KGuCbsr 
 
 Illinois. University. Presi 
 dentCStoadardl) 
 The Russell report. 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
 are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
 result in dismissal from the University. 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 L161— O-1096 
 
THE RUSSELL REPORT 
 
 MEMORANDUM to the Board of Trustees 
 of the University of Illinois 
 
 FROM George D. Stoddard 
 
 President of the University 
 
 MARCH, 1951 
 

 MEMORANDUM 
 
 To the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 
 
 From George D. Stoddard 
 President of the University 
 
 On the "Report of the Study of the Structure 
 
 of the State Tax-Supported System of Higher 
 
 Education in Illinois" 
 
 Made by a Staff Under the Direction of the 
 
 Division of Higher Education 
 
 Office of Education 
 
 Federal Security Agency 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 MARCH, 1951 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 This Memorandum to the Board of Trustees of the University of 
 Illinois discusses the report of the Study of the Structure of the State 
 Tax-Supported System of Higher Education which was made at the 
 request of the Governor of Illinois by a staff from the Division of 
 Higher Education of the Office of Education, Federal Security Agency. 
 The report of the Study, dated December 13, 1950, was printed by 
 authority of the State of Illinois and was made available to the public 
 in January, 1951. 
 
 The Study was made under the supervision of Dr. John Dale 
 Russell, Director of the Division of Higher Education in the Office of 
 Education. It is referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the "Russell 
 Report." 
 
 At a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 
 on January 23, 1951, I submitted a preliminary Memorandum on the 
 Russell Report based on a first reading. At the annual meeting of the 
 Board of Trustees on March 13, 1951, I submitted this second Memo- 
 randum. (The first Memorandum is presented as an Appendix.) 
 
 George D. Stoddard 
 
 President of the University of Illinois 
 
 Urbana, Illinois 
 March, 1951 
 
SECOND MEMORANDUM 
 
 PART ONE 
 
 On January 23rdj 1951, soon after the distribution of the Report 
 of the Study of the Structure of the State Tax-Supported System of 
 Higher Education in Illinois (John Dale Russell, Chairman), I sub- 
 mitted a memorandum for the information of the Board.^ It was 
 understood that this would be followed by a more explicit statement. 
 
 I have now had an opportunity to analyze the Russell Report in 
 some detail. However, it is my intention to emphasize only the main 
 issues and to propose some solutions that were overlooked by the 
 Russell survey staff. 
 
 In the first memorandum I pointed out: 
 
 ( 1 ) That the Russell Report erred in its interpretation of the actions of 
 the University of Illinois with respect to its Undergraduate Division at 
 Galesburg. 
 
 (2) That the Russell Report erred similarly with respect to the Under- 
 graduate Division in Chicago (Navy Pier). 
 
 (3) That the consequence of these two errors, and of other misconcep- 
 tions, was a failure to include (as a way to improve coordination in 
 higher education) an additional alternative, namely, the California-type 
 of control in which the state university predominates. 
 
 (4) That, for reasons given, all the Russell alternatives except Alterna- 
 tive II, as revised, should be rejected. 
 
 Before considering alternatives further, I should like to refer to a 
 few statements in the Russell Report. 
 We read (page 3) : 
 
 "... the most urgent situation demanding a solution is the problem of 
 the general overhead control of higher education in the State." 
 
 * Sec Appendix, p. 12. 
 
This theme dominates the report although there is little to indicate 
 why this problem is, in fact, urgent. I should say, rather, that the most 
 urgent problems in higher education in the State are : 
 
 (a) to improve the quality of instruction, research and public service in 
 all the institutions of higher learning; 
 
 (b) to extend the privileges of higher education to that large segment 
 of the intellectually qualified youth population now denied them. 
 
 We read (page 5) : 
 
 "The attitude in this report is that the people of Illinois are responsible 
 for choosing from among these suggested alternatives, or combinations of 
 items from these alternatives, the particular steps that are at present 
 feasible and that seem most likely to accomplish desirable results." 
 
