c THE INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY Report on the Presidents Second Faculty Conference UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Allerton House • March 13-15, 1959 -'^ Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. University of Illinois Library L161— H41 THE INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY Report on the President's Second Faculty Conference UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ALlerton House • March 13-15, 1959 Published by the University of IlHnois, Urbana, 1959 Contents AN EDITORIAL NOTE 1 COMMITTEES 2 SCHEDULE 3 THE PRESIDENT'S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE 5 PART I : THE FACULTY LOOKS AT ITSELF 11 Faculty Distinction: Some Touchstones 12 Teaching "versus" Research 12 How to Attract and Hold a Distinguished Facuky. . 13 The Interpretative Role of the Faculty 16 PART II: COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY 19 Communication and Interchange Between Disciplines 20 Communication Through Interchange Between Campuses 21 Toward Better Communication 22 PART III: THE FACULTY AND UNIVERSITY POLICY 23 Representation and the Senates 24 Who Steers? 25 The Faculty Man and the Committee 25 Programs on Parade 26 The Physical Plant Department 27 The Roads Not Taken 27 IN CONCLUSION 29 The Conference Poll 30 The Conference in Retrospect 30 APPENDICES 31 Resolutions 33 List of Participants 36 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/intellectualclimOOuniv An Editorial Note On March 13-15, 1959, a representative group of University of Illinois faculty members met with President David D. Henry at Allerton House to hold informal discussions on the theme "The Intellectual Climate of the University." This essay, the Report on the President's Second Faculty Conference, is an attempt to follow some of the major threads of discussion to their ulti- mate conclusion as a consensus of all or most of the participants in that Conference. It is not to be considered as an "abstract" nor even a "summary" of the good talk that took place during those three days at Allerton. There is no pretense that it represents everything that was said — or, indeed, that it touches on every topic which was discussed. It is limited to pointing out major recurring currents of opinion as expressed by the Conference mem- bers plus appropriate excerpts from the papers and the resolutions adopted. Because the members of the Conference were encouraged to express their opinions informally, the quotations used in this Report are not attributed to the speakers. Exceptions to this policy are made in the cases of President Henry, Provost Gordon Ray, and Dean Royden Dangerfield, chairman of the Conference Steering Committee. Helen Farlow Rapporteur Committees PRESIDENT'S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE Host: President David D. Henry Steering Committee: Royden Dangerfield, Chairman E. W. Cleary, Acting Chairman G. H. Bargh J. F. Due H. G. Halcrow Resolutions Committee: E. W. Cleary, Chairman Royden Dangerfield, Secretary H. F. Dowling N. J. Leonard W. H. McPherson G. G. Jackson H. S. Stillwell E. B. Vest P. E. Yankwich J. W. Peltason A. D. Pickett W. H. Shoemaker A. H. Taub P. E. Yankwich Study Committee: "The Quality of the Faculty" E. H. Davidson, Chairman E. B. Vest A. H. Taub Study Committee: "Faculty Participation in the Formulation of Policy" R. T. Odell, Chairman J. W. Peltason H. S. Gutovvsky Study Committee: "Interchange Between Disciplines" R. W. Janes, Chairman D. P. Flanders H. F. Dowling N, J. Leonard Editorial Committee: Royden Dangerfield, Chairman G. H. Bargh Helen Farlow Eunice Parker Rapporteur: Helen Farlow Schedule PRESIDENT'S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE General Theme: "The Intellectual Climate of the University" Friday, March 13 12 : 30 p.m. — Luncheon 2:00 p.m. — Discussion: "The Quality of the Faculty" 6 : 00 p.m. — Dinner 7:30 p.m. — Book Review: The Academic Marketplace, by Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee Reviewer — Professor Walter Grampp Book Review: Some of My Best Friends Are Professors, by George Williams Reviewer — Professor Charles Nowell Discussion — Dr. W. H. Cowley, Miller Professor of Higher Education Saturday, March 14 8 : 00 a.m. — Breakfast 9:00 a.m. — Discussion: "Faculty Participation in Policy Formulation" 12:30 p.m. — Luncheon 2:00 p.m. — Discussion: "Interchange Between Disciplines" 6 : 00 p.m. — Dinner 7:30 p.m. — President's Hour Sunday, March 15 8:00 a.m. — Breakfast 9 : 00 a.m. — Consideration of Resolutions 12:15 p.m. — Dinner Adjournment The President's Second Faculty Conference To further internal communication^ David Dodds Henry, President of the University of IlHnois, invited a representative group of facuky members to meet with him March 13-15, 1959, at Allerton House. One of the problems of a large university, he told the invited participants, is the lack of opportunity for a direct exchange of views between the Presi- dent and individual members of the faculty, and among representative members of the faculty on the several campuses. The usual channels of communication, indispensable as they are, convey official and group deci- sions rather than personal thinking. Thus the value of thinking together through an organized discussion of issues is lacking. The aims of the Conference were to assist in promoting understanding both by providing an opportunity for discussion of University problems and by furnishing the means by which members of the group could become better acquainted. The Conference was, in fact as well as title, "The President's" Conference. Dr. Henry was the host; he presided at all discussion sessions; he took part in many of the informal "seminars" through which discussions continued after the sessions were dismissed. He was aided in planning by a Steering Committee. This committee helped him set up three Study Committees, each with a topic for a prepared paper; nominated the participants in the Conference; and had responsi- bility for the arrangements. The Study Committees prepared reports on three subjects: "The Quality of the Faculty," "Faculty Participation in the Formulation of Policy," and "Interchange Between Disciplines." Copies of these papers were sent to all Conference participants in advance. The discussions stemmed from them, but were not limited to them. The Second Faculty Conference was preceded by a President's Faculty Conference, a one-day meeting in June, 1958, to which the President invited the University Council, other key administrators, committee heads, and faculty members for a discussion of a preliminary report of the University's Study Committee on Future Programs. Two aspects of that report were mentioned frequently as policies on which assumptions of the Second Conference could safely be based. These bear repeating. 1. The University has five major responsibilities. In order of their priorit)', they are: (a) Teaching, research, and scholarly and creative activity in funda- mental fields of learning. [The fundamental fields were listed as mathe- matics, the biological and physical sciences, the humanities, the fine arts, and the social sciences.] (b) Teaching and research in professional and occupational areas closely dependent on the fundamental fields of learning. (c) Liberal education of those who do not intend to become highly trained specialists and, to the extent possible, of students aim.ing toward specialized or professional training. (d) Vocational training in fields which are clearly of substantial and wide importance to the state and nation, especially those which require four-year programs including sound preparation in the fundamental fields of learning and which the University is uniquely or best fitted to provide. (e) Extension education and essential public services which require the kinds and level of expertness represented in the faculty. 