THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDMarch 17, 1978 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XII, Number 3CONTENTS23 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRESS REPORT, FALL \911—Roy P. Mackal24 ENERGY POLICY 1977/78- William B. Cannon26 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER,1977— Jack D. OhringerSPEECHES FROM THE 58TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNER FORTHE FACULTY28 —"Power and the Corporation"— Ellmore C. Patterson31 — "Management and Money Probably Do Matter"— < John E. Jeuck35 —Introduction of John T. Wilson— Robert W. Reneker36 —"Remarks on the College"-, John T. Wilson42 THE 366TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS: "BOUNDARIES"— A^«7 Harris45 SUMMARY OF THE 366TH CONVOCATION45 ERRATUM45 TRUSTEES' MEMORIAL RESOLUTION: ALBERT PICK, JR.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1978 by The University of Chicago. AH rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRESSREPORT, FALL 1977To: William B. Cannon,Vice-President for Business and FinanceFrom: Roy P. Mackal,University Safety and Energy CoordinatorNovember 16, 1977During the past year, emphasis was placed onbuilding units which use the greatest amounts ofenergy, and specific measures have been implemented or are in progress. Such measures include reduction of lighting levels to Federal Energy Administration standards; adjusting voltages, transformers, and motors to match load anddemand; and a variety of measures designed toreduce energy expenditures for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.In general where appropriate, we are attempting to abide by the following FEA standards.Recommended MaximumLighting LevelsFootcandleTask or Area LevelsHallways or corridors 10Work and circulation areassurrounding work stations 30Normal office work, such asreading and writing (on taskonly) 50Prolonged work which is somewhatdifficult visually (on task only) 75Prolonged work which is visuallydifficult and critical in nature(on task only) 100Temperature guidelines were implemented,with some savings in energy consumption, for thesummer cooling season. Air conditioning wasturned on only when inside temperatures rose to 80°-82° F. These measures produced a reductionin energy consumption in spite of an exceptionallyhot July. In addition, recommendations for themost efficient use of window airconditioners wereprepared by the newly established Office of Energy Management and Conservation (for theestablishment of this office, see below) and distributed to users.Campus-wide programs have begun to reduceventilation and airflow where feasible. Excessiveair changes contribute appreciably toward highenergy consumption.As part of a program to bring lighting to levelsrecommended by the Federal Energy Administration, experiments were carried out by the PlantDepartment to determine how much additionalenergy could be saved by disconnecting ballastsfor fluorescent lighting. Results showed thatalmost as much additional energy can be saved bythis procedure as by removing the lamps themselves. A single ballast is required for each pair of40-watt fluorescent lamps, so that the annual savings for a ten-hour day would be about four dollarsor about forty thousand dollars per ten thousandpairs of fixtures. Disconnecting ballast devices iseasily reversible, so that if a particular area laterdevelops higher light requirements the unusedfixture can be reconnected.Further experiments are in progress to determine the best methods of reducing and distributing available light in compliance with cityelectrical regulations.A heating policy for 1977/78 has been developedbased on last year's experience. Although theUniversity exceeded its 1976/77 utility budget by$355,000, this deficit would have been greater hadit not been for the savings of $85,700 in gas and$102,000 in electricity which occurred as a resultof conservation; the holiday interim temperaturereduction alone yielded a savings of about$27,000. As part of those savings, conservationmeasures actually produced a net decrease in annual gas consumption of 80,648 therms and anelectricity reduction of 960,700 kilowatt hours. It23should be noted that these savings were realizedin spite of one of the coldest winters on record andan increase in gas prices during the year beginningfrom $.1351 per therm to a high of $.2053 pertherm, a 52 percent increase.A variety of meetings and discussions was initiated for the purpose of exploring more extensiveretrofit and larger systems conversion energymeasures; building automated systems; arid computerizing control of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems. Participants included Argonne National Laboratory; International Energy Management (I EM); International Business Machines (IBM); EngineeringSupervision Company (ESCO); MinneapolisHonneywell; Rose and Company; Wallace, Mig-dal, and Drucker. The energy coordinator (seebelow) also met with a variety of faculty and staffmembers for input. The provost appointed a Faculty Energy Committee chaired by L. Whartonand consisting of R. Stephen Berry, J. P. Gould,Charles O'Connell, Stanley Yachnin, and PeterWhite. The mandate to the faculty committee is:to advise the vice-president for business and financeand the provost with respect to policy questionswhich will arise as the University proceeds on astepped-up energy conservation program . . . particularly in the area of relationships between conservation actions and research and education activities.A contract was made with an outside consultantfirm for energy-use surveys of Searle, Social Service Administration, Social Science, and theSteam Plant — for different kinds of energy uses.These surveys are in progress.The vice-president for business and financeestablished an Office of Energy Management andConservation, headed by an energy coordinator,ENERGY POLICY 1977/78To: Deans, Directors, and Heads of Support UnitsFrom: William B. Cannon,Vice-President for Business and FinanceNovember 28, 1977This presents an energy policy plan for the comingmonths. with a staff energy engineer and a systems-analyststatistician. The office has begun a detailedanalysis of energy use by largest specific energyusers.. The new energy office has also begun assisting units which have requested help on implementing energy conservation measures.,,~ Consulting engineering firms are being reviewed to augment the efforts of the energy office.The office has begun to set up energy-use monitoring and the systems analyst has begun computerizing the energy-use data of each of 150 buildings,based on electrical and gas meter readings. Thereadings will provide basic data for systemsanalysis and continued monitoring.Thought and study is also being given to long-range large capital expense projects, includingcogene ration of electricity; alternate types of fuelfor steam generation; nonfossil energy sourcessuch as wind, geothermal, solar; new developments in the state of the art such as HydrogenConversion and Storage System (HYCSOS); central cooling via chilled water distribution; and central automated computer control for part or evenmost of the campus building units.Special attention will be paid to the question ofreconverting to the use of coal.A proposed list of refit and systems-convertitems has been compiled by the Plant Departmentincluding estimated current costs of installation.In this connection, both the Plant Departmentand the Office of Physical Planning and Construction have been alerted to recent federal legislationwhich might provide financial assistance in implementing some of these conservation measures.Roy P. Mackal is University Safety and EnergyCoordinator and a Research Associate in the Department of Biology.During the past fiscal year, in spite of one of theseverest winters on record, the University's conservation efforts resulted in an absolute reductionof electricity and gas consumption of almost 1percent. This experience showed that conservation was possible even under difficult conditions.Yet the cost for that reduced quantity of energywas $1.2 million more than the previous year.The dollar amount budgeted for 1977/78 is$6,609,525, some $794,794 (13.7 percent) morethan last year's actual cost of $5,814,731. Through24October, we are 16.8 percent above the previousyear because of price increases over and abovethose anticipated. Projected to year's end, thiswould amount to about $182,000 deficit. If furtherdrastic price increases comparable to those experienced last year were to occur, the deficit couldbe much higher.Efforts to minimize campus energy use mustnot only be maintained, but increased to the highest possible level compatible with satisfactory operation of the University.It should be emphasized that satisfactory operation includes the maintenance of comfortableworking conditions. The Federal Energy Administration has provided guidelines for comfortable working temperatures and lighting as follows:1) Heating Systems. In winter, heating temperaturecontrol devices should be set to maintain temperatures at 65°-68° F. during regular hours and shouldbe set to maintain temperatures of not more than55° F. at other times.During working hours, temperatures inwarehouses and similar space should be adjustedlower than the 65°-68° F. range depending on thetype of occupancy and the activity in the space.Cooling energy should not be used to achieve thetemperatures specified for heating.2) Humidity control on cooling or heating systems.Humidity controls should be eliminated for generaloffice space. Special humidity requirements shouldbe handled on a case-by-case basis.3) Cooling systems. During summer, air cooling systems should be held at not lower than 78°-80° F. during working hours. Necessary adjustments should bemade to cooling- system controls so that space temperatures are maintained at 78°-80° F. with no reheat.4) Window draperies and blinds. These should beused to cut down heat losses by setting them to theclosed position during nighttime and on cold, cloudydays; and by setting them to the open position duringthe periods of sunshine (subject to control of glare).5) Heating blowers, threshold heaters, and portablespace heaters. These should not be used unless thereis no other heating source available.6) Outside air intake. During heating and coolingseasons, these should be reduced to the greatest extent feasible. Under most conditions a 10 percentoutside air intake will be adequate for general officespace. Special purpose space such as laboratories orthe like should have the outside air intake reduced tothe maximum extent possible consistent with operating requirements.7) Recommended maximum lighting levels. They areas follows: a) hallways or corridors, 10 footcandles;b) work and circulation areas surrounding work stations, 30 footcandles; c) normal office work such asreading and writing (on task only), 50 footcandles; d) prolonged work which is somewhat difficult visually(on task only), 75 footcandles; e) prolonged workwhich is visually difficult and critical (on task only),100 footcandles.Heating PolicyThe heating policy proposed below is based on theabove standards, on experience, and on a study ofprograms employed by other universities, such asthe University of Illinois, Ohio State, Yale, andHarvard. This policy (as well as the standardsabove) has been reviewed by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Energy chaired by LennardWharton. The proposed policy is essentially similar to the schedule implemented last year. Themajor differences provide for a reduced temperature schedule, hot only during the Christmas holiday, but also during the spring interim. Off-hourtemperatures would be reduced an additional5° F. over last year.The following winter temperatures would beadhered to in all buildings except hospital areasinvolving patients, living quarters, and certainspecial areas and parts of laboratories where living organisms, special equipment, or experimentsrequire other temperatures.WINTER BUILDING TEMPERATURES-ONGOING(exclusive of holiday and interim periods)Weekdays 68° F.Weekends and Nighttime 55° F.WINTER HOLIDAYS AND INTERIM PERIODS(Christmas, December 10, 1977 -January 2, 1978;spring interim, March 18-26, 1978)Weekdays 65° F.Weekends and Nighttime 50° F.Unoccupied Areas (at all times) 50° F.The temperatures specified above representtargets, and deviations, either positive or negative, may be encountered because the temperature control equipment and the buildings involvedvary widely both in age and efficiency. When largeunacceptable deviations are encountered, specificcountermeasures will be implemented as required.The Plant Department will set and monitortemperatures in all areas. A fist of exceptions tothe specified temperatures is appended. In mostcases these deviations have been arrived atthrough discussions with the users involved.25If the Federal Energy Administrationguidelines are followed wherever possible andproposed heating temperatures are maintained,the goal of a 2-to-3 percent energy reduction canbe achieved.Some units may wish to develop their own planfor achieving the 2-to-3 percent or more reductionbelow last year's levels in buildings under theircontrol in order to adapt this goal to their particular requirements. Mr. Mackal, personnel from thePlant Department, and I will be available to workwith you to achieve an alternative. Last year, theSchool of Business, with technical assistancefrom the Plant Department, set a goal of a 3 percent reduction, which it met successfully.I would be glad to discuss the above plan withyou if you think it causes special and extraordinary problems in your area, though I wouldhope such discussions could take place very soon.Heating Policy VariationsLaboratories. In areas where ongoing experiments are in progress and/or experimental animalsare housed: Continuously 68° F. daytime, 65° F.nighttime and weekends.High Energy PhysicsLASRResearch InstitutesSearleCLSCAllee Laboratory5737-39 Drexel5741-43 DrexelLow Temperature LaboratoryBiology Complex rHinds Geophysical LaboratoryKovler Viral OncologyBeecher- Kelly-GreenCarlson Animal QuartersReynolds Club Radio Station. 