Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED037187: Academic Government at Berkeley. The Academic Senate."

See other formats


ED 03*7 187 


HE 001 449 





Mortimer/ Kenneth Po 

Academic Government at Berkeley* The Academic Senate. 
California Univ*/ Berkeley. Center for Research and 
Development in Higher Education. 



OEG- 6-10-1 06 


EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$1„00 HC-$10«15 

DESCRIPTORS ^College Administration/ ^Educational Policy/ 

♦Governance/ *Higher Education/ ♦Policy Formation 
IDENTIFIERS ♦California University Berkeley 


This report analyzes the political structure of the 
Academic Senate at the University of California/ Berkeley. A review 
of the literature on educational politics is followed by a chapter 
explaining the history/ organization/ and "actions in time of crisis*’ 
of the Academic Senate. ’ In Chapter 3, the characteristics of a 
representative sample of Berkeley faculty are compared with those of 
Senate com'mittee members/ committee chairman/ and selected members of 
other committees. Chapter 4 examines some of the informal aspects of 
relationships among faculty members serving in the Academic Senate. 
Chapter 5 describes the formal and informal operation of the Budget 
Committee/ the Committee on Academic Planning/ the Committee on 
Educational Policy, and the Committee on Courses of Instruction. 
Chapter 6 presents observations and conclusions on decision-making 
patterns of various faculty committees^ It also describes recent 
attempts by the Senate to coordinate the activities of its committees 
and to maintain adequate liaison with the administration. The final 
chapter presents discussion and conclusions regarding the effects of 
various crises on the Senate, the characteristics of the faculty 
ruling elite, and a summary of power and authority in Senate 
committees. (DS) 

EDO 37187 

- -2 >/- 





Kenneth P. Mortimer 

114. DEPttiwiir or NaiiN, Eouamii t wemre 
omcE or EDOunoo 


PEKMMOMtManoiioMeiiuiiiioii. rawsormw wTiiMis 


'The research reported herein -was supported by Grant No. 

OE 6 -IO-IO 6 , Proj.ect No. 5“0248-2-2j "with the Office 
of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, under the provision of the Cooperative Research 
Program. Contractors undertaking such proo'ects under 
Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely 
their professional judgment in the conduct of the project. 
Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, 
necessarily represent official Office of Education 
position or policy. 


Higher education is undergoing profound Change in patterns 
of authority and influence. McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford 
Foundation, observed recently (1968) that . .the distribution 
of authority and responsibility among the various members of a 
university is now in question as it has not been for generations 

5 - ^■ 3 ” 

-- One of the most significant changes during the last 
quarter of a century is the great growth of faculty power. By 
attaining a high degree of professional self-government, faculties 
now exercise effective control of the education and certification 
of entrants to the profession; the selection, retention, and pro- 
motion of their members; the content of the curriculum; work 
schedules; and the evaluation of performance. Consequently, said 
Bundy, **When it comes to a crunch, in a first-class university it 
is the facility which decides . ” 

The influence of the faculty has also increased greatly 
\ in the British universities. The faculties of Oxford and Cam- 

bridge are self-governing societies, syndicalist organizations. 
However, the Red Brick universities and the new universities es- 
tablished after the Second World War are governed by bodies com- 
posed both of laymen and academics. Nonetheless, the power of 
the academic members of governing boards and of academic senates 
in the universities has gradually increased at the expense of lay 



governors. Although external forces almost certainly will gain 

power in the future at the expense of both lay governing hoards 


and faculties in American and British universities, faculties, 
nevertheless, will continue to play a significant role in college 
and university government. In viewing the pattern of authority 

and influence in higher education, therefore, it seems appropriate 


to make more careful studies of faculty government and faculty 
participation in institutional decision making than have been 
available previously. 

The study reported here is one of three related case 
studies of faculty government. It concerns the University of 
California at Berkeley. The other two case-study institutions 
are the University of Minnesota and Fresno State College. On the 
basis of these studies, a comparative monograph on faculty gover- 
nance will be prepared. 

Faculty coUegiality no longer survives except, perhaps, 
in a very small Oxford or Cambridge College. The faculty in a 
large complex institution organizes itself bureaucratically to 
carry on its work. Except in crises, a limited number of faculty 
members conduct the business for their colleagues. One of the 
purposes of the three case studies is to discover the composition 
of these "ruling” groups and how they operate. Another purpose is 
to discover how, or whether, the membership of faculty oligarchies 
changes during periods of crisis. 

Another objective of the studies is to explore the formal 

and informal relationships of academic senates and senate committees 


to the central administration. Questions such as the following have 
been explored: Are there essentially separate faculty and adminis- 

trative jurisdictions j or do faculty bodies and administrators 
participate together throughout the decision-making process? Is 
the structure of governance such as to encourage confrontation 
rather than shared authority? What are the evidences and causes 
of strained relationships between faculty and administration? 

What methods have been used to reduce tension and to resolve 
controversy? Is the pattern of governance conducive to educa- 
tional leadership? Does it restrict administrative initiative 
and influence? 

The proposed comparative monograph will also deal with 
these questions. In addition, it will discuss tensions, and in 
some instances confrontations, between faculties and governing 
boards , as well as the constraints placed upon faculties and 
particular institutions by systemwide governance and administra- 
tion and by statewide coordinating agencies. All these are 
factors determining who gains and who loses in the redistribution 
of power and influence over colleges and universities. 

T, R. McConnell 


The research reported in this document was. supported by the 
Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at the Uni- 
versity of California at Berkeley, and I would like to e3q>ress my 
appreciation to the Center and its Director, Leland L. Medsker. 

The project was st:iggested by T. R, McConnell in a speech de- 
livered to the American Council on Education's administrative interns 
in September 1966. Dr. McConnell encouraged me to pursue the research 
and helped design and finance the study. M^y intellectual and personal 
debt to him is more than I can express. 

Miss Elsie M^rnc cf Administrative Records and Mrs. Kirsten 
Russell in the Academic Vice Chancellor’s office were very helpful 
in obtaining much of the research data. Several members of the staff 
at the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education helped 
compile, code, and program the data. David Cole and Carol Omelich 
helped in the early stages of data collection; Charles Gherke, 

Susan Perkins, Cynthia Warias, and Diana Fackenthal gave valuable 
guidance concerning computers and computer programs, and their help 
is much appreciated. 

A special debt is owed Mrs. Carolyn Robinson, who helped 
organize, code, and collapse the data. She also searched through 
the libraries for Senate material, and she typed and retyped the 
various drafts of the manuscript. 


The administrators and faculty members who submitted to 

rather lengthy interviews deserve a special thanks for being very 


generous with their time. 







I Introduction ]_ 

II The Acudomic Sonatiei Historyj Organizutionj 

and Actions in Times of Crisis X2 

III Faculty Ch^act eristics 36 

IV Senate Politics: Some Informal Aspects 66 

V Four Senate Committees 95 

VI Academic Decision Making 134 

VII Conclusions 

References ^86 



. In describing university administration, Presthus (1965) has 
stated that some faculty are encouraged to do administrative work 
rather than to increase their knowledge. He argues that a small but 
significant proportion of faculty share adtid-nistrative values of power 
and prestige which include career aspirations tied to their home base, 
institutional loyalty, and a propensity to compromise. These faculty 
rarely are productive academically. Their professional marketability 
is limited, and they are closely boTind to their administrative masters. 
They specialize in acquiring political and administrative skills and 
in enhancing their own organizational status. 

McConnell (1966) has noted that although organization of 
faculty governance may be structurally democratic, it tends to move 
toward oligarchic control by a class of professional faculty members 
who are also amateur administrators. He has suggested that at the 
University of California at Berkeley a very large part of the 
Academic Senate committee work, is performed by faculty members of 
lesser scholarly distinction who make committees their primary 
activity and do relatively little research or scholarly writing. 
According to McConnell, faculty utilize bureaucratic methods in 
- order to organize effectively, and faculty and administrative 
bureaucracies often coexist in an uneasy balance consisting of 



overlapping ourisdictions and an absence of communication with each 
other . 

The significance of these problems derives from the asser- 
tion by Caplow and McGee (19^5) that if power cannot be tied to 
specific positions in the university, it will lodge pretty much 
where it may. VThen power is allowed to roam free,. it is taken into 
whatever hands are capable of exercising it. "The product of this 
system," according to Caplow and McGee, "is the university ’strongman* 
— dean, chairman, or professor — who converts his prestige, either 
disciplinary or local, into authority by enlisting the support of 
the men around him 5 - 1TI7-" 

The research reported here dealt with the statement that 
governance by faculty, while democratically structured, makes use of 
bureaucratic methods and tends toward oligarchic control by a class 
of professional-amateur administrators who do relatively little 
research or scholarly writing. The questions for study were as 
follows : 

(1) What effects do periods of crisis have on the practice 
and patterns of faculty self-government, faculty 
participation in campus governance, and faculty- 

^ administrative relationships? 

(2) Can an oligarchy or series of oligarchies be identified 
and defined in an academic setting? If yes, what are 
its (or their) characteristics? If not, why is this 



the case? 

( 3 ) What are the factors, both formal and informal, 

■which tend to sustain oligarchies or prevent them 

i from arising? 

( 4 ) What are the power or authoritj relationships in 
faculty decision making? What are the power and 
authority relationships within the faculty and 
between faculty and the administration? 

Specifically, the report will analyze the composition and 
operation of six important Academic Senate committees at the Univer- 
sity of California at Berkeley: the Committee on Academic Planning, 

the Committee on Committees, the Committee on Budget and Interdepart- 
ments Kelations, the Committee on Courses of Instruction, the Committee 
on Educational Policy, and the Committee on Senate Policy (McConnelJ., 
1966; Eley, 1964). The report will also compare the characteristics 
and previous cotnmittee experience of those faculty who served on 
these committees with those who served on other committees over a 
ten-year period and with a representative sample of Berkeley faculty. 

A review of relevant literature will provide some basis for this 
analysis (Mortimer & McConnell, in press). 



Oligarchic Control by Profess ional-Amateur Administrators 

Clark (1963a) stated that the structure of faculty partici 
pat ion in academic government parallels that of the society at 



large and, is apparently normal to a representative mass democracy. 

This common model of political man is comprised of a few actives 
who participate a great deal and who comprise the ruling oligarchy 
or political elite, a larger group which constitutes an alert and 
informed public which participates modestly, and finally an apathetic 
group which does not participate at all but may, under certain 
conditions, become much more active (Dahl, 1963)* 

Milbrath (1965) supported this general structure of political 
behavior when he summarized the literature on political participation 
by classifying the polity into gladiators, political spectators, and 
nonvoters. Gladiators are heavily involved in the details of political 
activity. They may hold public or party office or be party workers . 
Spectators remain intelligently aware of the issues but refrain from 
active participation in political affairs. Nonvoters comprise the 
apathetic group. According to Milbrath, the activities in which 
gladiators and spectators participate constitute a hierarchy of 
political involvement and are cumulative. A gladiator will have 
performed most of the activities specified as spectator activities 
on the way to his heavy political involvement. Spectators become 
an important source for political activity only when aroused by 


political crises. 

Campbell al. (19^^) have documented that politics is of 
little interest to most people when the political atmosphere is 
relatively free of crisis. The public generally exhibits marked 

unfamiliarity with policy questions, and this provides decision 

• • 

makers with the necessary degree of freedom to exercise their judg- 
ment (Campbell ^*3 lS6k; Almond & Verba, 19^5 )• Almond and 
Verba also made this point when they claimed that intense emotional 
involvement in politics endangers the balance between activity and 
passivity which depends on the low salience of politics for the 
public. In short, the management of affect becomes important. 

Politics must not become so practical that the populace loses emotional 
involvement in it, but it must not become so controversial that f e 
public becomes too much involved. Boyer (19^4) suggested that some 
interest in government is needed to sustain the system* s legitimacy,- 
while some degree of apathy is needed to sustain administrative 
initiative and power. 

The existence of a small core of political professionals, 
however, is not entirely attributed to the fact of general apathy. 

The need for political expertise is another factor which makes the 
elite necessary. Michels (1959) spoke of the technical indispens- 
ability of leadership and the general inability of the masses to 
govern themselves. His "iron law of oligarchy" has been widely 
quoted as an indispensable characteristic of any large organization 
for the past fifty years. Max Weber (1959) also supported the 
necessity of this managerial pattern. 

The factors which support the minority control of groups 
were summarized by Monsen and Cannon (19^5) as follows; l) large 

size 9 which necessitates smaller , more workable groups for making 
decisions; 2) a monopoly over political and managerial skills; 3) 
control over sources of revenue; and 4 ) the ability to spend time 
on the group’s activities. The small core of political professionals 
who control the political process seems, then, to be a fact of life 
in a democratic society. 

Character of the Oligarchy- Scholarly Product ivity and Value 

Those who operate in an organizational environment often 
adjust quite differently to the pressures with which they are con- 
fronted. The kinds of adjustments that are made are as much a 
reflection of personal needs as they are a function of the organiza- 
tional requisites for successful performance. Because of this, the ’ 
generalization that the ruling elites rarely include the scholarly 
productive might be state'"' ' 31.ows: Those who participate heavily 

in academic governance h- !-lo time for research and/or publica- 

tion. Theoretically, t**^ r^ .r-^nts different orientations among 
faculty in their aujustF.:,.*. * to academic life. Table 1 is a summary 
of some of the terminology that scholars have used in describing the 
varying orientations to the many roles of academic man. Those faculty 
who are locally oriented would be expected to put less emphas5.s on 
their scholarly or professional role than on teaching or adminis- 
trative roles. Similarly, one could expect less publishing from 
those devoting much time to committee work than from those whose 


raison d * etre is research. 

Authority and Power in Academic Government 

Millett (1963) has argued that the concepts of bureaucracy 
found in the literature of business and public administration have 
little direct relevance to the academic community and may even be 
misleading. His argument -was directed against the presupposition 
of hierarchy which characterizes the analyses of most behavioral 
theorists. On the other hand, Clark (1963a) pointed out that the 
elaborate system of committees that characterizes the organization 
of faculty government has resulted in a trend away from the informal 
collegium idea and toward formal organization. Demerath, Stephens, 
and Taylor (1967) took the position that there is .a mixture of 
bureaucratic and collegial organizational patterns. 


Terminology Describing Faculty 

* Orientations 

Clark (1963b) 

Gouldner (1958) 

Gust ad (1966) 





a. The dedicated 



b. The true 


The demonstrator 


c. The homeguard 


The consultant 

d. The elders 



p . The outsiders 


b. The empire 




The debate tends to revolve around Millett‘s belief in the 
model of consensual administration as the norm of academic life. 
Theoretically, the argument draws heavily on the kinds of adjustments 
which the individual and an organization make between the two essentially 
polar ideal types of professional and administrative authority. 

These patterns of accommodation (or conflict) are the subject of 
much research on authority and power. For example, Peabody (1962) 
distinguished between formal and functional authority. Formal 
authority is based on hierarchical and legitimate or legal position, 
while functional authority is based on competence, technical knowledge, 
or charisma. Professionals characteristically look to competence and 
peer evaluation as their prime source of control while stressing 
individuality and individual autonomy in organizational relationships. 
(Kornhauser, in 1962, offered a list of professional values.) Organ- 
izational (administrative) authority, on the other hand, stresses 
formal, legal, and hierarchical relations. This, of course, results 
in strains and conflict and eventually leads to accommodations between 
the two types of authority, especially in organizations which rely 
heavily on professionals for their lifeblood. A detailed discussion 
of administrative versus professional authority may be found in 
Etzioni*s 1964 work and in Blau and Scott (I962). 

A summary of various scholars’ viewpoints reveals consider- 
able similarity as to the sources and kinds of strains inherent in 
the professional’s adjustment to bureaucratic pressures. There 


seems to be a degree of consensus that l) varying goals, 2) super- 
visory control mechanisms, and 3) different reference groups cause 
conflict and necessitate a balancing between the two types of authority 
(Kornhauser, I962; Marcson, I96O; Scott, I966). Not all of these 
strains exist in every organization, however. In studying an industrial 
research laboratory, LaPorte (19^5) found only two of these strains — 
differential goal orientations and restrictive administrative pro- 
cedures — out of a possible seven. 

Finally, it is important to note that Millett’s level of . 
analysis was the academic community in general. That is, his model 
of consensus drew heavily on. the relationships between the various 
parties which comprise the academic community— administration, faculty, 
students, and alumni. He had less to say about the relationships which 
exist within these components. 

Based on this experience in normal political/administrative 
behavior in government and other organizations, one would also expect 
to find a small core of gladiators in an academic organization. 

These professional amateur administrators are likely to have little 
time for research and/or publication activity, not because of lack 
of ability, but rather due to differing patterns of accommodation 
to organizational life. 





This report on faculty self-government and- participation 
in campus governance at the University of California at Berkeley does 
not reproduce the considerable amount of raw data obtained in the 
research. Rather it summarizes and offers conclusions -vrherever 

Chapter 2 provides a brief history of the Academic Senate, 
a description of the evolution of Senate committee structure, and a 
record of its action in times of crisis. In Chapter 3 some charac^ 
teristics of Senate committee members and chairmen are compared to a 
representative sample of faculty. Chapters 4 and 5 analyze some of 
the informal practices of Senate operation as well as describe and 
analyze in detail the operation of six important Senate committees. 
Principal data sources for these two chapters include Senate documents, 
committee reports, and in-depth interviews with committee members, and 

Chapter 6 offers some conclusions on decision making in 
faculty committees and analyzes the liaison relationship between 
Senate committees and the administration. Chapter 7 discusses how 
crises affect normal decision-making patterns and the factors that 
tend to sustain academic oligarchies. The author concludes that 
faculty-administrative relations at Berkeley consist of separate 
spheres of jurisdictions on certain issues. The author urges the 
overt recognition of organizational conflicts and adoption of a 




system of shared authority. 


Specific limitations of the research are mentioned through- 
out this report. In general, however, it should be noted that the 
study concentrates on a ten-year period; events which occurred prior 
to 1957-58 or after June I967 are not fully discussed. Also, the 
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate forms the level of analysis, 
gy focusing on faculty participation in campus governance, the study 
does not analyze important developments in either the Universitywide 
Senate or in the faculties of the separate colleges, schools, and/or 
departments on the Berkeley campus. 

Finally, six committees of the Berkeley Division were selected 
for analysis, and other committees are not discussed in detail. Some 
other committees, such as the Committee on Academic Freedom, the 
Graduate Council, or the Committee on Privilege and Teniae, can be of 
crucial importance in certain cases. 








This chapter sketches some background for a more detailed 
analysis of Senate committees at Berkeley. It briefly outlines the 
early history of the Academic Senate, the formal authority structure 
of the Universityvride and Berkeley Senates and their organization, 
and describes some of the Berkeley Senate’s actions in times of campus 


The history of the Academic Senate at Berkeley is almost 
as old as the University itself. The first Senate meeting was held 
in 1869 j one year after the founding of the University. From that 
time up to 1920, the University was dominated successively by the 
Regents (1869 to 1899) and the charismatic leadership of Benjamin Ide 
Wheeler, with the Senate in a subservient position. 

According to Cline and Hutson (1966), the early Senate dealt 
with innocuous matters such as the relative weight of the final 
examination compared with the term’s work. During the period from 
1869 to 1899 the Regents did not hesitate in hiring and firing either 
^ presidents or faculty, in I88I the Regents formed a visitation 
committee which eventually resulted in the outright dismissal of 
several faculty members. From I885 to 1915 the minutes of the 





Academic Council, a committee of the Academic Senate, are the only 
tangible evidence that the Senate was still in existence. The Senate 
itself did not meet again until 1915* 

The presidency of- Benjamin Ide Wheeler redressed the 
emphasis on regental control in favor of control by the president 
(Stewart, 1960). Under Wheeler’s direction the University was success- 
ful in recruiting and holding many of the distinguished faculty who 
eventually led the faculty revolt of 1920, which was successful in 
obtaining certain concessions about faculty autonomy from the Regents. 
Specifically, a Senate Budget Committee was provided for in the 
Standing Orders of the Regents; the faculty gained control over the 
appointment of Senate committees through an elected Committee on 
Committees; and departmental chairmen were appointed by the president 
in consultation with the department rather than by merely awarding the 
position to the senior professor in the department (Cline & Hutson, 

1966) . 

Before moving to a description of more recent events, one 
other event should be discussed — the oath. On March 25 j 19 ^ 9 j the 
Regents of the University voted unanimously to substitute for the 
oath already required of all University appointees, one designed to 
strengthen the prohibition against University employment of communists. 
On August 25 j 1950 , thirty-one members of the University faculty were 
dismissed by the Regents for refusing to sign. Twenty-four of the 
non-signers were from the Berkeley campus. This situation resulted 


in conflict both within the faculty community and between the 
faculty and the Regents. Stewart (1950 ) described how some faculty 
members turned into "stool pigeons” and carried information about 
the activities of their colleagues directly to the Regents 7^. 
The thirty-one non-signers dismissed from the University faculty 
in 1950 were reinstated by the California Supreme Court two years 
later. One of Gardner’s (196?) main points is that the conflict 
was not one of principle but ”in its main outlines and principal 
events it was a power struggle, a series of personal encounters 
between proud and influential men ” 

Gardner’s analysis points out that "The Academic Senate. . . 
had failed. . .to allow for ways and means of sampling opinions on 
matters affecting its members ^ , " The older men, who had worked 

for years with President Gordon Sproul, did not know the newer men 
on the faculty well. As a result, the older faculty who initially 
advised the president that he would not encounter insurmountable 
faculty opposition to the oath misread their colleagues badly. ’ 
According to Gardner, ”. . .those serving the Senate were placed 
time and again in the position of representing opinion later found 
to be unrepresentative of the faculty majority. This was a critical 
weakness for which the Senate paid dearly J^, 'fj , ” 

Within the Senate itself there was some disagreement over 
" the power of any advisory committee to negotiate in behalf of the 



faculty. The position taken was that the Senate itself must first 
discuss and ratify any positions taken by a Senate committee 
(Gardner, 19^7 )• 

The oath controversy heightened the Senate's reluctance to 
grant to any of its agencies the authority to act in behalf of the 
body. This is still an important consideration in judging the 
effectiveness and viability of the Berkeley Senate. With one or two 
exceptions noted below, no one person or group has been able to 
"speak" for the Senate. 



The Standing Orders of the Regents, Chapter IX, provide the 
basis for the organization of the Academic Senate (University of 
^California, November I 966 ). The Standing Orders specify the members of 
J the Senate to be the president, vice-presidents, chief campus officers, 
deans, directors, registrars, chief librarians, those instructional 
persons with the title of instructor up to professor, and acting 
associate and full professors. The Academic Senate can perform such 
duties as the Board of Regents may direct and can exercise such powers 
as the board may confer upon it. 

The Standing Orders give the Academic Senate certain duties, 
powers, and privileges, subject to the approval of the Regents. The 
^ Senate shall determine the conditions for admission, for certificates, 
and shall recommend to the president all candidates for degrees. It 
is also enpowered to authorize and supervise all courses of 

instruction in the academic and professional schools, with the 
exceptions noted, subject to the approval of the president. The 
Senate determines the membership of the several faculties except 
that departments can determine their own administrative organization, 
subject to the approval of the president. The Standing Orders also 
authorize the Senate to select committees to advise the chancellors 
and the president on the budget and the libraries and to present its 
views on any University matter through the president. 


Traditionally, the University Senate was administered from 
Berkeley, but with the gro\-rbh in the number of campuses, a new structure 
was devised, and new Senate divisions have been added so that in I967 
each of the nine campuses had its own Senate. The statewide Senate 
was organized into Northern (Berkeley, Davis, San Francisco, and Mount 
Hamilton) and Southern (Los Angeles, Riverside, and La Jolla) Sections 
until 1953 j when two representative assemblies were elected by "wards” 
which were broadly representative of the various academic areas. 

The Berkeley and Los Angeles faculties were fairly successful in 
exercising ^ facto control over the Senate’s separate assemblies. 

An elaborate set of local committees paralleled Senate committees for 
each of the major campuses. 

In 19633 a single statewide Representative Assembly was 
established. The Representative Assembly has its own set of committees 
which parallel, for the most part, those at the campus or divisional 

level. Under considerable pressure from the faculty and under the 
leadership of former President Kerr, a great deal of autonomy for 
local affairs has come to reside in the divisional Senates. 

The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate became a fully 
autonomous division of the Northern Section with the ad<iption of 
bylaws at its October 1957 j meet ing . This occurred as a result of 

recommendations made and adopted by a special. Northern Section 
Committee on the Reorganization of the Northern Section of the 
Academic Senate and a divisional Special Committee on Organization 
(University of California, May 21, 1957). Prior to this, special 
committees of the Northern Section of the Senate were established 
^on the Davis and San Francisco campuses to handle strictly local 
matters. Berkeley controlled the Northern Section and was expected 
to handle its strictly local affairs in that body. To redress this 
situation, the Berkeley Division was organized so that each of the 
three major campuses of the Northern Section would have its own 
separate division, increasing the autonomy of the separate divisions 
within the existing sectional and Universitywide Representative 
Assembly structures. The Report of the Special Committee on Organi- 
zation, which set up the Berkeley Division, consisted largely of 


recommended bylaws and was adopted with only one change from the 
floor; the number required for a quorum was reduced from one hundred 
to seventy-five members (University of California, October 7? 1957) • 

According to its Bylaws, 


The Berkeley Division is a coininittee of the 
Academic Senate. It has authority to organize, to 
select its cv/n. off icers and commit bees, to adopt rules 
for the conduct of its business; to receive and consider 
reports and recojmnendations from the Faculties of 
colleges and schools located vholly or partly on the 
Berkeley campus, from its other Divisional committees, 
from local administrative officers, and from other 
Divisions; to originate and take final action on 
legislation substantially affecting only the Division; 
to establish Faculties in schools and colleges located 
wholly on the Berkeley campus; to transmit directly 
to the President resolutions on any' matter of University 
concern, with copies to the Assembly of the Academic 
Senate; to initiate memorials to the Regents; and to 
submit reports and recommendations to the Senate or 
to the Assembly concerning changes in Senate legislation 
and such other matters as it may deem appropriate 
j^niversity of California, November 8, 1966a, p. l/. 

In summary, the statewide Academic Senate is a federation with a 

central Representative Assenibly and nine quasi-autonomous Senates, 

one on each campus. 

During the ten years under study, the Berkeley Division 
operated as a town meeting. Faculty from the rank of instructor 
through full professor are Senate members and can participate 
directly in meetings. 

Standing Committees 

The decade from 1957-58 to I966-67 was one or rapid growth 
for the Berkeley campus and the Academic Senate. The Senate’s mem- 
bership increased 45 percent from approximately IO85 to I568 mem- 
bers. The freq.uency of divisional meetings increased from two to 
four per year to fifteen while the Division’s standing committees 
increased from thirteen to twenty-eight during this period. It is 



not the intention of this report to dwell extensively on the 
activities of each standing coiiiraittee. Six committees will re- 
ceive intensive analysis in following chapters. 


Table 2 provides general classification for the thirty- 
five standing committees vjhich existed from 1957-58 to I967-68. 
The-classifixiations are sijggestive rather than definitive. Educa- 
tional policy encompasses committees that deal with qualitative 
matters of educational policy and planning. Curricultun includes 
■committees that deal with course j degree j or curricular require- 
ments. Faculty affairs column is composed of those committees which 
deal ’71 th faculty welfare— academ 5 .c freedom, faculty personnel de- 
cisions, and fringe benefits. Committees classified as Senate af- 
fairs are chiefly concerned mth the mechanics of Senate operation. 
The Senate Policy Committee is included here rather than under edu- 
cational policy because it seems to deal more with specific Senate 
concerns than with questions of general policy. The awards category 
lists the committees which make awards to faculty and students, 
while the student affairs category includes the three committees 
which deal with student problems. 




