ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


194

(1 9 6 9 -7 2 ). The four-story structure, noted for 
its innovative system o f lighting, brings natural 
light into the exhibition spaces through the 
unique combination of filtered skylights, plate 
glass windows, and two interior courts.

Mellon’s gift of the British art center con­
tinues his long record o f support to Yale since 
his graduation in 1929. Gifts from Mellon and 
the Old Dominion Foundation, o f which he was 
chairperson, have made possible the restoration 
o f Connecticut Hall, the construction and en­
dowment o f Morse and Ezra Stiles Colleges, the 
purchase o f the Boswell papers and other books 
for the Yale Library, as well as the underwrit­
ing o f numerous academic programs.

W hen this gift was announced in 1966, M el­
lon emphasized his belief that the university, 
with its already recognized pre-eminence in 
British literary and social studies, was the log­
ical choice as the recipient o f his British collec­

tions. “ It seems to me,”  he said, “ that Yale, with 
its great holdings in British literary and social 
research material, such as the W alpole and Bos­
well papers, can make the best use of the re­
sources o f my collections for educational and 
historical purposes. . . .  In addition, it was at 
Yale as an undergraduate that my personal in­
terest in English literature and art began in 
earnest, and I have always been deeply grate­
ful to the university for this fact.”

Long a leader in eighteenth-century studies, 
Yale now possesses the visual resources for 
thorough study o f the interrelationships o f Brit­
ish art, literature, and history, according to Yale 
President Kingman Brewster, Jr., who stated 
that “ Mr. Mellon’s gift makes a major contribu­
tion to the cultural vitality o f the city and to 
Yale University, and in a broader sense, to the 
cultural resources o f the nation.”  ■ ■

Letters
Dear Editor:

The following opinion may have grown be­
yond an appropriate length for a “ letter to the 
editor,”  but it is a point o f view  which should 
be given wider consideration. The question 
which prompts the commentary has significance 
for more people than simply those to whom the 
response is immediately directed.

What are the major issues confronting under­
graduate librarians today?

The answers will vary, o f course, since an is­
sue which looms as significant in one situation 
may be insignificant in another. Or an issue in 
one setting may be perceived in another as a 
mere need to exchange ideas and information. 
On the other hand, there are factors which dis­
tinguish real issues from matters more efficient­
ly resolved at a personal level of information 
exchange and decision making. For example, 
issues are always preceded by inquiries and the 
identification o f problems or matters o f concern 
which are not easily resolved. These becom e is­
sues as they are addressed as points o f debate 
or controversy, and the desirable outcome of 
the dialogue is to achieve an acceptable resolu­
tion or new course o f action.

Even though an “ issue”  in one environment 
cannot be construed as universal, there are cur­
rently legitimate matters o f general concern 
which undergraduate librarians cannot ignore. 
They are emerging, not only as library systems 
and programs develop, but also as w e experi­
ence change in institutional expectations and 
constraints.

At the 1977 A LA  Midwinter Convention 
meeting of the AC R L Undergraduate Librari­

ans Discussion Group, some of the significant 
problems were identified and the issues were 
skirted— even pushed by a few  o f the partici­
pants toward an open forum— but the discus­
sion was notable in that the debatable and con­
troversial issues were not clearly engaged. 
There were some impressive labels applied to 
describe the drift o f the meeting ( “ needs of 
users”  and “ the role o f the U G L” ), but these 
were never developed beyond being convenient 
semantic hooks. What emerged was a preoccu­
pation with the uncertainties and apprehensions 
produced by the function o f local library man­
agement and with the need to exchange how ­
to information on specific systems and services. 
(In  all fairness, the meeting was intended as 
a planning session for the Detroit Conference. 
Further, some o f the more vocal at the meeting 
were not “ undergraduate”  librarians, but four- 
year undergraduate institution librarians. They 
were welcome, but their outspoken views 
skewed the group’s purpose and compromised 
its effectiveness.)

Discussions on the internal operations and 
procedures of undergraduate libraries are ap­
propriate and should be encouraged, but it is 
impossible to realize the potential o f an under­
graduate library— or any library, for that mat­
ter— through a continuous examination o f such 
topics. Undergraduate libraries are too often 
characterized in terms o f effective reserve pro­
cedures, automated circulation systems, security 
controls, and response-based library instruction 
programs; but these alone will be self-defeat- 
ing. They are merely tools or elements in a 
much larger programmatic arena which has far-



195

reaching service philosophy implications b e ­
yon d the influence or im portance o f any o f the 
separate parts held aloft as “ issues.”