2. The present distribution of enrollment in the University of Illinois at the three levels (freshman- sophomore, junior-senior, and graduate) is in the ratio of 2:2:1. The report recommended that the University seek, through control of admissions, to establish a ratio approaching 2:3:2, or, to put it more generally, two freshmen and sophomores to five more ad- vanced students. These two statements of proposed policy were used as a frame of refer- ence by many speakers at the Second Conference. The President's Second Faculty Conference differed from the First Con- ference in many respects : 1. The Second Conference lasted three days, and was held in a rural setting, remote from the possible distractions of the campus. 2. Its participants were, in the main, members of the teaching faculty rather than representatives of the administration. They were selected on a proportionate basis from among full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, and — again proportionately — included faculty from the Chicago Professional Colleges, the Chicago Undergraduate Division, and the Urbana-Champaign campus. The group consisted of "a repre- sentative group of faculty rather than a group of faculty representatives." The Conference discussed reports from the three Study Committees; listened to reviews of two books pertaining to the current academic scene; and invited comment on a variety of matters from the administration in an informal question-and-reply period called "The President's Hour"; adopted a series of resolutions; and talked by the hour and by the day, in session and out. The general tone of the Conference was described, by various participants, as "an informal gathering of faculty people," "mutual soul-searching," and "mutual pulse-taking — the administration took the pulse of the faculty; the faculty took the pulse of the administration. In each case, the patient was found to be in excellent condition." With its emphasis on informality, and with its broad scope of repre- sentation, the Conference, it must be emphasized, had no official standing. It was not an action group. Its resolutions are only recommendations, which may or may not be put into effect by appropriate agencies of the University. t; The Intellectual Climate of the University Part I: The Faculty Looks at Itself RESOLUTION 2: The University must recruit and vigorously support persons of scholarly distinction for its faculty. Basic to the evaluation of scholarly dis- tinction is the judgment given by the academic community, both on and off the campus, with respect to the work produced by the faculty members and to the students they teach and train. The Conference recommends that the University establish policies govern- ing promotions which include the following features: (a) A principle of specified limited periods in rank, with promotion or termi- nation of service for non-tenure positions. The policy when formulated should not be made retroactive. (b) Promotion to and within tenure ranks should involve, in addition to departmental appraisal, the judgment of the outside academic community. (c) While it should be a primary goal in the University's policy regarding promotion to increase the proportion of distinguished scholars on the faculty, it should also be the policy to give tenure and promotion to faculty members giving able and imaginative professional service of other types in University programs.^ The University of Illinois should, the Conference recommended, adopt an "up or out" policy requiring that junior faculty members adjudged unsuitable for promotion should be kept on the staff only for a limited number of years. Flanking the ' up or out" statement were two complementary ideas : 1 . The distinction of a great university rests on the distinction of a faculty known throughout the academic world for its excellence in scholarship and in research as mirrored by publication. Such scholarly distinction should be encouraged. ^ The Resolutions adopted by the Conference appear in sequence on pages 33-35. 11 12 president's second faculty conference 2. However, faculty excellence deserving reward and encouragement may also be attained through creative achievement, through inspired teaching, and through other kinds of imaginative service to the University. Although it was not reflected in the resolutions, there was general in- formal agreement that "up or out," if it ever were adopted as a general University policy, should be suspended under certain special sets of circum- stances. "Normally, 'up or out' is an excellent idea — when and if the University and the student body are stabilized in size. But if and when there comes a sudden upsurge in enrollment — a scurrying for staff, then 'up or out' might mean 'out,' to our disadvantage," said an administrator. How, asked another speaker, will we protect ourselves against throwing out potentially good people in poor budget years? And the resolution was amended from the floor to be sure everyone understood that the "up or out" policy, if adopted, should not be made retroactive. FACULTY DISTINCTION: SOME TOUCHSTONES The report of the Study Committee on "The Quality of the Faculty" defines its title phrase as "scholarly distinction — the place the faculty has earned for itself in the world of the educated elite and in the total adventure of the human mind." By a show of hands, a large majority of the conferees expressed the view that scholarly distinction should not be described by that academic barb "publish or perish," but should also be considered to mean "teaching, creative worth, and service to the University." President Henry summed up three kinds of worth which should be taken into account when policies are being adopted regarding University promotion, salary advances, and tenure: (1) published scholarship; (2) scholarship not reflected in publication; (3) other kinds of professional service not measured by either of these. TEACHING "VERSUS" RESEARCH Teaching and research are not incompatible. Both the distinguished research scholar and the faculty member with creative gifts of another sort are apt to be excellent teachers. INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 13 Through three days of "heated agreement," the Conference came at last to this conclusion. The perennial argument of teaching versus research, called by one par- ticipant "the old bugaboo which always come up like a tired old ghost — that the researcher is always a bad teacher; that a non-researcher is auto- matically a good teacher," was disposed of, in the end, by mutual agreement. President Henry contributed a quotation from a talk made by alumnus Mark Van Doren at a Convocation for Midyear Graduates of the Univer- sity of Illinois, January 26, 1958: "Now, to measure a school by its teachers is not to measure it by the only item that matters," Van Doren said on that occasion. "Doubtless the item that matters most is the subjects that are taught: the things the students will be asked to learn. But the student meets the subject in the teacher, and the teacher for that simple reason never ceases to be crucial in the drama of learning. Just as the content of a mind cannot be known until a voice delivers it, so it may be said that a subject does not exist until the student hears it in the words of his teacher. And if these are good words, the subject, too, seems good. It seems better yet when style distinguishes the words. The proof of any statement is finally in its style, by which I mean its precision, its beauty, and its personal force. Teachers, then, are the voices of a university; and its best teachers may be thought of as those who deliver its content, its meaning and its truth, in such a way that they them- selves become its style." HOW TO ATTRACT AND HOLD A DISTINGUISHED FACULTY RESOLUTION 8: The Conference approves the efforts of the administration to secure adequate buildings and facilities. It is urged that efforts be continued to this end. Indispensable elements in maintaining a faculty of quality are, among others, adequate space for study, research, instruction of classes, and other teaching activities. In addition to these physical facilities, further im- provements of our libraries and their services and greater availability of secretarial services are needed. In planning University facilities, the promotion of greater faculty unity and informal interdisciplinary contacts should be given consideration. Many kinds of inducements can be used effectively, under different sets of circumstances, in attracting and maintaining a faculty of recognized excellence, the Conference decided. How effective any one or any com- bination of these may be at a given moment is determined by the Univer- sity's resources, both real and intangible. 