ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 564 / C&RL News of m aterials, services, and needs, coupled with de­ creased institutional budgets, inflationary costs of library materials, and cutbacks in Federal fund­ ing. Cooperation is the byword of the 1980s as evi­ denced by the participation of m any college and university libraries in cooperative projects for cata­ loging, acquisitions, literature searching, and in­ te rlib ra ry lo an , all these operations being en­ h a n c ed by th e m iraculous c a p ab ilitie s of th e computer. The future of college and university libraries will depend largely on the com m itm ent of librarians and educators to resource sharing and the provision of traditional as well as innovative services in a net­ work environment. References Brough, Kenneth. “The Colonial College L i­ b rary ,” in M ichaelH . Harris, ed., Reader in A m er­ ican Library History (W ashington, D .C .: NCR Microcard Editions, 1971), 31-32. C hattin Carlton, W . N. “College Libraries in the M id-Nineteenth C entury,” Library Journal 32 (November 1907): 479-86. Clayton, H ow ard. “The American College L i­ brary, 1800-1860,” in Harris, Reader in American Library History, 89-98. Govan, James F. “Collegiate Education: Past and P re se n t,” L ib ra ry Trends 18 (July 1969): 13-28. Ham lin, Arthur T. The University Library in the United States: Its Origins and Developm ent (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1981), 3-83. Holley, E d w ard G. “A cadem ic L ibraries in 1876,” in Richard D . Johnson, ed., Libraries for Teaching, Libraries fo r Research: Essays fo r a Century (Chicago: American Library Association, 1977), 1-33. Shiflett, Orvin Lee. Origins o f American Aca­ d e m ic L ib ra ria n sh ip (N orw ood, N .J.: Ablex, 1981), 1-55. Shores, Louis. Origins o f the American College Library, 1638-1800 (Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College, 1934), 56, 226-32. Veit, Fritz. “ L ibrary Service to College Stu­ dents,” Library Trends 25 (July 1976): 361-78. ■ ■ T h e A c a d e m y a n d t h e f u t u r e : C o n s t a n c y w it h in c h a n g e By Jonathan F. Fanton President New School fo r Social Research A paper presented at the November 18, 1988, meeting of the A C R L Greater New York Metropolitan Area Chapter. T he prospect of reflecting on w hat the Academy will look like in the 21st century, and w hat the im­ plications are for libraries and librarians, is d au n t­ ing. It brings to m ind Felix F rankfurter’s words: “ .. .to pierce the curtain of the future, to give shape and visage to mysteries still in the wom b of time, is th e gift of im a g in a tio n .” My im agination has enough trouble getting through th e next year let alone into the next century. The daily pressures of fund raising, budget planning, faculty appoint­ ments, and m yriad activities th at absorb a presi­ dent’s life, led me to think for a moment I should pass up your invitation. But I rem embered th a t in the early hours of January first, I resolved to accept July/August 1989 / 565 some speaking engagem ents th a t pushed m e to think in terms broader th an I norm ally have the luxury of doing. So I thank you for this opportunity to be w ith you and to grapple w ith the challenging issues your conference poses. I m ust confess th a t as a university president, I have had far less tim e to enjoy the pleasures of li­ braries or debate th eir purposes and needs th an in my earlier teaching and adm inistrative lives. We choose careers in th e Academy because of the spe­ cial value we place on learning and knowledge and on the hum an endeavor from w hich they emerge. The library is th e very soul of th a t endeavor. It is no surprise th a t w hen w e in academ ic life enter a li­ b rary , w e feel a t home; in fact, w e feel w e encoun­ ter our tru e selves. I have enjoyed working in libraries, and I have been involved in academ ic library adm inistration. At Yale, and a t th e University of Chicago, my re ­ sponsibilities at one tim e or another included w ork­ ing on library issues. At Chicago, for example, I had the task of negotiating the m erger of the John C re ra r L ibrary into th e University of Chicago L i­ b r a r y , served on th e b u ild in g c o m m itte e a n d helped raise th e necessary funds. I even took a crack at trying to understand how th e Research Li­ braries G roup and th e O C LC m ight find common ground. This is not to say my professorial and ad­ m inistrative experience enables m e to tell you any­ thing about college and research libraries th a t you don’t already know. But it does suggest th a t my heart is in the right place. W hen I was teaching Am erican history at Yale and Chicago, I routinely w arned my students th a t history is one long continuous flow. It is not, as we are so prone to think, neatly packaged by presiden­ tial term s, wars, depressions, decades or even cen­ turies. These are convenient categories, bench­ marks useful to historians, w riters and students, but