ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


5 6 2

The myths surrounding 
The W a y  faculty status for lib ra ria n s
I See it

B y  B e th  J .  S h a p ir o

Is fa c u lty  status really w hat we 
w a n t f o r  academ ic librarians?

J acquelyn McCoy, the outgoing president o f ACRL, writes about reengineering aca
demic and research libraries. She rightly states 
that academic libraries are at a crossroads due 
to technology, finances, and changes within 
higher education that “are forcing our profes­
sion to reevaluate every feature and function 
o f librarianship.”1 I would like to suggest that 
one of the first areas to be reevaluated is fac­
ulty status for librarians for it has outlived its 
usefulness.

One of the fundamental aspects o f faculty 
status for librarians is tenure or some form of 
continuing employment status. Some o f our 
teaching faculty colleagues are beginning to rec­
ognize that tenure is not all that it is cracked 
up to be. Jam es Winn, in an editorial in the 
C h ron icle o f  H igher E d u cation  cogently argues 
that tenure and the tenure review process no 
longer function as originally intended. Winn 
suggests that faculty initiate a grassroots move­
ment “to give up tenure voluntarily so that we 
can move toward a more humane and flexible 
system.”2

I agree with many o f Winn’s points and 
would like to suggest that it is time to re-evalu
ate the think tank’s assumptions about faculty 
status for librarians. This spring the work of an 
ACRL-sponsored think tank on faculty status 
for librarians for the year 2001 was published.3 
The think tank missed a great opportunity to 
take a fresh look at faculty status. Its approach 
was based on old assumptions and numerous 
myths. We can no longer afford to look at our 
profession in the same old ways.

Myth #1: Faculty status is a p p ro p riate 
to  th e ro le o f  librarian s. I disagree wholeheartedly

 with this assumption. While it is true 
that librarians are and should be considered 
key players in accomplishing the educational 
mission of our institutions, the work that we 
do is fundamentally different from that of the 
teaching faculty. Performance expectations and 
criteria for teaching faculty and librarians have 
little in common. In addition, the research re­
quirements for faculty are significant to the fields 
in which they teach. Conducting empirical re­
search is not necessarily essential to our basic 
mission as librarians. In reality, the vast major­
ity of research, or what passes for research, at 
institutions where librarians have faculty status 
is of questionable quality. Rather than focusing 
exclusively on developing a research agenda, 
we must develop a shared sense o f profession­
alism that involves professional participation 
at a variety o f levels.

Myth #2: The p ro tectio n  o f  faculty sta­
tus is im p o rtan t fo r acad em ic librarian s. 
Why? Do we feel that faculty status provides us 
with more credibility and respect on campus? 
Respect and status must be earned by devel­
oping our libraries into excellent, responsive 
units on campus that provide essential support 
to the teaching and research mission of the 
university. In recent years, many of us have 
talked about the central role of libraries on cam­
pus and about how important it is for librar­
ians to be partners with the faculty. Faculty 
status does not ensure that librarians will be 
considered equal partners in the educational 
process. Rather, we are and should be evalu­
ated on the quality, utility, and effectiveness of 
the collections and services we develop.

Myth #3: Faculty status benefits the acad ­
em y, n o t just librarians. During the McCarthy 
era, tenure was thought to protect the academic 
freedom of many faculty. We need to be realis­
tic about how tenure has been used. Clearly, 
junior faculty who have not yet achieved tenure

Beth J. Shapiro is university librarian at Rice University, Houston, Texas; e-mail: shapiro@ricevml.rice.edu

mailto:shapiro@ricevml.rice.edu


563

 remain vulnerable. As Winn so aptly states: 
“The right to free speech is precious and frag­
ile, but we should not be starry-eyed about the 
capacity of tenure to protect that right. Junior 
faculty members and others without tenure 
enjoy markedly less academic freedom than 
tenured people, and a determined vicious chair­
man can still abuse a tenured faculty member. 
Our protection from such abuses ultimately lies 
in the political system, specifically with state 
and federal laws that now protect all employ­
ees from dismissal on the grounds of race, gen­
der, faith, or political views.”4

Myth #4: Faculty status provides a posi­
tion  o f  influence fo r th e profession. How 
does this occur and whom do we influence? 
Once again, our influence on campus is some­
thing that must be earned. Influence is not 
achieved through the collegial governance sys­
tem.

