nov04b.indd


LIBRARIES ARE EDUCATION 

Principles
are
tested
and
come
away


with
a
win



The $52 million question 

by W. Lee Hisle 

Frances Maloy’s theme for her year as ACRL president focuses on using original 
thinking as a leadership strategy for effect­
ing change. This article tells a story about 
original thinking that did not modify library 
practices, but did encourage librarians at 
Connecticut College to rethink our principles 
and recommit to time­tested ideals. 

Putting a price on the collection 
Sometime last spring, as the Connecticut 
College budget and planning committee 
was deciding priorities for the coming fi s­
cal year funding, I defended our request 
for collection maintenance funds based on 
asset reinvestment arguments. If the col­
lege made it a priority, I argued, that build­
ings and grounds be maintained with asset 
reinvestment funds budgeted each year, 
then shouldn’t the college also protect the 
huge capital investment we have in library 
materials with similarly budgeted collection 
maintenance funds? 

This had some resonance with the faculty, 
students, and staff on the budget and plan­
ning committee (we are a shared governance 
campus) and, in fact, the committee voted 
to include an annual collection maintenance 

fund based on a rolling five­year average of 
the increased cost of materials at our college. 
For this argument, we assessed the value of 
the library collection at approximately $52 
million, were we to try to replace it. 

I shared this information with my presi­
dent, Norman Fainstein, as I reviewed the 
information services budget request with 
him. Some weeks later, he spoke at the ACRL 
New England Chapter meeting and used the 
information I had provided him. 

In his remarks (designed, I dare say, for 
effect), he challenged the existing order of 
things in the academic academy—from ten­
ure and promotion to the nature of campus 
libraries. And he asked librarians to consider 
this question: “If your collection was lost, 
and you have $52 million in hand from the 
insurance settlement, would you replace 
the collection?” 

Of course, he believed that we would 
not—basically, that not all those dusty books 
on the shelves are really needed—because 
of changing pedagogical strategies, in­
creased digital materials access, and Web 
access to information. 

And so, diligent lieutenant that I am, I 
considered how I might answer his question 

About the author 

W. Lee Hisle is vice president for information services and librarian of the college at Connecticut College, e-mail: 
wlhis@conncoll.edu 

© 2004 W. Lee Hisle 

580 / C&RL News November 2004 

mailto:wlhis@conncoll.edu


and shared the question with a number of 
librarians. I arrived at different conclusions 
than Fainstein expected. Were I faced with 
the quandary of whether to use $52 mil­
lion to replace a lost library collection or to 
provide support to the college through other 
means, e.g., existing digital resources, newly 
created digital resources, or maybe more 
comfortable seating, a coffee bar or a new 
reading room for our overcrowded facility, 
I would indeed (this can’t be a surprise to 
the reader of this editorial) replace most of 
the lost materials. 

For, amazing at it may seem, our students 
are still checking out books. They are still 
doing research. I was shocked, shocked I tell 
you, to find they are still writing papers and 
creating reports! They still fi nd interlibrary 
loan, at two to three weeks, far too slow for 
their research timelines. They even fi nd the 
two­day average wait for materials from our 
consortial partners, Wesleyan University and 
Trinity College, a hindrance. 

In particular, students in the arts and 
humanities and social sciences make heavy 
use of our collections, and we know that the 
information they are finding is not available 
in other formats—not in electronic journals, 
databases, or e­books. Further, we know 
that over the past five years, circulation of 
physical materials has increased at Con­
necticut College—hardly an argument that 
the materials collection is no longer really 
needed. In fact, students who completed the 
LibQual survey last year support the need for 
additional books, as well as more nontech­
nology spaces in which to read them. (To 
be fair, some social science and humanities 
titles are available through our NetLibrary 
subscription, but students strenuously avoid 
using that service, even though they are 
embracing electronic journals.) 

Meeting our mission 
One of my staff members recently remind­
ed me that there is a reason libraries do 
what they do, why the system has worked 
for thousands of years. The transmission of 
culture (through the printed page, clay tab­

let, or classroom experience) to succeed­
ing generations is an essential aspect of 
the higher education mission. And students 
often can only get what they need through 
print sources—and they are not willing to 
wait two weeks for it. 

Of course, if we had to replace the col­
lection, we would make some changes: 
we would strengthen areas that get heavy 
use; we would use circulation records, and 
faculty consultation, to determine whether 
borderline material should be replaced; we 
would analyze our curriculum carefully and 
add materials to support new and emerging 
trends; we would even consider shifting 
some funds toward electronic access rather 
than replacing every print item lost. But we 
would, by and large, replace the collection, 
improving it as we go. 

A college such as ours, with a heavy 
complement of student­faculty research 
efforts, honors papers, faculty research, 
and students curious about the world— 
present, past, and future—requires a 
quality library collection both in numbers 
and content. 

Connecticut College prides itself on 
its academic excellence, and among the 
characteristics of an excellent college is 
a strong library program. At least here, a 
strong library collection is an essential part 
of a strong library program, and certainly 
an expectation of our prospective students 
and their parents. 

So Fainstein did us a service. He chal­
lenged us with an original, and slightly 
outrageous, idea. He made us think and to 
defend our traditions and our time­honored 
strategies for academic support. Too many 
times in academe, we simply accept rou­
tine and procedure and strategy because 
“that’s the way we’ve always done it.” By 
considering a new idea, we may continue 
doing things “the way we’ve always done 
it” but we no longer do so blindly, without 
considering our reasons and alternatives 
for our actions. Reaction to an original idea 
can inform leadership regardless of the path 
chosen for action. 

C&RL News November 2004 / 581