ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


35

Propose Revised Standards for Academic Librarians

To the Editor:
As a member of the Academic Status Com­

mittee of ACRL I would like to comment on 
some of the points raised by individuals and 
groups regarding the Proposed Standards for 
Academic Librarians as they appeared in the 
October 1970 issue of CRL N ews. I speak for 
myself as an individual and not for the Com­
mittee, but it should be recognized that in the 
many discussions the Committee had in arriv­
ing at its decisions, these topics were of primary 
concern to all of us.

First of all, it was the intent of our Commit­
tee to prepare standards for academic librari­
ans only. ACRL members have gone on record 
as favoring action which would most clearly 
align them with the faculties of the institutions 
they serve. The common practice of fragment­
ing this group of professionals from the rest of 
the instructional faculty has resulted in many 
of the problems which have made the develop­
ment of more precise standards mandatory. The 
intent of the document throughout has been to 
stress those elements which librarians in an ac­
ademic community share with other members 
of the faculty. It is understood th a t we depart 
from the orientation of public and special li­
brarians, or any other group of librarians which 
does not operate in a collegial environment.

If such standards are in conflict with other 
ALA standards, perhaps it is time to recognize 
the inadequacy of the notion th at all librarians 
in any type of library can or should fit into the 
same organizational patterns or educational re­
quirements. Acceptance of this document 
would mean that certain matters presently un­
der the purview of LAD, for example, would 
no longer be, b u t would be the exclusive con­
cern of ACRL.

There seems to be some uneasiness about the 
equating of two master’s degrees with a Ph.D. 
Perhaps the rewording developed a t the No­
vember 1970 meeting in Chicago will alleviate 
some of this discomfort. (See revised Stan­
dards.) Admittedly, the Committee was caught 
in the dilemma of recognizing that this stan­
dard appeared to denigrate the Ph.D. in library 
science and to make it seem that we did not fa­
vor the pursuit of such a degree. This was not 
the case. The Committee was of the opinion 
th at Ph.D. programs in library science needed 
to be expanded and strengthened and th at more 
practitioners should be encouraged to go on for 
the doctorate. (To this end we drafted a resolu­
tion addressed to the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare calling for restoration 
of funds for doctoral study under Title II, 
Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965.) 
At this point, our professional schools are sim­

ply not tooled to produce large numbers of 
doctorates, and it would be unrealistic and un­
fair to require the Ph.D. as terminal under 
these conditions. The sixth year master’s pro­
grams are another problem, and I do not feel 
qualified to address myself to this mystery, ex­
cept to comment that it would seem to repre­
sent the profession’s collective failure, once 
more, to clearly identify its standards and edu­
cational requirements.

However, I do not share the concern of those 
persons who feel that the requirement of two 
master’s degrees offers credentials markedly in­
ferior to the rest of the faculty. As has been 
noted, we have the examples of certain disci­
plines where the Ph.D. is not necessarily the 
terminal degree and whose members are still 
fully recognized as faculty. I refer not only to 
fine arts, engineering, and so forth, b u t also to 
one whose membership is also “dominated” by 
women, namely, nursing. In addition, I believe 
that the requirement for subject expertise as 
well as proficiency in librarianship places rather 
extraordinary demands on the librarian. I can­
not view it as a "watering down” of standards. 
When we talk about subject expertise, and a 
subject master’s, it is not assumed that profi­
ciency begins and ends with the earning of the 
degree. It means working under the injunction 
to continue to be abreast of both fields—librari­
anship and the other subject discipline. It 
means keeping up in the literature of both, 
maintaining professional contacts and member­
ships in both, and pursuing research that is rel­
evant to either or both.

In the California state colleges, the statewide 
academic senate voted to give librarians faculty 
status. The success of the librarians’ case with the 
faculty rested very strongly on the premise that 
subject expertise on the part of the librarians 
would enable them to participate as full faculty 
members in the educational program. The fac­
ulty, in short, liked the idea that there would 
be an informed library staff, informed in the 
sense of identifying and fulfilling library needs 
for the given subject areas. We were able to 
gain the faculty’s acceptance by offering as part 
of our “credentials” an acceptable level of 
achievement in a subject discipline, in other 
words, a second master’s degree.