Standing Committees of the Berkeley Division of the 

Academic Senate, 1957-58 to 1967 - 68 , C3.assified by Issue Area 

I Educational policy 

II Curriculum 

III Faculty affairs 

1. Academic planning 

1. American history 
and institutions* * 

1. Academic freedom 

2. Admissions and 

2. Board of educational 

2. Budget and inter- 



3 . Athletic policy 


3 . Council for special 


4. Educational policy 


3 . Privilege and 

5 . Graduate council 

4. Courses of 

6. Library 

5 . Schedule* 

4. University welfare 

7 . Research 

6. Subject A 

7 . Teacher education 


8. University extension 

IV Senate affairs V Awards VI Stadent affairs 

1. Assembly represen- 

1. Faculty research 

1. Faculty represen- 



tative to the 
Associated Students 

2. Chairman’s advisory 

2. Honorary degrees 


committee on agenda* 

3 . Memorial resolu- 

2. Ombudsman 

3 . Committee on 


3 . Student affairs 


4. Prizes 


4. Elections 


5 . Membership* 

5 . Undergraduate 

6. Rules and jurisdiction 

7 . Senate policy 

Source: University of California, Bylaws of the Berkeley Division 

of the Academic Senate (1957-58 to I 967 - 68 ). 

* No longer in existence. 

Special Cotnmittees 

It has heen the practice of the Division to appoint special 
comrolttees to handle specific situations as they arise, and nineteen 
special committees were appointed from 1957-58 to 1967 - 68 . Many 
committees completed their charges by issuing one report; others 
issued many reports; still others became standing cotnmittees. The 
activities of some special committees will be discussed later in 


this chapter. 

Two special committees were the architects of the Senate 
organization. The Special Committee on Organization was appointed 
in 1957 to accomplish the legislative revisions req.uired to make the 
Berkeley Division a committee of the Northern Section, as mentioned 
earlier. The Special Committee on Reorganization was appointed in 
1963 to organize the Berkeley Division in the li^t of the change 
in the Unlversityv^ide Senate from separate Northern and Southern 
Sections to one statewide Representative Assembly with nine separate 
divisions (University of California, March 5j 19^3)* The Reorganiza- 
tion Committee’s report added nine standing committees to the Berkeley 
Division (University of California, May 12, 1964a & b). Instead of 
the president of the University being jex officio chairman of the 
Division, this position was filled upon appointment by the Committee 
on Committees, and the vice chairmanship of the Division was abolished.’ 
Membership in the Berkeley Division was extended to the president, 
chancellor, deans, directors, registrar, and chief librarian at 



Berkeley, as well as to astronomers at Mount Hamilton' and vice 


presidents, deans, and -directors of statewide units who chose to 
enroll. A new bylaw, number 10, specified the duties and respon- 
sibilities of committees and charged them with the task of re|)orting 
their actions to the Division. When recommendations to administrative 
officers were made, these- were to be reported to the Division when 
such report was in the best interest of the University. The Division 
unanimously adopted the committee report with only minor editorial 
comments and changes in wording. 


Attendance at Senate meetings (approximation-s are usually 
reported in the Minutes) provides a good record of the crises which 
have confronted the Berkeley faculty during the ten years under study 
(Figure l). However, the increase in absolute attendance figures in 
Figure 1 must be qualified. The average attendance at Senate meetings 
increased from 50.25 in 1957-58 to 106.11 in 1963-64 to 327.64 in 
1966-67. The attendance ratio increased from one out of every 21.6 
Senate members to one out of every 12.97 ?.nd to one out of every 
4.71 in those respective years. If attendance at two meetings 
during the Strike of 1966 is not counted, the average attendance in 
1966-67 drops to 128.08, and the attendance ratio drops to one out 
of 13.80 members, representing a slight decline from the 1963-64 
ratio of 12.97. 




Sovirce : 

University of California, 
Senate (October 1957-J^e 

V'’r’itGS of tb.8 Bcrr'slsv Drvasron oi tne Academic 






The frequency of Senate meetings, the average attendance, 
and tl^ size of the Senate’s memhership all have increased, if these 
three years ^characterize the ten-year period. The numerical increases 
are not enough to increase faculty attendance relative to total 
membership, but rather reflect a decline from 1963-64 to 1966-67* 
Whether the decline would continue probably depends on the number of 
future crises which confront the Division. Three of the most important 
crises have been the change to year-round operations, the Free Speech 
Movement, and the Strike of 1966. 

Year-round Operations 

The first time Division attendance reached 400 voting, members 
occurred at a special meeting on November 20, I962, to consider the 
matter of proposed plans for year-round operation of the University. 

The chancellor addressed the Division, and eventually this matter 
was referred to the Educational Policy and Budget Committees. 

Free Speech Movement ( FSM ) 

The fall of 1964 saw the eruption of the attendance figures 
into the 900 to 1200 range. This coincided with student demonstrations 
and strikes which have been called the Free Speech Movement (FSM). 

While the total effects of the FSM on higher education have been the 
subject of much social research (Lunsford, 1965)5 this report is 
interested only in the Berkeley Senate’s response to the crisis. 

The FSM direct]y or indirectly resulted in the creation of four 





special committees: the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Conduct, the 

Emergency Executive Committee, the Special Committee of Seven, and 
the Select Committee on Education. Recommendations which emanated 
from the Special Committee of Seven also resulted in the creation 


of the Senate Policy Committee. 

Ad Hoc Committee on St udent Conduct . On September 30, 19^4, 
five students were asked to appear before the dean of men for collecting 
funds at tables set up in an area which was not designated for this 
purpose. The five students plus three leaders of approximately 500 
protestors who were gathered in the corridors refused to enter the 
dean’s office to discuss disciplinary action. All eight of them were 
suspended indefinitely by the chancellor (Lunsford, 1965 )* 

Student protestors continued to list the reinstatement of 
the eight students as one of their demands in future contacts with 
the administration, and on October 2 an agreement was reached which 
provided that the duration of the suspensions be submitted within one 
week to the Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate. In 
subsequent negotiations the chancellor and the president agreed to 
submit the suspended students’ case to an ^ hoc committee appointed 
by the Senate but advisory to the chancellor. This committee was 
appointed on October I 5 . 

The ad hoc committee recommended that the students be re- 
instated while the hearings were being conducted, but the chancellor 
refused. The committee’s subsequent recommendations on November 13 




•were that six of the eight students be reinstated with "censures’' 
of no more than six wc ,ks and that the suspension of the other two 
be retained until November l6. The Regents approved this solution 
•with only minor modifications. 

The Emergency Executive Committee ( EEC ) . The EEC was created 
at the December 8, 1964, meeting "to represent the Division in dealing 
with problems arising out of the present crisis during the remainder 
of the present academic year, reporting its actions regularly to the 
Division and convening the Division when necessary University of 
California, December 8, 1964, p. ii/. " An amendment to have the EEC 
appointed by the Committee on Committees was defeated. Elections 
were held December 11 , and a second ballot was held on December l4 
to choose the six members of the EEC. The chairman of the Division was 
an ^ officio member. The EEC was also authorized to ask any standing 
committees for help or to appoint ^ hoc committees as it saw fit. 

The Executive Committee reported to the Division, at a 
special meeting on January that the purposes of the Senate’s 

resolutions passed on December 8 had been achieved (University of 
California, February 8, I 965 ). These resolutions urged that there 
be no University discipline for political actions through December 8; 
that the University place no restrictions on the content of speech 
or advocacy or on off-campus political activities; that the time, 
place, and manner of on-campus political activity be regulated 
reasonably to protect the normal functions of the University; and 

that future disciplinary measures in the area of political acti‘'’’ity 
he determined hy a committee of the Academic Senate ^unsford, 19^53 
p. 97 . The committee had met with members of the Regents on December 
17 and with a committee of Regents on December 23 j and the resul.ts of 
these meetings were reported to the Division in detail. 

The March 8, 1965j meeting of the Division (University of 
California, March 8, I965) received a report from EEC responding to 
the acting chancellor's invitation to reassess the educational program 
at Berkeley. The EEC moved that a Select Committee on Education be 
appointed : 

(a) to find the ways in which the traditions of 
humane learning and scientific inquiry can be best 
advanced under the challenging conditions of size and 
scale that confront our university community; 

(b) to examine the various changes in educational 
programs currently under consideration in the several 
schools and colleges... 3. jj. 

The Division passed this motion. 

The EEC convened a special March 12 meeting of the Division. 

On March 10, the president and acting chancellor had announced their 

intention to offer resignations at the Regents* meeting of March 13 j and 

the EEC wanted to determine the sense of the Division on this matter. 

Eleven hundred faculty passed, a seven-part, EEC-sponsored resolution 

recommending that the acting chancellor be made chancellor and that 

- the resignations of the president and the acting chancellor be with- 


At the March l8 special meeting of the Division, the EEC 
reported it was going to meet with ?. committee of the Regents to 
discuss control of student conduct on campus. The May 10 , 1965, 

Senate meeting amended and passed an EEC-sponsored resolution on 
control of student conduct, favoring "the declaration of general 
principles hy the Board and the delegation of responsibility for the 
declaration of particular policies and detailed regulations to the 
administration and faculties of the several campuses University of 
California, May 10 , 19 ^ 5 ^, p. viT*. " 

The EEC convened a special meeting of the Division on May 
27 in which the chairman reported orally for the information of the 
Division. The Division passed a motion of commendation of the EEC and 
requested that the committee continue to serve until the first meeting 
of the fall semester I965. The committee esjpired on October 11 , 1965* 

The Special Committee of Seven ( The Hart Committee ) . The 
Hart Committee, under chairman James Hart, was created at the December 
10 , 1964, meeting of the Division (University of California) "to 
investigate v;ays and means of improving the effectiveness of the 
Division, including especially the desirability of an elective stand- 
ing Executive Committee and also an elective assembly to handle routine 
legislative matters /y. iii^. " The committee was charged to report 
not later than March 1965. The resolution’s preamble stressed the 
need to increase the effectiveness of the Division in formulating 
and implementing the views of the faculty. 


The Hart Corami’ ’''e issued its report on March 29j 19^5? 
at a meeting of the Division called especially for this pui’pose. 

As its first recommendation the committee moved that the chancellor 
be removed as an ^ officio member of the Committee on Committees in 
order to "sharpen the distinction between Division Committees appointed 
by the Committee on Committees, and Administrative Committees appointed 
by the Chancellor University of California, March 29j 1965a, p. 

The Hart Committee's answer to the question of an elect- 
ive standing executive committee was to point oat that such a com- 
mittee can always be appointed when an emergency arises but that 
attention should be directed . "to such means as may help to avoid the 
creation of an emergency Jy. S/. " The committee sought to develop 
an agency smaller and more flexible than the entire Division to aid 
in identifying significant academic issues as they begin to take 
shape in standing committees. This agency would not act in either a 
decision-making capacity or as a negotiating arm of the Division. 

A motion to amend the committee’s motion to create a Senate Policy 
Committee along the • ‘.aes stated above was narrowly defeated by a 
vote of 125 to 115. The defeated amendment read as follows: "To 

convene the Division when the Committee deems it necessary; and to 
act for the Divis* *3 in emergencies in or > ■ f”.*'"^her such policies 
as the Division may have adopted, unti. ’oi. be convened 

University of California, April 5 3 196?^ 

The Hart Committee reported that with the creation of a 

Senate Policy Committee , a representative assembly would unneces- 
sarily coQiplicate the Division’s governance structure. The Hart 


Committee members believed that the Policy Committee’s activities 
would bring out a sizable number of Division members 3 hopefully 
equal to the attendance which would result from the creation of an 
assembly at Berkeley. 

The Hart Committee Peport also recommended that; l) the 
chairman's Advisory Committee on Agenda be abolished tmen the first 
Senate Policy Committee was confirmed and 2) that noncontroversial 
items be placed on a consent calendar to be approved as one item on 
the agenda of Division meetings. Both proposals were accepted by the 

Division on April 5 , 19^5 5 and the committee was discharged at that 

Saiaat C ommx tte e on Educat ion (The Muscatine Committee). 
The Select Committee on Education^ called the Muscatine Committee 
after its chairman, Charles Muscatine, was created in response to 
the remarks of the acting chancellor concerning a motion by the 
Emergency Executive Committee passed on March 8 , I965. The charge 
to the Select Committee also included the responsibility of communi- 
cating information on the educational programs being considered in 
the various schools and colleges to the wider campus community and 
considering the implications of these programs in the light of the 
challenging conditions of size and scale confronting the University. 

The committee published its report, entitled Education at 


Berkeley , which included a minority report and tatular presentation 
of data in an appendix (University of California, 1966). The report 
lists forty-two recommendations on issues such as how to secure 
recognition of teaching in faculty promotional criteria, the desir- 
ahility of smaller classes and grading reforms, more selective 
admissions, and the upgrading of teaching assistants. The Senate 
considered these recommendations during the spring and fall of 1966, 
and the committee was discharged in February I967. Perhaps the most 
important, innovation recommended by the committee and adopted by the 
Division concerns the forming of the Board of Educational Development 
(bed) and the creation of the post of assistant chancellor for educa- 
tional development. 

The BED is a unique faculty committee in that it has the 
authority to "sponsor, conduct and direct. . .continuing studies of the 
needs and opportunities for educational development. .. ” and to initiate 
and administer experimental instructional programs outside normal 
departmental structures for up to five years /pp. 113-1197* The • 
board is also empowered to seek outside funding for the support of 
experimental courses and curricula. 

Legislation creating the office of assistant chancellor for 
education was enacted on March 31 j 19^6. The assistant chancellor is 
an ex. officio voting member of the Board of Educational Development 
and is responsible for administering the board *s policies and programs 
and for securing the necessary funds. 




The Strike of I966 

The Governance Commission . As a result of student distur- 


bances from November 30, I966, to December 5, 1966, initially pro- 
testing the presence of Navy recruiters on campus but resulting in 
the presence of outside police on the campus, a student strike was 
called. The Division met in regular session on December 5 to pass 
a resolution which included a charge to the Senate Policy Committee 
"to explore new avenues for increasing student participation in the 
making and enforcing of campus rules and to report to the Division. 
Further, we call for the creation of a faculty-student commission 
to consider new modes of governance and self-regulation appropriate 
to a modern American university community... ^University of California, 
December 5> 19^6b, pp, i-i^. ” The Policy Committee and the Student 


L .Affairs Committee proposed legislation that the Academic Senate and 
the Associated Students jointly establish a Study Commission on 
University Governance composed of six faculty and six students (Uni- 
versity of California, January 1, I967). 

The Study Commission was charged to consider the definition 
of areas of exclusive, primary, or shared responsibility between 
faculty, students, and administration. It was also charged to con- 
sider such other areas as appropriate student participation in depart- 
ment and college governance, student governance structures, the 
quality of the free forum at Berkeley, the fairness of disciplinary 
procedures, and the policies governing the activities of nonstudents 


on the campus. 

The Study Commission’s majority report was issued in 
January I 968 and the minority report in April. At the regular 
February 5? 19^8, meeting of the Division, the Governance Commission’s 
proposals were referred directly to appropriate committees of the 
Division. A motion to commit the entire report first to the Senate 
Po3.icy Committee was defeated. 

The Dismissal of Clark Kerr . The Division met on January 24, 
i' 966 , in emergency session following the dismissal of President Kerr 

by the Board of Regents. The dismissal took place very close to the 
inaTjguratimi of a new governor, renevjing faculty fears of political 
intervention as did the new governor’s proposals for the imposition 
of tuition and University budget cuts. 

The Division unanimously passed a resolution ifhich extended 

thanks to President Kerr. A.nother resolution was passed which called 
on the Regents to strenuously resist political intervention in Univer- 
sity affairs, asked that the legislature provide adequate financial sup 
port, requested that tuition not be imposed, and asked that the advice 
and consent of the faculty be secured in the appointment of a new 
president. The Senate Policy Committee was given the responsibility 
for working with the chancellor and the Academic Council to further 
these objectives. At this same meeting the Division adopted plans 
for a public meeting to be conducted with full academic formality 
and to include distinguished speakers who would be invited to discuss 


"the needs and purposes of the modern great university " 

Finally, the Division charged the Committee on University 
Welfare to deliberate and report on the following questions: 

^ 1) Are there possible avenues by which the 

position of Academic Senate memoers relative to the 
Administration and Regents can be changed from that 
of petitioners to negotiators in matters of university 

2) Would a Professors* Union with its attendant 
power to negotiate by collective bargaining with 
Administration and Regents be an effective instrument 

. for allowing the members of* the Academic Senate to 
take part in decisions affecting matters of university 

3) If the answer to 2) is affirmative, what union 
structure and affiliation would be most appropriate 

5 - 

The Welfare Committee’s report, issued on April 10, 19o7 
(University of California), quoted the Senate Policy Committee’s 
March 7 State of the Campus message at length to answer point one of 
the Division’s charge. The Welfare Committee then recommended that 
the Division urge the Statewide Assembly to delegate to the Academic 
Council the responsibility for representing the faculty before the 
Regents. The committee’s reaction to unionization was negative. 

Wo action was taken on the report . 


The early history of the Academic Senate showed an organi- 
zation dominated by Regents and then by the president. The faculty 
revolt of 1920 gained some autonomy for the faculty in the selection 


of a Committee on Committees and department chairmen. The oath 
controversy split the faculty into many factions and broright attention 
to the fact that many Senate leaders were badly out of touch with 
their constituency. 


The current Universitywide Academic Senate is a federated 
stiucture which consists of a Representative Assembly and nine quasi- 
autonomous divisions, one for each campus. The Berkeley Division has 
operated as a town meeting form of government with a large portion 
of its work being done by its thirty- five standing and nineteen- 
special committees. These committees, with few exceptions, exclude 
students and administrators from their membership. 

The size of the Senate, the number of Senate committees, and 
the frequency of Senate meetings have all increased during the ten- 
year period studied. Average attendance at Senate meetings does not 
appear to have increased as rapidly as Senate membership. 

Senate action in times of crisis has been varied. While 
recommendations on the change to year-round operations were handled 
largely by two standing committees, the FSM and the student strike 
of 1966 resulted in the creation of several special committees and 
the Senate Policy Committee. The Policy Committee is not an execu- 
tive committee; it was designed to advise the Senate of impending 
problems. The Senate has been reluctant to delegate the authority 
, to speak for the Senate to a committee. The Emergency Executive 
Committee was the exception and it was elected by the entire Senate 
rather than appointed by the Committee on Committees. 





In this chapter the characteristics of a representative 
sample of Berkeley faculty are compared "with those of Senate committee 
members, committee chairmen, members of the six committees selected 
for study, and the chairmen of these committees. More specifically, 
a representative sample of Berkeley faculty who had not served on a 
Senate committee during the I957-58 to 1966-67 period was drawn from 
each of three years— I957-58, 1963 - 64 , and I966-67 (N = 502 ). The 
comparison group consisted of every person who had served as a Senate 
committee member, but not as chairman, during the ten-year period 
(H = 452). Those who served as committee chairmen during this period 
constituted the third group (N = 138 ). Data on the members (N = 237 ) 
and chairmen (H = 43 ) of the six selected committees were viewed 
separately and will be discussed in Chapters 4 and When possible, 
the* data were also analyzed for each of three years within the ten- 
year period and also for the entire ten-year period. 

Table 3 illustrates the basic matrix for the statistical 
comparisons. The representative sample was compared to the other 
four groups, with discipline area usually held constant. In some 
cases, the discipline area was broken down into departments, and 
this is noted in the text. In some cases, the last two groups, 
members and chairmen of the six selected committees, were not 






Basic Matrix for Statistical Tests 







Committee Committee 
raemhers chairmen 










H % 

N ? 




58 11.6 



27 19.6 

34 l 4.4 

10 28.6 



72 14.3 



l 4 10.2 

32 13.5 

4 11.4 


71 l 4 .l 



31 22.6 

54 22.8 

4 11.4 



49 9-8 



l 4 10.1 

30 12.7 

4 11.4 



43 8.6 



4 2.9 

9 3.8 



33 6.6 



10 7.3 

23 9.7 

5 1^.3 


75 14.9 



l 4 10.1 

26 11.0 

3 8.6 




101 20.1 



24 17.4 

29 12.2 

5 1^.3 









analyzed and in other cases individual coimnittees were analyzed. 

Chi-square tests for uncorrelated proportions were used to 
determine whether the distributions were significant at the .01, .02, or 

.05 probability levels. In cases where the chi-square value was 


determined to be significant, the computer program printed out the 
observed row and column proportions, computed the differences between 
them and these differences were tested for significance. 

The post hoc technique is based upon the chi-square analog 
of Scheffers Theorem. 

The relevant formula for chi-sq.uare is: 


^ (observed - Expected) 

^ Expected 

For the post hoc technique the confidence interval formula is: 

The post hoc technique is described in detail by Marascuilo (1966), 
who points out that the chi-square comparison results in a wider 
confidence interval than standard t post hoc tests and is, therefore, 
a less powerful test. The main advantage in the chi-square analog 
method is that the cumulative probability of a Type I error for all 
possible comparisons remains at a constant .05? .02, or .01 level. 

Standard t tests were also used in order to test the 


significance of the difference hetween uncorrelated means. The 
computer program tested these data at the .01, .05, and .10 levels 
of significance. 

Statistical differences are cited but the discussion is not 
limited to these differences alone. In some cases there are "meaning- 


ful" comparisons which are not statistically significant and these 
are also discussed in the text. Social scientists disagree over 
whether tests of statistical significance should be used at all in 
descriptive research such as this. Lipset £t (1962) discuss 
why they chose not to use statistical tests although their report 
presented much quantitative data and were eminently equipped to handle 
statistics. Criticism could be directed at the way in which the data 
were collapsed to complete the tests for the study reported here. 
Departments, for example, were arranged by discipline area, and 
possibly redefining these areas would produce different statistical 
results. In the chi-square data, for example, if the entire distribu- 
tion is significant, the post hoc tests show which categories within 
the distribution are significant and these are reported. Some of the 
differences between proportions that are not significant but which 
do involve relatively large groups are also discussed. On the other 
hand, some of the statistically significant comparisons involve 
very small numbers of people and this is also reported. 

Basically, the analysis sought to determine whether the 
groups differed on several variables, the extent and nature of the 


differences, and whether the extent and nature of these differences 
changed over the ten-year period. The variables on which the groups 
were compared included: discipline area, sex, academic rank, alma 


matter, degree of administrative responsibility, duration at Berkeley, 
e:^nt« of committee experience, and publication performance. 


Some statistically significant differences indicated that 
membership and chairmanship of Senate committees were linked to some 
extent to the participants’ discipline area. The distributions 
among the disciplines of committee members and committee chairmen 
for the ten-year period were both significantly different from the 
sample distribution at the ,01 level. Post hoc comparisons revealed 
that the proportion of committee members (n = 2, .4 percent) from the 
German department was significantly less than the proportion in the 
sample (n = 9j 1*8 percent). On the other hand, the proportion of 
committee members from the English department was greater than the 
proportion in the sample. Other categories which were overrepresented 
in the committee members’ group, but not significantly so, include 
history, chemistry, and psychology, while mathematics and other 
physical sciences were underrepersented. The history, chemistry, 
and psychology departments had percentages of 3.6, 2.2, and 2.0 of 
the sample but percentages of 6.0, 3.8, and 3.8 of the committee 
members respectively, while mathematics and other physical, sciences 


categories had 5-8 percent and 6.4 percent of the sample but only 
2,4 percent and 2.4 percent of the committee members, 

comparisons of the sample with committee chair- 
men, revealed that the English, chemistry, and physics departments 
had significantly greater proportions of the committee chairmen 
group than did the sample. The respective percentages are: chemistry, 

2.2 percent of sample and 8.7 percent of chairmen; physics, 3.0 percent 
and 9.4 percent; and English, 2.2 percent and 10.9 percent. In 
contrast, the total proportion of all foreign languages in the sample 

was 8.6 percent (IT = 43) but only 2.9 percent (iT = 4) of committee 

When the distribution of the sample from the professional 
schools was compared with committee members, the difference was signi- ' 
ficant at the .02 level. Post hoc comparisons revealed the signifi- 
cant contrast to be between the school of business which was over- 
represented among committee members and the college of environmental 
design, which was underrepresented. Although no significant differences 
were revealed between the dist.ributions of the sample compared to the 
chairmen, there were some "meaningful" comparisons which should be 
noted. The school of education, while obtaining 2.9 percent of 
meuibership appointments, was not represented among committee chair- 
men, and the school of optometry had no representation among com- 
mittee members or chairmen. 

Comparison of the sample's distribution among the disciplines 



/ with that of the selected committee members (differences significant 
at the .01 level) showed that the humanities were overrepresented 
(22.8 percent of committee members and 1^.1 percent of sample) and 
the foreign languages underrepresented (3*8 percent of committee 
members and 8.6 percent of sample). Comparison of the sample with 
select committee chairmen shW’jed differences significant at the .05 
level. Foreign languages were not represented in the select committee 
; chairmen groupjand the college of engineering had only three represen- 
tatives (8.6 percent compared to l4.9 percent of the sample). These 
were both significantly less than the physical sciencesjwhich had 28.6 
percent of the chairmen but only 11.6 percent of the sample. 

Other data gathered for this study but not analyzed for 
statistical significance revealed some "important" relationships 
when the discipline areas of the members and chairmen of individual 
committees were examined. The Budget Committee had thirty different 
members over the ten-year period, nine of them from the professional 
schools. These professional school members came entirely from the 
colleges of engineering and agriculture and the school of business. 
Only 30 percent of the Budget Committee were from the professional 
schools while 4l.6 percent of the sample were from. these schools. 

The Committee on Committees drew on the professional schools 
for 42.5 percent of its members over the ten-year period. The schools 
of law, social welfare, and forestry were included in the committee’s 
members. The Committee on Educational Policy drew 25.9 percent of 

its members from the professional schools, Trjhile the Committee on 
Courses of Instruction had 32.^ percent and the Senate Policy Com- 
mittee had 27.2 percent from these schools. 

The data were also analyzed by discipline area for three 
of the ten years in the sample period, 1957 - 58 , 1963-64, and I 966 - 67 . 
There was an increase in the percentage of chairmanships held by the 
combined membership of the school of agriculture and other professional 
schools categories over the ten-year period. From zero 3n 1957—58 
(significant at the .02 level), the figure rose to 33-3 percent of 
chairmanships in 1963-64 and remained at a relatively stab.le 30.3 
percent in 1966 - 67 . 

Possibly 1957-58 was an unusual year for committee chairmen 
but a more plausible explanation of these data is that as the number 
of special and standing committees increased, the supply of prospec- 
tive chairmen had to be increased and this was beneficial to some of 
the professional schools. 

Another possible explanation is that the professional 
schools began to push for more meaningful positions on committees. 

Some of the lobbying tactics used to accomplish this goal are de- 
scribed in Chapter 4. According to some respondents, a few pro- 
fessional ^schools became more "academically respectable during the 
last decade and this could also be a factor in their securing an in- 
creased percentage of committee chairmanships. 


In 1966-67} the niunber of select coimittee members from 
the foreign languages dropped to zero (significant at the .02 level). 
The number had never been high but this serves to illustrate the 
underrepresentation of foreign languages throughout the analysis. 

