Official proceedings of the annual meeting:
80th annual meeting of the American Philological Association. PAGE Oappovvves AjaX' 6Ws 4XoMFt 7ePOs 7r4&t T &yopeii&w John William, Li-. Order of the Eastern Star will meet at p.m. in tlte chapter room at the Masonic Temple. tlOSDltfll ^6WS Herbert R. Pemungton, Rt. i, Holly Springs, mtd. . ( oclery Iralntil > tachnlcton li at Im. IfMrt yewr wailiti ^ y«w wvlà y«»r Mn«Il lit. impoct of the Jest tKi ttie patient began to appear in the lilerature- LI wos. 33 As mofe inter%^6ws were transcribed and coded, shnSarities between appropriate support groups ond meet parents of children with similar diognoses.
If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote your shares in person at the meeting. However, we encourage you to vote by proxy card, by telephone, or by Internet even if you plan to attend the meeting. How do I vote my shares in the Savings Plan? You may vote your shares in the Savings Plan by completing and returning the enclosed proxy card or by telephone or Internet as described above. To the extent possible, shares that you hold through the Savings Plan have been combined on one proxy card with shares that you hold as shareholder of record.
By returning one proxy card or by voting once by telephone or Internet, you will be voting all the shares. How do I vote my shares that are held by my broker?
If you have shares held by a broker or other nominee, you may instruct your broker or other nominee to vote your shares by following instructions that the broker or nominee provides for you. Most brokers offer voting by mail, telephone, and Internet. What does it mean if I receive more than one proxy card? It means that you hold shares registered in more than one account. To ensure that all your shares are voted, sign and return each card.
Alternatively, if you vote by telephone or Internet, you will need to vote once for each proxy card you receive. Who will count the votes? Representatives of The Corporation Trust Company will tabulate the votes and act as independent inspectors of election. What constitutes a quorum? A majority of the outstanding shares, present or represented by proxy, constitutes a quorum for the Annual Meeting.
As of the Record Date, 1,, shares of Company common stock were issued and outstanding. How many votes are needed for approval of each item? Directors will be elected by a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting, meaning the four nominees receiving the most votes will be elected directors. Only votes cast for a nominee will be counted, except that the accompanying proxy will be voted for the four management nominees unless the proxy contains instructions to the contrary.
Abstentions, broker nonvotes defined belowand instructions to withhold authority to vote for one or more of the nominees will result in those nominees receiving fewer votes. However, such action will not reduce the number of votes otherwise received by the nominees. Approval of the amendments to the Lilly Stock Plan requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting.
For this proposal, an abstention will have the same effect as a vote against the proposal. Broker nonvotes will not be voted for or against the proposal and will not be counted as entitled to vote. He created simulation programs for nuclear explosionswhich were used to gain scientific understanding and help maintain the safety and reliability of the US nuclear weapons arsenal. Richardson was less than truthful in his response by saying that he was waiting to uncover more information before speaking to Congress.
Lee was released on time served after the government's case against him could not be proven. President Bill Clinton issued a public apology to Lee over his treatment by the federal government during the investigation. Lee offered to the scientist to find out who had turned him in. When confronted by the FBI about this incident, Lee said he did not know the scientist, until the FBI demonstrated proof of the conversation.
Despite some evidence that could have kept the case open, the FBI closed this file on Lee in The FBI had lost the file on Lee from the and meetings with him, and had to reconstruct the information. Ina delegation of Chinese scientists visited Los Alamos National Laboratory in an unannounced capacity for a meeting. One of the scientists visiting was Dr.
He also was credited with the design of the small, W88 -like weapon. However, despite the visit being unannounced, Lee showed up to the meeting uninvited. He was not told of the reason why, other than that it involved his latest trip to China to escort his nephew.
During the questioning, he admitted that he had, in fact, met with Dr. Hu Side in a hotel room in and that Side had asked him for classified information, which he refused to discuss. Lee admitted that he failed to report this contact and approach by individuals requesting classified information as required by security regulations.
Although he questioned the action against him, Lee went along, deleting the classified information he held on his computers, and moved to the T unclassified clearance zone. The campaigns to obtain widows' pensions and workmen's compensation have many of the aspects of the cause. The administration of these benefits has become a function of organized community life in most American states.
The settlement movement began as a cause, and the activities of many of its representatives still give it that character. In general, however, it has developed as a function of community life. The abolition of child labor has been, and still is, a cause. As the result of its success as a cause, it again has become a well-established function in many American states. A cause is usually the concern only of those individuals who accept its appeal and who are willing to devote themselves to its furtherance.