 Clearly, this statement in the foreword begs the question. There 
 are other alternatives; there are other items. In suppressing them, the 
 Russell Report quietly tips the scales in a certain direction. 
 
 What is this direction? 
 
 In a nutshell, it is that the State ought to have a central agency 
 in Springfield to control all State-supported higher education. This 
 idea appears repeatedly in the Report. It is offered as a preconceived 
 solution. It so dominates the authors of the Report that they fail 
 to evaluate certain basic issues. 
 
 For example, we read (page 11) : 
 
 "... when competing programs minister to small groups of students 
 or produce more graduates than can be absorbed in the positions for 
 which preparation is given, the waste and inefficiency should not be 
 condoned." 
 
 Now this quotation is not in line with modem educational thought. 
 Certain types of programs, as in mathematical, philosophical or medi- 
 cal work, are likely to appeal only to small groups of students in a 
 given location. About a dozen competing small groups of professors 
 and students produced almost all we know about atomic fission. It is 
 right and proper for a university to covet the emergence of such groups 
 as an opportunity for its best brains. 
 
 But the chief error is to trim higher education to some nose-count 
 of positions available in a particular field. Every such attempt has 
 failed. Two years ago our engineering educators were fearful that we 
 were producing too many engineers. Now, in the Spring of 1951, the 
 potential shortage of engineers is so great as to constitute a definite 
 military and industrial hazard. There are forces in our economy that 
 tend to establish an elastic connection between supply and demand, 
 but they are beyond the control of "coordinating agencies." Although 
 
we have a dramatic shortage of personnel in all the health professions, 
 it is only with great reluctance that governors and legislative bodies 
 in any state in the Union move toward amelioration. The student 
 talent is there; the service demand is there. The lag is in buildings, 
 equipment and teaching personnel. The lack is money. 
 
 There is no fixed number of jobs in any field. Who can say how 
 many persons will be needed in the next 30 years in nuclear power 
 plants, military affairs, government, commerce or communications? 
 HBgher education not only prepares for jobs; it encourages persons to 
 discover, develop and apply new principles. It puts a high value on 
 learning, pure and applied. It creates both supply and demand. By any 
 standards available in 1920, the present need for the college graduate 
 in certain fields would appear fantastic. 
 
 If the aim of higher education is to develop straight thinking 
 and to improve human relations, who can say that college graduates 
 are in excess? Who can say that any person successfully pursuing the 
 liberal arts and sciences is wasting his time? (There are those who 
 claim that everybody else is wasting time, but I do not hold with these 
 extremists, even though they go back to Socrates to find support.) In 
 a balanced program, the student advances notably along both general 
 and special lines. 
 
 Another theme that penetrates the Russell Report is a strong 
 reliance on uniformity. When this theme is overemphasized it degen- 
 erates into a concept of mediocrity. 
 
 Thus the Russell Report refers to a section of the Works Survey 
 of 1945. This survey listed 12 states that had created a single board 
 for all their institutions of higher education. All 12 of the institutions 
 at the top of the systems are well known in the educational field, but 
 only two meet the requirements for membership in the Association of 
 American Universities. Only one can be considered a leader. In this 
 latter case there is one state university, one land-grant college and a 
 state teachers college that confines itself to teacher education. This 
 situation is different from Illinois which now has three state univer- 
 sities, two state colleges and one state teachers college. At the time 
 of the Works Survey the State-supported higher institutions in Illinois, 
 with the exception of the University of Illinois, were either Normal 
 Universities or Teachers Colleges. In the last six years most of these 
 institutions have tended to move toward the general college. The 
 University, paradoxically, faced with a tremendous demand from the 
 teaching profession, has turned increasingly toward teacher education. 
 
From the Report (page 13) : 
 
 "From the point of view of the State, the program of higher education 
 is a unitary service. The money to support it comes from a single State 
 treasury. The program must serve needs that are State-wide. As soon, 
 however, as more than one institution is set up to render the service in 
 higher education, each tends to develop its own program in accordance 
 with the designs of its own leadership. Each institution tends to compete 
 with all the others for appropriations, for students, and for the favorable 
 attention of the general public." 
 