Questions arose as to whether peer judgment 
can mean exclusively librarians inasmuch as the 
library is a unit that services an entire campus, 
and faculty from other departments might have 
a vested interest in evaluating total perform­
ance. The intent of the Committee here was to 
let the local campus policy dictate what is 
meant by “peer review.” In some schools, there 
are provisions for interdepartmental review of



36

faculty. In others, personnel committees are 
formed entirely within th e school or depart­
ment. The strengths or weaknesses of any d e­
partm ent can have wider reverberations in the 
total educational program than those immedi­
ately apparent in that department. W e favor 
librarians being guided by th e general person­
nel procedures established for the rest of the 
faculty.

The question of faculty rank and titles was 
one of the most discussed and debated issues 
in the document. Arguments ranged from the 
“honorableness” of the profession and being 
proud to be a librarian, to the possibility of de­
veloping analogous titles which would “equate” 
in some way b u t retain the uniqueness of the 
occupation. The prevailing judgment, however, 
was th at anything separate was bound to be 
less than equal and th a t the most serious intent 
could be shown by calling for the same classi­
fication, with the same titles, ranks, and steps.

The statement on library governance has ex­
cited much interest and a certain degree of pes­
simism, mainly from library administrators. Cer­
tainly, this standard, if accepted, would require 
the greatest amount of reorientation from pres­
ent practices, both for administrators and non­
administrators. W hile there are differences b e­
tween libraries and other academic depart­
ments, the stressing of those differences has 
caused multiple difficulties for academic librari­
ans. We would stress the analogies rather than 
the differences. T he concepts are not new. They 
have permeated the literature for many years. 
A library, for example, would function as a 
school or college, depending upon its size and 
its relationship to the total campus structure. 
The position of head librarian would be analo­
gous to a dean, division head, or whatever the 
nomenclature of the institution provides for 
th a t administrative level. W ithin this structure, 
departm ent chairmen, either elected or appoint­
ed (again depending on local practice) would 
have administrative responsibility for the orga­
nizational unit. Decisions w ithin this adminis­
trative framework, however, would be based 
on communication and group action.

W e are recommending this standard not be­
cause of blind adherence to faculty tradition for 
its own sake, b u t also in recognition th at library 
management has generally failed to respond 
much to the great amount of work done in the 
behavioral sciences in motivational analysis, 
personnel practices, and group theory. Business 
and industry, indeed, have come to recognize 
th a t organizational goals are better fulfilled 
when they are compatible with individuals’ 
goals. The collegial model provides a fram e­
work for academic librarians to fulfill both their 
personal needs to achieve the autonomy of true 
professionals and to integrate their achieve­
ments with the total educational process of 
their institutions. Conceptual frameworks based

on rigid hierarchical personnel patterns will 
have to be relinquished in favor of a participa­
tory enterprise, with emphasis on professional 
expertise and shared values common to the 
group, and rewards based on professional ex­
cellence. In short, we believe such library gov­
ernance to be consistent with the most widely 
accepted contemporary theories of effective 
management.

W hether the Proposed Standards are adopted 
or n o t will depend on the vote of th e members 
of ACRL. If adopted, their success will depend 
upon the cooperation and active support of all 
academic librarians. I believe the endorsement 
and acceptance of such standards would be 
truly a vote of confidence in the profession.— 
Beverly Johnson, Serials Librarian (on leave), 
San Diego State College.

Revision in the Proposed Standards 
for F aculty Status

1. Professional Responsibilities and Self-Deter­
mination. Each librarian should be assigned 
general responsibilities w ithin his particular 
area of competence. He should have maxi­
mum possible latitude in fulfilling these re­
sponsibilities. However, the degree to which 
he has fulfilled them should be regularly and 
rigorously reviewed. A necessary element of 
this review m ust be an appraisal by a com­
mittee of peers who have access to all avail­
able evidence.

2. Library Governance. College and university 
libraries should adopt an academic form of 
governance. T he librarians should form a li­
brary faculty whose role and authority is 
similar to th a t of th e faculties of a college, 
of the faculty of a school or a department.

3. College and University Governance. Librari­
ans should be eligible for membership in the 
academic senate or equivalent body a t their 
college or university on the same basis as 
other faculty.

4. Education. Because of the dual demands u p ­
on librarians for both professional and sub­
ject field competence, two master’s degrees 
—one in librarianship and one in a relevant 
subject field—shall be the minimal educa­
tional requirem ent for tenure for all librar­
ians appointed after the adoption of these 
standards by ACRL.

