College and Research Libraries By R O B E R T H. M U L L E R The Future of the ACRL University Libraries Section SI N C E the functions of A C R L have sub-stantially changed as a result of the reorganization of ALA, we cannot escape asking ourselves some soul-searching questions: How do we fit into this new picture? Can we simply carry on as if nothing had happened? In what respects will the removal of "types-of-activity" interests from A C R L affect our sectional programs and relationships?1 When you ask questions of this sort, you are inevitably forced to reappraise past performances: What has the Uni- versity Libraries Section been attempt- ing to accomplish over the years, any- way? Have we set our stakes high enough? Are we an effective section? What are our objectives? As we look over the record of the past eighteen years, since the founding of A C R L in 1940, we are driven to the con- clusion that the University Libraries Sec- tion has accomplished too little. In fact, the section has essentially done nothing more than to provide about two or three hours of public paper-reading a year for the diversion or enlightenment of the members attending our A L A confer- ences. We have provided this entertain- ment each year, except during three war years (1943-45), when we were dor- mant, and in 1956 at Miami Beach, when ALA reorganization business crowded out program meetings. Most of the pa- 1 T h i s article is based on an address by Mr. Muller presented at the A L A M i d w i n t e r Meeting, J a n u a r y 28, 1958. Dr. Muller is Assistant Director, Uni- versity of Michigan Library. He is cur- rently Chairman of the University Li- braries Section, ACRL. pers appeared in print later on. During recent years, program meetings have been slightly curtailed as a result of a ruling by A L A Council in 1952 that meetings at Midwinter must be restrict- ed to business meetings. T h e topics on our programs since 1940 have covered a wide range. Some were extremely general and formulated so as to enhance their audience appeal, as, for instance, the topic " T h e Educated Man and His Relationship to University Li- braries in the Atomic Age" (1946), or " T h e Scholar's Paradise" (1954). A few topics related to resources and technical services, such as acquisition policy, mi- crophotography, the cataloging code. A great many of the topics were familiar perennials that will probably continue to be with us for years to come, such as the problem of departmental libraries, the storage of little-used materials, the undergraduate versus the research de- mands upon library service, the place of rare books, archives, and manuscripts, accreditation, financing, and the possibil- ities of cooperation. Most of us will not wish to give up our tradition of program meetings at conferences. What some will take issue with, however, is the position held by several of our more prominent members, that we should restrict our sectional ac- tivities to the presentation of interesting programs and let it go at that. As the section of A C R L representing the most complex and most scholarly American libraries, we not only have many problems in common, but we also can promote the interests of our type of libraries through joint deliberation and MAY 1958 187 joint action. What these interests are that call for a cooperative approach is not always easy to determine. Many of us become so wrapped up in the inde- pendent solution of our local problems that we tend to overlook opportunities for a joint attack on problems, which will save all of us time and energy in the long run. Much cooperation can and does, of course, take place without the help of associational machinery in the same way that we negotiate treaties a n d pacts be- tween countries outside the United Na- tions. But as long as we have an associa- tion, we must strengthen it to the point where it is ready to serve any of us as an effective medium of cooperative ac- tion in order to further the development of university libraries and university li- brarianship. Few will claim that our pro- gram meetings have in fact made a sig- nificant contribution in that direction, no matter how interesting, entertaining, enlightening, and timely they may have been. At this point we should mention 1952. In that year, Chairman R a y Swank ap- parently also felt that program meetings were not enough and that we should be a little more ambitious and try to get a little more accomplished. So he appoint- ed four committees: One on technical re- ports, one on in-service training, one on decentralization of cataloging, one on un- dergraduate and underclass libraries. It was a worthy effort, but it failed. Why the effort failed is difficult to determine. Perhaps the subject areas were not of suf- ficient interest to enough members; per- haps they were not amenable to commit- tee management; perhaps