The data for three specific years reveals some other in- 
teresting comparisons. The percentage of committee members from 



the physical sciences had been fairly close to their percentage of 
the represent^' /e group, except for 1957-58 in -which they were 
overrepresented. The physical sciences were consistently overrep- 
resented in committee chairmanships, however. Other sciences were 
consistently underrepresented in both members and chairmen of Senate 

In summary, the data show that the English department and 
the school of business were significantly overrepresented and the 
German department and the college of environmental design -were sig- 
nificantly underrepresented in committee members. The departments 
of English, chemistiy, and physics were significantly overrepresented 
in committee chairmen while foreign languages were underrepresented. 
Physical sciences were consistently overrepresented in the committee 
chairmen group but this relationship was not significant. 


No statistically significant discrimination against women 
was revealed in the comparisons of the representative sample with 


the committee memhers or chairmen. Discrimination against women 
probably operates more in gaining an appointment to the faculty 
at Berkeley than in Academic Senate committee activity* The 
proportion of women on the faculty declined from 10.5 percent to 
8.8 percent to 3.1 percent in 1957-58, 1963-64, and 1966-67, 
respect ively. 

The proportion of women committee members also declined 
from 11 percent in 1957-58 to 3.0 percent in 1963-64, risiug slightly 
to 3.7 percent in 1966-67. Only two women chairmen served during 

these three years. 

Other data gathered for this study but not tested for 
statistical significance revealed that of the 237 different people 
on the six committees analyzed in this report only three were women, 
and none was chairman of these committees. The Committee on Academic 
Planning (which existed only during the last two years of the study), 
the Budget Committee, the Committee on Committees, and the Committee 
on Educational Policy had no women members for the ten-year period 

from 1957-58 to 1966-67. 


The academic rank of those in the representative sample was 
compared with the rank of committee members and the chairmen by 
discipline area for three of the ten years in the sample period. 

The only statistically significant chi-s(iuare involving academic 


rank was revealed in the year 1963-64 for associate professors. 

The proportion of committee members who were associate professors 
differed significantly from the proportion of chairmen who were 
associates (significant at the .05 level). The post hoc tests showed 
that this was largely because no associate professors in the 
categories of other sciences, humanities, foreign languages and 



other professional schools were also chairmen of Senate committees, 
while these same areas did have some associate professor committee 
members . 

Descriptively, the data revealed that while full professors 
accounted for only 47 percent to 52 percent of all faculty in the 
sample group, from 54 percent to 6l percent of the committee members 
and from 6? percent to 7^ percent of committee chairmen were full 
professors. The data also revealed that certain discipline areas 
drew more heavily on their full professors for committee members than 
did other areas and that there was some change in this practice 
over the three years. The proportion of committee members from the 
physical sciences who were full professors ranged from 67 percent to 
76 percent to 50 percent in each of the three years. Similar figures 
for the school of agriculture were 86 percent, 83 percent, and 57 

percent for 1957-58, 1963-64, and 1966-67, respectively. The pro- 


portion of committee members from humanities who were full professors 
increased from 4o percent in 1957-58 to 51 percent in 1963-64 to 
56 percent in I966-67. The corresponding figures in engineer^g 







were 45 percent, 62 percent, and 65 percent and in other professional 
schools, 43 percent, 62 percent, and 64 percent, respectively. 

Viewing individual committees also revealed that committee 
participation hy rank varied greatly hy committee. Three standing 
committees, almost hy their very nature, were composed solely of full 
professors, for the ten-year period: the Committee on Academic Plan- 

ning, the Budget Committee, and the Faculty Research Lecturer Committee. 
Eleven of the nineteen special committees were also composed entirely 
of full professors, and four other special committees had only 
one member who was not a full professor. 

Seven standing committees were largely • composed of full 
professors for the ten-year period: the Committee on Academic Freedom 

(9 of 10), Assembly Representatives (30 of 34), the Committee on 
Athletic Policy (19 of 20), the Committee on Committees (48 of 52), 
the Committee on Educational Policy (50 of 54), the Committee on 
Privilege and Tenure (11 of l4), and the Committee on the University 
Extension (12 of l4). 

Some standing committees were staffed largely hy faculty 
who were not full professors. These committees and the number of 
assistant and associate professors relative to the total appointments 
are as follows: the Committee on Elections (30 of 31)? the Committee 

on Prizes (19 of 25), the Committee on Schedules (15 of 19)5 the 
' Committee on Student Affairs (7 of 7)5 and the Committee on Under- 
graduate Scholarships (46 of 57). 


On3y two of the committees intensively analyzed in Chapter 
and 5 changed in composition by rank over the ten-year period, 
both by admitting members of lower rank. The Committee on Courses 
of Instruction received two assistant professors as members in 
1965 - 66 , the year after FSM. That same year the Committee on Educa- 
tional Policy received its first associate professor, and its first 
assistant professor was appointed in 1966-67* 

In summary, while the data showed only one statistically 
significant relationship between the sample group and members and 
chairmen, full professors tended to dominate the membership of ten 
of the thirty-five standing committees and fifteen of nineteen special 
committees. Also five standing committees had membership composed 
largely of faculty below the rank of full professors. After FSM, 
two assistant professors were appointed to the Committee on Courses 
and one associate and one assistant professor were appointed to the 
Committee on Educational Policy. 



There were no statistically significant differences between 
groups in the proportion of Berkeley degree holders when the sample 
was compared to committee members and committee chairmen. About 
27 percent of the sample were Berkeley degree holders but 46 percent 
of those from the school of agriculture and 36 percent from the 
school of engineering held Berkeley degrees. Fifty-seven percent 
of the committee members from the school of agriculture and 70 percent 


of chairtnen held Berkeley degrees. While 26 percent of physical 
scientists in the sarople ohcained their degree from Berkeley j -h-2. 
percent of the committee members and 33 percent of* the chairmen 
from the physical sciences -were also Berkeley degree holders. 

The proportions of Ivy League degree holders in both the 
members and chairmen of committees groups were significantly greater 
than in the sample (at the .02 and .05 levels, respectively). The 
significant differences occurred in the social sciences and foreign 
languages 5 only 35 percent of the social scientists in the sample 
held Ivy League degrees while 47 percent of the social science 
committee members were Ivy League degree holders. On the other hand, 
35 percent of the foreign language faculty in the sample as compared 
to only l4 percent in the committee members group were Ivy League 
degree holders. 

The distribution of the other schools category was significant 
at the .05 level. This is a good illustration of collapsing data 
* arbitrarily, *’ as mentioned earlier. The other schools category 
includes most of the nation’s leading independent institutions, 
whose graduates are often sought by Berkeley departments, for example, 
Stanford, MIT, University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins. The signi- 
ficant contrast was the low proportion of physical science committee 
members who were in the other schools category. While 53.5 percent 
^ of the sample from physical sciences held degrees from other schools, 
only 27.1- percent of the committee members did. 


The significant differences beWeen the sample and committee 
chairmen ^;ere in humanities and engineering. Thirty-five percent of 
those in the sample from humanities were Ivy League degree holders 

■while the corresponding figure for committee chairmen from humanities 


■was 48 percent. While 12 percent of the sample from engineering held 

I'vy League degrees, no committee chairmen from engineering held Ivy 


League degrees. 

■ In summary, the I^vy League was overrepresented in both members 
and chairmen while the other schools category \ias underrepresented 
in committee memberships. Berkeley degree holders did not have 
significantly greater proportions in either the members or chairmen 
groups. The Berkeley degree holders combined \7ith those from the Ivy 
League, comprised 50 percent of the sample, 56 percent of the committee . 
members, and 62 percent of chairmen. 

The distribution of those in the representative sample who- 
have held administrative appointments vas compared to their counter- 
parts in the committee members and chairmen groups. For data-gathering 
purposes, administrative responsibilities were recorded under four 
separate categories that corresponded to the levels at which the 
assignment was filled. The levels are: chancellor, dean, director 

or research institute or center, ard department chairman. No dis- 
tinction was made between different titles at the same level. For 
example, acting and associate dean were included in the dean 

category, and acting and vice chancellor were included in the 
chancellor category. 

The differences in distributions between the sample and 
committee members was significant at the .05 level, while the com- 
parison of the sample with the committee chairmen showed no significant 
difference. The post hoc comparisons revealed that the difference 
between the proportions in foreign languages who have held adminis- 
trative appointments was not as large as it was for the other 
discipline areas when the sample was compared to committee members. 
Seventy-eight percent of the committee members from engineering, 71 
percent from social sciences, and 71 percent from physical sciences 
had had some administrative experience during the period, but only 
percent from foreign languages had had such experience. 

These data must be interpreted in the light of information 
obtained from the interviews of members of the Committee on Committees 
reported in Chapter 4. It is rare for an administrator, from depart- 
ment chairman to chancellor, to receive a Senate comm5.ttee appointment 
concurrently with his administrative service. Several respondents 
pointed out that they had had a choice between accepting a Senate 
committee appointment or a departmental chairmanship. 

There was a significant difference (.05 level) between the 
proportion of committee chairmen and committee members who had not 
had administrative experience. The significant difference, as 
revealed in the post hoc tests, was in the physical sciences. 


Fifty-Six percent of the committee chairmen from physical sciences, 
had had no administrative experience during the ten-year period \r4iile 
the figure for members was only 29 percent. 

These data revealed that committee members were more likely 
to have had administrative experience, within the ten-year period, 
than were committee chairmen. This is probably due to the belief 
that the chairmanship of a committee substitutes for other adminis- 
trative duties and frees the individual from the press of accepting 
administrative responsibilities. Many times during the interviews 
committee service and/or administrative activity was explained as 
"something one has to do if asked." 

There were, however, more subtle relationships which existed 
betvreen certain kinds of committee service and administrative activity. 
Such relationships are not likely to be revealed in strictly statis- 
tical analyses. For example, appointees to the Special Committee on 
Budget Policy were all either department chairmen or former members 
of the Budget Committee. Past chairmen of the Budget Committee went 
on to become university dean of academic personnel, vice chancellor, 
and special asristant to the vice chancellor. Two chairmen of the 
Committee on Educational Policy resigned, one to become a vice chancel- 
lor, the other to chair a department. One chairman of the Committee on 
Cominittees resigned to become dean of a ma^jor college. Another chairman 
'■ of this committee was dean at the same time he was chairman, but this was 
exceptional. Another problem not answered by the data was whether 


committee service preceded or follovred administrative activity. Some 
analysis of individual committee service and adrainisbrative activity 
would suggest further testing of the following statement: Some 

Senate committee service is desirable if one aspires to an adminis- 
trative post. Once he has held an administrative position, an 
individual’s visibility and hence acceptability for subsequent 
committee service has been enhanced. At Berkeley, administrative 
positions are usually held for specified periods, and once an adminis- 
trator returns to his faculty status, one would expect his services 
would be requested on committees. 

The exact relationship between committee service and adminis- 
trative activity is not known. What these data do reveal is that 
those who serve on a Senate committee are quite likely to also accept 
administrative responsibilities . 


A comparison of the mean ages of a representative sample 
with those of committee members and chairmen for 1957-58, 1963-64, 
and 1966-67, respectively, revealed only three statistically signifi- 
cant differences. The mean age of committee members were significantly 
y lower (at the .10 level) than for those of the sample in both the human- 
ities and total categories for 1957 ~ 58 » In 1966-67 the mean age 
of committee chairmen from physical sciences was significantly higher 
(at the .05 level) than that of physical scientists in the represen- 
tative sample. 



While the mean ages of the representative sample vent from 
50.2 years to 48.5 and 45.4 years in the three respective years, the 
mean ages of the committee members vjent from 46.2 to 48 to 46.7 years 
and those of chairmen from 49.1 to 50*9 to 48.7 years. This means 
that whereas committee members and chairmen were younger than the 
representative sample in 1957-583 they were about the same age in 
1963-64, and they were older than the sample in I966-673 but this 
was not a statistically significant relationship. 

. A comparison between the representative sample and six 
committees selected for analysis in this study for 1957-58, 1963-64, 
and 1966-67 and for the ten-year period, revealed that the mean age 
for Committee on Courses members was consistently lower than for the 
sample, and Budget Committee men had either an eq.ual or higher mean 
age than did the sample in each year. For the entire ten-year period, 
the mean age of Courses Committee members was significantly lower 
than for the sample (significant at the .05 level). 


The mean number of years at Berkeley of a representative 
sample was compared to the means for committee members and chairmen 

in each of three years within the sample period, 1957-58, 1963-64, 


and 1966-67, by use of t tests to see whether Senate committee 
members had been at Berkeley longer than the sample. The results 
were as clear as any uncovered in this study. 

The mean number of years at Berkeley for committee members 
from the sciences was significantly greater than for the sample in 
each of the three years, although the level of significance changed 
from .05 in 1957-58 and 1963-64 to .10 in 1966-67. The mean nus*er 
of years at Berkeley for the sample from the sciences was 17,0, 13.4, 
and 10.0 for the three respective years while the means for the 


committee members were 26.6, 19. 7, and I5.0. Ihe mean number of 
years at Berkeley for committee chairmen from the sciences was 27.8 
in 1957-58, 23.5 in 1963-64 (significant at the .10 level), and I8.9 
in 1966-67 (significant at the .05 level). The mean number of years 
of the 1957-58 sample from the social sciences was l4.6 and from 
environmental design was 6.3 while the committee members from these ' 
areas had mean numbers of years of 25.4 and I9.7, respectively 
(significant at .05 level). In 1963-64 the mean number of years 
was 11.6 for the school of engineering sample while the mean of the 
committee members was I8.I (significant at .10 level). 

The Budget Committee and the Committee on Academic Hanning 
have also shown iean years at Berkeley significantly greater than for 
the sample (at the .10 and .05 levels, respectively). This compari- 
son of the representative sample with individual committees showed that 
the members of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Committees, the 
Committee on Educational Policy, and the chairmen of selected committees 
consistently had spent more years at Berkeley than had the sample, but 
the relationships were usually not statistically significant. Until 

1966 - 67 , the Courses Coininittee had a lower mean at Berkeley than did 
the sample in that year. The mean number of years at Berkeley for 
members of the Academic Planning and the Budget Committees and the 
chairmen of selected committees all were significantly greater than 

i * 

for the sample for the ten-year period. 

Perhaps the most important relationship was uncovered when 
the total mean years at Berkeley for each sample was tested. These 
data reveal that committee members have consistently been at Berkeley 
longer than a representative sample. The mean number of years for the 
committee members (23-1) and chairmen (26,4) were greater than the 
sample mean in 1957-58 (15*7) and this was significant at the ,01 

level. The same relationship held in 1963-64 (17,5 years for committee 

members, 20 for chairmen, and l4,6 for the sample) except that the 

significance level dropped to ,05. In 1966-67 only the mean number for 

committee members (l4,2) was greater than the sample mean (12, l), 
and the significance level was ,10, The mean number of years at 
Berkeley of the sample declined from 15,7 to l4,6 to 12,1 during the 
period, and the corresponding figures for committee members were 
23.1, 17.5, and i4.2 years. These data show that the differences 
between the sample and committee members declined from 7,4 to 2,9 
to 2,1 years in 1957-58, 1963-64, and 1966-67, respectively, but the 
committee members were still at Berkeley significantly longer than 
the sample, 

. The differences in the mean years at Berkeley between the 

• sample and the chairmen declined from 10. 7 to 5.5 to 3.7 years in 
the three respective years. In I966-67 the mean miniber of years at 
Berkeley for committee chairmen was no longer significantly different 
from that of the sample * s . 

Apparently, the number of years in residence at Berkeley 
was an important factor in appointment to a Senate committee or 
committee chairmanship but has become less so over the ten-year 


Cradations exist in the level of committee activity among 
committee members, and committee chairmen tend to have more committee 
experience than other committee members. The committee service record 
variable simply totals the number of Senate committees on which the 
individual served from 1957-58 to I966-67. No distinction was made 
between standing and ^ hoc committees. The chairmanship or vice 
chairmanship of the Senate was counted as a committee as were service 
as an assembly representative and as the faculty representative to 
the Associated Students. • The Senate has a Committee on Honorary De- 
grees whose menibership is confidential and is not, therefore, reported 
to the Division but which is included in the committee service record. 

Sixty-seven percent of the representative sample served on 
no committees during the period while on 3 .y 3 percent were on four 
or more committees. Of those faculty who served only as members 
of Senate committees during the period’, 90 percent were on one or 


two committees while 3 percent were on four or more committees. 

Of those who chaired a Senate committee, 64 percent, were on only 

one or two committees while 19 percent had been on four or more 




Gradations in committee service, then, tended to conform 
to activity patterns in other organizations, as discussed in Chapter 1. 
About two-thirds of those eligible to serve on Senate committees 
did not do so, and, of those who did accept Senate committee appoint- 
ments, 90 percent did so only once or twice during the period. About 
35 percent of the chairmen had been on three or more committees 
compared to only 10 percent of committee members. 

Of the 590 committee members and chairmen, only thirty-eight 
were on four or more committees during the period; twenty-six were 
chairmen, and twelve were members only. The twenty-six chairmen 
held a total of forty-two chairmanships duilng this period. Thirty- 
five of the thirty-eight individuals who were on four or more com- 
mittees also held more than one committee assignment at a time. 

Some of the committee activity of those thirty-eight people 
was clustered at certain times rather than spread out over the entire 
ten-year period. One man served on a special committee in I 980 , 
later accepted an appointment to the Budget Committee and became its 
chairman. As a result of his chairmanship of the Budget Committee 
he became a member of the Special Committee on Budget Policy and 
the Chairman’s Advisory Committee on Agenda. Three of his four 




assignments were clustered together into a "one-year period. 

Another of this group of thirty-eight served on one special 
committee, the Library Committee, the Committee on Educational Policy, 
and the Committee on Prose Improvement all within a three-year- 
period. From 1962-63 to 1966-67? this individual accepted no further 

Senate committee service. 



In another case, committee service was spread out over a 
longer period. One professor served as chairman of the Budget 
Committee, the Committee on Committees, and the Committee on Educa- 
tional Policy and as a result of this latter appointment he became also 
chairman of the American History and Institutions Committee. Such a 
record obviously indicates prolonged and substantial commitment to 
Senate activities. 


To discover the extent of rotation of members among the more 
important committees, six were selected for analysis — the Committee 
on Committees, the Committee on Educational Policy, the Committee on 
Academic Planning, the Budget Committee, the Senate Policy Committee, 
and the Committee on Courses. Six of the ten appointees to the 
Committee on Academic Planning were former members of the Budget 
Committee. The duties of the Planning Committee, namely review of 
budgets, required some budgetary experience, as will be explained 
in Chapter 5 « 

Five people had been on both the Budget Committee and the 


Committee on Committees during this period. Three of the five were 
on the Committee on Committees after their Budget Committee terms. 

Of the five people who served on both committees, four also served 


as chairman of the Budget Committee. 

Of the fifty-four different people who served on the Committee 
on Educational Policy, only four also served on the Budget Committee 
or the Committee on Committees, and only four persons who served on 
the Courses Committee also served on either the Committee on Educa- 
tional Policy, the Committee on Committees, or the Budget Committee. 

Of the twenty- two people appointed to the Senate Policy 
Committee, four were also on the Committee on Committees, four were 
on Educational Policy, one had been on the Budget Committee and one 
on the Courses Committee. That is, ten of twenty- two Senate Policy 
members were also on one of these other committees at some time during 
the ten-year period. 

The connection between the Budget Committee and the Committee 
on Committees appeared to be relatively strong compared to the others 
but the amount of overlap did not appear to be overwhelming. There 
were only two people who had been on as many as three of these 
important committees during the ten-year period. 

Publication Performance . 

The mean publication scores (see Appendix) of the 
representative sample of faculty were compared to those of members 


and to those of chairmen of Senate committees from 1957-5? to 
1966-67 by means of t tests, to see whether committee members had 
a lower piiblication performance than others and whether the publica- 
tion performance of chairmen was lower than others. The mean scores 
in thirteen out of eighteen categories were higher for the ccimittee 
members than for the sample. The categories analyzed to obtain 



publication scores were more detailed than for most analyses, and 
included: chemistry, physics, other physical sciences, math sciences, 

other sciences, English, history, philosophy, other humanities, 
political science, sociology, psychology, other social sciences, 
foreign languages, agriculture, engineering, environmental design, 
business, other professional schools, and total. Only in psychology-, 
other social sciences, foreign languages, and environmental design 
was the mean score of committee members lower than that of the sample. 
When committee chairmen were compared to the sample, only four areas 
had mean scores lower than the sample; other physical sciences, 
political science-sociology, foreign languages, and other professional 

Mean scores of the sample and those of the other two groups 
differed significantly in English and history. Mean scores of members 
(4.6) and chairmen (4.9) were significantly higher than the sample 
(2.0) in English at the .05 level. In history, scores of the commit- 
tee members (4.9) and chairmen (4.5) were significantly higher than 
the sample (2.7) at .05 and .10 levels, respectively. 

The “total" mean publication scores were also significantly 


higher for memhers and chairmen at the .01 and .10 level, respec- 
tively, than for the sample. Brobably it is unwise to place much 
emphasis on the "total" categories. The weighting procedure used 
to compile the score favored disciplines in which books rather than 


articles generally are published, for example, favoring the social 
scientist over the scientist. The total score may well be the result of 
disciplinary imbalance in the sample, committee members, or chairmen, 
and some of these imbalances are significant. The total mean scores 
emphasized the fairly consistent pattern outlined above, namely that 
those who served on committees usually had higher publication scores 
than others. Because this relationship was exactly opposite from 

the one hypothesized for the study, further analysis seemed appro- 

The mean publication score of the representative sample 
■ was compared with the mean, scores of those who served on one, two, 

three, four, or more Senate committees during the ten-year period. 

In the one-committee category, twelve of eighteen department or 
discipline areas had higher scores than the sample. In the two-com- 
mittee category, twelve of eighteen had higher scores than the sample, 
while the ratio in the three-committee group wf.s eleven out of 
fifteen (three areas had no members in this category). In the four- 
committee group, only eight of sixteen had higher scores than the 
. sample and this represents a slight break in the otherwise consistent 




Twelve statistically significant relationships were revealed 
in the analysis. Those in other sciences in the two-conraittee cate- 
gory had a higher score than the sample (.10 level). The English 
department showed higher scores for its committee meiiibers in the 
one-j two-, and three -conimittee categories (.10, .10, and .01, 
respectively) as did the history department (.05, .05, and .10, 
respectively). The school of agriculture three-committee group was 
higher than the sample (.10 level) as was the other professional 
school two-committee group (.05 level). Finally the total in the 
one-, two-, and three -committee groups were all higher than the 
sample (.05, .01, and .05 levels). 

These data reveal that, contrary to v/hat was erxpected, 
those who served on committees had higher mean publication scores 
and, in some areas, the differences were significant. Not one of 
the twelve statistically significant differences showed a lower 
score on committees or committee chairmen when compared to the sample. 


Certain departments and discipline areas were overrepresented 
on committees. The English department was significant].*/ overrepresented 
in committee members and chairman groups while the chemistry and physics 
departments were significantly overrepresented in the committee chairman 


group. These three departments accounted for 29 percent of all commit- 
tee chairmanships for the ten-year period but constituted only 7.4 per- 
cent of the sample. 

Foreign languages and some professional schools were 

underrepresented in the committee members and chairmen. 

Foreign languages had no chairmen of the selected committees and 


some professional schools had either no members or no chairmen of 
Senate committees chosen from their faculty. 

■ An informal seniority system seemed to exist for some of 
the committees Tf/hich "were largely reserved for ful3. professors. 

Other committees appeared to be comprised largely of assistant and 
associate professors. Some of the age data tended to confirm that 
certain committees -were relatively senior committees (the Budget 
Committee) and others were relatively junior (the Courses Committee) 
Women were not much in evidence on any Senate committees. 

Approximately 65 percent of those who accepted Senate 
committee assignments also accepted administrative positions. This 
does not necessarily mean that they all share administrative values 
but the implication is clearly there, if one accepts the Bresthus 
view as discussed in Chapter 1. This should be tested further in 
other research. 

In Chapter 1 a hierarchy of political involvement in the 
polity was explained. The history of Senate committee activity in 
the current chapter showed that approximately two-thirds of those 
eligible to serve on Senate committees did not do so. There appears 
to be a pattern of involvement in Senate affairs similar to the 
gladiator, spectator, and apathetic classifications in the polity, 
if committee activity is an accurate measure. 



The most consistent differences in the data were that 
committee members and chairmen had been in residence at Berkeley 
longer and had higher publication scores than the sample. These 
two factors could be related in that to remain at Berkeley and be 
promoted, one must publish. (This report will discuss the publica- 
tion ethic in a subsequent section on the Budget Committee.) It 
would seem that the process of being chosen to serve on Senate 
committees involves having been at Berkeley long enough to exhibit 
a degree of commitment to the institution and that such residence 
generally requires a degree of scholarly productivity. Publication 
performance begins to fall off only for those who have served on four 
or more committees, but this is not statistically significant when 
compared to, the representative sample. These observations are based 
on group data and say little about individual performance. The data 
presented up to this point have been largely formal analyses. The 
following chapters will focus more on informal relationships. 



Many coniplex infornial .‘relationships permeate the operation 
of the Academic Senate at Berkeley. No strictly formal analysis 
would uncover them. This chapter will attempt to describe some of 
these relationships and then discuss how these impinge on and operate 

within two powerful Senate committees — the Committee on Committees 

^ \ 

and the Senate Policy Committee. 


The Senate is a town meeting form of government in that the 
entire membership is eligible to attend and vote at all meetings. 

This diffuses the responsibility of attendance at meetings so that 
it varies greatly and, as shown in Figure 1 in Chapter 2, some meetings 
lack a quorum of seventy-five members. There is a common belief, 
e3q>ressed by many interviewed during the course of this study, that, 
in the absence of crisis, any small group can succeed in blocking 
legislation at a Senate meeting. That is, the extent to which the 
general faculty is motivated to attend a regular meeting will some- 
times determine the outcome of pending legislation. The belief is 
that the the group in attendance at a meeting, the more likely 
a conservative” outcome. Those few who attend Senate meetings 
regularly are not likely to favor extensive changes in the status quo. 



Because attendance is sporadic, the campus has come to 

recognize that any resolution, piece of legislation, or other proposal 


passed by the Senate represents only those who attended the meeting. 

At Berkeley, no one group or person speaks for the Academic Senate. 

Those with considerable experience in Senate affairs 
reported the existence of several informal and (3,uasi~formal groups 
I'^hich the course oa. Senate votes by prior discussion and 
organization towards specified ends. Some groups are organized on 

others on a continuing basis. For example, the Committee 
of Two Hundred was a group of "liberal” Senate members founded during the 
FSM but which continued to exercise organized influence on Senate 
affairs for some time afterv/ards. One member of the steering committee 
of the Committee of Two Hundred claimed that many of the resolutions 
passed by the Senate since FSM have been drafted by his group. He 
referred specifically to the strike resolution of 1966 calling for 
the creation of the Student-Faculty Governance Commission and the 
resolution protesting Fresident Kerr’s dismissal as examples. 

The Berkeley Faculty Forum was the "moderates ’"counter to 
the Committee of Two Hundred. It appears that the Forum is no. longer 

Some colleges and many departments have developed the 
practice of educating and informing their members about Senate affairs. 