 Now perhaps the program of higher education in Illinois should 
 be unitary, monolithic, but that is not thus far the "point of \iew of 
 the State." The State, according to the acts of successive General As- 
 semblies, has favored diversity in both public and private institutions. 
 A single state treasury also supports roads, health and w^elfare and 
 hundreds of enterprises that resemble neither higher education nor 
 each other. 
 
 What these programs have in common is a recognized need on 
 the part of citizens. There is bound to be a diversity in function. The 
 question is. To v^hat extent should there be, in higher education, unity 
 in the formation and execution of policies? 
 
PART TWO 
 
 It may be generally agreed that 1951 is a good time to study the 
 reorganization of public higher education in the State of Illinois. 
 Among other factors, the following enter into this timeliness: 
 
 (1) The trial status of Southern Illinois University under a separate 
 Board of Trustees whose terms expire August 31, 1951. 
 
 (2) The continued unrest of the colleges under the State Teachers 
 College Board as at present organized. 
 
 (3) The recognized need for better facilities in public higher education 
 in Chicago. 
 
 (4) The increased cost of public education at all levels. 
 
 Since these factors bear upon the progress of the University of 
 Illinois, various members of the University staff have studied the 
 implications of the Russell Report. We believe that the Report has 
 accomplished a valuable purpose in directing attention to certain 
 problems, even though some of us regard its five alternative plans as 
 incomplete. We appreciate also the patient work of Dr. John Dale 
 Russell and his associates and the foresight of the Governor in setting 
 up the Committee. 
 
 I think the first memorandum and my remarks in Part One show 
 why we are dubious about the effectiveness of any plan that transfers 
 policy-making authority from a board of trustees to a superimposed 
 coordinating board presumably operating from Springfield. Such a 
 plan (Alternative III in the Russell Report) has received serious study. 
 We have come to the conclusion that the price to be paid for unity 
 under this plan would be a subtle decline in the quality and zestfulness 
 of the academic life. For a governing body to be removed one more 
 step from the work of professors and students is to invite decisions 
 that hamper growth and freedom. 
 
 Without further preamble I should like to bring to the attention 
 of the Board four major proposals. They are, in effect, a substitute 
 for the five options offered by the Russell Committee. 
 
 Proposal I — Minimum Reform 
 
 (A) Adopt Alternative II, page 54 of the Russell Report, with 
 one exception: 
 It reads: 
 
 "Alternative II. Continue the present three boards with modifications 
 of their authority. The modifications suggested are as follows: 
 "(1) Remove institutions of higher education from the jurisdiction of 
 the State Code Department of Registration and Education; 
 
"(2) Set up a single merit system for non-academic personnel in all the 
 State institutions of higher education; 
 
 "(3) Set up a single purchasing authority for all the State institutions 
 of higher education, separating this function from the control of the 
 State Purchasing Office; 
 
 "(4) Possibly remove the State teachers colleges and Southern Illinois 
 University from the supervision of the State Architect's Office (the 
 desirability of this step is questioned); 
 
 "(5) Give the State Teachers College Board authority to select its own 
 officers; 
 
 "(6) Provide for a succession in the membership of the State Teachers 
 
 College Board when the Governor fails to make an appointment; 
 
 "(7) Change the name of the State Teachers College Board to 'State 
 
 College Board'; 
 
 "(8) Change the method of selecting members for the Board of Trustees 
 
 of the University of Illinois." 
 
 For the reasons given in my memorandum of January 23rd, I 
 should delete paragraph (8) above. 
 
 (B) Strengthen the work of the Council on Higher Education by 
 providing a paid Executive Secretary to be nominated and financed, 
 for rotating one-year terms, by the respective members of the Council. 
 
 (C) Add to the staff of the State Director of Finance an expert 
 assistant in the field of public higher education. 
 
 Proposal 1 1 — Limited Reform 
 
 (A) Place Southern Illinois University under the State Teachers 
 College Board as reorganized in accordance with the first seven terms 
 of Alternative II of the Russell Report. 
 