the members of the committees were not properly mo- tivated or not sufficiently energetic and resourceful. In any case, it seems impor- tant to keep this failure in mind and pro- ceed very cautiously in any future effort at providing the section with a commit- tee structure. It may be of interest, also, to point out that the subject matter of three of the four 1952 committees would now probably be ruled to be outside the legitimate province of A C R L . Hence the committees would probably be de- clared unconstitutional unless set u p as joint committees with the Library Ad- ministration Division, Library Education Division, and Resources and Technical Services Division, respectively; and to establish such joint committees would require prior approval by the boards of directors concerned, all of which presents new complexities and formalities. So much for a review of the past. L e t me now report to you what has been done since the 1957 Kansas City Con- ference in preparation for the develop- ment of a stronger and more effective section. T h e first step was taken on Au- gust 19, 1957, when a one-page question- naire was mailed to the slightly more than 2300 members of this section. T h e mailing was done from A L A Headquar- ters with the cooperation of our A C R L Executive Secretary, R i c h a r d Harwell. In the questionnaire we asked for opin- ions as to what the functions of the sec- tion should be, what activities we should undertake, what committees we should establish, if any, how we should relate ourselves to the Association of Research Libraries, and what topics we should cover during future program meetings. T h e s e questions were admittedly not easy questions to answer; they called for some fairly strenuous, sustained thinking, for which many librarians unfortunately find little time or opportunity during their typically very busy daily tours of duty. It was the sort of questionnaire that any of us is likely to place in a pending file, hoping that he will soon find time to compose a carefully con- sidered reply. A total of 39 replies, representing less than 2 per cent of the membership, were received by the October 15 deadline. In other words, 98 out of 100 members 188 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES either did not have any opinions on the questions asked, or did not care enough to take the time to set them down on paper, or simply forgot to reply, or felt that they had nothing constructive to contribute. As one respondent put it: " T h e main reason for not answering your communication on the place and function of U L S in A C R L , aside from the usual ones of personal procrastina- tion and perennial pressure, was simply not knowing what in the devil to say." Although some of the replies were most interesting as expressions of opinions, there was no assurance that the opinions expressed and their distribution were representative of how most of the mem- bership felt about future programs and functions. T h e second step consisted of the prep- aration of a summary of the major opinions expressed and questions raised in response to the August 19 question- naire. T h i s summary was mailed out on October 28 to the thirty-nine members who had responded to the August 19 questionnaire plus sixty-six head librar- ians of institutions offering the doctor's degree who had failed to respond to my earlier questionnaire, or a total of only 104 members. In the process of prepar- ing this mailing list, it was discovered that the head librarians of nine impor- tant institutions granting the doctor's degree did not belong to the University Libraries Section: five of these nine were connected with A R L libraries. Of these five head librarians, four did not even be- long to ALA, and one, although belong- ing to ALA, did not belong to A C R L . T h i s is merely incidental information and not too alarming. It may, however, be taken as an early warning signal and may suggest that unless the University Libraries Section develops into a much more productive and effective group, it may occur to many others that member- ship in it is unimportant and can be dis- pensed with without loss. T h e response to the second question- naire was reasonably good, with forty of the sixty-six head librarians replying, in addition to further comments from those who had responded to the earlier ques- tionnaire. T h e summary to be presented on the following pages is based primarily on the opinions expressed in these forty letters. Before discussing the answers to spe- cific questions in the questionnaire, it may be illuminating to present a few di- rect quotations from the letters received. These sixteen quotations were selected to show in a general way how widely divergent the attitudes and opinions of our members are. Let us begin at the negative end of the spectrum. Q u o t e N o . 