Surely an A L A  conference is an appropriate 
place to exchange what has been  learned about 
technological innovations, im proved procedures, 
and h ow  they can b e  applied to undergraduate 
libraries. But the need for the passive transmis­
sion o f information, or the act o f sharing ideas 
and discoveries, in a national forum  must be 
distinguished from  the more important n eed for 
an active confrontation o f ideas and opinions 
in order to develop alert, critical, and forceful 
positions. M y conclusion is that the exercise o f 
broad-based discussions at high level confer­
ences on  such matters as narrowly defined man­
agerial and technical problems o f undergrad­
uate libraries will, at the very least, detract 
from m ore substantial issues.

W e  can anticipate that com plex and enor­
mous inquiries will be initiated into the very 
nature and existence o f undergraduate librar­
ies. H ow  w e respond is paramount to the co n ­
tinuation o f related resources and services. If 
the focus is on local day-to-day situations, w e 
will very likely b e  responsive to internal admin­
istrative and over-the-desk service require­
ments, but unresponsive in more critical ways 
to external expectations and restraints.

M y purpose in these observations is not to 
engage in a soapbox effort to save undergradu­
ate libraries. As a generalization, that notion is 
simply not sound; and I w ould not venture a 
specific opinion on the future o f any U G L  w ith­
out first studying the results from  an extensive 
and logical assessment o f local circumstances. 
O n the other hand, I am convinced o f the need 
for the U G L  for w hich I have been responsible 
since 1972, and the issues w hich stand out as 
challenges in that setting also carry implications 
for the more than thirty-fi ve other undergrad­
uate libraries w hich still exist in North Am er­
ica. Some o f  the issues seem almost perennial 
and may never b e  resolved, but the intensity 
with w hich others are being brought to bear 
portends a dim future in the absence o f an 
articulate and acceptable response.

For example, aside from  the generalizations 
o f program planning and personnel administra­
tion, there is probably no specific area requir­
ing judgment o f a higher order than with the 
developm ent o f a unique, rational, and institu­
tionally sound p olicy  on collection develop­
ment. The need is magnified because o f  current 
fiscal developments, and there are some search­
ing questions being asked w hich, considered 
collectively, identify a major, controversial is­
sue. For exam ple; W h at is the purpose and 
scope o f the U G L  collection? H ow  does the co l­
lection relate to the larger collections o f the 
parent institution? H ow  will the collection size 
and duplication o f high-dem and materials be

controlled? W h at methods can b e  used to de­
termine appropriate levels o f acquisition fund­
ing? W h at are the most effective methods, ma­
terials, processes, and procedures for facilitating 
the actual selection activity? W h o  are the cur­
rent and potential users o f the undergraduate 
library? H ow  do they use the library, and h ow  
adequate is the collection for their needs? H ow  
m uch study and evaluation on the nature and 
use o f the collection is necessary in order to 
systematically formulate a policy? W h a t re­
search methods and evaluation techniques must 
be used to support the formulation o f a policy? 
W h o  should b e responsible for planning, de­
veloping, and implementing a policy?

Another vital issue springs from  the ques­
tion; W hat are the philosophical reasons for the 
existence o f an undergraduate library and the 
purposes it serves? Other inquiries then logical­
ly follow : Is there a carefully formulated and 
docum ented service philosophy— a raison d ’etre

Guidelines on 
Manuscripts and Archives

The Association o f C ollege and R e­
search Libraries announces the publica­
tion o f Guidelines on Manuscripts and 
Archives, a com pilation o f statements de­
veloped b y  the A C R L  Rare Books and 
Manuscripts Section Com mittee on M an­
uscripts Collections and approved as 
p olicy  b y  the A C R L  Board o f Directors.

The tw elve-page pamphlet contains 
the “ Statement on Appraisal o f Gifts”  
(originally published in the M arch 1973 
issue o f  C olleg e & Research Libraries 
N e w s ); the “ Statement on  Legal Title”  
( C irR L  N ew s, M arch 1 9 7 3 ); the “ State­
ment on Access to Original Research M a­
terials in Libraries, Archives, and M anu­
script Repositories”  ( C &R L  New s, N o­
vem ber 1 9 7 6 ); the “ Statement on the 
R eproduction o f  Manuscripts and A r­
chives for N oncom m ercial Purposes”  
( C &R L  N ew s, N ovem ber 1 9 7 6 ); the 
“ Statement on the Reproduction of 
Manuscripts and Archives for Com m er­
cial Purposes”  ( C & R L N ew s, M ay 1 9 7 7 ); 
and the “ Universal G ift Form and In­
structions”  ( C &R L  N ew s, M arch 19 7 5).

