College and Research Libraries T h e Regional Accrediting Associations And the Standards for College Libraries By F. T A Y L O R J O N E S TH E R E A R E six regional accrediting agencies in the United States. Each works within a defined area; each is re- sponsible for several hundred institutions; and each is independent of the others. They have no connection with the fed- eral government or any state govern- ment. They represent all facets of higher education—not particular types or points of view. Each association is free to do things in its own way; the tie among them is one of fraternity rather than fed- eration. This is the way we think it should be, for it permits a quicker and more effec- tive marshalling of each section's own forces to meet its educational problems. It enables each to move at its own pace, never forced or held back by the others. There is a general objective which is firmly held by them all: to strengthen, im- prove, and extend higher education. T h e means by which they try to do it, and their rates of progress, may differ. Yet the differences among these independent associations are superficial. They are separate denominations, so to speak, but with a common apostolate. Out of it there does grow a common attitude to- ward such matters as ALA's Standards for College Libraries. T o understand that attitude one must realize that regional accreditation is a very different thing today from what it was a generation ago. It used to be re- ferred to as standardization, and quite accurately so. It was brought into being by a need, both public and professional, to establish and enforce some common denominators in education. It dealt with minimum "standards" (put the word in Mr. Jones, is the Executive Secretary of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education Middle States Association of Col- leges and Secondary Schools. This address was delivered at the meeting of ACRL's Col- lege Library Section in Montreal, June 21, 1960. quotes, for it is historic) in such matters as faculty qualifications, student prepara- tion, and libraries—the conditions and resources which seemed closely related to effective instruction. Accreditation was intended to certify that a college had at least these minimum resources and was observing certain agreed rules for there use; therefore other institutions, espe- cially graduate schools, could assume that its students were acceptable for admis- sion. T h e "standards" forty years ago were largely quantitative. They had to be; it takes time to work out qualitative criteria and learn how to handle them. Quantita- tive requirements are enforcible. In its early days accreditation was not far from a policing operation. But American higher education con- tinued to diversify, which made standard- ization less and less relevant. With increasing experience the associations dis- covered how to shift their emphasis from quantitative inspection to qualitative evaluation. Also something else hap- pened, not altogether unforeseen: it be- came apparent that the process leading to accreditation had immensely beneficial effects on the institution concerned. This marked the beginning of a new era. T h e modern concept of accreditation was born with the realization that its by- J U L Y 19 6 1 271 product, that is, the useful effect it had on the institution itself, was more im- portant than its ostensible object, the granting of accreditation. T h e process had larger possibilities. It could be de- liberately used as a catalyst to speed up a college's or university's development. It did so by offering each one in turn a view of itself through the eyes of inter- ested, informed colleagues; against a wide background of experience and heightened by the immediacy of personal contact. Regional accreditation in the United States is universally accepted by our col- leges and universities because they them- selves created it, control it, have used it for strictly educational ends, and rigor- ously guard it against manipulation by special interests. T h e y have made it a powerful instrument for institutional improvement. T h i s is why they see to it that each member institution's accredita- tion is systematically reviewed from time to time. In the great majority of cases reaffirmation can be taken for granted. Well established institutions are not de- pendent upon accreditation. What they want is the total review and focusing of effort which the accreditation process af- fords them without forcing them into any preconceived or uniform molds. T h e process does not force them into set patterns because each regional associa- tion works out its own criteria, forging them slowly in experience and keeping them flexible in character and applica- tion because the membership is so diver- sified. T h e regionals will riot enforce, and will rarely endorse, any other agency's point of view, although they will un- abashedly appropriate and adapt for their own use whatever they see else- where and find good. T h i s friendly piracy is well understood and encouraged among us all. Of course we cooperate in other ways too. Since 1953 the Middle States Association has had formal agreements with all the approved specialized accrediting agencies, includ- ing ALA under which our evaluation ac- tivities are always pooled when an in- stitution holds or wants accreditation by both organizations. T h e other regional associations operate somewhat similarly. It is a natural development; our interests coincide. We hold that you cannot fully understand or assess any one part of an educational institution without reference to all its other facts. T h e r e is an intricate and important relationship among them all; the whole is, or should be, greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore the general accrediting associations are equally concerned with every specialized school of a university, and the profes- sional agencies must take into account the health of the entire institution. W e join forces in our assessment, to the ob- vious advantage of all concerned, espe- cially the institution's. We do it as colleagues and consultants, though, not as policemen. T h e frame of reference in every instance is the institu- tion's, not ours. In the modern concept of accreditation there are only three fundamental questions to ask: 1. Are this institution's objectives clearly defined, appropriate, and controling in its development? 2. Has it established the conditions under which it can achieve its ob- jectives? 3. Is it in fact achieving them? T h i s is the full circle. Accreditation is not standardization; it means something different for every institution. It means that if you know clearly what an ac- credited institution intends to do for its students, you can assume that its per- formance matches its claims. T h e emphasis has shifted, you see, from means to results. Yet we must still pay a good deal of attention to the means by which the results are to be attained, because the chief ends for which colleges exist are not measurable. But we are no longer so 272 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S doctrinaire about the means; we keep them in their place. W e do not delude ourselves that we know all the answers. T h e evaluation process as the regionals conduct it now has two phases: a search- ing self-analysis by an institution's own faculty and staff, and a parallel study by an outside group. Faculties and visiting committees alike yearn for solid guide- lines. T h e y need concise, sharp descrip- tions of good practice; neither theoretical discussions nor ex cathedra pronounce- ments—just clear explication of the principles on which good programs are built and of the characteristics which ap- pear to accompany excellence. But the literature is diffuse, scattered, and elusive. Much of it is statistical, and much of it lacks perspective and general applicability. What can we do? W e can create a new literature of our own, and we can en- courage others to do so and help them to disseminate the result. W e have done both. All the regional associations are publishing, slow and dif- ficult though the task is. W e are all deeply interested in the efforts of professional societies to produce short, clear analyses of the anatomy of excellence. We call at- tention to them in our own publications. We are quite prepared to steal from them, and are delighted when you steal from ours. W e expect our evaluators to be familiar with them. W e want our in- stitutions to have and use them. But we will not officially endorse state- ments of professional societies, in the Middle States area at least, and we do not want their standards and criteria cited in Middle States evaluation reports as if they did have our endorsement. In the first place we have no right to endorse them. T h e regional associations express only their own members' con- victions. We are expected to help form our members' views too, of course, but that is delicate business—you remember the definition of a professor as a man who thinks otherwise. W e will get no- where at all except by the slow process of distilling the best of our own ex- perience into a form in which they can all scrutinize, test, and approve. Furthermore our views are eclectic. We are not prepared to recognize any single authority or to commit ourselves per- manently to any one doctrine or docu- ment, including our own. In fact we are not convinced that there are single an- swers to many of the significant questions in higher education. W e have grave doubts about some of the current posi- tions upheld by our specialized col- leagues: about the American Bar Associa- tion's insistence on the autonomy of the law library, for example; or the American Medical Association's tendency to sepa- rate the medical school from the univer- sity; or some of the American Chemical Society's prescriptions; or the American Association of University Professors' proclivity to assume that the instructor is right; or ALA's pronouncement on the size of college libraries. W e in the re- gionals are very pragmatic. Wh a t will we do, in respect of docu- ments like the new ALA Standards? W e will work enthusiastically with you in their production, so far as such help is invited and appropriate. W e bask in no reflected glory in the publication of the ALA Standards, but various of our officers and members did have the privilege of criticizing them in their formative stages, was true also of the J u n i o r College Library Standards. I n the Middle States Association we have also published a document of our own on libraries, as some of you know. In fact ours antedated yours and is quoted in it. Neither one detracts from the usefulness of the other. T h e two are quite different. Essentially, ours is an attempt to help faculty members and administrators ask the right questions. Yours gives them some ideas as to what the answers may be. Ours is concerned with what a library ought to do; yours with what it should be. These are not J U L Y 19 6 1 273 antagonistic approaches. T h e y are com- plementary. T h e second thing we will do is to ad- vertize your excellent ALA Standards, and the similar publications of other professional societies when they are as clear, as well prepared, and as succinct as yours are and do no violence to our own principles. Third, we will seek people who are thoroughly familiar with the materials of the specialized agencies to be mem- bers of our evaluation teams. W e have been doing this in the Middle States area for many years, to our great satis- faction. W e do not want these people to cite the professional societies' findings and positions as criteria of judgment in Middle States evaluation reports, as I have already noted, for doing so seems to commit us to them in a way in which we dislike in principle to be committed. But we want our evaluators to draw upon every bit of their specialized ex- perience and information, from what- ever source. Fourth, we will recommend suitable people from the specialized agencies as institutional consultants when adminis- trators or faculties or trustees need out- side advice. T h i s happens frequently. Some of you in this room have greatly improved the quality of library service in such consultative capacities. T o return to our original topic, how will the ALA Standards be implemented by the regional associations? T h e y won't. W e will neither under- write nor enforce them. B u t they will have tremendous influence all the same —in fact they already do—which we will aid and abet. T h e i r significance in the formation of high expectations for li- braries and clear thinking about library services will depend on the soundness with which the ALA document has been conceived and the skill with which it has been expressed. Because Felix Hirsch and his committee have done a consum- mate j o b in both respects, there is no question that this publication will be a major factor in the development of the the college, university, and professional school libraries in the next decade. For our part, we will continually call atten- tion to it, for serious study and practical implementation by our faculties and ad- ministrators, without ever suggesting to them that the good of the order or the salvation of individual souls depends on what the ALA alone says. We want you to be heard, debated, adapted, partly accepted and partly rejected, in the wholesome way of our free society, to the end that we all may learn more about the nature of excellence in higher educa- tion and more clearly approximate its dimensions. Distribution of the C R L Index A five-year cumulative index of CRL, volumes X V I - X X , which has been pre- pared by Richard Scliimmelpfeng, of Washington University Library, St. Louis, Mo., will be published later in July. A copy is being mailed to each of A C R L ' s in- stitutional members and to every subscriber to CRL who is not a member of A C R L . A copy will be mailed free of charge to any member of A C R L requesting it before September 1. 274 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S