 (B) Strengthen the work of the Council on Higher Education by 
 providing a paid Executive Secretary to be nominated and financed, 
 for rotating one-year terms, by the respective members of the Council. 
 
 (C) Add to the staff of the State Director of Finance an expert 
 assistant in the field of public higher education. 
 
 Proposal III — Moderate Reform 
 
 (A) Reorganize the State Teachers College Board in accordance 
 with the first seven terms of Alternative II in the Russell Report. 
 
 (B) Constitute Southern Illinois University as a branch of the 
 University of Illinois, with emphasis upon the functions of: 
 
 (1) A teachers college. 
 
 8 
 
(2) A community liberal arts college. 
 
 (3) Terminal curricula of special interest to the southern region. 
 
 (The University of Illinois has shown no eagerness to acquire Southern 
 Illinois University as a branch. The most obvious location for an addi- 
 tional campus of the University of Illinois is not in Carbondale, but in 
 Chicago. All expert observers agree on this point. Nevertheless, it seems 
 to me, if Southern Illinois University is not to return to its historic role 
 as a teachers college, and a community college under a reorganized 
 Teachers College Board, it should consider, as an alternative, a merger 
 vk^ith the University of Illinois. Either step would markedly reduce the 
 hazards of confusion and duplication. It would pave the way for effective 
 cooperation between two boards of trustees whose jurisdiction would be 
 well defined.) 
 
 (C) Establish in Chicago, as a branch of the University of 
 Illinois, a new four-year college emphasizing teacher education. 
 
 (D) Establish in Chicago as a branch of the University of Illi- 
 nois, a pilot terminal (two-year) institute of applied arts and sciences. 
 
 (E) Authorize the development of blueprints for a full-fledged 
 campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago. This would imply an 
 eventual enrollment of 20,000 students, supplementing a maximum 
 enrollment at Urbana-Champaign of 20,000 students. 
 
 (F) Strengthen the work of the Council on Higher Education 
 by providing a paid Executive Secretary to be nominated and financed, 
 for rotating one-year terms, by the respective members of the Council. 
 
 (G) Add to the staff of the State Director of Finance an expert 
 assistant in the field of public higher education. 
 
 Proposal IV — Long-Reinge Reform 
 
 (A) Extend the University of Illinois under a single board of 
 trustees, bringing all the State tax-supported institutions of higher 
 education into the University system, with branches at the present 
 locations of the separate institutions. 
 
 (B) Establish a full-fledged branch of the University of Illinois 
 at Chicago, to absorb also the functions of a teachers college and of a 
 terminal institute. 
 
 We should then have the University of Illinois at Urbana- 
 Champaign, the University of Illinois at Chicago (to include as 
 parallel units the present professional colleges and the proposed new 
 campus), the University of Illinois at Normal, the University of Illi- 
 nois at Carbondale, the University of Illinois at DeKalb, the Univer- 
 sity of Illinois at Macomb and the University of Illinois at Charleston. 
 
Such a system would parallel the successful plan now in opera- 
 tion in the State of California. It would make for diversity within a 
 general plan of coordination. It would leave to individual communi- 
 ties, financially aided by the State, the responsibility for developing the 
 13th and 14th grades either as junior colleges or as terminal institutes. 
 (The institute proposed for Chicago would serve as a pilot study and 
 training center.) 
 
 Since there would be no one body of alumni to make recom- 
 mendations to the political parties, it is suggested that the appointment 
 of the board of trustees of the greater University of Illinois be made 
 by the Governor, with the consent of the General Assembly, and that 
 three of possibly 12 members be ex officio, viz., the Governor of the 
 State, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the General 
 Superintendent of Schools of Chicago. 
 
 In my judgment, in an ascending order of efTectiveness the four 
 proposals above would solve most of the problems brought forth in 
 the Russell Report. There would evolve an optimum degree of co- 
 ordination without loss of the time-honored freedom that nourishes the 
 academic life. 
 