Its adherents may believe their cause to be so essentially right that all mankind should rally to it. There is, however, no obligation upon any individual to do so unless he wishes to. A function, on the other hand, implies an organized effort 1 James Bryce, Modern Democracies, p. Since cause and function are both carried on by human agents, they make use of the same human characteristics.
Nevertheless, their emphases are different and their demands in the long run require different combinations of human qualities. Zeal is perhaps the most conspicuous trait in adherents to the cause, while intelligence is perhaps most essential in those who administer a function. The emblazoned banner and the shibboleth for the cause, the program and the manual for the function; devoted sacrifice and the flaming spirit for the cause, fidelity, standards, and methods for the function; ar embattled host for the cause, an efficient personnel for the function.
We may now abandon this flight into rhetoric and come back to the practical consideration of current social work; but I hope we may bring with us a conviction that this rhetorical contrast has a measure of validity.
For an outstanding problem of social work at the present time is that of developing its service as a function of well-organized community life without sacrificing its capacity to inspire in men enthusiasm for a cause. The change in the nature of social work from that of cause to that of function has aroused apprehension in many minds.
As one writer has reminded us, "The curse of the poor is still their poverty," but as compared with an earlier day the voices which are proclaiming this fact have rather less of the clarion quality. There are still deeply rooted evils concerning which the American public everywhere not only needs to be informed and organized but needs also to be aroused.
Moreover, both in the ranks of the general public and in the ranks of social work there are those who have apparently been lulled by the very bulk of our diversified efforts to promote social welfare into a feeling that little remains to be done to bring in the millennium, except the unhampered prosecution of these efforts.
LEE of the prophet rather than that of the executive deplore the preoccupation of social workers with organization, technique, standards, and efficiency which have followed the development of social work from cause to function. The development of social work from cause to function was inevitable; it was also indispensable to the permanence of its own great contribution as a cause.
Once the objective of a cause is reached, it can be made permanent only by a combination of organization and education. The effort to put its results into effect must be maintained over a long period. As compared with the dash and drive necessary to achieve those results, this subsequent effort is humdrum and routine. Its chief reliance may have to be upon routineers and experts, whereas the chief reliance of the cause may have been upon inspired leaders.
It is natural that this subsequent period of organization and technical effort should seem to have abandoned most of the zeal which characterized the cause. Zeal alone, however, is a frail equipment for those who are genuinely interested in human welfare. Its fluctuations are great.
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Organization and technical efficiency are by no means guaranties of sound social programs; but they are, on the whole, as valuable contributions to human progress as the zeal and idealism which inspire them. A modern historian, after noting the influence of the Roman governmental organization upon the English church, has proceeded to discuss the centuries following the Roman occupation of Britain, during which the zeal of the church which had blazed militantly during preceding centuries deteriorated almost to the point of extinction.
It did not die out completely because, as he says, "Good organization can survive periodic lapses in zeal. This conception of the development of social work from cause to function has some practical implications.
Its most important significance, in my judgment, lies in the field of motiva' G. Trevelyan, History of England, p. As a cause, a movement secures solidarity and force from its inherently dramatic appeal. The motives of those who enlist in a cause, whatever their derivation, come to a focus in a personal ought to help. The motives of those who support a function come to focus in a community ought to provide a service.
The motives which lead men to support a function as an obligation of citizenship are in no sense lower or less worthy than those which lead men to enlist in a cause.
They are likely, however, to be less personal, less dynamic and less dramatic in their expression. The appeal of the cause is to the sympathy of men, to their sense of justice, to their humanitarian instincts.
The appeal of the function may reach all three but it does so less directly. It depends much more upon reaching the intelligence of men and their sense of social obligation.
In the long run, I doubt whether any substantial functional development can be supported by an appeal directed chiefly to the motives which support causes.
Social work must decrease relatively its reliance upon sentiment and increase relatively its reliance upon an intellectual conviction on the part of its supporters. The recent record of social work affords a great deal of evidence that this change in the basis of its appeal is already in process, for much of preventive social work and much of our research program could have been accepted and supported only on the basis of intellectual conviction.
Sentiment does not readily respond to the appeal of prevention or research. We may carry the significance of this change still farther. The successful development of intellectual conviction in the public which supports social work inevitably means that social work comes under increasingly critical scrutiny from those who support it. A movement of the cause type can enlist support from anyone who believes in its program and has faith in its leaders.
If its active personnel are satisfied with its results, its adherents are likely to be. As a functional agency, on the other hand, the organization which expects support must prove its case.
