The American Bar Association’s Standards for Approval of Law Schools (www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/standards.html) were first promulgated in 1921 (as the Standards for Legal Education) for the purpose of improving the system of legal education in the United States. The individual standards and their interpretations describe the criteria for accreditation of a law school as established by the ABA, the accrediting agency for law schools. Once it is accredited, the graduates of a law school are qualified to take the bar exam, and therefore to practice law, in any of the 50 states.
Academic law librarians are most familiar with Chapter 6 of the Standards, “Library and Information Resources.” These six standards and their interpretations (together with Standard 702, which deals with the physical facilities of the law library) are the guidelines against which law school libraries are evaluated by the ABA. The library standards and interpretations set out the basic requirements for a law school’s library program.
Standards and interpretations are reviewed periodically by the ABA. Chapter 6 is currently under review. Some non-controversial changes have been proposed to the provisions of Chapter 6, but the most debate has centered on an individual standard and interpretation for which no change has been proposed: Standard 603(d), Director of the Law Library. Standard 603(d) reads: “Except in extraordinary circumstances, a law library director shall hold a law faculty appointment with security of faculty position.” Interpretation I-603-3 states: “The granting of faculty appointment to the director of the law library under this Standard normally is a tenure or tenure-track appointment. If a director is granted tenure, this tenure is not in the administrative position of director.”
As practicing academic law librarians, we are well aware of the importance of this Standard. Law faculty status puts our directors at the law school’s decision-making table in a seat that can’t be removed when the deanship changes or administrative priorities shift. Directors with faculty status have a voice and a vote in law school decisions. Faculty status emphasizes the intellectual nature of the library program. It raises the visibility of the library in academic circles, and reflects positively on the entire library staff regardless of their own employment status. It is an important protection for all academic law librarians.
Several modifications of Standard 603(d) were proposed, all of which would have diminished the protections afforded law library directors by the existing language and also would have reduced the flexibility given law schools in hiring directors. AALL opposed any changes to Standard 603(d). President Tory Trotta conveyed the Association’s position via a letter to the Council of the ABA’s Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (“the Council”). I represented AALL at the February meeting of the Council at which the decision was made to leave 603(d) unchanged. At that meeting, the members of the Council were given a statement from AALL, drafted by Penny Hazelton with my assistance. Portions of the statement read:
“The position of Law Library Director is unique in legal education. No other person in the law school so directly affects the learning and intellectual pursuits of all students and all faculty. The ability of students to learn the language of the law and of faculty to analyze and produce scholarship about the law depends on a law library that is an active and responsive force in the life of the law school. Christopher Columbus Langdell noted in the formative years of legal education that the library is the laboratory of the law. This is still true today.”
“Historically, law library directors were selected directly from the existing law faculty. This was not just a matter of convenience, but also demonstrated the very real proposition that a law school, grounded in the principles of faculty governance, needed a knowledgeable faculty member in charge of this key part of its legal education program. Faculty governance is required throughout the ABA Standards on matters most directly related to the academic programs of the law school. For the law library, the Standards’ requirements of faculty governance in policy-making and hiring emphasizes the academic nature of the institution itself. A law library director with faculty status ensures this decision-making is fully informed, and makes certain that academic considerations are given highest priority in the process. Despite the many changes in legal education since Langdell, one constant has been the requirement that faculty status for the librarian is essential to ensure that the library can fully realize its role in the intellectual mission of the law school. Faculty status ensures faculty governance.
“To alter the current language of Section 603(d) of the ABA Standards, and make less certain the requirement of faculty status and security for the Law Library Director, means, as a practical matter, that faculty governance of one of the integral pieces of the legal education process - the Law Library - will become a thing of the past. The very nature of libraries, as providers of information, makes them controversial, and therefore particularly vulnerable to changes in the political and social environment. Faculty are the most stable part of any educational institution, and faculty governance recognizes this by entrusting them with the most important academic decisions. Faculty governance contributes to the stability of the law school and its library. This includes the acquisition of information in all its controversial forms, as well as the ability to hire and train outstanding staff, to guarantee continuity for collection and resource development, and to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly and instructional missions of the law school. The ability of a law school and its library to withstand social and political pressures and ensure the strength of its most permanent resource would be seriously compromised if faculty status and security was no longer required for the Law Library Director.”
“A law school with a law library administered by a manager without faculty status and security will find it very difficult to fully satisfy its mission with complete intellectual rigor. A director without faculty status and security has no protection when difficult decisions must be made about collections or services, and may well compromise his or her judgment in such matters; he or she is subject to shifting political and administrative trends. A director without faculty status and security cannot fully represent the key intellectual resource of the institution; students, faculty, and the law school itself will suffer the loss. A change in the current ABA Standards for Library Directors will reduce the effectiveness of the library as the “laboratory of the law.””
AALL’s statement was important in the decision-making of the Council members. It was a strong and clear explanation of how the law library, through its director, furthers the mission of the law school, and why faculty status is important in enabling the director to do his or her job. Several members of the Council complimented AALL on the document. The Council voted to send out for comment the proposed changes to Chapter 6, leaving 603(d) unamended.
In addition to those mentioned above, several AALL members played key roles in helping the ABA Council decide against changing Standard 603(d), including Dan Freehling (member of the ABA Council), Rita Reusch (member of the ABA Standards Review Committee), and Judith Wright, chair of the ABA Library Committee, and the membership of the Committee. Kathie Price, Carol Roehrenbeck, and I drafted a statement on behalf of the AALS Section on Law Libraries; due to AALS policies the statement was not sent to the ABA Council, but it was very helpful to me when I attended the Council’s meeting. Other AALL members involved in brainstorming and supporting activities included Claire Germain, Lolly Gasaway, Blair Kauffman, Bob Oakley, Mike Chiorazzi, and Dick Danner.
Hearings on the Chapter 6 proposals will be held during various meetings over the summer, starting at the American Law Institute meeting in mid-May and culminating at the August ABA Annual Meeting; schedules will be announced soon. It is important that academic law librarians attend these meetings and, if the issue arises, be prepared to speak in support of the current Standard 603(d). Although the Council has not proposed changes, that doesn’t mean that suggestions for modifications are foreclosed. The status of library directors is not settled forever by today’s debate.