 The establishment of new institutions as a part of the general 
 University plan would be under control. Also the new board of 
 trustees, through a small expert staff, could undertake the professional 
 work underlying the certifying and chartering of new private institu- 
 tions of higher and professional education. A University of Illinois 
 system would automatically replace all the revisions recommended in 
 Alternative II of the Russell Report. 
 
 Clearly Proposal IV calls for substantial educational, financial 
 and administrative adjustments. These changes are feasible only if 
 persons professionally concerned, state leaders and interested citizens 
 and taxpayers believe it to be a move in the right direction. 
 
 With or without such changes, the aim is, through better instruc- 
 tion, research and public service, to meet the needs of the people of 
 Illinois. In this vast enterprise the critically important role of the 
 private independent colleges and universities must also be recognized. 
 As a nation, we face an economic, military and cultural crisis. We have 
 need of our full ethical and spiritual resources. The total contribution 
 of a few great states like Illinois may be decisive. 
 
 10 
 
APPENDIX 
 
Appendix 
 
 FIRST MEMORANDUM 
 
 I have now read quickly the printed copy of the report on higher 
 education in Illinois submitted by Dr. John Dale Russell and his staff. 
 
 As a whole, the report is of considerable merit. It calls attention 
 to some defects in administrative principle and practice. It locates 
 certain sources of grievance among the colleges under the State 
 Teachers College Board. It presents various alternatives in a clear 
 fashion. 
 
 Unfortunately the Report contains an error of fact that damages 
 one of its main conclusions. In one or two other respects it does not, 
 I believe, represent informed opinion over the State. 
 
 We read, for example, (page 46) : "The branch (of the Univer- 
 sity of Illinois) that was started at Galesburg with considerable fanfare 
 was abruptly closed out when some financial support became necessary 
 from general university sources." 
 
 Actually, the undergraduate division at Galesburg was started 
 with only 400 students registered at the late opening date of the first 
 semester. The enrollment the second year approached the maximum 
 for which the facility was designed and then began to drop off. To 
 quote from the brochure, The College Made in a Month: 
 
 "When the enrollment fell below 1,000 in the second semester of 1948-49, 
 the needs of the State for hospital facilities were again advanced, and 
 Governor Adlai E. Stevenson asked the University to turn the plant over 
 to the State Department of Public Welfare. This the Trustees agreed 
 to do in the belief that a property of such value should be used to meet 
 the greatest public need." 
 
 This action was in conformity with the original plan of the Gales- 
 burg undergraduate division as a veteran facility. Members of the 
 University staff and of the Board of Trustees, assisted by government 
 and military officials, made a prodigious effort in establishing the 
 Division in the first place. They were reluctant to bring its educa- 
 tional services to a close. The closing had nothing to do with the 
 securing of financial support from general University sources. 
 
 Also on page 46, the Russell Report states : 
 
 "The branch at Navy Pier in Chicago has been held to a lower division 
 program, though there is clear evidence that large numbers of students 
 could be served by upper division and specialized curriculums." 
 
 It has not been at any time the intention to set up a full four-year 
 program at the Navy Pier. The Board of Trustees has not authorized 
 such action. As at Galesburg, the purpose was primarily to take care 
 of returning veterans and to operate the Undergraduate Division at 
 
 12 
 
Navy Pier only as long as student demand would warrant it. The chief 
 gain has been in housing, since students coming to Urbana-Champaign 
 would have to seek a place to live, while in Chicago they live at home. 
 My general position, which is shared by other members of the 
 administrative staff, is that eventually the University should have a 
 major branch in Chicago. This is referred to in my Four-Year Report 
 as follows (page 21) : 
 
 "The popularity of the Chicago Undergraduate Division reveals the con- 
 tinuing pressure for a four-year branch of the University of Illinois in 
 Chicago. It has been pointed out that half the population of Illinois 
 lives in the Chicago area. The estabHshment of a permanent branch, 
 however, will depend on finances — on securing a new staff, a campus, 
 and an adequate plant." 
 
 In short, our sights for a branch of the University of Illinois are 
 much higher than is consistent with retaining the Navy Pier as a 
 permanent fixture. We have been conservative toward expansion there 
 because of the high cost that would be devoted to a facility eventually 
 to be relinquished. 
 