1, f r o m o n e of our most dis- tinguished libraries: " W e have held a meet- ing . . . attended by seven of the most pro- fessionally m i n d e d members of o u r library. I want to stress that this is not a hastily conceived reply to your very carefully stated p r o b l e m but one which reflects our thinking on the problems raised by you. T h i s g r o u p unanimously favors elimination of the Uni- versity L i b r a r i e s Section. . . . W e believe that A C R L should be c a p a b l e of a r r a n g i n g any programs that might b e desirable at a n n u a l conferences, a n d a p p o i n t i n g special com- mittees on university problems whenever there is a clear need for a special f o r u m f o r university libraries." Q u o t e N o . 2, f r o m a m a n who has h a d im- portant committee assignments in A C R L : " A s for giving any e x t e n d e d reply on the points enumerated in your m e m o r a n d u m , I wish only to say that I couldn't possibly be less interested in your questions. L i k e many others, I a m so weary of talk a n d con- tinuous talk of reorganization, etc., that I cannot discuss the subject in an u n b i a s e d way." Q u o t e N o . 3, f r o m a l i b r a r i a n who has played an i m p o r t a n t role in the d e v e l o p m e n t of A C R L : " I a m not at all sure of the n e e d for the section as things now stand. Cer- tainly the section should not exist simply to provide more activity at the a n n u a l con- ference. . . . With the reorganization, there a p p e a r s to be even less o p p o r t u n i t y for the MAY 1958 189 section to g i v e p r a c t i c a l service. T h i s letter is a little bitter. I truly a p p r e c i a t e the issues y o u h a v e r a i s e d . " Q u o t e N o . 4, f r o m the h e a d of a state uni- versity l i b r a r y : " I feel t h a t there is a g r e a t d e a l of a m o r p h o u s n e s s a b o u t the A C R L m e e t i n g s . T h e r e seems to b e a c e r t a i n lack of d i r e c t i o n in the p r o g r a m s that we've h a d a n d n o c o n n e c t i o n f r o m o n e p r o g r a m to the n e x t . I w o u l d suggest f u r t h e r t h a t the l a r g e g r o u p always stifles d i s c u s s i o n ; in these b i g g r o u p s there a r e always o n e o r two p e o p l e w h o h a v e m a d e themselves o b n o x i o u s over the years by always h a v i n g s o m e t h i n g to say o n every s u b j e c t a n d s a y i n g it in such a way that there is a g r e a t d e a l of finality h a n g i n g a b o u t it. I w o u l d like to see A C R L h a v e s m a l l e r g r o u p s . " Q u o t e N o . 5, f r o m o n e of o u r m o s t dis- t i n g u i s h e d m e m b e r s : " I f a v o r a r e l a x e d at- t i t u d e f o r the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s S e c t i o n . . . . I t h i n k t h a t o n e of the g r e a t v a l u e s of a c o n f e r e n c e is a n e x c u s e f o r g e t t i n g a w a y f r o m h o m e with a n o p p o r t u n i t y to talk w i t h a c q u a i n t a n c e s a n d c o l l e a g u e s w h o work o n the s a m e k i n d of t h i n g on a n i n f o r m a l basis, a n d the h o p e always of h e a r i n g s o m e t h i n g o r i g i n a l or s t i m u l a t i n g said. C o n s e q u e n t l y , I b e l i e v e that a p r o g r a m which p r o v i d e s a f e w h i g h q u a l i t y p e r f o r m a n c e s p r o v i d e s the nec- essary excuse, offers p o s s i b i l i t y of s t i m u l a t i o n a n d leaves p l e n t y of t i m e f o r c o r r i d o r a n d b i s t r o c o n v e r s a t i o n s . " Q u o t e N o . 6: " S o c i a l g a t h e r i n g s a r e nice b u t I c o u l d n ' t j u s t i f y the e x p e n d i t u r e of travel m o n e y , either the U n i v e r s i t y ' s or m i n e , to a t t e n d a p r o f e s s i o n a l g a t h e r i n g d e v o t e d only to social chit-chat. O r b e t t e r that the s h a t t e r e d section b e k i l l e d off, h a r d as it seems to e x t e r m i n a t e m o r i b u n d l i b r a r y or- g a n i z a t i o n s . W e s h o u l d m a k e n o p r e t e n s e a t d o i n g things t h a t n e e d n o t b e d o n e a t all, b u t I s h o u l d view it as a p r e t t y state of t h i n g s w h e n there is n o serious work f o r us to d o . " Q u o t e N o . 7: " M o s t of o u r m e m b e r s c o m e to the m e e t i n g s f o r the i n t e r e s t i n g p r o g r a m s a n d w o u l d n o t lose interest if the activities f o r a while w e r e r e s t r i c t e d t o s u c h p r o g r a m s , in w h a t e v e r f o r m they a r e p r e s e n t e d . " Q u o t e N o . 8: " T h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s S e c t i o n s h o u l d h a v e a m i n i m u m of organiza- t i o n ; it s h o u l d h a v e j o i n t m e e t i n g s with scholarly o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; it s h o u l d work t h r o u g h the o t h e r o r g a n i z e d g r o u p s . " Q u o t e N o . 