Even Z. Vegt, professor of Social Anthropology and master of Kirkland House, says that "we find ourselves sitting on an endless series of committees. In the long run it's a good thing, but it certainly is time-consuming." John L. Clive, professor of History and Literature, agrees. "If you look at the calendars of faculty members, there's meeting of this committee or that committee. There just isn't much time left for other things." Riesman says that the democratization of the University has increased the obligations of all professors to non-teaching matters. The question that must be asked, he says, is, "Do students want more committees or more attention?"

With such a premium placed on professors' time, a number of senior faculty question the attitude of undergraduates toward their instructors. Among some professors there exists an attitude of mixed wonderment and criticism toward the prevailing hunger for contact with faculty. Donald Fleming. Trumbull Professor of American History, who denies that there has been any change in student-faculty relations since 1969, says that it is "unintelligible" why students are eager for contact with senior faculty. "To me that is the most extraordinary psychological and sociological phenomenon of all. One has to think there's an element of romantic fantasy in it. There must be a feeling that marvelous things would take place if one were in contact with faculty members."

Clive talks of the "rising expectations" of students, many of whom "want more from these contacts than a lot of people feel they can give. To same extent this' desire to see faculty has become a thing-in-itself. It's an irrational thing. When you do see students, you don't know if it's an avuncular, paternal relation or if it's for intellectual or psychological sustenance."

Unrealistic Expectation

Similarly, Riesman talks of the "unrealistic expectations" of students at Harvard. "They want all the advantages of Harvard combined with all the advantages of Swarthmore," he says of the persistent demands for contact with faculty.

Both Clive and Jerome H. Buckley, professor of English Literature, agree that students take less initiative than they could in their relations with senior faculty. "Almost everyone I know is waiting to see students, but they just don't come. Students could put more initiative into it. They are really the ones staying aloof." Others, such as Heimert and Michael L. Walzer, chairman of the Social Studies Department, say that when students do come to their office hours it is often to haggle over grades and other matters concerning what Heimert terms "calculation."

Walzer, Clive and Fleming are among those who minimize any holdover effect the events of 1969 may have had on present-day attitudes of senior faculty members toward their relations with undergraduates. However, given the more general recognition that the 1969 takeover of University Hall has to some extent traumatized those who lived through it, and furthermore that the effects of the late '60s are often "subliminal," according to Dean Rosovsky, rather than conscious, it seems likely that aloofness of the faculty from undergraduates will continue. Meanwhile, the Faculty Club will probably remain the most popular watering spot on campus for senior Faculty