• Faculty status is not required to ensure a 
system of collegial governance. Collegial gov­
ernance can be a value that is reflected in our 
standards. Concern and interest in the gover­
nance of libraries can no longer be the sole 
purview of librarians. Many of our libraries are 
staffed with engaged support staff and other 
professionals who have as much at stake as do 
librarians— and they too wish to work with all 
library staff as a team to help us move the li­
brary forward. Faculty status for only one cat­
egory of our staff creates divisions at a time 
w hen w e n eed  all library s ta ff to w ork 
collegially and cooperatively.

• Faculty status provides no guarantee that
librarians will be considered central to the edu­
cational process. I have seen librarians without
faculty status appointed ex officio to faculty
governance committees that are concerned with 
the curriculum because we have something
important to contribute. I also have seen the
reverse occur when library faculty are appointed
to these same committees but are not taken
seriously. The crucial factor is the quality of
our participation.

• Academic libraries exist to SUPPORT the
educational and research mission o f the uni­
versity. To do this, it is crucial that we enjoy
open and regular communication with campus
curriculum committees, something that faculty
status does not necessarily guarantee or facilitate.

Myth #5: Faculty status h as p ro v en  to
be a benefit to academ ic librarians. How?
Some have argued that faculty status has re­
sulted in fair compensation for librarians. Fac lt

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

uy

 status as a guarantee of fair compensation 
is absurd and highly situational. Yes, at some 
institutions faculty occasionally may get higher 
raises than do other staff. But at other institu­
tions the reverse is true.

In reviewing more than 30 years of our pro­
fessional literature, Rachel Applegate finds little 
empirical research to support the faculty status 
model.4 O f the handful of comparative studies 
that have been conducted, two show higher 
salaries with faculty status, while several oth­
ers do not. In addition, there are wide discrep­
ancies on all campuses among faculty of differ­
ent departments or schools. There is little parity 
between what faculty in a medical school make 
and those who teach English on the same col­
lege campus.

I contend that we should be more concerned 
with salary equity between librarians and other 
campus professionals (such as those in com­
puting) than with the faculty. In many of our 
institutions, faculty status and some of the req­
uisite perks (such as extended vacation and 
disability packages) have bought us off. We 
have significantly lower salaries and more gen­
erous benefits than other comparable profes­
sionals and still find ourselves at the bottom of 
the salary ladder with other faculty.

Many academic libraries today are under­
going significant organizational change—  
change that not only effects what we do but 
also effects the culture and organizational pro­
cesses that permeate libraries. Just as Winn calls 
for a grassroots movement among the faculty, 
I would like to suggest that a similar challenge 
be promoted within ACRL to stop promoting 
unproductive issues such as faculty status and 
to begin developing a framework for profes­
sional work in the library for the 21st century. 
It is time to develop a new paradigm not only 
for our libraries but also for our profession.

Notes
’Jacquelyn McCoy, “Re-engineering academic 
and research libraries,” C&RL News 54 (June 
1993): 333– 34.

2Jam es Winn, “Thinking the Unthinkable 
About Tenure,” C hronicle o f  H igher E du cation  
(September 16, 1992): B l – 2.

3“Faculty status: 2001,” C&RL News 54 (June 
1993): 338–40.

4Winn, “Thinking the Unthinkable.”
5Rachel Applegate, “Deconstructing Faculty 

Status: Research and Assumptions,” fo u r n a l o f  
A ca d em ic Librarianship, 19 (1993): 158–64. ■



564