they do not necessarily reflect reality. And though this historical flow is continuous, its direction is neither certain nor pre-ordained. D an­ iel Boorstin, a m an w ho has affected the thinking of m any of us, noted th a t “perhaps th e greatest d an ­ ger in m achine-dom inated America is the tem pta­ tion to believe th a t our w orld is m ore predictable th an it really is. Each triu m p h of our technology tem pts us to redraw the geography of our im agina­ tio n ... W e everyday citizens, the dem ocratic citi­ zenry of technologically triu m p h a n t Am erica— m ore th an any other people before us—have come to take for granted everyday violations of yester­ day’s common sense.” Given these assumptions about history, you m ay find m y conclusion on the future of the Academy surprising. I expect th a t the “N ew” Academy will look very m uch like th e old in its basic configura­ tion and purpose. B ut the environm ent in w hich it functions will place trem endous stresses and strains on th a t purpose. T h e advent of a new century does not im ply a radical change, a sharp break w ith the past. R ather, it signals an intensification of the di­ lemmas w e now face and an ever-m ounting set of challenges, albeit ones th a t not are easily foreseen. A journalist friend of m ine covering education for the N ew York Times often asks me w h a t is new in higher education. O ne day, after dutifully recit­ ing the usual topics, I said to him , “W hy don’t you w rite an article on how little undergraduate educa­ tion has changed in this century?” The num ber of credits required to graduate have periodically al­ tered; new majors have appeared; w e now have advanced placem ent and double degrees and a new class of institutions called com m unity colleges— b u t the basics, th e fundam entals, have rem ained th e same. Four years of study after high school graduation; w ork in the liberal arts or specialized fields; repeating cyclical patterns in curriculum ; and faculty train ed in g raduate institutions th a t have not changed th a t m uch either. T he m ajor changes, in fact, have been dem ographic not aca­ demic: access to higher education is now m uch m ore dem ocratic. Fully 60% of our high school graduates now pursue some kind of post-secondary education com pared w ith less th an half th a t num ­ ber in 1950; and now have 12.5 m illion students in the Academy com pared to a total of 2.5 million in 1950. These quantitative changes have had an im pact on institutional arrangem ents, b u t th e structure is basically the same as it was at the tu rn of the 20th century. There have been introduced into the sys­ tem experim ental program s or colleges th a t have briefly flowered and most died; and there has been a never-ending debate about th e nature of the un­ d e r g r a d u a te c u rr ic u lu m e v e r sin ce H a r v a r d adopted the free elective system seventy-five years ago. In th a t period of tim e w e have gone back and fo rth betw een core program s and elective p ro ­ grams, distribution requirem ents and concentra­ tions, preparation for work or preparation for life. I expect these argum ents and positions to replay regularly, thus curriculum changes in the future will be very m uch like the changes w e have had in the past. So I guess I do not see dram atic changes ahead in the curriculum which have m ajor implications for libraries. T hat is not to say the future is uninterest­ ing or th a t there are not some trends to note. T he w orld is of course smaller th an it has ever been before and still shrinking rapidly. This affects everyone’s perspective. Students and faculty have grow ing interests in oth er cultures, and tens of thousands now travel abroad regularly. T h a t is an im portant difference from my generation. O ur stu­ dents think nothing of going to Europe for a week, taking an expedition to Africa, C hina or C u b a —if they have learned how to get there from C anada; political barriers do not deter th e w ay they did in the past. Few think of the Iron C u rtain anymore. These developments necessarily affect values and curriculum —m ore non-western studies, especially history, greater focus on gender and minorities, a resurgence in the study of foreign languages and lit­ 566 / C&RL News eratures, and a broad range of comparative in­ quiry. All these changes are desirable and im por­ tant, but not fundam ental or structural. Another trend we have all seen, and m any of us have welcomed, is a growing recognition of the inter-relatedness of knowledge (a notion developed by the Greeks some centuries ago). Every field of study is now intimately affected by work in other disciplines; for example we now have fields like medical anthropology, unimaginable two decades ago. The recent revival of interest in the Core C ur­ riculum is a clear m anifestation of the need stu­ dents and faculty feel to make connections. I am hopeful th at we will begin to find larger numbers of students reading more broadly in fields other