65°-68° F. at alltimes when station is being operated. Schedule:7 a.m. -3 a.m. (twenty hours daily), weekdays;twenty-four hours continuously weekends; alsooperates during interims and holidays.Residence Halls. When occupied, 68° F. daytime;65° F. nighttime.rGymnasiums. Swimming pool areas when in use,70° F..Bartlett Gym *Ida Noyes HallSunny Gym"^ '¦¦Young Building. 68 F. at all times, basement/first floor only, because of twenty-four hour securityoperation.Center For Continuing Education. 68° F., daytime; 65° F., nighttime. Lower temperatures during Christmas interim depending on use.Computation Center. Machine room, 68° F.(<36°-72° F.) at all times; offices and people space,68° F. daytime; 659 F. nighttime and weekendscontinuously.Cochrane -Woods Art Center. Collection area,68° F. at all times.Hospitals and Clinics. Areas involving patients:temperatures, humidity, and air-change maintained as specified by users.William B. Cannon is Vice-President for Businessand Finance, Professor in the School of SocialService Administration, and member of theCommittee on Public Policy Studies.REPORT OF THESTUDENT OMBUDSMANFOR THE AUTUMN QUARTER, 1 977By Jack D. OhringerJanuary 23, 1978Seventy- seven cases were brought to the attentionof this office during the autumn quarter. Often thegrievances arose as a result of a lack of communication between the student and the proper authority. Complaints of this character were usually resolved by a single phone call. The cases whichdeserve particular attention here are those whicharose repeatedly, signaling an unclear, unjust, orunfeasible policy. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain which cases are isolated ones and whichare merely the tip of the iceberg.The Student Health Service is frequently asource of confusion and an object of criticism.Errors in billing, attributable for the most part tothe hospital computer, have unfortunately cometo be expected. They are resolved with considera-26tion and dispatch by Mrs. Ivy Annamunthodo,the administrative assistant of Student Health.Mrs. Annamunthodo is able to resolve orameliorate many problems that arise between students and the Student Health Service. Her familiarity with the financial and procedural operationsof the Student Health Service should make her thefirst line of defense for aggrieved, or merely confused, students.We have confronted a more complex problemthis quarter as a result of a recent change in University policy regarding billing of students undercertain circumstances for Billings emergencyroom treatment. In the past, very considerablecharges for a student's treatment in the Billingsemergency room were always assumed withoutquestion by Student Health. It was discovered,however, that some students took advantage ofthis policy and utilized the emergency room fornonemergencies when they could have gone toStudent Health. A new money-saving policy wastherefore established. At present, students arebilled for emergency room treatment when theirmalady is deemed something less than a medicalemergency, for which they could have beentreated at Student Health. This policy causedproblems for two reasons. First of all, the policywas not as well publicized as it should have been.It was mentioned in the brochure on StudentHealth available in deans of students' offices atregistration time and on flyers distributed to deansand resident heads. These are seldom read by students. The change in policy should have beenmentioned in the student newspaper. The Maroonwas, in fact, informed of the change but the information was not considered newsworthyenough to merit inclusion. Students would be better served if administration policies concerningthem were closely watched and quickly reported.Secondly, confusion arose as to what is considered a true medical emergency. A student mustuse his own judgment in deciding if his ailment is atrue emergency that requires immediate treatment. However, it is the director of StudentHealth, a physician, who decides after the fact ifthe malady constituted a true medical emergencyand, consequently, whether a student will bebilled. Often lay and medical definitions of anemergency do not coincide. For example, a student went to the emergency room early one evening complaining of a severe stiff neck which hadalready lasted for three days. He was concernedabout the duration as well as the intensity of thepain. Fortunately for his health, if not hisfinances, the malady was not serious and the stu dent's anxiety was relieved. The director of Student Health, upon reviewing the medical chart,saw that the student had had the pain for threedays, and concluded that he could have beentreated at Student Health during that period. Hedetermined, moreover, that the condition did notwarrant emergency treatment and consequentlysent the student the bill.At the suggestion of this office the policy isbeing reviewed. The cost effectiveness must beexamined, taking into consideration the value ofthe policy as a deterrent to frivolous complaintsand the possibility that students in need of treatment for legitimate medical emergencies might bereluctant to use the emergency room.To complete the gamut of Student Health Service problems, this office has fielded complaintsabout the two to three week wait for treatment ofnonemergency disorders at Student Gynecology.This is clearly a case of insufficient funds. NeitherStudent Health nor the Department of Gynecology can afford to foot the bill for a full-time walk-in clinic. Student Gynecology must make a distinction between an emergency and mere discomfort. It is truly unfortunate, however, that astudent must be forced to endure an uncomfortable, although not threatening, disorder for two orthree weeks. This certainly can create anxietieswhich interfere with one's academic work. Thisproblem is currently being investigated with thehope of working out a feasible arrangement.Problems involving student finances also ariserepeatedly. The most inexcusable of these problems is the failure to pay students on time forcampus jobs. Students live a notoriously hand-to-mouth existence; often wages are spent beforethey are received. No employee should be forcedto endure the headache and trouble one must gothrough to correct this problem. This office hasbeen successful in solving this problem to thesatisfaction of individual employees by arrangingsalary advances which go through immediately.This, however, does not solve the general problem. Human error does occur, and is understandable. Inefficiency, however, should not be tolerated.On the subject of student employment, it mightbe worthwhile to mention that there was considerable confusion about the wording of a particularparagraph in the pamphlet You and the Universityof Chicago, put out by the Personnel Office. Inthe discussion of employee benefits under theheading "Tuition Remission" the booklet states,"Tuition remission of 50 percent for University ofChicago courses is allowed for regular permanent,27full-time employees. The tuition remission appliesto a maximum of two courses per quarter, onlyone of which may be a regular daytime course."There were a couple of cases in which studentsread this to mean that they might work full-timeand receive tuition remission for two of the threeor four courses they were taking. The booklet *does not explicitly indicate that one may not doso. It would be reasonable to assume that, in sucha case, tuition remission would be made. This,however, is not the case. If one takes threecourses he is classified as a full-time student andnot as a regular, full-time employee. In bureaucratic jargon these two terms are contradictoryand mutually exclusive. Therefore, although onemay work full-time, if he takes three courses he isnot eligible for any tuition remission whatsoever.It is the recommendation of this office that thispolicy be clearly stated in the employees' handbook.Predictably, complaints about the inadequaciesof our athletic facilities have been among thoselodged this quarter. The insufficient number oflockers available to women in Bartlett Gymnasium is a particularly evident problem. Duringautumn quarter there were only thirty-six perma-POWER AND THE CORPORATIONBy Ellmore C. PattersonJanuary 11, 1978For over forty years I have been trading on theprestige of having graduated from one of theworld's great universities. For the past fifteenyears I have reveled in the added glory of being atrustee of that institution. During all that time, tothe extent possible, I have kept my mouth shutwhen in the company of learned people, hoping nent lockers available for assignment to womenstudents. We are hopeful that this problem will bealleviated by the seventy additional lockers available to women in the newly renovated FieldHouse. We will continue to investigate to seewhether this measure is adequate, or if additionallockers are required.° As with everything else these days, money forfinancing a University of Chicago education continues to be tight. Many students have come tothis office confused or unhappy about their financial aid (or lack thereof). The Office of CollegeAid does make an attempt to be sympathetic butby the nature of its task it sometimes appearsrather heartless. The ombudsman's office tries to•supply the heart. We often urge the financial aidoffice to review more sympathetically the mostserious cases brought to our attention.In general, I have received outstanding cooperation from administration and faculty members.Virtually all of our cases were solved to the satisfaction of the students involved. I look forward tocontinuing this excellent working relationship.Jack D. Ohringer is the University Ombudsmanfor the 1977/78 term.not to impair Chicago' s reputation as a nurturer ofintellects and thereby devalue my own credentials.Tonight, however, I am betrayed, brought toaccount before the very people whose academiccurrency I have been palming off all these years asif it were my own. Justice is about to be done; andif it be neither poetic nor sweet , I shall at least tryto make it short.SPEECHES FROMTHE 58TH ANNUAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES' DINNERFOR THE FACULTY28Some institutions of higher learning like to assert their progress in excellence by noting the percentage of their graduates of forty or fifty yearsago who would not qualify for admission by today's standards. Rather than engaging in morbidconjecture along such lines in my own case, I prefer simply to rejoice in the immense good fortuneof having come to the Midway when I did.It was a time of ferment, the early days ofHutchins, and if we undergraduates didn't fullyrealize what we were a part of, we did know thatsomething important was going on.The debt I owe that great soul is beyond measure or recounting, but one kindness I particularlyrecall. He was talking to a group of us and, withhis usual candor, remarked that in his observationfootball players tended to be dense. He notedfurther that the index of density tended to risetoward the center of the line. That happened to bemy territory on the gridiron, and suddenly noticing that I was in the group, he generously added:"Of course, there may be some exceptions."I remember President Hutchins' address to ourgraduating class. "You are closer to the truth nowthan you will ever be again," he told us. He saidhe wasn't worried about our economic future.Coming in the middle of 1935, that struck most ofus as being rather optimistic. What he was worried about, he said, was that we would be corrupted.Remembered after all these years, his warningabout corruption brings to mind Lord Acton'sphrase, especially in the context of the obsessionwith power which pervades so much of today'ssocial and political commentary. Power, who hasit, who lacks it, and how do you get it — these arestaples in the rhetoric of protest. Redistribution ofpower may have assumed a higher priority thanredistribution of wealth on the agenda of thosewho hope to rearrange society.I am not prepared to argue that power is incapable of corrupting. But I am not at all sure thatthose who are scrutinizing the institutions in oursociety for evidence of excessive power knowwhat they are looking for. One type of institutionfrequently identified as having power in a degreedangerous to society is the business corporation,specifically the large business corporation.This finding, as commonly articulated, does notstop with the charge that some corporate officershave abused their authority and their positions — acontention with which I would not disagree. No,it goes much further and holds that there is anelement of power inherent in the large corporation which is inimical to the best interests of society,requiring