9, f r o m the l i b r a r i a n of a state u n i v e r s i t y : " T h e only way any l a r g e organi- zation c a n h a v e s t r e n g t h is t h r o u g h con- t i n u i n g c o m m i t t e e s . I w o u l d t h e r e f o r e con- c l u d e that the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s S e c t i o n w o u l d h a v e to h a v e a s t r o n g c o m m i t t e e s t r u c t u r e to b e e f f e c t i v e . " Q u o t e N o . 10, f r o m the h e a d l i b r a r i a n of a n o t h e r state u n i v e r s i t y : " A s f a r as the n e e d f o r c o m m i t t e e s is c o n c e r n e d I well r e m e m b e r the r e m a r k m a d e by L a r r y Powell to the ef- fect t h a t w h e n h e took office, he f o u n d n o c o m m i t t e e s in existence, a n d that he took n o steps to e s t a b l i s h any. I n g e n e r a l , this is s o u n d . " Q u o t e N o . 11, f r o m a n assistant d i r e c t o r of a l a r g e l i b r a r y : " I h a v e o n e s t r o n g r e a c t i o n . N o t h i n g h a s s e e m e d m o r e d e a d e n i n g t h a n the a t t e m p t to h o l d sectional b u s i n e s s meet- ings, p a r t i c u l a r l y at M i d w i n t e r . T h e m o m e n t that a n a n n o u n c e m e n t is m a d e that sections will h a v e b u s i n e s s m e e t i n g s , there is a gen- eral e x o d u s f o r the d o o r s . I wish y o u c o u l d find s o m e way to d i s p e n s e with the o p e n b u s i n e s s m e e t i n g . " Q u o t e N o . 12, f r o m a state university li- b r a r i a n : " T h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s S e c t i o n s h o u l d b e c o m e m o r e active a n d systematical- ly a t t e m p t to i d e n t i f y the m a j o r p r o b l e m s f a c i n g university l i b r a r i e s a n d then o r g a n i z e a v i g o r o u s a t t a c k on these p r o b l e m s . " Q u o t e N o . 13, f r o m the d i r e c t o r of a l a r g e l i b r a r y : " I think the p r o b l e m s of this section a r e still w h a t they h a v e b e e n since the A C R L with its several sections was f o r m e d . I a l s o t h i n k it is best f o r y o u to i g n o r e c o m p l e t e l y the r e c e n t a t t e m p t to r e o r g a n i z e the total l i b r a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n of A L A a n d affiliated b o d i e s . I t is g o i n g to b e h u m a n l y a n d pro- f e s s i o n a l l y i m p o s s i b l e to r e l a t e to the so- c a l l e d new d i v i s i o n s the p r o b l e m s of all types of l i b r a r i e s . T h e r e s i m p l y is n o com- m o n d e n o m i n a t o r f o r all types of l i b r a r i e s which w o u l d m a k e it p o s s i b l e to d e v e l o p u s e f u l p r o g r a m s . A n y p r o g r a m s t h a t m i g h t b e p r o j e c t e d w o u l d b e w a t e r e d d o w n to the p o i n t at which they w o u l d n o t b e very use- f u l . T h e p r o v i n c e of the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s S e c t i o n is those u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s that d o work o n the P h . D . level. O f t h e m there a r e a b o u t 100. W e s h o u l d d e v e l o p a v i g o r o u s p r o g r a m . W e s h o u l d strive to i d e n t i f y the p r o b l e m s of university l i b r a r i e s a n d d o some- t h i n g a b o u t t h e m . " Q u o t e N o . 14, f r o m the h e a d of a n o t h e r 190 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES large university library: " I see little reason for the existence of the section if its only f u n c t i o n continues to be the sponsorship of conference programs. T h e university libraries of the country are b u r d e n e d with many prob- lems which could be attacked by g r o u p ac- tion through our professional association. If the members of the section d o not want to use the association for this purpose, I would favor abolishing the section a n d letting A C R L p l a n the conference programs. I would like to see an active section . . . I have seen n o evidence that the m e m b e r s h i p does not want to w o r k . " Q u o t e N o . 15: " I believe that the section should be more active, that it should have a systematic program, a n d that it should iden- tify a n d face u p to the m a j o r problems of university librarianship. My feelings, how- ever, on this point are not vague. T h e y a r e positive a n d direct even though I cannot give g o o d answers in terms of specifics. I h o p e that you a n d succeeding officers of the section will not be g u i d e d by a do-nothing philosophy. S h o u l d this h a p p e n throughout all the sections of A C R L , w e might just as well f o l d u p . " Q u o t e N o . 