14 president's second faculty conference Some kinds of "bait" which may be useful include: 1. Attractive salaries. 2. Good working conditions, including adequate and attractive space for classrooms, seminars, offices, and the promotion of faculty fellowship. 3. The prospect of advancement. 4. The prestige of the department concerned ("quality attracts quality"). 5. The attraction of fringe benefits. The problem was stated in the Study Paper on "The Quality of the Faculty" as "a shortage of well-qualified faculty people — that educated elite which is to provide the incentive and offer the preparation for the young people of intellectual ability who will be the leaders of the future. Every department of the University is having difficulty recruiting young people of high quality who will staff that department. . . ." The Study Paper suggests, "While the salary is obviously of considerable importance in inducing a young person to come to the University, it is more important to be able to show the candidate that he has a future; that he has a chance to demonstrate his ability and achieve distinction not only in his early years when his ability is under careful scrutiny but in all the years ahead." Despite this disclaimer of salaries as a major factor in attracting and holding staff, the Conference devoted a large amount of time to discussion of the salary topic. Adequate physical facilities also were discussed at length. Salary schedules must compete with those of other educational institu- tions so that the University can keep its place in what an administrator calls "the rating that goes on." Moreover, salaries must be attractive not only for younger faculty mem- bers on the lower rungs of the ladder, but also must be geared to retain those who have achieved distinction. The University has made great steps, the Conference agreed, in putting in a minimum salary scale, and is deserving of credit for its present long- range efforts to make this a realistic scale. The existence of this scale, and the constant effort to improve it, make up "a recruitment inducement, and an inducement which will help retain promising younger men," it was stated. If salaries were "Topic A" in this part of the discussion, buildings and space requirements undoubtedly were "Topic B." Good working conditions — space, equipment, and other facilities ■ — have become "a vital consideration in the recruitment and retention of personnel," Dr. Henry said. INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 15 At the University of Illinois, the fact remains that half its current build- ing needs would be vitally needed even if enrollment did not increase by as much as a single student. The sad fact, he continued, is that "university research is in second priority as far as the general public understanding is concerned. A public which reveres research in industry and medicine has not yet learned to translate that interest in terms of the dollars in the [university] budget." As for fringe benefits, here again business and industry have the edge over what the academic world can offer. But, as a conference member emphasized, there are "plus values" at the University of Illinois which can be mentioned when such minus factors as space come up for discussion. He listed some of these "plus values" as: the way the University sup- ports field projects; the way it makes office help available in research projects; the University library service, "known all over the country and the world"; the sympathetic attention to requests that the University affords younger members of the faculty. Another plus factor at the University of Illinois, Dr. Henry added, is the fact that "Illinois is on the high side in providing research funds," whereas in many institutions, research is carried on 100 per cent with funds which can be raised from outside sources for the purpose — or not at all. As a cultural fringe benefit another participant listed "the School of Music (and its many concerts) as an excellent example — but perhaps there could be more programs in the other arts." A College of Medicine spokesman said, wistfully, "To us, who have to commute to our University, we feel that this [Urbana-Champaign] campus has everything culturally — the arts, and the opportunity to communicate with your colleagues. Maybe this is a case of the grass being a little greener. . . ." The Conference, as a group, emphasized that fringe benefits need to be multiplied and improved. An adequate University Club, someone said, would prevent "a dangerous kind of capsulation into our little 'separatalities,' where we feel very warm and very comfortable, indeed." The need for space was emphasized and re-emphasized. A chemist: "My books rise to the ceiling — I don't know where they'll go after that. I'm informed they can't go home. But in other parts of Liberal Arts and Sciences I am dismayed at the multiple offices [where several faculty members share a single small room]." 16 president's second faculty conference An architect: "How about three other classes being taught in the same room at the same time with your own class?" There were pleas that the discussion "include the character of space — the aesthetic stimulation of the University environment." Spokesman for the Building Program Committee: "The Committee is not at all unconcerned with aesthetics, but the question in a lot of cases comes down to how we're going to [find the money to] get a roof on a building." And, to facilitate an interchange of views with students and with other faculty members, and to promote faculty rapport, a strong case was made for the need for faculty lounges and/or other proper settings in University buildings for the seminar, the informal discussion, and the coffee hour. Such factors, the Conference was assured, are being taken into considera- tion by the administration and the Building Program Committee in the long-range planning of future construction and remodeling. A spokesman suggested that an important recruitment inducement would be existence of a University policy hastening tenure status for promising younger faculty men. Provost Ray: "We have done this. ... I can cite some statistics. In 1946, 60 per cent of the staff was at the instructor or assistant professor level, and 40 per cent at associate professor or full professor level. Ten years later these proportions were exactly reversed." President Henry: "There is a general feeling that we ought not extend the ratio of the upper ranks farther than it now is." THE INTERPRETATIVE ROLE OF THE FACULTY Is a faculty "an island, entire of itself," or does it have a responsibility to represent its University before the public, and to interpret the University to the world at large ? This question came up several times during the Conference, and was raised during "The President's Hour," an unstructured evening session during which President Henry agreed to comment on any question brought up from the floor. He was asked to — and did — speak to various queries and statements on such diverse matters of faculty interest as coordination of statewide plan- ning for higher education; "on such matters as . . ." the emergence and the desirability of encouraging establishment of junior colleges; and what were INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 17 called certain differences in operational procedures at the Chicago