restraint more fundamental and moreharsh than the considerable body of law and regulation already in place.The corporation as a mode of organizing humaneconomic effort is so central to the system bywhich we live that this thesis demands attention.The corporation has provided the essential meansof bringing together investable funds and puttingthem to work, creating jobs, and producing goodsand services. The development of a body of lawfavorable to the corporate form of enterprise inthis country coincided with the emergence of vastnew needs for the mobilization of capital and theexercise of entrepreneurship. This was no accident of history.Today it isn't only the critics and detractorswho are lavishing unaccustomed attention on thenature, the structure, the function, and the governance of the incorporated enterprise. Members ofthe corporate establishment, if that is what weshould call the men and women who manage thebusiness of corporations or sit on their boards ofdirectors, are themselves doing some hard studying of the corporation's role in society and of theirown role in the corporation. Stockholders, particularly institutional investors (including .universities), are finding new dimensions in their relationship with the corporations of which they areowners. And government, mainly through the Securities and Exchange Commission, is on theprowl for possible new areas of involvement.The gut issue is power. In part, this is a matterof perception. And perception is influenced bysize. Today the major corporations in Americaare very large indeed. Large in the value of theirassets, the volume of their sales, the number oftheir employees, the reach of their internationaloperations.To critics of the corporation who equate sizewith power, this is troublesome. They see themanagers of large enterprises making decisionsthat affect employees, consumers, communities,even sovereign governments. They find this inequitable and socially dangerous.I believe there are two flaws in this finding.First, it ignores the fact that all of these partiesaffected by corporate decisions also are makingdecisions that have impact on the corporation.Collective bargaining, the mobility of labor, themarket force of competition, the laws and regulations enforced by government all serve as constraints on corporate conduct. Likewise, the probing of the press and the critiques offered by the29academic community. Each is an exercise ofpower acting as a check on corporate power.Secondly, the criticism of corporate size ignores the need for units of large scale to do certainjobs in the economy if the nation's resources, bothhuman and material, are to be applied efficiently.Size in itself is not a virtue, but neither is it a vice.There are still many small enterprises that aredoing very well in this country, and I trust thatthere always will be. Nevertheless, bigness is aneconomic imperative. The alternative to the largecorporation in many fields would have to be government as producer and employer. The record isnot encouraging as to what kind of efficiency, orwhat kind of responsiveness to consumer preferences, we could expect under such arrangements.The important social questions about corporations, it seems to me, are whether they possesstheir power legitimately and whether they exercise it responsibly.As to legitimacy, I do not believe any apologyneed be offered for the fact that those who makecorporate decisions have not been elected bypopular ballot. They are subject to laws made andenforced by those who have been so elected. In asociety that recognizes the institution of property,the corporation is legitimate.As to the responsibility with which corporatepower is exercised, admittedly there have beenabuses, some of them shocking. I doubt that theyhave been more common in corporate conductthan comparable offenses in other fields of endeavor, but that is not offered as an excuse for anyof them. One of the focuses in the current reassessment of the duties of corporate directorsappropriately is on the obligation to monitor theethics of the enterprise as well as its profitability.Without softening the condemnation of malfeasances that have occurred, I believe fairness demands recognition that in the overwhelmingnumber of instances corporate power is exercisedresponsibly.Irving Kristol believes that much of the assaulton the corporation as a structure is in reality directed against private enterprise as a system ofeconomic activity. America, Inc., in other words,is a proxy for free enterprise as the target of theattack.Whether or not Kristol' s assessment is correct,it certainly is true that this country's economycould not have developed as it has if the corporateform of organization had not been available.Not that it would be necessary to destroy thecorporation in order to cause some mischief to the system. A quite adequate job of that could bedone just by adopting some of the ostensibly moremoderate measures which currently enjoy vogueunder the loosely applied heading of reform. Forinstance, there are proposals to require inclusionon the board of directors of members whose solepurpose in being there would be to represent constituencies other than the stockholders. Constituencies which have been suggested for suchrepresentation include employees, consumers, thepublic at large, and various other inhabitants ofthe environment.Perhaps all this sounds harmless enough—justthe kind of cosmetic approach, in fact, that business is often accused of, and not always withoutreason. Vulnerability to the charge of windowdressing or tokenism might in itself be reasonenough to reject the concept of constituency directors. But there is a deeper reason.A board, to be effective, must be united by acommon purpose — serving the best interest of allof the company's stockholders. In dischargingthis responsibility, the directors must consider allof the corporation's relationships: with employees, with consumers, with governments, withsociety. The members of the board may at timesbe divided in their views as to the best means bywhich to achieve their common objective; but,because the basic goal is agreed, they normallycan resolve their differences and reach decisions.If some directors, however, see their first responsibility as being to some other cause, the ensuing fragmentation will almost certainly impairthe board's ability to make decisions. A board inthat condition cannot give strong direction tomanagement. It cannot do the job for which it hasbeen elected.I find especially repugnant the notion that oneor more directors should be on the board as thespecific instrument of corporate ethics, social responsibility, public accountability, or whateverother grandiose name can be coined for commondecency and good conduct. A corporation thatcan regard morality as a specialized functionneeds deeper reform than the designation of a certified honest director. I am reminded of what Walter Lippmann is supposed to have said, ratherprophetically, about a certain political figure: "Idon't know whether he regards honesty as thebest policy, but I'm sure he regards it as a policy."The need for the members of a board to have acommon objective does not mean that they mustall come from similar personal or professional30backgrounds, as in the past has too often tendedto be the case. Many companies now are findingthat diversity of experience, training, and viewpoint can make a valuable contribution to aboard's effectiveness through the special insightseach individual brings.Much of the current yen to tinker with corporate governance has as its basis, I believe, a mistaken analogy with the political process. Thephrase "corporate democracy" epitomizes thisconfusion. It does a disservice to both our political and our economic institutions. One share, onevote is not democracy; and one stockholder, onevote would not be capitalism.Corporate boards and corporate managements,however, act at their peril if they forget that theone share, with its one vote, has a right to beheard, to ask questions, to make suggestions. Anidea isn't made better or worse by the number ofshares in the hands of its proponent.I hope it has been apparent in these remarksthat, as one who has spent a working lifetime incorporate America, I am not completely comfortable with every aspect of that community. Performance often falls short of potential, as it doesin all human effort. But I would attribute theshortcomings to human failure rather than to institutional structure. Some of the failures are criminal: fraud, bribery, deception. Some result frommistakes of judgment, some from incompetenceor a level of competence that just isn't up to thedemands of the task.The existing system, and the applicable laws,are capable of dealing with these failures and ofevolving further to make failure less likely. Toforce drastic changes on the system, it seems tome, would risk diminishing the usefulness of whatwe already have.President Wilson, fellow trustees, members ofthe faculty and administration, it has been anhonor to address you, as it is an honor to servewith you.Now one final word on corporations. It has todo with corporate interlocks. These are frownedon in Washington, but in New York we thinksome of them aren't at all bad. One of our favoriteinterlocks at J. P. Morgan and Company has beenwith Yale University. We're going to lose that onenext July, when one of our directors leaves Yale.But we're consoled by the fact that we'll gain aninterlock with The University of Chicago whenshe becomes president here. We're happy to shareher with you, because her talents are great enoughfor both of us. Congratulations on an excellentchoice for your next leader. And thank you for your kindness to me thisevening.Ellmore C. Patterson is Chairman of the Executive Committee, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York; a Trustee of the University;and a member of the Council on the GraduateSchool of Business.MANAGEMENT AND MONEYPROBABLY DO MATTERBy John E. JeuckJanuary 11, 1978This annual celebration, unique among Americanuniversities, is an occasion where we join togetherin amiable camaraderie, lubricated by liquid refreshment, and afloat on the conviviality of thereception and the splendid dinner offered in gracious generosity by our hosts, the trustees of theUniversity.One year ago, Ned Rosenheim noted that it wasat least as terrifying as it was gratifying to occupythis podium. "To . . . represent the faculty," hesaid, "holds its special terrors. [The speaker ] isexpected to be simultaneously inspiring, hilarious,worshipful, iconoclastic, exhaustively documented, and brief. When he disappoints these expectations, his failure is likely to be discussedwith that forthrightness and zest that are amongthe finest flowers of collegiality."He was surely right!It appears fairly common that, still lacking amanuscript in the twilight of the Christmas recess,the speaker turns — as academics so often do— tothe archives, to "original sources."Those manuscripts preserved in the controlledhumidity of the rare book room in Regenstein areconclusive in pointing to certain haunting questions that have beset many, if not all, previousspeakers: "Why me?" and "What to say?"In a stochastic world, there is, of course,always the possibility that the speaker is chosenby a purely random process. But the distributionof speakers over time is such that even in a "greatuniversity" (as we constantly mark ourselves),the odds are against generating a series in whichso many faculty representatives have been mem-31bers of the National Academy and Nobellaureates.Now in the embarrassing absence of such credentials, I stand before you — and there has to besome other explanation.It occurs to me that in these days as youthpower is waning and the greening of America isgraying on the Midway, could it be simply that ageor "time in service" guided the choice?There are some here a little older than I; butfew indeed whose seniority is greater. I came as afreshman in 1934, and have been resident on theQuadrangles ever since — apart from extensivewestern Pacific sea voyages at United States government expense for a few years, and a brief excursion, although hardly an apostasy, to HarvardBusiness School. Still fewer can match the recordif my matriculation at the old Lying-in Hospitalduring the reign of Harry Pratt Judson counts asthe anniversary date of my entry to the University.So much for "Why me?"The still harder question is: "What to say?"Rough and ready content analysis of survivingtexts shows an astonishing variety of responses,although there is some persistence in urging theneed for still more generous financial support forhigher faculty salaries and lighter teaching loads.One paper that struck me as especially forthright and surely must be world-class champion forarresting opening statements began: "[And]now for a few words about cancer, since it is afterdinner and not on Sunday."I recall the quickening, alert audience-responseto those words. And then the internationally renowned scientist (now Nobel laureate) explainedwhy the University should be involved with problems like the "cancer nuisance" (as he called it);and concluded with an eloquent statement on thenature of science, and the excitement (indeed thesense of exaltation) which attends discovery ofnew knowledge.Like a number of my predecessors, I have chosen to express a few home truths inspired by myown professional interests. My