THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECOIDMarch 15, 1972 An Official Publication Volume VI, Number 3CONTENTS29 REPORT OF THE COMPUTATION CENTEREVALUATING COMMITTEE41 QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMANFOR AUTUMN, 197145 FINAL REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR 1970-7146 OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY46 DEANS48 DEPARTMENT AND COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN49 COMMITTEE ON EXTENSION49 COMMITTEE ON INCENTIVES ANDCOLLECTIVE STRENGTH50 COMMITTEE ON FACULTY ANDUNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS50 COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PROGRAMSAND THE STUDENT51 COMMITTEE ON MINORITY GROUPSTUDENT CONCERNS51 PRESIDENT'S SEMINAR, 1971-72THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© 1972 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE COMPUTATION CENTEREVALUATION COMMITTEEDecember 1, 1971Members of the Committee*Robert C. F. Bartels, University of MichiganMorris S. Davis, University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, ChairmanAlston S. Householder, University of TennesseeKenneth M. King, Columbia UniversityI. IntroductionThe Computation Center Evaluation Committeemet at The University of Chicago on April 4-6and May 9-11 for conversations with as representative a group of interested persons as possible in the area of academic and administrativeusers, other interested staff, the administration,and the Computation Center staff. We askedinterviewees to recommend other people withwhom our committee should meet to insure asmany points of view as possible. At times ourCommittee broke up into smaller groups holding parallel sessions in order to increase thenumber of people interviewed who might haveuseful and important input. We were providedwith, and also requested and received, a greatdeal of relevant documentation (see referencesbelow) .During this phase of data collection we couldnot but be highly impressed with the excellenceof the computer applications carried out by thefaculty. We observed a strong, independent faculty with a singular dedication to its purposesemploying computers for creative, imaginative,and fruitful applications in addition to the kindof work that has become standard and routineat all universities. Further, the faculty exhibiteddeep concerns for the welfare and future of*The Evaluation Committee represents the pooledexperience of some seventy man-years of contactwith computation center activities in a variety ofprivate and public universities as well as governmentfacilities, their association spanning the time periodfrom the zeroth generation (described later) to present systems. computers at The University of Chicago. Manyhad carefully studied the problems and hadcatalogued in great detail their recommendedsolutions to outstanding problems. The reportsof the Computer Policy Study Committeechaired by Professor Irving Kaplansky (1, 2)were thoroughly comprehensive, searching, andperceptive studies of the Computation Centermilieu and were an invaluable aid for our Committee's understanding of the problems.Finally, it was obvious to us that the administration at all levels was strongly motivatedand eager to assess the current computer situation. It appeared to us that there was a desireon the part of much of the administration toprovide for a university-wide facility operatingefficiently and with the ability to serve the diverse needs of the students, faculty, and administration within the limits of the existing economic constraints.II. Some History of UniversityComputing CentersHistorically, starting with the early 1950s, computing centers in many universities were established to serve those departments engaged inthe type of research demanding extensive numerical computations. Depending on the institution, the greatest demands for the servicesof a large-scale facility came from the departments with research and graduate programs inthe areas of physics, astronomy, chemistry,psychology, economics (particularly econometrics), the biomedical disciplines, and, in a fewinstitutions of technology, the aerospace disciplines. The scope of this list of disciplines hasincreased, and today there are only a very fewbranches of scholarship from art to zoology ina university curriculum on which the computerhas not already impinged and induced dependence. Indeed, the computer has become accepted by the more progressive educators asnot only a tool for the exclusive use of theestablished scientist, but as a resource available29to students of all disciplines for extending theirexperiences in treating the more complex realproblems within the time constraints of a normal academic term or year.The early attitude of university administratorstoward computing centers was that of tolerancefortified by an understanding that the university's component of support would be negligibleand that the user would be responsible for thesupport of the Center through grants and contracts. This was particularly true in the privateuniversities. Nonetheless, the University computing centers grew in size and in numbers,and their role in the educational programs,undergraduate as well as graduate, became increasingly important and indispensable. Andwith the increasing uses of the computer byand for students in the core programs of education, the universities have assumed a larger andlarger portion of their accountable share of thefinancial burden of the centers.A not insignificant financial assist was provided the universities during the era whencomputing centers began to take their placesin the universities by a number of the computermanufacturers via the granting of substantialeducational allowances on equipment rentalsand purchases. But, more important, duringthese years of growth, which spanned most ofthe 1960s, the National Science Foundation setas its goal a program to aid the universities inestablishing computer center facilities of a magnitude commensurate with their needs. Grantswere implicitly made on a matching basis withthe principal aim to help the universities makethe quantum jump from one level of computersystems to the next. NSF recognized that thefinancial resources of the universities were inadequate for them to make this step by themselves, but NSF hoped and expected that thecenters would become self-supporting, not requiring large continuing grants. Indeed, in theclosing years of the 1960s, it became a policyof NSF not to support with facilities grantsthe general operation of computer centers already established, but only to give financial aidto those schools developing innovative programsrelating to the new, developing technologiesof time-sharing and regional computing centers.The growth of the computing centers in manyof the large universities was determined in largemeasure by the magnitude of the support derivable from sponsored research funded bygrants and contracts. However, the Bureau ofBudget regulation on Principles for Determining Costs . . . , Circular #A-21, established inMarch, 1965, limited the charge to sponsoredprojects with federal support so as not to exceed a proration of the operating costs according to the services rendered. Schools that valuedthe non-sponsored use of the computer by thestudents and faculty for the purposes of instruction and research were therefore requiredto seek alternate means of supporting theseneeds.Several of the larger universities took anearly lead in recognizing the financial advantages of sharing of the same computationalfacility by both the sponsored and unsponsoredprograms of the university. Assisted initially byNSF grants and in some cases by directedsupport from the Ford Foundation, they encouraged and stimulated extensive use of the computational facility for classroom use and forstudent thesis research.It is well known that the technology of automation is in a constant state of change, a factthat the university administrators of financehave discovered without the slightest need fora knowledge of the computer. Thus, the universities with computing centers have faced theneed periodically to expand or improve theperformance of their facilities. Those that havestayed abreast of the increasing size and complexity of the computational needs required forstudent instruction and, at the same time, haveattempted to respond to the increasing demandsfrom their research facilities have progressedthrough a series of computer generations. Depending upon the point in time of their beginning, the chronology of machine types encountered can be outlined as follows:Zeroth Generation (c. 1948-1954) : Calculators requiring plugboard wiring for programming and printing. Ex. IBM 602A,604, CPC.First Generation (c. 1954-1960) : Vacuumtube, stored-program digital computers. Ex.IBM 650, 704, 709.Second Generation (c. 1960-1966): Solid-state computers with faster memories andoperating systems. Ex. IBM 7040, 7090,7094.Third Generation (c. 1966-1971): Integratedcircuit computers with larger, faster memories, mass storage, but principally complicated operating systems to handle general-purpose processing of all types. Provision30for multi-programming and time-sharing,Ex. IBM System 360/Model 65, 67, 75, 91.Latest Generation (1971 ): Improvements in third generation hardware witheconomies of cost. Ex. IBM System 370/Model 155, 165, 195.With every transition from one generation ofcomputer to another, the computing centersand, indeed, their users have experienced avarying amount of trauma. Without a doubtthe change from the second generation of IBMmachines to the third was the most costly to thecomputing centers and the users with respectto program conversion and personnel retraining.The magnitude of the problem created by thischange was because of (1) the wide compatibility gap between machines of different generations, (2) the immense size of the libraries ofindependent programs accumulated by the centers and their users, and (3) the increase in thecomplexity of the operating system of thirdgeneration computers.Almost without exception, university computing centers and their users moving into thethird generation of machines with new operating systems, unbugged conversions, and an unseasoned operating staff experienced the agoniesof disruption and unanticipated costs threefoldin some cases, even in spite of provisions foran extended overlap with second-generationequipment.The transition from a second generation IBM7000 series machine to the 360/65 has been aparticularly traumatic experience for most largeschools. This machine is a medium-capacitygeneral-purpose computer with a broad rangeof application software. It operates under anOperating System (OS) which is an order ofmagnitude more complex than the operatingsystem for previous generation machines (several hundred thousand instructions in the second generation operating system called IBSYSversus several million in OS). The generalityand complexity of 3 60/ OS requires that userslearn a new language called JCL. The masteryof this language requires, in addition to learninga cumbersome syntax, a knowledge of the physical characteristics of the computer system andhas proved a serious barrier to conversion fornon-professional