Under- graduate Division and at Urbana-Champaign. The question of faculty responsibility for public relations came up when President Henry was asked to comment upon "the somewhat more aggres- sive and less conservative" approach to the Legislature and to budget requests which has been adopted by certain other educational institutions. "Our history shows our [conservative] method has been successful/' Dr. Henry said. "It has worked. . . . The question is: Since it has worked in the past, will it continue to do so?" He cited examples from other states where super-promotional, aggressive tactics have seemed successful, but added, in regard to this University's factual, truthful approach, a personal comment: "I personally could not subscribe to its being done in any other way," he said frankly. "Our way is completely honest and we can believe in it. Any of us can stand before any group of citizens and discuss our budget requests and be confident of their reliability — and have no excuses. Thus our fight for resources can be a cause for us all." Then, in a prepared statement — his only one during the three-day Conference — President Henry added: "After meeting with two General Assemblies, numerous meetings of citizens, alumni, parents, and others on countless other occasions throughout the State over nearly four years, I want to say as directly as I know how that the University is in a serious competition for the interested attention of the people of the State. Unless we gain that attention, we shall not have the priority of support given in the past or seriously needed at present. "By attention, I do not mean the passing interest given to current events or public occasions. I refer to the continuing concern for the welfare of the University and an abiding feeling of the direct relationship between what the University stands for and what it does and the personal welfare of the individual citizens and of the State community. Widespread personal commitment by citizens to work for the advancement of the University is needed to have the University survive in the present competition. "By competition, I do not refer to the programs of other universities. I refer to all the things that claim the citizen's attention and which he measures as a part of his welfare — his concern with public expenditures and taxes, with national defense, with highways and local civic services, with appeals for private charity, with job opportunities, with increased costs of living, with political issues. "To be a winner in this kind of competition, and one's place in the race will be reflected in Springfield, not determined there, the entire University 18 president's second faculty conference staff must aggressively and persistently be engaged in the business of interpreting the University to the people. No organization in the Presi- dent's office can do it adequately; no public information program will suffice. Every staff member, particularly the faculty, must do his part — with his professional constituency, with students and alumni, with friends, with neighbors and relatives. There are 9,000 staff members, 25,000 stu- dents, 120,000 living degree graduates, 40,000 to 50,000 parents. Aroused, informed, concerned, these people can determine the future of the Uni- versity. "Such results will not come from exhortations of the President or from the best of plans in public relations offices. They wdll come when every department, every college, every unit of the University's life organizes itself to take part in this work as actively as it now engages in its other main-line functions — teaching and research. Interpretation is the third dimension of the professional responsibility of the faculty member." Part II: Communication Within the University RESOLUTION 3: Effective faculty participation in formulation of policy requires wide dissemination of pertinent information. The Conference recommends the publication of a regular newsletter to be sent to all members of the faculty. Such a newsletter should include agenda of the three Senates and summaries of minutes of the Senates, summaries of selected committee reports, policy statements, and reports of major developments. RESOLUTION 6: The Conference recognizes the need for much interchange among the three campuses and recommends that all possible means be taken to increase the exchanges that now exist. This may be implemented by: closed-circuit television, adequate distribution of directories and weekly or monthly calendars among the several campuses, interchange of instructors for shorter and longer periods of time, development of joint research efforts, participation in special events at one campus by members of the other facul- ties, and more complete use of a visitor's time and talents when he is on another campus. RESOLUTION 7: The Conference is pleased to learn that there is much inter- change between disciplines on the three campuses and at all levels. When- ever both the interest and the need for interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approaches exist, programs joining disciplines should be encouraged. The Conference believes that under certain conditions joint appointments are advantageous and should be possible whenever advisable. The Conference favors the cross-listing of courses and the avoidance and elimination of duplication of courses of the same content. The faculty, as mirrored in the Conference, wants closer ties with col- leagues elsewhere in the University and opportunities to work with them and to exchange views with them. It wants to be "in the know" about University policy while it is in the process of formation. It wishes to have 19 20 president's second faculty conference access to the administrative ear. It wants the freedom to explore burgeon- ing new fields of knowledge without the restrictions of traditional depart- mental lines. COMMUNICATION AND INTERCHANGE BETWEEN DISCIPLINES Entire areas of knowledge are exploding with a force never before experienced in the history of learning. As a result, University scholars, researchers, and teachers are questioning the barriers arbitrarily imposed through the departmental system of ad- ministration. They feel that knowledge often can no longer be kept in neat, air-tight compartments labeled with the names of fields of special- ization — that it needs to be released so that it can cross old boundaries and form new associations with other disciplines. Several ways through which interdisciplinary approaches might be encouraged were suggested at the Conference. These included: 1. Cross-listing of courses and elimination of duplication of those with similar or identical content offered in more than one department or college. 2. Joint appointments in more than one department for faculty working in a combination of fields. 