16, f r o m another university: " I should like to say that if we d o not keep this section active it will be likely to go out of existence, which I would very much re- gret to have h a p p e n . " So much for the quotations. It is evi- dent that we are dealing here with a very wide spread of divergent views and that it will be difficult to develop a program that everyone will endorse. Let me now turn to the specific questions asked in the questionnaire addressed to head librar- ians of our major university libraries. T h e first question asked was: Are we sufficiently active? In other words, should the University Libraries Section devel- op into a much more active organization, with a systematic program for study or discussion of some of the major prob- lems facing university libraries, or should we primarily plan interesting programs, have no committees, and conduct no business meetings. T h e answers to this question distributed themselves as fol- lows: 14 felt that we should become more active; 10 thought that we should restrict ourselves to program meetings at conferences; 3 said that we should have program meetings as well as active com- mittees; 8 had no opinion; and 2 advo- cated that the section be abolished. It was obvious that the respondents lacked unanimity and that is was impossible to satisfy all. T h e answers were most useful, however, in identifying those members who favored a more active section, and several of them agreed to serve as mem- bers of a Steering Committee. T h e mem- bership of this committee is as follows: William H. Carlson, Carl Hintz, David O. Kelley, A. Frederick Kuhlman, Frank Lundy, Ralph McComb, Flint Purdy, and Ray Swank. It is hoped that in due time a constructive program statement for future activities will emerge from the deliberations of this committee. T h e committee will be concerned only with the University Libraries Section, and not with A C R L as a whole. Earlier, the A C R L Board of Directors established an A C R L Special Committee on Activ- ities and Development (SCAD), headed by William H. Carlson, which has been studying the place of A C R L within the reorganized A L A and is to bring in recommendations for divisional action program. T h e two committees will be in close touch with each other as they reach the stage at which specific recommenda- tions can be formulated. T h e second question in the question- naire pertained to our relationship to the Association of Research Libraries. Opinion as to the extent to which we should take cognizance of A R L was so widely divergent that it is impossible to present a complete picture of it in a sum- mary. Roughly one-fourth believed that we should ignore A R L ; about one-third believed that we should maintain fairly close liaison; another one-fourth ex- pressed no opinion; the remainder ex- pressed varying views, such as to let A R L handle joint projects and our section MAY 1958 191 concern itself with internal problems of university libraries. Equally confusing were the views re- vealed by librarians of A R L libraries as to the proper function of A R L . Some felt that A R L should return to its earlier function of an initimate discussion cir- cle; others were convinced that its strength lay in its committee structure and action programs. It is not necessary to offer advice to A R L . Its officers are aware of the conflicting views, and its Advisory Committee has prepared an ad- mirably concise report on the problems A R L will be concerned about. It seems highly desirable to maintain close liaison, so that we will eventually achieve a satis- factory division of labor rather than competition or duplication of effort in the field of university and research li- braries. A R L was founded at a time when A L A had no strong g r o u p representing university and research interests. It gained strength through an organization- al structure and a budget that guaran- teed continuity, and it gained prestige through its display of leadership as well as through its exclusiveness. With refer- ence to its effect on A C R L , one of our members described the dilemma as fol- lows: " I t certainly has seemed that the existence of A R L has had a tendency to take initiative away from n o n - A R L mem- bers. Yet I can see that if the A R L did not initiate many of the projects it does, the university and college groups would be considerably impoverished." Another one wrote: " A great deal of the interest and activity of the potential leadership of the University Libraries Section is spent on A R L . " A third one expressed a similar sentiment in stating that "the existence of A R L has weakened the Uni- versity Libraries Section of A C R L . " It seems obvious that we have a real prob- lem here that can be solved only if we change the University Libraries Section of A C R L into a more responsible and more dynamic group. T h e University Li- braries Section may have to assume new functions that will make it