Long History of C11

The Committee of Eleven, 1948-1984, a Retrospective
by Murdo J. Macleod

(Note: this is about 10-15 pages [depending on your font] and includes notes at end of paper).

The members of the new Committee of Eleven met for the first time on February 3, 1948, summoned by Dr. M. T. Solve, chairman of the faculty. Dr. M. R. Sneck was elected chairman on the first ballot and took over the meeting. Miss Patricia Paylore, who was to become a long-lasting, energetic, and prominent member of the committee, was elected secretary.¹

The committee's charge has been variously and often ambiguously described over the years. Article V. Section B, No. 1 of the Faculty Constitution of 1948-1968 described its function thus:

"1. To initiate, promote, and stimulate study and action dealing with and looking toward solution of situations and problems of interest and concern to the Faculty and the University.

2. To make reports to the Faculty or the Faculty Senate.

3. To act as Faculty spokesman as and when authorized by the Faculty."

The Faculty Manual of 1963-64, however, felt that the committee's main function was "to act as a channelway in initiating action for the solution of problems of concern to the faculty and the University."

Such vague role definition has meant that the committee has wavered, over the last thirty-six years, between assertiveness and near passivity. The committee of 1969-1970, for example felt they were "not a policy-making body but a catalytic agent...."² Seven years later, during an aggressive investigation of the Athletics Department, the committee refused to limit its investigative powers, claiming that "The Committee of Eleven has a roving commission to serve in any area where interest of the faculty is evident."³ Still later, on December 6, 1977, the committee tried to define its role once again, drawing on both the active and passive traditions. "There are two ways in which the Committee of Eleven can deal with an item. (1) Make the initial inquiry and then urge whoever the responsible parties on campus are to pursue the matter. (2) If there is no one charged with the responsibility of handling a certain problem, the Committee of Eleven should conduct a full-scale inquiry (utilizing a subcommittee) and submit a report to the appropriate body. All members present agreed...."⁴

Its constitutional definition and its self definition were not, of course, the only factors which affected the committee's activities, authority, and effectiveness. It is obvious from the minutes that, in an indefinable way, the personalities of some members, and the "mix" of members, led at times to an active, interventionist role, while in other years, unfortunately quite frequent, an apathetic or cautious committee failed to reach quorum for as many as three meetings in succession, ignored the matters brought to it by its constituents, and, in general, proved so ineffective that members of the university community criticized it, and, on at least one occasion, called for its abolition.⁵

A greater problem than official roles or membership has been access to real power. From its very first meeting the Committee of Eleven, intermittently and with little success, has badgered the central administration of the university for more power over its own internal workings, and for more access to administrative decision making, or at least to an increased consultative role in decision making for itself and the faculty. To a certain extent successive presidents - there have been four since the committee was founded - and senior administrators have acted as one might have expected from an exclusive corporate body. They have defended their rights and privileges, and refused others access to these rights and privileges, by a variety of tactics, including outright refusal, appeals to outside powers such as the Board of Regents or the State Legislature, prevarication, and deflection of pressure towards other matters. One has the impression, however, that at the University of Arizona successive presidents and administrators have shown exceptional. and authoritarian obduracy over such matters when compared to administrations in comparable institutions. Each administration, Harvill's, Schaefer's, and Koffler's, has started with a brief period of "honeymoon" during which meetings between administrators and the committee have increased, homilies have been delivered by both sides on the need for "openness" and "better communications," and the committee has petitioned formally and informally for a share in decision making. Each "honeymoon" has been followed by disillusionment, and each regime - McCormick’s, Harvill's. and Schaefer's - has ended with the Committee of Eleven complaining of its powerlessness, its lack of communication with the president and his administration, and the administration's lack of awareness of faculty concerns.⁶

The opening salvo in this prolonged battle was fired at the first meeting of the Committee of Eleven. The members voted unanimously to ask President McCormick for an annual appropriation, so that the investigative task of the committee could be fully and carefully pursued.⁷ The president denied this request immediately, but added that the administration would assume all reasonable costs incurred in the operation of the committee's work.⁸ It was clear that President McCormick intended to define "reasonable costs," and that the committee was now placed in the position of petitioner whenever money was needed to pursue its aims. A severe limit on the scope, and certainly on the intensity, of the committee's activities, was in place.

The Committee of Eleven returned to this matter twenty-one years later, asking if it would be possible for the committee to have its own funds, or even an assurance of necessary funds. Perhaps, it was suggested, a budget could be established for the Faculty Senate and its committee work.⁹ President Harvill met with the committee at its next meeting, and assured the members that he would willingly provide "whatever help was necessary to conduct official University committee work...," which advanced the matter no farther. The 1969 committee, in one of its most supine phases, "expressed its satisfaction with this statement."¹⁰ The matter was brought up briefly in October 1974 and December 1975. On October 18, 1977 "it was agreed that the Committee of Eleven request $50.00 from the administration to cover the cost of running a literature search on the subject of student literacy." By 1981 the committee was resigned to this state of affairs. A new member asked "whether the Committee of Eleven should have a budget. Several members recalled that in the past the committee has been unable to get approval for a budget." And the matter was dropped.

If the money to pursue vigorous investigation could not be won, then perhaps active members could at least find the time? The committee was acutely aware that it met about 15 times each academic year, and that its members, unlike, for example, the central administration, had little free time to devote to matters of concern. Throughout the committee's life subcommittee reports have been late, have never arrived, or have been manifestly based on insufficient research.¹² Perhaps, the committee felt, the administration should recognize the time needed to perform the work they carried out. The first proposal was modest. On November 18, 1969 the committee asked for a reduced teaching load for the Chairman of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Committee of Eleven. If this request was sent there is no record of a reply.¹³

The next attempt to resolve this matter took place at the committee's first meeting with Pres. Schaefer, shortly after his appointment, and during the early stage of goodwill. Members of the committee argued that faculty members could not be expected to perform adequately as committee members when there were so many competing demands for their time. Schaefer was sympathetic to the problem and offered to inform department heads when any faculty member of a given department was appointed to a senate committee, so that the head might adjust teaching and research loads. The committee was pleased with this proposal and accepted it.¹⁴

It has been hard to trace the fate of this agreement. There is some evidence that some heads of department were notified about committee appointments in the year or so following the agreement, and it may well be that some still are. In 1984, however, if it is still a policy at all, it is not adhered to in every case.