3. Administrative encouragement of interdisciplinary ventures. "How can faculty excellence be encouraged through interdisciplinary approaches?" one participant asked. "This must be done by the depart- ments themselves. But if it can be done, it will improve the intellectual climate of the University." Said another: "We keep specializing — splintering off. I think the prob- lem [of interdisciplinary approaches] should be solved professionally, and not by administrative action." Many interdisciplinary activities and projects already are being carried on successfully at the University of Illinois, and others are being considered, it was emphasized. The computer program, the Control Systems Laboratory, various re- search and teaching projects, many joint appointments — all these were cited. But, Conference members added, difficulties can sometimes plague a faculty member or group involved in interdisciplinary activities. These include: 1. A fear that it may be hard to attract "a flow of graduate students" INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 21 into interdisciplinary work, and equally hard to place them in jobs after they finish their graduate work. 2. The danger that a man engaged in interdisciplinary projects involving vv^ork in or with two or more departments and, perhaps, a joint appoint- ment between them may be passed over when it comes time for promotion or salary increases. But despite these possible hazards the Conference was solidly behind the idea of the desirability of interdisciplinary projects and associations. "The answer to the success of interdepartmental programs is dedicated people," said one. "I think we are agreed," said another, "that interdisciplinary exchange includes skill in one discipline, with interest enough in another to bridge the gap!" Said President Henry: "Each group will probably find its own answer. ... I think we're all agreed on the desirability of interdisciplinary re- search, teaching, and association." COMMUNICATION THROUGH INTERCHANGE BETWEEN CAMPUSES A "sense of common membership in the faculty" should be encouraged through greater communication and interchange between campuses. This consensus was arrived at by the Conference with some enthusiasm, with no argument, and with a minimum of discussion. It was based on a section in the Study Paper on "Interchange Between Disciplines," plus an eloquent statement by a spokesman from the Chicago Professional Colleges. In promoting interchange among the University's campuses, the Study Paper emphasized, geographical separation is added to the factors of administrative and disciplinary separation. "At present, the isolation of each from the other two can hardly be underestimated, and the virtual anonymity of the three faculties to one another is such that we rarely envisage interaction or interchange with the other faculties as we go about our tasks of teaching and research." The comments of the Chicago Professional Colleges' spokesman brought out these points: 1. The three faculties of the University of Illinois have much to offer one another. The Chicago Professional Colleges, for instance, have access to funds for research projects in which colleagues from other campuses might participate, perhaps on an interdisciplinary basis, to the benefit of all. 22 president's second faculty conference 2. The Chicago Professional Colleges have clinical facilities which might be of benefit in making case studies of patients available to students and to faculty scholars from other disciplines. 3. Machinery might be set up through which a faculty member visiting on another campus of the University could have his time budgeted so that he could confer or work with other faculty members, interview students, etc.j during time ordinarily lost. 4. Closed-circuit television could be utilized for committee meetings requiring participation by faculty from more than one campus. 5. An interchange of instructors would break down some of the barriers between campuses. ("We have visiting professors from Harvard and Duke, but not Urbana.") 6. Cultural interchange might be fostered and encouraged by having those on one campus attend special events at the others. ("Isn't it a little strange that we have a Chicago Day for a football game but not for the Arts Festival?") TOWARD BETTER COMMUNICATION Establishment of a "house organ" or faculty newsletter was proposed and heartily endorsed in the Conference as a possible means of keeping University of Illinois faculty members up to date on policy in the making. Some comments leading up to this conclusion by the participants include: "We often don't know about new University programs until they are announced. . . . We have no way of being heard before a matter is decided." "One of the things I have heard at the Pier is that the men do not know what's going on in the University as a whole." "In six years on the campus I've never known what alternate policies were under review, or how to channel an idea. . . . We find out about policy when we know it's too late to change it." "We need a house organ or newsletter which would tell us what policies are being considered; what new courses are being planned. ... It would help communication between departments, and communication between the faculty and the administration. It would improve faculty morale." Conversely, administrative spokesmen expressed serious doubts that a faculty house organ would be a feasible and effective answer to the desire of the faculty to be "in the know." President Henry indicated the idea would be given serious examination. Part III: The Faculty and University Policy RESOLUTION 1: The educational programs of the University must be subjected to a continuing process of examination and re-examination. This process should be governed by the principles for growth of the University set forth in the First Report of the University Study Committee on Future Programs. To that end the Conference recommends that: (a) The Three Senate Committees on Educational Policy assume a broader responsibility and manifest an increased interest and initiative in broad edu- cational problems and programs; (b) A decision to undertake a new program be influenced strongly by the effect it would have on the intellectual climate of the University; (c) The Senate Committees on Educational Policy assign priorities to new educational programs for the guidance of the University Committee on the Budget, the University Building Program Committee, and administrative officials; (d) Existing programs be re-examined to determine those no longer war- ranted with a view to freeing resources for strengthening other fields. RESOLUTION 4: It is the sense of the Conference that the bases of the Senates should be broadened either by making them elective representative bodies or by enlarging their memberships to include ranks other than that of professor. RESOLUTION 5: The Conference recommends that the Urbana-Champaign and the Chicago Professional Colleges Senates consider the election of steering committees. The Conference also emphasized these points: 1. Consideration should be given to making Senate membership more representative of the faculty as a whole. 2. Appointment of Senate steering committees in Urbana and the Chicago 23 24 president's second faculty conference Professional Colleges might give these bodies machinery through which policy ideas could be brought up for preview and review. 3. Appointment of faculty members to administrative committees does not constitute "faculty participation." 4. The faculty should not confuse administrative functions — which are best left to the administrators — with those functions about which the faculty should concern itself because of their effect on the intellectual climate of the University. 5. Because of budget limitations, the faculty should help discourage and/or eliminate new or continuing programs of lesser value, and priorities should be set up to assist in this task. Moreover, the Conference decided — with considerable agreement — that it is the faculty's own fault (individually and collectively) if there is a lack of faculty participation in the making of policy on any of a number of fronts: budget, educational programs, athletics, student activities, and so on. In the last analysis, it was decided, the key is faculty initiative, or the lack of it. REPRESENTATION AND THE SENATES "The Senate, in its current makeup, can't be considered representative of the faculty," said a Conference participant. Dean Dangerfield: "The Senate on the Urbana-Champaign campus is a large body — it's too large to be a deliberative body. It works through its committees. By and large the Senate knows what is going to come up beforehand — generally ten days to a month before. The Senate is not a representative body. The Senate member has no obligation to talk matters over with his department. The person is a member of the Senate by virtue of rank." In more than two hours of discussion, the Conference emphasized that: 1. Under existing University statutes, each of the three Senates — at Urbana-Champaign, at the Chicago Professional Colleges, and at the Chicago Undergraduate Division — may elect any additional persons, of