computer users. These problems have universally led to bitter complaintsand a level of frustration which sensitizes usersto other annoyances which would otherwise beoverlooked. During the transition period, computer staffswere faced with the problem of mastering thenew system, training the users to cope withthe system, and dealing with system instabilitiesand performance problems which follow fromcomplexity. However, with perseverance andsound management, staffs of the computingcenters affected by the change were trained tocope with the new system, users mastered thenew environment and discovered that they coulddo more easily many things that were oncetedious, and the general level of frustrationsubsided to the point where attitudes becamecongenial and the work productive.III. Some Present Difficulties atThe University of ChicagoOur discussions with faculty and staff broughtout certain persistent problems at The University of Chicago Computation Center. In theexperience of our committee members at otherinstitutions, it is the general belief that no center can satisfy all needs. Computing systemswhich are designed to process programs withlarge storage requirements over long uninterrupted periods of processing time are not wellsuited to handle those with the real-time requirements for fast response to external interrupts.The converse is equally true.The equipment and software configuration atThe University of Chicago Computation Center,as in many universities with installations ofcomparable size, is more adequately suited forproblems whose requirements fall well withinthe two extremes cited. However, there existat the University investigators for research projects who have extremely large computationalrequirements and who therefore do have legitimate concerns regarding the availability ofacceptable computational services (see below,Super-Computers). There also exists a need bysome investigators for special-purpose computers for real-time experimentation, data collection and compression, transformation ofinformation from analogue to digital formats,etc. (see below, Special-Purpose Computers).It is the opinion of the Committee that a central computer facility should be dedicated tothe maximization of its services with respectto the entire university community of purposeful users of the computer. Under this guidingthesis, our list, then, contains what are regardedas the most serious problems related to TheUniversity of Chicago Center.31It is the judgment of the Committee that theconsolidation of all data processing equipmentat The University of Chicago under one directorwith a strong, independent administrative staffis sound management of expensive resources.However, no attempt was made by the Committee to review critically the organizationalproblems with personnel, equipment, or logistics which might have arisen by merging theadministrative data processing under this onehead. It is the consensus of the Committee thatproblems which might exist that are related tothese latter computational services are, exceptpossibly for security and scheduling, not uniquefrom those which are encountered by manyother users of the computer.We shall now attempt to outline some of themajor difficulties as we see them; the separatelisting should not obscure the fact that manyare intimately interwoven, as will be obviousin the analysis.1. User Problemsa. Pricingb. Problems with the 3 60/ Model 65c. Other problemsd. Communication problems2. Computation Center Morale3, Policy Committee4. Education Usesa. University supportb. Undergraduate and graduateeducationc. Computer Science5. Administrative Uses of Computers6. Support of Special User Needsa. Time-sharingb. Super-computerc. Special-purpose computersA brief discussion of these subjects follows.1. User Problemsa. Pricing. Almost without exception therewas decided unhappiness on the part of userswith the pricing structure at the ComputationCenter. Rates were described as being (1) toohigh (especially when compared with a numberof other university, government, and industrialfacilities), (2) erratic, in that the same jobwould be charged different amounts in differentcomputer runs, (3) out of proportion for whatwas needed to recover costs. Many investigators stated that their budgetedfunds were inadequate to get their computational work done. In third generation systems,pricing is far more complex than most usersrealize. This subject is further discussed in section IV, 3, where a number of recommendationsare also made.b. Problems with the 360/ Model 65. In several respects, the trauma of transition to the360/65 has been magnified and prolonged atThe University of Chicago. First, the institution retained its second generation equipmentlonger than most institutions and developed agreater investment in programming systems andapplications packages written in assembly language than probably any other institution. Theseapplication programs are the most difficult andexpensive to convert. Second, the transitionto third generation equipment has occurred viaa series of hardware and software transitionswhich have not resulted in a stable configuration. Users of the 7094 have had little incentiveto convert and users of the 360 system havebeen faced with a series of conversions whichare not yet at an end.The decision to support the 7094 with jobscheduling and spooling services from the 360/65 has necessitated the use of a control program called ASP on the 360/65. EmployingASP on a hardware configuration with inadequate high speed core to support it has resultedin something like 50 percent of the availablecapacity of the 360/65 being lost to programsrunning on the 360/65. It has also burdenedthe system staff with maintaining another complex system with local modifications.c. Other Problems. Many of the complaintsof the users of the Computation Center are notunique in kind from those voiced by the elite,highly motivated, aggressively impatient sets ofacademicians at any of the other universitieswhich must depend on the services of an extra-parochial facility in their pursuits of scholarlyaims. The Committee has therefore attemptedto determine from its series of interviews anddiscussions with the staff members of the university, by means of common criticisms, whatcan justifiably be considered deficiencies inthe computational services available from theCenter.The Committee places considerable emphasison the fact that many of the extant causes ofdiscontent with the services of the computingfacility are there because of the University'slateness in moving to the third generation equip-32ment. Many of the large universities that appearprovided with better computing systems madethe transitions at an earlier time; some begantheir conversions to IBM 360 systems as earlyas 1966. Their problems, when measured interms of the present expectations of serviceresponsiveness, reliability, and cost effectiveness, were not less in magnitude. But they havelong since attained reasonable stability for theiroperating systems and staff, and have passedthrough the upheavals caused by program conversions.The common dissatisfactions that appear toprevail throughout the criticisms voiced by theregular users of the system are (1) the relatively high cost of the computational service,(2) variability of costs in running identicaljobs, (3) system instabilities and unreliability,(4) lack of timely information on the short-range decisions on system changes and the lackof any information on the direction of long-range planning, (5) comparatively long turnaround time for most production jobs, and (6)the inability to run certain kinds of jobs, particularly time-sharing the computer and its program library from a terminal in an interactivemode.There is a uniformity of complaints by theusers over excessive costs as compared withthose for comparable services at other university and government installations. Wide variances have been experienced in the cost ofperforming the same job, and frequent changesin the charge algorithm have taken place. Thehigh costs have led to difficulties in obtainingadequate funds for computation services orsponsored research and, because of the variability, difficulty in making reliable estimates ofcost. Much of the unpredictability of projectbudgeting for computer costs has been causedby an evolving cost mechanism for processingand the addition of charges for the severalperipheral services — in many of the cases cited,during the grant award periods.The large users of the computer appearedgenerally discontented with the frequent systemcrashes and attending losses of personnel timeand effort. This was coupled with the frustrationof not receiving adequate forewarning of theplanned system changes, and thus adequate forewarning of possible extended shutdowns fordebugging purposes. There was an implied needfor the user with special or unusually demanding time-schedule requirements to be consideredin a decision which involved the likelihood of these system disruptions. It was the consensusof the users that neither the Policy Committeenor the Users Group was effectual in establishing the appropriate level of administrative policy,or an effective avenue of communication.There were very special concerns expressedbecause of the lack of information on the. long-range plans for the Computation Center. It isaxiomatic that the destiny of a project of long-term duration can be vitally dependent upon thestability of the operating system for which theproject's computer programs are prepared withthe available funds. The role of the Computation Center as a collaborator in research projectswith these demands (e.g., the instrumentedsatellite flights to the planet Mars with LASR)certainly requires the charting of a course forthe future.d. Communication Problems. In any complexorganization, when a channel of communicationbecomes clogged the effects can be far-reaching.Such a trite observation may seem out of placeand hardly illuminating, but in an organizationsuch as the University that is composed of manyhighly autonomous units, the fact requires veryspecial consideration, And above all, this is truewith reference to the Computation Center, whichrelates to so many of these highly autonomousgroups. The general user felt his needs weregiven little or no consideration, by either theCenter or the Policy Committee, and that, ofthe members of the Policy Committee, somehad little interest in the Center, and others hadspecial interests of their own which they cultivated to the detriment of other users.The fact of the matter seems to be that theCenter's administration was placed in the impossible situation of being faced with conflicting and irreconcilable demands without havingthe authority or power to deal with any.2. Computation Center MoraleOne problem that forced itself upon our attention, although we had not thought it a matter forus to investigate, was that of the morale amongthe employees of the Center. Morale is multidimensional, and not easily measured in anydimension, to say nothing of finding a single,common unit. At first we had the impressionthat the low morale was a recent development,but it soon appeared to us that it had merelychanged form and was affecting