Committee finances and released time were, however, mere skirmishes around the central question which reoccupied and preoccupies the Committee of Eleven from its earliest days to the present. How would it obtain the power to affect administration before policy was made? Behind the committee's preoccupation with this matter was and is the larger general concern of what role the University of Arizona faculty should play in university governance. The faculty as a body - and to some extent the faculty itself is to blame - has played a very minor role in decision making at the university, certainly a much smaller and less effective role than at many comparable institutions.

Over the past 36 years the committee has become involved in many specific problems for circumscribed periods of time, but no general question has been of such persistent concern, and has caused as much distress, aggravation, and faculty alienation from the central administration, as this one.

The month after the committee was installed (March, 1948), the first notice of this concern was given. The committee attempted to draw up a list of its major interests. Low salaries were number one. (The salaries paid to faculty, even by the standards of 1948, seem to have been very low indeed.) Next on the list was the wish to create "some representative body" which would be consulted before the selection of administrative officials. ¹⁵

In 1955 President Harvill, without previous consultation with the faculty's representative bodies, appointed an Architecture Committee to help him with the design of new buildings on the campus, although he was at pains to point out that the new group's role would be "purely advisory." This brought a long report from the committee to the Senate asking once again that mechanisms be set up to afford faculty an opportunity to play a recognized part in the planning of the future campus. The feeling of helplessness over this exclusion was increased by an administrative decision, reached apparently without any formal consultation with the faculty, to amalgamate the French and Spanish departments. At its meeting with the Dean of Humanities (Nov. 30, 1955) the committee was told that such decisions were administrative prerogatives, and thus none of its concern.¹⁶ Exasperated, the committee was goaded into passing a unanimous resolution, January 6, 1956, and then sent to the Senate, which called for means for "providing for more active Faculty participation in shaping and directing important University policies."¹⁷ A few months later the Committee of Eleven, acting in conjunction with other senate committees, had refined this proposal. The Senate was asked to consider setting up a "Basic Policy Pursuits Committee" as a means of obtaining more participation in planning. After heavy administrative opposition, in a body then even more dominated by the president and his administration than it is today, the Senate voted against the committee's recommendation and turned down the setting up of such an advisory committee. The disgusted committee dropped further discussion of faculty participation from its agenda, and, presumably sadder if not wiser, retired to lick its wounds.¹⁸

There followed one of the most barren periods in its existence, so ineffective that by mid 1960 members were complaining of "Much talk. No action," and were finding it necessary to reapprise the faculty constantly of the committee's very existence.¹⁹

By early 1962 the members’ spirits, enthusiasm, and initiative had revived somewhat, thanks to the complications caused by some troublesome tenure cases. It became clear to many members and other people at the university that the then "Manual of Procedure and Policy for the Faculty and Staff" was too vague and inadequate in its descriptions of procedures for such matters. The committee, after considerable work, suggested new language for the manual, and the setting up of a Committee on Tenure and Privilege to advise the administration. Both these suggestions were then sent to the Senate. President Harvill, obviously wanting faculty participation in the appeals process after denial of tenure, agreed to the setting up of the new committee, but added that he was "unalterably opposed" to the right of representation by counsel for any side appearing before this committee. The Committee of Eleven accommodated the president by dropping the words "representation by counsel," and inserting in their place, "...adviser of his choice, selected from the faculty who may act as counsel." The structure of the new committee was also a victory for the administration, and left it far short of being a faculty body. One of its three members was chosen by the faculty, specifically by the Committee on Committees; one by the President; and one by the two previously selected members.²⁰

By 1965 the committee has become even more assertive, and combined its concerns over low salaries at the University with a wish to participate more in decisions over its own fate. On October 21, 1965 the committee wrote to Pres. Harvill asking him to send salary data to the American Association of university Professors, as other universities were doing, or to explain why he did not wish to do so. Harvill's peremptory reply of November 18, 1965 said that he had no objection to sending the figures, as long as they were not published, a tortuous way of saying no, given that the A.A.U.P.’s main interest in such figures is for use in tabular and comparative lists in its bulletin.²¹

The Viet Nam War, campus disturbances, confrontations of various kinds, unresolved staff grievances, and debates over secret research preoccupied the committee for several years, but it never lost sight of its desire for a share in government, and became increasingly critical of Pres. Harvill's unwillingness to consult with the faculty. By March 18, 1970 the committee was commenting on "...the deteriorating communication between the faculty and the President over the past few years." ²²

The Committee then tried to make use of the period of good will and good intentions following the appointment of President John Schaefer.

"A further topic of discussion with the President at this meeting, related to the need for faculty representation on overall planning and development of the campus. The President assured the Committee that he intended utilizing faculty expertise in such matters when specific projects would benefit by such assistance." Once again the administration had avoided formal arrangements for faculty participation or advice in planning.²³

The committee, for once, realized what had happened, and at its following meeting a general feeling of dissatisfaction was expressed; "...it was brought out variously that the President had not understood our recommendations, or that he had chosen not to...." There was, the committee reiterated, a need for more faculty input, real, not token, at the highest decision levels. It was agreed that the committee should suggest to the President that he select 3 faculty members "to assist in overall campus planning and development."²⁴ Dissatisfaction surfaced again during the academic year 1973-1974, especially in the later half of the year. In September, 1973, members of the committee had fretted, once again, about "the need to know more precisely the President's philosophy of University growth and direction." More communication was needed. In an attempt "to create by some means a more open and informative climate between faculty and administrators, especially on administrative policies which affect us daily," the committee, at the suggestion of Vice-President Kassander, began a series of "conversations," published in the Faculty and Staff Newsletter (January-April, 1974), with senior members of the administration. To the committee, at least, the experiment was a disappointment The questions posed were vague and general and so too, partly as a result, were the answers. ²⁵