any rank, which it may choose. Some doubt was expressed that the Senates, as presently constituted, will agree so to act. 2. The Senates work through committees. Thus, the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may, if he likes, bring details on the budget during its evolvement back to his committee and/or the full Senate INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 25 at any stage in the process, and can take the views of his colleagues back to the administrative University Budget Committee, of which he auto- matically is a member. Likewise, the Senate Committee on Educational Policy may take up any matters dealing with educational policy which it chooses to consider. President Henry reminded the group of a remark made by Albert J. Harno, Dean Emeritus of the University of Illinois College of Law. After extensive study of national educational administrative patterns. Dean Harno said that the University of Illinois probably has the most democratic organization of any university in the United States. WHO STEERS? Senate steering committees at Urbana-Champaign and the Chicago Professional Colleges should be formed to provide avenues through which consideration of University policy might be brought before the faculty, the Conference decided. Said one speaker: "Effective use could be made of the faculty if there were a cabinet or executive committee of the Senate which could get away from the 'town meeting' aspect of the Senate." Senate steering committees, said another, would "prod the collective con- sciences of our Senates." At the request of the persons at the Conference from the Navy Pier faculty, no steering committee was recommended for the Senate of the Chicago Undergraduate Division. THE FACULTY MAN AND THE COMMITTEE The University of Illinois has, at last count, fifty-seven all-University committees devoted in varying degrees to aspects of policy making and/or administration. In many cases, faculty members serving on these committees are ap- pointed to them by the President. Should they be elected by the faculty or named through the Committee on Committees of the Senate? The Conference thought the matter over and decided they should con- tinue to be appointed by the President. For one thing, the members decided, election of faculty members of 26 president's second faculty conference major committees might destroy the important rapport which the President and his administrative officers now enjoy with the faculty members having special qualifications whom they seek out as advisers. Also, committee "elections" would tend to confuse the already hazy distinction between the two separate functions of policy-making and ad- ministration. "There is," said Dr. Henry, "a no man's land between policy and practice. The question often arises, what is policy and what is admin- istration? Most policy committees which have recognition as such are Senate committees, and are appointed through the faculty. "In the effort at the University of Illinois to get faculty advice and opinion, the administration has established committees advisory to the administrative function. These are really not policy committees. Perhaps we have erred in having too many committees. . . . Their existence, how- ever, has been an outcome of the wish of the University administration to have broader faculty consultation." PROGRAMS ON PARADE Because of the urgent need to provide funds and facilities for University programs of the highest importance, the Conference felt that the faculty — as individuals, as departments, as colleges, as Senates — should under- take two major and continuing tasks: 1. The review of all programs on a recurring basis, and the elimination of any which might be judged of lesser importance. 2. The establishment of a system of priorities which would govern the position and support given to possible new undertakings. The priorities would not only deal with the relative importance of vari- ous types of University activities to the total undertaking, as given in the First Report of the University Study Committee on Future Programs,^ but also would list in order specific new projects which had been approved by the University Senates. The University's present biennial budget request is based not on the need for new programs but on the necessity for enlarging, extending, and improving present programs. President Henry said. New programs are in competition with present obligations and should be assessed very carefully as to financial requirements as well as educational desirability. ^ See Abstract of Proceedings of the President's Faculty Conference (1958), p. 25. INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 27 THE PHYSICAL PLANT DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION 9: The Conference recommends that each of the three Senates establish an ad hoc committee to survey the policies and practices of the Physical Plant Department as they affect the educational programs of the University. President Henry stated that physical plant costs and organization at Illinois are comparable to those of other institutions, but that ways to improve both are being studied intensively. Interested Senate committees will be given information from these studies. THE ROADS NOT TAKEN The Conference Resolutions Committee submitted fourteen resolutions; eleven were adopted. The three resolutions which were voted down are interesting and im- portant because their very rejection mirrors the mood of the Conference. All three of these rejected resolutions were aimed at increasing faculty participation in the formation of University policy. One would have recommended that the Senate Committees on the Budget be given greater power; another, that the three Senates create building committees from whose rosters would be chosen the faculty mem- bers of the all-University Building Program Committee; the third, that faculty members on the Athletic Association Board be chosen from among members of the Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on Athletics. The first resolution — that on the Senate Committee on the Budget — was voted down after opinion crystallized around three ideas: 1. The chairmen of the Senate Committees on the Budget serve on the all-University Committee; the degree of the Senate Committees' partici- pation in budget-making policy depends, to a great degree, on whether or not their chairmen have the initiative and the committees have the interest to follow the budget building process and express views accordingly. 2. A sizeable segment of the faculty already plays an important part in budget building, during the early stages, on departmental and/or college levels. 3. Many final budget allocation decisions have to be made in the sum- mer, toward or after the end of the legislative session, when faculty members have scattered for their vacations. Requiring sanction of faculty groups for minor budget decisions during this season would pose many practical problems. 