differing individuals, and for different reasons. Since currentevents and not ancient history are our concern,it is enough to say here that the major source33of the present difficulty is inadequate information, and this is to be understood in a verybroad sense, including but not restricted to information that might come from adequatecommunication: with users, with the Center'sadministration, with the administration of theUniversity, even among groups in the Center.There was at least one case in which a statement made at a certain level of the Center'sadministration was misunderstood at " lowerlevels, with unfortunate results. There was acase of a dismissal that aroused great indignation, although to us the grounds seemed completely adequate. Was this faulty communication,or something like the generation gap that seemsunbridgeable? Perhaps a bit of both, but perhaps even more, and more significantly, asymptom of a general malaise, of insecurity, ofuncertainty as to whether the Computationcenter is to remain a permanent part of TheUniversity of Chicago to be nourished andcherished, or is considered a tumor, possiblybenign but still a tumor, to be excised at theearliest opportunity.Another factor perhaps also deserves mention. This is that the junior employees seem tohave little conception of how other centersoperate; little appreciation of the fact that manyof the problems they encounter are ubiquitous;no basis for evaluating the procedures that areor are not in practice at Chicago in the light ofexperience gained elsewhere. It is not to beexpected that all junior employees be requiredto make periodic visits to other academic (orindustrial) centers, but it would be helpful ifsome key juniors were given an opportunity todo so and encouraged to participate in nationalusers organization meetings such as SHARE.3. Policy CommitteeAs a center for intellectual development,which includes discovery, creation, evaluation,and the development of the faculty for each,probably the greatest strength and the greatestweakness of The University of Chicago lie in thehigh degree of autonomy enjoyed by its members. This observation is perhaps as trite as theone made earlier concerning communication,but again the Computation Center seems peculiarly vulnerable. To say that the University iscomposed of prima donnas and stagehandswould be a caricature, but not a gross one.Among the stagehands are the employees of theCenter, including its director. They serve notjust two masters, but many. It is imperative that the multitudinous, conflicting, often irreconcilable demands be mediated, arbitrated, andchanneled at a higher level. No doubt, thePolicy Committee was intended to serve as sucha channel, but it has not been effective in thatway. The Director of the Center, and still moreso the staff members, should be completelyshielded, as they have not been in the past,from the battles that rage among the conflictinggroups, each with its own special set of demands.These conflicts should be reconciled, or arbitrated, or settled by fiat, at a higher level andthe decision channeled through a member ofthe academic community to whom alone theDirector is responsible. A possible mechanismwill be suggested below.4. Educational Usesa. University Support. In recent years TheUniversity of Chicago has supported the operation of the Computation Center through absorption of the annual deficit, a portion of which,in principle, was allocable to courses in theundergraduate and graduate schools as well asto a limited number of faculty members. It isthe Committee's feeling that the knowledge ofthis type of support was not sufficiently widespread. Furthermore, we believe that the University's approach should be a positive one inthis area, namely, an openly stated commitmentwithin the bounds of its capability, for supportof educational uses of the computer on theundergraduate and graduate levels as well assupport for otherwise unsponsored research,again with reasonable limitations and guidelinesas to the choice of such subventions.A further positive attitude would be manifestin recognizing this as University support ratherthan as deficit spending because of the otherwise psychological implications: (1) that mismanagement on the part of the ComputationCenter was involved, (2) that the use of resources had not been adequately planned for.This attitude would be a recognition of the rolewhich computers play in the University today.In support of this attitude the Committeestrongly recommends that each department,during its normal budget cycle, should budgetappropriately for computer use. This is furtherdiscussed in section IV, 7.b. Undergraduate and Graduate Education.The number of students receiving education inthe use of computers, except in the GraduateSchool of Business, seems unusually small.Some 25-30 students are enrolled each quarter34in a course in programming and some 60 students per quarter are taking programmingcourses related to business applications. Moreis said about this in the following section aswell as in section IV, 7.c. Computer Science. We unfortunately didnot have time or opportunity to examine in anydetail the research program of the Institute forComputer Research or the instructional program of the Committee on Information Sciences.But the very paucity of our information, alongwith some direct clues, convinces us that TheUniversity of Chicago has very little to offer theundergraduate, and not enough to offer thegraduate student who is interested in ComputerScience. To develop a plea for the creation ofa much stronger program in Computer Sciencewould perhaps take us too far from the explicitterms of our directive, but the point is by nomeans irrelevant. Related to this was one complaint that there are no students who can behired for part-time, short-term programming.An instance is known to one of us of the sonof a Chicago Ph.D. who enrolled as a freshmanand left after one quarter because he "could notget near the computer." He is now enrolled ata state university where he is quite happy. Thiscase is doubtless typical of many. It is truethat some individual departments give some instruction in the use of the computer, but thisis not enough for the University as a whole.5. Administrative Uses of ComputersSeveral faculty members expressed the fearthat the concurrent use of a single facility forboth academic and administrative uses wouldlead to difficulties with the academic communitysuffering the major inconveniences. Although,as indicated above, we have not gone into thismatter in great detail, it is our firm impressiongained from talks with representatives of administrative data processing and the Computation Center staff that administrative data processing applications are under excellent controlin terms of their own computer systems atpresent and of current development which willlead to the use of the single computer facilitywhen all conversion is complete. More is saidon this subject in section IV, 6.6. Support of Special User Needsa. Timesharing. A very serious weakness ofthe present computing system is its inability tosupport conversational terminals which are available to the user. Need for the flexibility of the remote terminal operating interactively with acomputer has already developed on The University of Chicago campus (e.g., GraduateSchool of Business) and is being provided bypurchasing the service from an outside commercial firm. The students and faculty have madegood use of the conversational mode capabilityof the computer, for example, in the testing andanalysis of economic models. The incapabilityof time-sharing of the 360/65 in the Computation Center while in the conventional batchfrom many interactive, typewriter-like terminalshas restricted somewhat the productiveness ofthe students and faculty of the University.b. Super-Computer. There exists an undoubtedneed on the part of several investigators, particularly in the physical sciences, for a large,fast productive computer. It is clear, however,even among these investigators that the cost ofa facility providing such services is beyond thelimited means of the University. Some suggestions are offered in section IV, 4.c. Special-Purpose Computers. The proliferation of computers outside the Center poses aconstant problem for an institution because itdiverts money and talent from the centralfacility. Since it is not currently possible for onecomputer to economically span the range fromsuper number cruncher to on-line control andgeneral purpose time-sharing, there is justification for computers outside the Center whichprovide for necessary services which the Centercannot provide. The important consideration isthe existence of review mechanisms which allowan institution to coordinate computer use andplanning. Most institutions will not allow computer facilities which duplicate services available at the Center and require that all requisitions for computer equipment or services beapproved by some administrative officer prior tocommitment. This Committee was given theimpression that adequate review procedures donot now exist at The University of Chicago.IV. General Remarks1. The Model 65/7094 ASP SystemThe Evaluation Committee believes that oneof the fundamental sources of complaints is theconsequence of the rather late marriage of thesecond generation 7094 to the third generation65 by way of the ASP operating system. Asmentioned a number of times, all universitycomputation centers have had severe, agonizing,and painful experiences with the transition to35the third generation computers. For most universities, however, these problems arose at theemergence of this generation on the marketaround 1966-1967. During that period therewere steady improvements in hardware andoperating systems. But systems programmershad to go through a long process of learningabout these complex systems while, at the sametime, users were suffering from (1) unstablesystems that went down often, (2) loss of datasets, (3) long turn-arounds, (4) high rates because of poor efficiency of the systems, and(5) the complexities of the new Job ControlLanguage. Complaints at these universities verymuch paralleled a great many of the complaintsnow being made by users at The University ofChicago.Chicago entered the third generation in 1968with a Model 50 and in 1970 with the Model65, in both cases linked to the 7094 throughASP. As the University now knows, the ASPoperating system is grossly inefficient. This discovery was made by several other universitycomputing centers (such as the University ofToronto), some of which discarded the dualsystem several years before. We thus believethat inherent in this system is the cause formany of the common complaints listed above.It is our judgment that one of the first prioritiesis for The University of Chicago to agree on ahardware and software configuration which willresult in a stable environment. The FacilitiesSubcommittee of the Policy Committee hasmade recommendations which, if accepted andconscientiously pursued, would achieve the desired result within a period of six months to oneyear. These recommendations include severingthe on-line connection between the 7094 andthe 360/65. Indeed, the 7094 would in ourview be operated more