University of Virginia Library

... Article Uncovers Crisis Reasons

First, Mr. Kolodziej
mentions that I reached the
conclusion that the decision to
use Clark Hall was made
without consultation, and that
he is not clear about
consultation with whom. What
I was attempting to show was
that no recognized library
experts were consulted before
the decision to use Clark Hall
was made. Neither Russell
Balley's recommendations of
1963 nor the ideas of former
University Librarian John
Wyllie indicate a preference for
Clark Hall.

Granted, the availability of
Clark Hall was not known at
that time, but both men
stressed the fact that an
undergraduate library should
be located next to Alderman,
hardly the case with Clark Hall.
Therefore it can only be
concluded that the
recommendations of these two
men were either forgotten or
ignored when the Clark Hall
decision arose.

Also, the fact that Keyes
Metcalf labeled Clark Hall as
unsuitable for an
undergraduate library, even
though it had already been
chosen for such, should
indicate that no professional
advice was sought before the
Clark Hall decision was made. I
think it very likely that an
expert was consulted and that
he recommended the use of
Clark Hall as an undergraduate
library.

Rather, as I made clear in
my article, the decision to use
Clark Hall was the result of
financial expediency and
availability. Several members
of the Library Committee have
verified that President Shannon
made the remarks reported in
the article.

Secondly, Mr. Kolodziej
criticizes me for giving the
impression that the University
administration was "derelict,
even callous in the discharge
of its responsibilities," and
then suggests that this was the
result of "misplaced
objectivity." The article was
clearly labeled "News
Analysis," which implies that
the reporter will draw
conclusions from the facts he
has gathered, and the article
should be read with this in
mind.

As for the conclusions
reached and the impressions
conveyed in the article, I spent
several months researching the
article, and the impressions
contained therein were the
ones I received during those
months.

Also, Mr. Kolodziej
mentions that I was wise in
quoting C. Waller Barrett's
statement that the inadequacy
of our library facilities was the
result of preceding decades of
neglect and legislative
parsimony. Ray Frantz was
also quoted in the article as
saying that the problem was
caused by "problems of
priorities in planning" over the
preceding decades.

My question is: Who was
neglect, and who was having
problems of priorities in
planning? Much of the present
administration has been here
for over a decade.

As for legislative parsimony,
any legislature will be
parsimonious if given the
chance. I would like to know if
any other undergraduate
library plans were presented
before the state legislature
preceding the trade-off for
Clark Hall.

Thirdly, Mr. Kolodziej
questions my sources. The
different views which are news
to him came from the minutes
of three meetings held by the
Sub-Committee on the
Undergraduate Library in
October of 1971. It was also
noted in the minutes that Mr.
Kolodziej was present at all
three meetings.

As for the inference that my
article implied that these were
formal recommendations, this
is not true. I implied rather
that these were suggestions
made by members of the
Committee.

Mr. Kolodzeij's second
question of my sources, that
some members from the
science departments were
unconvinced as to the necessity
of an undergraduate library,
should be clarified. In the
minutes of the October 14,
1971, meeting of the
Sub-Committee, it was said
that "there was some question
as to whether we needed an
undergraduate library at all,..."
The fact that these questions
came from science faculty was
verified by a committee
member.

Fourthly, I did not mean to
imply that President Shannon
is "stifling a full discussion of
different alternatives." Rather,
I meant to show that the
decision to use Clark Hall is
essentially irrevocable and that
discussion of alternatives to
Clark Hall may ultimately
prove to be fruitless. The case
seems to be that Clark Hall has
been promised and Clark Hall
will be used.

Finally, I do not believe
that my charges are groundless,
and furthermore no innuendos
were implied in the article.
Rather, the point of my article
was to uncover the reasons
behind the current "crisis
situation."

Caused by either neglect or
problems of priorities, the
current situation could have
been avoided and did not just
arise out of thin air to the
surprise and dismay of
everyone. Studying past
mistakes has always been an
accepted way of planning for
the future.