In early 1975 the university entered a brief period of financial crisis, and the committee, worrying about where cuts would be imposed, tried to insert itself again into the budgetary process. It asked the President to meet with university committees before making any cuts, and asked that the President meet with faculty committees not selected by him. The committee then followed up by asking for an open budget, so that all could examine it. President Schaefer responded that he was willing to put a copy of the budget in the university library. The Committee of Eleven, in a cantankerous mood, asked for its own copy.²⁶ By June the crisis had eased, the President, much more cautiously, was now offering to discuss the budget, and supply only "necessary items." The committee pointed out again, that discussions before budgetary decisions were needed, and asked lamely "...to offer the assistance of individual members in the preparation of the 1976-77 budget." The offer was ignored, and the committee's attempts to win a consultative role in decision making and to obtain access to key information on university finances were successfully rebuffed once again.²⁷ To add insult to injury Pres. Schaefer was reported to have commented to his "kitchen cabinet" later that year "that he did not hear much of the Committee of Eleven." To which the committee replied sarcastically that perhaps the lack of communication was "the result of the Committee resolving most of the problems that are brought to it, and forwarding only more difficult matters to higher authority." One member suggested that if the President felt that he should see more of the committee then the committee should ask for "faculty input in the budget process, as mentioned last spring."²⁸ Receiving no reply the committee agreed lamely, just before the Christmas break that "the budget committee recommendation was a major stumbling block to the Administration." Almost a year later Pres. Schaefer was still stating that "there is a need for better communication between his office and the Committee of Eleven."²⁹

The next year and more were devoted to a prolonged and difficult investigation of the Athletic Department, perhaps the most exhaustive and successful task ever undertaken by the group. The members also were much involved in evaluating the position of teaching and teaching effectiveness on campus, and in rewriting the faculty manual. As a result their insistence on participation in decision making lapsed for some time. It was reawakened by Pres. Schaefer’s plan, inherited by Pres. Koffler, to reorganize the faculties of Arts and Sciences, Fine Arts, and Earth Sciences. The committee felt, and continues to feel, that the whole reorganization should have been studied, with full faculty participation, before "irreversible steps" were taken. "The Committee of Eleven sends as a seconded motion to the Faculty Senate a motion requesting the Board of Regents to delay final implementation of the college reorganization, including the appointment of new deans, until the new president has assumed office." To no avail; neither president engaged in discussion of this matter with any constituted faculty body, this in spite of widespread and vocal faculty opposition to these changes. ³⁰

Yet there have also been some small signs of cooperation between the committee and the new president, at least on a case by case basis. The committee participated widely, for example, in the interviewing and selection of the new academic vice president.³¹ Is this yet another temporary honeymoon, or will the committee finally obtain institutionalized access to a recognized advisory role, with some availability of essential data? The next year or so should tell. Precedent suggests that such an outcome is unlikely, but the present members are a contentious and determined group.

So far the history told herein of the activities of the Committee of Eleven has been one of gallant but time-consuming failures. The group has failed to win budget autonomy, released time, or access to any influential role vis-a-vis the central administration. To be fair, the committee has often discarded problems which seemed genuinely insoluble, and has diverted others to more appropriate agencies, but many of its individual enterprises have also fallen short of success, or even of any real resolution. Some examples of these aborted forays follow.

The committee, from the beginning, has been concerned about the low level of faculty salaries. In 1948 these concerns were directed towards a defense of the faculty's right to outside work, a right then under attack by the administration of the university. Some of the exchanges on these matters, from the distant 1940’s, seem unreal and grim, although they have an amusing side. A document was prepared in April 1948 explaining the committee's views.

"Engaging in work of a non-professional or non-public service nature (such as manual labor) is considered by some segments of the public as degrading to the professional or academic standing of the employee concerned and the University. For this reason it might be considered undesirable for faculty members to engage in this type of activity. Within the circumstances that obtain at the University of Arizona, however, faculty members not infrequently find it necessary to engage in such employment in order to supplement their incomes. Until the salary scale at the university is adequate to provide the employee and his financial dependents with a comfortable and more or less normal existence on the employee's compensation for his regular term of employment (nine months for teaching faculty, eleven months for others), the University should prohibit only a very limited number of legal and honest activities (such, perhaps, as tending bar, operating gambling devices in Nevada, etc.)" Under pressure, and alarmed perhaps at its own early temerity, the committee toned down this rhetoric in its later "Proposals Recommended by the Committee of Eleven for Consideration and Adoption by the Academic Senate," to read: "...the University should prohibit such work only when it is entirely clear that that work is inappropriate and would result in discredit or diminished effectiveness of the employee or the University."³²

As faculty salaries improved absolutely and comparatively, both at Arizona and around the nation, the committee concentrated, with little success, on remaining inequities. Two of these reoccurred, cost-of-living increases, and above all, summer session compensation.

After asking for a yearly cost of living adjustment in 1948, and receiving no reply, the members turned their attention the following year to the summer session. They were told, as they would be repeatedly, that the problem was that summer sessions, by state mandate, had to be self-sustaining, thus removing all pay flexibility from the hands of the administration.³³

In 1951 the debate over cost of living increases reached the daily press in Tucson. The administration had simply informed the faculty, curtly, that a cost of living raise was "not timely," and the faculty, irritated by this decision and by the peremptory fashion in which it had been conveyed, decided not to allow the matter to drop. It would appear, however, that faculty had not yet learned to use the press as a weapon, or, alternatively, believed in washing their dirty linen in private, because once the matter was aired in the popular press most faculty deplored such publicity and the matter was dropped. ³⁴

In early 1954 the Committee of Eleven returned to the attack. Summer session pay was still scandalously low, and so the members suggested remedies both to the faculty and the administration. The faculty should make offerings more attractive, and the administration should raise fees and ask for funds to support summer school from the legislature. The committee, after a survey, found that in 1954 there would be 87 guaranteed summer contracts, 13 were a combination (i.e., pay was guaranteed for one course and was put on a contingency basis for the other), and 12 faculty were completely on a contingency basis and would be paid according to the numbers in their classes.³⁵This is the system which has continued to this day except that "pre-session" courses are almost entirely on a numbers and contingency basis.