nearly as a special-purpose machine for those applications with largeinvestments in programs for that machine whichare difficult to convert to the 360/65 (e.g., theprograms related to the work of ProfessorsFischer, Gelfand, Hinze, etc.). These recommendations would also include a phasing-out ofthe operation of the 7094 and the establishmentof a date of its termination, for the indefinitemaintenance of this machine is incompatiblewith any realistic long-range development plansof the Computation Center.With the decision to sever the direct connection between the 7094 and 360/65, the possibility exists to use HASP for spooling and jobscheduling on the 360/65. HASP is simpler and much more efficient than ASP, particularly forhardware configurations like that of The University of Chicago. Over the long run, the flexibility and productivity of the system could begreatly enhanced by replacing LCS with fastercore or by replacing the 360/65 with a computer with more high-speed core. These decisions should be made quickly and announced sothat researchers can plan their future researchcommitments in an orderly manner.2. Computation Center MoraleMention has already been made of the apparent fact that morale seems to be rather lowwithin the Center, and this was attributed tothree factors: (1) faulty communication throughthe vertical channels within the Center, (2)apprehension concerning the future of the Center and hence the security of the staff members,(3) the lack of perspective among the juniormembers. Of these factors the second is by farthe most important.It is not easy for those who are not "in" toappreciate the extent to which the computingfraternity has developed a subculture within theambient society. They are often highly talented(with possibly limited training), highly dedicated (but possibly profane), and hypersensitive. They seldom expect academic distinction(some do, of course, and some achieve it), butneither are they (in spite of inferences thatcould have been drawn from an earlier remark)the hired help. They are a special elite.The point of these remarks is that the staffof a computation center on a campus is a newkind of entity. The members are not academicians, but they share many of the academician'scharacteristics. Hence, morale difficulties areapt to continue to come up from time to time.However, we do feel that the present difficultieswill largely go away if a move is made by theUniversity that will indicate a long-term commitment to the Center.3. PricingIt is generally accepted that the charges madefor the use of the computer and other servicesshould in total recover the budgeted costs ofthe Computation Center. Government regulations on the determination of the rates of chargeto federal support projects for such servicesrequire that the operating costs over a givenfiscal period be shared by all users of thefacility in direct proportion to their use. Butbecause the fiscal period over which the costs36could be recovered was for many years limitedto the span of a calendar year, this policy compounded financial problems faced by the universities when upgrading their computer equipment, for the initial use of a computer whichhas the prerequisite capacity to accomodate theuser growth potential is always below that required for good cost-performance levels. Hence,the recovery of all costs during the first yearsof installation in many instances necessitatedexcessively high charge rates.In recent years the federal government hasbecome more amenable to using a longer baseline for the computation rates. The Board(recommended below) should therefore explorethe possibility of recovering the budgeted costsof the Computation Center over, say, a threeto five-year period in order to make the ratesmore competitive and stable. The fluctuation* ofthe computer rates, as already observed, is asource of irritation to many users who are subject to very carefully planned and fixed budgets.It is important to realize that costing ofcomputer time has become much more complexin third generation systems utilizing multiprogramming or time-sharing. For a long timeit was expedient to determine the charge forprocessing a job on the computer at a ratedepending only on the amount of central processor (CPU) time used. Thus, a user with asmall amount of CPU time and a great deal ofoutput did not pay for these resources of thecomputer system, while the user with a largeamount of CPU time and with a small amountof output was paying for resources he did notemploy.Modern charging techniques are attemptingto make computer charges depend upon theutilization of the system resources in order todistribute the cost more equitably. These resources are, principally:a. CPU timeb. Core memoryc. Peripheral units (tape units, disk drives,printers, card readers, etc.)d. Prioritye. Special servicesFurther, with multi-programming, a number ofprograms reside concurrently in memory, contending for system resources according toestablished priorities. This fact has complicatedthe charging algorithm because utilization ofperipheral devices required by all programsdepends upon the nature of the current activi ties in the computer. Thus, in many earlycharging protocols, the identical job, unchangedin any respect, would generate different chargeswith large variances sometimes exceeding 50per cent. To implement an accounting systemwhich faithfully reproduces each charge precisely would entail too high a cost in computertime. Hence, most algorithms have confinedthemselves to duplicating charges with a tolerance usually not exceeding 5 per cent.This becomes acceptable to the user when heunderstands the basis of the accounting program. To produce accounting with low deviations in reproducibility requires knowledge-ability and sophistication on the part of thesystems staff as well as numerical experimentation with the whole spectrum of the job mix.At the same time the feasibility of differentialrates can be considered. This would includelower rates when the system is underutilized,such as on third shift and weekends, as well aspriorities which would provide faster turnaround at a greater cost to the user or slowerturnaround at lower cost. These are workableprinciples when the computer system is unsaturated and there exist blocks of unused timeon the computer.4. A Super-ComputerSeveral national societies are giving consideration to the feasibility of national computingcenters with super-computers as their principalmachines to handle the requirements of investigators with very large problems. For example,in the field of astronomy, a report has alreadyappeared from the Kitt Peak National Observatory about the desirability of a national facilityfor information retrieval of data. This does notspeak to the specific point of the large numbercrunching problem but does indicate that in thisarea the interest is sufficiently widespread tocommand national attention. More pertinent isa study being made by the Astronomy SurveyCommittee of the National Academy of Scienceswhich is considering the desirability of (1) asingle, national computing facility with a supercomputer, (2) regional computing centers, (3)cooperation in a large national center or inregions with other disciplines in the physicalsciences. Quantum chemists are studying similarpossibilities.Such regional centers have existed in the past,e.g., the AEC computing facility at New YorkUniversity whose computer was made freelyavailable to all AEC contractors in the East. It37would thus appear desirable that those investigators with very large computing problems bein contact with their national societies wherethey can help formulate plans for adequatefacilities.5. Special-Purpose ComputersOur Committee recognizes the need for special-purpose computers, where the central facility is unable to provide the special servicesrequired by the individual investigator. To reiterate, we believe there should, however, bemachinery for review and approval of all requests leading to the purchase or rental ofspecial-purpose computers.This is closely linked with the concept ofcentralizing special-purpose devices that maybe used profitably by many faculty, as forexample, plotters, cathode ray tubes and microfilm recorders. Clearly, special-purpose equipment of this type needs to be reviewed andapproved by the same committee responsiblefor acquisition of the computer itself. This typeof equipment is absolutely vital to many investigations and should be given high priority.At the present time, the biomedical disciplines and the University Hospitals have a largenumber of special-purpose computers. Theseare areas which justifiably use special-purposecomputers in a wide spectrum of data processing, such as pulmonary, obstetrical, cardiologic,hemodynamic, ophthalmologic, otologic, andneurophysiological applications. Much of thework of the hospital is coordinated by theBiomedical Computing Facility (BCF). OurCommittee was not able, for lack of time, togo into detailed study of the computing situation in the medical area. Nevertheless, considering the proliferation of special-purpose computers in the Hospital, which does not seem tohave an overview of long-range plans relevantto computers, we would recommend that acommittee be appointed by the Medical Schoolto review hospital automation and the long-range programs relevant to computers in orderbest to coordinate the resources both presentand planned. Furthermore, this committeeshould investigate the relationship of the variousfacilities with the Computation Center and explore the possibilities of relating to it, for example, as the administrative data processing groupdoes.6. Administrative Data ProcessingThe administrative data processing group canoperate as a user of the central facility along with all other users. Obviously, there are specialproblems. These are: (1) security of the information, (2) priorities, and (3) backup. Eachof these problems can be handled at the centralfacility.Modern computers and operating systemsprovide security during computer operations byproviding keys which will access informationonly when properly used. Furthermore, thesekeys can be changed as often as desired to provide only the responsible people with the requisite information. Special arrangements can bemade, if desired, for the presence, or absence,of personnel when particular information isdeveloped.Priorities can be negotiated with the Center.Most administrative data processing activitiesrequire very little central processor time andmuch input/ output time. In modern multi-programming systems such as are available on theModel 65, these operations can occur simultaneously with other computer operations.Backup is extremely important from twopoints of view: (1) the data must be replicateda sufficient number of times so that the inadvertent loss of a data-set will not be disastrous,(2) there must also be back-up in terms of atleast one available computer in the event thatthe Computation Center facilities break down.This can easily be taken care of in terms ofother 360 systems present in the Chicago area.It does mean, however, that in writing the programs, some thought should be given to compatibility with other 360 computers that couldbe used in just