text this eveningis: "Management and Money Probably Do Matter."Rational management in the university contextis not easy; some believe it is impossible. Governance here proceeds with and by the consent ofthe governed. A former chancellor once outlinedsome key characteristics of this place:. . . The University is a complicated affair. Itsadministration is complex, its accounting . . . almost incomprehensible, and its organization fits no knownchart, but, in addition . . . most faculty members areamong the outstanding men in their specialties in theworld. . . . They cannot be ordered to do anything orto stop doing anything.. . . [The University has] a great faculty, but itis an odd one, judged even by the high standards ofoddity generally associated with higher education.... it is even suggested that the University hasdrawn to it for aid and comfort those who have beenunable to fit into any previous environment but assemble here in happy and irresponsible eccentricity.So much for the challenge to personnel management on the Midway.There are large and important differences between business corporations and universities; butthere are some concerns that both kinds of institutions presently share. These include the difficulty of generating adequate revenues and effective control of costs in a context of persistent inflation.Still another shared concern is the prevailingclimate of regulation manifest in rules, standards,and procedures affecting market processes, products, and employment.Intellectuals have characteristically applaudedand supported government regulation of markets.As professors, we have tended to endorse (whenwe have not invented) what we seem to accept asthe benign impact of such rules.I suspect our tolerance, if not enthusiasm, forgovernment action may be partly explained by ourperception of Washington as the "tooth fairy,"delivering large dollar support to our educationalenterprise.Between the apparently ever-expanding pool ofgovernment money and foundation largesse,higher education for a time became a growth industry.More recently, however, universities arechafing at sharp cuts in federal support, and atregulations which raise costs further, and alsothreaten the autonomy of educational policy.Of growing concern, too, is what sometimesseems an undiscriminating crusade against everyform of discrimination. The most recent civilrights frontier is age. Legislation extending themandatory retirement age from sixty-five to seventy is, as they say, "moving right along." TheHouse Committee on Education and Labor reportedly voted for such a bill thirty-three to zerodespite substantial opposition.Unless colleges and universities are exempted,the consequences of extending retirement to ageseventy will probably exacerbate already limitedopportunities for tenure appointments of the most32promising and able young scholars. In this University, we could in addition face lower demandfor admissions as opportunities for university appointments and promotions shrink all across thecountry. As an institution heavily committed tothe teaching of teachers, it hardly seems likelythat we would maintain, much less increase enrollment in many departments.The evidence is that universities, like industrialcorporations, are subject to market forces.The market environment of higher educationhas changed greatly and surprisingly quickly. Atleast partially fueled by the conviction that collegegraduation was, if not the engine, at least the railway to upward mobility, institutions, students,and faculties were expanded greatly during the1950s and 1960s. The number of students in college tripled, as did the number of master's degreesand doctorates.It hardly seems possible that only a few yearsago the late President Kennedy observed that"The shortage of Ph.D.'s constitutes our mostcritical national problem." And just about a decade ago Carnegie Foundation trustees issued astatement on the "Coming Shortage of Collegeand University Teachers.". . . The seemingly limitless supply of researchfunds, consulting opportunities, easy promotions,and dazzling offers has been around for some timenow. There is a whole generation of able young faculty members who never knew a time when affluencedid not prevail.How remote that Camelot!Whatever optimism once characterized the outlook for academic markets is now muted by themore recent experience of trying to learn to livewithin our institutional means.Given what may be a romantic expectation thatwe can look forward to even somewhat higher realincome, increased efficiencies and cost control arelikely to be crucial if there is to be any financialmargin to support new ventures or even to meetunanticipated contingencies. It is my belief thatwe shall have to develop a tolerance (if not a taste)for informed cost-benefit analysis that does notcome easily to most of us.Although the increase in energy costs is staggering, and the total dollars significant, by far thelargest single item in the University budget is the"wages bill."The University is labor intensive.Instructional costs are the costs that reallycount. Somehow, we need to become more inventive about ways of stimulating productivity in the academic sector. We need to be more clearabout the results we are trying to achieve andmore innovative in creating incentives that willachieve them.Continued improvement in the quality of ourUniversity, and perhaps its survival in anythinglike its traditional cast, may depend importantlyon open-mindedness with respect to price and salary policy. We have belatedly accepted differential tuition rates, and they might be still more extensively exploited.The facts are, much as in the industrial sector,we not only face a variety of product markets withdiffering conditions and tolerances, but we alsoface factor markets in which supply and demandlevels differ markedly — partly reflecting changingpreferences in student takings and partly the costof production of faculty members in differentfields. It seems likely that given limited financialresources, we can almost certainly aspire tohigher overall quality of faculty if we reject conventional canons of wage and salary administration patterns across University departments.We are likely both to increase our revenuesthrough differential tuition rates on the one hand,and further improve the quality of faculty inputson the other, if we forthrightly recognize thatequal quality (however hard to measure) is available at unequal prices in different market segments.There are clearly a number of ways to improveproductivity, but I strongly suspect increasedclass size may be one.A long cherished prejudice among most of us isthat "small is better" with respect, not to salary,but to class size. Although advanced seminars canhardly be manageable with large numbers, do wereally know that learning is much hindered as discussion classes include, say, thirty-two ratherthan twenty-two students? Our own Law Schooland Harvard Law School (and, perish thethought, Harvard Business School): they have allearned distinction with average class sizes thatwould frighten most of us.But such tactical fine tuning to raise revenueand control costs in the University, as in business,although important, is not likely to make really bigdifferences. Still more promising possibilities liein hard answers to really hard questions; in whatthe corporate strategist thinks of as "corporatemission," definitions of what the business is.These are questions of which product lines shouldbe maintained and/or developed.Cursory examination of our own sacred writings from William Rainey Harper to John Wilson33reveals that all our prophets and presidents holdthat The University of Chicago is committed tothe discovery and dissemination of knowledge:not to research or to teaching, but to both.But research and instruction in what subjects,what areas of scholarship and practice?As the recently published Encyclopedia of Ignorance demonstrates, scientific and humanisticinvestigations are not self-limiting.I was reminded of this again a week or so agowhen I read that Israel's Prime MinisterMenahem Begin, commenting on his first visit tothe pyramids observed: "Cheops is constructedout of three million stones. And how they schlepped those stones in those days it is very difficult tounderstand."At the same time that we profess our "ancientfaith" in the twin goals of discovery and dissemination of knowledge, it is patent that they donot define the areas in which we should invest. Wehave, for example, a medical school, but noschool of dentistry. We have no agriculturalschool, and no school of engineering, althoughsurely Cal Tech and MIT demonstrate that themind can be alive and well in "technical institutes."It is clear that choices must be made with respect to areas in which University resources are tobe deployed.We have been fortunate indeed in having ableand humane leadership in the University duringthese recent years of fiscal constraint when thenecessity for making tough strategic choices hasagain been hard upon us.In the Great Depression year of 1930, at hisfirst trustee dinner for the faculties, PresidentHutchins asserted that:. . . the primary responsibility of any university is tosee to it that its faculty is the best it can afford. Thisrequires the cooperation of the faculty to an extentnot always appreciated. I see nothing fatal aboutabandoning certain work or omitting it temporarily.... . It does not seem to me indispensable that wecover every section of every field all the time. . . .The university with the longest list of courses is notnecessarily the greatest ...Nearly a half century later that counsel is noless appropriate. Investment must always be limited, and no institution anywhere has, even in thebest of times, resources enough to lay claim tooutstanding faculty everywhere.There is a heuristic in business strategy urgingthat the firm "be big somewhere." It is anotherway of saying that no institution can be everything34 to everyone and also stand for leadership and distinguished performance.In making the hard policy choices of whatshould be done in the institutional interest, theUniversity must consider not only what might bedone, but what can be done in terms of its self-defined mission and the level and distribution ofour resources.This is not to urge that we should be dominatedby the "every tub on its own bottom" principle.Whatever merits such organization may offer, ourtraditions, and the essential unity in the midst ofdiversity which characterizes The University ofChicago, argue for institutional direction in thelight of a calculus that recognizes but is not dominated by financial criteria.I know of no other university where faculty influence is more tightly woven into the fabric ofgovernance.In the climate of our times, it seems appropriateto remind ourselves again that hard policychoices, as Hutchins argued, "... require thecooperation of the faculty to an extent not alwaysappreciated."In this still new year of 1978, universities arebeset by declining markets, escalating costs, andthe prospect of continuing inflation. Foundationgrants are limited by low portfolio yields, and private philanthropy constrained both by the consequences of the tax structure and by the samefinancial market forces that impinge on foundationand university endowments.Competition is again fierce in the already competitive industry of higher education. A distinguished student of industrial organization, GeorgeStigler, put the case well — and from this sameplatform fifteen years ago:The competitive industry is not one for lazy orconfused or inefficient men: they will watch theircustomers vanish, their best employees migrate,their assets dissipate. It is a splendid place for men offorce: it rewards both hard work and genius. . . . Thesuccess of a competitive enterprise is not in the leastuncertain if its employees are able and diligent andits leadership sane and courageous. . . .I rejoice, therefore, not as an economist but as anemployee of a singularly successful young competitive firm, in our troubles. If money came only tothose who already had it, we should never haveexisted. If great schools could easily get and retainall the able men, Chicago would never have beenworth mentioning. If we dwelled in a pastoral . . .village, where neither squalor nor crime had everbeen observed, it is likely also that intellectual ferment and adventure would be absent. . . .if we wish,we can become the most successful firm in the industry, in fifteen major product lines.Although the present environment is not especially friendly to great private universities, andthis may sometimes seem another "winter of ourdiscontent," we have survived cold winters before.I submit that our survival, and indeed, ourgreater achievement, are certain; and I am confident that Chicago will continue to command thenecessary understanding and cooperation from allof us who have the opportunity and privilege tojoin in the shared undertaking that is the work ofthis University.John E. Jeuck is the Robert Law Professor in theGraduate School of Business.INTRODUCTION OF JOHN T. WILSONBy Robert W. RenekerJanuary 11, 1978There is, of course, no need to introduce the president of the University to you. But before I call onhim to speak, I do want to say a few words to thefaculty.In the history of our University there have beenpresidents who were in office two decades andothers for two or three years. It is a mark of theliving strength of the spirit of the University thattime in office has never been taken here as a measure of the man. It was Mr. Burton, who waspresident a shorter time than anyone else, for instance, who saved the College from oblivion,committed the University to a new system of student housing, and set up the faculty committeeswhose reports resulted in the restructuring of theUniversity in the early 1930s.When we trustees work with a president of TheUniversity of Chicago and commit ourselves tofull support of him, it is a source of great confidence to know that it is the full support andcooperation of the faculty that makes the president's work, and ours, possible at all. It is theonly way one can account for the tremendous vitality, the seriousness, the sense of purpose of thisUniversity under so many different kinds of leaders.John Wilson is a wonderful president of thisUniversity. When you look at what he has ac complished, you must be a little astonished at howquickly he has done it!