28 president's second faculty conference The vote against the second rejected resolution — that regarding forma- tion of Senate building committees — was based on discussions through which the Conference arrived at the general conclusion that new building committees could only usurp or confuse functions of the present all-Uni- versity Committee. These functions are, in essence, administrative func- tions, and new committees would only succeed in causing unnecessary duplication of effort. On athletics, the group was in agreement that intercollegiate athletics at this University are handled in a manner which brings credit to the institution in educational circles as well as on the sports pages. The specific resolution — that faculty members of the Athletic Associa- tion Board be selected from among members of the Senate Committee on Athletics — was voted down on the ground that this would reduce faculty participation in the formation of athletic policy from its present eleven men — seven on the Senate Committee and four more on the Athletic Board — to a low of only seven. It also was pointed out that the Athletic Board faculty members are, as a matter of tradition, chosen from among former members of the Senate Committee on Athletics. In Conclusion RESOLUTION 10: The bettering of communication between members of the faculty and the central administration, outside the formal University organiza- tion, is important. The President should decide whether a conference of this nature is sufficiently effective, as one means of meeting this need, to justify continuance. In arriving at his decision, the President may wish to secure the views of the participants. RESOLUTION 11: The Conference wishes to thank the President for the op- portunity for full and frank expression of opinion regarding University prob- lems. It wishes to express its appreciation of the President's confidence in the faculty and reciprocally to express its confidence in the University administration. The President's First and Second Faculty Conferences originally were envisioned as the initial meetings in an annual series. Each year, according to plan, a new set of participants would be invited. The Conferences, therefore, eventually would include a large number of University faculty members in the discussions of basic University prob- lems. The topics, like the roll of participants, would be newly chosen each year. Continuity would be achieved through the Steering Committee, which might be chosen from among participants of the previous year's Conference. But does a meeting like the Conference accomplish its fundamental purposes of communication, interdisciplinary association, improvement of morale, and the establishment of mutual good will between the faculty and the administration? The resolutions passed by the Second Conference, and the enthusiastic personal reactions at the close of the meeting, seem to indicate that it does. 29 30 president's second faculty conference THE CONFERENCE POLL President Henry, wishing to have data on which to base a decision regarding continuation of the annual Conferences, asked the Secretary of the Steering Committee to poll the people who took part in the Allerton House meeting. The questions asked were: 1. Do you recommend that the Faculty Conference be continued as an annual event? 2. Please comment on the following: Physical arrangements for the Conference Length and timing of the Conference Role of the study papers Value of the book review session President's Hour 3. What benefits do you feel you received from the Conference? 4. Should meetings of this nature be held in the future, what topics would you suggest for consideration? 5. Should meetings of this nature be held in the future, what improve- ments would you suggest? THE CONFERENCE IN RETROSPECT The votes were unanimouslv in favor of continuation of the Conferences on an annual basis. The members of the Second Conference also were overwhelmingly in favor of the value of the President's Hour. A few suggested minor changes in other parts of the programming. Benefits which participants felt they had received were a reflection of the enthusiastic spirit in which the Conference closed. The faculty members felt they had acquired better acquaintanceship with members of the administration and had benefited by learning, at first hand, of administration respect for the faculty. They felt that they had, in fact, been heard on many matters of importance to the University, and that the Conference was a valuable avenue of communication in a world too often corseted by "channels," "protocol," and prescribed procedures. Appendices Resolutions PRESIDENT'S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE At the close of the President's Second Faculty Conference agreement was indicated on the following points. It should not be assumed, however, that every participant necessarily subscribed to every detail of every statement. RESOLUTION 1. The educational programs of the University must be sub- jected to a continuing process of examination and re-examination. This process should be governed by the principles for growth of the University set forth in the First Report of the University Study Committee on Future Programs.^ To that end the Conference recommends that: (a) The three Senate Committees on Educational Policy assume a broader responsibility and manifest an increased interest and initiative in broad educational problems and programs; (b) A decision to undertake a new program be influenced strongly by the effect it would have on the intellectual climate of the University; (c) The Senate Committees on Educational Policy assign priorities to new educational programs for the guidance of the University Committee on the Budget, the University Building Program Committee, and admin- istrative officials; (d) Existing programs be re-examined to determine those no longer warranted with a view to freeing resources for strengthening other fields. RESOLUTION 2. The University must recruit and vigorously support persons of scholarly distinction for its faculty. Basic to the evaluation of scholarly distinction is the judgment given by the academic community, both on and off the campus, with respect to the work produced by the faculty members and to the students they teach and train. ^ See Abstract of Proceedings of the President's Faculty Conference (1958), pp. 25-26. 33 34 president's second faculty conference The Conference recommends that the University establish policies gov- erning promotions w^hich include the following features: (a) A principle of specified limited periods in rank, with promotion or termination of service for non-tenure positions. The policy when formu- lated should not be made retroactive. (b) Promotion to and within tenure ranks should involve, in addition to departmental appraisal, the judgment of the outside academic com- munity. (c) While it should be a primary goal in the University's policy regard- ing promotion to increase the proportion of distinguished scholars on the faculty, it should also be the policy to give tenure and promotion to faculty members giving able and imaginative professional service of other types in University programs. RESOLUTION 3. Effective faculty participation in formulation of policy re- quires wide dissemination of pertinent information. The Conference recom- mends the publication of a regular newsletter to be sent to all members of the faculty. Such a newsletter should include agenda of the three Senates and summaries of minutes of the Senates, summaries of selected committee reports, policy statements, and reports of major developments. RESOLUTION 4. It is the sense of the Conference that the bases of the Senates should be broadened either by making them elective representative bodies or by enlarging their memberships to include ranks other than that of professor. RESOLUTION 5. The Conference recommends that the Urbana-Champaign and the Chicago Professional Colleges Senates consider the election of steering committees. RESOLUTION 6. The Conference recognizes the need for much interchange among the three campuses and recommends that all possible means be taken to increase the exchanges that now exist. This may be implemented by: closed-circuit television, adequate distribution of directories and weekly or monthly calendars among the several campuses, interchange of in- structors for shorter and longer periods of time, development of joint research efforts, participation in special events at one campus by members of the other faculties, and more complete use of a visitor's time and talents when he is on another campus. RESOLUTION 7. The Conference is pleased to learn that there is much inter- change between disciplines on the three campuses and at all levels. INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 35 Whenever both the interest and the need for interdiscipHnary and inter- departmental approaches exist, programs joining disciplines should be encouraged. The Conference believes that under certain conditions joint