such an emergency.The measures described above are simplysound principles of administrative data processing. We are convinced that the administrativedata processing group is cognizant of these principles and hence can operate in the same environment as academic users without creatingspecial problems for them. In the long run thiswill provide significant savings to the University.7. Unsponsored Research and Educational Usesof ComputersWe have already suggested that the development of a Computer Science Program is worthyof the University's consideration and have mentioned the lack of opportunity for the ordinaryundergraduate to make any contact with thecomputer at all. We hope that the Board recommended in the next section, if established, willgive early consideration to the possibilities forremedying this situation. It is understood, of38course, that any steps in this direction wouldnecessitate certain additional financial commitments by the University to the Center.An additional commitment that the Committee considers to be essential is toward the useof the computer for unsponsored research. Theattitude was expressed that if a research projectwere worth undertaking, then a sponsor couldbe found (NSF, ONR, NIH, what have you).We do not believe that this doctrine was soundeven in the past, when research grants werefairly easy to get, and in these days we are convinced that it is even less so. We have all hadexperience trying to evaluate research proposalsfrom individuals unknown to us, of whom wehad only the meager information on the form.We have all been guilty of making bad mistakesin judgment. A young person who has not yethad an opportunity to make his reputationstands much less chance to get a grant thanone who already has a string of publicationson his record, and his colleagues in his homeuniversity can much more ably evaluate hispotential. It seems to us to be very shortsightedthat his home university would not provide himsome opportunity to show what he can (orcannot) do.We believe that the administration shouldsubsidize educational use of computers, dissertations, and faculty unsponsored research withincarefully defined bounds. Machinery should bedeveloped for a normal budget cycle for suchfunds at the same time department budgets aresubmitted. The proper agency of the universitywill then allocate computing funds to the various departments. Allocations of this type shouldnot be transferable to other budgetary items.Computer time is a perishable commodity — ifnot used it is lost.Vo RecommendationsIt is the conviction of the Evaluation Committee that within the traditional frameworkof The University of Chicago, representing astrong, independent, highly motivated, and concerned faculty, the Computation Center candevelop into an efficient, cost-effective facility,serving a wide spectrum of faculty demands.As we see it, the key to the situation is thegovernance of the Computation Center.The faculty should be responsible for theprincipal hardware and software decisions, forshort-range and long-range planning, for general policies and priorities. We recommend as the instrument for such governance a Boardmade up of nine members of the academiccommunity with overlapping terms of threeyears. The University may wish to give consideration to the possibility that one memberof the Board be one of the financial officers.Perhaps, he should serve in an ex officio capacity. Since a fair amount of work in this connection is required, the Chairman of the Boardshould have no other administrative duties. Inprinciple, the members of the Board should beselected on the basis of (1) their computerknowledgeability and (2) their representationof the best interests of the University. TheBoard should meet not less than once per monthat regularly scheduled meetings. Considerationshould be given by the University to a separatebudget for the Board.Among the important functions of the Boardare:1. The Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the President and Provost with respectto broad university objectives.2. The Board shall review and approve the annual Computation Center budget.3. The Board shall regularly review and approve the pricing structure recommended bythe Director of the Center.4. The Board shall set policies regulating thefunctions of the Computation Center.5. The Board shall keep informed of Computation Center systems development and maintenance programs and the priorities forimplementing them. Users should be keptinformed of developments which affect themwith respect to changes in the operatingsystem.6. The Board shall be responsible for long-range planning for new or modified hardware and software systems.7. The Board shall review and approve the procurement of all computing equipment atThe University of Chicago as well as purchase of computer time outside the Computation Center.8. The Board shall develop mechanisms foreffective communication along several channels: user <-» Computation Center, faculty<r> Board, Board «-> administration.One of the earliest functions of the Boardshould be a fine-tooth-comb review of the Kap-39lansky reports as well as that of the FacilityCommittee. These reports contain a detailedreview of the issues with a number of alternative solutions. In particular the Facility Committee Report should be given serious consideration for adoption. Another possibility for producing a more efficient system with long-rangestability is the purchase of a computer system.VI. AcknowledgmentThe Evaluation Committee wishes to thankthe large number of persons interviewed fromthe administration, faculty, and staff for theircooperation, patience, candor, and effort to inform the Committee dispassionately, accurately,and constructively concerning the problems ofthe Computation Center. It has been our pleasure to have this association.References*1. "Interim Report of the Computer PolicyStudy Committee," The University of Chicago Record, Vol. II, No. 7, p. 1, October22, 19682. "Final Report of the Computer PolicyStudy Committee," The University of Chicago Record, Vol. IV, No. 5, p. 18, August31, 19703. "Report of the Evaluation Committee onthe Department of Statistics," University ofChicago Record, Vol. IV, No. 5, p. 44,August 31, 19704. The University of Chicago, Financial Report 1969/19705. Current and Future Situation in Computation Center, Memorandum to ComputationPolicy Committee from Enrico Fermi Institute Faculty, May 28, 19706. Statement from Long-range Planning Committee, May 28, 19707. Access to a Super Computer Facility, Memorandum to Participants in Discussions fora Super Computer, October 9, from J. A.Simpson, October 9, 19708. Two Unmet Computing Needs, Memorandum from Norman Gelfand to Fred Harris, October 28, 1970 9. Computation Center, Memorandum toDean A. A. Albert from Norman Gelfand,October 28, 197010. "Users Speak Out," University of ChicagoComputation Center Newsletter, Vol. VI,No. 10, p. 12, October, 197011. General Status Report, The University ofChicago, Computation Center, November,197012. "Report of the Evaluation Committee onthe Department of Chemistry," The University of Chicago Record, Vol. V, No. 1,p. 9, January 15, 197113. Computer Usage Report, January 21, 197114. Alternatives for Access to Large-scale Computing Systems, Memorandum to Long-range Planning Subcommittee from FredHarris, February 17, 197115. Computation Center Rate Changes, Approved by the Computer Policy ExecutiveCommittee on February 19, 197116. List of Campus computers, Memorandumto W. B. Cannon from R. L. Ashenhurst,March 17, 197117. James L. Jager, Memorandum to WilliamB. Cannon from Fred Harris, April 1, 197118. Dismissal of Jim Jager, Memorandum toComputer Policy Committee from membersof the Computation Center staff, March 23,197119. Budget of FY 1971-1972 and ProjectedManpower Allocation 1971-197220. Petition from Staff of Computation Center,May 5, 197121. Long Range Plans for the 7094, Memorandum from C. Hadlai Hull, May 26, 197122. A Proposal for HASP, Michael A. Williams, University of Chicago ComputationCenter, May, 1971*To complete the bibliography on this subject, attention is called to a report "Organization and Coordination of Computer Facilities at The Universityof Chicago": a report prepared by Robert L. Ashenhurst April, 1969 and submitted to the ComputerPolicy Committee (ed.).40QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMANFOR AUTUMN, 1971January 18, 1972During the Autumn Quarter the Ombudsman'soffice handled 59 separate cases of somecomplexity, and numerous simpler cases andrequests for information. We have kept confidential records of the first group of cases, andhave maintained information files on a varietyof subjects relevant to the office.Most complaints were brought to the officeby individual students. In other cases, a numberof students had the same grievance, and cameto us either in groups or independently. Undergraduates comprised about three-quarters of thestudents who asked our help, with graduatestudents making up the other 25 per cent. Theproportions of men and women using the officetend to reflect the University's enrollment proportions.In some areas there were quite a few complaints or questions about policy. These includedthe University libraries, the security system, student health services, and discrimination againstwomen. There were also a number of complaints about employment practices. We hadmany questions about the new portions of thegrading system, and a number of requests forthe institution of a vegetarian meal contractin the dormitories.Most complaints about library policy concerned the existing coffee service in Regensteinlibrary. Students believe that the coffee servedin vending machines is inferior, that the existing space for the student lounge is inadequate, and that the physical arrangement is atbest unaesthetic. A temporary fresh coffee service, to be located in the staff lounge, was proposed for the last two weeks of the AutumnQuarter. The library staff was polled about thematter, and it was decided that not enoughsupport existed to justify putting the service inthe staff lounge without further consideration.