Guidelines on  Manuscripts and A r­
chives is available upon request from  the 
A C R L  Office, 50 E . H uron St., Chicago, 
I L  60611. Please enclose a self-addressed 
stamped envelope, or postage and a mail­
ing label. Orders for multiple copies may 
b e  billed for postage.



196

— represented b y  clear statements o f purpose, 
objectives, and goals rather than an agenda o f 
internal operational procedures? H ow  and w hy 
is a U G L different today from what it was in 
the 1960s or before? H ow  is it changing? W hat 
are the institutional and environmental pres­
sures that influence and shape the nature o f 
U G L  service? W hat is the U G L  role in the 
larger scheme o f a library system’s service? 
W h o should formulate a service philosophy 
statement?

A third issue is shared by other types o f li­
braries w hich for decades have relied heavily 
on experience rather than research and study 
to effect change and improvement. Undergrad­
uate libraries, though relatively new, d o not 
escape the im pact o f the observation even 
though they are generally perceived as innova­
tive, creative service units. W h y  don ’t under­
graduate libraries engage in more scientific 
research to determine such things as the char­
acteristics o f successful U G L  services? W hat 
will research tell us about the role which a 
U G L  should assume in the scheme o f providing 
university-wide library services? In what ways 
are the needs o f the academ ic community not

being met b y  undergraduate library service?
These three major issues— the need for 

unique collection developm ent statements, the 
urgency to formulate relevant service philoso­
phies, and the requirement for developing and 
applying sound evaluative m ethodologies—  
could be broken into simple, practical problems 
and reduced to levels o f information exchange. 
O n the contrary, they are evolving as ever 
larger and inclusive areas o f debate and contro­
versy. The principals are not only those direct­
ly responsible for undergraduate library service, 
but also the faculty, students, and university 
administrators w ho are forcing the issues. Those 
w ho must have answers are probin g for new  di­
rections and assurances as the need for change 
inexorably becom es a major challenge. W e  can 
neither respond nor contribute to the need in 
a vacuum o f knowledge and understanding, 
and there is no better time than now  to face the 
challenge through discussion o f the issues with 
personal resolve and collective consideration. 

Keith M. Cottam 
Assistant Director, Library,
University o f Tennessee, Knoxville ■ ■

ACRL Chapters
• The spring elections o f the E a s t e r n  N e w  

Y o r k  C h a p t e r  o f A C R L  produced the follow ­
ing results for 1977-78 officers:

President— Kingsley Greene, Union College, 
Schenectady.

Vice-President— Lynn Hannan, Skidmore 
College, Saratoga Springs.

Secretary— D orothy Christiansen, State Uni­
versity o f N ew  York, Albany.

Treasurer— N ancy Lufburrow , State Univer­
sity o f N ew  York, C ollege at Potsdam.

At-Large Representative— Lynn Case, St. 
Lawrence University, Canton.

At-Large Representative— Barbara Rice, 
State University o f N ew  York, Albany.

The spring conference o f the chapter was 
held at Williams College, Williamstown, Mas­
sachusetts on  M ay 26. Sheila Creth, personnel 
librarian o f the University o f Connecticut, pre­
sented the program on “ Evaluative Interview­
ing.”

• “ Book Conservation”  was the topic at the 
A C R L  O r e g o n  C h a p t e r  meeting May 20. The 
guest speaker was Jack C. Thompson, a con ­
servator specializing in the conservation and 
restoration o f  paper, textiles, and leather. He 
has been a consultant for conservation to the 
Oregon Historical Society since 1974.

• The K a n s a s  C h a p t e r  o f A C R L  held its 
regular spring conference in conjunction with 
the Kansas Library Association M ay 1 2 -1 3  in 
Topeka. Speakers were Dr. G ordon R. W il­
liams, director o f the Center for Research L i­
braries in Chicago, on “ The Library’s Role in 
Providing Access to Inform ation” ; and Dr. 
Florence DeHart, professor at Emporia Library 
School, on “ The Copyright Scene.”

N ew  officers selected for 1977-78 were the 
follow ing:

Chairperson: Richard Rohrer, assistant di­
rector, Kansas State University Libraries, Man­
hattan, Kansas

Vice-Chairperson: Barbara Robins, human­
ities librarian, Emporia State University L i­
brary, Emporia, Kansas

Secretary-Treasurer: Rowena Olsen, director, 
McPherson College Library, McPherson, Kan­
sas

Nominating Committee: Meredith Litchfield, 
chairperson, assistant director, Kansas State 
University Libraries, Manhattan, Kansas; Jane 
Hatch, associate librarian, Marymount College, 
Salina, Kansas; and Irma Dietrich, reference li­
brarian, Johnson County Community College, 
Overland Park, Kansas. ■ ■