The matter was brought up yet again in 1961. Dean Gaines, meeting with the committee, gave it little comfort and "pointed out that since the summer session has to pay for itself there is an almost insurmountable difficulty in raising salaries." The frustrated members agreed to table further discussion. A new inquiry in 1964 brought the same administrative response.³⁶ Several years later the members turned back to the cost of living issue. They wrote to Pres. Harvill Nov. 19, 1968, deploring disproportionate increases "to younger faculty at the expense of those with longer service," and, even more "gross inequities as a result of merit increases only." They suggested a more balanced approach with a 3% cost of living increase for 1969-1970, and the rest for merit. President Harvill replied refusing the suggestion, and in the turbulence of the campus in these days the matter was dropped.³⁷

In December, 1974 it was announced that the summer budget for the following year was to be cut. This meant that less faculty would have the opportunity to teach these extra sessions. The Committee of Eleven discussed the situation, acknowledged that the summer session had to finance itself, but noted the growth in contingency contracts, which meant, and this was the committee's most telling point, "...that the faculty carries the burden of any losses but does not share in the profits." Dean Bleibtreu appointed a committee of four Liberal Arts faculty to

advise him on these cuts, but the members of the Committee of Eleven asked to have an advisory role with the President. As the financial situation eased and the summer passed the problem dissipated.³⁸

There the matter has rested, and the inequities in salary and in the "contingency" system have remained constant, or, from the committee's point of view, have worsened. Either the questions are intractable, and neither the faculty nor the administration can influence the legislature on these matters, in which case the Committee of Eleven has wasted several years of effort, or the committee and other faculty agencies involved have been ineffectual.

From time to time over the past 38 years the Committee of Eleven has faced a general category of issues which can be roughly described as civil rights. Some of these have been sent on to more appropriate agencies, others have been dealt with, often in a hesitant and inconclusive way.

McCarthyism had slight impact on the University of Arizona campus, and only one case of dismissal because of political beliefs came to the notice of the committee. In April 1950 the reappointment of a faculty member was "withheld pending determination of her alleged association with members of subversive organizations prior to her employment by the University." The committee's counter argument to the administration made no mention of her rights of association, freedom of choice, or right to privacy. Instead the committee noted that the faculty member involved said she had cut off such associations, and recommended that, "if past objectable associations had ended" then the person should be re-appointed. There is no recorded reply to this recommendation, and I failed to discover the disposition of this case.³⁹

The next issue of this nature to come before the membership (1960) was the one of ROTC and conscientious objectors. ROTC was a compulsory subject for all male undergraduates. However, while federal courts had ruled "that participation in ROTC does not constitute bearing arms, such participation does in fact preclude CO classification by local draft boards." A "catch 22" if ever there was one. A local faculty member wrote to the committee pointing out this paradox, and suggesting that the committee ask the administration to allow CO's to be exempted from ROTC. The committee took no action, arguing in reply to the faculty member, that individuals who had registered as conscientious objectors with draft boards before coming to the university were not obliged to take courses in ROTC. CO's who had arrived at such convictions after arrival on campus had, presumably, only themselves to blame for their tardiness.⁴⁰

The committee's attitudes and actions were much more assertive just over a year later. Several tenure cases were brought before it, some of which appeared to have been botched from a procedural point of view, at various levels of decision making. A major problem at all Arizona universities has always been that according to Arizona law all appointments can be for only one year. The committee pushed vigorously for an end to vagueness, demanded clearer statements from all involved on the whole system of promotion and tenure, and was instrumental, with others, in the setting up of a university Committee on Tenure and Privilege. The Committee of Eleven members, after considerable debate, also submitted a new series of statements on this matter to be included, they hoped, in the "Manual of Procedure and Policy for the Faculty and Staff." In general the committee used the A.A.U.P. rules as a model, and most of what it proposed became university policy, although, as noted above, the central administration maintained solid administrative and appointive control over the new system.⁴¹

In 1904 a new threat to campus academic freedom appeared. In January 1964 House Bill 91 proposed "...barring of speakers or groups on the Attorney General's subversive list from the campus." The Committee of Eleven voted unanimously to inform the Faculty Senate and all other faculty members of the nature of this legislation, and urged all "to write personally to individual legislators urging opposition to this bill." At its next meeting, upon hearing that the proposed bill had been defeated in the legislature, the committee agreed to void its previous resolution on the matter.⁴²

Later in 1964 the committee discussed what some members felt to be abuses of "Religion in Life Week," because clergy of individual faiths had advocated their views in regularly scheduled class. A resolution was passed and sent to the Senate recommending that clergy should not lecture to scheduled classes during Religion in Life Week. Then the question of civil liberties and ROTC returned. It was pointed out that students had to take a loyalty oath to participate in ROTC, and had to take ROTC courses to graduate. Discussions were held in two different meetings of the committee, but no action was taken. This turbulent year for civil rights on campus ended with the censuring of the University of Arizona administration by the A.A.U.P. The Committee of Eleven, some months later, asked the Faculty Senate to ask the President to set up a committee to work towards removing the University from the censured list. No action was taken beyond the committee, and, seemingly, no reply was received.⁴³

The committee played some paradoxical roles during the student troubles of the late sixties and early seventies. Some of its positive and conciliatory measures will be discussed below, but the committee also took reactive steps which some may construe as joining in an attempt to restrict free speech on campus. For example, the restatement of a resolution sent to the Faculty Senate, May 6, 1970, and entitled "Standards of Conduct Expected of Students," contained requirements within it which many faculty members of that era would have found difficulty in observing. Clause 7 of this recommendation gives something of its vague yet authoritarian flavor. It prohibited "Conduct or speech which violates commonly accepted standards of the University community and which, under the circumstances, has no redeeming social value."⁴⁴

A few months before that resolution the Committee of Eleven had failed notably to take action over yet another issue of rights and freedom. It was brought to the committee's attention that police had engaged in the systematic photographing of demonstrators during the Moratorium against the Viet Nam War in early November, 1969. "Furthermore, it has been established that a camera, focused on the Speaker's Corner, has been installed on the east balcony of Old Main, that a plainclothesman, recognized as a State official was also taking pictures at the Moratorium, and that ID cards had been demanded." The committee decided to assemble a report on this at its next meeting, but did nothing.⁴⁵

