In a 12/4/73 memorandum to Physics Dept members, I wrote, in part:

      The purpose of this note ... is to state why, since November 1970, I have not submitted an annual report form, and why this represents a deliberate decision on my part, rather than capricious, neglectful, or irresponsible behavior. This decision can be understood fully only within the context of my general social beliefs, however, it is more than I can do at the moment, because of time limitations, to try to set these down in a reasonably comprehensive manner, and instead I will have to settle for a few remarks.

      First, I am not opposed to all evaluations of individuals' skill, knowledge, and performance, though I think we tend to make a fetish of trying to quantify everything. Evaluations carried out in order to help individuals improve, and which they want, can be beneficial to them if they are done well, BUT, evaluations imposed by a hierarchical structure, which serve as a means for hierarchical control, are invariably harmful.

      Even if well-intentioned, i.e. if motivated by paternalistic desires, such imposed evaluations set standards of conformity and thereby diminish diversity. They pressure the people subject to the evaluation (the objects of evaluation) to "shape up" to standards established by the hierarchy. The annual faculty evaluations, with their associated "carrot and stick" device--the so-called merit salary increases--clearly have the ostensible purpose of making the faculty "shape up"--of making us be "good" academics, as narrowly defined by the forms and the instruction sheet. In a very real sense it is not very different than the so-called objective tests that faculty impose on students, only this one is imposed by the administration on the faculty, and even the rewards and punishments are not very different.

      It would be bad enough if this were their only or true purpose, but in my view they also play another, more Machiavellian role. By adhering to this annual ritualized routine there is established an outward appearance of measured objectivity and fairness in the treatment of faculty. An outward appearance of legitimacy is important to the university hierarchy, which in fact often treats people quite arbitrarily (as regards recognition for academic achievement)--rewarding them for loyalty and service to the hierarchy, punishing them for opposing even particular and wrong acts of the hierarchy.

      I am unwilling to lend myself to this process, although I realize that many faculty accept it and even try to make it do what they think it is supposed to do--i.e. serve as a basis for fair and objective academic evaluation. At the same time, I am quite ready, and would like, to have my performance criticized if it is done by friends, students, and colleagues who do it ONLY to help me, and with no strings of monetary reward or punishment attached.