*A remodelling and enlarging of the existingarea has also been proposed, both by this office* Unfortunately for all concerned, this decision wasreached as the result of only 11 percent dissentingvotes being cast in the poll. and by students. At this time, both suggestionsare under serious consideration, and it is to behoped that a decision will be reached soonby a representative Regenstein staff committee.Ideally, the existing student lounge will be enlarged so that it will be unnecessary to use thestaff lounge to provide students with an adequate coffee service, and so that a student-runcoffee shop could be established to serve thelibrary patrons.The issue of a fresh coffee service surfacedat the same time as a question about the possibility of extending library hours during tenthand exam weeks. The extension of hours wastried as an experiment, and the minibuses werekept running later to accommodate the libraryusers during the later hours. Both services wereused well, with the heaviest use during theweekend. It was possible to determine whichportions of the library's services are, or wouldbe, most heavily used during such an expansionof hours. In accordance with these findings, Ihave recommended that Regenstein library bekept open later, at the end of Winter and Springquarters, and that the minibuses be run lateralso.Several students complained that they hadbeen given retroactive wage cuts when theywere returned to part-time status in the library,after working a full-time summer. It has beenlibrary policy to raise students to permanentfull-time payments in the summer, and to reduce their pay to part-time wage level whenthey return to part-time work. This policy wasoriginally construed as a benefit for students,who would not normally receive wages at ahigher level in the summer. The students involved in this case had their wages cut for atwo week pay period which ended at about thesame time they were informed of the reduction.Through discussions with the library and University personnel officers, it was possible tochange the effective date for the wage adjustment to the following pay-period, and the students in question received 'shift bonuses' tomake up the difference in pay.Since the institution of a stiffer library finestructure, some students have expressed the41opinion that the fines and loan period restrictions now in effect for students be applied tofaculty members as well. I believe there is considerable merit to this suggestion, and althoughthe wrath of many may descend upon me, Istrongly urge the Library Board to considera revision of the policies regarding faculty loanprivileges.In other cases involving the library, this officehas considered the Inter-Library Loan systemas it applies to undergraduates, the process ofand reasons for revoking library privileges,several specific problems of employment withinthe library (wherein four students could notwork at their promised positions, but were eventually placed in other departments of the library), and a case of assessment of fines.Another issue of major interest, which alsoconcerns the library, is the issue of part-timestudent employment. During the Autumn Quarter there were several cases concerning studentemployment, both in the library system and inother parts of the University, which raised theissue of evaluation of student job performance.Traditionally, a student employee has been considered less valuable than a non-student becausethe non-student's primary duties will be to thejob (presumably), rather than to an academiclife. However true or false this may be, I wishto raise the issue of part-time student jobs at atime when a review of job classifications is inprogress in the libraries. Currently, both theUniversity personnel department and the librarypersonnel department are engaged in reviewof the non-professional position classificationsin the library. When the notices to this effectreached the library staff, there were severalstudents who wondered if the result of possiblereclassification on a large scale would be thephasing out of short-term and part-time studentjobs. I have talked extensively with the libraryadministration and with the Personnel Officeabout this question, and while the review hasnot been completed, I think it not inappropriateto make public my recommendations.While the library is the largest employer ofstudents on campus, there are many other areasand departments where students are employedon a part-time basis. When a student's job isclassified in precisely the same system as a non-student's, there is a real danger that the studentas a part-time worker could be eased out of theemployment picture. My concern is for theestablishment of a policy which would guarantee a minimum percentage level for student part-time employment. This proposed policyshould be discussed in other areas of the University, as well as by the library administration,and hopefully would appear in written form inthe future.In the area of University Security, there havebeen some questions about the effectiveness ofthe Security force, and many requests for information about the policies behind its operation.Where possible, I have tried to explain thereasons behind specific practices, such as moving Security officers out of dormitories and onto"beats." In cases where rumors about incidentsin the community or activities of the Securityforce reach this office I have tried to uncoverthe truth of the matter, and to dispel any untrue rumors. For instance, it is fairly commonfor students to hear of an incident of violencein the area, and to suspect that they have notheard the whole story. Thus, I am often asked,"What really happened?" This is indicative oftwo problems — the well-reasoned hesitancy onthe part of Security to reveal details of any'incident' in an effort to protect the peopleinvolved, and the consequent suspicion on thepart of students that they are given a false orincomplete account.Some residents of Woodward Court complained to me that the doors to the central unitwere being locked after 1:00 A.M., and thatthey had to pound on the door to be admittedto the area. They believed that a loud doorbellarrangement would prove a more satisfactoryway of getting the attention of the night clerk,and would at the same time offer more securitythan the issuing of keys to the central unit toeach resident of Woodward Court. Accordingly,I have recommended to Mr. Turkington thatdoorbells be installed in the central unit, andI understand that they have been installed.Nearly every student who has commented tome on security in Hyde Park has mentionedhis or her desire for more emergency telephones. Specifically, these students see the needfor call boxes north of 55th Street. There aredifficulties in this suggestion, such as the needfor University Security to avoid becoming acommunity police force, and the fear that, ifmore call boxes were installed, security mightneed to spread its existing coverage out toomuch.In view of the fact that there are Universitybuildings located north of 55th Street, I cansee no reason why call boxes could not belocated at those sites. In addition, it might be42possible to obtain permission from staff andfaculty members who own homes in the areato locate emergency telephones on their property. This has been done south of 55th Street,and could conceivably be done in other areaswhere the Security cars patrol as well.Emergency telephones function as deterrentsto crime and as reassuring evidence of Security's patrol coverage. That the use of thesetelephones north of 55th Street might requireadditional coverage should indicate only thatmore coverage is needed, rather than that existing patrols must be spread out more thinly. Onan experimental basis, five or six emergencytelephones will be installed in the lobbies ofmarried student housing buildings north of 55thStreet. Discussion on this subject is continuing,and I wish this report to indicate that themeasure is a desirable and needed enhancementof Security provisions. These telephones willbe available from the street, and should helpto demonstrate the usefulness of the telephonesin the areas.In the area of Student Health, this officedealt with several cases during the AutumnQuarter. In two cases, one involving the gynecology clinic, and one involving the referralof a student to one of the other clinics, therewere indications that more explicit communication between the personnel in the StudentHealth Services and the students is needed. Thebreakdown in communication seems to occurin two areas. Students may be unfamiliar withthe administrative procedures employed, or theymay wish to know more information than thedoctor volunteers about their physical conditions. Every effort should be made to providestudents with information where appropriateabout the Student Health Services and Clinicsadministrative procedures. Also, after seeing astudent in the Health Service, doctors shouldcommunicate to him or her as much as isreasonably possible about the results of theexamination. Needless to say, students shouldbe encouraged to ask questions about medicalor bureaucratic procedure.In a span of several days we received a number of complaints about the telephone answeringservice for the gynecology clinic. After conferring with Dr. Burks and his staff, it was discovered that the telephone answering servicehad improper instructions about switching calls.This situation was corrected by Dr. Burks.Even so, it was difficult to make appointmentsthrough the answering service. Now, it is pos sible to do so, but all questions about theclinic's service must be answered by the clinicstaff.Two complaints concerning the hospitals wereabout billing; in one case, a misplaced decimalpoint shot the X-ray figure into the hundreds.In another, the Blue Cross-Blue Shield policywas not clear either to the student or to thehospital personnel who initially advised himabout its implications. This case points, again,to the need for the dissemination of more accurate information regarding policy and procedure in the hospitals and clinics.The subject of discrimination against womencame up in connection with several differentcases in the Autumn quarter. In the area ofathletics, the intramural program was expandedto offer coeducated intramural competition, inaddition to men's and women's intramuralsports.The men's intramural division, which offerstwenty-four different intramural events eachyear, is administering a nearly parallel coeducated intramural program. Contact sports areexcluded from the coed intramural program.This arrangement means it is possible for therelatively small number of women who are interested in intramural sports to find a widervariety of areas in which to compete.Several women complained that, althoughthey were allowed to use facilities at BartlettGymnasium, there was no adequate lockerroom facility for women. Further investigationhas shown that the space is indeed small, butthat the gymnasium is generally cramped forlocker room space. The existing space is beingused as well as it can be, for the time being,and six additional lockers have been installed.A renovation of the area has been proposedfor this summer.Interest in men's and women's athletics isbeginning to increase on this campus, both invarsity and intramural competition. I believethat this growing interest should be fosteredwhere possible by the .improvement of existingfacilities, and perhaps by increasing the budgetsof the physical education departments. Thus,more opportunities for athletic participationcould be provided for an interested group ofgrowing size. It is important to remember thatthe women's division, although smaller thanthe men's, is also showing an increase in thenumber of participants. The varsity teams inboth divisions, for instance, should be givenequally serious evaluation when the time comes43to consider sending a good team to tournamentcompetition.A female student complained that she hadbeen discriminated against when she was refused a job on the basis of her sex. The hospital personnel department was very helpful inimmediately recognizing and correcting the situation, and a woman was hired for the position.All suspected cases of discrimination shouldbe reported to the appropriate committee orofficer in the President's office, or brought tothe attention of