Prophesy is, alas, not among the arts people have mastered sufficiently to include in a curriculum. History always ends at the present moment. What is to come is what we (and conditions) will make-and what, in turn, will remake us. Prophesy is, at best, a sort of guessing. With these cautionary remarks, I turn to my subject, the future of the Center.

I PREDICT, FIRST, THAT THERE WILL STILL BE A CENTER TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

This, unfortunately, is already quite daring. When the Center began its work ten years ago, Watergate was still news and ethics was very much "in" among foundations, the federal government, and other potential benefactors to whom the Center looked for support. IIT could be, and was, quite generous. The Center had few competitors.

All that has changed. Ethics, though not exactly "out;' is no longer "in" among foundations, the federal government, or other benefactors. Ethics has simply become one area of funding among many, one among many competing for less money than was available ten years ago. Many of the foundations on which the Center relied in the past for large grants are funded by corporations which, like Exxon, have suffered from the recent hard times. Meanwhile, the federal government seems to be ever less willing to support any nonlethal activity. And, of course, while you could have counted ethics centers on the fingers of one hand ten years ago, you could not count them today without the fingers and toes of four or five other people.

Why then am I willing to predict that the Center will survive ten more years? My answer is that the Center has resources few other ethics centers can match. Among these are its connection with IIT, its location in Chicago, and its history. Each of these resources deserves some explaining. Let me take them in order.

The Center's connection with IIT is a resource in part because of what IIT gets from the Center. IIT is a university, but bears the name of a famous technical school. It is also a good small university but is within easy commuting distance of many good schools, both public and private, including two of the world's great universities. Apart from moving to Ohio or Tennessee, about all IIT can do to get people to pay attention to it, to attract students, faculty, and philanthropy, is to have programs that differ from those of other Chicago institutions in a way people generally approve.

The Center's connection with IIT is also a resource because of what the Center gets from IIT. Apart from money, what the Center gets from IIT is close association with an institution large enough to have schools of engineering, architecture, business, and law, as well as an undergraduate program in philosophy, but not so large that the faculty of those schools are cut off from one another and from us. The Center is not only able to draw on faculty members of these professional schools for advice, collaboration, and criticism, but also able to try out experimental courses, new materials, and the like with their students. The Center would be a far less appropriate place for the study of ethics in the professions if IIT were less a collection of professional schools and more a traditional liberal arts college.

That brings me to the second and third resources standing surity for the Center's existence ten years from now, Chicago and the Center's own history. The Center is a livelier place for being in Chicago. The same universities that compete with IIT for students and money provide the Center with an enormous pool of possible associates. We are a dollar or two away from people many other centers must fly in to see. We are able to form long-term working groups which, but for the proximity of the participants, would be impractical. Chicago is itself a great university of which its many universities, seminaries, hospitals, museums, and other institutions are part. So, for example, while "at the Center;" I attend a workshop on Ethics and Public Policy at the University of Chicago, go downtown for meetings of a group studying corruption, attend a conference on business ethics at Loyola, and discuss the ethics of audit failure with some members of my wife's law firm. What would the Center be like if it were located in a college town?

The Center's history is, I think, in large part a product of its location in Chicago. The Center has been able to attract good people; some in part because they were already in Chicago; others, because Chicago was much more lively than where they were. Attracting good people is, of course, part of what has helped the Center develop a reputation for doing what it does well. But attracting good people is not enough to explain why the Center has so often been first, or tied first, in identifying ethical problems in this or that profession, helping members of the profession sort out the issues, and producing analytical articles, bibliographies, and teaching materials on the subject. Attracting good people is not enough to explain that because other centers, much less successful, have also been able to attract good people. Part of the explanation, it seems to me, must be that Chicago is a good place to study ethics in the professions. Despite Chicago's history of corruption, indeed, perhaps in part because of it, people at our Center are likely to see problems before equally good people at most other centers do.

The Center's history of being first is an important resource. It gives us a claim on potential benefactors that few other ethics centers can match. Of course, like many resources, this one will decay if not regularly replenished. An important part of the reason I am willing to predict that the Center will be here ten years from now, is that I believe the Center will continue to develop new ideas in a way most centers cannot match. In this respect at least, my first prediction is premised on my SECOND, THAT, BY 1996, THE CENTER'S STAFF WILL BE DOUBLE ITS PRESENT LEVEL.

IIT wants the Center to bring in substantially more money than it is now doing. For reasons already given, the Center is not likely to be able to do that simply by getting more grants. Neither business nor government is likely to increase substantially the amount of money available for study of professions. The only alternative source of substantial income for the Center seems to be fees for providing programs of continuing professional education in ethics. The Center is already at work on a prototype of such programs. I am willing to predict the appointment by 1988 of some one who could take the primary responsibility for developing continuing education programs, because the appointment is a good investment in the future of the Center. My prediction for 1996 is simply a function of the hope that the continuing education programs and grants together will produce enough income to support additional research associates and supporting staff.

That brings me to my THIRD, LAST, AND MOST DARING PREDICTION. By 1996, the Center will be conducting research on such diverse subjects as changing notions of ownership in science and technology, professional self-regulation, the coordination of technical knowledge and managerial decision, the moral responsibility of architects for culture, history, and appearance of Chicago's neighborhoods, the effect of student grievance procedures on academic freedom, the ethics of waste disposal, and morally permissible strategies in labor-management negotiation.

The Center will also have an endowed program for visiting fellows. These would be practitioners chosen among competing applicants. They would take off from one week to one month from corporate duties, work in a professional association, or other nonacademic activity to take up residence at the Center during the school year. They would have no duties, but would be expected to read, think, and talk about ethics with Center staff. Many would accept an invitation or two to provide; a class with the insights of an ethically sensitive practitioner. Former fellows would be invited to serve on research projects of interest to them.

Meanwhile, the Center's continuing education division would be offering a wide range of courses in applied ethics at each of IIT's three campuses and at many corporate training centers all over the midwest . . . .
Here I must stop. My guessing has already turned into hopes and bright dreams.

Will any of this last prediction come true? Who knows? But I do not apologize for it. Unlike Cassandra's prophesy, mine is neither terrifying nor made useless by its certainty. It is a prospectus rather than a doom. Only a little money, luck, and work stands between us and an achievement as welcome to IIT, Chicago and, indeed, all people of good will, as to the Center itself.