than their area of specialization. It is im portant th at those interested in science and business begin to grasp the need for a grounding in philosophy and ethics; and th at humanists recognize the impor­ tance of computers and technology to a world in which they must function. This is simply C. P. Snow revisited, but it is only w ith this rising gener­ ation th a t we see real ease in moving across those boundaries which somehow so seriously limited my own generation. And when students move across b o u n d a rie s m o re easily th a n th e ir te a c h e rs , librarians—who by definition and disposition are interdisciplinary—will play an even more im por­ ta n t educational role. You m ay use more com­ puters and other high tech devices, but your in­ structional responsibility, one on one, will carry forw ard well into the next century. So to use Boorstin’s m etaphor, technological tri­ um ph has not changed the geography of the Acad­ emy. It m ay have cut a few new roads through the terrain. And it may have changed the habits of those who reside on or pass along the academic landscape. New forests have grown up, and others have been chopped down. It m ay be easier to tra ­ verse th e ground, b u t th e to p ography rem ains much as it has been for generations. And yet, w hat m any of you in your profession have called the Inform ation Age has simply be­ come overwhelming. There are limits to w hat we can comprehend, order and understand. I am re­ minded of the words of H annah Arendt, whose of­ fice was just a few steps from this room, when she said, “To expect tru th to come from thinking signi­ fies that we mistake the need to think with the urge to know .” O ur urge to know has been confused with thinking and truth, and th e time has come to realize the unsatisfying nature of this frantic chase. O ur interest in th e future lies in the quest for a good society. In my view, such a society depends more on qualitative measures than mastery of quan tita­ tive data. I w ould suggest it is time to slow down and reflect more on w hat it is reasonable to know. But w hat is reasonable to know m ay change from time to time, and those changes cannot be pre­ dicted. Moreover, w h at is reasonable to know at a given tim e should not impose limits on all th a t is known or on the search for greater knowledge. I hope th at the next generation will be less tyran­ nized by the inform ation explosion th an we have been. Librarians will constantly face this question of the total sum of knowledge versus the needs of the moment. As a non-librarian bu t one who is respon­ sible for the care and m aintenance of a library, I take this view: Every decision I have been p a rt of to invest more in library facilities has been a good one. I am glad, for example, w e ignored the advice of those at Yale who believed the book would soon be obsolete and so w e should not build the Seely Mudd storage library. All evidence is to the con­ trary as we see usage climb sharply in all libraries. And I agree w ith Boorstin’s spirited advocacy for fu rth e r investm ent in th e L ib ra ry of Congress when he said: “Threats from w ithout and problems w ithin dem and every shred of the most ancient wisdom and the most recent inform ation—to cope w ith the challenges of a nuclear w ar, to sieze the o p p o rtu n itie s of u n p re c e d e n te d technological p ro g re ss, a n d to e n ric h th e resources of freedom...Knowledge is not simply another com­ modity. On the contrary. Knowledge is never used up; it increases by diffusion and grows by disper­ sion. . .any willful cut in our resources of knowledge is an act of self destruction.” My counsel offers no solace to university presi­ dents or government policy-makers who seek a ra ­ tionale for economies in libraries and information services. Indeed, I submit that as knowledge and information become more abundant, and storage and access more expensive and complicated, we must plan for systematic investments in our re­ search libraries so th at our national trust is not ab­ dicated to the for-profit enterprises. No doubt you can define better than I this problem , b u t I have been increasingly concerned about the changing position of the Academy in the society and th at cer­ tainly has implications for libraries as well. It is one of the glories of American society that we have the strongest system of higher education in th e w orld. O ne c h aracteristic th a t adds to its strength is the mix of public and private institutions and a hard-w on tradition of academic freedom. There are forces at work threatening the indepen­ dence of even the strongest universities which are, in my view, less free than when I began nearly 25 years ago. And yet w e hardly talk about these trends, let alone offer resistance. W e have contributed to th e problem through our own behavior. Higher education has had a spe­ cial relationship w ith American society, something in the nature of an unw ritten compact. W e have received m any benefits—tax