Perhaps the most disturbing matter in the Committee of Eleven's civil liberties record is the absence of any mention of the great ROTC debate of 1968. This matter distracted all elements of the campus population, except, it appears, the members of the Committee of Eleven, for much of the year. In the first 2 months of the year the leaders of the student body mounted a campaign for the abolition of compulsory ROTC as a requirement for graduation. On March 6, 1968 the Faculty Senate concurred, and passed a resolution recommending that participation in ROTC be made voluntary. Just over a month later, to the vociferous and bitter disgust of much of the student body, the Board of Regents, according to reports much influenced by the American Legion and other groups, rejected these recommendations and decided that obligatory ROTC should continue. Students from all 3 state universities protested, and threatened to march against ROTC offices. The A.A.U.P. supported the students' position. President Harvill warned the student body in his address at the beginning of the 1968-69 academic year that the campus was for education and that they must not become "too involved in the issues of the day." Students and editorials rejected this advice. State Governor Williams supported obligatory ROTC, with the peculiar argument that the enemy might take voluntary ROTC in Arizona "as a sign of weakness." Both Senators Barry Goldwater and Edward Kennedy, unlikely political allies, informed the students of their support for a voluntary program. Finally, in November 1968, the Board of Regents changed its mind, and ROTC became an elective program at the state universities. In all of this, high farce, high drama, intense excitement and campus polarization, the Committee of Eleven was silent.⁴⁶

Some of the matters brought to the committee during these turbulent years caused genuine and no doubt understandable confusion. The members could claim little expertise in many of these issues, and at other times - for example over the whole issue of classified military research on campus - the committee had difficulty in passing a resolution, not because of lack of interest, diffidence or timidity, but because serious differences of opinion existed among the members.⁴⁷

With the ending of the war the volume of material on civil rights and freedoms declined. When tenure conflicts arose, for example the Peacock case,, the committee found, correctly, that it was no longer the appropriate body to consider such matters. A dispute, part of the Peacock case, in which the Surgery Department claimed that it had a grievance against the College of Medicine, was referred to the committee by the Faculty Senate. The Committee of Eleven reported that its opinion was that the Surgery Department did have sufficient grounds for a grievance, but that study and decision on such matters belonged elsewhere. The Committee on Academic Procedure and Tenure then took over most of the deliberations on the Peacock and related cases.⁴⁸ In a subsequent case the Committee of Eleven refused to study the matter at all, and turned it over immediately to the Committee on Academic Procedure and Tenure.⁴⁹

In the whole area of recent civil rights the Committee of Eleven has devoted some of its time to the general question of affirmative action. So far, and in this the committee seems no better or no worse than other university institutions and agencies, its deliberations on the matter have been positive, sometimes even conveying a sense of urgency, but also vague and lacking in concrete recommendations. Perhaps its most helpful role has been as an information gatherer and distributor. Much of this information has been passed on to the University Senate and to the central administration, and has been of use, no doubt, as the university has moved towards the implementation of more specific policies in the last 2 years.⁵⁰

So far, the history of the Committee of Eleven may well appear an ambiguous and halting one at best. There have been better days, however, and the committee has produced useful reports and recommendations, especially in peripheral areas in which the University administration needed help or did not feel its power on prerogatives to be threatened. In a few areas the committee has nagged the administration to live up to its professed academic aspirations, and in at least one case the committee, in spite of persistent opposition and obstructiveness, produced an investigative study which had a profound impact on the life and future of the university. Some of these minor and major accomplishments are discussed below.

The Committee of Eleven played an early role in the alleviation of the problem of traffic congestion on and around the campus. Its recommendations led to the formation of the Campus Traffic Committee, and to various changes in traffic flow patterns.⁵¹ The committee had an even greater impact on the functioning of the campus bookstore. Responding to various complaints about its methods of ordering and distributing textbooks, and at the urging of Pres. Schaefer, the committee undertook a review of procedures at the bookstore, and submitted a series of recommendations, most of which were adopted, and which lead, all parties agreed, to more efficiency and customer satisfaction.⁵² These are only 2 of many useful reorganizational reports made, after considerable work, by the committee.

By frequent nagging reminders the committee has acted, sometimes in cooperation with other units, as a sort of conscience of the university, bringing it back to a recognition of its basic educational and research priorities. The committee, for example, has seldom lost sight of the central role of the university library and although it has made few specific recommendations it has served from time to time as the library's guardian or protector, sometimes in years when the press of other matters or lack of interest gave it few defenders. The Committee of Eleven made a campaign for more space and money for the library one of its first concerns after the committee was founded in 1948.⁵³

These worries preoccupied the members again in 1959. As the library's functions and clientele expanded it came under severe strain because of a lack of finances and facilities. In 1965 the committee was again insisting on the centrality of the library, and was attempting to shame the administration into action. By that time the library owned 800,000 items, but the library at Arizona State University was larger and growing more rapidly. The committee drew up a table of similar universities and compared library expenditures. Only the University of New Mexico ranked below the University of Arizona, and for some years the University had ranked last in the category of library expenditure per student enrolled. It was time, the committee declared, that the administration put money into what it had always declared to be one of its priorities.⁵⁴

President Schaefer was a notable supporter of the libraries on campus, and even in times of budgetary difficulties does not seem to have even contemplated reducing support for them. As a result the University Library disappears from the Committee of Eleven's agenda during the years of Schaefer's presidency.

In late 1981, under the first budgetary crisis after the arrival of President Koffler, the Committee of Eleven addressed library issues again, specifically the deep budget cuts. The cuts went into effect in spite of opposition from the committee and other faculty groups. With the easing of the crisis the president made up the cuts, and the matter was dropped.⁵⁵

The Committee has also given long study to the nebulous and much debated questions surrounding teaching evaluation and teaching effectiveness. At first interest among the members was sporadic and inconclusive. Members felt that something should be done about such central concerns, but did not quite know how to proceed. These early conversations had some interesting by-products. For example - changed days indeed - some faculty felt in 1950 that teaching was too much emphasized and that research was undervalued by the administration.⁵⁶

In 1960 the committee began to take hesitant but concrete steps in this area. By a 4-2 vote the committee decided to send a resolution to the Senate which, among other matters "urged each faculty member to have his students rate him anonymously each semester. Forms are to be provided for this purpose. The individual faculty member is to gain useful criticism about his course content and teaching methods. The forms are to be seen only by the instructors concerned and not by administrative personnel."⁵⁷ I have been unable to trace the fate of this resolution in the University Senator but it did not become University policy at that time.