5. Compensation. The salary scale for librari­
ans should be the same as th a t for other aca­
demic categories with equivalent education 
and experience. Librarians should normally 
be appointed for the academic year. If a li­
brarian is expected to work through the 
summer session, his salary scale should be 
adjusted similarly to the summer session 
scale of other faculty at his college or uni­
versity.

6. Tenure. Librarians should be covered by 
tenure provisions the same as those of other



37

faculty. In  the pretenure period, librarians 
shöuld be covered by written contracts or 
agreements the same as those of other 
faculty.

7. Promotion. Librarians should be promoted 
through ranks and steps on the basis of their 
academic proficiency and professional effec­
tiveness. A peer review system similar to 
that used by other faculty is the primary 
basis of judgment in the promotion process 
for academic librarians. The librarians’ pro­
motion ladder should have the same titles, 
ranks, and steps as th at of the faculty.

8. Leaves. Sabbatical and other research 
leaves should be available to librarians on 
the same basis and with the same require­
ments as they are available to faculty.

9. Research Funds. Librarians should have 
access to funding for research projects on 
the same basis as other faculty.

10. Academic Freedom. Librarians in colleges 
and universities must have the protection 
of academic freedom. Library resources 
and the professional judgment of librarians 
must not be subject to censorship. ■ ■

Have you remembered to RENEW YOUR ALA MEMBERSHIP?
The deadline for renewal is March 31 to continue receiving ALA publications without 

interruption.
Complete your membership renewal form and mail in postage-paid envelope to ALA, 50 

E. Huron St., Chicago, III. 60611.

From Inside th e DLP
By Dr. Katharine M. Stokes

College and University Library Specialist, 
Training and Resources Branch, Division of Li­
brary Programs, Bureau of Libraries and Edu­
cational Technology, U.S. Office of Education, 
Washington, D.C. 20202.

In the annual report of a library in the 
Southeast I found an account of just the sort 
of impact we hope federal funds can make on 
a campus. Quoting from the report:

W hat started out to be one of the gloomy spots 
of the year turned around and became one of 
the high points of the year. I am speaking of 
the drive to secure funds to meet maintenance 
of effort for the library’s federal grant applica­
tion. It was evident early in the fiscal year that 
the library budget would fall some $9,500 short 
in meeting maintenance of effort requirements. 
As the deadline approached a gift of $5,000 
from the Guaranty Banks through the . . . 
alumni Foundation gave us hopes that the re­
quirement would be met. Four days prior to 
the deadline a drive to secure the additional 
$4,500 was started by the student government 
association, friends of the library, and inter­
ested faculty and students. The response was 
overwhelming. Contributions came from stu­
dents, faculty, and organizations on campus. 
Contributions also came from individuals, ser­
vice clubs, and businesses from . . . the sur­
rounding area. The contributions made it pos­
sible for the library to qualify for a grant of 
$7,023 for fiscal 1970-71. I think this crash pro­
gram brought knowledge to those who had 
been apathetic before as to the financial condi­

tion of the university as a whole and the library 
in particular. The publicity we received and 
the response made toward the library was most 
gratifying.

The librarian of this university demonstrated 
perfectly the way federal “seed money” can be 
used to produce improved nonfederal support. 
His report shows that he makes good use of all 
parts of the Title II-A (Higher Education Act) 
college library resources program. The main­
tenance of effort project made the library eligi­
ble to receive basic and supplemental grants in 
1970, the only types available this year. The 
previous year, however, the library was a mem­
ber of a consortium of eight libraries from two 
neighboring states which obtained a Title II-A 
Special Purpose Type C grant for the purchase 
of microfilm research materials to be centrally 
cataloged and stored for joint use. None of 
these materials would be used constantly on 
each campus, but all of them will be ready to 
meet sudden needs of faculty or graduate stu­
dents, easily and quickly available by inter- 
library loan.

The librarian writing the report also de­
scribes his experience as a participant in an in­
stitute on library automation in his state, fund­
ed by Title II-B (Higher Education Act).

While he does not mention the titles for these 
federal projects we can identify them by match­
ing our records to his accounts. It’s with real 
pleasure that we find such encouraging news 
of how federal grants have aided libraries and 
librarians. ■ ■