In some cases this takes the form of pushing their faculty towards 
positions of prominence on Senate committees. In other cases 



supplementary memos are circulated ty an individual merober of the 
department on a matter before the Senate. On some ^ hoc issues 
extensive lobbying and phone calls are employed to persuade faculty 
members of the merits of a case and to ensure enough votes are in 
attendance to either defeat or pass the matter on the floor of the 
Senate. In the absence of a counter organization, such efforts are 

likely to be successful, especially if the matter is not very contro- 

In the spring of 1967? the Policy Committee carried out its 
promises to present legislation which would change the Senate’s 

structure from that of a town meeting to a representative assembly 


of the Berkeley Division. The^ committee ’ s argument in favor of the 
proposal was that only at four meetings in the decade had the atten- 
dance comprised a majority of members (University of California, 

May 16, 1967). Attendance averaged about 10 percent of the membership, 
and some meetings had to be adjourned for lack of a quorum. The 
proposal specified th£it each department would have a representative 
for each of fifteen Senate members and that the chairmen of all 
standing and special committees would also be members of the assembly. 
This would have created a body of approximately l4o to I50 regular 
members . 

The proposal was submitted to the entire Senate membership 
in a mail ballot, and of 877 valid ballots, 534 voted in favor of 
the proposal (60.9^) and 343 against (University of California, 



OctoDer l 6 , 1967). Since a two-thirds majority was necessary for 
passage, the proposal failed. 


A divisional assembly at Berkeley is opposed by some inter- 
view respondents because they say it would strengthen the rule of 
"old Senate hands," it would make Senate meetings more bland, it 
would hamper the right of individual expression on matters before the 
Senate, and it would be a breach of the traditional Senate policy of 
not delegating authority to any one body or committee. l!roponents 
claim that an assembly is necessary to ensure that actions by the 
Senate are representative of the views of the majority, instead of 

merely representative of whoever happens to be at the meeting. Debate 


in the Senate would be well informed and meaningful because those 
who are members would bear direct responsibility for their actions. 

In answering the traditional argument that the Senate should not 
delegate authority to any body, some proponents of the assembly state 
that a faculty member delegates his vote every time he fails to attend 
a Senate meeting. They argue that it is not reasonable to make the 
entire faculty responsible for the acts of a Senate which can be 
manipulated by a small minority at any given time. In short, these 
people want the faculty to develop a more responsible Senate which 
would be fairly consistent and representative and could be held 
accountable for its actions. 

It seems clear that a majority of the Senate wants a 
representative body, and another proposal is now being considered 



in various committees. Hoi-rever, these arguments are complicated 
by the power struggles between some of the factions on the campus. 


Personalities are another important aspect of Senate 
politics.- As a result of positions expressed in previous meetings 
or ill other public forums^ an individual’s reputation precedes him 
into a Senate meeting. Any proposal supported or attacked by 


a well-known facu3.ty conservative or radical bears the stigma of his 
reputation. Some respondents expressed the belief that remarks on 
a proposal by certain indD.viduals are likely to cost or gain votes 
for that proposal regardless of the substance of those remarks. 

It is difficult to ascertain the extent of this kind of influence 
in the Senate but several respondents confirmed it as fact. 

In certain cases the debate on s,n issue has been organized 
by its proponents so that key people would present their viewpoint 
and most of the Senate would know how that set of interests or 
informal grouping stood on this issue. In these cases, lesser 
known proponents (or opponents) of the proposal are urged not to 
participate in the debate because the argument is better made in 

one or two detailed presentations by better known and more articulate 



It would be a mistake, however, to convey the impression 
that the entire issue is decided by the personalities who speak for 
or against it. Nevertheless, the Senate has some members whose views 



appear to be philosophically consistent, and many of their colleagues 
in the Senate know it. -On close votes, such personality factors can 
and do make a difference. 




• Among the faculty members interviewed for this study, it 
was widely believed that the daily or regular affairs of the Senate 
are controlled by a group of "old Senate hands." In the absence of 
crisis, this group tends to dominate both the committee structure 
and general meetings of the Senate, not because of any attempt to ' 
exclude others, but due to their extensive involvement in the opera- 
tional details and substantive issues with which the Senate deals. 

Few respondents claimed that the Senate was a closed society but many 

did believe the Senate to be an oligarchy composed of those interested 
. in Senate affairs. 

Some of these informal aspects of the Senate should be kept 
in mind when considering the following descriptions of the Committee 
on Committees and the Senate Policy Committee. In summary, the town 
meeting structure is susceptible to organized attempts to control the 
votes in a meeting. When important issues are being considered, 
political tactics to muster the votes and to prepare resolutions are 
employed. Over the years, the Senate has developed an awareness of 
its key personalities and its coterie of old Senate hands. 

' 72 


Formal Responsibilities ' 

According to the Bylaws of the Berkeley Division, October 
7j 1957 j the Committee on Committees shall consist of the chancellor 

, 6X officio and eight members to be elected by the Division. The 


chancellor was removed from the committee on March 29, 19^5, to 
"sharpen the distinction between Division committees appointed by 
the Committee on Committees and Administrative Committees appointed 
by the Chancellor University of California, March 29, 1965a, p, " 
It is now the duty of the committee to appoint the chairman and 
secretary of the Division, all members of standing and special com- 
mittees^ except where othen^ise provided by legislation, the chairmen 
of most committees, and any special committees as directed by the 
Division. The committee was not given the task of appointing special 
committees until May 1, I96I. The committee also nominates members 
of the Division, when requested by the chancellor, for appointment 
to administrative committees. 

Qualif icat ions for Membership 

The committee is the only one whose members are regularly 


elected by the Division at large. The Bylaws specify that the 
elections are to take place each fall, and the newly elected members 
^ take office in Januiary. Nhen resignations occur, they are filled 
by appointments' made by the committee itself. The Bylaws also 


instruct the coimnittee in making such appointments to give con- 
sideration to those candidates in the last ballot who were not 
elected, but any Senate member is eligible for appointment. 

In order to be nominated for election to the committee, 
a faculty member usually has to have been at Berkeley long enough 

to be acquainted with a wide number of prospective committee members. 


He will usually have had considerable experience in the Academic 
Senate and its committees and will be well known on the campus. 

There are some informal attempts to make sure that the 
candidates come from as many different areas as possible. In other 
cases there is a conscious effort to make sure that a department or 
college has direct representation on the committee. Eight of the twelve 
Committee on Committees intei-viev/ees said they believed that, in their 
nomin ;oion and subsequent election, they were representing their 
colleagues in a particular school, college, or department. Two other 
respondents classified themselves as representatives of certain 
informal campus political or social groups. Some -respondents pointed 
out that their department or college always tries to have one of its 
members on the Committee, in an attempt to have a direct voice in 
committee appointments. 

' On the other hand, one respondent vigorously stressed the 
fact that the acceptance of a nomination to the Committee on Com- 
mittees was an individual, not a group, decision. He acknowledged 
that a few departments may run candidates but believed this to be 



The nomination papers are circulated hy the nominee’s 
sponsor to obtain the five signatures necessary to complete the 
process. An attempt is made to get signatures from faculty members 
•who represent widely divergent areas and viewpoints. 

Since a majority of the votes cast is necessary for election, 
second ballots are frequently necessary. Some of the interview 
respondents questioned the value of second ba3.1ots because they felt 
that the losers eventually get appointed anyi-jay. However, an analysis 
of the data revealed that of the l8 peop3.e from I957 to I967 who were 
defeated on the second ballot, seven were subsequently appointed and 
eleven were not. Six of the seven who did receive appointments were 
appointed in the three-year period from 1963-64 to 1965-66. 

The Committee Appointment Function 

Because the primary function of the Committee on Committees 
is to appoint the chairman and members of all standing committees of 
the Division, as well as any special committees, the I966-67 members 
the committee, and chairmen for the past five years, were asked 
to indicate the qualifications necessary for appointment to an 
Academic Senate committee. There were twelve respondents. Particular 
attention was given to the qualifications necessary for appointment 
to the Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations, the 
Committee on Educational Policy, the Committee on Courses of Instruc- 
tion, and the Senate Policy Committee. 



After an analysis of these interview transcripts , the 
general qualifications for committee raerahership were summarized into 
four main categories: l) interest, 2) personal qualities, 3) repre- 

sentativeness, and 4 ) ability. The following paragraphs explain the 
meaning of these categories with some references to their applicability 
to those committees not specifically included in the interview process. 
Later in this report the applicability of these categories is related 
to each of the other five committees which were selected for detailed 
analys is . 

The category of interest includes the amount of time 
available for committee service as V7ell as the individual's willing- 
.riess to serve on a particular committee. The category also takes 
account of the sincere desire of an individual to make certain the 
work of a particular committee is performed well and that its purposes 
and goals are carried out. Interest is often judged by referring to 
a man's previous record in some relevant activity such as committee 
work or other service in behalf of academic interests. An example 
of the latter would be a faculty member who is a member of the board 
of directors of a local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union 
and therefore receives an appointment to the Committee on Academic 
Freedom, or a former department chairman who is asked to serve on 
the committee which reviews departmental budgets. 

Personal qualities, the second category, encompasses a 
wide variety of personality traits which the Committee on Committees 


looks for in making s^ppointments. The committee works within the 
constraints of the present or next year’s menibership of the committee 
in question. It is important that an individual be able to work 
compatibly with other people of differing viewpoints already on the 
committee. Many respondents referred to this compatibility element 
as a general concern for the group dynamics of committees. Other 
important assets for prospective committee members are objectivity, 
good judgment, discretion, competence, reliability, and a sense of 

Personal qualities is the most subjective of the categories 
which summarize the qualifications for appointment to a Senate 
committee. Those who serve on the Committee on Committees tend to 
rely heavily on their personal judgment of the individuals under 
consideration, especially when the important committees are appointed. 
This means that the appoint* process often depends on the personal 
contacts of committee metrl - 

Seven of the tw. :»idents spoke of the almost absolute 

veto that each member of I -;/::;..imittee has over any suggested appointee. 
One person referred to it as a blackball, another as senatorial 
courtesy, while others simply stated that any strong objection to 
an individual by a member of the committee was sufficient to deny 
the appointment. The seven respondents disagreed over the extent 
' to which such personal privileges were used. Most respondents agreed 
that there were some flamboyant or controversial, faculty on the 

campus ^-rho could not get an appointment to any important Senate 
committee . 

The third category^ represeiitativenessj may include the 
three general areas of academic department, academic rank, and 
political viewpoint. Some committees, such as the Graduate Council, 
are Required to be representative of the major academic areas on the 
campus. Others make an attempt at providing some representation from 
the lower faculty ranks, while still other committees are balanced 
by political viewpoints. For example, younger faculty members will 
often receive appointments to the Undergraduate Scholarship Committee, 
the Prizes Committee, or the Committee on Elections. Political 
viewpoint on academically relevant areas, such as faculty autonomy, ' 
student power, or academic freedom, is important when considering 
appointments to the Senate Policy Committee and occasionally the 
Committee on Academic Freedom. 

The final category, ability, means competence but also may 
include the important area of experience relevant to committee service. 
Ability is defined differently depending on the needs of the committee 
in question. The Budget Committee requires a high degree of demon- 
strated academic ability and superior research productivity and 
scholarship, as will be explained in more detail later in the analysis. 
Other factors important to the general category of ability include 
seniority and experience. Appointment to some of the more important 
committees virtually requires .previous exposure to committee work 

and a knowledge of the University at Berkeley. In effect, the 
appointee's ability will, usually have been derflonstra.ted through some 
prior relevant experiences. 

Internal Organization of Committee on CorrLmittees 

The specific details of internal committee organization 
differ, depending on the chairman. However, the chairman usually 
assigns responsibilities, after some discussion, to each committee 
member or pair of members. Normally, the chairman assigns each Senate 
committee to a member of the Committee on Committees, and this person 
is responsible for maintaining liaison with that committee. Each 
individual is supposed to be aware of the current activities and 
problems of the committees for which he is responsible . 

In practice, this liaison is accomplished through informal 
discussion between the Committee on Committees member and the chairman 
of a given committee rather than attendance at committee meetings. In 
many cases the Committee on Committees representative is a former member 
of some of the committees for which he has liaison responsibility. 

This is particularly true of the individual who is responsible for 
the Budget and Senate Policy Committees. 

Among the Committee on Committees members themselves, the 
interviews revealed differences on what might loosely be called a 
philosophy of appointments. Some members of the committee feel that 
each major appointment must be personally known to at least one member 
of the Committee on Committees. Major appointments would include 


those made to the Budget and Senate Policy Committees tut may also 
include the Committees on Educational Policy and Academic Freedom, 
as well as certain other committees. 

Other members of the canmittee favor a higher degree of 
risk taking in making appointments. They feel that it is not necessary 
to be acquainted with all major appointees, although the Budget 
Committee may constitute a realistic exception. Proponents of the 
risk-taking view would like to see more young, dynamic, change-oriented 
appointments to Senate committees. They argue that the Senate can 
afford some ”bad" appointments in order to enhance its own' viability 
and openness to change. 

These philosophies of appointments wi 3 JL vary from year to 
year but, according to some respondents, it was the main reason that 
the 1968769 appointment list was delayed. The committee that year 
was characterized as a non-risk- oriented group. 

Reported Activities 

The Committee on Committees reports regularly and often to 
the Division. Each spring the committee issues a report which lists 
the membership of each of the Division’s standing and special committees 
for the following academic year. Often, supplementary appointments 
are noted for the information of the Division because they report a 
situation already in existence. That is, when a member of a committee 
resigns, another member is appointed by the Committee on Committees 
and the Division is not informed of this until the next regular 


Senate meeting. 

The number of supplementary appointments has been consider- 
able over the years because of the fact that the Committee on Com- 
mittees does not consult with each individual in advance as to whether 
or not he is willing to serve on a committee. 

The Committee on Committees has gone beyond the function of 
merely appointing committees. It has suggested the appointment of 
a special commiteee, instituted a questionnaire designed to broaden 
the base of committee service, and recommended the abolition of some 
committees. Each of these items vjasduly reported. 

On May 3j 19^3, the committee moved that it be allowed to 
appoint a special Committee on Reorganization of the Berkeley Division. 
This was to allow the Division to catch up with some of the require- 
ments generated by the statewide reorganization. 

On January 12, 1985j the committee circulated in the Notice 
to Meetings a questionnaire asking the members of the Division to 
volunteer for committee service, checking those standing committees 
on which they were willing to serve. This same report to the Division 
included a reproduction of the "Statement of Faculty Participation in 
University Government: The Role of the Academic Senate.’* This 

statement discusses the legal -base for the university and the dele- 
gation of the public trust from the Regents down to the Academic 

In the course of the interviews, a copy of the 1967-68 




questionnaire returns was obtained. Of approximately 1700 question- 
naires, only 417 were returned, and, of these, only 299 faculty 
indicated a willingness to serve on at least one committee. Ninety- 
eight of the respondents checked only one committee, while 107 
volunteered for two or three committees. The Committee on Educational 
Policy, the Graduate Council, and the Committee on Research each 
received 100 or more volunteers. Other popular committees included 
the Academic Freedom Committee, the Committee on Courses, and the 
Library Committee. 

Among the broad range of interviews conducted for the study, 
there was some concern expressed that the committee should not limit 
itself to the results of this questionnaire. Certain respondents 
were careful to point out that the viability and legitimacy of the 
Senate depends, to a large degree, on the job the Committee on 
Committees does in appointing committees. They stressed the need 
for the committee to get out and persuade faculty members to serve 
on committees, pointing out that many faculty, while they may not 
volunteer for service and may not be personally acquainted with 

committee membersj could be persuaded to accept a committee assign- 


ment; According to these respondents, the committee should take a 
more active role ini recruiting faculty into the system. 


Members of the Committee on Committees reported that the 
questionnaire was not binding on them and has been only one source 
of appointments. Other sources which have been used include letters 


and phone calls to department chairnienj consultation with present 
commi ctee menibersj and inforinal discussion with Budget Comniittee 
rneraibersj who review the papers of many promising faculty during the 

personnel process. 


The criticism that the Committee on Committees does not 
attempt to actively recruit prospective members, while apparently 


true, should be balanced against the time available for such activities. 
The Committee meets weekly when appointments are being considered and 
in recent years has had trouble finishing its work on time. Perhaps 
the comniittee should adopt the risk~taking approach to appointments 
which some have advocated. 

The American History and Institutions Committee had not been 
very active, and the Committee on Committees recommended that its 
membership be appointed from the membership of the Committee on 
Educational Policy. Such action had already been taken and the 
Division was informed that the Committee on Committees intended to 
introduce legislation abolishing the American History and Institutions 
Committee (University of California, May 10 , 1965a). This was done in 
October of 1965. In 1966 the committee also introduced 3 .egislation 
to” abolish the Committee on Membership. 


In contrast to the Committee on Committees, the Senate 
Policy Committee is appointed. However, its involvement in the 
politics of the Senate is just as great. 

Pormal Responsibilities 

The Policy Cornmittee was created on a recommendation by the 
Special Committee of Seven presented to the Division on March 29 , I965. 
The legislation creating the Policy Committee was passed by the 
Division on April 19 ^ 5 • 

According to the Bylaws, the committee has seven members, 
at least one of whom is a divisional representative to the Statewide 
Assembly. The duties of the Policy Committee are specified in the 
Bylaws as follows: 

1) To present to the Division, at a meeting in 
March, its State of the Campus message concerning 
academic issues on which the Division needs to 
develop policy. The text of the message is to be 
sent to each member of the Division at least five 
days prior to the meeting. 

2) To work with the chairman of the Division 
in deve3.oping an agenda for meetings. 

3) To collaborate with committees of the Division 
presenting major issues for consideration by the 
Division, as well as raising issues on its own 

4 ) To refer any communications placed in its 
hands and problems which come to its attention to 
the appropriate committees of the Division. 

5) To be responsible, with the secretary and 
the chairman of the Division, for communication to 
the public of information on the programs and 
policies on which the Division has taken positions 
/university of California, November 8, 1986a, p. 7 /. 

The State of the Campus message referred to earlier is 

either accepted or rejected by a majority of 

those voting at a 

regular divisional meeting. If the message is accepted, the com- 
mittee's membership is deemed to have been confirmed by the Division 
and the committee is then supposed to vrork toward the ends cited in 
the message. Should the message not be confirmed by the Division, 
the previous committee would continue until a new one was confirmed 
hy the Division. In practice, the Division has accepted each message 


to date. 

During the discussion of the resolution to pass legislation 

creating the Policy Committee, an amendment was proposed which would 

have given the committee power to convene the Division when it deemed 

necessary and to act for the Division in emergencies until the Division 

could be convened. This motion was, in effect, designed to make the 

Policy Committee an executive committee, but it lost on a vote of 

125 to 115 (University of California, April 1965)* 


Qualifications for Membership 

The prime qualification for appointment to the Senate Policy 
Committee is one’s political views (that is, position on relevant 
campus issues), according to eight Committee on Committee respondents. 
This committee must be balanced by political views so that as many 

campus factions as possible are represented. The measure of a candi- 


date’s fitness for this committee is conspicuous campus political 
activism, sensitivity to campus factions, and knowledge of 'che way 

the Senate works. 


, Some appointments to the committee are based on previous 
experience or special expertise in a matter with which the committee 
is about to deal. One professor said he was appointed because he 
had been an articulate member of the Special Committee of Seven 
(Hart Committee) which recommended the creation of the Senate Policy 
Committee. His subsequent appointment could be directly traced, in 
his opinion, to the viewpoints that he expressed on that committee. 
Another professor speculated that he was appointed because his specialty 
was organization theory, and the committee was about to deal with the 
issue of Senate reorganization. Two of the seven interviewees on the 

Policy Committee said that their selection was due to their conspicuous 
political position on the campus. 

One member of the Committee on Committees said that the 
Policy Committee ought to reflect the will of the faculty as expressed 
in the Committee on Committee elections in the fall quarter. The 
Policy Committee is appointed in January, and this respondent thought 
that the new Committee on Committees would be receptive to the 
"conservative" or "liberal" mood of the faculty. 

Reported Activities 


\ of the six reports issued hy the Senate Policy Committee 
during the two years of its existence, three were State of the Campus 
messages. Actually, the first State of the Campus message issued 
was on October 11 , 1965^ and the second one on April 4 , I966. 

The first message discussed alternate models of university 



governance and reconmiended that the long term policy for the 
Division be directed toward establishing a governance system in 
which the chancellor and the Senate would have defined and dlsti! -,t 
areas of p rimary responsibility. The Policy Committee also recom- 
mended that the Division authorize the committee to appoint a special 
subcommittee on Senate government and to undertake a thorough study 
of the existing system of Senate government in the University at 

Berkeley. The report suggested guidelines for such a study in an 

Another major section of the report was devoted to topics 

of educational policy such as educational innovation, the problem of 

severe cuts in the number of teaching assistants aid in the waiver of 

fees for nonresidents (relating to the University at Berkeley), 

and problems of converting to the' quarter system and year-round 

operation. The report also deals with the matter of academic freedom 

and oaUs to the Division’s attention progress made on a controversial 
personnel case. 

Some of the report's four appendices had important implica- 
tions for the existence of the Policy Committee. The first appendix 
dealt with the duties and procedures of the Policy Committee and 
pointed 'out that the main function of the committee is to perform 
a clarifying, crystallizing, and recommending role in relation to 
the full membership of the Division and its committees. It is not, 
and should not consider itself to be, an executive committee. 



Appendix B proposed detailed guidelines for a study of 

Senate Government at Berkeley. It specifically directed attention 

♦ • 

to the question of the need for a universityvjide Academic Senate. 

The thread of autonomy ran throughout the entire report. The phrase 
"the university at Berkeley" was used repeatedly hy those who wrote 
the report, indicating that one of the central problems of a university 
is the question of campus autonomy. The report took a very strong 
position in favor of campus autonomy or "home rule." 

Appendix C of the report was devoted to a resume of the 
Byrne Report’s recommendations. These are summarized into four 
gerxeral recommendations as follows: 

1 . That the Regents separately charter each campus 
as an autonomous university under their jurisdiction; 

2 . That the Regents and President undertake complete 
revision of the form and substance of all existing 
documents of governance of the university; 3 . That the 
office of the President be constituted to give leader- 
ship to the entire university system; and 4 . That the 
Regents reformulate their role in the government of 
the university University of California, October 11 , 

1965a, p. 2^. 

Appendix D summarized other important issues facing the 
Senate^ and the University at Berkeley. These included the adminis- 
trative^ Commit" ?e on the Academic Plan, a Senate policy on the physical 
» • 

environment of the campus, a Senate policy on the limitation of 
student enrollment and campus size, and finally a divisional policy 
on matters of departmental government. 

The report of April 4 , 1966, brought the Division up to 


date on j^rogress made on the problems of autonomy and other problems 

mentioned in the earlier State of the Campus message. This report 


concluded- with the statement that if the Policy Conimittee is con- 
firmed by the Division, it will regard its principal task as the 
final preparation for presentation to the Division of a Senate re- 
organization plan together with a set of policies concerning the 
optimum extent and form of campus autonomy. 

in an atmosphere of crisis at the University and in the 
state, the State of the Campus message of March 7 > 19 ^ 7 3 abruptly 
departed from the issues of governance reported in the earlier two 
State of the Campus messages. President Clark Kerr was fired by the 
Board of Regents in January of I967, immediately after a Republican 
administration took office in Sacramento. The tension was also 
heightened with announced cuts in the University budget and a tuition 
proposal for the next fiscal year. The Senate Policy Committee’s 
message dealt with these issues rather than the ones raised in the 
earlier reports. 

In response to a student strike in December of 1 ^ 6 ,, the 
Policy Committee was charged by the Division to "explore new avenues 

for in^easing student participation in making and enforcing of. 


campus rules and to report to the Division. Furthei’, we cal 3 . for 
the creation of a faculty- student commission to consider new modes 
of governance and self -regulation appropriate to modern American 
universities University of California, December 5, 1966b. pp. 1-^, ” 



Before the January 10 and January 17, I967, meetings of 
the Division, the Senate Policy Committee issued a report which was 
not published in the Notice to Meetings and which recommended the 
creation of a student-faculty commission on university governance. 

As amended, the report contained resolutions on the specific charge 
to the committee. The Commission on Governance was to include six 
members of the Senate, one of whom was to serve as co-chairman, and 
members, one of whom was to be co-chairman. This recom- 
mendation was made after consultation with the Division’s Committee 

on Student Affairs, The Commission was created as the Policy Committee 
envisioned it. 

Informal Activities 

The Policy Committee has come to occupy an increasingly 
important role in Senate and campus affairs. It was created in order 
to improve ways in which the Senate could anticipate conflict. Some 
of its early proponents wanted to identify the varying groups on the 
campus who were participating in political rivalries and bring this 
conflict from covert to open discussion. For example, one chairman 
of the Policy Committee reported that he tried to organize the 
committee’s work around its "natural” factions. One member of the 
committee charged that this internal organization was effective in 
isolating the two ’’liberal” members of the committee by giving them 
the trivia and saving the more important tasks for the ’’moderates." 

The Policy Committee has come to play an important role 


in this informal communication network on the campus, especially 
in times of crisis. During the student strike of I966, the chairman 
of the committee met with the chairman of the Committee on Educational 
Policy to work out a resolution for presentation to the Senate. The 
respondents said the Policy Committee chairman took the initiative 
in this matter hut that, because he was chairman, he was a 
natural focal point for much of the discussion about ways to resolve 
the strike. Por example, the chairman had a meeting at his home, 
bringing together some of the student leaders of the strike, and he 
also met with former members of the Committee of Two Hundred. The 
resolution which the Division eventually adopted was forged from 
these discussions. 

The Policy Committee also consulted widely among students, 
faculty, and administrators about the composition of the Study Com- 
mission on University Governance. The committee eventually succeeded 
in creating a commission which had no administrative representation 
on it.. VJhile the comittee never succeeded in getting administrative 
approval of this arrangement, it did lessen the amount of debate 
over this matter on the floor of the Senate. 


The chapter began with a description of some background of 
informal but commonly acknowledged practices in the operation of the 
Academic Senate. The weakness of the town meeting structure is that, 
in the absence of a crisis, the work of the Senate is performed by 

a relatively small group. Some formal and informal groups do 
consider Senate activities important enough to contest hy loobying 
and organized attempts to gain representation on important Senate 
committees. Debate in the Senate is often organized in advance of 
the meetings, and certain persons’ views are likely to be well known 
to regular Senate attenders in advance of any comments in the 
meeting. . 

Both the Committee on Committees and the Senate Policy 
Committee are integral parts of the political netvrork surrounding 
tie operation of the Senate. The former committee’s importance stems 
from the fact that it is so crucial to the committee appointment 
process and that it is the only elected Senate committee. The latter 
committee’s importance stems partially from its role as a vehicle 
through which various political factions can express their views. 

Although it is a difficult judgment to prove empirically, 
those with conservative or moderate views on campus affairs (there 
are only a few identifiable right wingers at Berkeley) seem to represent 
the majority in elections, the appointment process, and the Policy 
Committee. In times of crisis, or when certain constituent interests 
are aroused, the attendance at Senate meetings increases. Increased 
attendance is often stimulated by special interests, and the selective 
increase in attendance by members of those groups tends to threaten 
control of that issue by the numerical majority of the entire faculty. 
Proposals to modify the Senate’s tov7n meeting structure are compli- 

Gated ty these political realities. 

It would he a mistake, however, to explain the differences 
of opinion over Senate structure solely by reference to majority- 
minority power struggles. According to some respondents, the majority 
of the Senate voted in favor of the creation of a representative body 
because many also thought the current Senate -^o be inefficient. 

