ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

ACADEMIC STATUS

Dear Sir:

The ACRL was wise, in my opinion, to approve all elements of the standards for faculty status except for the educational requirement. Probably the best method of filling this gap would be to state that: “The determination of degrees to be regarded as terminal or appropriate should be vested with the library faculty, subject to the approval of the president.” [Carl Hintz, “Criteria for Appointment to and Promotion in Academic Rank,” CRL 29:346 (Sept. 1968).] Other associations do not try to set educational requirements for members of their professions employed in colleges and universities, leaving that task to individual faculties. Acceptance of this principle would also dovetail with the emphasis the standards place upon the library faculty. Finally, it could be argued that educational requirements should vary from institution to institution. A “two master’s” principle would be much more appropriate for a university where most members of the teaching faculties have a Ph.D. than for a junior college where they will generally have one master’s. This is a reasonable approach, although I am opposed to setting rigid educational standards for librarians at any level until the question has received much more serious and continued attention.

One of the problems of the literature on faculty status for librarians is its insularity. Most citations are to other articles in library publications, not to studies of the workings of academic faculties or of the appointment and promotion of college and university teachers in practice. Advocates of faculty status for librarians often adopt an idealized picture of professors. Their focus seems to be on the university where the Ph.D. is required in most departments and where publication is really expected. So far as I know, there have been no articles written which compare academic librarians with members of departments, such as music and architecture, where the master’s degree is terminal.

Much can be written about the kinds of standards library faculties may formulate. Using the “two master’s” standard is unfortunate. One of the long-standing problems in library personnel development has been the preponderance of people with subject backgrounds in the humanities and the shortage of persons with undergraduate and graduate degrees in the social, natural, and physical sciences. The “two master’s” standard is likely to perpetuate or even accentuate this. Much in the literature on faculty status for librarians seems to imply that as we obtain it, we shall all become subject specialists. Since the need for administrators and those with some knowledge of computers is great, such articles may give many academic librarians a nudge in the wrong direction, so far as obtaining additional education is concerned. For many librarians, a certificate program emphasizing library administration and/or the application of automation to library operations will be more useful than a subject master’s degree. Yet, an MLS and a certificate are not literally two master’s, and written standards tend to be interpreted rigidly.

Another consideration in setting educational requirements is the possible effects they may have on recruitment patterns. One of the richest sources of talent for libraries is the flow of middle-aged, married women returning to work. Generally, they earn an MLS in their forties. Requiring still another degree may discourage some or even many of them from entering academic library work. This would be undesirable, for it is unlikely that younger men and women will replace them adequately.

In summation, I believe library faculties should make their own decisions on academic qualifications, that these faculties should keep their standards flexible, and that those writing such standards should try to determine the social consequences their decisions may have.

Benjamin R. Beede

Rutgers University

■ ■