• The University's future is a great deal more secure because its budget is really balanced and really under control. That achievement cannot havebeen easy for any of you, but its importance in thelong run cannot be overestimated. It took courageand a sense of responsibility that are rare at anytime.• The terribly involved problems of managing themedical complex have been faced up to and thewhole enterprise reorganized in a way that givesus flexibility, more rational control, and a muchclearer view of what is to be done.• The faculty of the entire University has beenkept absolutely first-rate in very tight budgetyears, and the academic programs protected fromthe sudden and dangerous cuts that other universities have experienced.• Student enrollment is up and it seems to theobserver that morale is up with it. In good part,that has to reflect the careful and personal attention John Wilson has given to student life since thefirst day he became acting president three yearsago. There has been a strengthening of the studenthousing system and some very imaginative expansion of it.• What may be most astonishing to many of us isthe visible increase in interest in sports on campus, an interest stirred up, nurtured, and sometimes personally inspired by the president. It is ahealthy interest in every way. It is not merely aspirit, however. We have had the pleasure thisyear of opening up what is in fact a brand-new oldfieldhouse which was entirely the work of onevery determined John Wilson.There are many more achievements of the University that one can think of under John's leadership, but you know them very well. I wanted tomention a few to stimulate the memory and haveus all realize how quickly they were accomplished.There is a phrase about some executives beingtireless. Believe me, that is never true. Occasionally, when John has put the trustees to work on aproject, he has reminded us of how tiring workcan really be. For himself, he chooses to ignorethat inevitable cost of long hard work; he has chosen over and over to give more energy and dedication than any man can count on having. He is aquiet man, but we have all had occasion to knowthe force of his passionate pursuit of what is bestin the intellectual adventure of man. In the longrun he can have the satisfaction of knowing he will35leave the place, to which he has given so muchdevoted work, better than he found it.I wanted to say those things for myself and forthe trustees. And now it is my honor to ask JohnWilson to give his last presidential talk to this trustees' dinner for the faculty.Ladies and gentlemen, the President of theUniversity.Robert W. Reneker is Chairman of the Board ofTrustees of the University.REMARKS ON THE COLLEGEBy John T. WilsonJanuary 11, 1978Larry Kimpton once commented wryly that it wasvery strange that a University which is primarilyconcerned with graduate teaching and researchshould have such a lively, if not hysterical, interest in the undergraduate degree. Larry speculatedthat the problem was rooted in the fact that theUniversity did not have a normal childhood. Unlike most universities it did not begin as a collegeand develop a well-established undergraduateprogram before initiating graduate and professional work.From Mr. Harper's Official Bulletin, Number2, which covered the organization and the curriculum of the several Colleges, one gets thestrong impression that he considered undergraduate work subordinate to graduate study,going so far as to hope that the first two undergraduate years might be accomplished off-campusor through affiliated schools. Thus, the Universitywould be permitted ". . . to devote its energiesmainly to the University Colleges and to strictlyUniversity work;"It was not until the presidency of Mr. Burtonthat undergraduate education at Chicago seems tohave come into its Town. In the president's reportfor 1922-23, Mr. Burton, after stating that bothgraduate and undergraduate work should stand ontheir own merits, called for facilities, including acentral College building, classrooms, offices,rooms for undergraduate organizations, and ". . .if practicable, a theatre and assembly room . . .tocreate a College consciousness . .." He ap pointed a Commission on the Future of the College in September of 1923 to pursue what HaroldSwift, then chairman of the Board of Trustees,termed Burton' s • ' dream of the colleges . ' 'The commission's report emphasized the roleof general education in the training of undergraduates, defining it as:... the attainment of independence in thinking inwhich civilized societies of the past and of the present have done and are doing their thinking; . . . independence in appreciation of the fine arts, and theabsorption of the fine arts into the individual life;[and] . . . independence in moral living.The commission expressly avoided requirementsfor ". . . any special extent of time, any definitionin terms of units, courses, majors, and standardsof mechanical measurement such as grades anddegrees." The commission thought it manifestlywrong to define the aim of general education or toappraise progress in undergraduate training interms other than those describing the fundamentalelements of understanding, power, and appreciation which, in its collective mind, the process wasintended to attain.To achieve its aim, the commission recommended that the undergraduate curriculum be organized in an administrative unit to be known as"The College." Inasmuch as the length of time inthe program was to be flexible, there was allowance for early admission from high school andprovision for a student to be granted thebachelor's degree after two years in the program.Other recommendations were: that the size of theCollege not exceed fifteen hundred; that the College faculty be composed of individuals who wereprimarily teachers, not researchers; and that theCollege be established as a separate entity on thesouth side of the Midway, although bothgraduates and undergraduates were to have access to all graduate and undergraduate programs.The report of the commission strongly influenced the character of the development campaign launched in 1924. However, Mr. Burton'sdeath in 1925 and the brief presidency of Mr.Mason resulted in no formal action on the reportwithin the University. The commission's workwas revised and refined in 1928 by a Senate committee, which recommended, among other things,that an undergraduate student receive his degreeafter successfully passing a number of comprehensive examinations which could be taken atany time. There was to be a minimum of one yearrequired residency and the so-called credit systemwas to be abolished. A further Senate review in361929 initiated the major reorganizational changewhich created the four graduate divisions and theCollege which, together with the professionalschools, comprised the new organizational structure of the University. Thus, the work of thecommission appointed by President Burton in1923 and the subsequent work of the two Senatecommittees in the late 1920s paved the way for theexciting events that were to be attempted inundergraduate education at The University ofChicago during the Hutchins period.The program initiated by President Hutchinsreflected his concern for what he conceived to bethe basic principles of knowledge. He summarized his conception of the College and theUniversity in his convocation address of June1933:What the University has been trying to do may bebriefly stated: it has been trying to become a university. ...The first step was taken in 1930, when the fivedivisions were established. This made it clear thatwe thought there was a distinction between generaleducation and advanced study. General educationwas to be the function of the college, advanced studyof the upper divisions and professional schools. Thisaction defined a college, and a university, and byimplication a college in a university. A college is aninstitution devoted to general education. A university is an institution devoted to the advancement ofknowledge. A college in a university is an institutiondevoted to discovering what a general educationought to be.There is little question that during the Hutchinsera, undergraduate education at Chicago reachedits peak of national visibility. And leaving asidewhatever judgment one may make regarding theinnovations which were introduced at that time, toalumni of the Hutchins College, it was a mostexciting experience. Certainly the mythologywhich adheres to the period ranks closely behindthat surrounding the period of Mr. Harper himself.But despite the best of intentions to create anintegrated undergraduate program, the effort wasunsuccessful. It was confronted both externallyand internally with overwhelming difficulties. Inattempting to affect the quality and content ofhigh-school curricula, it aroused hostility in thatquarter. Internally, the concept of an independentCollege faculty caused insoluble difficulties. Andworst of all, confusion as to what was available forundergraduates at Chicago was widespread in theminds of prospective students. Thus, in 1953,after a year of "great debate" in the faculty, ac tion by the Council redefined the bachelor's degree.The redefined bachelor's degree, in Mr.Kimpton's words (State of the University message, 1953):... was to signify more than a general grasp of themain fields of knowledge. It will include, in addition,a knowledge of a single field sufficient to permit oneto enter and master that field. In a sense, then — inthe best sense, I think— the Bachelor's degree stillsignifies a general education. It is the kind of basiceducation needed generally by those who with somejustification believe they are marked for intellectualleadership. For intellectual leadership should be thepossession of those who have a broad understandingof what the human mind has achieved and, in addition, the capacity and training to produce achievements of some quality themselves. I am completelyclear on this point — in the long run, most studentswho will come to a great urban university for theirundergraduate education expect their education toreflect the presence of a great university and all itstands for.Whether the change was more than cosmeticremained a question. After reviewing the changes,the editor of the Journal of Higher Educationsomewhat prophetically noted:Just how important the change will prove to beremains to be seen. It is possible that the detailedplans developed by the College and the divisions forthe combination of general and special education willprovide nothing more than a mechanical joining ofthe two: two years, more or less, of general education, followed by a similar period of specializedstudy. It is to be hoped that, on the contrary, theseplans will provide for a real integration of these twophases of education. If they do, Chicago again willhave made a major contribution to the progress ofundergraduate education in America.The editor's observation regarding the "mechanical joining" proved to have validity and, outof the general dissatisfaction that resulted from its1953 action, the Council in 1957 asked Mr.Kimpton to appoint an "Executive Committee onUndergraduate Education," presided over by thechancellor, to examine again the undergraduateproblem.For those of you who engaged last year in theformulation of the Clayton Committee report onthe nature and proper role of the College Council,and subsequent developments, Mr. Kimpton'sdescription of the behavior of the executive committee will have a familiar ring:... After engaging for a respectable period in thebroad, loose, philosophical rambling that faculty37committees engage in, it settled down to the toughorganizational problem of how to obtain a single faculty, representative of the entire University, and responsible for the entire Bachelor's degree. It earlydecided to,, tiptoe around the Bachelor of Science degree, for the simple and straightforward reason thatthose shaggy fellows in the Department of Physics,Chemistry and Mathematics snarl menacingly*when their grim clutch on the content of their degrees is in any way threatened. The final recommendation, therefore, concerned only the Bachelorof Arts degree and the general education-content ofthe Bachelor of Science degree. The recommendation was a good one, for the excellent reason that itreally pleased nobody, and none of the parties atissue won a battle. .. .As a result, a new faculty is to be created, drawnfrom the