Lee's Meat Market
Zeal is no longer a sole test of merit; efficiency is asked for. LEE To the community as a whole a cause may be justified by the faith and purpose of its adherents. A function must be justified by demonstrated possibilities of achievement. At this point we may well ask whether we are not attempting to carry on functionalized social work with many of the habits, methods, and machinery which are more appropriate to the cause.
If we are, we may be crippling ourselves by the use of equipment which is not adapted to our changing responsibility. It is characteristic of the cause that it tends to overstate the possibility of results. Most advocates claim more for their favorite projects than those projects can reasonably be expected to deliver. In so far as we continue to justify social work in terms exclusively of faith in its program, we are relying in a sense upon the philosophy and the ethical basis of the cause.
I realize that reliance upon the cause philosophy is still necessary because to a large extent the American public needs to be aroused as well as informed. I realize that the American public in its support of social work responds more generously, both in attention and money, to a sentimental than to an intellectual appeal.
Nevertheless, the establishment of social work as a function, necessary as it is to insure the permanence of its fine results as a cause, changes radically the relationship of social workers, both professional and lay, to the public.
If I were to put this change into a sentence, I would say that the historic obligation of social workers to the public for leadership had changed to an obligation for leadership supplemented by accountability.
In discharging the obligation of accountability we may easily put an unnecessary strain upon the community's acceptance of our leadership by a tendency to claim more than we can perform through a desire to be uncompromisingly cosmic instead of being for part of the time at least reasonably but idealistically mundane.
The confusion between cause and function in the status of social work will perhaps become more evident if we examine some of our current practices. I have selected three for illustration. Prevention as a leading objective in social work is not new. In a world which had accustomed itself to the acceptance of misery as a part of the divine order of things, the campaign to establish prevention as a practicable objective has had many of the aspects of a cause.
The practical working out of preventive programs has all of the aspects of a function. It may be questioned whether our zeal for prevention has not, in some ways, loaded the philosophy of prevention with a greater expectancy of results than can at present be achieved. We hear it said with increasing frequency that prevention is cheaper than cure. It is certainly better than cure and on the face of it prevention ought to be cheaper, but we are far from being able to demonstrate that it is always cheaper.
For one thing, the costs of cure are probably more definitely measurable than are the costs of prevention. This is because, except within narrow limits, we do not know what a preventive program implies. Certainly, thus far preventive social work has revealed some new problems as difficult to handle as those which it has seemed to prevent. No small amount of the work which is now being done, both by curative and by preventive agencies, has developed as a by-product of preventive work.
Workmen's compensation is not wholly a preventive measure, but it has had some important preventive aspects. So far as I know, no estimate has been made of the comparative costs of compensation and the costs of the former haphazard methods of dealing with industrial accidents. The financial costs of compensation may be less. Even if they were not, the gains, ethical and otherwise, would have been worth the increased cost.
Nevertheless, workmen's compensation has not been undiluted gain. These laws have certainly complicated the problem of the old man in industry, for they have been one factor in making him ineligible for employment. Does good social work create the necessity for more social work? LEE evident than at the point where preventive work is applied.
After many decades of advocating prison reform as social work's dominant note in the field of delinquency, we have in recent years placed increasing emphasis upon the prevention of crime. Will the prevention of crime be cheaper than cure? Probably it will, partly because there has been too little cure in spite of the huge sums spent on the custody of the criminal. But prevention of crime involves factors so enormously complex that we cannot even be sure what they are.
The reform school, the juvenile court, the probation system, organized recreation, vocational training, the psychiatric clinic, and that unstable but promising adolescent, "character-building activities," have all in their time been conceived as contributions toward the prevention of crime.
Practically all of them have made demonstrable contributions to this end, but crime is still with us. Does all this lead to the conclusion that our faith in prevention is unjustified? The abolition of poverty, the prevention of crime, the elimination of preventable disease, the reduction of industrial handicaps to the worker are causes. They need no justification save their own inherent appeal to the justice and enlightened social consciences of men.
If experience counts for anything, however, the complete achievement of these objectives is still far in the future. Before they are reached we shall have to follow a long, slow program of functional experiment and practice.
Prevention will bring us closer to the millennium than cure ever can; but that millennium is not just around the corner. Nor can we assume that for every evil which we are now trying to cure, piecemeal fashion, a sure-fire program of prevention can as yet be offered.
Neither, I submit, can we be sure that the cost of keeping evils prevented, if I may be permitted so awkward a phrase, will in every case be cheaper than cure. In both its preventive and its curative efforts, social work has demonstrated a capacity to assist civilized society to find its way out of its uncivilized habits. It is part of functional responsibility that its problems be accurately measured, that the facilities required for its task be accurately estimated, and that its operation be not impeded by overloading its machinery because its supporters have an unreasonable expectation of results.