 However, the important thing about these misconceptions in the 
 report is the reason for their citation in the first place. It is held that 
 had there been an over-all State board of regents for higher education 
 in Illinois, such things as the alleged impoverishment of the branches 
 of the University could not have taken place. This is another way of 
 saying that such a board would have insisted upon the retention of 
 the Galesburg facility, even with a dropping enrollment, and that it 
 would have insisted also upon making a full four-year branch of the 
 facilities at Navy Pier. If these are outstanding illustrations of the 
 probable effectiveness of such a board, I am somewhat cool to its 
 formation. 
 
 Now, let us turn to Alternatives I to V as given on pages 54-56. 
 
 Alternative I (Give legal authority to the present Council on 
 Higher Education to exercise coordinating functions over the six 
 institutions.) 
 
 I agree that this is impossible. 
 
 Alternative II (Continue the present three boards with modifica- 
 tions of their authority.) Eight modifications are suggested, and I 
 agree with the main substance of the first seven. 
 
 Modification (8) reads: "Change the method of selecting mem- 
 bers for the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois." There is 
 no reason why this problem should not be studied, but I do not agree 
 that the present system leads to an ineffective control of policies for 
 
 13 
 
the University or to disservice to the State of IlHnois. There is no 
 conflict as between loyalty to the University and loyalty to the State 
 as a whole. To me it seems Unlikely that "appointment by the Gov- 
 ernor with confirmation by the State Senate" would increase the effec- 
 tiveness or the distinction of the Board. I say this with four years of 
 experience with a board of regents chosen by a legislature and four 
 years under the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Al- 
 though recommended by the University alumni, the Trustees are 
 nominated by the party conventions and are elected by the people. 
 It is my experience that they have shown no partiality whatever to 
 alumni groups but have sought to serve both the University and the 
 State in all matters of public policy. 
 
 Alternative III (Create a State board for higher education which 
 would exercise only the functions necessary to the coordination of the 
 State program of higher education.) 
 
 The difficulties here lie with the interpretation of the word co- 
 ordination. The Report indicates, as one function of the board, "De- 
 termination of institutional programs." Here again the question is, how 
 much freedom would be left to each institution of higher education? 
 
 Another function, according to the Report, would be "Review of 
 institutional policies to obtain uniformity." Now there are some areas 
 in which uniformity is desirable, as in retirement systems and civil 
 service regulations. But the idea of uniformity can easily degenerate 
 to a concept of mediocrity. When educational and research programs 
 are leveled off, they do not generally get leveled up but leveled down. 
 The pace of a man, a department, or a University should not be 
 geared to the slowest or the least imaginative. Yet, this is a danger 
 when a single board with "A strong staff, headed by an Executive 
 Secretary," starts to secure "uniformity among all the institutions." 
 
 I believe the necessary degree of uniformity could be secured 
 under Alternative II above. 
 
 Alternative IV (This would create a State Board of Regents for 
 Higher Education headed by a Chancellor of the State System.) The 
 institutional boards would be abolished. 
 
 I think that this alternative has in it some of the inherent weak- 
 nesses of Alternative III and, in addition, a few of its own. This plan 
 would tend to reduce the administrative leadership in the separate 
 institutions to a minor degree of planning and responsibility. 
 
 Alternative V (To create a State Board of Education over all 
 public education — elementary, secondary, vocational and higher. ) 
 
 14 
 
Until recently this was the plan in operation in the State of New 
 York. Over the years certain basic defects became apparent, such that 
 when the State University of New York was created a new board was 
 created also. It has not proved possible for an over-all board effectively 
 to supervise education at all these levels. One result of the system was 
 to place the State of New York, which is in many ways a leader in 
 public affairs, last among the 48 states to found a state university. 
 
 An Alternative VI, which could be added, but was thrown out 
 because of the premises indicated at the beginning of this report, 
 would be to establish a full four-year branch of the University of 
 Illinois at Chicago and also a branch at Carbondale (the present 
 Southern Illinois University) . 
 