entire present constituency of the College,with an approximately equal number of persons fromthe Divisions. This new faculty, organized like anyother, is to have exclusive sovereignty over the A.B.degree. The present College thus loses its autonomy,and the departments lose control over the specializedcomponent of their degrees, but the Bachelor of Artsdegree now comes under the purview of a singleacademic group broadly representative of the University. Initially — though the new faculty is not permanently bound to it — the degree is to assume a pattern of two years of general education, a year of freeand guided elective s, and a year of departmentalspecialization, this prescription relating to contentrather than to chronology. . . . There is to be a singleacademic Dean of this new unit to prevent confusionamong the faculty, a single undergraduate Dean ofStudents to reduce confusion among the students,and it is to be called the College, which will certainlyconfuse everyone (State of the University message,1958).Significantly, Mr. Kimpton went on to note thatreorganization even if accompanied by good will,which was doubtful, was not sufficient to resolvethe University's undergraduate problems. It wasat a time when there was a growing number ofjunior colleges within the city, and the Universityof Illinois was making plans to build Circle Campus. Half of our College population was recruitedfrom the city and only about a third lived in College residences. What was needed, Mr. Kimptonadmonished, were more students from beyond theChicago area, more housing, a better curriculumand improved extracurricular life.Although progress was made in recruiting and,to a lesser degree, in enhancing the quality ofundergraduate student life, the relationship between the College and the divisions during theperiod of the late fifties and early sixties continuedto be troubled. Committees from the divisions andtheir counterparts from the College met, and anincreasing number of joint appointments weremade, both of which helped to alleviate the ten sions. But by the mid-sixties, Edward Levi, thenprovost and for a short period acting dean of theCollege, observed that the vitality of the Collegeseemed to be derived less from its programs thanfrom the "vigor of both debate and development." In a long "Memorandum on the College,"Mr. Levi reviewed the history of the College; itsstaffing problems; the difficult relationships between the College and the departments; the manysteps that had been taken at various times and byvarious, people to resolve the problem of theundergraduate curriculum. He ended by pointingout that:. . . Under present circumstances the separation, tothe extent it exists, of the College into two divisionshas had a tendency to limit faculty involvement inexperiments which, without diminishing the College's central concern for the organization of subjectmatter, would reflect the strengths and interests ofthe faculty and of the students. It has tended also toremove from faculty discussions those issues previously determined but which must be thoughtthrough again as part of any ongoing educationalprogram. This separation has arisen because of theUniversity's extraordinary efforts to solve the problems of the appropriate relationships between general and specialized education and the relevance ofeach to liberal education. But the continuation of thisseparation now impedes discussion. The University 's work in liberal education would bestrengthened if the undergraduate curriculum couldbe regarded as a whole.Whatever the advantages, the splitting of facultyinto those teaching the general education courses,those who instruct in the last two years of the undergraduate program, and those who lead research atthe graduate level, has unfortunate consequences. ...Optimistically there is reason to believe that at thisstage of the University's development there aremany members of the University's faculties whowould welcome an opportunity to develop and implement programs at the undergraduate level. Andthis can be done in such a way as to strengthen andnot diminish the independent integrity of these programs and the independent integrity of the College.To secure greater participation by the faculty as awhole, while preserving the integrity of Collegeprograms, and to focus attention on these programs, Mr. Levi recommended: 1) "a greater degree of reality and effectiveness should be given tothe College faculty as a ruling body;" and, 2) achanged sectional structure for the College, building upon the then current structure but modified insuch a fashion that would "... encompass responsibility for the entire four years of undergraduate work and to reflect the University'sinterest in undergraduate instruction." Thetheory behind the structure that would align the38sections at the divisional level was aimed, in Mr.Levi's words, toward ". . .an improvement in thespecialized work of the undergraduate curriculum." The memorandum outlined the proposed responsibilities of the "area colleges or sections," now Collegiate divisions, including a fifthsection which was ". . . to give emphasis to theresponsibility of the College to train public citizens and to provide approaches which can complement the area colleges. ..." The educationalprograms were to be enhanced by residentialfacilities, within which both curricular and extracurricular activities would promote a sense ofcommunity.The improved "effectiveness of the Collegefaculty as a ruling body" was to be brought aboutthrough the creation of a College Council, withdelegated powers, subject to statutory provisions,and presided over by the College dean. TheCouncil would relate to the University as a wholethrough appointed membership in the Council bythe president and through the presence of the provost, the University dean of students, and the fourdivisional deans, all of whom were to be ex-officiomembers of the Council. The role of the Councilalso was to be strengthened through the mechanism of an elected Policy Committee and throughvarious standing committees appointed by thedean. Thus, or as Wayne Booth would say, sort ofthus, in academic year 1964/65, the current incarnation of the College came into being.Much has happened in the College as well as inthe University since Mr. Levi's memorandum.Last year, noting that the College seemed to "remake" itself every decade or so, the editors of theCollege faculty Newsletter, after proclaiming aseries of "truths" which to them were "self-evident," raised a question as to whether the timewas not again ripe for another "new" College.Evidence of ferment had been visible in the College Council's discussions of the curriculum during the preceding eighteen months. The severalyears of budget constraints had intensified problems of staffing the common core and had, in someinstances, reduced the participation of divisionalfaculty in the affairs of the College. In Februaryof 1976 the College Council encouraged the deanto form a committee to look into the structure andmode of operation of the College Council and theCommittee of the College Council and, further, tolook into the definition of the College faculty.In a subsequent issue of the Newsletter, in whatwas called a mini-symposium, six members of theCollege faculty expressed their views on the College. It is hard to summarize the range of views in a few sentences, but it included, in addition to alengthy contextual essay reviewing the Levimemorandum, expressions of alarm regarding thechanging form and content of the new commoncore courses; a judgment that the key problem stillwas the definition of the College faculty; an expression of concern that recent developments hadled to the Masters being made captives of the divisions, thus attenuating their loyalty to the College; a discussion of conflicting models of the College in the minds of College faculty and students;a statesman-like chiding regarding the continuedpervasiveness of emotional responses to issuesinvolving the University vis-a-vis the College;suggestions as to how we might correct the lack ofdivisional involvement in the College through theapplication of reinforcement theory; and expressions on the part of two participants implying thatwhen all is said and done, the College is really astrong academic unit with real accomplishments,and that we should get on with more such accomplishments, rather than spending so muchtime in lamentation.In fairness to some of the participants, it shouldbe said that the "views" expressed appeared to besnippets from prior speeches and other public remarks. Thus, the "symposium" was somethingless than the systematic discussion of the Collegethat one might have hoped for. Perhaps the mostimportant matter that was touched upon, butnever quite faced directly, was the question ofwhat the College is. If one asks oneself what theCollege really is, one might get the impressionthat it consists primarily of the common core,elementary languages, elementary mathematics,and a few other inventions such as the WesternCivilization sequence. These are the enterpriseswhich demand the attention of the Masters; theseare the courses which generate staffing problems.Within these bounds are the revered elements ofChicago's general education which make the College curriculum unique. Some may protest thisdescription as overstatement and, I admit, thereare a few people who recognize that the College ismore than that. But it is not, as in the case ofpractically every other college, clearly congruentwith the whole of undergraduate studies.Because of the difficulty of defining the College,the corollary question of the definition of the College faculty is a matter of critical preoccupation.The present arrangement is an unhappy patchwork reflecting a history of varied understandings.In some areas, the pattern of joint appointments isroutine; other areas have recently instituted sucha pattern for all new appointments, but appear to39have a "grandfather clause" for older appointments. Often the pattern of appointment bears norelationship to actual teaching. In some areasthere are status differences— rumored to be reflected in salaries and work loads — between thosewho have College appointments and those who donot. This confusion in the definition of the Collegeand the vagueness of membership in its faculty ledme during the recent search for a new dean to thenotion of modifying the title and the scope of authority of the dean of the College to encompass allundergraduate studies. The basic idea was thatthe dean of the College would have broadenedresponsibility under the provost. He or she wouldbe involved in the budgetary process so as to influence the recruitment and utilization of facultythroughout the University. The idea, of course,was simply to invent a practical way of making thecentrality of the College's function in the University the responsibility of the whole University. Asone might have predicted, the proposal causedsome consternation. But I still believe that additional strength would be gained for the College ifthe College faculty were perceived as includingthe entire faculty of the graduate divisions andthose faculty in the professional schools who desire to participate in undergraduate programs.Obviously, the perception would generate administrative, budgetary, and political problems,but these would be of minor significance in light ofthe potential educational gains.Closely rivalling in importance the issues of theconcept of the College and the definition of theCollege faculty is that of the undergraduate curriculum. In my experience, no topic in the Collegeis so fraught with emotion as is a discussion of thecommon core, and the recent College facultyNewsletter (November, 1977) does nothing todispel this view. I can appreciate the embattledview and even the feeling of isolation frequentlyexhibited by some who feel the College has beenthe victim of divisional disdain. But I also wouldremind common core traditionalists that no oneever will have the last word on the subject of shaping young intellects, a fact which, if given a moment's thought, should give us great comfort.There is no question in my mind that some concept of general education, whether we call it thecommon core or whatever, should continue to bethe cornerstone of the College curriculum. But Iwould also argue that what is "common" need notbe a matter of whether the several courses taughtare identical, or staff taught, or share a readinglist, or organize their materials in a similar fashion, or attempt to synthesize in some particular fashion the various forms of human knowledge.The important commonality strikes me as beingthe articulation of what is fundamental to the several areas of knowledge, the basic issues and problems and approaches that characterize the biological sciences, the physical sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, regardless of the particular content used by way of example. In the lastcouple of years it is encouraging that new concepts and new elements of the common core havebeen devised and have enriched first-year offerings.Unfortunately, the mini-symposium did nottouch upon the components of the College curriculum which go beyond general education. Itwas almost as though the concentration programshave been abandoned to the divisional facultieswho, perhaps significantly, do not seem to be apart of the discussion in the College faculty. It isclear that there