appoint- ments are advantageous and should be possible whenever advisable. The Conference favors the cross-listing of courses and the avoidance and elimination of duplication of courses of the same content. RESOLUTION 8. The Conference approves the efforts of the administration to secure adequate buildings and facilities. It is urged that efforts be con- tinued to this end. Indispensable elements in maintaining a faculty of qual- ity are, among others, adequate space for study, research, instruction of classes, and other teaching activities. In addition to these physical facilities, further improvements of our libraries and their services and greater avail- ability of secretarial services are needed. In planning University facilities, the promotion of greater faculty unity and informal interdisciplinary contacts should be given consideration. RESOLUTION 9. The Conference recommends that each of the three Senates establish an ad hoc committee to survey the policies and practices of the Physical Plant Department as they affect the educational programs of the University. RESOLUTION 10. The bettering of communication between members of the faculty and the central administration, outside the formal University organ- ization, is important. The President should decide whether a conference of this nature is sufficiently effective, as one means of meeting this need, to justify continuance. In arriving at his decision the President may wish to secure the views of the participants. RESOLUTION 11. The Conference wishes to thank the President for the op- portunity for full and frank expression of opinion regarding University problems. It wishes to express its appreciation of the President's confidence in the faculty and reciprocally to express its confidence in the University administration. March 15, 1959 Participants PRESIDENT'S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE Allerton House, March 13-15, 1959 Code: SG Study Committees SCom Steering Committee CR Committee on Resolutions Campus: UC Urbana-Champaign Campus CPC Chicago Professional Colleges CUD Chicago Undergraduate Division AU All-University Denton E. Alexander (UC) Associate Professor Agronomy John E. Baerwald (UC) Associate Professor Civil Engineering George H. Bargh (AU) SCom Administrative Assistant President's Office Harold O. Barthel (UC) Research Assistant Professor Aeronautical Engineering Frederick G. Bauling (UC) Assistant Professor Theoretical and Applied Mechanics William P. Bemis (UC) Assistant Professor Horticulture Howard J. Braun (UC) Assistant Professor Physical Education Nicholas Britsky (UC) Associate Professor Art 36 INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 37 King W. Broadrick (UG) Assistant Professor Speech Mary Lois Bull (UC) Assistant University Librarian Richard L. Butwell (UC) Assistant Professor Political Science John R. Carroll (UC) Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering Andrew M. Carter (UC) Assistant Professor Music Edward W. Cleary (UC) SCom, CR Professor Law Rubin G. Cohn (UC) Professor Law Hubert V. Cordier (UC) Associate Professor Radio-Television Robert E. Corley (CUD) Assistant Professor Social Sciences Frank Costin (UC) Associate Professor Division of General Studies W. H. Cowley (UC) Visiting Professor Education Lee J. Cronbach (UC) Professor Education Herbert J. Curtis (CUD) Assistant Professor Mathematics Royden Dangerfield (AU) SCom, CR Professor Associate Provost Ellis Danner (UC) Professor Civil Engineering Edward H. Davidson (UC) SC Professor English Thomas J. Dolan (UC) Professor Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Arwin A. Dougal (UC) Research Assistant Professor Electrical Engineering Harry F. Dowling (CPC) SC, CR Professor Medicine Howard S. DucoflF (UC) Assistant Professor Physiology John F. Due (UC) SCom Professor Economics George R. Eadie (UC) Assistant Professor Mining Engineering Bruce E. Edwards (UC) Assistant Professor Economics Mrs. Helen Farlow (AU) Specialist in Journalism Division of University Extension William A. Ferguson (UG) Associate Professor Mathematics Horatio M. Fitch (UC) Assitant Professor Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Dwight P. Flanders (UC) SG Professor Economics JohnB. Fuller (CPC) Associate Professor Pathology James E. Gearien (CPC) Associate Professor Pharmacy Owen F. Glissendorf (UG) Assistant Professor Agricultural Journalism 38 PRESIDENT S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE Margaret Goodyear (UC) Associate Professor Home Economics W. D. Grampp (CUD) Associate Professor Economics William J. Grove (CPC) Associate Professor Surgery H. S. Gutowsky (UC) SG Professor Chemistry Harold G. Halcrow (UC) SCom Professor Agricultural Economics Bruce Harkness (UC) Associate Professor English Robert O. Harvey (UC) Associate Professor Finance W. C. Jackman (CUD) Assistant Professor English C. O. Jackson (UC) Professor Physical Education George G. Jackson (CPC) SCom Associate Professor Medicine Verda E. James (CPC) Associate Professor Histology A. J. Janata (AU) Executive Assistant to the President Robert W. Janes (UC) SC Associate Professor Sociology Walter M. Johnson (UC) Associate Professor Architecture Laurette Kirstein (CUD) Instructor English Seichi Konzo (UC) Professor Mechanical Engineering R. G. Langebartel (UC) Assistant Professor Mathematics Leon J. LeBeau (CPC) Assistant Professor Microbiology Nelson J. Leonard (UC) CR, SC Professor Chemistry Norman D. Levine (UC) Professor Veterinary Pathology and Hygiene Robert B. Looper (UC) Assistant Professor Law Dillon A. Mapother (UC) Associate Professor Physics Maur)^ Massler (CPC) Professor Pedodontics R. K. Mautz (UC) Professor Accountancy Walter W. McMahon (UC) Assistant Professor Economics J. D. McNee (CUD) Associate Professor Art W. H. McPherson (UC) CR Professor Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations Robert V. Mitchell (UC) Associate Professor Marketing Robert J. Mosborg (UC) Associate Professor Civil Engineering INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY 39 F. H. Mynard (UC) Assistant Professor Agriculture Charles E. Nowell (UC) Professor History Russell T. Odell (UC) SC Professor Agronomy Z. John Ordal (UC) Professor Food Technology Adrian M. Ostfeld (CPC) Assistant Professor Preventive Medicine Mrs. Eunice Parker (AU) Research Associate President's Office Jack W. Peltason (UC) CR, SC Associate Professor Political Science George E. F. Pickard (UC) Professor Agricultural Engineering Arthur D. Pickett (CUD) CR Associate Professor Biological Sciences C. Ladd Prosser (UC) Professor Physiology Gordon N. Ray (AU) Professor Vice-President and Provost D. W. Riddle (CUD) Professor Social Sciences R. J. Ryan (CPC) Instructor Medicine Robert E. Schlosser (UC) Assistant Professor Accountancy Robert E. Scott (UC) Associate Professor Political Science W. H. Shoemaker (UC) CR Professor Spanish and Italian H. Wallace Sinaiko (UC) Research Assistant Professor Control Systems Laboratory J. Marlowe Slater (UC) Assistant Professor Education Cedric M. Smith (CPC) Associate Professor Pharmacology John M. Spence (CPC) Professor Operative Dentistry H. S. Stillwell (UC) SCom Professor Aeronautical Engineering \lctor J. Stone (UC) Associate Professor Law George W. Swenson (UC) Professor Electrical Engineering A. H. Taub (UC) SC Research Professor Mathematics Fred H. Turner (UC) Dean of Students E. B. Vest (CUD) SCom, SC Professor Humanities Claude P. Viens (UC) Associate Professor French Heinz M. Von Foerster (UC) Professor Electrical Engineering F. T. Wall (AU) Professor Dean of Graduate College Charles P. Warren (CUD) Instructor Social Sciences 40 PRESIDENT S SECOND FACULTY CONFERENCE Jane C. Watt (UC) Professor Music George W. White (UC) Professor Geology A. Richard Williams (UC) Professor Architecture A. V. Wolf (CPC) Professor Physiology Stanley P. Wyatt (UC) Associate Professor Astronomy Peter E. Yankwich (UC) SCom, CR Professor Chemistry Edward J. Zagorski (UC) Assistant Professor Art UNIVEBSITVOF ,LUNO\S-UBBANA i a; 103616141