The Ad Hoc Committee on the Humanities Library was convened in November 2000 by Dean Philip Khoury after consultation with the Chancellor and the Director of Libraries. The committee's mission was to consider the broad condition of the Humanities Library, and specifically to consider the virtues and limitations of its location in Building 14. The Committee consisted of the following members: Sally Haslanger (Linguistics and Philosophy), Margery Resnick (Foreign Languages and Literatures), David Thorburn (Literature), Theresa A.Tobin (Head of the Humanities Library), Elizabeth Wood (History), and Ann Wolpert (Director of Libraries).

The committee's deliberations occurred in the context of discussions among the MIT administration, the Director of Libraries and the Faculty Committee on the Library System (FCLS) about a possible extensive reorganization of the Institute's five Divisional Libraries, and specifically about the possibility of moving the Humanities collection out of Building 14. This prospect generated a lively and sometimes passionate conversation among faculty and students about the library's role in teaching, learning and research. [Appendices: I: A Short History of Building 14; II: History Department letter; III: Background and Deliberations of the Faculty Committee on the Library System (FCLS)]

The committee consulted widely with colleagues, undergraduates and graduate students in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. These extensive informal contacts were augmented by a systematic, on-line survey of SHASS faculty and graduate students. The extensive comments offered by nearly all respondents testified to the central place of libraries in the intellectual life of the Institute and to the universal belief of faculty and graduate students that MIT's standing as a world class institution depends on the quality of our libraries. [Appendix IV: Survey Summary ; Appendix V: Survey Results.]

Our findings and recommendations are in substantial accord with recommendations about MIT libraries offered by the Undergraduate Association, the Graduate Student Council, and the Faculty Committee on the Library System.

Top

1. A world class liberal arts library for the 21st century

Although Humanities collections need not fully serve the research aims of the faculty, there is widespread agreement that major resources must be devoted to developing a world class liberal arts library for the 21st century where technology supports traditional Humanities scholarship and encourages serendipitous as well as structured learning. From its inception in 1950, the so-called "Humanities Library" has been a basic resource for the entire MIT community. Preserving and strengthening this communal function should be fundamental goals for the future.

• MIT competes for students with other universities that clearly have world class libraries. MIT should have a humanities library appropriate to the minds and ambitions of MIT students.
• The MIT curriculum is rich in humanities, arts, and social sciences, and a background in these fields is taken to be essential to a first-rate education. Moreover, MIT is committed to fostering interdisciplinary work and is expanding its curriculum to incorporate work on global issues. As educators, we cannot carry through with the mission MIT has already set for us without more substantial library support.
• All MIT students share the experience of taking HASS courses. Interaction among students in their HASS courses provides opportunities for intellectual growth, serendipitous learning, and enriched student life. Facilities in or near the humanities library should be made available to enhance the social context of learning, e.g., a cafe, a student lounge, carrels, and lockers.

2. Renovating Building 14

Building 14 is more than 50 years old and symbolizes MIT's commitment to the Humanities. Financial resources must be found to reverse the deterioration of the building.

• Basic needs include increasing shelf space for expansion and in order to reduce or eliminate off-campus storage of books and periodicals, creating small group study areas, teaching spaces, carrels, lockers, consultation areas, service spaces. The transformation of the Music Library serves as a model for creative renovation to bring the Hayden Library into the 21st century.

3. Equal priority for Humanities

An urgent, recurring theme in the committee's discussions with the SHASS community is that planning and fund raising for MIT libraries should recognize that Humanities and Social Sciences deserve full parity with Science, Architecture, Engineering and Management in resources and facilities. The committee wishes to underscore the importance of conceiving a master plan for all the libraries in which the Humanities Library's centrality to the life of the Institute is recognized and valued.

• MIT supports graduate programs in Comparative Media Studies, Economics, Linguistics, Philosophy, Political Science, and Science, Technology, and Society. Our Humanities Library should be adequate to support these graduate programs, in terms of both collections and study space. Graduate students in science and engineering have both library and laboratory space; graduate students in HASS must be given comparable support.

4. Planning and decision-making

The committee believes that perhaps the strongest lesson to be drawn from its months of consultation and discussion is that the process of planning and decision-making concerning the fate of MIT's libraries must be inclusive and open. Faculty involvement is essential on such questions as the location of libraries, the moving of entire collections, major alterations in facilities and principal functions. The libraries should not be organized simply or primarily around available space.

Top

I. A Short History of Building 14

Dedicated in 1950, the same year as the establishment of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Building 14 was understood to symbolize the Institute's commitment to those intellectual fields. The entire Humanities faculty was housed originally in the new building, whose first floor contained a prominent reading space devoted to English and History. An essay included in the "Program" dedicating the building describes the new library as a response to "the great need felt in leading technologically engrossed minds directly to other fields of effort and wider reading habits and . . . cultural attainments."