are needed improvements in theconcentration programs. The departments, ascompared to the professional schools, seem to meto have been less imaginative in recent years inthis respect, with many of the more important cur-ricular innovations having been conceived in theinterface between the College and the professional schools. I am not now speaking of pre-professional education but rather liberal educationas embodied in the programs of Politics, Economics, Rhetoric and Law; the Arts and SciencesBasic to Human Biology and Medicine; and Religion arid the Humanities. Most professions arenow under siege, particularly medicine and law.The pressures concern the ethics of the profession; their legitimate role in society; their prerogatives in self-governance; and so on. Thesenew undergraduate programs serve an especiallyimportant role for students going on to professional and graduate school, as well as forothers, in that they serve to explore general issuesprior to the exposure of students to specializedtraining.The sharp incongruity between the concern forgeneral education components of the College curriculum and the relative disinterest in concentration areas by the College faculty might not mattertoo much if concentration programs were clearlydefined and uniformly adequate educationally.But too many of our concentration offerings appear to be perfunctory in design and executionand reflect little discernible evidence of wellthought-out educational purposes. And that isquite apart from the question of whether the purpose might be an orientation to specialization or toadvanced general education. It is simply that, be-40yond the level of "College responsibility," undergraduate programs seem to suffer a lack of centraldirection.A glance at last year's Time Schedules revealsthe astonishing fact that the College offered approximately half as many regular courses as thereare undergraduate students. Even granting thefact that class size is by no means constant, this isa luxury. I say this not only in fiscal terms, butalso in terms of effort drained in some programsfrom other curricular needs. My impression is thatthere is a need for some principle of economy,some set of priorities, and an emphasis on carefulcurricular planning.There should be, it seems to me, some reasonable way to reduce the number of courses by designing offerings that will fulfill more than oneconcentration program's requirements; by instituting courses that cut across present concentration areas; by designing tracks within additional concentrations that divide the subject insuch a way as to recognize connections with otherprograms; and by planning for certain offerings tobe given in alternate years. All of this, of course,implies that whatever is done at one level of thecurriculum should be considered with respect toany other level. Thus, both the dean of the College and the divisional deans must be equally preoccupied with 100 to 400-level courses, with theireffectiveness and with their staffing.I will make only one further point regarding thediscussion in the mini-symposium: that regardingMr. Levi's "Memorandum on the College." Acareful reading of the memorandum suggests tome that, although it was couched in re-organizational terms, its fundamental purpose wasto break the spell of doldrums into which the College in the middle sixties had fallen. Certain aspects of the memorandum obviously were necessary to have it accepted by the College faculty,and to move it through University governingbodies. As to the effect of the memorandum inhaving modified the College in directions whichMr. Levi intended, there is no question in myjudgment that the College is a stronger academicunit now than it was at the time the memorandumwas written. The establishment of six named professorships and an increased number of joint appointments between the College, the graduate divisions, and the professional schools and the increased response of senior faculty to the teachingneeds of the College, all attest to the commitmentof the University to undergraduate education.Student morale in the College appears to bevery high. If one considers that aspect of Mr. Levi's memorandum having to do with the reinforcement of academic programs through improvement in the quality of student life, the situation is enormously improved. I believe there hasnever been in the history of the College anythingto compare with the current range and quality ofstudent activities, including those within and outside the residences.The strength and vitality of the College seem tome to rest upon three bases: first, despite the persistent search for an integrity which would differentiate the College from the rest of the University, the College and the very search itself, reflecta fundamental similarity to the University in beingunremittingly intellectual and unremittingly self-critical. It is not entirely clear why this Universityis this way, but both the University and the College share this institutional characteristic. In theCollege, my impression is that it is in part becauseof the type of student body that we attract. TheCollege depends more than it realizes on the vision of students to keep the ethos of the Collegealive.Second, although there is much talk of Collegeproblems stemming from the University's devotion to research and scholarship, allegedly to thedetriment of teaching, it is remarkable how muchthe College owes to individuals from the graduatedivisions in giving it an independence and integrity of its own. One need only think of the influence of Richard McKeon and other senior faculty, past and present, to realize the importance ofthis factor to the strength of the College.Third, the University as a whole owes a greatdeal to the College. There are many in the divisional faculties and many 'among those who areCollege stalwarts, who fail to recognize this. Inthe teaching function, the College is the one placein the University where the divergent subject matters and views represented by the departmentscome together both intellectually and institutionally. This point was made strongly in the1972 report of the Committee on Teaching, whichasserted that in its teaching function the Collegeis, and properly should be, the chief unifying forceof the University. It is not because the College isthat part of the University which takes teaching asits special duty. It is because it is in the College asnowhere else, that the academic areas must converge and try to understand their contribution tothe whole.So I come down on the side of those who feelthat it has taken the last ten years for the Collegeto achieve even a part of what Mr. Levi'smemorandum was about. While, to some, things41are not as good as they might be, we should recognize that they never are, and get on with makingthe plan work at the best level that can beachieved. I strongly believe that any notion of trying to return to a college with its own separatefaculty has no power in this University. At itsbest, the College will reach into all areas of theTHE 366TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:BOUNDARIESBy Neil HarrisDecember 9, 1977Like many before me, I have puzzled a long timeabout what could be said that was appropriate tothis occasion. University commencements — orconvocations as they are known here — presentthat rare if happy moment when ceremony andaccomplishment walk hand-in-hand. Compliments are lavished; promises are made; prophecies are uttered. Compliments, promises, andprophecies I prefer, as an historian, to avoid.More appropriate, I think, is reflection upon thesetting of these strange rites, the instigator ofthese processions, costumes, and chants: the University itself.Most people at convocations are visitors. Andmany of their hosts — the graduates — are about toleave for somewhere else. Thus the act of translation remains important. It is also necessary, occasionally, for those who remain. For we grow soaccustomed to our daily tasks that we are surprised when anyone else suspects they might beodd or even special.The University of Chicago, I suppose, obeysthe instinct for self-examination more frequentlythan most other institutions. Perhaps it is theweather. But our four annual convocations, anappropriate memoriakp the first president's joy inritual, provide unexampled opportunities. I offerthese reflections, then, apologetically to thoseforced to endure meditation so often. But the rest,perhaps, may find some use for them.I was pursuing my inchoate thoughts about theUniversity this past summer when an inexorable University for its strength and, in turn, the University as a whole will be strengthened in the exchange.John T. Wilson is President of The University ofChicago and Professor in the Department ofEducation.chain of thought began, as it often does, in acasual moment at the Regenstein Library. There,one afternoon, I was turning some pages in a biographical cyclopedia, searching a citation, when Ispotted the name of William Henry PinkneyPhyfe. Phyfe, spelled with a Ph. I take an interestin the history of American decorative art, and thisspelling roused some memories. Indeed, this wasa grandson of Duncan Phyfe, the cabinet maker,who emigrated from Scotland to America in the1780s, and for fifty years, in New York, producedfurniture that delighted one generation and enriched, through auction sales, its successors.But this Phyfe was not a furniture-maker. Acollege student, briefly, he dropped out because ofeye problems, and then turned to authorship. Hewas, in fact, an author of considerable success, ifsomewhat single-minded vision. One of his earlybooks was entitled Seven Thousand Words OftenMispronounced. This work, which appeared in1889, was apparently greeted with interest, because it was revised and significantly enlarged. Itbecame Ten Thousand Words Often Mispronounced, which entered the market in 1899.After another ten years this figure was somewhatmore modestly increased to Twelve ThousandWords Often Mispronounced. In 1915 a giant stepwas taken with the publication of EighteenThousand Words Often Mispronounced. But thiswas the year of Phyfe' s death. No matter; taking agiant step his publishers, nine years later, issuedwhat amounted to a memorial volume, TwentyThousand Words Often Mispronounced. On amore positive side, Phyfe produced a volume enti-42tied, How Should I Pronounce? and to show hisversatility inscribed another work, in 1894, FiveThousand Words Often Misspelled. But this didnot set a pattern. Apparently Americans of hisday were more sensitive to the social awkwardness of mispronunciation than the academic embarrassment of misspelling. We may be still. Inany event, such was the brief notice of Mr. Phyfewho, so far as I know, occupies a modest place inthe history of American orthography and phonetics.Reading the entry created, as I said, a train ofspeculations. Part of it was a picture of Phyfe onthe prowl for ever more mispronunciations, aThurberesque character whose day was made byerror, and who managed to find more mistakesthan opportunities for making them. All of Milton,for example, contains no more than eighteenthousand different words. The discrepancy, ofcourse, is made up by proper nouns.But serious thoughts surfaced also, for the moreI thought of Phyfe, the more my attention turnedback to the University and its special character.Phyfe, you see, presented a problem. On the onehand he seemed a kindred spirit: someone I mightknow, or communicate with, or, perish thethought, become myself. This concentration of attention, consistency of direction, and emphasis onaccuracy, somewhat more caricatured in Phyfethan many of us would like, suggested anacademic. But, on other grounds, he obviouslydid not belong within a university. Neither hisaims nor his approach suited an institution ofhigher learning. And this incompatibilitysuggested the need to think more about our special modes of discourse.The problem would not have been caused byPhyfe 's intensity. Most members of our faculty donot, themselves, claim to represent balance, harmony, or ultimate wisdom. If they did they wouldnot need the checks and balances of an institutionthat is as intricately poised as a constitutionalgovernment. Subjects of inquiry can be pursuedwith such self-destructive enthusiasm that theUniversity, wisely, does not permit most studentssimply to take one narrow course or sit with oneteacher. Undergraduate, graduate, and professional curricula all prescribe some form of disrtribution, a device that disappoints some facultyas much as it frustrates some students. Enforceddiversification is not universally popular.But if not popular, it is necessary, for its purpose is to complicate the task of asking questions.And here is where Phyfe' s contribution, his emphasis on clear, codified, and immediately useful answers, presents our problem. He never questioned the value of his manuals, nor examined thecomplexity of their social role. Pronunciation, heargued, was the "best prima facie evidence ofgeneral culture." Since no one was indifferent tothe "estimate formed of his social position,"Phyfe argued approvingly, pronunciation was aclear and direct stepping-stone to advancement.His source of authority, in the end, was "the custom of the cultivated class of the community."Certainty and practicality, these were basic toPhyfe's approach, just as they have long been themarks of self-help guides. But if Phyfe seems aliento the university