ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


160

bined in 1951 as the Pure and Applied Sciences 
Section to bring ACRL to its section status as 
of 1956.

Things Begin to Happen

The effect of autonomous status for the col­
lege librarians within ALA was immediate and 
electric. Interest in the new association zoomed, 
convention programs multiplied and took on 
additional zest and stature. Membership in­
creased rapidly over the few hundreds of the 
College and Reference Section. The College 
Library Advisory Board, which had done yeo­
man’s service during the thirties, felt that it 
could now safely recommend itself out of exist­
ence. Most important of all, College & Re­
search Libraries was bom.

It would be difficult to over-assess the vital­
izing and stimulating effect of College & Re­
search Libraries on college librarianship and 
on the growth and development of ACRL. 
“The time has long passed,” said Editor Kuhl­
man, in his introductory statement, “when a 
single general library organization and its offi­
cial journal were adequate to meet the profes­
sional needs of college, university, and refer­
ence librarians.” Noting Abraham Flexner’s em­
phasis, in his analysis of a profession, on a 
medium of communication, Mr. Kuhlman said, 
“I t has been the absence of a professional 
journal devoted specifically to the interests of 
college, university and reference libraries which 
no doubt accounts, to a large extent, for the 
lack of a definitive literature dealing with these 
institutions.” …

While College & Research Libraries was 
off and running immediately, not so the or­
ganization for which it was the official organ.

The ALA could not easily change its spots. It 
took time, in spite of its reorganized machinery 
and structure, for it and its headquarters staff 
to reorient thinking, activities and financing to 
the new order of things. Funds for the long- 
awaited and long-promised executive secretary 
at headquarters were still not available. Rum­
blings of discontent among college librarians 
grew correspondingly. There was much talk 
and some planning to take ACRL out of ALA 
entirely and establish its headquarters on 
some college campus. Officers of the early 
1940’s were under considerable pressure to 
take this drastic step.

A Headquarters Staff at Last

It was not until ALA came to the hard de­
cision to draw on principal to finance a head­
quarters staff for ACRL that the council ap­
proval of 1932 was finally consummated. This 
happened in April of 1947…  .

…  ACRL has grown rapidly in prestige 
and accomplishments. It has achieved a some­
what uneasy but reasonably effective division 
of membership dues with its parent ALA so 
that it must no longer, in effect, eat seed com. 
It has also become soundly integrated with its 
sections and better integrated with the ALA. 
Its membership is now over 5,400, it is in a 
healthy financial condition, its official journal 
ranks with the best of its class in whatever 
field, it is issuing other publications of stature, 
its sections are thriving, and it is amply calling 
forth intelligent and able leadership from its 
ranks. It took a long time, but one hundred 
years after the beginnings, college, university, 
and reference librarians have a strong, virile, 
and effective organization equal to the diffi­
culties, opportunities and challenges ahead. ■ ■

From the ACRL President
Since Midwinter:
1. A LA  Reorganization. The ACRL Execu­

tive Committee has had an opportunity to see a 
preliminary copy of the latest ACONDA find­
ings which are to be presented to membership 
at Dallas. In it there is a proposal for a further 
study of reorganization, but suggesting either 
the triad or the federation concept. ACRL 
still supports the federation proposal. It also 
supports the new ACONDA proposal for further 
study and suggests that ACRL recommend that 
no interim changes be made in the structure 
or organization of individual aspects of ALA 
until a final decision on the reorganization pro­
posal is made.

In my earlier memo to you in the News, I 
indicated that we would keep ACRL member­

ship informed of our own study on the matter 
of federation. Following the Midwinter Meet­
ings in Los Angeles, we set up three task 
forces to analyze and prepare recommendations, 
assuming federation, with respect to three areas 
of concern to us. These are listed below with 
the names of ACRL members serving on them 
who, I am sure, would be happy to receive 
any suggestions from the membership.

Structure: Joanne Harrar, University of 
Georgia; William Pullen, Georgia State Col­
lege; Hal Stone, Los Angeles City College.

Goals: Louis Jacob, University of Pennsyl­
vania; Marc Gittelsohn, University of Califor­
nia, Berkeley; Darrell Lemke, Consortium of 
Universities, Washington.

Finances: Mark Gormley, Wayne State



161

 
 

 

University; James Humphry, H. W. Wilson Co., 
Bronx, N.Y.