The Library site's physical limitations were recognized from the start; a high water table prohibited large-scale expansion, though its roof was designed to support another lightweight structure, such as "an extremely delightful reading room with a magnificent view towards Boston." The building's geographic prominence on Memorial Drive adjacent to the main Institute buildings was meant to signal its importance in the culture of MIT. Its great south-facing bay windows and high ceilings were key design elements, intended to create a uniquely quiet and spacious environment for reading and informal study.

As the School of Humanities (and now Arts) and Social Sciences grew in size and professional stature, various sections and departments decamped from Building 14 for larger new quarters on the east of the campus.

But humanists remain as the sole occupants of the north and (now) the east wing of the Building. Current faculty residents include: Literature, Foreign Languages and Literatures, Comparative Media Studies, Writing and Humanistic Studies, and Women's Studies.

The building remains a musical space today even though the music faculty have moved to offices in Building 10. Killian Hall, a concert space, now occupies the area on the west side of the building originally used as an art gallery, and a state of the art music library is located at its east wing.

Top

II. History Department Letter

Dear John Lienhard and members of the Library Committee:

The History Faculty is quite alarmed about the proposal to move the Humanities Library from Building 14, which houses most of the Humanities sections, to the space currently occupied by Barker Library under the dome in Building 10.

Our most urgent concern is our perception that the space in Barker is not remotely commensurate with that of the Humanities Library. We stress this point because the humanities and social science sections are, of all the faculties at MIT, the ones who most use published books and printed materials. As it is, many of our books and periodicals have been moved into storage and we have to wait two or three days for them to be retrieved. We would like to be absolutely certain that any consideration of a move give careful attention to the precise number of feet of shelving and distribution of those shelves, as well as the total floor space. We would like to be assured that both faculty and students have access not only to the large numbers of books which we regularly use but also the periodicals, both past v and present.

While the Barker location is architecturally spectacular, it appears to have several defects with regard to function. In particular, we are concerned whether there will be sufficient reading room space for students and faculty to study. We have also noted that the amount of natural light is deficient. Even if the black paint were removed from the windows, many of the panels that appear in the ceiling are not windows at all.

Finally, we have been deeply disturbed by the process we have seen to date. We are particularly troubled to think that the planning could have been advanced to this stage without our being consulted. Our hope now is that the standing Library Committee will work closely with the ad hoc committee recommended by Dean Philip Khoury to resolve these issues. We feel strongly that no move that so concerns our faculty should be made without an opportunity for us to examine carefully the blueprints and budgets being considered. We cannot stress enough that we are the faculties at MIT who most use books and libraries and most direct our students to do likewise. While other departments have laboratories in which they conduct much of their teaching, our faculties have our libraries. For us the library is our laboratory. For this reason we feel very strongly the importance of being involved centrally in any planning process that concerns the Humanities Library.

We look forward to hearing from you in more detail about the proposals being considered.

With all best wishes,

Members of the History Faculty

Top

III. Background and Deliberations of the Faculty Committee on the Library System (FCLS)

In 1998 the MIT Libraries conducted an in-house review of space needs related to the growing cost and difficulty created by its inadequate physical facilities. In spring 1999 the Faculty Committee on the Library System (FCLS), then chaired by Andrew Whittle, urged the Libraries to bring the space issue to the attention of the faculty as a whole. Ann Wolpert, Director of Libraries, made a presentation to the Faculty Policy Committee in April 1999, and Carol Fleishauer wrote an article for The MIT Faculty Newsletter. The FCLS was subsequently informed that the architectural firm of Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott (SBRA) had been retained by the Libraries to develop a more detailed needs assessment. The FCLS then chaired by Prof. John Lienhard, first discussed some aspects of those assessments with principals from SBRA during October and November 1999.

SBRA continued its work, independent of the FCLS, and returned in late May 2000 with a proposal to move the Humanities Library to the dome of Building 10--the space currently occupied by Barker Engineering Library--in order to situate a joint Engineering and Science Library in Hayden. FCLS members immediately raised concerns about the acceptability of the proposal to SHASS faculty. Ann Wolpert informed the FCLS that Chancellor Larry Bacow had endorsed this effort to redesign Hayden as a Science and Engineering Library to include study space, distance learning centers and a cafe in the courtyard, while relocating the Humanities Library to a renovated space under the dome of Building 10. SBRA was subsequently engaged to make a comprehensive study of Hayden's potential as a new, merged Science and Engineering Library.