exemption, tolerance if not respect for academic freedom, generous fi­ nancial support—and these have been conferred in recognition of th e central role universities play in a democratic society through training, the discovery and dissem ination of new know ledge, and the transmission and preservation of core values. And for a while the public felt higher education 568 / C&RL News was living up to its p a rt of the bargain. The won­ ders of scientific research flowed from university laboratories, fueled by government underwriting in the wake of Sputnik. The public had an intuitive belief that the application of social science could solve our social problems, and th at scholars and in­ tellectuals could guide national leaders in practical and moral choices. But in the more than two decades I have spent as a university administrator and history teacher, the perception of private universities and their status in our society has changed sharply. The former Secre­ ta ry of E d u c a tio n has c h a ra c te riz e d them as “greedy.” The flow of advice from scholars to pol­ icy makers is at a low ebb. Universities are no longer perceived as neutral territory where con­ flicting ideas and ideologies can be aired and tested. Quite a change in one generation. While the reasons for this change are complex, universities must bear some of th e responsibility. The compact of which I spoke assumes th at uni­ versities are common ground, officially neutral w ith respect to specific policy issues. However, once, the public perceives th at universities are not officially neutral on m atters of public policy un­ connected to education, and th at universities act in ways barely distinguishable from any lobby, the compact is in trouble. The disenchantment began in the Vietnam era. Invited government officials, Robert McNamara at H arvard, for example, or those advocating un­ popular views, such as W illiam Shockley at Yale, were prevented from speaking. Episodes of censor­ ship or disruption have chilled the atmosphere for free speech ever since. Invitations to controversial speakers, often government officials, are increas­ ingly rare at major universities these days. Erosion of the free exchange of ideas on campus was largely a consequence of political activism by students and faculty which placed a higher priority on im m ediate political goals th an on the tra d i­ tional responsibilities of the university. As the Viet­ nam W ar dragged on, activist students and faculty pressured university presidents and trustees— b ecau se of th e p e rc e iv e d m o ra l in flu e n ce of universities—to condemn the war and work for its end. A few boards actually passed resolutions to that effect, but fortunately most understood that trustees in their official capacity should not take stands on policy issues. To do so would compromise the trustees’ capacity, already under siege, to pro­ tect intellectual and academic freedom on campus. If the university board took an official position on a particular issue, would students and faculty feel as free to invite speakers w ith a ltern ativ e views? W ould they feel more justified in disrupting a speech by someone who contradicted the official view? As the Vietnam w ar wound down, concern for South Africa picked up. Early efforts to cast the university as an ethical investor focused on proxy policy, and were based on an intricate rationale th at sought to protect the university’s neutral role, yet recognize th at universities are an integral part of society. But through the 1970s, university invest­ m ent policies gradually strayed beyond th at ra ­ tionale. Under the intense national concern about apart­ heid, many university boards in effect developed an official policy tow ard South Africa and used their investment power to advance th a t policy. While universities claim South Africa is a special case, no president has yet offered a set of principles to distinguish it from other examples of gross hu­ m an rights abuse. At the same time that educational institutions have stepped fu rth er into the realm of official stands, they have also wandered into smoke-filled rooms and taken a stab at the game of power poli­ tics. Consider the high-pressured lobbying evident in the skirmish over tax reform in recent years. Or, worse, the special deals benefiting single institu­ tions which by-passed the peer review process. An article in the Chronicle o f Higher Education last year detailed how dozens of universities received special federal appropriations w orth millions of dollars. Such deals make higher education appear like just another special interest feeding at the pub­ lic trough. In short, universities have behaved in ways that seem to invite the public to view them like every other institution in society, and hence the proper subject of regulation. And so the once special, pro­ tected status of the university, largely left alone to its own internal ways or making judgments, now is very much a p art of the political world. Here I