Almost 6 years later the subject was debated again. In a wide-ranging review the members discussed such subjects as a system of rewards for superior teaching, the use of graduate students in teaching, the difficulties in measuring good teaching objectively, and a possible overemphasis - times had obviously changed since 1950 - on research and publications. It was agreed that there were enormous difficulties in establishing criteria and relative weighting in judging student evaluations and teaching quality. The committee decided rather lamely to send a letter to each department head "...requiring no answer, but emphasizing the need of (sic) recognizing teaching in promotions, and of knowing specifically what kind of teaching was being done." This homily appears to have brought little response from the department heads of that year.⁵⁸

With the appointment of President Schaefer, and to some extent at his suggestion, discussions of such matters as improvement of teaching, teaching evaluation techniques, and funding for improvement of teaching started again. The Committee of Eleven recommended to the Senate the setting up of a Committee on Effective Teaching, which would 1) gather data here and on other campuses on techniques of teaching evaluation, 2) support local initiatives to improve teaching, 3) receive appropriate funding, and 4) report to the Senate annually and, specifically, in no more than 3 years "make positive recommendations for implementation." These suggestions were accepted by the Senate and by the University administration.⁵⁹It is difficult to trace the fate of this decision. What becomes obvious is that by January 1977 it is the Committee of Eleven itself, and a subcommittee which it had set up, which have been given the task of carrying out the work on teaching. The committee met with various members of the Institute for Instructional Research and Development (IRAD) to ask questions on how to improve teaching and obtain more funding. In January 1979 Pres. Schaefer urged the committee to make this work a priority, with emphasis on methods of teacher evaluation and teaching effectiveness. The committee replied that "For IRAD to realize its full potential, a teaching effectiveness policy would have to be required of each department by top administration." This passing backwards and forwards of responsibilities ended the following year when a subcommittee finished its Report on Teaching Evaluation and Teaching Effectiveness, and submitted it to both the Senate and to the President.⁶⁰ The reaction to the report was unfavorable. Schaefer told the Senate that he was "displeased with the report," and thought that it was "based on inadequate data." The Committee of Eleven, noting that such reports took a great deal of its limited time, tacitly admitted that the criticism was justified, and sought to bolster the evidence in the report by making up, distributing and collating the data from 2 more questionnaires. The revised and expanded report was then sent to the President and the Senate. Both were more positive this time, but the resignation of Schaefer and the search for a new president deflected attention from its findings.⁶¹

On a few occasions, in its assumed role as conscience of the University, the Committee of Eleven has played a valuable role as mediator. At least twice it may have "saved the bacon" of an obdurate or determined administration. In 1968 the campus began to experience, perhaps to a comparatively minor degree, some the unrest which was then pervasive in United States universities. Various minorities in the student body began to agitate for more attention and funds to be directed towards their special problems and areas of interest. The Black Students Union was the first of such groups to press its demands. In a series of meetings with Pres. Harvill the students demanded a Black Studies Center, more Black professors, and several other innovations. Harvill, obviously annoyed by the tone, and especially be the word "demands," refused to accede to any of the requests, a position which exacerbated the sense of grievance. The Committee of Eleven met with the Black students on December 17, 1968, and "urged the students to forego threatening demands." The students replied that there was a "need now for less talk and more action." A lengthy discussion followed, later described as a n good dialogue."⁶²

A similar confrontation took place with the Mexican-American students. Although their demands were less sweeping President Harvill rejected them all. Once again it was left to the Committee of Eleven to arrange a conciliatory meeting.⁶³ The committee's concern over "the volatile campus climate" continued, and while it succumbed, as noted above, to some attempts to control student language and behavior, for much of the period its voice was one of conciliation and of support for more open communication.⁶⁴

There is little doubt that the finest accomplishment of the Committee of Eleven was its investigation and final report on the Athletic Department, 1975-1978. The subcommittee charged with the task faced suspicion, obstruction, and even abuse, but its final report led to substantial changes in the way the Athletics Department conducted its business.

The origins of the committee's interest in the Athletics Department are obscure. The first mention of it, and it is obvious from the context that the inquiry was already underway, is when the administration informed the committee in May 1975, that the Athletics Department was not properly the concern of the Committee of Eleven.⁶⁵

At first the investigation moved slowly. The administration explained that strong athletics improved the University's image and helped fundraising. Members of the committee, in a familiar meandering fashion, discussed the relationship of the athletic program to the academic program on campus.⁶⁶ By October 1975 questions were becoming more pointed. Members noted that the Athletic Committee was composed mainly of administrators (only 2 out of 9 were faculty), and a questionnaire was sent to David Strack, Director of Athletics. This questionnaire rang alarm bells in every direction. "Mr. Strack took the questionnaire to the Faculty Athletic Committee which reviewed it at a special meeting held on June 28, 1976, and unanimously recommended that Mr. Strack decline to answer the questionnaire."

By September Mr. Strack was stating that the was too busy to meet with the committee. Besides, he felt "that the Committee of Eleven is hostile towards the athletic program." Strack finally appeared before the committee on September 23, 1976. The meeting was argumentative. Director Strack felt that the Committee of Eleven had no right to investigate the department. The members of the committee replied that they did have such a right. Finally, parts of the questions he would answer, to answer these questions and to send the Committee of Eleven a copy of the annual report he was preparing for the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee." When his reply arrived, however, it simply contained a sampler of information, no specific answers to questions, and a wish that the letter would "conclude our discourse." The subcommittee decided that it would not.⁶⁷

Yet another meeting with Mr. Strack took place in early 1977. Again the subject was negotiations over what types of information the director was willing to surrender. Some answers to the questionnaire, Strack argued, would require higher permission. The committee began to seek the information it wanted elsewhere.⁶⁸

The next meeting was between the subcommittee on athletics of the Committee of Eleven, and the President's Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. Mr. Strack also attended. The atmosphere was strained. "On the whole, nothing substantial resulted from this meeting, though a good deal of attitudes and emotions on the part of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics did surface. The subcommittee ground away at its task, and successfully finished its report, which was accepted by the Committee of Eleven, and submitted to the Faculty Senate for its meeting of November 6, 1978. The whole affair, and the writings about it, have a "Watergate" quality. The persistence, restraint, and eloquence of the subcommittee seems to have been admirable.⁶⁹

The Committee of Eleven has had a chequered past since its first meeting in February 1948. Faced by a determined administration it has repeatedly failed to win the money, time, or power needed to make it an effective body. Nor has it had much impact on some of the problems it has faced. Its objections to the system of summer salaries, its wavering stands on questions of rights and freedoms, have achieved few victories.

