ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


173

sentation of this resolution either to council or 
to membership,

BE IT NOW RESOLVED that the ACRL re­
affirms its resolution as amended: Academic li­
braries, as well as other types of libraries, are in­
stitutions having a configuration of problems 
which make them unique institutions in terms of 
priorities, personnel, and professional aims. Fail­
ure to recognize this principle and gear the re­
organization of ALA to respond to this par­
ticular set of requirements would produce gen­
eral mediocrity throughout the work of the as­
sociation.

It is THEREFORE recommended that:

I. ALA become a federation of library as­
sociations with a strong, central head­
quarter’s secretariat.

II. Each of the federated associations de­
termine policy in all matters concern­
ing its areas of interest.

III. ACRL as a federated association be 
headed by an executive director ap­
pointed by the Association of College 
and Research Libraries. The executive 
director is responsible to the member­
ship of the association and is respon­
sible for executing policies and pro­
grams initiated by the membership, 
providing staff and setting salaries.

IV. Membership in ACRL be open to in­
dividuals holding a library degree or 
individuals who by their professional 
appointment may be designated as hav­
ing rank equivalent to one holding such 
a degree.

V. A dues structure be developed, deter­
mined by the Association of College 
and Research Libraries, which would 
permit it to finance its own programs 
and provide for the staffing and activ­
ities of the central headquarters.

VI. The officers of the federated associa­
tions form an executive committee to 
the ALA secretariat staff. Meetings of 
this executive committee should be 
frequent, and task forces (with termi­
nal dates) should be appointed by this 
advisory body to study interdivisional 
problems.

VII. Among the responsibilities of the ALA 
secretariat be the maintenance of cen­
tral offices offering various professional 
and administrative services to the fed­
erated association. The advisory group 
to each office should be composed of 
representatives appointed by each of 
the federated associations and should 
have the responsibility of reporting 
back to the parent association.

It is further recommended that position pa­

pers should be prepared by ACRL proposing 
a possible organizational structure, developing 
goals, directions, and responsibilities of ACRL, 
and outlining the financial implications of 
federation. ■ ■

ACADEM IC STATUS
As the academic status debate grows in in­

tensity, the replies to the Academic Status 
Committee’s request for responses grow in num­
ber.

In attendance at a meeting held November 
24 at Brandeis were:

Helen M. Brown, Librarian, Wellesley Col­
lege;

Robert H. Deily, Associate for Library Ser­
vices, Central Headquarters Staff, State Uni­
versity of New York;

Rupert E. Gilroy, Assistant Director of the 
Library, Brandeis University;

Frank N. Jones, Chief Librarian, Southeast­
ern Massachusetts University, North Dartmouth;

Joseph S. Komidar, University Librarian, 
Tufts University;

John Laucas, Director of Libraries, Boston 
University;

Basil Mitchell, Associate for Library Ser­
vices, Central Administration, State University 
of New York;

John P. McDonald, Director, University of 
Connecticut Libraries;

Roland H. Moody, Director of Libraries, 
Northeastern University;

Louis Sasso, Assistant to the Director, Boston 
Public Library;

David R. Watkins, Director of the Library, 
Brandeis University.

They reached consensus on the following 
points regarding the Standards…  : and com­
municated them to Mr. Stuart Forth, chair­
man of the Academic Status Committee.

1. It is essential that the Committee define 
the role of the librarian and his profes­
sional staff in the academic community as 
distinct from the faculty. This would help 
clarify several instances in the nine rec­
ommendations made by the Committee 
where this distinction is not made clear. 
For instance, the group would disagree 
with the obligatory assignment of faculty 
ranks and titles to librarians.

2. The document is too specific to be gen­
erally applicable because of the many 
differences in the form of government in 
the various institutions of higher learning.

3. The report should be persuasive in tone 
rather than mandatory if it is to convince 
those who hold the final authority in 
these matters; namely, the faculty of each 
institution.

4. The standards should be separated from



174

the proposed means of implementation. 
Once standards have been agreed upon, 
then th e means of implementation can 
be considered.

5. The group was in general agreement that 
point 7 on library governance is not satis­
factory. It was their considered opinion 
th at the proposal of the use of the aca­
demic departm ent as a model of library 
organization is questionable.