The expectations of the public in terms of the results of social work are largely those which social workers themselves suggest. I have already stated that an overestimate of possible results seems to be inevitable in the promotion of a cause.
It can easily be a grave handicap in the discharge of a function. The distinction is relatively easy to make but exceedingly difficult to apply in practice. The effort to apply it, however, can hardly fail to strengthen the status of functional social work. It can hardly fail, either, to conserve the interest of the public in the validity of causes.
Like the emphasis upon prevention, the use of the demonstration is a method of long standing in social work which has recently come into more active use. The principle of the demonstration involves the establishment of a new service in a community, sometimes carried on under more or less tentative administrative and financial auspices, until its permanent value is so apparent that it will be established by the community as a part of its permanent social equipment.
Demonstrations by that name have been most conspicuous perhaps in the fields of public health, mental hygiene, and recreation. The demonstration, however, has long been a recognized function of private agencies in many fields as a preliminary to the transfer of specific services to governmental auspices. For the purpose of this discussion, also, I am assuming that much of the extension work carried on by national organizations in new communities is like the demonstration in nature.
The value of the demonstration cannot be questioned. Properly used it insures earlier attention to community needs than would otherwise be given. LEE of time, money, and enthusiasm which the delays and mistakes of the trial and error method of organization frequently involve. It is logical to read into the philosophy of the demonstration that its ultimate development means the spread of specific services until they reach all those who have need of them. Once the value of a treatment service or of a preventive program has been demonstrated then its spread, so we reason, ought not to stop until every person and every community have received their benefits.
The demonstration is a functional device whereby the objectives of many of our causes can be brought nearer to complete realization. This logical extension of the demonstration principle raises some questions. Do the two factors of qualified personnel and financial resources put a limit upon its practicable extension?
Perhaps not, but an interest in functional efficiency would seem to suggest that we face the question, however much our zeal in the cause of human welfare may blind us to its practical importance. The problem of personnel is already acute. All professions, the older ones and many new ones, are competing for personnel.
Some of the older ones may be overcrowded, but none is overcrowded with really able practitioners. The functional demands of modern social work call for no less insight and leadership than did the older type of social work, but they require in addition a scientific foundation and a trained capacity for efficient practice. The modern social worker, as compared with his or her predecessors, is meeting more exacting demands for performance, is assuming a more specific type of responsibility, is meeting with fair success more intricate and elusive problems.
But at his best the social worker does not exist in sufficient numbers to meet the demand for him. This excess of demand over supply for competent social workers may be interpreted as one evidence that good social work creates the necessity for more social work. So far it is a justification of social work both as cause and as function.
But our very success may imperil both our functional efficiency and our leadership if we try to develop opportunities for service beyond our resources in qualified personnel. I realize that those agencies responsible for the finding and placing of personnel are alive to this dilemma. The answer is not easy. Would it strengthen or weaken the status of social work if we put ourselves on record as being willing to make use of the demonstration and extension principles only to the extent that we can support them with qualified personnel?
What about the costs of social work? How much social welfare can we afford? There are several quick answers to this question. The chests talk about "the saturation point. Some of us believe that, whatever our resources, we cannot afford to stop our efforts to rid the world of evil, no matter what expenditures for luxuries need to be curtailed or what new methods of money raising need to be devised in order to find the ways and means.
The question has both theoretical and practical implications. The budget idea has not yet been applied to the total expenditures of a nation. But in the long run a nation, like a family, cannot spend more than it earns without sooner or later seeing its standard of living come down with a crash.
If we may judge by the steady increase in the wealth of this nation and by the increase also in the sums which the American people make available for social welfare, we have not begun to exhaust our resources for such purposes.
Thus far, however, we seem to have assumed that the sources of support are inexhaustible. LEE promote sounder, more wholesome life, confidently content to place the responsibility for financing them where Alexander Hamilton placed the responsibility for financing the national debt of our first government-on the broad backs of the American people.
I believe this question to be important for social workers because I think we have never faced the cost of the logical extension of our demonstration programs to all those persons in American communities who might benefit by them. Some of these services, like vaccination, are relatively inexpensive. Others, like treatment for personality disorders, are enormously expensive. In between and outside and all around are services and potential benefits in health, in economic security, in education, in cultural opportunity, representing all degrees of costliness.
Can civilization afford all of the benefits which it knows how to create? I incline, temperamentally at least, to believe that it cannot afford to do without them. I believe, furthermore, that as a nation we have neither realized our full productive capacity nor devised an economical method of allocating and distributing its output.
In the last analysis it is not for social workers to say how much money shall be spent for social work. This is the right of the community as a whole, and its decision will be influenced both by its resources and by its own ideals for the society of which it is a part.