 I have already suggested that when the time is propitious, namely, 
 when there is a prospect of securing a site, building a plant and recruit- 
 ing a well-rounded staff in Chicago, we should plan the University of 
 Illinois at Chicago for a probable enrollment of 20,000 students. 
 
 Similarly, some thought has been given to a branch at Carbon- 
 dale, The question came up at the time of the hearings on the present 
 organization of the separate board for Southern Illinois University. In 
 a statement for the Committee on Education of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, dated June 1, 1949, 1 said: 
 
 "I should be glad to give further consideration to such a plan. There 
 would be some difficulty in adjusting the standards of the two institu- 
 tions, but I believe the problems could be worked out. In saying this I 
 am not speaking for the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 
 which has not considered the matter. However, I feel that the Univer- 
 sity of Illinois should not take the initiative; it should certainly not 
 attempt to secure Southern Illinois University as a branch. If the people 
 in the southern region and the authorities responsible for Southern 
 Illinois University feel that this is a desirable outcome, I should favor 
 setting up a plan of study to present the pros and cons. This could 
 be done through an external professional committee acting in an advisory 
 capacity. 
 
 "At the University of Illinois we have the highest respect for the staff 
 of Southern Illinois. We are sensitive to the needs of the southern 
 counties. If it is held that the establishment of a branch of the Univer- 
 sity of Illinois at Carbondale would be helpful to the region, and 
 especially to the young people of college age, we should give the plan 
 our full support." 
 
 In short, at first reading, I am not convinced that the Russell 
 Committee has made a case for the alternatives it seems to favor. 
 
 It has not presented a balanced picture of the relation of the Uni- 
 versity of Illinois to its former Undergraduate Division at Galesburg 
 or to its present Undergraduate Division in Chicago. 
 
 15 
 
It has not explored the possibility of a very large branch of the 
 University at Chicago — with a full-fledged campus — or of incor- 
 porating Southern Illinois University into the University of Illinois. 
 
 If these two acts were accomplished in the future, the chain of 
 teachers colleges and community colleges under a separate board 
 would constitute a parallel approach to the problem of higher educa- 
 tion. These colleges at present, with special responsibilities in teaching 
 and community service, have much in common. A Board that pays 
 attention to their needs alone is kept busy at a high level of public 
 service. Perhaps a coordinating committee among the Boards would be 
 helpful at this time. 
 
 I do not see how the existence of a State board of education could 
 have resolved, without appeal, the matter of the teaching of vocational 
 agriculture at the Illinois State Normal University. The Board of 
 Trustees of the University of Illinois, on the basis of a factual report, 
 made a clear recommendation on this matter. It pointed out the lack 
 of need. The burden of proof was on any institution or board to dem- 
 onstrate to the U. S. Office of Education that federal funds should be 
 made available for this purpose outside the University of Illinois. 
 
 There are various ways to accomplish coordination and reason- 
 able uniformity, but the Russell Report concentrates upon the desir- 
 ability of investing great and new power in a State board for higher 
 education or a State board of regents. What the authors of the Report 
 hope to accomplish by this (in addition to coordination and uni- 
 formity) is greater economy and a clarification of function — both 
 worthy aims. It strikes me that this could be accomplished by simpler 
 measures, leaving for the Director of Finance, the Budgetary Commis- 
 sion, the General Assembly and the Governor the necessary all-State 
 powers of evaluating, comparing and pruning. 
 
 Other functions of value mentioned in the Report, such as the 
 study of the needs of the State for higher education and the review of 
 institutional policies, could well be carried out by the present Council 
 on Higher Education. 
 
 As I have said, these remarks are simply my first reactions and 
 are subject to change. 
 
 The Report will be reviewed shortly by the Council on Higher 
 Education which doubtless will make recommendations for the con- 
 sideration of all parties concerned. Concurrently at the University we 
 shall make a thorough analysis of the proposals. 
 
 Following the wishes of the Board of Trustees, I shall be glad 
 later to present reports from the Council and from the University staff. 
 
 16 
 
.1 .Jf ■>■.