to $2,625 for a normal three-quarteracademic year.The scheduled increase was recommended bythe Deans' Budget Committee of the Universityin December, 1970. This followed a recommendation made in 1969 when the Committee suggested increases of $150 per year each year from1970-71 until further notice.Announcing the tuition increase, Gilbert L.Lee, Jr., Vice-President for Business and Finance, said:"The University, along with other educationalinstitutions across the nation, is finding thatthe effects of inflation, coupled with an erosion of outside sources of funding, are puttinga heavy strain on its budget. The costs of education are continuing to rise sharply and additional income from all sources, includingtuition, will be required simply to meet existing commitments."Tuition figures at other major private universities are as follows:AnticipatedUndergraduate IncreasesUniversities Current Tuition for 1971-72Harvard $2,600 $200Columbia 2,500 200Stanford 2,400 210Northwestern 2,400 300ALBERT V. CREWE APPOINTEDDEAN, PHYSICAL SCIENCESAlbert V. Crewe, Professor in the Departmentof Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute atThe University of Chicago, has been appointedDean of the University's Division of the Physical Sciences.The appointment, effective July 1, 1971, wasannounced by Edward H. Levi, President ofthe University.Crewe will succeed A. Adrian Albert, theEliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished ServiceProfessor in the Department of Mathematics, asDean of the Division. Albert, who has servedin that position since 1962, will devote full timeto teaching and research at the University.39Dr. Leon O. Jacobson has been reappointedDean of the Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of Medicine at TheUniversity of Chicago for a five-year term. Dr.Jacobson is also the Joseph Regenstein Professorof Biological and Medical Sciences at the University.His reappointment, effective January 1, 1971,was announced by Edward H. Levi, Presidentof the University, upon recommendation by theProvost and after consultation with a facultycommittee.Dr. Jacobson first was appointed Dean of theDivision of the Biological Sciences on January1, 1966. He is the first alumnus of the University's school of medicine to serve as Dean ofthe Division.Dr. Eugene Maximilian Karl Geiling, first Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at TheUniversity of Chicago, died at 6 p.m. Tuesday,January 12 in Washington, D. C.Dr. Geiling, the Frank P. Hixon DistinguishedService Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology atthe University, retired in 1957 as Chairman ofthat Department. He had been living in Washington since 1958.NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILON THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF BUSINESSFour leading businessmen have been named tomembership in the Council on the Graduate School of Business at The University of Chicago. The appointments were announced byGaylord Donnelley, Chairman of the University's Board of Trustees.The four are:James H. Evans (President of the Union PacificCorporation)David J. Jones (Vice-President, Finance, Standard Oil of New Jersey)Theodore W. Nelson (Executive Vice-President of the Mobil Oil Corporation)Ralph S. Saul (President of the AmericanStock Exchange)The Council advises the Graduate School ofBusiness in its efforts to anticipate and serve thechanging needs of business throughout the country. It includes fifty of the nation's businessleaders.Robert E. Brooker, Chairman of the Executive Committee of marcor, Inc., recently wasnamed Chairman of the Council, succeedingJoseph S. Wright, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer, Zenith Radio Corporation, who completed a three-year term as Council Chairman. Wright remains as a member ofthe Council. Brooker also is a University Trustee.CORRECTIONNorman H. Nachtrieb was erroneouslylisted as the Thomas E. Donnelley Professor in the College and Professor of Historyand Humanities in the list of EducationalReview Commission members in the January 15, 1971 Record. He is Professor andChairman of the Department of Chemistryand in the James Franck Institute.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTS LISTThe following are additions and corrections to the list of new faculty appointments that appearedin Volume V, Number 1 of the Record.DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESStuart AltmannDr. Victor Eugene PollakDr. Samuel SpectorElmar H. ZeitlerDr. Joseph L. Braudo Professor 9/01/70Professor 4/01/70Professor 1/15/70Professor 1/01/71Associate Professor 4/01/70 Anatomy, Biology, CollegeMedicinePediatricsBiophysics, PhysicsPediatrics40Dr. Irwin Rosenberg Associate Professor 8/15/70 MedicineDr. Harold Brooks Assistant Professor 7/13/70 MedicineDr. Elliott D. Kieff Assistant Professor 7/01/70 MedicineDr. Heinz Kohler Assistant Professor 7/01/70 Pathology, Biology, CollegeChung- Yuan Lin Assistant Professor 11/01/70 SurgeryDr. Miguel Gambetta Instructor 7/01/70 MedicinePaul G. Heltne Instructor 1/01/70 Anatomy, CollegeDr. John Hopper Instructor 7/01/70 Medicine, Argonne Cancer ResearchHospitalDIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESRichard WeisbergLaura Volkerding Assistant ProfessorInstructor 1 / '01/71 Romance Languages, College, Comparative Studies in Literature10/01/70 ArtDIVISION OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESBrian DayPeter Percell InstructorInstructor 10/01/70 Mathematics, College10/01/70 Mathematics, CollegeDIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESGary S. Becker University Professor 7/01/70 EconomicsTHE COLLEGEBiological Sciences DivisionDr. Heinz KohlerStuart Altmann*Paul G. Heltne Assistant Professor 7/01/70 also PathologyProfessor 9/01/70 also Biology and AnatomyInstructor 1/01/70 also AnatomyHumanities DivisionRichard Weisberg Assistant Professor 1/01/71 also Romance Languages, Comparative Studies in LiteraturePhysical Sciences DivisionBrian DayPeter Percell InstructorInstructor 10/01/70 also Mathematics10/01/70 also MathematicsNew Collegiate DivisionRoy D. Morrison, II Assistant Professor 7/01/70 also Divinity*Paul G. Heltne's appointment was terminated 6/30/70.41GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSJames O. Flynn Assistant Professor 9/01/70F. Regis Kenna Assistant Professor 4/01/70Robert Ling Instructor 7/01/70Subrata K. Sen Instructor 7/01/70DIVINITY SCHOOLRoy D. Morrison, II Assistant Professor 7/01/70 also new College Division42THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 300, Administration BuildingHXwawH*!onoowooaoerooONou>n Zm ± c o35 n? >=i O TJ c/> no|zPO p > •vO o<3si a -i> a3<O n'os22 m