more truly than before the spokesman for university library interests. T h e only trouble is that our unwield- ly University Libraries Section, which may be compared to a slumbering giant, is presently not set u p to assume new duties. What it lacks primarily is con- tinuity in its governing body, and with- out such continuity no action program can succeed. O u r three officers (Chair- man, Vice-Chairman, Secretary) are elect- ed for a one-year term in contrast to the five-year, overlapping terms of the five members of the A R L Advisory Commit- tee and the five-year term of the A R L Executive Secretary. In addition to our three officers, we also elect a so-called Director for a four-year term, whose only function has apparently been to at- tend the meetings of the A C R L Board of Directors. We have a situation, then, in which a new g r o u p of officers takes over at each annual conference. T h e s e officers usually have no official contact with the Director. An illusion of con- tinuity is created by the tradition that makes the Vice-Chairman responsible for the planning of the program meeting at the annual conference; in practice, this tradition contributes little to the con- tinuity of the governing personnel of the section as long as our activities involve nothing else but program meetings. Fortunately, we enjoy complete free- dom as to how to conduct our affairs. T h e A C R L Constitution does not pre- scribe what kind of organization A C R L sections must adopt. It was suggested that we might set u p a governing com- mittee of five, consisting of the Chair- man, the Vice-Chairman, the past two chairmen and the Director. Some sug- gested a longer term of office for the elect- ed officers with staggered terms. Several suggested that the Director should be- come more deeply involved in the ac- tivities of the section. It was also suggest- ed that we might add the Secretary to 192 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES the governing body. Another possibility is to continue our Steering Committee as advisory cabinet of appointed members. T h e majority of those who expressed an opinion on this matter agreed that steps should be taken to ensure greater con- tinuity. T h e Steering Committee will in- clude this topic on its agenda. T h e final topic in my questionnaire concerned our ties with A C R L . Here the basic question was whether the A C R L Board of Directors should primarily serve as an instrument of the sections or whether it should continue to operate as a sort of superstructure, presuming to speak for all of us, yet having extremely weak links with the sections that make up A C R L . What we have had all these years is a fairly strong and active board, but relatively weak sections. T h e Board of Directors consists of A C R L officers, ALA Councilors, and Di- rectors-at-Large, all of them directly elect- ed either by A C R L or A L A members. In addition, each section is represented by a Director, who is elected by A C R L for a four-year term upon nomination by the section, but whose involvement in sec- tion activities—through no fault of his own—has traditionally been nil. It seems that our A C R L board should be set up in such a way that programs and projects approved by any section can be effectively presented at board meet- ings and implemented by board action; and it is most doubtful whether the best way to accomplish this objective is to set up a board on which neither the vice- chairmen nor the chairmen of the sec- tions have a vote. Q u i t e in contrast to the divergence of opinion revealed on the other three topics covered in this report, the members who wrote on this point were in complete agreement that the proposed A C R L Constitution should be changed to provide for closer and more direct ties between the sections and the A C R L Board of Directors. T h i s unanim- ity was most surprising in view of the absence of any dissenting vote at Kan- sas City when the proposed new con- stitution was first presented at an A C R L membership meeting. An inquiry directed to the other five sections of A C R L revealed that their chairmen and vice-chairmen shared the conviction that the composition of the A C R L Board of Directors could be im- proved. They all agreed that A C R L would be strengthened if the sections were given more direct representation on the Board than Article V, Section 2 of the proposed constitution provided. A study of the constitutions of other A L A Divisions revealed that there was no uniform pattern. In only two other divisions (PLD and YASD) were A L A councilors included as voting members of the board. There were two divisions (LED and R T S D ) in which section chair- men were voting members of the board in contrast to their not being so included in A C R L . T h e final reading of the A C R L Constitution at the membership meeting