University of Virginia Library

In-Depth Review Dispels Groundless Charges ...

By EDWARD A. KOLODZIEJ

—Ed.)

I read the two-part article
by Steve Grimwood on the
proposed use of Clark Hall as a
library facility with great
interest. It is helpful to widen
discussion and University
knowledge of library problems.

As chairman of the
University Library Committee,
I personally welcome a
thorough exploration of what
might be done with Clark Hall
to best meet our multiple and
often conflicting demands for
different library facilities and
services.

In the interest of enlarging
the discussion, I wonder if I
might make a few remarks
about the Clark Hall problem
since I did not talk to Mr.
Grimwood before he wrote his
article.

In Mr. Grimwood's first
article, he reaches the
conclusion that the decision to
use Clark Hall for
undergraduate needs was made
without consultation. He is not
clear about consultation with
whom. I infer that the
University Library Committee
is meant, since it is repeatedly
mentioned as the source of
much of his information.

I have reviewed the reports
of the past five years of the
Library Committee and find
that the Library Committee
was not only consulted on
Clark Hall but urged at
different points that Clark Hall
be earmarked for an
undergraduate library.

In 1967, the Committee
wrote the following to the
President: "We support the
efforts to build a science and
technology library and to
secure Clark Hall as an
undergraduate library." The
next year, the Committee
voiced concern that "if the old
Law Library is to be converted
to an undergraduate library,
many more reading places will
have to be supplied..." In
1971, the Library Committee
urged "the renovation of Clark
Hall."

To be sure, throughout
these discussions, many
committee members already
agreed, before the Metcalf
report was published, that the
ideal site would be near
Alderman. The 1967 report
makes that point; the 1970
report calls for the
employment of a library
consultant to evaluate library
planning, including "the
feasibility of Clark Hall as an
undergraduate library."

The point of this review is
that the President was receiving
advice that Clark Hall be
engaged for library purposes,
especially to relieve
inconveniences suffered by
undergraduates. Meanwhile,
the Library Committee hoped
that over time a more
satisfactory solution to meet
undergraduate needs could be
found.

They recommended Clark
Hall for undergraduate
purposes because they squarely
faced the problem of money.
There was simply not enough
to go around to meet the
University's needs, let alone
those of the library system in
all its parts.

When one speaks of an
Undergraduate Library, it
might be helpful to quote some
figures. A facility of
approximately 100,000 square
feet would be needed, capable
of housing 160,000 books,
with appropriate staff to
service them. At $40 a sq. ft.
for building costs (the $40
figure represents current local
estimates), the building would
cost about $4 million.

It costs about $17.50 to put
one book on the shelf.
Alderman can now produce
about 20,000 books for an
undergraduate core collection
(an optimistic figure). Thus,
books to fill such a facility
would cost an additional $2.5
million ($17.50 times 140,000
volumes). Furniture and stacks
can be estimated at another
half million. That brings the
total spending figure to around
$7 million.

Can anyone tell me where
$7 million can be quickly
secured? The legislature
appears bearish about money.
The best available estimate at
the moment places the
University's budget at
approximately $15 million less
than the request initially made
to the Governor as it leaves the
legislature.

Moreover, the University of
Virginia already possesses 32
per cent of all library space
devoted to higher education in
the state. To ask for more
library facilities and services,
and we certainly need more
whatever vacuous comparative
statistics may imply, a good
case has to be built for the
legislature.

I find it hard to see that we
help ourselves much by
intemperate criticisms of the
University administration and
morale debilitating insinuations
that it has been derelict, even
callous, in the discharge of its
responsibility to build quality
library facilities and services.

Mr. Grimwood, perhaps in a
misplaced attempt at
objectivity, leaves this
unfortunate impression even
while he wisely quotes from
Mr. C. Waller Barrett's report
to the Board of Visitors which
placed most of the blame for
the inadequacy of our library
resources on preceding decades
of neglect and legislative
parsimony.

As a matter of fact, the
University administration has
recently infused large sums of
money into the purchase of
books and services that were
sorely needed. For the first
time in 1970-71, the library
spent more than $1 million
for books and binding.

The University's position
among the 58 members of
American Research Libraries
perceptibly improved for
professional staff, full-time
staff, and total expenditures.
In 1965, the library stood 54th
in professional staff, 45th in
full-time staff, and 47th in
total expenditures.

The University improved its
standing in 1971 to 33rd, 27th,
and 31st in these categories,
respectively. Oddly enough,
the University's rank for the
total number of volumes of the
library declined from 24th to
26th despite the increase in
funds for books.

In sum, we still have a lot to
do in the area of books and
services and in making more
space available to the library.
We have a large backlog in
library priorities to meet. The
undergraduate library is only
one of them, albeit a
significant element.

Until adequate funds can be
found for a new undergraduate
library, it seems to make sense
in the interim to use Clark Hall
for library purposes and to give
priority in its anticipated
renovation to undergraduate
needs.

A parting remark on
decision-making procedures
may be helpful. Mr. Grimwood
speaks of the library
committee and its members as
if they were disembodied
spirits. Some may, indeed, be
(although I have no intimate
knowledge of such matters),
but, withal, they are also
members of the President's
Library Committee.

If there are discussions now
going on within the Committee
on University Library needs, it
is because the President and
the administration is
encouraging them. If questions
are now being raised by some
committee members about
Clark Hall, it is because the
Committee is now in a better
position than before to focus
more closely on the merit of its
previous, more general
recommendations regarding
University library facilities; the
battle for more books has been
temporarily won.

It is misleading, however, to
equate open committee
discussions-some of them
freely expressed to the press by
committee members on their
own advisement-on alternative
uses for Clark Hall as
across-the-board criticism of
existing policy.

And if the committee in its
collective wisdom recommends
a different approach to the
undergraduate library than has
prevailed until now, it does not
mean necessarily a
condemnation of previous
efforts. Perspectives change
with time and new
information.

Finally, the Committee is
only advisory. No member of
the committee expects the
President to adopt all of its
proposals-or any of them.
That is his prerogative given his
larger responsibilities and
over-all view of University
affairs.