tradition, are we turning ourbacks on certainty and practicality? What boundaries separate these estimable goals from our ownactivities? Is not personal improvement one of ourbasic objectives? These questions seemed to pointme to reconsidering just what our intellectualcharacter was.The problem of joining learning with utility has,in fact, been much discussed in these regions.Since our founding, faculty and administratorsalike have tried to define the essence of a research *university. Most often their language has not focused upon balancing simplicity and complexity,or service and hedonism, but on that classic bifurcation—teaching and research. These terms havealso served as metaphors for those twin pressures:meeting social needs and advancing humanknowledge. Thorstein Veblen, who taught atChicago for more than a decade and wrote TheTheory of the Leisure Class while a member ofthis faculty, stated one purist view most emphatically in his 1918 book, The Higher Learning. ForVeblen, higher learning was the province of theuniversity and involved two functions: scholarlyinquiry and faculty instruction. The first he labelled "primary and indispensable." The second,teaching, was subsidiary; in his words, the scholarwas properly "a student not a schoolmaster."Veblen did not necessarily undervalue a broadpedagogy. "Citizenship is a larger and more substantial category than scholarship," he admitted,"and the furtherance of civilized life is a largerand more serious interest than the pursuit ofknowledge for its own idle sake." But, he concluded, the quest for knowledge required aminimum of distractions. And training for citizenship formed "too serious a range of duties to betaken care of as a side issue, by a seminary oflearning." Practicality, as, well as civic concernsand teaching, aroused Veblen' s anxiety. Trainingfor use seemed to him another distraction, and helashed out, caustically and elegantly, at the new43schools of agriculture, technology, commerce,music, domestic economy, and home economics,that were becoming part of universities, as well asthe larger effort to make vocational training andpractical instruction central to the university enterprise.Several decades later when Robert Hutchinsadapted Veblen' s title in his own book, TheHigher Learning in America, he reversed much ofVeblen' s emphasis. Veblen' s higher learning wasfor the faculty; Hutchins' version stressed thestudent. In the one, it meant underlining freedomof research; in the other, coherence of instruction.Veblen' s ideal of intellectuality was idiosyncraticand research-oriented, while Hutchins' notionbuilt around "a common stock of fundamentalideas" which would nourish orderly thought anddevelop that vocabulary of references deemedcrucial to the educated person.But if Hutchins reversed Veblen' s emphasis, heretained much of his spirit. For while reassertingthe central importance of undergraduate instruction and general education, he also lampoonedand assailed the tendency of universities to aidsocial adaptation and vocational adjustment. "Mycontention," he wrote, "is that the tricks of thetrade cannot be learned in a university, and that ifthey can be they should not be." His target was asimplistic notion of progress which had de-emphasized the liberal arts, championed empiricism, and developed a false and narrow notion ofpracticality which college and university weremeant to serve. Even the collection of informationdid not belong among the university's functions,except when subordinated to the teaching ofmethods or principles.But there have also been other traditions without our University heritage, traditions which goback as far as William Rainey Harper and the actof foundation. The ties between this institutionand the Chicago community, the interest in civicimprovement, in social research and reform, theestablishment of a University Extension Bureau,a Settlement House, and a School of Philanthropyand Social Ethics, all testify, along with manyother interests and activities, to a somewhat different vision. The higher learning was here notmeant to exist on its own terms, its increase andadvancement a supreme good, but to promote theinterests and meet the needs of the society surrounding it. Public responsibilities and policymaking were not anathema; they formed part ofthat spectrum justifying support of a university bythose whose contributions were vital to its continuance. The socializing functions of education were not to be despised, and the boundaries between the Quadrangles and the city outside weremeant to be permeable and elastic.In succeeding decades the problems thatHarper, Veblen, and Hutchins addressed have intensified rather than diminished. University functions have been complicated rather than clarified.The growth of size and numbers, the heighteningcost of maintenance, the competition for philanthropic attention with a series of other worthwhilesocial institutions, all have indeed pushed universities toward Harper's ideal. For better orworse they have become more active championsof practical utility, and have served to legitimate,with more or less confidence, new sources of authority. Their services, either through individualfaculty or institutional support, have been lent tothe needs of the larger community. Both intellectual conviction and self-interest have supported this orientation. And so has simple expansion. Higher research, and transmission of the liberal arts have been, until recently, growth industries. Rationalized and professionalized, theyhave taken on many of the characteristics that defined vocational cultures in the past. Training for alife of research and instruction has, because of theproblems of job placement, now acquired tacticalemphases. And finally, university dependenceupon public monies, and acknowledgement thatits tax status invests it with public responsibilities,have acted to increase involvement with social reform, economic analysis, policy-making, andtechnological experimentation.What should the University's response be tothose long-term trends? They are not new, asVeblen and Hutchins remind us. And they havenot been unwelcome to everyone within the University community. What is appropriate, I think,is for us to reconsider both the need for and thecharacter of the boundaries differentiating onekind of institution from another in our society. Wecannot, and we should not, even if we could, treatthe University as an asylum, a refuge, a buttressedretreat from community pressures, exemptedfrom the operation of larger constraints andnecessities. But boundaries are not necessarilybarriers, and borders are not always battlements.I believe that the skepticism, the anxieties, andthe qualifications that are so much a part of scholarly enterprise must remain endemic to our work.It is not a question of the subjects of our teachingor research, but the manner of our performance.The University' s role is not, in the main, to answerquestions asked by others, to write how-to books,or supply community blueprints. The institution44must continue to emphasize its critical rather thanits supportive obligations, and to insist upon thefunctional importance of doubt in a society whichprefers answers to questions. We have becomeecologically minded enough, today, to realize thatsolutions often cause as many dilemmas as problems do. The higher learning may well bemaladaptive. Many of its functions are notsocializing ones. And its conclusions, whenreached, are often unhappy. But then its faith, forthat is what ultimately supports it, does not andshould not require sweeping social claims. Andhere it stands somewhat isolated in the largercommunity.The problem of maintaining our boundaries anddefining our territory will be with us for an indefinite future. Retaining difference while denyingexclusivity, and enhancing a larger utility withoutembracing practicality, these are difficult goals.But for that very reason they deserve our attention. The university must continue to pursue itsown special brand of complexity. We may wellrun some risks — mispronunciation amongthem — but then, to misquote Mark Twain, it ishard to trust someone who has only one way ofpronouncing a word.Neil Harris is a Professor in the Department ofHistory.SUMMARY OF THE366TH CONVOCATIONThe 366th convocation was held on Friday, December 9, 1977, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, President of the University, presided.A total of 355 degrees were awarded: 34Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 36 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 54Master of Arts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 5 Master of Arts in Teaching, 6 Master ofScience in Teaching, 5 Master of Science in theDivision of the Biological Sciences and ThePritzker School of Medicine, 5 Master of Sciencein the Division of the Physical Sciences, 16 Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 14 Master ofArts in the Graduate Library School, 4 Master ofArts in the School of Social Service Administration, 84 Master of Business Administration, 1 Master of Law, 3 Doctor of Medicine, and 87Doctor of Philosophy.One honorary degree was conferred during the366th convocation. The recipient of the Doctor ofScience degree was Bruno Rossi, Institute Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.Neil Harris, Professor in the Department ofHistory, delivered the convocation address, entitled "Boundaries."ERRATUMThe memorial tributes to Fairfax M. Cone whichappeared in the Record, XII, 1, were originallygiven at a memorial service for Mr. Cone onNovember 17, 1977.TRUSTEES' MEMORIAL RESOLUTION:ALBERT PICK, JR.It is with sadness that we record the loss of AlbertPick, Jr., Life Trustee and friend of the University, who passed away on December 11, 1977 atthe age of eighty-two.Mr. Pick was born in Chicago on July 2, 1895;he graduated from University High School in1913, and obtained his Ph.B. degree from TheUniversity of Chicago in 1917. He served in theUnited States Army for fourteen months duringWorld War I. He subsequently joined his father,Albert Pick, Sr., in the hotel equipment firm ofAlbert Pick and Company, and after its sale, inthe management of the Albert Pick Hotels, whichexpanded from the operation of seven propertiesin 1926 to more than thirty hotels across theUnited States. His business flourished as muchfrom his own perseverance as from his innatesense of hospitality. In 1954, these talents wererecognized when he was named "Hotelman of theYear."Throughout his life, Mr. Pick was active incivic and philanthropic endeavors. He held key45assignments in the Illinois Department of PublicWelfare, the State Department's "People-to-People" program, the International Hotel Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers. He was active in the affairs of HighlandPark, serving as a director of the First NationalBank of Highland Park and as a trustee of Highland Park Hospital and the Ravinia Festival Association.He served as a member of the governing bodyof The University of Chicago Alumni Foundation, and in 1952, was awarded its Citizenship Citation. He served as chairman of the board ofwhat is now the LaRabida Children's Hospitaland Research Center and contributed toward awing to one of the buildings. He also served as amember of the Board of Governors of International House and was able to offer invaluablehotelman' s advice in the operations of that facility.On May 29, 1959, Mr. Pick was elected amember of the Board of Trustees of The University of Chicago; he served in that capacity untilJune 10, 1965, when he was appointed honorarytrustee, and later, life trustee. He was amember of the Visiting Committee to the College,a trustee member of the Council on Medical andBiological Research, a member of the CitizensBoard and president of the Emeritus Society ofthe University. While he was a member of theBoard of Trustees, he served on the BudgetCommittee, the Committee on Business Administration, and as cochairman of the specialgifts of the Policy Committee for Development. Mr. Pick remained a staunch supporter of theUniversity and helped it overcome obstacles andtake advantage of new responsibilities and opportunities. A few days before his death, he madeprovision for an endowment fund for the Lawrence A. Kimpton Scholarship in the College. Afew years ago, in honor of the Pick family name•° and as a culmination of his own commitment toward world peace, Mr. Pick contributed towardthe construction of the Albert Pick Hall for International Studies. In his remarks at the dedicationceremony in June 1971, Mr. Pick summed up hishopes for international understanding with thesewords:Wars serve no purpose. Conquest is no solution.Fairness must be the answer to all problems. Wemust be able to talk things over as enlightenedhuman beings.As was said of his distinguished father, so will itbe said of Albert Pick, Jr. : He left behind amemorable heritage of good deeds and countlessnumbers of his beneficiaries are better off todayfor his having lived.Mr. Chairman, I move that we express ourdeep sympathy and our University's appreciationby a rising vote and that copies of this memorialbe transmitted to Mr. Pick's beloved wife,Corinne Frada Pick, and to members of the family.The Board of TrusteesJanuary 12, 197846THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building<9o£ooo£§oerJeras.ONo 2i"0 I 0m £ c 333 o "Tfls > ¦pP 1~*0O r-r- 0>! 4i25 0¦e o m 2¦* zr oCO 3