These respondents stressed that Senate meetings were often three 
hours long, regular attendance was sparse, and debate was at best bland 
and at worst uninformed. They believed that a representative body 
would assign committee and other responsibilities to elected leaders, 
thus freeing most faculty members from the duty of Senate attendeuice 
while assuring protection of their Senate interests. 

Others argued that it would be unwise to overlook the fact 
that a representative body would perpetuate control of the Senate 
by the moderate-conservative majority who now tend to dominate the 
Senate’s committee structure. Many of these same respondents also 
wanted to protect their individual right to dissent and/or speak out 
on any issue. They also did not want to see the moderates strengthen 
their position at the expense of those with more liberal views. 

\ Finally, the political relationships in the Senate, as 


described above, can change almost overnight. In January 19^8, 
just prior to the time these interviews were conducted, the nomina- 
tions of the Committee on Committees to the Senate Policy Committee 
underwent an unprecedented challenge from the floor of the Senate 

and were sent iDack to committee. The grounds for the challenge 
were: 1) the appointments were made by the I966-67 Committee hut 

should have been made by the 1967-68 group; 2) one of the appointees , 
a noted campus liberal, was also on the Governance Commission, and 
the commission’s report was going to be considered by the Policy 
Committee (this, according to statements made on the Senate floor, 
constituted a conflict of interests); 3) the new Policy Committee 
chairman, another noted campus liberal, was also on the Committee ■' 

on Committees and he ought not to have been on both committees at 
once . ^ 

Informal discussion with Senate members revealed that the 
"real” source of concern was that if the appointments were not changed 
the liberal- radical minority would have gained four of , the seven seats 
on the committee. It was pointed out that the new Policy Committee 
had already met once before this fact became clear to the moderates. 
One of the new appointees, not mentioned in debate, whose views were 
not widely known, turned out to be of liberal-radical persuasion. 

When the new Policy Committee membership was finally made 
known, a new chairman had been appointed, one of the liberal-radicals 
had been dropped, and another had resigned. 

It is difficult to assess exactly what would have happened 
if the appointments had not been sent back to committee but it is 
probable that the subsequent State of the Campus message would have 
been a more militant document than it was. The Division could have 

refused to confirm the document and thereby dismissed the committee. 
According to the Bylaws, if the Division does not confirm the 
committee’s message, the committee is dissolved, another one is 
appointed, and it has to present its message within eight weeks 
(University of California, Hovember 8, 1966b). Another possibility 
is tjiat the majority would set up informal auxiliary mechanisms to 
work around the Policy Committee and thereby lessen its influence. 

IVhat is more certain is that the relationships between the Policy 
Committee and its constituent body, the Academic Senate, would have 

changed considerably and this study would have been out of date before 
it was written. 



( V. 


This chapter describes the formal and informal operation 
of four important Senate committees: the Budget Committee, the 

Committee on Academic Planning, the Committee on Educational Policy, 
and the Committee oi" Courses of Instruction. The purposes of the 
chapter are both descriptive and analytic. Where significant develop- 
ments occur, they are discussed. 


The Berkeley Budget Committee is a direct successor to the 
Northern Section Budget Committee and was formed in 1957. At that 
time it consisted of five members but its size was increased to six 

in 1964 and to seven in 1966 (University of California, November 8, 

Formal Responsibilities 

According to the Bylaws (November 8, 1966a), the committee 

...confers with the Chancellor concerning the 
Divisional budget. It represents the Division in all 
matters relating to appointments and promotions and 
makes recommendations to the Chancellor on appointments, 
promotions, salaries, equipment and related matters... 


Qualifications for Membership 

The relative importance of the four general qualifications 
for Budget Committee service — rank, scholarship, and experience; 
personality characteristics; representativeness and interest — is 
reflected in the order listed although personality characteristics 
and representativeness maybe interchangeable in importance. The 


first step is to consider full professors in the upper levels who are 
good' or superior research scholars. Secondly, the personal qualities 
of these people must be considered together with the requirement that 
the committee cover all the academic disciplines. Finally, a faculty 
member must be willing to serve or be convinced that service is 
important. Although it was not mentioned by the Committee on Com- 
mittees respondents, the data presented in Chapter 3 revealed that 
professional school representation on the Budget Committee was limited 
to the colleges of agriculture and engineering, and the school of 


business administration. 

According to the Committee on Committees, appointments to 
the Budget Committee must be made from the upper professorial ranks. 

It is the practice that a faculty member not sit in review of the 
qualifications of a colleague who is superior in rank to himself. 

Also', customarily no member of the Budget Committee receives a salary 
increment during his tenure on the committee. Such requirements 
represent an attempt to find people of national reputation whose 
research productivity and scholarship is beyond question. 


To these two requirements, professorial rank and superior 
productivity and scholarship, are usually added some experience in 
and/or knowledge of the Berkeley campus and its personnel practices. 
Such experience may he gained hy assuming responsibilities for 
personnel or fiscal matters, as in service on review committees or 
other relevant committee service. 

The specific responses of some Budget Committee members to 
the question of hov/ they were chosen to serve illustrate the various 
activities which are used as indicators of knowledge of Berkeley and 
campus personnel practices. Two chairmen and a regular member of the 
committee previously had served on the Committee on Committees. Two 
other members had chaired other Senate committees, and one of these 
men had been chairman of the faculty of his college and therefore an 
ex officio member of many other committees on the campus. Another 
respondent said that he had the choice of accepting the chairmanship 
of his department or a seat on the Budget Committee and he chose the 
lesser of these two "evils." It should be noted that four ».ut of 
nine people interviewed said that they did not know and refused to 
speculate on how they were chosen to serve. Two others prefaced 

their remarks with the qualifier,"! do not know but I think. ..." 


Two members of the Committee on Committees said they thought 
that those faculty under consideration for the Budget Committee ought 
to have exhibited some administrative tendencies. Probes about what 
constituted administrative tendencies were answered by reference to 


the subsequent administrative records of past Budget Committee 
appointees. One respondent was careful to point out that although 
administrative tendencies was a general criterion for appointment 
to the Budget Committee, 90 percent of the faculty were unaware of 
that fact. 

Ce3?tain personality characteristics constitute another 
qualification for a prospective Budget Committee appointment: a 

sense of responsibility, personal discretion, objectivity, statesman- 
ship or the ability to judge men, and willingness to serve. tJhile 
there are few absolute measures of these qualities, some "typical" 
indices were identified. For example, a raan^s sense of responsibility 
is judged, for example, by whether or not he has done his homework 
on other Senate committees or on previous ^ hoc review committees. 

His personal discretion in handling matters of secrecy might also be 
judged by service on review committees. 

Budget Committee appointments represent all the disciplines 
on campus. Each member of the committee is responsible for specified 
departments based on an FTE allocation. Maximum flexibility is 
important in order to make use of the individual interests and 

abilities of each member. For example, a sociologist on the committee 


might well be competent in three or four foreign languages and 
therefore be responsible for evaluating the personnel of these 
" departments. One respondent mentioned a physicist who was also a 
performing musician and a biologist with a long-time interest in 


athletics as examples of the use of individual interests. Thus 


new appointments to the ‘'‘’dget Committee must take into account 
those areas being vacated by the outgoing members. 

The Budget Committee is one of the most time-consuming 
committee assignments a faculty member will ever be asked to accept, 
and interest or willingness to serve is an important qualification. 

A committee member must be willing to devote approximately twenty 
hours per week to this activity. Some faculty who might othen^ise be 
eligible just cannot or will not devote this much time to any committee 
assignment. Others consider the subject matter with which this 
committee deals to be of little personal interest and refuse to serve 
for this reason. 

Reported Activities 

Academic Personnel . The committee's most important and 
time-consuming duty is the review of nominations for faculty appoint- 
ments, promotions, and merit increases. It also reviews and appraises 
the qualifications oi uhose academic appointees who do not secure 
tenure, such as lecturers, researchers, and agricultural specialists. 

The commit!'.^ .r has stressed the fact that it serves not as 
a deciso.on- .atcing body but rather as a fact-gathe* ing and review 
board (University of California, October l4, 1958). It only makes 
recommendation? iiua gives advice to the ■ ^gh the 

vice chancellor for academic affairs. 

In fact, hovzever, the committee *s v>' c • 'Cdeti on 

personnel matters are followed by the administration in the large 
majority of cases. Responding to a Senate motion (.University 
of California, December 9j 19^3 )j which is informally knovjn as the 
”Krech” Index, the Budget Committee has included since then in 
its annual reports information on the extent to which its personnel 
recommendations are accepted by the administration. VJhile the ba,se 
on which .these figures rests is often not comparable from year to 
year, the data do reveal a rem&rkable degree of acceptance of 
committee recommendations by the administration. Of the 132 tenure 
cases in 1962-63 (University of California, March 10, 1964), the 
committee’s advice was followed in 124 cases (94 percent). During 
1963-64, 156 of 158 review committee cases received approval from 
the administration (University of California, October 13? 1964). 

When all the 750 appointment, promotion, retention, and merit increase 
cases were considered for I965-66, the Budget Committee’s advice was 
followed in 721 cases (96 percent) (University of California, 

October 17? 1966). Perhaps the most complete detail on the Committee* 
influence on these matters is supplied in the I966-67 report (Univer- 
sity of California, October 16, 1967): all 34 tenure recommendations 

were approved, one at a higher step; all 85 nontenure professional 
appointment recommendations were accepted; of the l44 recommendations 
for promotions to associate or full professor, l4l were approved, 
two were, denied, and one was promoted against the committee’s 
recommendation; there were only four reversals out of 375 recommen- 


dations for merit increases. In summary, of 638 cases in I966--675 
631 were approved, or a. remarkable 98.9 percent. 

It should be pointed out that an important organizational 
revision took place in February I966 when the statevride University 
delegated to the separate chancellors the authority to make tenuire 
appointments and promotions (University of California, October 17j 
1966). Decisions on above-scale salaries continued to be decided in 
the president’s office, and the Budget Committee reported that its 
recommendations have been less effective in these cases (University 
of California, October I6, 19o7)- 

In the 1966-67 report the committee also announced the 
procedures which the administration agreed to follov/ in cases where 
reversals of Budget Committee recommendations were being considered. 
This is a list of six detailed steps to be followed by the adminis- 
tration in reversal cases and provide ample opportunity for the 
committee to argue its own views. 

The Budget Committee’s annual reports usually include 
detailed data on the number and kinds of cases hard led during the 
academic year. These data are combined into Tables 4, 6, and 7- 

Table 4 shows the number of cases reviewed by the Committee 
for each of the years from 1957-58 to I966-67 and provides a break- 
down by category. Appointments are those cases in which a new member 
- is appointed to the faculty. The appointment may involve tenure 
but usually constitutes at least a first step on the ladder to a 



possible tenure appointment. Appraisals are those appointments 
and promotions which are not in the tenure ranks. Ib?omotions are 
those cases in which an increase from one level of the professorial 
scale to another is involved, from assistant to associate professor, 

for example, and merit increases are within-rank promotions, such as 
from professor, step I, to step II. 


Appointments, Appraisals, Promotions and Merit Increases 
Reviewed by Budget Committee 

Academic Appoint- Apprai- Promo- 
year ments sals tions 


Total Merit cases 

increases reviewed 




















i 45 

4 o 















*( 204)243 








24 o 

34 o 






( 409)448 


( 471)497 






84 l 




*Includes promotions to special salaries for the first time. 
Comparable figtires are in parentheses. 

Source :\ 
Senate. '■ 

Uniyersity of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Notice to meetings, I957-I967. 

As shown in Table 4 the committee did not begin reporting 
' on merit increases until I961-62 and on promotions to special 
salaries until 1964 - 65 . As one would expect in a growing university. 


the number of cases and, hence, the committee’s workload in each 

category has increased substantially over the ten-year period. 


The practice of using eA review comraittees is the central 
factor around which the data in Tables ^3 and 7 nre organized. 

These review committees are the fact-finding and evaluating groups 
interposed between departmental personnel committees and the Senate’s 
Budget Committee. Revievf committees are normally appointed in all 
cases involving tenure decisions; in most cases of promotions from 
associate to full professor; in some, but not most, assistant professor 
appointments; and in some appraisal cases. Some of these review 
committees have five members; others have only three. The Budget 
Committee recommends the membership of each committee to the academic 
vice chancellor who makes the final appointments. The membership of 
the review committee is not known to the department chairman or the 

The percentage of faculty who served on one 01- two of these 
review committees relative to the total faculty serving are given in 
Table 8 for the ten-year period. The range during the first four years 
is from 58 percent to 68 percent while the range for the last four 

years is^ from 82 percent to 8? percent . 


Data from these tables reveal that as the campus grew and 
the personnel case load increased, the review committee function was 
.(.ncreas ingly consolidated within the Budget Committee. The committee 
reported that this is especially true in the case of appointments to 


Faculty Participation in Ad Hoc Review Committees 



Number of 
cases having 
ad hoc 

Number of 
ad hoc 

Number of different 
faculty members . . 
serving on jd hoc 











24 o 



, • 

















lx . a . 











*n.a. = not applicable 

Source: University of California. Berkeley Division of the 

Academic Senate. Notice to meetings, 1957 - 1967 * 


of Cases 


for which Budget Conimi 
as Review Committee 

ttee Acted Also 

Academic year 

Appointments Appraisals 




















































Source: University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 

Senate. Notice to meetings, 1957 - 1967 . 





Distribution of Participation in Review Committees 

by Senate Members 







1 Cora. 

2 Com. 

3 Com. 

4 Cora. 

5 Com. 

than 5 








5 ■ 








l 4 



















24 ? 









l 4 l 















24 ? 



l 4 



















Source: University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 

Senate. Notice to meetings, 1957 - 196 ?. 


Percentage, of Faculty Serving on only One or Two 
Ad Hoc Committees Relative to the Entire Number 

Serving on Any Ad Hoc Committee 

Year ; 




195 T -58 






















the assistant professor, steps I and II categories (University of 


California, October 7, 1966). 


The nutuoer of different faculty serving on these review 
committees (column 3 , Table 5 ) compared to the total Senate member- 
ship has declined. For example, of approximately IO85 Senate members 
in 1957“58, there were 497 different faculty on review committees, 
or 46 percent of the faculty; in 1963-64 Senate membership was £376, 
and review committee membership was composed of 470 different faculty, 
or 34 percent of the faculty; in 1966-675 Senate membership was I568, 
and review committees had 489 different members, or 31 percent. 

The Budget Committee’s reports suggests an even greater 
degree of concentration than is revealed in the foregoing information. 
Assistant profes.^ors almost never Lave an opportunity to be on a 
review committee because the Budget Committee acts as a review 
committee for most nontenure appointments, and assistant professors 
are ineligible to serve on appointments and promotions involving 
tenure (University of California, October 11, 1965a). When the Budget 
Committee refers to recruiting younger faculty to serve on review 
committees, it is subject to this restraint on assistant professors 
(University of California, November 20 , 1962). 

' During the sample period the Budget Committee has included 
in its reports substantive policy statements on its interpretation of 
many of the criteria for appointments to and promotions of the faculty 
at Berkeley. For example, the 1957-58 annual report presented 

brief statements on the confidentiality of the review process, 
criteria for initial appointment, evaluation of scholarship and 
creativity, and the recognition of distinction in teaching (Univer- 
sity of California, October l 4 , 1958 )* The 1960 - 6 l report expressed 
concern about the high percentage of full professors relative to 
instructors on the campus (University of California, October 9 j 196 l), 


and the I962-63 report provided a breakdown of similar information 
by tenure-nontenure ranks. The Budget Committee also advised the 
Division on Berkeley’s declining competitive position relative to 
other universities seeking to retain prominent and recruit new 
faculty (University of California, October 11 , 1965a)* 

The 1965-66 report provided a detailed statement on the 
evaluation of teaching (University of California, October 17 , 1966). 
During the year the committee consulted with the Special Select 
Committee on Education about this topic. The Universitywide Budget 
Committee also provided an opportunity for exchange between, divisional 
Budget Committees. The report included a summary of basic guidelines 
found in the Faculty Handbook and the Administrative I4anual as well 
as a discussion of the pros and cons of suggestions considered by 
the Select Committee, specifically the inclusion of statements of 
teaching philosophies in individuals* vita. The Budget Committee 
issued its own recommendation on this together with a statement of 
" reasons for opposing it. 

The 1965-66 report also summarized committee actions and 


policy on o<^int appointments, the status of acting associate 
professors, the use of the lecturers’ title, and the- length of terms 

for departmental chairmen. Finally, the 1986-67 committee reported 



on seven recommendations on personnel policies that it either 
initiated or supported (University of California, October 16, 196 ?) • 

The issues involved departmental recommendations on professorial 
appointments, administrative stipends and sabbaticals, and selection 
committees for deans. 

Advice to the Administration and the Senate . Another 
principal activity of the Budget Committee is to react to requests 
for advice from the chancellor, the statewide administration, and 
the Senate. The first two reports ( 1957-58 and 58 - 59 ) merely mentioned 
that the committee performed this function while the 1959-^0 report 
said nothing about it. In 196 o- 6 l the reports began to provide more 
detail about the issues on which the committee advised the adminis- 
tration. Their recommendations dealt with personnel policies, such 
as administrative stipends and salaries for part-time research 
appointees, and other matters such as operation of the Computer Center 
and the Space Sciences Laboratory. The Committee also advised the 
administration about the creation of new academic departments and 
reorganization of existing units, the conversion to the quarter 
system, and seminars for state legislators (University of California, 
October 9 , 1961) . Perhaps the most comprehensive list of such 
recommendations appeared in the I962-63 report. The 1965-66 and 


1966-67 reports made little reference to this function. 

Occasionally, the Senate itself charged the committee to 
perform certain fact-gathering or informational tasks. The annual 



reports described progress on recognition of distinction in teaching 
until that program ifjas transferred to the administration in January 
1961. On November 20 , I962, the committee was charged by the Division 
to consult with the Committee on Educational Policy in regard to 
year-round operations. The result was a joint report issued on 
March 26, I963. In I966 the Berkeley Budget Committee issued recom- 
mendations to the Division on changes in the professional scale which 
were being considered by the Universitywide Budget Committee 
(University of California, March 22 , I966). Other issues on which 
the committee made special or ^ hoc reports to the Division included 
the following: l) Senate Bylaw 188 regarding departmental consultation 

procedures for new appointments (University of California, December 5 , 
1966) and 2) the specific inclusion of teaching evidence guidelines 
in the Guide for Academic Personnel Eec omm^ndat ions together w 5 .th a 
list of ten teaching qualities and ten kinds of evidence on teaching 
which reviewers found useful (University of California, April 10 , 

19665 May 16, 1967). 

Budgetary Eeview . Reviews of departmental budgets were not 
the subject of extensive reporting during the first three years of 
this period. Reports usually noted that this function was performed 
by the committee and occasionally complained about budgetary stringency. 




The 1960-61 report announced the adoption of important changes in 
budget review procedures designed "to ensure the utinost participation 
by department chairmen, deans, directors and other senior adminis- 
trative officers in the disposition of available funds University 
of California, October 9j I96I, p. 1^»“ The Budget Committee had 
"limited" time to participate in budgetary review in I96O-6I, due to 
the protraction of negotiations with the state. The report gave a 
detailed eight- step summary of the University's budget cycle and 
stressed that these new procedures freed the committee from much 
time-consuming statistical work but continued to provide the committee 
with an important advisory role in the broad aspects of budgetary 

The 3.Q6I-62 report reiterated the coimaittee’s broad planning 
role and pointed out that the new procedures were still being ■ 
crystallized (University of California, November 20, I962). The 
committee gave an incomplete list of specific interdepartmental items 
on which it advised the chancellor. Both the I962-63 and 1963-64 
reports noted that the committee continued to review departmental 

The 1964-65 committee proposed and the Division created 
a Special Committee on Budget 'Policy to handle the function of 
budget review. This new special committee eventually became the 
Committee on Academi.c Planning. 


Adeq.uacy of Reports , Procedures , and Policy 

The committee reports annually to the Division on its routine 
caseSj its advice to the adnu.nistrationj and other matters. The 
conmiittee also issues ^ hoc reports. Vfith the exception of the Krech 
index reform, committee reports are seldom debated on the floor of 
the Senate. Usually they are received and filed. With one exception, 
the committee has not indicated the nuniber of times and the issues 
involved uhen it reversed departmental or review committee reports 
in personnel cases. The administration consults with the committee 
before reversals are made but apparently the committee does not con- 
sult with departments or review committees before reversing them. 

Also, the committee has not indicated what criteria it uses 
in advising the administration on routine matters such as budgetary 
reviev7, the creation of new academic units, or the reorganization of 
existing ones. Confidentiality about the details of some of these 
matters is understandable but not silence concerning criteria on 
which such decisions are based. 

Some of the interview respondents were careful to point out 
that the Budget Committee review represents only one step, though 

an important one, in the entire personnel process. The most time- 

■ « ^ 

consuming element in the process is the ^ hoc review committees, 
and these respondents believe that proposals to speed up the personnel 

process should be directed at these review committees. The Budget 


Committee itself has developed procedures for rendering an opinion 
quickly when necessary. ■ 

During the course of this research, six menibers of the 
central administration and seven academic deans were interviewed. 

Two deans were very much concerned about the time required to evaluate 
merit increases, appointments, and promotions. One dean reported 
that he appealed to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure about one 
case that took exceptionally long because he felt the candidate’s 
professional rights to a decision within a reasonable period of time 
had been violated. It was a particularly frustrating experience, 
according to this respondent, because when the committee finally did 

render a favorable decision, it commented that this was an outstanding 

Within the Budget Committee tv^o important differences of 
opinion were revealed by the in-depth interviews. The first was over 
what constitutes a "good" appointment, and the second was over the 
emphasis that the committee placed on research, teaching, and service 
in the evaluation of cases. 

Clearly, most members of the committee perceived their prime 
function to be the maintenance of quality standards, in academic 
personnel appointments. It was equally clear that some members were 
more strict than others in applying these subjective standards of 
quality. An individual committee member’s influence on appointments 
in his area was considerable. Because of this, two experienced 

campus administrators reported that the appointments in a certain 


area can be adversely affected for three years by the position taken 

by the individual on the Budget Committee who was responsible for 
evaluating that area. 

Concerning the relative emphasis given to research, teaching 
or service in the evaluation, most cormnittee respondents said that 
research productivity and/or other evidence of creativity was 
generally regarded as the sine qua non of tenure appointments and 
subsequent promotions at Berkeley. Case material always includes 
evidence in support of a candidate’s creative or research abilities. 
The ten Budget Committee respondents varied greatly on the extent to 
which teaching is systematically evaluated by the committee. 

chairman said that he tried to put together a 
generalization about the relative weight given to a group of marginal 
cases. It was this respondent’s opinion that excellence in teaching 
more often carried a weak research record than excellence in research 
carried a weak teaching record. Another respondent pointed out that 
a weak research record was almost always accompanied by a strong 

teaching record. One other former chairman is quoted in full as 
follows ; 


Approximately 5 to 10 percent of all those faculty 
who got tenure during my service on the Committee 
obtained this award with the full knowledge of every- 
body on the Committee that the classroom performance 
of the candidate was practically incompetent but that 
he was a good research scholar. These cases are often 
justified by rsuch reasoning as the man may be the best 

research man available to cover a given area 

•within the department. 

A possible explanation for the different vie'vjs expressed 
is that the latter respondent has been off the committee for six to 
eight years. The increasing campus furor over undergraduate teaching 
may have sensitized the committee somewhat. However, this is diffi- 
cult to judge. 

It was clear that the difficulties of evaluating teaching 
have been a continuous problem for the committee. Three respondents 
reported that negative teaching evaluations from departmental and 
ad review committees were very rare. One was left to infer from 
lack of comments that the candidate was a bad teacher. (Comments, 
such as "he works well in small groups," usually meant that the 
candidate was not a good lecturer. 

In the absence of evidence of teaching quality the great 
majority of the Budget Committee believe, and attempt to enforce this 
belief, that the quality and, in some cases, the quantity of creative 

work was the prime criterion for advancement. It was the job of the 
department, not the committee, to develop, disseminate, and enforce 
standards of good teaching. 

Finally, the role of service as a criterion for advancement 
was unclear. Most committee members felt that it was up to the 
department and others to make a strong case for services other than 
research and teaching. The important point wab that, for young men, 
there could be no substitute for research productivity or demonstrated 


creativity. Some members of the administration have argued for greater 
consideration hy the committee of services to the University such 
as administrative activity. The committee considered such service 
in promotions and merit increases hut for tenure appointments the 
prime criterion was research productivity and/or creative activiby. 

• Academic administrators were more specifically critical of 
the Budget Committee’s approach to personnel cases than was the 
committee itself. Tv7o or three campus administrators who have dealt 
directly with the committee reported that it was strong on evaluating 
the quality of a man’s research or creative efforts but that the 
committee was often not sympathetic to some of the other realities 
surrounding the personnel process, however. According to the adminis- 
trative viewpoint, the committee was sometimes insensitive to the 
need to fill a position, especially if the candidate was merely 
adequate rather than outstanding. 

Campus administrators and some academic deans argued that 
the committee was not sensitive enough to the specific needs of the 
professional schools when evaluating cases, pointing out that service 
is particularly important for some of the professional schools. 

One professional school dean appeared before the committee to inform 
them of the standards which his school was going to use in evaluating 
the service and consulting records as well as the research and 
teaching performance of his faculty. T^^o other professional school 
deans reported that they tried to make sure the committee appointed 

M review committees which were likely to appreciate professional 


service . 

Another complaint reported by these deans was that the 
Budget Committee was relatively insensitive to the need to meet 
competitive offers both from other schools and from industry. The 
law school succeeded in getting a special salary scale to handle this 
situation. The schools of engineering and business administration 
were recently granted special appropriations by the Board of Regents 
to redress the salary imbalance suffered by faculty in these. areas 
when compared to salaries elsewhere. 

The personnel process at Berkeley is understood to be very 
private. Review committee membership is kept from the candidate and 
his department chairman. With the exception of the dean of the 
college of letters and sciences, review committee reports were known 
only to the Budget Committee and members of the central administration. 

In its reports to the Division, the Budget Committee has 
recommended that the membership of review committees also be kept 
from the deans. The seven deans interviewed unanimously opposed 
this, although some of them were not adamant. One dean reported 
that he invariably had to suggest changes in the coijiposition of review 
committees; another reported that he rarely did so. 

Some deans complained that it was difficult enough to make 
a strong case with the central administration because the dean never 
knew what specific objections had been raised by either the review 

or Budget Committees. In cases of negative recommeadationSj the 


academic vice chancellor may or may not have chosen to read pertinent 
paragraphs of the report to the dean hut its entire substance 
r emai ned c onf id e at i al . 

It v7ouldj however, be inaccurate to imply that the central 
administration favored extensive reform of the personnel process. 

They and .some deans have suggested more decentralization of appoint- 
ments at the assistant professor level, a move which the Budget 
Committee has resisted, but complaints were usually not directed 
toward restructuring the process. 

The Special Committee issued its first report to the 
Division at a meeting on March 22, I966. The report was an oral one 
and was not, therefore, included in the Notice to the Meeting, which 
is circulated to the members in advance of the meeting. It consisted 
of three paragraphs which described the committee’s activities. The 
central paragraph is reproduced below. 

The Special Committee is currently active on 
budget hearings in connection with the revision of 
the 1966-67 budget and on the preparation of the 
1967-68 preliminary budget proposal. In qrder to 
gain more experience with the new arrangement, and 
especially to extend that experience over the full 
two-year budgeting cycle, the Special Committee 
recommends that it be continued on an experimental 
basis for I966-67 and that its size be increased 
/university of California, May 13, 1965a 3 P* xii, 
and b, p. 1^. 