But it has played a role of some importance in its attempts to be the conscience of the university. It has reminded the administration of its duty to the library, met with angry students, and reformed the Athletics Department, among many other matters. The Committee stated on its annual report of 1972-1973, under faculty attack because of its inaction in some matters, that "Given the limitations of time available for Committee service of this nature, we believe our record will show a high degree of sensitivity to faculty concerns, and a modest amount of courage in tackling problems addressed to us." 70 Self praise perhaps, but near enough so let it pass.

In the long term what the Committee of Eleven and others like it have done, in the face of strong and authoritarian administrations, is to keep alive the old aspiration of an autonomous, self-governing community of scholars, living together in a university.

NOTES

1. Committee of Eleven, Minutes (hereinafter CE/M.) February 3, 19 48, p. 1

2. CE/M., Nov. 18, 1969, p. 1.

3. CE/M., Sept. 23, 1976, p. 2 and especially p. 4.

4. CE/M., Dec. 6, 1977, p. 1.

5. E.g., CE/M., Jan. 11, 1955; CE/M., March 2, 1960; CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1972-1973, p. 3; CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1973-1974, p. 3. For lack of quorum, see the minutes of March 10, April 7, and May 12, 1966; this at a time when the university had recently been censured (1965) by the A.A.U.P. See also The Arizona Wildcat, Nov., 10, 1973, p. 3.

6. These phases in committee-administration relations can be discerned in the minutes, and can be quantified. For examples of efforts to achieve financial and consultative power, see above, and the notes below.

7. CE/M., Feb. 3, 1948, p. l.

8. CE/M., March 4. 1948, p. 1.

9. CE/M., Oct. 21, 1969, p. 1.

10. CE/M., Nov. 4. 1969, p. 1.

11. CE/M., Oct. 5. 1974, p. 1; CE/M., Dec. 12, 1975; CE/M., Oct. 18, 1977, p. 2; CE/M., Feb. 13, 1981, p. 2.

12. E.g., CE/M., Nov. 17, 1970; CE/M., March 2, 1971. CE/M., Jan. 4, 1972; CE/M., March 6, 1975; CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1981-1982.

13. CE/M., Nov., 18, 1969, p. 1.

14. CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1971-1972. See also CE/M., March 21, 1972.

15. CE/M., March 12, 1948.

16. CE/M., April 19, 1955; CE/M., Oct. 26, 1955; and CE/M., Nov. 30, 1955.

17. Resolution dated Jan. 9, 1956, sent to Senate Jan, 11, 1956. See CE/M., Jan. 6, 1956

18. CE/M., April 17, 1956.

19. E.g., CE/M., March 2, 1960.

20. These matters may be followed in the following minutes: CE/M., May 9, 1961; CE/M., Jan. 9, 1962; CE/M., Feb. 13, 1962; CE/M., March 27, 1962; CE/M., April 10, 1962. See also the letter from Pres. Harvill to the committee on these matters, May 15, 1962, filed with the minutes of that date.

21. CE/M., Oct. 21, 1965; and Pres. Harvill to the Committee of Eleven, Nov. 18, 1965.

22. CE/M., March 17, 1970.

23. CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1971-1972, p. 2. (The meeting with President Schaefer was on April 25, 1972, as reported in CE/M., April 25, 1972.)

24. CE/M., May 2, 1972, pp. 1-2.

25. C.f., Faculty and Staff Newsletter, January-April 1974. Also CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1973-1974, p.2; CE/M, Sept. 6, 1973. In CE/M., Nov. 7, 1973, in response to complaints from the committee about lack of communication, Pres. Schaefer had replied, "This really distresses me because I run an open administration." (p.1) For the perceived failures of the "Conversations" column (finally, in fact, entitled, "Questions and Answers") see CE/M., Jan. 18, 1974; CE/M., Feb. 15, 1974. The whole project died quietly in April. See CE/M., April 19, 1974.

26. CE/M., Jan. 30, 1975; CE/M., Feb. 6, 1975; CE/M., May 1, 1975.

27. CE/M., June 5, 1975.

28. All three quotations from CE/M., Oct. 3, 1975. See also CE/M., Oct. 17, 1975. In the minutes of Nov. 21, 1975 the Committee of Eleven resolved to send copies of all its minutes to Pres. Schaefer so that he would be better informed as to its activities. (CE/M., Nov. 21, 1975).

29. CE/M., Dec. 12, 1975. Schaefer's complaint is in CE/M., Oct. 14, 1976, p. 3. (One suspects that these comments on communications were pro forma, because there is no evidence that the President, at any time, tried to initiate more extensive contacts with the committee.)

30. CE/M., Feb. 11, 1980 contains the first reference to this reorganization. The Committee of Eleven resolution is in CE/M., Nov. 11, 1981, p. 2. Debate on it has continued to this day in university publications. See, for recent exchanges on this matter between Pres. Koffler and the Committee of Eleven, CE/M., April 20, 1984. See also CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1982-1983, p. 2.

31. Letter from Donald E. Meyers, Chairman, Committee of Eleven, to President Koffler, March 5, 1983.

32. CE/"Consensus," following minutes of April 30, 1948. See also "Proposals Recommended by the Committee of Eleven for Consideration and Adoption by the Academic Senate" in the same file for 1948.

33. CE/M., March 12, 1948; CE/M., Nov. 18, 1949.

34. CE/M., March 6. 1951. See also CE/M., Oct. 17, 1952, where it is noted that a drop in summer enrollments has aggravated the problem.

