The Chapel Hill weekly., 1958-11-10

JbErt Is 2lWdEk the pJSSlDll1Iy o. rays
q information being refracted by the
media through which they pass have
often wondered in recent years, what
my requests sounded Ike By the time
they reached the level Of decision.
Somewhere along this line decisions
are made. but where and BY whom is
10, always clear The system offers ad-
mirabie opportunities for hedging and
passing Inc buck Nor can faculty n1enb-
ers be consulted, no matter how great
their competence on q given subject.
They cannot be consulted because they
are not in the chain Of command
Thus. one university with nation
ally known expert IL the field Of pub
lcatlon has never once consulted him
On matters regarding the university's
own publication program. Another UNI
versity plagued with labor troubles has
never availed Itself Of Z labor conciha-
tor OF is faculty Decisions by burea-
ucracy are merely announced, as fats
accompis
4 second difficulty is that the grow
n q Inc bureaucracy has expanded
enormously the number Of persons with
whom the lowly faculty member must
curry favor Time WAS when only the
dean and the department chairman nat
tered Now the entire chain Of command
must have To be taken into considera-
ton. for II is one of the devious aspects
q the bureaucrat III action that, as
DJllas has pointed out, be finds himself
q. war with anything which he does not
aemlnlster A large and powerful bur
eaacracy, tben, places 4 premium upon
serslc 70 its ENDS, and these tend not
always 70 coincide with the primary
function of the teacher.
This manifests Itself particularly in
regard 70 promotions. Two groups of
faculty members tend 10 BE- promoted
those whose work is 50 outstanding
that they must BE promoted, and those
who serve the administration True,
most universities now have standardiz-
"a procedures and rules governing pro
motions, but in interpreting them the
administration a. many universities re-
minds one u children al play Both
groups play ~ the rules, but they
change the rules when and as It is ~
tApS iergf far tkerr IN Ia sa
Il is clear that the abnormal grow
th of non-teaching bureaucracy makes
for d general reduction in university
efficiency. This is not only because
mere size makes it unwieIdy but also
because administrators become involved
IN wrangiing with one another as well
as in JustifyinY themselves " one an
other
More important is the undoubted
fact that the efficiency Of the faculty
is reduced The proportion of time facul-
y members must give 10 the meeting
of administrative details is far from
humorous. The writer has carefully
noted and tabulated his own experience.
These administrative requirements ac-
count for from two 10 three weeks time
out u every fifteen which are consid-
cred d term of academic teaching. Mul-
tiplied for an entire faculty this repre-
sents a serious loss A friend, always
inclined u take light view Of serious
matters, suggests that faculty members
today need 10 retire al 70 because they
cease u have the energy 10 meet all the
detailed demands Of the non-teaching
bureaucracy.
Finally, there is the financial cost
Of maintaining plethora. The exact facts
are difficult to determine, since finan-
cial reports Of universities are not al
ways open to the scrutiny of inquiring
faculty members, nor are they suffici-
emily clear in their distinction between
teaching and administrative costs.
But the price is high and few uni
g.rpist.v ...pnofafI,, IN thia dau ~ infla4 .