this office for investigation andreferral.Some women wondered about the fairnessof the swimming tests administered to femalestudents. Women are required to swim twiceas far as men in order to pass the test andavoid a mandatory swimming requirement. Aninvestigation revealed that women are requiredto do fewer different strokes than men, andthat men are thus required to do the moredemanding 'power' strokes, where women arenot. Associate Ombudsman Bonnie Janda, whois qualified as a Water Safety Instructor, believes that the women's test is physically aneasier one than the men's. However, it is nowpossible for women to choose to take the masculine variant of the swimming test instead ofthe traditional test for females.As the result of College Council legislation,the newly-instituted undergraduate grading sys*tern asks the Registrar to administer an "F"in the case where a blank grade is turned in bya professor, or where an "Incomplete" is turnedin without the necessary accompanying forms.This measure was intended to make the tighterregulations governing "Incompletes" more effective, by ensuring that blank grades couldnot be employed to replace the traditionallyeasy-to-obtain "I." In my opinion, the Registrarshould not be allowed to administer a grade ofsuch negative value which does not representan academic judgment, without in some waynoting that the "F" is a "technical F," as opposed to a "professor's F." After conferringwith the Dean of Undergraduate Students andthe Registrar, it was made possible for theRegistrar's office to list such administrative"F's" as "F*," and to print out an instructionto the student to see the professor. The studentand professor are then allowed about five weeksto change the grade before it becomes a permanent "F" on the transcript.Students requesting a vegetarian meal contract in the dormitories also visited this office during the Autumn quarter. Due to logisticalcomplications and the high cost of providinga minority group with a special meal contract,the idea proved economically impractical. Students who want to live in the housing systemand wish to maintain a special diet, will haveto consider moving into a dorm which doesnot require a meal contract. As the number ofvegetarians on campus grows, this picture maychange, and it will be possible to consider providing vegetarian fare at one of the dormswhich offers meal contracts.In other cases:— we are investigating the possibility of improving bicycle security on campus.— attempts are being made to establish listsof professors who will be information sourcesfor students applying to graduate schools. Eachundergraduate division is working separately onthis project.— a limited number of waterbeds are beingallowed in dorms. For purposes of safety, theymust be registered with the housing office.— assessment of non-refundable chemistrylaboratory fees is being investigated. The complaint is that the fees represent an inequitablehike in tuition.I had occasion this quarter to be present ata hearing before the undergraduate disciplinarycommittee. Without expressing any opinionabout the particular decision reached by thecommittee, I wish to say that I was favorablyimpressed with the committee's procedural handling of the case.Finally, the subject of drug use in Universitydormitories has been raised in conversationswith both students and administrators. Whileresident heads' views of their duties may varyfrom house to house, the University policy ondrugs is clear and is stated in the 1971-72 Student Handbook as follows:The use or distribution of hallucinogenicdrugs, such as marijuana and LSD, willnot be tolerated on the University campus or elsewhere on its property. Infractions will result in disciplinary actionby the University which may lead tosuspension or dismissal.I can only add that students would be wise totake this policy very seriously.Anne B. MosesStudent Ombudsman44FINAL REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR 1970-71In this postscript I intend to touch on a fewmatters of unfinished business from my termas ombudsman.The selection of the new ombudsman seemedto me both reasonably efficient for a committeeproceeding and extremely fair; I see no reasonto propose changes in the present procedure.However, I am somewhat less contented aboutcertain other matters.First of all, towards the end of last springa husband and wife, acting as resident headsin one of the major complexes, were in effectdeprived of their jobs very late in the SpringQuarter. This deprivation, whether or not itwas justified, came so late — and was based onso little hard evidence — that it provoked reservations about the system under which theResident Master of their complex did not recommend reappointment. It seemed to me thatthe responsibilities of the Resident Mastershould involve a far more searching and competent appraisal of resident heads' performancethan took place. Moreover, it should be madepublicly clear — and has been made more clearthis year by the housing office — that residentheads are in office only so long as they meetstringent criteria. Certainly, late dismissals, withthe consequent ill-will and distrust in dormitories affected, should be avoided in future.Second, it seems clear to me from a numberof conversations with both students and administrators that the University needs some kindof crafts center. Student interest in variouscrafts is extremely high, and a central locationat which to engage in them would probablybe heavily used even if it constituted only aplace in which messes — reasonable messes —could be made. Any contributions of tools,materials, instruction, etc., would be helpful,but the place is the most necessary thing, sincemany students now engage in arts and craftsin uncomfortable and inconvenient places.Third, I would like to report the results ofmy investigation of the Student Activities office. I compared the operation here with thoseat a number of other schools and talked withstudents who had dealt extensively with StudentActivities. I concluded that the unpopularityof the office among some students grew in part from flaws in its operation, but also from theidiosyncrasies of some of the students involved.I formulated my criticisms and communicatedthem to the Director of Student Activities, andI hope and believe that he will act on the basisof them.The present Ombudsman is continuing towork with the Student Activities Office on improving its relationships with students. Moreover, certain very significant improvements,which were suggested not by me but by DouglasKissel, among others, have already begun totake effect. While the format of last spring'sMaroon treatment of Student Activities maynot have been in the best of taste, its forceful-ness seems to have borne fruit. The specificcharges made last year about Skip Landt'shandling of the Beaux Arts ball were, so faras I could determine, without factual basis.I will conclude by printing the followingletter, which my assistant, Jerry Culp, gave meat the end of his time in the Ombudsman'soffice. I find it a disturbing letter, and one towhich it is not easy to respond. But at leastpart of the function of a university ombudsmanshould be to raise just such disturbing questions.Dear Tony,I have enjoyed the opportunity to workclosely with you this year as your associate. I believe we can rightfully be satisfied with the job we have done. But thereis one problem we have not solved. ThisUniversity is supposed to be a forum fornew ideas and thoughts. Increasingly I havefound that students whom I respect havehad ideas dismissed when they shouldhave been discussed. This is particularlytrue of black students who hold 'radical'or 'militant' viewpoints. We have to encourage teachers and students to make thisa really open community. If we do not,this may well become a more quiet andpeaceful place, but certainly will becomeless black.Jerry CulpAssociate Ombudsman, 1970-71Finally, I would like to thank the manyadministrators and other members of the Uni-45versity community whose cooperation made myterm as ombudsman more pleasant and moreprofitable than I had expected. While it seemsinappropriate to mention names, I hope thatthose to whom I am grateful will know that Iam addressing them.Tony GraftonStudent Ombudsman, 1970-7146 DEANSCOLLEGEDean of the College:Roger H. HildebrandAssociate Dean:Leonard OlsenMaster and Associate Dean,Physical Sciences Collegiate Division:Robert N. ClaytonMaster and Associate Dean,Social Sciences Collegiate Division:Norman M. BradburnMaster and Associate Dean,Biological Sciences Collegiate Division:Arnold W. RavinMaster and Associate Dean,New Collegiate Division:Charles W. WegenerMaster and Associate Dean,Humanities Collegiate Division:Warner A. WickDean of Undergraduate Students:Lorn a P. StrausAssistant Dean of Undergraduate Students:Robert SteinAssistant to the Dean of UndergraduateStudents:Enid RieserDIVISIONS:Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of MedicineDean:Dr. Leon O. JacobsonDeputy Dean for Medical Affairs andChief of Staff:Dr. Joseph B. KirsnerDeputy Dean for the Basic Sciences:Robert B. UretzDeputy Dean for Academic Affairs of theClinical Departments:Dr. Cornelius W. VermeulenAssociate Dean:Arnold W. RavinAssociate Dean for Curriculum:Donald A. FischmanOFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITYPresident:Edward H. LeviAssistant to the President:Jonathan KleinbardProvost:John T. WilsonAssistant to the Provost:Ben RothblattVice-President for Business and Finance:Gilbert L. Lee, Jr.Vice-President for Development:Michael E. ClaffeyAssistant Vice-Presidents for Development:Vance Johnson, Linda ThorenAssistant to the Vice-Presidentfor Development:Alexandria LevedahlVice-President for Planning:Walter L. WalkerAssistant to the Vice-President for Planning:Patrick L. MayersVice-President for Programs and Projects:William B. CannonAssistant Vice-Presidents:Cedric L. Chernick, Alan C. SwanVice-President for Public Affairs:Eddie N. WilliamsAssistant to the Vice-President forPublic Affairs:Paul GappTreasurer:Richard M. BurridgeComptroller:Harold E. BellSecretary of the Board:Walter V. LeenDean of Students:Joseph J. CeithamlHumanitiesDean:Robert E. StreeterAssociate Dean:Warner A. WickDean of Students:Nancy P. HelmboldPhysical SciencesDean:Albert V. CreweAssociate Deans:Robert N. ClaytonJulian R. GoldsmithDean of Students:Sol H. KrasnerSocial SciencesDean:Robert McC. AdamsAssistant to the Dean:Marie MoeDean of Students:Reuben W. SmithPROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS:Graduate School of BusinessDean:Sidney DavidsonAssociate Dean:Gary D. EppenAssistant Deans:James M. HopperLouise ForsythJoseph D. La RueDean of Students:Harold R. MetcalfAssociate Dean of Students:Richard J. ThainAssociate Dean of Students:Barry L. PlotkinDivinity SchoolDean:Joseph M. KitagawaAssociate Dean:Martin E. Marty Assistant Dean and Dean of Students:William N. WeaverAssistant Dean of Students:Larry L. GreenfieldAssistant to the Dean(Alumni Relations and Development):Charlotte VikstromGraduate School of EducationDean:J. Alan ThomasAssociate Dean:Arthur E. WiseDean of Students:Kenneth J. RehageAssistant Deans of Students:Frances BeckClyde P. WatkinsLaw SchoolDean:Phil C. NealAssistant