speak not of the application of government rules for w o rk ers’ co m p en satio n , access for th e h a n d i­ capped, affirm ative action, asbestos rem oval, stringent city and state building codes, smoking or­ dinances, and all the rest. Nor do I speak of the rise of unions and other form s of collective action which certainly influence the ecology of universi­ ties. Rather I am concerned about the intrusion of courts and legislatures into m atters once left for collegial judgment. It is, of course, unhappy mem­ bers of the university community who invite the courts in, but we will see in the future the judiciary all too willing to replace collegial patterns of judg­ m ent with formal, m andated and enforced notions of due process. A student unhappy about a discipli­ nary action appeals to the courts. A parent at con­ flict with a child’s conduct holds the university re­ sponsible and sues. Worst of all, faculty and staff are taking advantage of age, gender, race and other protected characteristics to challenge in the courts promotion and retention decisions which go against them. And, as the university itself becomes increas­ ingly vulnerable to such legal actions, you will find, I expect, th a t trustees and presidents begin to involve themselves in the details of decisions that once were entrusted to collegial discussion and de­ term ination. W hat I fear is th e erosion of decen­ July/August 1989 / 569 tra liz e d responsibility w hich has been a core strength of the academic enterprise for all of the twentieth century. O th e r th re a ts to our in d ep e n d e n c e come through our quest for resources, especially from those sources where consulting arrangements with companies can subtly influence the direction of re­ search in more applied channels and distort the character of graduate education. And some of these activities are not even subtle, as they have been in the past. Just this week I read aboutB .E.S.T. America, a new for-profit venture, designed to establish and market to private indus­ try, a national database composed of faculty spe­ cialties and research facilities at all our institutions of higher learning. Financed by corporate sub­ scribers, it looks to me like we have here simply more evidence of the power and influence of the corporate world on the academic world. Promoted as an activity th at will encourage and increase funding of research, the long-term damage is sim­ ply a further contamination of the independence and freedom of the university. And in your own field, I fear, the tem ptation will be great on the part of many, to see libraries and librarians as obso­ lete, to confuse information with knowledge, and C R L Management Intern Program The Council on Library Resources (CLR), Washington, D .C ., will offer the Academic Li­ brary M anagem ent In te rn Program for the 1990/91 academic year. Up to three librarians will be selected to spend nine months working with directors and administrative staff at re­ search libraries. The objective of the program is to expose interns to the complex array of policy m atters and operating problems of large re­ search libraries. Applications are invited from individuals with at least five years of professional experi­ ence who have an interest in the administration of large libraries and who wish to improve their management abilities. Applicants must be U.S. or Canadian citizens or have perm anent resi­ dent status in either country. Interns will be chosen by a selection committee, and finalists will be invited to Washington for personal in­ terviews. Each intern will be awarded a stipend equal to basic salary benefits (up to $33,000) for the nine-month period. Some assistance is also provided for moving and program-related ex­ penses. Applications must be postmarked no later than October 16, 1989. Additional infor­ mation and application material materials are available from: Academic L ibrary Manage­ ment Intern Program, Council on Library Re­ sources, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W ., Suite 313, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 483- 7474. to then invite commercial enterprises to assume a much larger responsibility for those resources es­ sential to research and teaching. Thus to my m ind, the most serious questions about the future of the Academy relate not to changes that will occur within it, how curricular styles will ebb and flow, for instance. The principal question is the nature of the relationship between the Academy and the general public, and espe­ cially the public’s understanding of why the inde­ pendence of universities is fundamental to the fu­ ture of free societies. It is critical th at faculty and administrators join in such discussions. We all have a powerful stake, for ourselves and for society, in preserving the integrity and independence of the American university. It seems to me libraries and librarians have a crucial role to play in this effort. I was not hyperbolizing when I said that the li­ brary is