The following letter from Mr. A lυin Skipsna, 
librarian of Skidmore College, was also direct­
ed to Mr. Forth and is reprinted with his per­
mission at the request of the writer.

Dear Mr. Forth:
It is with dismay bordering on incredulity 

th at I read in CR L News, February 1971, th at 
“two master’s degrees …  shall be the minimal 
educational requirement for tenure for all li­
brarians appointed after the adoption of these 
standards by the ACRL.” e

F ar from being “truly a vote of confidence 
in the profession” as claimed by Beverly John­
son in the accompanying article, the proposed 
standards constitute an officially sanctioned dec­
laration th at librarianship is not in itself a pro­
fession. Curiously, Miss Johnson refers to fine 
arts and engineering faculties as examples of 
disciplines w here “Ph.D. is not necessarily the 
terminal degree,” bu t is seemingly oblivious to 
the fact th a t members of those professions are 
not out lobbying for the need of additional 
master’s degrees. T hat dubious distinction is 
reserved for the inferiority complex-ridden li­
brary profession.

Pondering as to the reasons for this strange 
proposal, one cannot escape the impression th at 
here is an outgrowth of local experiences in 
appeasing angry faculty gods. Miss Johnson’s 
article reinforces th at impression when she 
writes “we were able to gain the faculty’s ac­
ceptance by offering (sic) as p art of our ‘cre­
dentials’ …  a second master’s degree,” and 
“In  the California state colleges …  * * the 
success of the librarians’ case with the faculty,” 
etc., etc. Another how-we-did-it approach com­
bined with a deplorable willingness to sell short 
the profession as a whole.

I hope that it is unnecessary to state that I 
am not arguing against additional degrees. A 
doctorate in library science has been and should 
continue to be important means of professional

* Revision in the Proposed Standards for Faculty 
Status.

* * Cf. ALA Report, “Status of California State Col­
lege Librarians,” American Libraries (Jan. 1970) 
which ( commenting on the twenty-year struggle to 
achieve faculty status in the California state colleges) 
states that “among the states to which the nation cus­
tomarily looks for educational leadership California 
is most backward in this respect [i.e. faculty status 
for librarians].”

advancement. Some large university systems 
require a second master’s degree for appoint­
ment. Other institutions evaluate additional de­
grees in granting tenure and promotions, b u t to 
make such degrees a condition of tenure is 
pernicious. The clause that the requirement 
would apply only to “all librarians appointed 
after th e adoption of these standards by ACRL” 
would still deprive in a cavalier fashion a sub­
stantial number of academic librarians of oc­
cupational mobility.

For the sake of perspective I would like to 
state th at I am writing from an institution 
where librarians have faculty status. This in­
cludes a 9 / 10-month year, faculty rank and 
salary scale, as well as tenure, promotions, and 
sabbaticals. The library is considered a faculty 
departm ent and the librarian functions as a 
departmental chairman. The principle has 
been established that the customary terminal 
degree for librarians is the M.L.S. This was 
achieved without any “offering.”

W hat I am saying in a nutshell is th a t no­
body will honor a profession that does not hon­
or itself. Thank you.—Alvin Skipsna. ■■

GRANTING OF 
ACADEMIC STATUS

The Board of Regents of the University of 
Rhode Island approved a recommendation at 
its April 1 meeting th at would give faculty 
status to University of Rhode Island librarians 
effective July 1.

The regents, in adopting the motion, agreed 
th at several changes be made in the university 
manual. Like other university faculty members 
in teaching and research, librarians will be able 
to qualify for one of four ranks: professor in 
the library, associate professor, assistant pro­
fessor, and assistant librarian.

Holding of academic rank, however, shall be 
independent of holding an administrative ap­
pointm ent in the library. To qualify for aca­
demic rank, a librarian must have been award­
ed an advanced degree in library science, a 
master’s degree in a subject area discipline, or 
have equivalent professional experience.

Librarians who hold faculty rank shall re­
ceive salaries with other faculty members in 
the same rank and shall attain salary levels at 
least equivalent to the minimum for their 
ranks by July 1, 1973.

The recommendation was brought to the 
board by President Baum who approved a bill 
of the faculty senate. The senate had endorsed 
a report by its library committee last May 28 
saying th at librarians are an organic part of 
the university community and can best func­
tion when they are rightly recognized as pro­
fessional members of the faculty. ■■