Dean and Dean of Students:Nicholas J. BosenAssistant Deans:Richard I. BadgerFrank L. EllsworthGraduate Library SchoolDean:Don R. SwansonDean of Students:Ralph W. FranklinSchool of Social Service AdministrationDean:Harold A. RichmanAssociate Dean:John R. SchuermanAssistant Deans:Joseph F. SheridanErnestina AlexanderDean of Students:Donald W. BelessUNIVERSITY EXTENSIONDean:C. Ranlet LincolnAssistant Dean:Joan Cowan47ROCKEFELLER MEMORIAL CHAPELDean:Rev. E. Spencer ParsonsAssistant Dean:Rev. Bernard O. BrownDEAN OF STUDENTS OFFICEDean:Charles D. O'ConnellAssistant Deans of Students:Anita S. SandkeMargaret E. PerryJames W. ViceEdward TurkingtonAssistant to the Dean of Students forForeign Admissions and Foreign Study:Cassandra A. PyleAssistant to the Dean of Students forGraduate Admissions and Fellowships:Judith PearlmanAssistant to the Dean of Students forGraduate Admissions:Chester J. RempsonAssistant to the Dean of Students forStudents for Government Fellowships:Joan Guard Biology:William K. BakerBiophysics:Robert HaselkornChemistry:Stuart A. RiceClassical Languages and Literatures:Anne P. Burnett (on leave of absence)Edward L. Bassett (acting)Comparative Studies in Literature(Committee) :Edward WasiolekConceptual Foundations of Science(Committee) :Dudley ShapereEconomics:D. Gale JohnsonEducation:J. Alan ThomasEnglish:Gwin J. KolbEvolutionary Biology (Committee):Richard C. LewontinFar Eastern Languages and Civilizations:Edwin McClellanFar Eastern Studies (Committee) :Philip A. KuhnGeneral Studies in the Humanities(Committee) :John G. CaweltiGenetics (Committee):Bernard S. StraussGeography:Marvin W. MikesellGeophysical Sciences:George W. PlatzmanGermanic Languages and Literatures:Kenneth J. NorthcottHistory:Karl F. MorrisonHistory of Culture (Committee) :Karl J. WeintraubHuman Development (Committee) :Bernice L. NeugartenInformation Sciences (Committee):Robert L. AshenhurstInternational Relations (Committee):Morton A. KaplanDEPARTMENT AND COMMITTEECHAIRMENAfrican Studies (Committee) :Charles H. LongAnalysis of Ideas and Study of Methods(Committee) :Theodore SilversteinAnatomy:Dr. Ronald SingerAnesthesiology:Dr. Harry J. LoweAnthropology:Bernard S. CohnArt:Robert L. ScrantonAstronomy & Astrophysics, Yerkes Laboratory:Charles R. O'DellBiochemistry:Earl A. Evans, Jr.48Linguistics:Norman H. Zide (on leave of absence)Howard Aronson (Acting)Mathematics:Felix E. BrowderMedicine:Dr. Alvin R. TarlovMicrobiology:Bernard S. StraussMusic:Howard M. BrownNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations:John A. BrinkmanNew Nations (Committee):Lloyd A. FallersNew Testament and Early Christian Literature:Allen P. WikgrenObstetrics and Gynecology:Dr. Frederick P. ZuspanOphthalmology:Dr. Frank W. NewellPathology:Dr. Robert W. WisslerPediatrics :Dr. Albert DorfmanPharmacology:Dr. Lloyd J. RothPhilosophy:Leonard LinskyPhysics:Eugene N. ParkerPhysiology:Edwin W. Taylor (Acting)Political Science:Aristide R. ZolbergPsychiatry:Dr. Daniel X. FreedmanPsychology:Howard MoltzRadiology:Dr. Alexander GottschalkRomance Languages and Literatures:George HaleySlavic Area Studies (Committee) :Jeremy R. AzraelSlavic Languages and Literatures:Edward Wasiolek Social Thought (Committee) :Saul BellowSociology:Morris JanowitzSouth Asian Languages and Civilizations:J. A. B. van BuitenenStatistics:William H. KruskalSurgery:Dr. John F. Mull an (Acting)Theoretical Biology:Jack D. CowanVirology (Committee) :Bernard RoizmanCOMMITTEE ON EXTENSIONA Committee on Extension has been named toconsider the subject of University Extension,pointing out possible lines of development, thedifficulties involved, and the appropriateness orinappropriateness of certain opportunities forthe University.Chairman of the Committee is Cyril O.Houle, Professor in the Department of Education. Other committee members are :Lester Asheim, Professor in the GraduateLibrary SchoolMeyer W. Isenberg, Professor of Humanitiesand in the CollegeArthur Mann, the Preston and Sterling MortonProfessor of HistoryBernece K. Simon, Professor of Social ServiceAdministrationSusan S. Stodolsky, Assistant Professor ofMicrobiology and in the CollegeBernard S. Strauss, Professor and Chairmanof Microbiology, in the Committee on Genetics and Professor in the CollegeCOMMITTEE ON INCENTIVES ANDCOLLECTIVE STRENGTHA committee has been named to develop alternative ideas on ways to preserve and develop49the unity and interrelationships among parts ofthe University.Chairman of the Committee is ArnoldZellner, the H.G.B. Alexander Professor inthe Graduate School of Business. Other committee members are:Brian J. L. Berry, Professor of Geography andChairman of the Training Program in theCenter for Urban StudiesDr. Albert Dorfman, Chairman and theRichard T. Crane Distinguished Service Professor of Pediatrics, Director of the Joseph P.Kennedy Jr., Mental Retardation ResearchCenter, and Professor in Biochemistry, theLaRabida-University of Chicago Institute,and the Committee on Genetics.Arthur Friedman, Distinguished Service Professor of English and in the CollegeJulian R. Goldsmith, the Charles E. MerriamDistinguished Service Professor of Geophysical Sciences and in the College, and Associate Dean of the Division of the PhysicalSciencesRobert L. Graves, Professor in the GraduateSchool of Business, the Committee on Information Sciences and the Institute for Computer ResearchElwood V. Jensen, Professor and Director ofthe Ben May Laboratory for Cancer Researchand Professor of PhysiologyDonald F. Lach, the Bernadotte E. SchmittProfessor of HistoryNorval R. Morris, the Julius Kreeger Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Centerfor Studies in Criminal JusticeDr. Ralph F. Naunton, Professor of Surgeryand Chairman of the Section on Otolaryngology.Arthur E. Wise, Associate Dean and AssistantProfessor in the Graduate School of Education, and Assistant Professor and AssistantChairman of the Department of Education.COMMITTEE ON FACULTY ANDUNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPSA Committee has been named to consider theissues, problems, and implications of the relationship of faculty to the University. Chairman of the Committee is Philip B.Kurland, Professor in the Law School. Othermembers of the committee are:Gary S. Becker, University Professor of EconomicsDr. Louis Cohen, Associate Professor of MedicineJames W. Cronin, University Professor ofPhysics and in the Enrico Fermi InstituteEvelyn M. Kitagawa, Professor of Sociologyand Associate Director of the PopulationResearch CenterDr. Robert L. Replogle, Associate Professorof Surgery and Head of the Section on Pediatric SurgerySheldon Sacks, Professor of English and inthe CollegeMichael D. Taylor, Assistant Professor ofArt and in the CollegeJoseph M. Williams, Associate Professor ofEnglish and in the CollegeDr. Robert W. Wissler, Professor and Chairman of Pathology and Professor in the CollegeIra G. Wool, Professor of Physiology andBiochemistryCOMMITTEE ON ACADEMICPROGRAMS AND THE STUDENTA committee has been named to consider therelationship between the University's academicprograms and the intended effects of these programs upon the student.Chairman of the Committee is Peter F.Dembowski, Professor of Romance Languagesand Literatures and in the College. Other committee members are:Winston A. Anderson, Assistant Professor ofAnatomyBenjamin S. Bloom, the Charles H. SwiftDistinguished Service Professor of EducationPhillip C. Hoffmann, Associate Professor ofPharmacology and in the CollegePeter Meyer, Professor of Physics, in theEnrico Fermi Institute, and in the CollegeMichael J. Murrin, Associate Professor ofEnglish and in the College50Norman H. Nachtrieb, Professor of Chemistry, in the James Franck Institute, and in theCollegeTetsuo Najita, Associate Professor of FarEastern Languages and Civilizations and HistoryRichard A. Posner, Professor of LawMargaret K. Rosenheim, Professor of SocialService AdministrationCharles W. Wegener, Professor of Humanities and in the New Collegiate Division, Master of the New Collegiate Division, andAssociate Dean of the CollegeRichard Weisberg, Assistant Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures and in theCollege and the Committee for ComparativeStudies in LiteratureIzaak Wirszup, Professor of Mathematics andin the College and Resident Master of Woodward CourtCOMMITTEE ON MINORITY GROUPSTUDENT CONCERNSThe Committee on Minority Group StudentConcerns is a subcommittee of the Committeeof the Council of the University Senate. It reviews the policies of the University with respectto the admission of students from minoritygroups, the special circumstances in admissionor educational matters which should be takenaccount of, and the initiation or continuance ofappropriate measures to effect the policies.Chairman of the Committee is Harry V.Roberts, Professor in the Graduate School ofBusiness and Lecturer in the Department ofStatistics. Other committee members are:James C. Bruce, Associate Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures and in theCollegeJohn G. Cawelti, Professor of English and inthe College, and Chairman of the Committeeon General Studies in the HumanitiesJames E. Craigen, Assistant Professor of SocialService AdministrationAllison Davis, the John Dewey DistinguishedService Professor of EducationEdgar Epps, the Marshall Field Professor ofUrban Education Dr. Lloyd A. Ferguson, Associate Professorof Medicine, and Assistant Dean, of Studentsin the Division of the Biological Sciences andthe Pritzker School of MedicineJohn Hope Franklin, the John MatthewsManly Distinguished Service Professor ofHistoryRoger H. Hildebrand, Dean of the College,and Professor of Physics and in the EnricoFermi InstituteCharles H. Long, Associate Professor in theDivinity School, Chairman of History andPhilosophy of Religion in the CollegeCharles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students andAssociate Professor in the Humanities Collegiate DivisionHewson H. Swift, Distinguished Service Professor of Biology, in the College, and in theCommittee on GeneticsWalter L. Walker, Vice-President for Planning, Associate Professor of Social Service Administration, and Resident Master, Burton-Judson Courts, Executive SecretaryPRESIDENT'S SEMINAR, 1971-72Upon the recommendations of the deans, Mr.Levi has asked and the following students haveagreed to serve on the President's Seminar.Division of the Biological SciencesRobert P. LorenzDivision of the HumanitiesCarrie Elizabeth CowherdDivision of the Physical SciencesDonald F. HellerDivision of the Social SciencesJohn Palmer HawkinsBiological Sciences Collegiate DivisionEugene R. WedoffPhysical Sciences Collegiate DivisionGeraldine BradeSocial Sciences Collegiate DivisionWilliam S. PollackNew Collegiate DivisionLissa Englander51Graduate School of Business School of Social Service AdministrationGerard Badler Terrence M. DonnellyGraduate School of EducationKent L. GatlingThe Divinity SchoolCharles T. Faulkner Graduate Library SchoolFrancis L. Miksa, Jr.The CollegeThomas J. CampbellThe Law SchoolJeffrey T. KutaTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 300, Administration BuildingHawCI— <Hooat-Ho>oo!»woO *toero*>OQO0oONoON^4z-« o 013 I Dm 5r c iJJ OH o2 ~_ ¦««» 0— CO 0S3 z *2 (00NSI0T1 O m*553f