This question has a more practical significance for social workers. Whether you agree in thinking that, despite the wealth of this country, its expenditures for social welfare, like its expenditures for anything else, must be determined in the long run by its income, actual or potential, all of you will perhaps agree that the money available at any time for social welfare is limited to that which the most efficient money-raising measures can secure from contributors and legislatures.
All sorts of factors may enter into the fixing of a saturation point for giving and appropriating in a particular community. But both will concede that for practical purposes and for the time being a maximum may be reached, even though the process of education may, and ultimately must, raise the apparent maximum. The experience of those who have assumed the responsibility of financing social work, both in chest and in non-chest cities, is that a point is always reached when the rate of increase in legitimate ways of spending money is greater than the rate of increase in the money available.
Sooner or later this will necessitate a process of selection among the various legitimate purposes to which available resources may be put. This means a selection not only among the various specific agencies and fields of social work but among the other cultural fields with which social work competes for contributions and appropriations.
That is to say, in the long run the distribution of a community's expenditures for social purposes involves a comparison not only of the programs of social agencies with each other but of these programs with public education, with recreation, with health facilities, with libraries, with police and fire protection.
Who shall make this selection? Ultimately the community itself must do so. I believe, however, that a community may reasonably expect of those who are responsible for the functional administration of these community services that their separate requests for support be determined in the light of a total community need. Here is a real task for leadership. Here is one of the highly strategic points at which the character of any cultural service must be both cause and function, for at this point a community has a right to ask both what values in social life it should expect for itself and what distribution of these values among its people it is willing and able to accomplish.
As a third recent development in social work where the distinction between cause and function is easily confused, we may take the growing interest in the measurement of results.
LEE as contrasted with the cause. It represents a comparatively old quest by social workers which has recently been sharpened into an urgent demand.
Statistics, case accounting, case studies, scoring devices, rating schedules, indices of dependency, and other problems are all methods of measurement entirely valid for experiment in the field of social work. Few of them have as yet proved themselves entirely trustworthy but all of them have given results sufficiently informing to justify their continued experimental use.
Not all of the problems and efforts of social work, however, lend themselves easily to measurement. In dealing with the problems of instinct, habit, personality, public opinion, adjustment, and character building with which all of social work is ultimately concerned we shall hardly find checks upon the efficiency of social work as specific and convincing as costs, sales, and earnings provide in industry, or even as the death-rate and the incidence of disease provide in the field of public health.
Nevertheless, the measurement of results is an obligation of the functional development of social work which we have been slow to recognize.
When we present this obligation, however, in terms of evaluation, it becomes more complicated. Measurement may be expected to give us certain facts regarding social work which may be compared with some accepted standard of achievement. Evaluation, however, suggests both measurement and the approval of the standard. By what standards shall we measure social work? As a functional enterprise the work of an organization can legitimately be measured in terms of economy and efficiency, in terms of a ratio between effort and result.
Social work, however, is cause as well as function. Much of what we do in social work we do because, on the whole, we prefer a civilization in which such things are done to one in which they are not. Some values are beyond measurement. Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, in an address, once referred to an efficiency engineer who had seen a father amusing his child by tossing it with his own arm.
It occurred to the engineer that there was considerable waste of energy in his crude and primitive method and that he could invent a machine by which the father could toss the child twice as high and many times as fast with less expenditure of energy.
Its economy of energy as compared with the waste in the method of the father could no doubt be demonstrated mathematically with approximate accuracy.
There is, however, a good deal to be said for a civilization in which fathers toss their own children although child tossing may by this time have been ruled out of court by the modern doctrines of child hygiene. I doubt if efficiency in terms of economy of expenditure, in terms of a reasonable ratio of result to effort expended, can ever be established completely for many forms of social work. Moreover, I believe that it does not need to be so established in order to justify such effort.
Wen Ho Lee
Much of the work of settlements, much of social case work, much of recreation, and much of public health needs no other justification than that, on the whole, we prefer to live in a society in which such services are maintained for the benefit of those who need them. Here, again, we have a strategic point at which social work must continue to be a combination of the cause and the function. The reluctance of social work to find its own methods of measurement may be interpreted as a failure to realize that the time has come when the cause must be incorporated into the function.
On the other hand, too great an insistence upon the possibility of measuring the results of social work may blind the functionally minded social worker to its great mission as a cause. A modern writer has suggested that a part of the genius of every civilization is its capacity to give corporate life to an idea. LEE The functional development of social work I interpret as the effort of our civilization to give corporate life to the ideas which have inspired the world's great causes in behalf of suffering, underprivileged humanity.