Following a conversation with the Dean of Humanities during the summer of 2000, Ann Wolpert presented the plan to the SHASS School Council in the early Fall Term. The proposal distressed many faculty in the School. Minutes of the FCLS reflect extensive discussions about the substance of the proposal and concerns later voiced to Prof. Lienhard regarding the proposal itself and about perceived failures of process and consultation.

In October and November, 2000, principals from Shepley, Bulfinch met with the FCLS to review the proposal, exhibiting drawings for an expansion of Building 14 to accommodate the new Science and Engineering Library.

In March 2001, SBRA presented its final study to the committee, estimating the cost of the project at approximately $100 million. The architects reported that even with this expenditure, the new facility would fall 20 percent short of meeting the needs of the new library.

In April 2001 the FCLS unanimously recommended the building of a new Science and Engineering Library and the renovation of Hayden to accommodate a combined Humanities and Social Science Library. The new library would combine Engineering and Science materials, reduce off-site storage, and produce spaces to enhance student life and learning. The renovation of the Humanities Library with the integration of Social Science materials would also reduce off-site storage, encourage interdisciplinary research and teaching, and preserve Building 14 as a symbol of humanistic learning at MIT. With the unanimous support of the FCLS, Prof. Lienhard made these recommendations to the Visiting Committee on the Libraries.

Top

IV. Survey Summary

(A) Uses and Functions
The intent of the committee in organizing the survey was to provide data from the core community whom the Humanities Library serves (faculty, academic and research staff, and graduate students). Of the 156 full-time faculty in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 47 responded; of the 323 graduate students, 35 responded. The other 15 respondents were academic and research staff (10) and other (5).

The use of the Humanities Library centered on its print materials; almost 90% of the respondents come to the library to borrow books and over 70% to use the periodical collections. Significantly, 60% come to the library for the purpose of browsing. This underscores the need to limit what is in storage. More than one quarter of the respondents visit the library to consult a librarian, sometimes (24.7%) or often (4.4%).

• Off-campus storage
  The first insight provided by the data is that although the most frequently used library is the Humanities, the fifth most popular was the storage facility, the RSC (in between were Dewey, Music and Rotch). The fact that the RSC is in the top five libraries indicates how much of the collections of interest to Humanists and Social Scientists is already in storage. Many comments made by respondents underscore the faculty's dismay and worry over the percentage of the collection out of easy reach for undergraduates and others.

  As one respondent noted, "The key thing to my mind is more shelf space, so we can get books out of storage." Another said, "[We] need more space for the collection so students can access them more quickly! Storing things in RSC is awful for the undergraduates."

• Open stacks
  The characteristic of the current library most valued by far is its open stacks for books. 97% of all respondents viewed open stacks for books as an essential or very important characteristic of the current library, while 73% stressed increased stack space as essential or very important in any new or renovated library for the Humanities. This means that in terms of ranking among choices given, shelf space placed first among all the current characteristics of the Humanities Library, and second in ranking for the future library.

  The importance of open shelf space also came across in comments about browsing, which 60% of respondents claimed to do often or sometimes:

  "Most important to me are stacks that I can browse through and easily negotiate."

  "Although I do more searches and some more research online now than I used to, I never make the kinds of discoveries I have always fortuitously made by browsing the shelves. There's no substitute for a well-stocked, spacious, well-arranged library, as convenient and expertly staffed as this one is."

  Respondents to the survey expressed considerable support for building the electronic collections not instead of print collections, but in support of them. The next most important aspect to retain in any future Humanities Library is the on-site reference staff.

• Combining Libraries
  The respondents did not give a clear indication on the issue of consolidating the collections. 34% want the Humanities and Social Sciences together, 23% want the status quo, 22% prefer one big library, 10% want Humanities and Arts together. Even though a preponderance want Humanities and Social Sciences together, there are comments indicating a strong desire not to move materials out of the Dewey Library.

Top

(B) Aesthetic features
Certain aesthetic qualities of the current Humanities Library drew high marks from many respondents. Of qualities viewed as essential or very important, 70% cited the natural lighting; and roughly 40% cited the bay windows, the high ceilings and the river view.

Of features for a new Humanities Library, 86% cited comfortable reading areas. This was the item rated the most highly of the 16 choices respondents were given. Some 40% thought open carrels would be an excellent addition, while 25% thought artwork should be brought in to enhance the library.

Comments on the library as a space for reading and working reveal the importance of these characteristics to users in their own work:

"The best place for writing for me is by the big windows in the Humanities Library, with the network drop nearby. All I ask for is some newer tables, and maybe more ergonomic chairs."

"I love the light and windows and am always tempted to read and linger when I'm there."

"As a sometimes user of Humanities, having it located in a spacious, generous space is essential both as a pleasant working environment (aren't the best libraries like that?) and as a potent symbol of the importance of the Humanities."

"I find the atmosphere --- with lots of natural light, large windows and the view -- very peaceful and conducive to research."