We are planning an all-day meeting of 
these task forces and the Executive Committee 
in Dallas on Sunday, June 20, at which we 
hope to produce final recommendations which 
will be presented to the ACRL Board of Di­
rectors and then for discussion by ACRL 
membership.

2. Internship Committee. The Board of Di­
rectors approved, upon the recommendation of 
the Planning Committee, the establishment of a 
committee to develop a program for providing 
further training and assistance in the develop­
ment of professional skills for black librarians 
and librarians from other minority groups. The 
Committee consists of Mrs. Virginia Lacy Jones,
Katharine Stokes, David Weber, Mrs. Annette
Phinazee, and Mrs. Phyllis Cartwright.

3. Legislation. As many of you know, the
Higher Education Act of 1965 runs out at the

end of June. In addition, the availability of 
funds has been curtailed and the guidelines 
for their distribution redefined. The ALA Wash­
ington Office has been concerned with recom­
mendations to congressmen regarding the ex­
tension of the Act, the increase in appropria­
tions, and the guidelines for allocation of funds. 
To assist the Washington Office in its work, 
it has been given a list of college librar­
ians who could, when called on for quick ac­
tion, contact their own representatives and 
senators. Each ACRL librarian should also as­
sume individual responsibility for similar ac­
tion.

4. Dallas. The ACRL formal program time 
is being reserved for reports on various ACRL 
activities, with specific discussion directed to 
the work of the Academic Status Committee 
and discussion of federation proposals.—Anne 
C. Edmonds, President, ACRL. ■ ■

ACRL Board of Directors
M ID W IN TER  M EETIN G  

LOS ANGELES, 1971
Brief of Minutes
Monday, January 18, 1971—8:30 p.m.

Present: President, Anne C. Edmonds; Vice- 
President and President-Elect, Joseph H. Rea­
son; Past President, Philip J. McNiff; Direc­
tors-at-Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. 
Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA 
Council, Page Ackerman, Andrew J. Eaton, 
Warren J. Haas, James F. Holly, Robert K. 
Johnson, Sarah D. Jones, James O. Wallace; 
Chairmen of Sections, Carl H. Sachtleben, 
Mrs. Joleen Bock, Julius P. Barclay, Eleanor 
Buist, David W. Heron; Chairmen and Chair­
men-Elect of Sections, Carl R. Cox, Hal C. 
Stone, Lee Ash, Wolfgang M. Freitag; Execu­
tive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Professional 
Assistant, Jordan M. Scepanski; Administrative 
Assistant, Elaine Swanson.

Absent: Robert H. Blackburn, Herbert A. 
Cahoon, Ralph H. Hopp, Andrew Horn.

Visitors: Warren Boes, Brendan Connolly, 
D. Davisson, Stuart Forth, Beverly Johnson, 
Arthur Plotnik, Eldred Smith, W. B. Walker.

President Anne C. Edmonds presided.
The meeting was called to order, and the 

minutes of the Detroit meetings were approved 
as published. Miss Edmonds then asked Mr. 
Thomas to report on the mail votes of the 
ACRL Board of Directors during the fall. Mr. 
Thomas noted some concern about mail bal­

lots and asked for opinions on this procedure. 
Mr. Holly supported the procedure as a means 
of expediting Board business and thus reduc­
ing time requirements at regular meetings. Mr. 
Weber asked who approved mail ballots. Mr. 
Thomas answered that the first set of ballots 
was sent upon the decision of the executive 
committee, while the second was sent out at 
the request of the Committee on Academic 
Status. Mr. Weber expressed the opinion that 
the officers should always determine what 
should be brought to a mail vote. He further 
stated there should be a requirement for a 
statement by an individual in opposition to a 
particular resolution. Statistical studies would 
seem to indicate that resolutions sent without 
such opposition statements are always sup­
ported he said, citing as examples the nearly 
unanimous approval of the various resolutions. 
Mr. Weber then moved that a majority of 
the Executive Committee concur in submitting 
a mail ballot to the Board, and, when possible, 
a member of the association be found to pro­
vide a written statement of opposition. Mr. 
Tanis SE C O N D E D .

Mr. Eaton then asked if, instead of merely 
an opposing viewpoint, a statement of the 
problem with advantages and disadvantages of 
the resolution set forth might not be better. Mr. 
Weber replied that he assumed a committee 
wishing to submit an issue to a mail ballot 
would want to support it; that what would be 
lacking is a contrasting view. Mr. Tanis did not 
believe the officers would necessarily be in fa­
vor of an issue submitted for a mail vote. He