35. CE/M., Feb. 12, 1954; CE/M., Feb. 26, 1954.

36. CE/M., Nov. 15,, 1960; CE/M., May 29, 1964.

37. CE/M., Nov. 19, 1968; President Harvill to the Committee of Eleven, Jan. 20, 1969.

38. CE/M., Dec. 5, 1974; CE/M., Jan. 23, 1975, p. 2; CE/M., Jan. 30, 1975; CE/M., Feb. 6r 1975; CE/M. . May 1, 1975; and CE/M., June 51 1975.

39. CE/M., April 24, 1950.

40. Prof. Robert C. Kauffman to Dr. Henry Tucker, Chairman, Committee of Eleven, Nov. 21, 1960; Letter of Professor Henry Tucker, Chairman, Committee of Eleven, to Prof. Kauffman, March 2, 1961.

41. There is a considerable pile of papers on these matters, but the debate and the changes in the system may be followed through the following minutes: CE/M., May 9, 1961; CE/M., Nov. 28, 1961; CE/M., Jan. 9, 1962; CE/M., Feb. 13, 1962; CE/M., April 10, 1962; CE/M., May 15, 1962. The Faculty Senate debated and voted on the new policies on May 21, 1962.

42. CE/M., Feb. 13, 1964; CE/M., Feb. 27, 1964.

43. For "Religion-in-Life Week," see CE/M., April 9, 1964; CE/M., April 23, 1964; CE/M., Oct. 13, 1964; and CE/M., Nov.

10, 1964. For the 2 discussions on ROTC and the loyalty oath, see CE/M., April 23, 1964, and CE/M., May 21, 1964. For the A.A.U.P. censure and the committee's recommendation on this, see CE/M., April 13, 1965. (This censure was also discussed briefly in CE/M., Jan. 13, 1966).

44. CE/M., April 21, 1970. This was passed in CE/M., May 4, 1970.

45. CE/M., Nov. 18, 1969, pp. 1-2.

46. This turbulent affair, or at least one view of it, may be followed in Via Arizona wildcat, especially vols. 59 and 60. see especially, Vol. 59, Nos. 98, 114, 122, 124, 127, and 131 (March 6-April 29, 1968), and Vol. 60, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 14, 23, 30, 37-43 (Sept. 16-Nov. 12, 1968.)

47. E.g., CE/M., Feb. 17, 1970, a discussion of secret military research. Later a resolution on this matter was sent to Provost Weaver (CE/M., April 8, 1970). 1 have been unable to find the wording of this resolution. It raised enough reaction among the administration to cause the committee to withdraw from the fray. "This is beyond the Committee's control." CE/M., Nov. 17, 1970.

48. CE/M., Feb. 1. 1974, CE/M., March 6, 1975; CE/M., April 3, 1975; CE/M., May 27, 1975; CE/M., Dec. 12, 1975; CE/M., Oct. 28, 1976.

49. CE/M., Nov. 18, 1976.

50. E.g., CE/M., Dec. 1, 1978; CE/M., April 20, 1979; CE/M., May 4, 1979; CE/M., Jan. 22, 1982; CE/M., Feb. 26, 1982; CE/M., Nov. 8, 1982; CE/M., Nov. 29, 1982.

51. Letter from Leon Blitzer, Secretary, Committee of Eleven to Dr. A. J. Deutschman, Jr., College of Agriculture, Dec. 16, 1969. Parking is, of course, an intractable problem, and the committee sometimes became cynical about this perennial and seemingly insoluble matter - "Parking was explored as usual," writes the secretary in CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1970-1971.

52. CE/M., Oct. 3. 1972; CE/M., Nov. 21, 1972. See also CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1972-1973. There were more discussions on the bookstore in 1974. See CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1973-1974; CE/M., March 15, 1974, and CE/M., April 5, 1974.

53. CE/M., April 23, 1948; CE/M., Oct. 1, 1948r at passim in 1948.

54. E.g., CE/M., March 24, 1959; CE/M., April 28, 1959; CE/M., March 9, 1965; CE/M., April 13, 1965.

55. Oliver Sigworth, Chairman of the Faculty, to Gary Munsinger, Vice President for Planning and Budget, Nov. 9, 1981. See also CE/M., Annual Report to Senate, 1981-1982, and the various campus bulletins and newsletters issued by FLAC, (Faculty Library Action Committee).

56. CE/M., March 29, 1949; CE/M., Nov. 26, 1951; CE/M., Dec. 10, 1951; CE/M., May 1, 1953.

57. Resolution sent to Senate, CE/M., March 29, 1960.

58. CE/M., Jan. 13, 1966.

59. CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1971-1972; CE/M., Jan. 18,, 1972; CE/M., Feb. 15, 1972.

60. CE/M., Jan. 13, 1977; CE/M., Feb. 24, 1977; CE/M., Jan. 18, 1979; CE/M., March 30, 1979; and CE/M., April 28, 1980.

61. CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1980-1981; CE/M., Sept. 19, 1980; E/M., Feb. 13, 1981, pp. 1-2; CE/M., May 8, 1981; CE/M., Sept. 4, 1981.

62. See especially CE/M., Dec. 17, 1968, to which is attached Pres. Harvill's lengthy reply (January, 1969) 'to the students' demands. See also CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1968-1969.

63. CE/M., Jan. 7, 1969.

64. E.g., CE/Annual Report Senate, 1969-1970, pp. 1-2; CE/M, Feb. 3,. 1970; CE/M., March 3, 1970. See also its many interventions with the administration on behalf of the custodial and other staffs. E.g., CE/M., Jan. 6, '1970; CE/M., Jan. 20, 1970; CE/M., April 8, 1970; CE/M., April 14, 1970.

65. CE/M. , May 1, 1975.

66. CE/M., May 5, 1975; CE/M., June 3, 1975.

67. CE/M, Oct. 3, 1975, pp. 2-3; CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1976-1977, pp. 3-5; CE/M., Sept. 23, 1976, pp. 1-4.

68. CE/M., Feb. 10, 1977, p. 2; CE/M., Feb. 24, 1977.

69. CE/M., May 9, 1977; CE/M., Oct. 13, 1978.

70. CE/Annual Report to Senate, 1972-1973, p. 3.

Return to Committee of Eleven Home Page

This site maintained by The University of Arizona Faculty Center
1216 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210456
Tucson, AZ 85721-0456
VOICE 520-621-1342 FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated 08/14/09