The committee's size was increased, from three to five members. 

The second report of the Budget Policy Conimittee was issued 
on June 5> 19^7^ and dealt with the role of the University and 
administration of a tuition system. The committee's timing was 
especially important hecause the new governor's proposal to impose 
tuition on the University had received a great deal of attention. 

The chairman of the Budget Policy Committee also read a prepared 
statement to the Division concerning the functions and the work of 
that committee. 

These two reports constitute the only reports issued by 
this committee to the Division up to June 19^7. The Special Committee 
on Budget Policy became a standing committee of the Division on 
January 9? 19^8, and its new title is the Committee on Academic 
Planning. The creation of this committee effectively removed the 
Senate from the detailed review of budgets. The faculty now deal 
with broad policy matters. 


Formal Responsibilities 

According to the Bylaws, the CEP is to consider and report 
on matters involving questions of educational policy (University of 
California, March 29j 1965a). The committee *s annual report for the 
years 1965-66 describes the area associated with educational policy 

as follows: 

This committee's hasic concerns are the 
educational goals of the Berkeley campus , the* 
policies that facilitate our reaching these goals, 
and the academic organization of the campus needed 
to maintain maximum effectiveness in our educational 
activities. The committee implements the expressed 
will of the Division, and also takes the initiative 
in bringing to the Division's attention new educa- 
tional matters as they arise, and in advising thereon. 

The committee considers educational (questions brought 
to it by the Chancellor and by the universitywide 
Committee on Educational Policy, acting as a source 
of informed opinion and, when necessary, seekins 
the views of the Division. , 

The most specific assignment carried by this com- 
mittee is the review of changes in administrative 
structure, the activities and functions of teaching and 
research units. This duty, is conducted confidentially, 
and the committee’s findings are reported directly to 
the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor /University of Cali- 
fornia, November 8, 1966b, p. igT. 

The size of the CEP is specified in the Bylaws and has varied 
from seven to six to seven and up to ten members at various stages 
of the sample period. 

Qualifications for Membership 

In making appointments to the Committee on Educational 
Policy, the Committee on Committees tended to rely more heavily on 
the ability-experience category than the other three, although 
representativeness was a close second. Most CEP appointees have had 
some kind of previous committee and/or administrative experience. 

Two members of the Committee on Committees referred to the experience 
factor as "a quality of the elder statesman." When probed as to 
what measures of statesmanship they used, both said they meant a 

broad, knowledge of university affairs as exhibited in previous 
Senate committee or other administrative service. . Of the nine 
Committee on Committees members v;ho answered, one said there were 
no special q^ualities for the CEP, while five of the remaining eight 
identified the area of ability-experience, defined previously, as 
most important. 

Interviews with twelve CEP members as to how they were 
chosen to serve on the committee confirm the pattern of previous 
related committee work or administrative experience as a criterion 
for appointment. One accepted the assignment in lieu of becoming 
chairman of his department. Seven of the twelve interviewees thought 
that some pre^'tous committee or administrative work was a chief factor** 
in their appointments. Such work included the following kinds of 
activities: department chairmanship, chairmanship of a college 

faculty body and/or committee, service on other Senate committees, 
and membership on a national association committee. 

Representativeness was apparently a close second in 
importance when making appointments to CEP. A r^al effort was made 
to make sure that all academic areas of the campus are represented. 
This factor was so obvious that some of the interviewees may have 
neglected to give it proper weight. Some Committee on Committees 
respondents saw the Committee on Educational Policy as an ideal 
situation in which to try out "younger" men, namely associate 
professors, in order to add this dimension of representativeness. 


It is important that prospective CEP members indicate a 
degree of interest in serving on the committee. Three of the 
committee’s members did say they had announced their availability 
for service by checking the appropriate box on the Committee on 
Committees questionnaire. Four others said they knew or were 
personally acquainted with someone either on the Committee on Committees 
or whose place they were taking on CEP because of a resignation. 

Interest in general committee work iSj of course^ implied, in previous 
committee assignments. 

The elements of personality which enter into Educational 
Policy appointments hinge around an attitude of ’’openness,” a sense 
of fairness, and soundness of judgment, according ' > respondents. 

Reported Act ivities 

When CEP is specifically charged to report on ^ hoc matters, 
it does so, and the Division has debated some of these reports quite 
extensively. The committee has issued occasional reports on questions 
of substantive educational policy such as the teaching responsibilities 
of faculty and controlled grovrth of the University to the year 2000, 

but these reports are seldom debated by the faculty. (Some issues 


one would expect the committee to be concerned with are presided over 
by other standing or special committees.) 

The annual reports consist of lists of the research or 
academic .un5.ts eval.uated, the number of committee meetings, and a 




list of problems which the committee is discussing. There have 
been little reference in these reports to the substantive criteria 
on which the CEP bases its advice to the administration. For example^ 
the reports failed to state what criteria are used in evaluating a 
proposal for a new academic department. When CEP reported that it 
issued advice to the chancellor on the use of computers on the campus, 
it failed to state the problem, what alternatives were considered, 
and, final3.y, what advice it gave. Of course, some confidentiality- 
in specific cases may be desirable. Hovzever, CEP makes decisions 
and issues advice confidentially but does not report the policies 
on which such decisions are based. 

The Division is also largely unaware of how often the adminis- 
tration takes the committee's advice and how often this advice is 
rejected. Evidence from interviews indicates that many CEP members 
are not aware of this important detail. 

Informal Activities 

Several of the fourteen CEP interview respondents referred 
to the essentially conservative nature of CEP on quality issues. 
These Respondents said that CEP was in the position of having to 
defend,- uphold, and apply standards of quality in educational policy 

when reviewing institutes, departments, or other matters. 


Tv 70 respondents, self- identified with the liberal-radical 

element in campus politics, reported that they found themselves to 
be conservatives on questions of educational policy. One of these 



men, a scientist, said, he continually favored more course work and 

a traditional emphasis on statistics, math, and the basic sciences 


when evaluating proposals for new academic units or reorganization 
of existing units. 

Committee on Committees to appoint more innovators and to try to 
make CEP more representative of the broad spectrum of campus opinion. 
Presumably, this would make the committee itself more open to inno- 
vative educational efforts. It is doubtful, however, that CEP could 
be "liberalized" by one or two dissident voices. 

The CEP's very function, as perceived by many of its members. 

was to maintain traditional standards of quality. The contemporary 
cry for educational relevance, the first criteria of black studies 
programs, flies in the face of traditional quality standards, such 
as research productivity of the faculty and systematic, disciplined 
inquiry into a traditional body of knowledge. If the CEP maintains 
its emphasis on traditional quality, it is difficult to foresee any 
positive recommendation from the committee on a program based on 
nontraditional goals. 

proposals to state their views, away from the glare of publicity. 
Whenever a new research unit or- academic department is proposed or 
- a question with educational policy implications arises, such as the 
Governance Commission Report, CEP is likely to call in the interested 

One chairman of CSP reported that he had requested the 

The CEP provides a forum for proponents and opponents of 



parties to ascertain the range of views. Before the committee issues 


a negative recommendation^, it is 3.ikely to consult all parties 
involved . 

The emphasis in discussion is on interdepartmental or 
college matters hut the CEP tries to he aware of conflicts within 
departments as well, considering their consequences for the case at 

Formal Responsibilities 

The functions and duties of the Courses Committee are 
given helow; 

It reviews, coordinates and takes final action 
on all matters relating to courses of instruction, 
including approval of new courses, modification, 
withdrawal, conduct, credit valuation, and classifi- 
cation of existing courses, and consults with and 
advises departments and indiv 5 .dual members of the 
Division on courses of instruction.. . 

The committee is empowered to act on behalf of 
the Division in reviev/ing recommendations from the 
colleges, schools, and graduate council concerning 
the award of degrees, certificates, and honors /Uni- 
versity of California, Noveiriber 8, 1966a, p. 

The Courses Committee is one of the few committees of the 

Academic Senate which has the power of final approval over matters 

which it considers. Much of the committee’s work is devoted to 

performing administrative functions from which there is little or 

no appeal. The Bylaws, however, specifically instruct the coromittee 

to give full consideration to departmental views and representatives 

as \rell as individual faculty members. 

The size of the Courses Committee is not specified in the 
Bylaws, and its size has fluctuated from seven members in the early 
years of the ten-year period to thirteen in 1966-67 (Table 3 ). 

Qualif icat ions for Membership 

Appointments to the Committee on Courses of Instruction 
were quite different from appointments to other committees analyzed. 
This committee appeared to be of lesser importance in the informal 
hierarchy of Senate committees. Some of the Committee on Committees 
respondents were unable to identify qualifications ^Thich were necessary 
for service on Cl. The qualifications which did exist were relatively 
objective ones, such as representativeness and experience, rather 
than subjective ones, and many of the appointments to the committee 
were taken from younger faculty. 

Reported Activities 

The committee did not report to the Division at al l for 
the first seven years of the sample period. The first report issued 
by the Courses Committee, April 5, I965, was in response to legis- 
lation passed by the Division on December 10 , 196^. The legislation 
dele ted to the Committee on Courses the authority to recommend to 
the president of the University candidates for degrees and honors 
and, as a result of this legislation, the commiittee issued its first 
five reports, all in academic years 1964-65 through 1966-67. 

In the December 5j 19^6, IJotice to Meetings (University of 
California), the Courses Committee broke its long silence and issued 
a lengthy report to the Division concerning its activities and 
responsibilities. The report considered four major topics: l) the 

responsibilities of the Berkeley Committee on Courses, its organi- 
zation, and procedures; 2) the responsibilities of the Committee 
on Courses on other campuses of the University; 3) the work of the 
committee in connection with conversion to the quarter system; 

4) the need for reappraisals of some of the responsibilities and 
procedures of the committee. 

The committee pointed out that it was not an advisory com- 
mittee but that its responsibilities were primarily administrative. 
The body of the report went on to list some of the activities which 
the committee performed such as the approval of undergraduate courses 
the approval of University Extension courses; the approval of candi- 
dates for degrees, certificates, and honors; and the administration 
and interpretation of the Senate *s rules on examination and grades. 

Appendix B listed the current membership of the Courses 
Committee and its subcommittees. The appendix also provided infor- 
mation'^on the use of records and statistics kept by the committee, 
the procedures for processing course approval requests, and the 
procedures for processing correspondence. The responsiblities of 
Committee on Courses on other campuses were tabulated in Appendix. D. 

The report explained the work and role of the committee 

in conversion to the quarter system. The corm-oittee had to consider 
every course request issued in the prototype catalog for the spring 
of 1965 and the general catalog in the summer of 1966, and the 
committee's workload was extremely heavy. 

The report also cited some guidelines used in ascertaining 
whether course requests should be granted. The committee assumed 
that the department had done its best in realigning these courses 
and, therefore, dealt mainly with the question of coarse duplication. 

The report stressed the fact that the committee consulted with 
department chairmen and other individuals involved in these course 
requests . 

Finally, the report discussed the need to reappraise some 
functions of the Committee on Courses. In the light of increased 

local campus autonomy, the question of departmental autonomy with 


respect to courses and student evaluation was a real one. ’ The 
committee concluded that the present division of responsibility may 
have given the Courses Committee too much responsibility and too few 
guidelines. The committee pointed out that it was often hampered 
in its work by commitments made by the chancellor's office, with 
respect to teaching personnel for a department, which often did not con- 
sider a series of new courses that might be related to an articulated 
plan contemplated for that department. The committee asked for the 
direction of the Division, seeking clarification of whether or not 
financial resources of a department were to be considered outside 

of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Courses. According to the 
minutes of the meeting, no substantive discussion was given to this 

Informal Activities 

The conuni'jtee performs several functions stemming from its 
formal position as reviewer of academic courses and curricula. 

During a typical academic year the committee receives from 1000 to 
1300 requests for changes in courses. Most of these are handled 
routinely by subcommittees and passed in a group by the committee. 
Occasionally, these requests involve conflicts between departments 
and/or colleges, and the committee has to mediate between them. For 
example, the creation of a new department ofben results in the potential 
overlapping of the courses offered in existing departments. The Cl 
would have to mediate any conflict between a new black studies depart- 
ment’s course offerings and the departments of sociology or history. 
These conflicts are real ones and pose significant problems for the 

The committee has also attempted to control the prolifera- 
tion of similar courses throughout the separate departments and 
colleges. For example, the committee considered the number and 
nature of statistics courses being offered by various academic units, 
compared to those offered by the statistics department itself. 

The committee also handles student requests for waivers of 
graduation requirements or petitions for revised grades. These are 


transmitted by the deans and, in some cases, have to be explained 
by the dean to the committee. 

The Cl is responsible for evaluating the course offerings 
of the Extension Center and for certifying the faculty as competent 
to teach them. The University Extension Center requests are handled 
by a subcommittee of Cl. In cases where the qualifications of the 
instructor are questionable, the entire committee considers the 
probie m. 

♦ • 

Reaction to the Committee 

Many respondents believed that Cl is held in low esteem by 
the faculty in general. The Committee on Committees did not consider 
it an important committee. The first Senate Policy Committee’s State 
of the Campus message had suggested the Cl’s function of reviewing 
courses might be delegated to departments. 

The 1966-67 chairman of Cl attempted to salvage the image 
of the committee and revitalize its operations, organizing sub- 
committees and delegating many of the committee’s details to them. 

The entire committee began to consider only those requests for course 
changes which were not routinely passed by these subcommittees. The 
new chairman adopted a policy of more direct consultation with 
department chairmen and deans in an effort to combat the committee’s 
reputation for arbitrary action and rigidity. In the words of one 
respondent, ’’The Committee attempted to channel these changes and 
to make change an orderly process rather than a precipitous one. 

The Chairman attempted to change the image of the committee and to 
come to terms with the obvious need for change in courses." 

Under this dynamic chairman^ the Cl issued its first detailed 
report. In cases where the committee h'^d to interpret existing 
regulations, it attempted to be mor<= flexible than the records showed 
it had been in the past. To encourage the innovative efforts of the 
newly created Board of Educational Development (BED), the Cl chairman 
premised informally that his committee would not veto BED-proposed 

It is difficult to judge whether or not these attempts to 
change the image and operations of Cl have been perceived by the 
general faculty. The minority report to the Senate Policy Committee 
report of March 1968 was still critical of Cl as were some of the 
Committee oPx Committees respondents. All faculty closely associated 
with Cl were aware of the changes and uniformly applauded the new 
direction. The chairman of Cl for 1967-68 carried through on the 
work of the previous chairman but it is too early to judge whether 
the Cl will eventually be regarded differently by the facuJ.ty. 

Perhaps the most important change which occurred from this 
concerted effort to reorganize the committee was an alteration of 
the committee's own perception of its function, previously, the 
committee actually denied requests for changes in existing courses 
or for new courses. Now the committee members report that they no 
longer actually deny a request but rather attempt to consult with 


departments to find a mutually acceptable solution. The committee 

is likely to suggest an alternative, such as using an experimental 


course number instead of a new course when there is some- q.uestion 
as to whether the course should be permanently placed among the 
department’s offerings. The committee also encourages interdepart- 
mental consultation when possible conflicts occur. Usually, the 
committee will delay action pending this consultation. 


The Budget Committee’s primary responsibility is evaluating 
personnel for advancement or appointment. During early years of the 
period it i *\d.ewed some details of departmental budgets but this 
function was assigned to the Committee on Academic Planning and is 
now focused on broad policy matters rather than on details. The 
work of personnel review became increasingly centralized within the 
committee. The committee also advised the administration on request. 

The relative emphasis given to teaching and service is a 
source of disagreement within the committee . The sine qua non of 
tenure appointments, however, is research productivity or demonstrated 

creative activity, often, it appears, at the expense of teaching quality. 


Criticisms directed at the committee included the following: 

It took too much time to reach decisions, it stressed research rather 
than teaching or service in the evaluation process, it was rela- 
tively insensitive to the particular needs of the professional 




schools, and it operated in too much secrecy. On the other hand, 

the committee was very strong on the evaluation of research quality. 


Many felt that a faculty committee could say no to a fellow faculty 
member with more authority and impartiality than any administrative 

The frequency of Budget Committee reports appears to be 
adequate but they have not included statements of the criteria on 
which the committee bases its advice to the administration. These 
reports also tend to ignore the committee’s reversals of review 
committee or departmental recommendations. 

The CEP has dealt with a wide range of issues such as year- 
round operations, limitation of enrollment, and academic plans. 
Specifically, CEP reviewed proposals for new research or instructional 
units and evaluated existing ones. The committee members were careful 
to point out that more time was spent on a4 hoc matters rather than 
on the routine evaluation of academic units. 

The criteria for appointment to the CEP in order of their 
importance were--ability-experience, representativeness, interest, 

and personal qualities. Recall, however, that the data presented in 


Chapter 3 reveal that the professional schools account for only 26 
percent of CEP members while they represent 42 percent of the 

In-depth interviews revealed that one of the principal 
functions of the committee was to serve as a forum for debate about 



proposals involving matters of educational policy. The committee 
meets with proponents and opponents of an issue before issuing its 
recommendations. The majority of its recommendations are confidential 
and go directly to the administration. 

The Courses Committee’s major responsibility is to review 
requests for new courses and revisions of old ones. Its action on 
these requests are usually final. The committee is of lesser impor- 
tance in the informal hierarchy of Senate committees than the others 
studied in this report. Cl also provides an entry into the system 
for some younger faculty. 

In recent years the committee has tried to change its image 
and be more flexible in considering course requests. One of its 
chief functions now is to mediate interdepartmental course matters. 





This chapter presents observations and conclusions on 
decision-making patterns of faculty committees. It also describes 
the various recent attempts to coordinate the activities of Senate 
committees and to maintain adequate liaison with the administration 
and the importance of administrative committees to the process of 
academic' decision making. Also discussed is the Senate’s degree of 
contact with the public and outside agencies. 


Consensus was the prevailing pattern of decision making in 
the committees analyzed. Typically, the entire committee would react 
to and discuss the draft of one of its informal or formal subcommittees. 
Committee chairmen allocated matters involving more than perfunctoiy 
consideration to the subcommittees or individuals. Chapter 4 de- 
scribed the inteimal assignment of responsibilities by the chairman 
of the Committee on Committees. Similar patterns existed in the 

Senate Policy Committee, the Budget Committee, the CEP, and the 



Courses Committee. The small, new Committee on Academic Hanning 
had not yet divided into subcommittees by the date of study. The 
procedures for using subcommittees varies. The Budget Committee and 
the CEP use reports of review^ committees but do not regard them as 
subcommittees. The Courses Committee’s subcommittees for handling 



course requests were x^ell established, and this routine matter was 
directly allocated to them by administrative clerks, according to 
established policies and in lieu of direct allocation by the chairman. 

Role of Committee Chairmen 

The committee chairman is a crucial factor in consensual de- 
cision making.' He must be sensitive to the emerging consensus or pre- 
vailing mood of the committee. 

Committee chairmen are appointed by the Committee on 

Committees, usually from among those with previous service on the 


committee. The duties of a chairman include the Internal operation 
of the committee, contacts with other committees, and liaison with 
the administration and the statewide Senate. The description of 
the actual duties of specific chairmen will vary with the committee 
in question but the following paragraph is a detailed paraphrase 
of one Budget Committee chairman *s resume of his duties. 

First, he is responsible for those cases in his own 
academic area. Second, he assigns areas to other committee members, 
and, third, he reviews each member’s proposals for review committees. 

Fourth, he takes the first detailed look at a case before the indivi- 


dual member presents it to the committee and, fifth, they jointly 
present the case to the entire committee. Sixth, the chairman re- 
writes the difficult cases. The chairman also handles miscellaneous 
requests for committee advice from the administration or the Senate. 


Approximately one-half of these requests he answers without any 

prior consultation with the committee. Consultation with the vice 


chancellor or chancellor about disagreements on the difficult cases 
conprises the eighth duty of the Budget Committee chairman while the 
ninth is service on the Universitywide Budget Committee. Finally, the 
chairman also receives occasional requests for intervlevrs; invitations 
to address student, faculty, or public meetings; and requests to 
serve on administrative committees. 

This myriad of duties and responsibilities gives the chair- 
man of the committee a grasp of the details and operation of the 
committee which is superior to that of arsy othe'^- member. The chair- 
man has a complete view of committee operations. How he uses this 
knowledge varies with the chairman. 

In considering the creation of a new academic unit, the CEP 
lii.'^de one recommendation under one chairman and then reversed itself 
when that chairman resigned. The CEP underwent considerable redis- 
cussion on whether it was ethical to reverse itself at this late date. 
According to the respondent, the position taken by the new chairman 
on this issue was crucial to the course of the debate. The chairman 
persistently argued that the committee could reverse itself but 
only after a full investigation of the entire matter. The chaiman 
himself reported that it took three or four meetings to convince the 
^ committee of his position but that he eventually succeeded. 

Another example of a chairman’s influence on the internal 


organization oi a conunittee "wsis revaaled in the intervieiv’s. A 
past chairman of the CEP was convinced that his predecessor had 
done too much of the committee’s work himself. He also felt that 
the committee seldom discussed questions of substantive educational 
policy as opposed to its routine day to day workload. 

To correct the first problem, the new chairman reorganized 
the internal workings of the committee and formalized the agenda. 

Each individual member was responsible for writing drafts and redrafts 
of issues referred to him, although the chairman retained responsi- 
bility for the final draft. Because the committee’s agenda was 
known in advance, each member was expected to prepare himself for 

To correct the lack of substantive discussions on CEP, the 
new chairman began to set up luncheon meetings at the faculty club. 
During the lunch the chairmart would start discussion on some question 
of educational policy confronting the University at Berkeley. To 
lighten the workload of each individual committee member, the chairman 
requested, and the Senate granted, an increase in the size of the 

In interviews with subsequent members and chairmen of CEP, 
it was apparent that the practice of extra luncheon meetings had 
been discontinued but that the practice of assigning more responsibility 
- to individual committee members had been retained and developed. The 
chairman of this important committee could direct, urge, or coerce 


the CEP into consideration of substantive issues rather than being 
satisfied with mere performance of routine duties. 

In summary, the chairman of a Senate committee has the 
potential to influence greatly the direction a committee will take 
or the decision it will reach. He is usually the only member of the 
committee who is aware of the entire range of issues with which the 
committee deals, he makes internal committee assignments and represents 
the committee to others. Finally, whatever attempts are made to 
coordinate the activities of Senate committees go through the chair- 
man. These coordinating mechanisms are discussed in the following 

Intercoimnittee Contact s 

Contact between Senate committees is usually limited to 
ad hoc matters. For example, subcommittees of the Courses Committee 
and the Board of Educational Development met and issued a joint report 
on field studies (University of California, December 4, I 967 ). In 
the past, the CEP has met with other committees and issued joint 
reports. In January 1964 the CEP issued a joint report with the 
Special Committee on Limitation of Enrollment (University of California, 
January I 3 , 1964). The Budget Committee and CEP also issued a joint 
report on year-round operations (University of California, March 26, 


Another method of maintaining liaison between Senate 
committees is by a member of one committee becoming an ex officio 


member of another. For example, a member of the Courses Committee 
usually was a member of the Graduate Council and was responsible 
for liaison between these two committees. A member of the Courses 


Committee was also on the University Extension Committee, and the 
Senate Policy Committee had one member who was also an assembly 
representative (University of California, November 8, 1966a). 

Multiple committee appointments also helps maintain liaison 
between Senate committees. Of the 590 faculty on Senate committees 
during the ten-year period, 125 (21 percent) held two or more appoint- 
ments at the same time. Of the I38 individuals who served as chairman 
of any Senate committee dui’ing this period, fifty-six {kl percent) 
were on two or more committees at the same time. Many of these over- 
lapping assignments are due to the fact that the chairmen of certain 
committees are also divisional representatives to the Universitywide 
Assembly. However, there have been some substantive overlapping 
assignments. In past years a chairman of the Committee on Committees 
was also on the University Welfare Committee, a chairman of the 
Division was also on the Budget Committee, and a member of the 
Committee on Committees was also a member of the Senate Policy 
Committee. In recent years, however, the Committee on Committees 
has been reluctant to appoint one person to more than one committee, 
and the practice of significant overlapping appointments appears to 
be subsiding. 

As reported in Chapter 3 , the Senate Policy Committee has 




the hroad responsibility of coordinating the activities of the 
various Senate committees. In its State of the Campus messages, 
the inadequacy of intercommittee coordination and subsequent contacts 
with the administration was cited (University of California, March 
1966; March 7 , 19 ^ 7 ; April 8, 1968). 


According to one campus official, one of the administrative 
problems in trying to manage the University at Berkeley is how to 
penetrate the committee structure of the Academic Senate. Jfeitters 
which have importance far beyond the Senate itself are considered 
in committees, and they are entirely devoid of formal administrative 
representation. Without prior knowledge of some of these issues, 
the administration would find itself in a position of having to 
react to recommendations rather than aiding in their formula- 

For example, one campus administrator discussed a recommend- 
ation for the appointment of the director of an institute. The 
review committee was split three to one on two possible candidates. 
Three of the faculty on the review committee plus the dean of the 
school favored one candidate while the Budget Committee reversed 
the majority in favor of the minority report. The administration 
was faced with having to decide which report to accept but had had 
little opportunity to enter into the discussion process before 
having to make this difficult decision. Another example of lack 

of Senate-administrative consultation occurred when the Senate 
voted, at a meeting eventually terminated due to lack of a quorum, 
not to include students on the Committee on Teaching (University of 
California, June 3j 1968b). The administration had to bear the binmt 
of this ^ h^ rejection of a principle which many militant students 
were not likely to accept passively. The basic criticism of this 
decision was that the Senate failed to consider the issue in its 

entire perspective of student, faculty, and administrative relation- 

Since FSM there have been a few attempts to formalize and 
increase the amount of Senate-administrative consultation on issues 

of joint concern. Some of these attempts are described in the next 

Berkeley Academic Senate Intercommittee . Council ( BASIC ) and 
Other Coordinating Structures 

When a new chancellor came to the campus in I 965 , he was 
advised by some Senate members that previous chancellors had regarded 
an informal advisory mechanism, namely the Academic Advisory Council, 
as the voice of the faculty. The new chancellor was told that this 
was a mistake and was advised to broaden his consultation and infor- 
mational contacts when seeking faculty advice. The mechanism of the 
Academic Advisory Council was dropped, according to one respondent, 
because the faci^ty came to regard it as an arm of the administration 
rather than of the faculty^ In an effort to consult with the 

Academic Senate, the administration requested the Committee on 
Committees to identify some knowledgeable faculty members who would 
serve as a consultative group. Members of the administrative staff 
met with this group a few times but the meetings were not continued 
due to lack of a regular agenda and sufficient staff. 

During the 1966-67 academic year some members of the Senate, 
especially chairmen of certain key committees, came to realize that 
there was not sufficient communication either among Senate committees 
or between these committees and the chancellor. As a result, the 
Berkeley Academic Senate Intercommittee Council (BASIC) was organized 
by the chairman and officers of the Senate (University of California, 
March 1966), The chairmen of approximately ten committees which deal 
with educational policy matters, such as Library, Courses, and 
Educational Policy Committees, began to meet without any administrative 
representative present. After the first few meetings, the chancellor 
was invited to attend and he or his representative began to do so. 

The members of the administration and the chairmen of Senate committees 
who were interviewed and who participated in BASIC were favorable in 
their comments about its effectiveness but it was allowed to lapse 
when a formal council was proposed by the Senate Policy Committee. 

