programs and dollars multiply, bureaucracies and > is produced by bureaucracy, and it gives rise to make
regulations multiply also; paperwork and reporting more bureaucracy—not only in Washington, but on €Yi¤g
requirements multiply; the temptation to interfere, the campuses as well; soruet
however well meaning, grows. And thus the danger > diverts scarce dollars and valuable time of ad- 1¤V€Si
grows that the job we are trying to do with our ministrators and faculty from important institutional i¤V€$i
programs will, ironically, be made even more difficult missions to non-productive activity; , the P2
by the unwieldy requirements and burdensome proce- > intrudes upon intemal decision·making, erodes 5 é
dures that these programs bring." institutional autonomy, and leads to complicating and .
It would be hard to find anyone in higher education costly side effects (such as increased litigation); “]
today who would disagree with the Secretary. > contributes significantly to the deterioration of a
The president of Harvard certainly wouldn’t. A long and mutually productive partnership between the ‘ béli
study there revealed that in 1974-75 the faculty spent federal government and higher education. z an
more than 60,000 hours complying with five federal i
regulations at a cost of $0.3 million. This surely had UREAUCRACY is athc mechanism Of Control? é
Something uido Wlilli prcildcm Bok S Statement to im says economist Earl Cheit, "and its intrusion   ba]
alumni that the critical issue for the next generation imo college and university life has been  
licZ§L.§‘?I”3I‘if .Z“JrZL“.?".}3`éE.II.€,.$"f§‘i1‘.f.’r"E.'2‘?*’ ‘°`““ iiisriiiiiiii sri    
Th 0.d f B g C ll ld ' k The govemment bureaucrats are the target of much ;
. C Pres! cm O. Crea. O egc WOU {mt ta. C of the anger and frustration felt by college and  
issue with Mr. Califano either. Although his entire university Officials. And that is at least partly lmdep .
  standable, since bureaucrats, in a very real sense,
gg make more laws than Congress does. "It is govem- rt
TilC Cl`l[lC21i lSSl1€ iOI` [il€ next ment by the non-elected," complains one college j
generation is not Harvard’s survival, i”°f°SS°“. . . . g
. . - Economist Cheit points out that, typical of bureau- l dU€€d
but its independence and ilieedom crats, "they require the gathering of useless data;   the sc
i`I`()lIllii‘2ldVlSC(i g()V€l`I1Hl€I]{ I`€S[F 21lIl[.” they cause long inexplicable delays; they play ‘cat   Hai F6
and mouse’ games over enforcement; they conduct i not €‘
  endless reviews. Sometimes, after periods of indeci—   ih€iY‘
budget is probably less than a single major federal sign, the decisions they dg make are uninformed   leasti
grant to Harvard, president Willis D. Weatherford about the educational prnee$g_ It hgg apparently   Las
figures he SP€¤dS about 0¤€·€lUH¤'i€F of his iim€ coping come as news to some os-l2’s that a library is needed A Univc
with govemment regulations and the problems they fer researehf l literal
create. The civil rights legislation, as H.E.w. inter- Examples of the bureaucracy at its business are   the Sa
prets it, doesn’t permit Berea to select its staff and many, and they range from the trivial and ridiculous i the G
faculty for qualities of “Christian character." Dr. to the alarming; look
Weatherford laments this and sees “‘a deadening H.E.w.’s battle against sexual discrimination has we hz
rnonotony creeping across colleges and universities in produced what must new be "c1assics"; The prohibi- i_ Ro;
America—a uniformity induced by excess govern- tion of father-son banquets and boys’ choirs. ducts
ment regulation." Dallin Oaks, president of Brigham Young Univer- in 19
A predecessor of Mr. Califano’s also agrees with sity, finds himself lighting a sexual discrimination conta
him. David Mathews, before becoming Secretary of charge which he feels is equally absurd. The Justice   years
H.i;.w. in 1975, said: "The body of higher education is Department has threatened suit against the university é opera
bound in a lilliputian nightmare of forms and formu- because it refused to rent a room in an all-male wing E all co
las." The results, he said, are "a diminishing of able of an off—campus building to a female who is not a ` On·
leadership on the campuses, a loss of institutional student. "We cannot believe,” Oaks says, "that our ` tion
autonomy, and a serious threat to diversity, creativ- proscription against students living with or next to V b¤F€¤
ity, and reform." persons of the opposite sex is a sufficient injury to cy," ·
Had his tour of duty at H.e.w. altered his perspec- justify interference with the fundamental rights of . order
tive and changed his mind about federal regulation? religious freedom at this church-sponsored universi- reauc
The editors of this report put that question to ty." ances
President Mathews at the University of Alabama. One university’s very moderate report of a self- ' desigi
"Not in any way," he replied quickly. "The problem study of the impacts of federal regulation contains   mam
has not diminished at all." this statement:   inside
The problem, of course, has many dimensions and "Demands by government agencies for excessive,   It i
many aspects and nearly all of them, as educators see irrelevant, and duplicative data are objectionable .... i the di
it, are negative. Excessive government regulation: Our disquiet stems from investigative offices that E the uz
10 $