the soul of the Academy. It is the living cen­ ter, the place where all the strivings of the Acad­ emy converge. The mission of libraries is, in the Oberly Award winner The ACRL Science and Technology Section has named World Bibliography of Soybean En­ tom ology, by J. K ogan, M. K ogan, E. F. Brewer, and C. G. Helm (University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Pub­ lication no. 73,1988), as the winner of the 1989 Oberly Award for Bibliography in Agricultural Sciences. The cash prize and citation will be presented to the authors at the Science and Technology Section Program during the ALA Annual Conference in Dallas. The World Bibliography o f Soybean Ento­ mology is a two-volume set listing journal arti­ cles, dissertations, and annual reports in the field of soybean entom ology, according to aw ard jury chair Carolyn W arm ann, Virginia Polytechnic and State University. Resources dating back to the 19th century are included. The detailed index includes access points by au­ thor as well as insect and plant species and sub­ species. The Oberly Award, established in 1923, is a biennial award given in odd-numbered years to an American citizen who compiles the best bib­ liography in the field of agriculture or one of the related sciences in the two-year period preced­ ing the year in which the award was made. The award is made possible by a fund estab­ lished in memory of Eunice Rockwood Oberly, late librarian of the Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, and is admin­ istered by ACRL’s Science and Technology Sec­ tion. Nominations for the 1991 aw ard should be sent to the 1991 jury chair, Carol Boast, Agri­ culture Library, University of Illinois, 1408 W. Gregory, Urbana, IL 61801. 570 / C&RL News end, the preservation of our culture, our intellec­ tual heritage. And if there is a single, overarching responsibility of librarians in the next decades, it is to protect, and extend that fundamental mission in a time of growing complexity and confrontation. The essential obligations of the Academy have not changed, but we must renew our society’s un­ derstanding of them . The job will tax our imagina­ tions as never before. But the answers will not be found within the rush of technological change nor the explosion of information that seems to domi­ nate our lives. They will come from the processes of reason and dialogue that must always characterize our institutions. The need for libraries to reaffirm their central cultural and academic role will never be greater. And we, who have the ultimate respon­ sibility for the health of our libraries, must help and support them . ■ ■ C o m p u te r lit e r a c y a n d t h e m e n t a lly ill By Josephine King Evans Director, Florida Mental Health Institute Library University of South Florida The computer as a therapeutic device. eaching microcomputer skills to college and university students has become a new role for aca­ demic librarians, but during 1987, research center library staff at the University of South Florida in Tampa provided computer literacy to a different audience: the mentally ill.1 Located on the univer­ sity campus, the Florida Mental Health Institute (FMHI) is the first state-assisted agency to imple­ ment such a program. Although there have been other autom ation projects in the mental health field, none has involved computer literacy for pa­ tients in a library setting.2 1Linda J. Piele, Judith Pryor, and Harold W. Tuckett, “ Teaching M icrocomputer Literacy: New Roles for Academic Librarians,” College ö- Research Libraries 47 (July 1986): 374-78. 2James L. H edlund, Bruce W. Vieweg, and Dong W. Cho, “Mental Health Computing in the 1980s: I. General Information Systems and Clini­ cal Documentation,” Computers in Human Ser­ vices 1 (Spring 1985): 3-33; James L. Hedlund, Bruce W. Vieweg, and Dong W. Cho, “Mental Health Computing in the 1980s: II. Clinical Appli­ cations,” Computers in Human Services 1 (Sum- Directed by Jack Zusman, FMHI is a University of South Florida research center that develops new treatm ent strategies and provides modernized tra in in g to strengthen m ental h e a lth services throughout the state. Small, on-site model demon­ stration units employing behavior modification, family therapy, rehabilitation and other modes of treatment serve clients ranging in age from pre­ kindergarten to the elderly. The average patient stay is ninety days. It was this population of ap­ proximately 600 people that the computer literacy program served during 1987. Planned and implemented by the staff of the FMHI Research Library, the project was based in the smaller patient library located nearby; it was mer 1985): 1-31; James E. Clark, Ann K. Lan- phear, and Carol C. Riddick, “The Effects of Vi­ deogame Playing on the Response Selection Process of Elderly Adults,” Journal of Gerontology 42 (1987): 82-85; Ellen Bouchard Ryan, “Memory for Goblins: A Com puter Game for Assessing and Training Working Memory Skill,” Clinical Geron­ tologist 6 (1986): 64-67.