In June of 1968, the Policy Committee introduced legislation 
which was intended to replace BASIC with a Council on Educational 
^ Affairs. The Council was to be composed, of one member of each of 
the ten committees dealing with educational affairs. 

Its charge 


was to serve as a coordinating agency, to examine the committee 
structure in the area of educational policy and recommend changes 
as needed and to devise methods of working closely with the chancellor 
on educational matters (University of California, June 3 ? 1968a). 

This legislation fell just one vote short of the necessary two-thirds 
majority (University of California, June 3 ? 1968a). 

In 1967-68 the administration created an Educational Policy 
Council comprised of academic deans, some members of the chancellor's 
staff, and the chairmen of leading Senate committees dealing with 
educational policy matters. This was a conscious effort by the 
administration to include deans in the educational policy-making 
process and to increase the liaison between the Senate's committees 
and the administration. 

In summary, as of June 1968, BASIC had stopped meeting 
because the Senate was expected to ratify a Council on Educational 
Affairs, which fell one vote short of passage. The administration 
has created an Educational Policy Council consisting of deans, other 
administrators, and the chairmen of leading Senate committees. The 
administration has also developed a system whereby each member of the 
central administration has accepted responsibility for maintaining 
liaison with a group of Senate committees. These responsi.bilities 
are known to the chairmen of each Senate conunittee so that each 
committee has a contact in the chancellor's office. The liaison 
man for the Senate Policy Committee is the executive vice chancellor. 


for CEP he is the vice chancellor for research, and for the Budget 
Coinniittee he is the vice chancellor for academic affairs. 


The University at Berkeley has approximately 100 campuswide 
non-Senate committees which report to the chancellor, a dean, or 
some other administrative hody. The actual number of administrative 
committees depends on how one counts. Campus Report of January 10 , 
1968, cites a figure of 100. A list prepared by the chancellor’s 
contains only eighty-four but with obvious omissions and 
inconsistencies. For example, only twenty- two of the advisory 
committees to research institutes are listed whereas fifty such 
institutes were listed in the Campus Directory that year. In addition 
the Building and Campus Development Committee has approximately forty- 
two subcommittees. The number and nature of administrative committees 
is too complex to discuss in detail here, but a description of some 
of the issues with which these committees deal will help to distin- 
guish between them and Senate committees. 

There are five academic councils or coordinating committees 
such as the Biology Council, the Physical Science Council? and the 
Coordinating Committee on Bioengineering. According to the minutes, 

■the membership of the Biology Council is comprised of the chairmen of 
twelve departments considered to be almost wholly biological plus 
biologically oriented members of five other departments (University 
of California, February 3 , 1966). The council deals with major 


requirements, new programs, and the instructional aspects of the 
program in biology and reports to the dean of letters and sciences 
as well as the vice chanceXlor for academic affairs . 

Approximately twenty- two interdisciplinary committees are 
advisory to the various research institutes and centers on the campus. 
Arts and culture committees, about four in nuniber, advise the chancellor 
concerning the art museum and the theatre. Nine committees are in- 
volved with the distribution of various awards or grants. The chancellor 

has about fifteen ^ hoc or advisory committees which deal with special 
problems such as drug usage, the federal work- study program, the 
campus recreational area, and year-round operations. Nine committees 
deal with personnel and student problems. They include a parking 
appeals committee, a faculty club committee, a committee on foreign 
students, and the Student Conduct Committee. About seven committees 
give advice on public ceremonies, relations with the city of Berkeley, 
the selection of student speakers, and the preservation of natural- 
resources. Nine other committees advise the administration on various 
educational programs such as education abroad, science education, 
and some intern programs. Tnis accounts for eighty of the eighty- 
four committees on the executive vice chancellor’s list. 

The major administrative committee not included in the 
foregoing classification is the Building and Campus Development 
Committee (BCD). This important committee will be discussed in more 
detail in the following section. 


The Building and Campus Development Committee ( BCD ) 

The BCD meets monthly and advises the chancellor on capital 
improvements, space assigaments, land acquisition, student housing, 
and the needs of various departments, research units, and adminis- 
trative offices (University of California, October 6 , I966). 

According to one of its past chairmen, the BCD’s chief function is 
to moderate the physical development of the Berkeley campus and seek 
accommodations when interests clash. The members of the committee 
need to be informed on the academic plan of the campus, changes in 
student mix at Berkeley, and the role of organized research on the 
campus . 

The BCD has twenty-four members, eight of whom are nonfaculty 
people. The eight nonfaculty include two students, the campus archi- 
tect, the campus planner, the registrar, the dean of students, a 
technical advisor, and an as to the chancellor. 

Faculty, and henc> 'I. membership on the BCD is broadly 
representative of the var.' -mic areas on the campus. Appoint- 

ments are made formally by ? vnancellor after consultation with the 

chairman of the BCD. In recent years the Committee on Committees has 


been asked for recommendations. The forty-two subcommittees are 
appointed by the chancellor upon recommendation of the chairman of 
BCD. Many of these subcommittees mediate floor space assignments in 
" the separate buildings on campus. Others deal with parking, land- 
scaping, naming buildings, and campus ecology. The entire list of 


BCD subcoimnittees is found in the Annual Report issued by the 

assistant to the chancellor. Two major subcommittees -v/hich deal 


■with the allocation of floor space are those on space priorities 
and space utilization. The Space Priorities Subcommittee assembles 
priorities in the capital budget for the year and the Space Utiliza- 
Subcomraittee adjudicates space assignment disputes between colleges 
or departments. 

Because floor space assignment is such a controversial 
problem, members of the administration and the Senate have been 
discussing ways in which the Space Utilization Subcommittee could 
become a committee of the Senate or could at least be accountable 
to the Senate. One suggested compromise was to let the Committee on 
Committees appoint the membership of the Space Utilization Committee. 
The BCD now has to mediate some severe conflicts be'tween departments 
and colleges about floor space, and some members of the BCD, the 
faculty, and the administration believe this problem may be 
more effectively handled by a Senate committee than by a committee 
appointed by the administration. 

The Policy Committee, in its State of the Campus message 
(October 11 , 1965b), has questioned the need for a parallel structure 
of administrative committees. Many faculty respondents also complained 
about the existence of administrative committees, regarded as 
intrusions on the viability of Senate committees. These faculty 
respondents argued that a clear faculty -viewpoint was needed on some of 



the matters dealt with hy these committees. 

Members of the administration agreed that some changes 
could be made in the number and structure of administrative committees 
but they also presented several persuasive arguments in favor of 
reoaining some administrative committees. They pointed out that 
the current committee structure of the Academic Senate excludes the 
central administration from the process whereby educational policies 
are formulated. Administrative-Senate committee contact comes only 
at the end of the process. These respondents also revealed that 
Senate committees are free to accept or reject administrative requests 
for advice on any matter. For example, the Committee on Educational 
Policy rejected a request to consider the effects that the increasing 
polioization ox the campus had had on the educational processes of 
the University at Berkeley. 

Also, the administration pointed to its need to discuss 
current problems with members of the faculty informally and confi- 
dentxally before solutions are put in writing in the form of a committee 
report. In cases where Senate committees are unwilling to do this, 
administrative committees are appointed. 

Senate committees claim to be overvrorked and understaffed 


already, and io is doubtful that they could handle the increased 
workload wiohout significant modifications in Senate structure. 

The Policy Committee would find it difficult to coordinate the 
activities of administrative committees, and the current Committee 

on Committees couldn’t handle the extra work. Traditionally, the 
Senate has rejected proposals aimed at providing administrative 
staff to handle the details of facuXty committees, so most of the 
increased workload would fall on the faculty. 

Administrative committees -also have the advantage of per- 
mitting key members of the administration to participate directly in 
the committee’s discussions. Some administrators are, of course, 
also members of the Senate, but many are not. For example, any 
discussions on the campus budget which exclude the assistant to the 
chancellor who is responsible for that document are bound to lack 
information. The intimate details of the budget are known only to 
him and members of his staff, not because they are secretive but 
rather because so much detail is involved. The campus planner, the 
architect, and many others involved in physical planning are not 
members of the Senate but few have argued that they ought to be 

excluded from discussions on their specialties. To do so would be 

Administrative committees also have student members, and 
the Senate has yet to include students on most of its committees 
(University of California, January 10 , I968). Occasional exceptions, 
such as the Governance Commission and the Committee on Student Affairs 
can be cited,but the Senate has not been willing to enlarge student 
participation beyond these committees. 

Finally, the administration claims, and the Policy Committee 


apparently agrees, that there is little jurisdictional overlap 
between the Senate’s committees and those of the administration 
(University of California, January 10 , 1968). It is, hov/ever, likely 

that certain modifications of the administrative committee structure 
can and will be effected. 

Both the faculty and the administration seem to agree that 
greater faculty consultation and control over the allocation of floor 
space would be desirable. The faculty want more voice in this issue 
because, in the absence of the continued groi'jth of physical plant 
and facilities, the issue is extremely important and will become 
even more so. The administration believes that the faculty should 
have more voice in this issue and that some of the conflict which 

is and will be generated over floor space’ ought to be moderated by 
the faculty themselves. 

This chapter has presented research findings and descriptions 
of decision making within faculty committees, intercommittee contacts, 
liaison between the Senate and the administration, and administrative 
committees. During the interviews, an attempt was made to assess 
the amount and nature of Senate contact with students and external 
agencies such as the general public or the Board of Regents. The 

next section describes the responses about these external relation- 
ships . 


•Direct contact between Berkeley Senate committees and non- 


faculty parties are rare. The Budget Committee has received 
occasional phone calls or petitions from students •^'/ho support the 
retention of a particular faculty member. In the early years of 
this study the chairman of the Courses Committee was asked to prepare 
information on course proliferation for the legislature, and the 
chairman of the Budget Committee received a request for information 
from the State Senate's Finance Committee. Both of these requests 
were forwarded through the chancellor's office. 

During the 1964-65 academic year the Emergency Executive 
Committee (EEC) established direct contact with the University Board 
of Regents about the FSM crisis. Members of EEC reported, in their 
interviews, that the committee's relations with the Board were 
complicated by the existence of a conservative faculty "truth squad." 
It became obvious to SEC that the Regents had some direct contact with 
the more conservatively oriented faculty at Berkeley and that these 
relationships were confounding the negotiations between EEC and the 
Regents. According to the respondents, the more conservative faculty 
members felt it necessary to counter some of the information being 
given the Regents about the FSM crisis and life at Berkeley. 

After the dismissal of President Kerr in I 966 , the Division 
delegated to the Senate Policy Committee the responsibility for 
furthering the objectives set forth in the resolution of January 24, 

" including "that the advice and consent of the faculty be secured 
in decisions affecting the appointment and tenure of a President" 


and that affactiva channals ha davalopad wharahy tha savaral 
facultias can comruunicata to tha Ragants concarning major policy 
matters before the Board University of California, p. v/." Direct 
contact between the Universityi^ide Senate and the board must be 
through the office of the president, according to the Standing Orders 
of Regents (University of California, December I967). A meeting 
between the Senate Policy Committee and a committee of the Regents 
■was arranged by the chancellor’s office, however, assuming that dis- 
cussion with a Regents committee did not constitute direct contact 
■with the board. 

In summary, there was little, if any, regular contact between 
the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate and nonfaculty or admin- 
istrative agencies. In times of crisis, the Division attempted to 
initiate direct contact with the Board of Regents and effected some 
meetings between committees of the board and committees of the division. 
There was some evidence that some members of the Regents have direct 
informal access to faculty members at Berkeley and that these 
relationships may have been as important as the formal Division- 
board contacts , It is difficult to assess the extent and nature of 
such contacts. 


The pattern of decision making within faculty committees 
^ is One of consensus, with the entire committee discussing the report 
of a subcommibtee. There appears to be real pressure on committee 


merribers to work out their differences within the committee and 
before reports are issued. The role of the chairman can be very 
important in this process. 

Formal and informal methods for maintaining liaison among 
Senate committees and with the administration were discussed. The 
Senate Policy Committee continues to characterize these methods as 
inadeq.uate but an attempt to create a coordinating council failed. 

During the entire process of Senate committee deliberations, 
extreme care is taken to maintain the integrity and distinctiveness 
of the faculty viewpoint. There is no consultation between the Courses 
Committee and the central administration. The Budget Committee and 
the Committee on Educational Policy deliberate largely independent of 
prior consultation with the central administration. Administrators 
are not free to attend committee meetings but are occasionally 
invited to discuss specific matters. 

The Academic Senate at Berkeley operates closer to a model 
of separate faculty-administrative jurisdictions than to a model of 
shared faculty-administrative authority. Great emphasis is put on 
attempts to create Senate committee consensus before the administra- 
tion becomes involved. 

The existence of administrative committees has proved 
useful and even essential to the administrative functioning of the 
" campus. These committees provide the administration with information 
and advice which the Senate either will not or is not equipped to 


offer. They also provide an opportunity for administrators and 
students who are not Senate memhers to participate in and provide 
information relevant to the decision-making process. 

The Senate's committees have had little contact with the 
public or external agencies. It is difficult to assess the effects 
of the faculty *s discussion with committees of the Regents. 



This chapter will present discussion and conclusions con- 
cerning the effects of crises on the Senate, the characteristics of 
the faculty ruling elite or oligarchy, and a summary of power and 
authority in Senate committees. This chapter also deals with faculty- 
administrative relations and how authority is shared and concludes 
with a discussion of how authority ought to he shared. 

Although no attempt was made to discuss the causes of the 
crises or link the crises and subsequent events in a causal relation- 
ship, certain differences in the amount and style of Academic Senate 
activities are discernible in crisis periods, as compared to noncrisis 
periods. The most obvious and directly measurable concomitant of 
severe crises, such as FSM or the student strike, has been to increase 
the attendance at Senabe meetings (Figure l). Moreover, during such 
crises the amount of discussion, political organizing, and lobbying 
in behalf of the resolutions which are invariably offered to the 
Senate is likely to increase. By the time a crisis resolution is 
presented on the floor of the Senate, it often has been discussed, 

^ reworded, and negotiated to the point where further compromise is 
often- resisted. Some respondents argued that once an important 


resolution gets to the floor of the Senate, it is such a finely 
worded statement that its proponents resist all attempts to change 
it because the nature of the compromise which it represents would 
also change. In such cases, the Senate is no longer a forum for 
debate but has become a place where previously negotiated compromises 
are made , public . 

It seems clear that during crises, overt conflict tended 
to increase and existing differences among the faculty at Berkeley 
were heightened. Those who wrote about the oath controversy pointed 
out that facility conflict was intense during that period. During 
FSM, overt conflict was reflected in the creation of the Committee 
of Two Hundred and the Faculty Forum. The former organization has 
continued to operate informally and may have been reorganized into 
the Berkeley Faculty Alliance, during and after the fall 3.968 crisis 
over the guest lectureship of Eldridge Cleaver. 

Times of crisis have also put severe pressure on the existing 
structures and functions of Senate committees. During FSM, the 
Senate voted to elect the Emergency Executive Committee rather than 
to allow the Committee on Committees to appoint it. The Senate has 
developed the practice of appointing ^ hoc committees to handle 
special problems, and some of these committees have produced stimu- 
lating reports. The addition of special and standing committees 
constitutes one structural response to crisis. 

After FSM and again after the 1966 strike the Senate was 

moved to examine another change in its governing structure. The 
Emergency Executive Committee and the Senate Policy Committee were 
both delegated the authority to speak for the Senate to the Regents 
and the president. This kind of delegation was against the well- 
established traditions of the Senate. Such delegation continued to 
^ hoc and for relatively short periods of time, and the Senate 
has continued to refuse to adopt an executive committee or to delegate 
authority to a representative body on a' permanent basis. 

Also, the functions of some standing committees were changed 
during crises. The creation of the Senate Policy Committee was 
accomplished in such general terms that the committee could consider 
whatever it chose. In its reports the committee has commented on 
enrollment levels, budgetary stringency, and the selection of a new 
president, all of which were matters previously handled by other 
Senate committees . 

Chapter 5 reported a change in the function performed by 
the Committee on Courses. The committee changed its function from 
the detailed review of specific course requests to where it has become 
a central agency for the mediation of competing departmental and 
college courses and curricula. T'Jhether or not this change was 
directly due to crisis or to a prevailing mood of susceptibility to 
change was not clear. The atmosphere of willingness to consider 
change appeared to be an important, but subtle, effect of ESM at 
Berkeley. In the spring of 19^5, some respondents reported that 


the campus was especially receptive to new ideas and was alive 
with the hope of beautiful things to come. The Muscatine Committee 
was v7orking on the problems of undergraduate education at Berkeley, 
the Tussman (1969) experimental program was just getting under way, 
students had "won*' their political freedom, and the ancient rigidity 
of the University had been expored. The faculty had not yet become 
dismayed with rebellious students, and the students were full of 
hope for increased faculty support for their efforts. 

-It is difficult to ■ prove that such an atmosphere ever 
existed but several respondents reported it as fact. It is even more 
difficult to speculate concerning effects of such a mood on 
the Senate. It appears, however, that the Senate as a whole was 
ready to consider some reorganization and educational reform at 
Berkeley. It is not clear that those involved in the committee work 
of the Senate were equally willing to change their methods of opera- 
tion. The Committee on Committees, the Budget Committee, and the 
Committee on Educational Policy all retained their traditional goals 
and methods of operation. 

Not only did the structures and functions of some Senate 
committees change after a crisis but so did some of the relationships 
among the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Regents. In 
times of crisis the faculty has been moved to attempt to change 
^ existing authority relationships. During FSM and after the I966 
strike, the Senate wanted direct contact with the Regents. The 




Senate Policy Cornmittee urged more local autonomy for the campus 
and a sharper separation between Senate and administrative committee 
structures. After the firing of Pi'esident Kerr, the Senate instructed 
the Committee on ¥elfare to examine the possibility of unionism and 
collective bargaining in order to change the faculty position from 
one of petitioners to negotiators, as described in Chapter 2. 

Crises also affect persons involved in Senate affairs to 
some extent but this is a difficult area to measure accurately. One 
two-time chairman of a major committee bold of how the group of people 
with whom he associated came to power during the time of the oath 
controversy. It was obvious to this respondent that those in charge 
of the Senate at that time were out of touch with what the rest of 
the faculty were thinking. This respondent said it became equally 
clear to him that his group was out of touch with the majority when 
FSM occurred. This realization caused him to drop out of active 
Senate committee work. A young associate professor of philosophy 
became an active supporter of the student position during FSM and 
eventually became an assistant to the chancellor. A professor who 
arrived at Berkeley in the fall of 1964 became a member of the tri- 
partite committee to negotiate between the president, the students, 
and the Regents because of his prominence on a nationwide committee 
of the AAUP. He was subsequently appointed to the Committee on 
" Educational Policy and then to the chairmanship of the Senate Policy 
Committee. A member of the Emergency Executive Committee became 


executive vice chancellor. A professor of engineering described 
how he came to realize the importance of students as a result of FSM. 

He immediately volunteered to serve on Senate committees and followed 
up this commitment with direct phone calls to a member of the Committee 
on Committees. He was appointed to the Committee on Courses, became 
the committee s representative on the Graduate Council, and served 
on both of these committees for three-year terms. 

Apparently, crises affect the lives of certain individuals 
in the governance system, motivating them to participate or to stop 
participating. Individuals respond to crisis, and this enhances or 
diminishes their political-administrative visibility. One might argue 
that occasional crises are organizationally useful in that they 
stimulate involvement on the part of political spectators. 

Some things did not seem to be affected by crisis, however. 

The interviews uncovered what might be described as increased sensi- 
tivity to teaching performance on the part of the Budget Committee but 
little change in the basic values of the personnel process . As far 
as could be determined, there was little change in the operation of 
either the Committee on Committees or the Committee on Educational 
Policy. The' Senate itself has made only minor concessions towards 
involving students on its committees, and some of this rigidity can 
be attributed to that group of faculty who tend to control the 
Senate * s machinery. 

In summary, during the various crises on the campus. 

attendance at Senate meetings increased, the amount of informal 
politicking mthin the Senate tended to increase, overt conflict 
increased and existing tensions heightened, and structures and 
functions of some committees changed. The FSM also tended to 
temporarily increase the faculty’s receptivity to reform, bring new 
personalities into governance, and "purge” some older ones. Also, 
during crises the Senate sought new authority relationships with the 
administration and the Regents. However, there is little evidence, 
other than that cited for the Committee on Courses and the Senate 
Policy Committee, to suggest that the functions, priorities, and 
methods of operation of the other four committees responded signifi- 
cantly to crisis. A large part of the explanation for this relative 
unresponsive ness lies in the existence of oligarchic or elite rule 
of Senate machinery. 


One of the major questions for research stated in Chapter 1 
is as follows: 

Can an oligarchy or series of oligarchies he 
identified and defined in an academic setting? If 
\ so, what are the factors which tend to sustain 
oligarchies in academe? 

The answer to the first question is a qualified yes. There 
is a loosely defined group of ruling elite or oligarchy which tends 
to control Senate affairs at Berkeley in the absence of crisis, tut 
the members of the oligarchy vary from one year to another and from 


issue to issue. The data in Chapter 3 revealed a small core of 
faculty who are extremely active in Senate committees, and almost an 
the interview respondents reported that an oligarchy exists. 

A few respondents argued that it was an "open" oligarchy- 
anyone could hecome part of the ruling elite just by making himself 
aware of the issues and devoting time to Senate activities. This 
is probably true but, as will be discussed later, the individual 
apparently also must have an acceptable value structure, possess a 
minimum degree of academic ability, and have demonstrated his research 
capability. It would also help if he were from one of the politically 
astute colleges or departments. 

Other qualifications about elite control of the Senate 
should be mentioned. First, an individual’s commitment to Senate 
activities varies as his own personal interests and professional 
opportunities vary. Second, the issue or problem which is being 
considered will have an important bearing on the people who will be 
involved in the eventual resolution or compromise. 

It became apparent in the course of the interviews that 
some members of the elite of one year had vanished from Senate 
activities completely and abruptly by the next year. The chairman 
of the Division ended his two-year term, went on sabbatical, and 
when he returned it took him another year to catch up on his Senate 
^ homework, leaves and other interruptions, although difficult to 
assess exactly, are important factors in the changes that take 

place in the Senate’s decision-making structure. 

On the other hand, the analysis of the Senate committee 
service of the thirty-eight individuals who were on four or more 
committees showed that some faculty have had a sustained commitment 
to Senate committee activity. The interviews also revealed that 
some persons avoid Senate committee service but remain very much a 
part of the informal decision-making structure by remaining informed 
about Senate affairs. 

Close observation of the Senate over a period of six to 
eight months and intervievzs and other data suggest that the issue 
under consideration is a factor in determining who will be a part 
of the oligarchy. One respondent reported that he has considered 
himself a watchdog for academic freedom in the Senate for the last 
twenty years. Other respondents said that there is a certain loosely 
defined group of people who are sure to take an active interest in 
any issue which they feel involves questions of academic freedom. 

In addition to current and past members of the Committee on Academic 
Freedom, this group would also include some members of the Senate 
Policy Committee, the Executive Committee of the Berkeley AAUP chapter, 
and members of what some call the radical or ultra-liberal group. 

In the absence of crisis, their involvement maybe limited to informal 
conversations among a few people^ the controversy would have to expand 
considerably before engaging the attention of the Senate. 

The characteristics of the ruling elite and some of the 
factors which sustain this loosely defined oligarchy are discussed 

in the following pa.?.graphs. It would, he unwise to interpret the 
discussion too rigidly however, assuming that the factors or charac- 
teristics discussed are possessed by all members of any one group. 

For the most part these are group data and often do not describe 
individual characteristics. 


Chapter 3 pointed out that certain Senate committees are 
largely reserved for full professors and that certain other committees 
were staffed largely by the two lov/er academic ranks. Other data 
discussed in that chapter revealed that those who served on Senate 
committees tended to have been at Berkeley significantly longer than 
a sample of those who had not served on any Senate committee. Those 
who served on Senate committees also tended to have published more. 
These three factors, senior rank, length of time at Berkeley, and 
publication productivity tended to be characteristics of those who 
served on the more important Senate committees. 

Certain departments and professional schools were underrep- 
resented on Senate committees and in one case excluded from Senate 
committee service. Other departments were significantly overrepre- 


sented on Senate committees when compared to a representative sample. 
The excessive reliance in the Committee on Committees on personal 
acq.uaintance with appointees to important Senate committees probably 
is reflected in this imbalance. In a campus of 1700 is 
likely that faculty from traditional academic disciplines, such as 

English, chemistry, and physics -will not he well acquainted with 
many faculty from the professional schools. 

Emphasis on research productivity and other research-oriented 
standards is another important factor in elite control of the Senate. 

One member of the Committee on Committees explained the practice of 
excluding the faculty members of a particular school from Senate 
Committee service with the simple statement, "They do not do 
research over there.’ Other respondents, especially from the Budget 
Committee, identified certain schools or departments as "soft” on 
research quality. ^ Subsequent analysis showed that these schools were 
almost invariably underrepresented on committees. A typical statement 
was, "The best scholars in French and German are in Europe and not 
available to this campus, hence these departments are weak.' Foreign 
languages are significantly underrepresented on Senate committees 
and as chairmen. 

Secrecy of operation is an important factor which sustains 
the rule of the Senate elite. Uo faculty member can publicly challenge 
reports of the Academic Planning, Budget Committee, or Educational 
Policy Committees which are made to the administration. Chapter I 
noted that control over information, which such secrecy assures, is 
an important adjunct to control of the administrative machinery of 
.most political systems. When opposition to existing Senate practices 
is expressed, it is usually based on hearsay evidence and can be 
countered by a superior "grasp of the facts." 

Because of secrecy. 


the facts are not equally available to all parties. For example, 

the Committee on Educational Policy can claim, without fear of 


serious challenge, that the Governance Commi *sion Report misunder- 
stands the committee’s function because few people actually. do know 
what the committee does (University of California, May lU, 1968). 

The committee has no public statement of policies, and its annual 
reports stress the number of times the committee met and what issues 
it considered rather than an evaluation of its activities. 

An important characteristic of the ruling group in the 
Berkeley Academic Senate is the almost unanimous commitment to the 
maintenance of ill-defined quality standards. It is perhaps correct 
to characterize the oligarchy as one composed of those with similar 
academic value priorities. Chapter V argues that the traditional 
standards of quality reflected in the Budget Committee and the Committee 
on Educational Policy are inflexible. These committees do not reflect 
the diversity of values one expects to find on a campus of 1700 

Of course, this conclusion needs more data to be judged as ' 

empirically sound. Nevertheless, in the course of the eighty- four 


interviews conducted for this study it became apparent that the 
diversity of opinions reflected in such agencies as the Muscatine 
Committee, the Governance Commission, and the Board of Educational 
Development was not, with one or two exceptions, represented on the 
major committees analyzed in this report. 


An important factor which ensui’es the application of 
these traditional quality considerations is centralized control of 
the faculty decision-making structure. The Budget Committee, the 
Committee on Educational Policy, and the Courses Committee all perform 
the function of central faculty review over matters previously sub- 
stantively reviewed at the departmental and school or college levels 
and which, except for curricilar matters, will he substantively 
reviewed by the administration. Central faculty review provides an 
important monitoring device over deviations from the traditional 
standards espoused by the elite. Committee reports provide little 
data on the extent to which these committees reverse recommendations 
by lower faculty bodies. 