in San Francisco in 1958 will give members an opportunity to decide what kind of organizational structure will be most appropriate for A C R L . S U M M A R Y It was pointed out that the work of the University Libraries Section has con- sisted almost exclusively of presenting interesting short programs at confer- ences. Although many members are sat- isfied with this level of attainment, there are a good many who are dissatisfied and feel strongly that we could and should accomplish more toward the solution of common problems and the improvement of university libraries. Before we can hope to become a more dynamic and more productive group, however, we shall first have to ensure greater continuity of organization than is true today, so that projects and programs can be carried for- ward from year to year until they are completed. Next we must try to coordi- nate our efforts with those of the Associa- (Continued on page 202) MAY 1958 193 music, physical education, physical sci- ences, and R . O . T . C . A summary of other general findings is as follows: 1. All staff members at C o n n o r s College have a clearer idea of o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e for the integration of the library with in- struction. 2. Some instructors immediately increased r e q u i r e m e n t for work in the library. (As an e x a m p l e , instructors in R . O . T . C . for the first time r e q u i r e d a research p a p e r . E a c h fresh- m a n was assigned an i m p o r t a n t battle of some war in which the U n i t e d States par- ticipated. H e analyzed a n d gave documen- tary evidence of all m a j o r incidents of the battle. Special emphasis was given to the way the c o m m a n d i n g officers carried out the nine basic "Articles of W a r " in directing the battle.) T h i s was an interesting assignment. 3. Instructors came to the library to re- fresh their memory as to what books are a v a i l a b l e in their teaching area. 4. T h e librarian was m a d e conscious of the o p p o r t u n i t y she h a d for serving the p r o g r a m . 5. Instructors were alerted to turn in re- quests for books to be ordered. 6. T h e l i b r a r i a n a n d some instructors worked out p l a n s for the supervision of li- brary r e a d i n g for classes when instructors have to be absent f r o m the college. 7. T h e administrators at C o n n o r s recog- nized the library as b e i n g the "central lab- oratory of the c o l l e g e " to be used as a def- inite p a r t of the instruction p r o g r a m . F u n d s were p r o v i d e d for its growth insofar as cur- rent b u d g e t allows. T h e a m o u n t of f u n d s for the purchase of books for the coming year was substantially increased. A C R L University Libraries Section (Continued from page 193) tion of Research Libraries so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and competition in the same general field. In view of the present unwieldiness of our membership and the complete absence of any organizational structure or articula- tion, the only way to make some head- way was to appoint a Steering Commit- tee, which met for the first time at the 1958 Midwinter Meeting to attempt to determine what activities we should undertake. All members are urged to funnel ideas to the members of this com- mittee. T h e committee will work closely with the A C R L Special Committee on Activities and Developments, which has been studying the place of A C R L within the reorganized A L A and developing rec- ommendations for an A C R L action program. Next, it was pointed out that our links with the A C R L B o a r d of Directors did not seem sufficiently strong and direct to enable us to carry forward any kind of active program which requires effective presentation to the board and active sup- port by the board. It was, therefore, sug- gested that all members carefully study the provisions of the proposed A C R L Constitution, particularly Article V, Sec- tion 2, and transmit their ideas to the A C R L B o a r d of Directors before it is too late, that is, before the Constitution will come u p for final adoption at the San Francisco Conference in J u l y of 1958. T h e most difficult task before us and one which will require much ingenuity and resourcefulness on the part of each and every member, but particularly of the members of the Steering Committee is to determine what activities are appro- priate for us to undertake as a g r o u p within A C R L and A L A to further the development of university libraries. It is not enough to feel in a vague sort of way that we should become more productive and more effective. We must get down to specifics and attempt to identify the ma- jor problems facing university libraries jointly and then determine what can be done about them through g r o u p effort. 202 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES