College and Research Libraries


R O B E R T T . B L A C K B U R N 

College Libraries—Indicted Failures: 
Some Reasons—and a Possible Remedy 

This paper identifies some of the sources of conflict between the 
academic library and the teaching faculty. Although "some kinds 
of contention are rather easily removed" others range in seriousness 
to such a depth that "realistically a solution is most likely not possible 
The author proposes that some of the deeper seated conflicts result 
from fundamental differences in competing ends held by faculty mem-
bers and librarians, some result from "characterological" differences 
between them, ancl others inhere in the sometimes opposing roles the 
two groups are called upon to play. Examples are given. 

W, H E N JUDGED by the purported end, 
college libraries are failures. That is the 
only conclusion one can properly draw. 

A college's goals are plural and can be 
expressed in diverse ways; nonetheless, 
the statement that students are to fall 
in love with books—not just to flirt or to 
be engaged but rather to marry until 
death do them part—is a fair expression 
of the central aim that both faculty and 
librarians proclaim. Occasionally a col-
lege achieves puppy love, but such a 
casual and immature relationship must 
be proclaimed a failure.1 

That the performance is dismal is 
enigmatic, too. 

Everybody says the library is the heart 
of the college. Everyone is for the li-
brary. (To be against libraries is perhaps 
a greater sin than to be against mother-
hood, especially if one is in higher edu-
cation. ) Even college presidents who 
can raise money for nothing else mount 

1 The ultimate goal, of course, is not books for the 
sake of books, an unsublimated narcissism, but rather 
involves ideas. P a t Knapp writes that her goal is the 
exploitation of the reservoir of resources her library 
possesses. So we agree. I am only saying that books are 
the principal source of ideas and students must first 
become excited by books. 

Dr. Blackburn is Professor of Higher 
Education in the University of Michigan. 
The paper is reprinted here with permission 
from the Library-College Journal. 

successful campaigns for new libraries. 
By and large the most handsome archi-
tecture has appeared in collegiate libra-
ries. Their physical location is often ideal. 
Many now have seminar rooms and fac-
ulty offices as well as generous student 
accommodations. Smoking and no-smok-
ing areas, reading rooms with magazines, 
attractive displays of new acquisitions, 
accommodations for the humanities fac-
ulty (such as tapes and records), type-
writers, and on and on, abound. Almost 
the best of all possible physical worlds 
exists for libraries on many campuses to-
day. Yet, the conclusion remains—FAIL-
URE.2 

2 Remarks of this flavor abound in the writings of 
librarians and others. E.g., Ralph Perkins, director of 
library education, University of North Dakota, c o n -
cludes in his study of over four thousand college seniors 
from sixty-nine colleges and universities from thirty-
eight states that: 

"Currently any study of actual use of libraries as 
revealed by standardized tests designed to measure 
such knowledge must result in an indictment of t e a c h -
ers; an indictment of administrators; an indictment of 
librarians; an indictment of those who allocate vast 
sums of money for buildings for libraries as they are 
being used today by college students." ( T h e Prospective 
Teacher's Knowledge of Library Fundamentals. New 
York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1 9 6 5 , p. 1 9 9 . ) 

Similar findings come from the study by Guy R . 
Lyle, The President, The Professor, and The College 
Library. ( N e w York: The H. W . Wilson Co., 1 9 6 3 , pp. 
5 2 - 5 5 . ) 

( T h e reader should keep in mind that it is college, 
not university, libraries that I am describing. The 
small or medium sized private liberal arts college away 
from a metropolitan center typifies the mode under 
analysis h e r e . ) 

/ 171 



172 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 

Why? 
Paradoxes seldom have simple an-

swers. What is offered here remains in 
the hypothetical category and merits 
whatever attention it might receive on 
the basis of the attractiveness and ac-
curacy of the analysis that follows.3 

Our approach to dilemmas takes a 
path we have found fruitful in the past. 
When the physical arrangements seem 
in good order and rationality apparently 
dominates, then experience has taught 
us that beneath outward equanimity may 
reside rather deep personal conflicts. 
(The persons involved most likely will 
be quite unconscious of the frictions.) 
Said once more, when stated purposes 
are in agreement and where the physical 
arrangements predict success, the hy-
pothesis that people are at the core of 
the failure is worthy of pursuit.4 

What follows, then, are arguments for 
the assertion that personal conflicts ex-
ist between faculty members and librari-
ans. As was stated above, little experi-
mental evidence exists to corroborate the 
the analysis and thus what is advanced 
remains hypothetical. ( I t may, however, 
become suggestive of fruitful research.)5 

3 I am indebted to Kenneth Vance on the faculty of 
the school of library science at the University of 
Michigan for directing me toward sources; to Donald 
Leatherman, education librarian at the University of 
Michigan for his library searching for me and for his 
reading of this manuscript; to Patricia Knapp, W a y n e 
State University, for her suggestions and comments and 
encouragement on this effort; and to Howard Clayton, 
librarian at the State University of New York a t 
Brockport, and editor of the Library-College Journal, 
for it was his invitation to reflect on this topic that 
initiated this inquiry. 

4 Dan Bergen has suggested that structure (organiza-
tion of facilities) a n d / o r substance is the cause. See 
his "Knowledge and Library-College Integration," in 
Dan Bergen and E . D. Duryea ( e d s . ) , Libraries and 
the College Climate of Learning. (Syracuse, New York: 
Syracuse University Press, 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 8 1 . I am saying 
the problem is people, viz., librarians and faculty. 

5 As reported in Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 2 1 ( O c -
tober-December 1 9 6 0 ) , pp. 9 1 0 - 1 1 for Henry H. 
Scherer's E d D thesis at the University of Southern 
California, " F a c u l t y - L i b r a r i a n Relationships in Selected 
Liberal Arts Colleges," I m a y be in error. Respond-
ents to his questionnaire agreed that harmony between 
librarians and faculty members was vital and that it 
was " g o o d . " However, there is no data to support the 
reported beliefs, no personality variables are analyzed, 
and I fear he received the " p a r t y line" response rather 
than reality. 

Resolutions for some conflict areas will 
be suggested. The position taken will 
be that some kinds of contention are 
rather easily removed, that some can be 
mitigated by understanding and by 
compromise of private desire for the 
larger goal, and that some of the con-
flicts between faculty members and li-
brarians reside at such a deep level that 
realistically a solution is most likely not 
possible. 

Once again, the enigma: Why is there 
an unsuccessful marriage based on love 
between students and books when both 
faculty and librarians claim this as their 
end and when all conditions seem to 
make the goal inevitable? 

What is claimed here is that there is 
human conflict and that it arises from 
some fundamental differences in com-
peting ends held by faculty members 
and by librarians, that some basic cliar-
acterological differences, both in traits 
as well as in ego (status) dimensions 
exist between professors and librarians, 
and that the roles librarians and faculty 
members play, possibly because of the 
structure of the organization in which 
they both work, create frictions.6 Let 
us demonstrate. 

Ends—Some conflicting desires of fac-
ulty members and librarians. 

Very simply put, faculty members 
want to own (possess) books even more 
than they want students to love books. 

Who owns the books they want? 
The librarian. 
Furthermore, the librarian gets to or-

der thousands of them every year, gets 
to unwrap them when they come, and is 
the first one to have journals and maga-
zines in hand when they come in the 
mail. Faculty cannot even find time to 

0 The categories of ends, character ( o r personality), 
and role may not be the most profitable for analysis. 
T h e demonstrations below will point to instances of 
some complex of these three. It is sufficient here, 
however, is to exhibit the conflicts, not to exhaust the 
possible causes. Said another way, other variables 
might be more fruitful for research than the ones 
utilized here. 



Indicted Failures: Some Reasons—and a Possible Remedy / 173 

read all that they want to and obviously 
the librarian, sitting quietly and undis-
turbed in her7 office just reads, and 
reads, and reads. Faculty are outright 
jealous; she has what faculty want most 
of all and what is rightfully theirs, not 
hers.8 

If faculty find a high priority goal of 
theirs thwarted by librarians in their 
ownership of books, librarians harbor a 
deep resentment of the faculty's owner-
ship of the students, at least of what he 
reads. Thus a high priority goal of the 
librarian is unattainable. By virtue of as-
signments made and not made, the pro-
fessor to a large measure controls what 
books students touch in the library.9 Also, 
the faculty regulate to an appreciable 
degree what books and what journals 
the library will have. Librarians know 
better than faculty what the best books 
are, know better than faculty what stu-
dents really should read—what is good 
for them and what they would like, yet 
can have but little impact. Furthermore, 
faculty teach. This other entree into the 
student's mind excludes the librarian 
from an authoritative and influencing 
role. In short, librarians are understand-
ably jealous of professors. 

Thus, ends other than the common 
one of producing a lasting romance be-
tween students and books are in conflict 

7 " S h e " will be the pronoun employed for "librar-
i a n s " and " h e " for a " f a c u l t y m e m b e r " even though 
there are female professors and most often men o c -
cupy the highest positions in a hierarchy of a large 
library system. B u t the sex differences dominate and 
the stereotypes are a part of m y argument. See below. 

8 1 do not think money is the fundamental issue 
here. I believe a faculty m e m b e r ( n o claim for " a l l " 
is ever made or intended in this paper; only that the 
variable is significant, sometimes d o m i n a n t ) , given the 
undetectable ability to steal and having the choice 
between a ten dollar bill a n d a three dollar book, 
would, if he succumbed t o the temptation, opt for 
the book. I could find no figures on theft of books 
from libraries, but my guess is that on a per-capita 
basis faculty members steal more than students do. 
Librarians at the University of Michigan can show 
that theft increases significantly during summer ses-
sions, the time when the enrollment proportion of 
teachers to students is significantly higher. 

9 Lyle, op. cit., shows that more than half the use of 
books in the library is done in the textbooks brought 
into the library b y the students, ( p . 5 5 . ) 

within the collegiate setting, all to the 
student's misfortune. 

Personality—Some basic differences be-
tween faculty and librarians. 

1 . T R A I T S : Faculty tend toward dis-
orderliness whereas order, efficiency, 
economy and the like seem to be pre-
dominant in librarians.10 Librarians do 
not like unused books and they do like 
circulation figures,11 again a kind of pre-
ciseness that is contrary to what faculty 
value highly. Then there is the predomi-
nant maleness of faculty versus the pre-
dominant femaleness of librarians and 
the associations these bring forth (as 
in, say, doctor versus nurse). Punctuali-
ty, rules and regulations—unadmirable 
traits in the opinion of faculty—are inte-
grated in a librarian's life. For faculty 
not to get book orders in on time certain-
ly disturbs librarians. 

In summary, acts which support both 
faculty and librarian stereotypes only 
make for difficulty in cooperation. 

2 . E G O , OR S T A T U S : The librarian seems 
to have an inordinate passion for status. 
Bergen speaks of the librarian's "margin-
ality vis-a-vis his client groups—the stu-
dents and the faculty."12 An American 
Library Association monograph is ex-
clusively devoted to this question.13 Fac-
ulty rank seems to be a sought after goal, 
almost as an end in itself. 

However, one can wonder what the 

10 Robert R. Douglass found that librarians " a r e 
generally orderly, conscientious, responsible, conserva-
tive, undominating, interested in people but not merely 
gregarious, and not neurotically anxious." ( F r o m his 
P h D dissertation, " T h e Personality of the L i b r a r i a n . " 
[University of Chicago, 1 9 5 7 ] as reported in Nathan 
M. Cohen, B a r b a r a Denison, and Jessie C . Boehlert, 
Library Science Dissertations: 1925-60. Washington: 
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1 9 6 3 , pp. 9 9 - 1 0 0 . ) 

11 Once upon a time the librarian played a guardian-
ship role, to never let a book be touched. B u t today's 
advocate speaks of emptying shelves every night, and 
it is she we are addressing. See, e.g., Kevin Guinagh, 
" T h e Academic I m a g e of the L i b r a r i a n " in Lyle's 
The President, the Professor, and the College Library, 
op. cit., pp. 1 1 - 1 3 . 

12 Dan Bergen, op. cit., p. 8 1 . 
13 Robert B. Downs ( e d . ) , The Status of American 

College and University Librarians. ( A C R L Monograph 
No. 2 2 , Chicago: American Library Association, 1 9 5 8 . ) 



174 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 

acquisition of academic rank accom-
plishes. Vice presidents for development 
sometimes possess academic titles but 
are not received into the society of fac-
ulty. The librarian works regular hours 
in a fixed locale and receives students 
without advance appointment. In almost 
all ways, the librarian is more like an 
administrative officer (say, registrar) 
and that alone excludes the librarian 
from the company of faculty member-
ship, regardless of title bestowed. A 
faculty member cannot like an adminis-
trator, and that is what a librarian is. 
Furthermore, since the librarian is geo-
graphically separated from the inner 
and top core of the administration and 
also holds less power, she is particularly 
vulnerable to faculty wrath and abuse-
as a convenient way of getting at a seem-
ingly apparent source of discontent. 

At the same time, but in quite differ-
ent ways, the librarian poses an unre-
lenting threat to the ego of the faculty 
member. The professor's principal teach-
ing device, regardless of the particular 
form it may appear in—lecture, quiz, lab, 
even in discussion or tutorial, is his au-
thority. The faculty member holds it 
and the student must accept it—and usu-
ally wants to, whether he should or not. 
Books, of course, are a genuine threat 
to the faculty member's ego. Seldom 
does he place on his reading list books 
which do not support his basic beliefs. 

Two events inevitably ensnare the fac-
ulty member, however. First of all, books 
with contrary views do infiltrate the li-
brary—from a former faculty member, 
a colleague, sometimes by the librarian, 
as "gifts." Secondly, books are authori-
ties, especially when written by ac-
claimed scholars. They are genuine 
threats to the faculty member's ego. One 
can enhance his status by finding an er-
ror or a flaw in a renowned book, and 
they almost always have one. But the 
threat remains genuine. He knows that 
a book is as good a teacher as he is. It 
is much safer to keep the student out of 

the library. At best, keep him busy with 
some reference work or reserve assign-
ments the professor can control. 

So, libraries, and hence librarians, also 
threaten faculty. Ergo, conflict. 

C. Roles—Some carrying out of func-
tions within the college that produce 
conflict between librarians and profes-
sors.14 

We have already seen that faculty 
hold certain positions of power in the 
college and that librarians are in a serv-
ant role. Even when accorded academic 
rank, librarians are seldom on educa-
tional policy committees or on the facul-
ty personnel committee. They even are 
outnumbered on the library committee 
and cannot prevent strains on their 
meager budget when faculty wish to 
retain subscriptions to unused journals 
and order multiple copies of a textbook 
that will be used one term for one course 
and thereafter waste away on precious 
shelf space. Faculty can transfer stu-
dent wrath from themselves to the li-
brarian for books not in the library, ones 
which were ordered by the professor at 
least two weeks ago. Professors can com-
plain about librarians to the Dean more 
easily than librarians can retaliate. Ordi-
narily librarians cannot use the power 
of the Dean even to recover a book the 
faculty member will not return. Besides, 
having to send the faculty member a 
notice that his book is overdue, or need-
ed by Professor Jones, or by student 
Smith (horror of horrors) is an act that 
in no way enhances the librarian's role 
vis-a-vis the faculty member. 

So, roles cause conflict too. 
Let us conclude our case that there is 

deep rooted conflict between faculty 
members and librarians by simply point-

14 Lowell E . Olson, as reported in Dissertation Ab-
stracts, Vol. 2 7 No. 6 (December, 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 1 8 4 6 A . 
His PhD thesis at the University of Minnesota, " T e a c h -
ers', Principals', and Librarians' Perception of the 
School Librarian's Role" set his study in role theory. 
However, it focuses on secondary schools and deals 
more with the training and status of librarians than 
with the concerns I focus upon here. 



Indicted Failures: Some Reasons—and a Possible Remedy / 175 

ing to some situations which differ from 
those already delineated only in that 
they are more complex, i.e., involve si-
multaneous conflicts in various combi-
nations of the categories constructed for 
this analysis. 

That librarians are obtaining beautiful 
and new buildings with fine offices be-
fore faculty acquire comparable facili-
ties can create jealousies and affect ends. 
That librarians keep attractively display-
ing all the new acquisitions the faculty 
member covets (and suspects the li-
brarian is reading) certainly frustrates 
the overworked college faculty member. 
("Information overload" seems to be the 
new term; the library houses this source 
of frustration and cause of inadequacy 
feeling.) That the librarian can advance 
irrefutable arguments about how faculty 
should "make students make better use 
of the library" only produces additional 
guilt feelings. 

Even more complex interrelationships 
acting on ends, personality, and role 
come readily to mind. For example, 
faculty do not know how to find every-
thing they want in a library. Yet faculty 
are supposed to know, and humiliation 
is involved in asking a librarian for as-
sistance. Furthermore, to ask a librarian 
a question presents her with a problem 
(and she likes to solve mysteries) and 
gives her the opportunity to display how 
skilled she really is and how stupid pro-
fessors really are. Again, the student li-
brary assignment that stipulates no as-
sistance from the librarian—a task de-
fended on the grounds that a student 
must acquire library skills (a legitimate 
goal)—may in fact be a protective de-
vice on the part of the faculty member 
so as to not allow a librarian to reveal 
to a student what could actually be 
learned in such a building. (Further-
more, if students could really use li-
braries they might discover all kinds of 
things—arguments faculty cannot count-
er, books they have not read, . . .) 

The reader will quickly supply many 

more illustrations to support our con-
tention that for understandable reasons 
faculty and librarians have genuine 
(though most often unexpressed) con-
flicts.15 Furthermore, we no longer are 
surprised that collegiate libraries fail so 
grandiosely, that they do so little in con-
trast to what "everyone knows" they 
could and should accomplish. 

What might be done? 
What conflicts can be removed? 

Which can be mitigated? Which can be 
solved by transposing them? How? 

Our sagacity at this juncture is rather 
meager. We can only offer a few sugges-
tions, hoping them to be "good" and 
trusting that what we have presented 
will be suggestive to others. We have a 
consummate faith in the ingenuity of 
librarians and faculty to solve problems. 

When we take stock, we are encour-
aged by a solution already in existence, 
though we suspect the incident may be 
accidental. A typical library rule is for 
the user (say, a professor) not to re-
shelve the books he has strewn across 
the table. The librarian no doubt has 
established this regulation because fac-
ulty make errors in reshelving and there-
by produce more headaches and time 
loss than by having a library assistant 
perform the task. Fine. The faculty 
member can relish the disorder he cher-
ishes and the librarian can achieve the 
order she wishes. So, one solution serves 
diverse, even conflicting, wishes. No 
doubt there are others, but they do not 
deluge us. 

15 See, for example, Patricia B. Knapp, " T h e College 
Librarian: Sociology of a Professional Specialization," 
in Robert B. Downs ( e d . ) , op. cit., pp. 5 6 - 6 5 , and her 
An Experiment in Coordination Between Teaching and 
Library Staff for Changing Use of University Library 
Resources (Detroit: Monteith College, W a y n e State 
University, 1 9 6 4 ) . The latter mammoth study, as 
exciting as it was enterprising, must in the end be 
judged a failure. Despite herculean efforts and funds, 
the librarian, Pat Knapp, was not fully accepted by a 
faculty who theoretically were the most receptive 
audience she could expect, and the use of the library 
by students remains but a fraction of its desired po-
tential. Also, see her College Teaching and the 
College Library, A C R L Monograph No. 2 3 , 1 9 5 9 
( C h i c a g o : American Library Association), pp. 9 4 - 9 5 
support the statements made regarding faculty igno-
rance. 



176 / College b- Research Libraries • March 1968 

But what can we create to make stu-
dents fall in love with books? Patricia 
Knapp entertained the notion of having 
a coffee shop nearby.16 Our idea is dif-
ferent, but related. 

Besides librarians and faculty mem-
bers we find that proprietors of book-
shops love books and love to own and 
possess books. The small shop, the one 
with some unusual titles from small 
presses, with paperbacks enticingly dis-
played, is particularly attractive and may 
very well have a profound impact on a 
student buying (falling in love with) 
books. A certain amount of casualness, 
even sloppiness, a librarian would cer-
tainly say, and the bearded man add to 
the atmosphere; so does his trust that 
one will respect his treasures. 

Our basic suggestion, then, is to move 
the bookstore into the library—literally. 
The library cannot sell its possessions 
directly, but it could be the best book-
store in the entire world in displaying 
the titles available. All the library needs 
to add is an order desk. The student and 
faculty member simply fill out proper 
forms (or better, speak the order into a 
recording device), the library sends it 
off and notifies the purchaser when his 
package arrives. 

And we would take advantage of other 
successful merchandizing techniques (if 
you will excuse the crassness of the 
term). Everyone would have a charge 
card. As an automatic part of his con-
tract the faculty member would have a 
credit of $100 each September.17 If the 
business manager insists, students might 
have to pay in advance and have a 
credit of x dollars on their charge ticket. 

We also would greatly capitalize on 

18 Patricia Knapp, "Involving the Library in an 
Integrated Learning Environment," in Bergen and 
Duryea ( e d s . ) , op. cit., p. 2 9 . Coffee in the library 
would be lovely, but frightening. Coffee spills; it even 
has a propensity for cherished books. 

17 One might learn from book salesmen. They take 
valuable faculty time, and have the goal of obtaining 
adoptions (selling) and soliciting manuscripts. Yet 
they are tolerated, for they send "samples." 

photoduplication services. Rather than 
simply having the machine available and 
working for a quarter, or whatever, we 
would have spaces on the student fee 
card that would automatically give him 
$10 worth of duplication service. The 
faculty would have a greater allotment. 
(As for the college's expense, they might 
well be cheaper than having a journal 
stolen and/or pages torn from a maga-
zine so as to obtain one article.18 Most 
people want just a small part of a book 
or an article for their personal possession 
and use. See that they can obtain (and 
own) it, fast and cheap. 

In this same category an extra cata-
log card could be ordered for each new 
addition, the additional one simply being 
handed to the faculty member who or-
dered the book. Then he would have an 
already completed card for his file index 
and might even feel he has an intimate 
relationship (approaching ownership) 
with that book. 

We could go on with our bookstore-li-
brary notion, but perhaps enough has 
been said to suggest that such an opera-
tion could well throw librarians and fac-
ulty and students together with books and 
their contents. (Female librarians cannot 
grow beards, we know; but they could 
more often have long, straight hair, leo-
tards, and miniskirts.) The ends of all par-
ties would stand a much greater chance 
of attainment. The library could take the 
proper credit for the total "through-put" 
of books—borrowed, bought, and repro-
duced, a much better measure of the in-
tellectual climate of the college than 
the numerical count of the bodies that 
went through the front door each day or 
of the number of volumes checked out. 

Our device has not solved some of the 
conflict areas, for it has not changed 

18 Reproduction and copyright problems cannot be 
considered here, although it is recognized that there 
are vital issues requiring resolution. Also, the student 
who will steal a page from a journal or a book so 
that his classmates will suffer on a forthcoming exami-
nation is a different problem, one not solved by our 
suggestion. 



Indicted Failures: Some Reasons—and a Possible Remedy / 177 

deep rooted personality differences. This 
arrangement would still not allow a li-
brarian to teach a faculty member how 
to use a library without insulting him— 
but he might ask now, if he spends more 
time there, for he likes the bookstore 
aspect anyhow, especially the credit for 
free books. If librarians have a genuine 
fixation about order, our idea may be 
more disturbing than they can tolerate. 
(Our arrangement might attract to the 
profession people who now avoid it.19) 
The authority role with regard to knowl-
edge the faculty member now assumes 
would be greatly threatened; he may 

1M Margaret Bennett (pseudonyms for two librarians) 
" D O N ' T Give Us Your Tired, Your P o o r , " The Atlantic 
Monthly, May 1 9 6 5 . 

not be able to adjust his ego and return 
to the status of fellow learner. And there 
would be other difficulties, we are sure. 

We are basically optimists. We believe 
people can change, and we have an un-
shakable faith in the power of books. 
Manipulating a situation does not seem 
immoral to us when our goal is a con-
frontation all parties sincerely desire and 
when the activity, the wedding of ideas 
(as found in print) with people—librari-
ans, students, and faculty—would be 
much better facilitated by enticing them 
together. We would even feel a little 
proud if we helped change the cliche, 
"the library is the heart of the college," 
from a pious platitude to a concrete re-
ality. • •