This is not to imply that central faculty review has no 
proper function, however. The strength of the central faculty review 
described in this research tends to lie in evaluating the research 
aspects of the case and its weaknesses are failure to give adequate 
consideration to other factors such as community need, educai/ional 
relevance, or public relations. The failure of the faculty at the 
central level to adequately weight the "other" consequences of 
educational decisions makes conflict with the administration almost 
inevitable. The administration is forced into the position of bringing 
these factors into the final decision. For example, a Senate committee 
was asked to advise the administration on the feasibility of hiring 
more black faculty members at Berkeley. The committee recommended 


that the q.uality standards of the Universaty not he compromised on 

this point. Such a decision, regardless of its merit, will be 


very difficult for the administration to accept in an atmosphere of 


crisis over a third world college. 

In the last two academic years, 1967-68 and I968-69, the 
campus has had four or five crises of major proportion. One involved 
Dow Chemical recruiters on campus and another was over a Vietnam Day 
ceremony. In I968-69 the Cleaver crisis, the third world college 
strike, and the People's Park issue have all disrupted the campus. 

The perfunctory nature of committee reports to the Senate 
and the lack of an adequate Senate coordinating mechanism are factors 
which al,so sustain the rule of the elite. The Senate does have more 
than thirty standing and six to ten special committees in operation 
at any given time. Few people are aware of what each Senate committee 
actually does , and no central coordinating device exists where this 
information is available. There is little evidence, however, to sup- 
port a charge of Machiavellianism in the lack of a coordinating device. 

The perfunctory committee reports and the lack of committee 
coordination suggest that Senate committees and faculty government at 
Berkeley lack adequate standards of accountability to their constitu- 
ents, the faculty. The town meeting structure of the Senate dif- 
fuses responsibility for actions and makes it almost impossible to 
, hold the Senate accountable for its actions. Important Senate 
committees issue infrequent and usually perfunctory reports 


to the faculty hut make detailed, specific, and confidential recom- 
mendations to the administration. There is no faculty body which 
can hold individual committees responsible for its recommendations. 

A Senate committee can issue negative recommendations on a black 
studies program, the retention of a popular student-oriented faculty 
member, or the compensatory hiring of black faculty without being 
held accountable for the substance of these recommendations. In 
short, few recognized standards of accountability exist for Senate 
committees vis-'k-vis their constituent body, the Senate. 

The review of the literature in Chapter I summarized factors 
which result in oligarchic or minority control of organizations: 
large size, monopoly over political skills, control over sources of 
revenue, and time spent on political-administrative activity. These 
factors are also present in the Academic Senate at Berkeley. 

First, both the size of the Senate membership, currently 
over 1700 faculty, and the number of standing and special committees 
make it virtually impossible for truly "popular" democracy to prevail. 
To elect all thirty committees, for example, would result in an 
excessive number of etc-^tions and place an extra burden on each 
faculty member. 

Second, .he "over- participation" of some faculty in Senate 
affairs perfects th^ir political- managerial r<^lative to the 

nonparticipants. Skill and experience i ^ hi .;u . Senate 

apparatus is an important factor in sustal . ‘ ^ ov ‘,he 


at Berkeley. The third factor, control over sources of revenue, 

might he modified to fit Berkeley by substituting the word informa- 


tion for revenue. Those in positions of Senate responsibility have 
almost a monopoly over the detailed information generated by Senate 
committees. Such information is seldom, if ever, reported to the 
Senate . 

Finally, time spent on Senate activities is also an impor- 
tant feature. Based on the different orientations to academic life 
stated in Chapter 1, it was expected that certain professional-amateur 
administrators would be uncovered. The data confirm that certain 
faculty did indeed spend a good deal more time on Senate affairs 
than others but as a group the data did not confirm that their re- 
search productivity was sacrificed, as hypothesized by McConnell. 

(See Appendix for the necessary qualifications of the productivity 
data.) There was, however, evidence to suggest a linkage between 
committee and administrative activity, as suggested by Presthus in 
Chapter 1. Those who served on Senate committees were significantly 
more likely to also accept administrative positions. Whether or not 

the values of these faculty differed from those of other faculty is 


a pertinent question for further research. Presthus, of course, 
believed that faculty who are heavily involved in administrative 
activity are not representative of faculty values. The findings of 
this study of faculty government at Berkeley also suggest that the 
committee structure of the Senate is not representative of the 


diverse values, goals, and faculty orientations which the discussion 
in Chapter 1 suggests. The lack of value diversity in Senate com- 
mittees was suggested by the analysis of authority and power in 
Senate committees. 


A search for consensus is the basic characteristic of 
decision making within the six Senate committees analyzed in this 
report. Few minority reports were issued by these committees and in 
most instances, votes were not recorded. The limited number of 
committees may not have been representative of the broad range of 
committees in operation at Berkeley, but if so this was not apparent 
from the systematic analysis of committee reports. Public minority 
reports of Senate committees were rare and the conflict which was 
apparent in Senate meetings was not reflected in its committees. 

The role of the chairmen of the committees tended to be very 
important in tiie committees studied. The chairman was usually the 
only committee member with a view of the entire range of the committee’s 
activities. The chairmen of some Senate committees are quasi-adminis- 
trators and perform an important liaison function with the adminis- 

Chapter I briefly discussed models of governance. Reference 
was made to Millett’s concept of consensus in academic 

governance as 


opposed to the traditional bureaucratic or formal types of organi- 
zation. The central question in such debates tends to be how 
authority is shared in academic governance. 

First, it L-eems clear that the faculty have almost absolute 
control over the operation of the Academic Senate. Alt ho some 

administrators are members of the Senate, as provided in the Bylaws, 
few central administrators are members of Senate committees. The 
Committee on Committees tries not to appoint even department chairmen 
to Senate committees. The Senate Policy Committee has also taken 
great care to maintain its status as a distinctly separate faculty 
committee so that there is little or no formal administrative involve- 
ment here either. 

The issue of curriculum, as reflected in the discussion of 
the Courses Committee, is also one in which the faculty retains almost 
absolute control. Curricular matters also are dealt with by the 
Board of Educational Development and the Graduate Council, both of 
which have administrative members and which do not exercise absolute 
control therefore. The Courses Committee functions as a mediator 
of competing departmental curricular interests, also separate from 
central administrative involvement. The committee makes final 
decisions and seldom consults with the central administration. 

Shared authority on the issue of personnel is more complicated. 
The recommendations of the Budget Committee were sustained by the 
administration approximately 95 percent of the time, and extensive 



consultation took place in cases of administrative reversal. The 
first substantive central administrative involvement in individual 
personnel cases came with the selection of ad hoc review committees 
nominated by the committee and chosen by the administration. X^here 
review committees are not appointed, the administration is not involved 
until it receives the Budget Committee’s final report. With the 
major exception of the dean of letters and science, the committee 
issues confidential reports directly to the administration. 

The administration’s role in appointing review committees 
can be an important one and often is. But the important point to 
note is that with this exception, the faculty recommendation is 
issued without prior central administrative involvement, and the 
administration is forced to react. On personnel cases there is little 
prior discussion between faculty and central administrators. 

When educational policy issues 'are involved, such as evalua- 
tion of academic units or proposals for new ones, a faculty concern 
for a clearly separate point of view appears to prevail. The Committee 
on Educational Policy consults with the central administration on 
policy matters but is careful to protect the integrity of its own 
views when advising the administration on specific problems. Contrary 
to the practice in personnel cases, the administration and the 
Committee on Educational Policy have no regularized system of con- 
sultation when the administration doesn’t accept the Committee’s 


Faculty involvement in decisions affecting the “budget is 
circumscribed by a wide range of problems and practices at the 
Universitywide level. Faculty members now review only the broad 
policy aspects of the budget and leave the details to the adminis- 
tration. Basic formulas for allocations are made in the chancellor’s 
office or at the state level without extensive involvement of the 
faculty from the individual campuses. On each of the preceding issues 
faculty committees are appointed solely by other faculty members and 
there is little prior consultation between the faculty and the 
central administration. Wher floor space is allocated, however, 
administrative committees make recommendations for action. The 
committees are composed of both administrators and faculty, and joint 
discussion appears to be the norm before final committee decisions 
are reached and passed to the chancellor for action. 

In summary, the governance system as it operates in personnel 
educational policy, curriculum, and Senate affairs is largely one 
of separate faculty jurisdictions. When the administration of the 
Academic Senate or curricular affairs are involved, the Senate clearly 

operates separately from administrative involvement. The Budget Com- 


mittee and the Committee on Educational Policy issue reports to the 
administration which do not normally involve prior consultation. In 
personnel cases the administration consults with the Budget Committee 
before changing a recommendation but no such arrangement was uncovered 
on educational policy matters. 


When the budget or the allocation of floor space is in- 
volved, the role of the administration is larger. It seems that 
there is joint participation in the early stages of decision making 
on floor space. On the other hand, there is little evidence that 
faculty advice on budgets is crucial in decisions which result in 
resouj'ce allocations. 


Chapter I discussed a model of democratic government. In 
the absence of crisis, a democracy is administered by a ruling 
oligarchy or political „elite, but in times of crisis larger numbers 
of people become involved in government. Greater popular awareness 
of and involvement in governmental affairs theoretically causes the 
elite to make policy adjustments. These accommodations allow people 
to return to their roles of informed but uninvolved citizens. A key 
requirement of a democratic governance system is that the elite be 
responsive to popular will when crises occur. 

Senate meetings were the principal arena of conflict, and 
Senate committees, with the exception of the Senate Policy Committee, 
remained relatively detached from this conflict. This raises a 
serious question as to the continued viability of a ‘committee gover- 
nance system which appears to be only marginally responsive to crises. 
An important question is what happens when that group of people who 
do become involved in an issue realize that little or no change in 
that policy has occurred? What concessions should or must a ruling 


elite or the majority make in a major itarian democracy in order to 
keep the minority working within the system instead. of trying to 
subvert it? 

The Study Commission on University Governance issued a 


proposal to drastically decentralize the campus into communities of 
more manageable size in order to promote a more lively sense of 
membership and to make it easier to initiate changes (University of 
California, January l6, I968). The report urged that a first minimal 
step should be to eliminate many of the present levels of review. 

The commission recommended strengthening the existing Senate structure 
in order to defend the campus against the immediate danger of regental 
encroachments. The commission also recommended the simultaneous 
pursuit of methods to strengthen the faculty role in departments, 
schools, and colleges (University of California, January 15j I968). 
This research has not dealt with faculty governance in departments 
and schools within the University, but the need for strengthening 
the Senate is apparent. 

The Berkeley Academic Senate .should find ways to broaden 
the participation patterns of those faculty who hold non- traditional 
views. More specifically, the Committee on Committees should be less 
concerned about appointing committees that will produce unanimous 
reports in favor of committees that would -be mfe’e representative 
' of the diversity of values and viewpoints on the campus. Some of 


these differing views may be irreconcilable, and, in such cases. 


minority views ought to be clearly stated in committee reports. 

In some cases, extensive minority reports have been issued, but they 
usually involve special not standing committees. The Muscatine 
Committee and the Study Commission on University Governance issued 
lengthy minority reports that differed basically with the majority 
reports (University of California, I966, April 1968). The conflict 
revealed in open Senate meetings and permeating the atmosphere of 
the campus should also be included in the committee structure. 

Increased overt conflict within faculty committees is an important 
accommodation that should be made by the majority. 

To work with increased internal conflict, Senate committees 
will have to gain the extra time necessary to allow for the expression 
of different views. This probably could be done by adding staff to 
handle clerical functions. Faculty suspicion of administrative- 
clerical personnel has led to the argument that the faculty must 
handle the details of its involvement in governance, and this is a 
difficult objection to counter. If faculty cannot trust administrative 
followup to clerical and administrative personnel, then a great deal 
of faculty effort will be wasted on clerical duties. 

The Governance Commission’s statement that the faculty must 
organize itself to achieve more informed deliberation and integration 
with other elements of the campus underscores the preceding recom- 
mendations. The extent to which faculty inform themselves about 
an issue will probably still be functions of orientations to academic 


lifs as dsscrilDsd in Chaptsp 1 and of* "th.© various crisss which 
confront the campus. 

The institutionalization of conflict in coramittees would 
channel the organization’s conflict into educationally relevant 
output. Those who favor compensatory hiring of black faculty members, 
for example, should be involved in committees which make recommenda- 
tions on that issue. Those who are "sympathetic” to the needs of 
undergraduate teaching as opposed to the needs of graduate research 
training should be included in the membership of the Budget Committee. 

In lieu of formal committee membership and to provide more 
diverse inputs into the committee decision-making process, the 
Berkeley Academic Senate should experiment with open committee 
meetings when basic policy matters are being discussed. These open 
meetings should be announced far enough in advance so that adequate 
time for discussion is available. The purpose of open meetings 
would be to encourage the public expression of the various alterna- 
tives to a given policy matter. 

In sura, conflict should be functional and could enhance the 
viability of the Berkeley Senate committee structure. An overt 
recognition of conflicting views among the faculty and an attempt to 
incorporate them into both the Senate per se and its educational 
decision-making structures seems a better way of handling the 
situation than covert attempts to produce Senate committee consensus 
on issues where consensus does not exist. 



John Gustad (I966) summarized this same point as follows: 

What is required is the frank and detailed identi- 
fication and description of the relevant reference 
groups and the demands they make on the members of 
the several communities /faculty, administrators, 
trustees, and student^ so that the conflicts can be 
dealt with openly /p. 450/. 

The faculty at Berkeley should also begin a thorough and 
intensive discussion directed at establishing general standards of 
accountability for the Senate and its committees. As it stands. 

Senate committees can report or not report, as they please. Reports, 
when issued, are often perfunctory and do not adequately describe 
the policies on which decisions are based. The proposed change to 
a representative body would probably help fix responsibility for 
attendance and for actions taken by the Senate but committee account- 
ability would still not necessarily be improved. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, competing needs in a multiversity 
require a governance structure that provides for an acceptable degree 
of administrative efficiency concurrent with a degree of responsive- 
ness to constituent groupings, ’whether ir. the majority or the minority. 
The advantage of oligarchic control of faculty governance structures 
tends to be administrative efficiency. Its disadvantages are likely 
to be unresponsive ness to the wide range of faculty ’interests and 
values which permeate the University. 

Given these "realities," it is difficult to see how the 
maintenance of strictly separate faculty and administrative areas of 
j'urisaiction will do anything but perpetuate control of faculty 


governance by the ruling elite. Furthermore , exclusion or mere 
"token" inclusion of minority viewpoints in faculty decision-making 
structures sets the stage for faculty-administrative relationships 
based on an adversary principle. A system of separate jurisdic- 
tions also does not appear to take into consideration the need for 
the administrative efficiency necessary to the management of a large 

Attempts to create consensus and communal feelings based 
on majoritarian values which do not reflect the basically different 
values of the articulate and well-informed minority encourage that 
minority to precipitate confrontations to be sure their views receive 
adequate consideration. In short, communal or consensual organization 
is no longer, if it ever was, an adequate response to the conditions 
of size, scale, and value diversity which confront contemporary 

A more promising model of university governance is the one 
embodied in the principle of shared authority between the faculty, 
administrative officers, and, where appropriate, students. The concept 
of shared authority provides for participation in policy matters 
by all parties affected by policy decisions. The requisites of shared 
authority are not satisfied by mere discussion between the adminis- 
tration and a faculty oligarchy, T-Hiatever accommodations are to be 
made in a given situation must be made through formal or informal 
processes which are representative of as many constituent groupings 


as possible. The opposition to the faculty majority muct be involved 
in the resolution of a problem, and this problem must be considered 
on its educational merits as well as on its administrative, budgetary, 
and political feasibility. 

There are also some structural mechanisms which should be 
a part of the system of shared authority. First, decision-making 
structures in both the faculty and administrative burea.ucracies 
should be as open as possible. When committees are appointed, care 
should be taken to ensure that they reflect a wide range of viewpoints. 
In personnel cases, the individual should always be told why he is 
not being retained or promoted. There should be periodic, open, and 
substantive discussions of the criterfa on which personnel and educa- 
tional policy decisions are based. 

Second, conflict within the faculty and between the faculty 
and the administration on any issue should be acknowledged, and the 
educational relevance of these differences should be the basis of 
broad substantive discussions. This model of democratic governance 
assumes that there will be conflict within the faculty. Some of this 
conflict will be over consistently differing views of what a university 
ought to be doing, over conflicting academic roles, or different 
orientations to academic life. These conflicts should be overt ones 
directed towards the substance of the educational issue involved, 
not covert discussions among a small cadre of ruling faculty elders, 
or 'voluntary pressure groups. 

Third, wherever possible, alternative solutions to a 
problem should be discussed jointly between faculty and administra- 
tive agencies. Situations in which a coimnittee confronts the adminis- 
tration with one answer to a problem encourage confrontations. It 
may well be that value diversity, differences of opinion, or different 
academic interests will sometimes result in occasional confrontations 
but at the least they should te informed confrontations based on 
prior discussions. 

Finally, it is difficult to overstate the need for increased 
sensitivity on the part of the ruling faculty elders and the adminis- 
tration toward the views and the divergent values which exist in a 
multiversity. Those in positions of power must respond visibly to 
the internal pressures of various groupings if the legitimacy and 
viability of existing governance structures are to be sustained 
and if change is to be orderly rather than precipitous. 



The publication scores reported in Chapter 3 represent an 
attempt to compare various faculty members’ average yearly publica- 
tion output in some standard unit of measure. 

A review of the literature revealed that other scholars 
had also attempted to measure publication performance. Berelson 
(i960), in his book Graduate Education in the United States , compiled 
a list of the top journals in five discipline areas. He then 
cataloged the authors of major articles which appeared in these 
journals and identified the institution from which each author had 
graduated. He compared the publication output of the graduates of 
these institutions, based on a figure he labeled average number of 
publications per degree recipient. 

When measuring publication productivity in Academic Women , 
Jessie Bernard (1964) simply counted the entire output of scientists, 
including books, articles, abstracts, teaching aids, etc. and 
computed the average. Lazarsfeld and Thielens (1958) used a product- 
ivity index which awarded one point for each of the following 
activities: l) writing a dissertation, 2) publishing one or more 

papers, 3) publishing one or more books, and 4) delivering three or 
more papers at professional meetings. 

Cartter’s (I966) concept of article equivalents was the 









I • 



one finally adopted for use in this study. He sought to create 
productivity indices in economics, English, and political science. 

In economics, for example, he cataloged all articles, shorter com- 
munications, hook reviews, and hooks reviewed in six major journals. 
He weighted these hy equating them with substantive articles as 
follows (Cartter, I966; Lazersfeld & Thielens, I958): 

foiu? short communications = one article 

eight hook reviews = one article 

a theoretical research hook = six articles 
a text hook = three articles 

an edited collection = two articles 

The weighting of these categories varied slightly for English and 
political science. Cartter used these data to compute his product- 
ivity index. 

The publications score used in Chapter 3 was compiled from 

a systematic recording of publications reported on each individual's 

bio-hib supplements for the nine-year period from j.957-58 to I965-66. 

The scores were kept and weighted as follows: 

Book = eight articles 

Textbooks and edited collections = four articles 
Major articles = two articles 

Minor articles and hook reviews = one article 

Because the number of annual supplements filed hy each individual 
varied, the total score computed from the above data was divided by 
the number of supplements filed. The result is equal to the publica- 
tion scores reported in Chapter 3. The score is the average annual 
publication in terms of minor articles or hook reviews. A score 
of 1.0 means that the individual has averaged one minor article 


or review per year. A score of 8 could mean an average of one book, 
two textbooks, four articles, or eight book reviews in a given year. 

The research conducted in this project did not attempt to 
relate the publication score to quality of publication or use it as 
a measure of creativity or inventive genius. Both Cartter and 
lazarsfeld did relate departmental productivity to quality ratings, 
but not individual productivity. The current research used pro- 
ductivity as a measure of activity and contrasts it with another 
measure of activity, namely Senate committee servi.ce. The text of 
the report also implied that publication or lack of it can affect 
professional mobility. 

These data are used to analyze group, not individual, 
relationships. This writer fully realizes that the publication out- 
put of an individual may not reveal his creative abilities or the 
quality of his thought. 


Almond, G. A., & VerTja, S. The civic culture. Boston: Little, 

Brown, 1965. 

Bereleon, B. Graduate education in the United States. New York: 
McGraw-Hill, i 960 . 

Bernard, J. Academic women. University Park, Pennsylvania: 
Pennsylvania State University Press, 196U. 

Blau, P., 8e Scott, W. R. The organization and its publics. 

Formal organizations . San Francisco: Chandler, I962. 

Pp. 60-73 . 

Boyer, W. U. Bureaucracy on trial. Indianapolis: Bohbs-Merrill , 


Bundy, M. Faculty power. Atlantic , September 1968, 222, 41-^7 • , 
Campbell, A., The American voter . New York: John Wiley 

and Sons, 1964. 

Caplow, T., & McGee, R. The academic marketplace . New York: 

Anchor Books, I965. 

Cartter, A. M. M assessment of quality in graduate education . 

Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, I966. 

Clark, B. R. Faculty organization and authority. In T. F. Lunsford 
(Ed. ) , The study of academic administration . Boulder: 
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963 (a). 


Clark, B. R. Faculty cultures. The study of ca^ipus cultures. 
Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher 

Education, 1963(h). 

Cline, J. , & Hutson, A. E. A century of faculty government. 
California Monthly , March I966, 19 . 

Dahl, R. A. Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, Hew 
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, I963. 

Demerath, N. J., Stephens, R. W. , & Taylor, R. R, Power , presidents 
and professors . New York: Basic Books, I967. 

Eley, L. W. The University of California at Berkeley: Faculty 

participation in the government of the university. 

AAUP- Bulletin . March I96U, 5-13. 

Etzioni, A. Administrative and professional authority. Modern 
organizations . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 

1964. Pp. 75-93. 

Gardner, D. P. The California oath controversy . Berkeley: Univer- 

sity of California Press, I967. 

Gouldner, A. W. Cosmopolitans and locals. Admini str at ive Science 
Quarterly . March 1958, 4ii4-4-90. 

Gustad, J. W. Community, consensus and conflict. The Educational 
Record, fall 1966, 441-450. 

Kornhauser, W. Scientists in industry. Berkeley: University of 

California Press , 1962 . 

LaPorte , T. R. Conditions of strain and accommodation in an 


industrial research organization. Administrative Science 
Quarterly , June 19^5 j 21-38. 


Lazersfeld, P., & Thielens, W. The academic mind. Glencoe, 111.: 
Free Press, 1958. 

Lipset, S. M. , et al. Union democracy . Garden City: Anchor Books, 


Lunsford, T. F. The “ free speech” crises at Berkeley , 196 U- 69 : 

Some issues for social and legal research . Berkeley : 

Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, 


Marascuilo, L. A. Large sample multiple comparisons. Psychological 
Bulletin , 1966, 65, 280-290. 

Marcson, S. The scientist in American industry . Princeton: 
Princeton University Department of Economics, I96O. 
McConnell, T. R. Stability and change in colleges and universities. 
Unpublished, 1966. 

Michels, R. Political parties . New York: Dover, 1959» 

Mlbrath, L. W. Political participation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 


Millett, J. The academic community: An essay on organization. 

New York: McGraw-Hill, I 963 . 

Monsen, R. J. , & Camion, M. ¥. The makers of public policy . 

San Francisco: McGraw-Hill, 19^5. 

Mortimer, K. P. Academic government at Berkeley: The academic 

senate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University 
of California at Berkeley, 1969. 

Mortimer, K. P., & McConnell, T. R. Faculty participation in 

university governance. In C. Kruytbosch & S. Messinger 
(Eds . ) , The state of the university: Papers on authority 

and change . Sage Publications, in press. 

Peabody, R. Perceptions of organizational authority: A comparative 

analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly , March I962, 

465 - 470 . 

Presthus, R. University bosses: The executive conquest of acaaeme. 

Nevr Republic , February 20 , I965 9 20-24 . 

Scott, W, R. Professional and complex organizations. In H. Vollmer 
& D. Mills (Eds.), Professionalization . Englewood Cliffs, 
N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1966. Pp. 265-275. 

Stewart, G. R. The year of the oath . Garden City, N. Y.: 

Doubleday, 1950. 

Stewart, G. R. On tiniversity government . Berkeley: Berkeley 

Chapter of American Association of University Professors, 


Tussman, J. Experiment at Berkeley. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1969. 

University of California. Standing orders of the Regents of the 

University of California. Manual of the Academic Senate. 

Berkeley: the University, November I966. 


University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 

Senate. Notice to meeting: Meeting of the Berkeley 

Division of the Academic Senate, October 7, 1957* 
University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Senate. Notice to meeting, October 1^, 1958. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Senate. Notice to meeting, October 9, 1961. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Senate. Notice to meeting, November 20, 1962. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Senate. Minutes of March 5, 1963. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic 
Senate. Notice to meeting, March 26, 1963. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of December 9, 1963. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, January 13, 196^. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of March 10, 1964. 


University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting. May 12, 196U(a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of May 12, 1964(b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 


Minutes of Octoter 13, 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the- Academic Senate. 
Minutes of December 8, 1964. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of December 10, 1964. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of February 8, 1965 . 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
M5.nutes of March 8, 1965* 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, March 29, 1965(a)* 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of March 29s 1965(b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of April 5 a 1965* 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting. May 10, 1965 (a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of May 10, 1965 (b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the. Academic Senate. 
Minutes of May 13, 1965 (a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice of meeting. May 13, 1965(b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 


Notice to meeting, October 11, 1965(a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Policy Committee. State of the campus, October 11, 


University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Education at Berkeley. Berkeley: University of Calif- 

ornia Press, 1966. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic- Senate. 
Minutes of January 24, 1966. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, March 22, I966. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, April 10, I966. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, October 17, I966. 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Bylaws of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Berkeley: the University, November 8, 1966(a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, November 8, 1966(b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of November 8 , 1966 ( c ) . 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Notice to meeting, December 5a 1966 (a). 


University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate.. 
Minutes of Deceraher 5s 1966(h). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of January 1, 196? • 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of January 2U, 1967 . 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meetings , April 10 , 196 T • 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Notice to meeting. May I 6 , 1967 . 

University of Cilifornia, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, October 16 , 1967* 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, December U, 1967* 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Notice to meeting. May lU, I 968 . 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting, June 3, 1968(a). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 
Minutes of June 3, 1968(b). 

University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, 
Policy Committee. State of the campus, March I 966 . 
University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, 
Policy Committee. State of the campus, April 1966 . 



University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, 
Policy Committee c State of the campus , March T , I 967 . 
University of California, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. 

Policy Committee. State of the campus, April 8 , I 968 . 
University of California at Berkeley, Biology Council. Minutes of 
Fehruary 3, 1966 . 

University of California at Berkeley , Building and Campus Develop- 
ment Committee. Minutes of October 6 , I 966 . 

University of California, Northern Section of the Academic Senate. 

Notice to meeting: Meeting of the Northern Section of the 

Academic Senate. May 21, 1957. 

University of California, Study Commission on University Governance. 
The culture of the university : Governance and education . 

Berkeley: The Daily Californian , January 15, 1968. Pp. 26-27. 

University of California, Study Commission on Academic Governance. 

The challenge to the university: A dissenting report. 

Berkeley: The Daily Californian , April 4, 1968. Pp. 9-l6. 

University of California at Berkeley. Campus directory. Berkeley: 
the University, 1968 . 

University of California at Berkeley. Campus report . Berkeley: 
the University, January 10, I 968 . 

Weber, M. Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills 
(Eds.), Max Weber . New York: Oxford University Press,