ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


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. ■ ■