Some respondents also stressed the value of having an aesthetically pleasing space for their students:

"Amenities like the river view and current periodicals are important to me chiefly because they draw students in to where the books are, and give them congenial environment in which to read them."

Top

(C) Other Issues
In addition to their concerns over the functionality and aesthetics of the Humanities Library, respondents expressed a variety of concerns about the location and meaning of the library for their teaching, research, and more generally for their sense of intellectual identity at MIT.

• Location
  A major issue (that, in fact, gave rise to the formation of this committee) concerns the location of the Humanities Library in Building 14. We found that respondents differed significantly in their commitment to the Building 14 location. For example, in considering whether the Building 14 location is important "as a prominent Humanities site" exactly the same number of all respondents (29%) said it is "essential" as said it was "not important"; however, among the faculty respondents considerably more (21) ranked it "essential" than "not important" (8). It is notable that many of those who expressed the greatest passion for Building 14 are those who have offices there:

  "I'm surprised to realize how much my identity as a humanist at MIT is tied to Building 14, how strong its symbolic importance as a space for humanities books and humanities teachers." (tenured faculty member, Building 14)

  Others with offices outside of Building 14 were more apt to emphasize the value of other features:

  "I could care less whether the humanities library stays where it is now. It is much more important to improve the quality of the library, in its collections and its aesthetics." (tenured faculty member, Building E51)

  Current location (61%) was ranked more important than Building 14 as a prominent humanities site (49%). The data suggests that the centrality and its proximity to humanities offices were considerations in favor of the current location. Proximity to humanities offices (42%) is more important than to humanities classes (29.5%). The centrality of the current location seems to have been favored both because of its convenience, and owing to the symbolic value of keeping the Humanities Library at the center of campus.

  "The location of the Humanities Library is crucial to the teaching of Humanities at MIT. As a teacher, I feel that the Humanities Library should stay in its current location where students and faculty have easy access to the facilities, which serve as a hub of their educational efforts. If Humanities faculty have less ready access to the library, it will figure in less in their educational plans. The students will be the biggest losers."

  "It isn't at all important to me that the Humanities Library remain in Building 14. It is important that [it be] in or near the central campus, and that it be at least as attractive and useable as the science and engineering libraries."

• Symbolic values
  That humanists view the Humanities Library as carrying substantial symbolic weight emerged as a significant theme in many responses:

  "To remove the library from building 14 and place it at a distance from those who are central to the humanities will be interpreted by us as--and the outside world, including potential donors--as yet another slap in the face to the dignity and worth of humanities at MIT."

  "The Humanities Library is an oasis in an otherwise inhospitable desert. It provides the Humanities with a dignity that is not accord else on this campus, and therefore sustains me in my sense of intellectual and academic worth on a day-to-day basis."

• Community-building
  A related theme in the survey comments concerned the actual and potential value of the Humanities Library in building community. Respondents see in the future of the library an opportunity for improving student life, for creating an intellectual home for faculty, and for stimulating interdisciplinary work.

  "A great humanities library with comfortable and attractive study space would go a long way to enhance the quality of student life at MIT."

  "Students need spaces that are attractive and in which, as they relax from their studies, they can peruse print media. The current Humanities Library allows for some of that: I often see students who are there on weekends doing problems sets get up, take magazines or books, and escape from their work to read different kinds of material. MIT is one of the few universities I know in which the libraries do not provide a quiet, lovely place for reflection and study. I would like to see a renovated humanities library that serves such a purpose in addition to providing resources for coursework."

  "As a grad student, I do not have an office, and therefore have no place to keep all my research books. (I live off campus and do not have a car.) Having an assigned carrel in the library would improve my life immensely."

• An intellectual center
  "The humanists need a greater sense of being at home in their own building, which includes immediate access to their own library, particularly for reasons of research, but also as a center that symbolizes the unity of the humanities as opposed to their increasing divisiveness and irrelevance at MIT (and elsewhere)."

  "At a minimum, [in a library] one expects to gain access to important scholarly works in one's field. But I have always wanted a library to be a place where classes, regular seminars, and other meetings could be held. A Humanities Library that made the best use of the space in Bldg. 14 would go far beyond serving the scholarly needs of individual faculty members and students. It would become a visible center for Humanistic energy and inquiry."

  "I think that a Humanities Library should be a kind of intellectual hub for humanities scholars and students. It should house books, of course, but also humanities events, humanities computing resources, etc. Humanists should be able to gather there to exchange ideas. The library is our lab. And our food trucks, minus the food."

  "We need a Humanities Center, anchored by a library. It should include as much of the literary side of the school as possible, plus amenities like conference rooms and lounges (every time I see the Physics reading room, I weep with envy)."