[Libs-Or] Feedback requested by Fri, 3/6 on options for NWCCU library standard revision

[Lantrip, Jennifer]

Hi All,


Please consider submitting feedback <https://nwccu.tfaforms.net/77> by
Friday, March 6 to the NWCCU on their updated options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw> for the
library standard for accreditation.


The NWCCU held a listening session specifically for the library standard on
March 4 and presented five options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw> that they
were considering for revising this standard. They are welcoming feedback
from the community, regardless of whether you attended the listening
session, by Friday, March 6, 2026. Please submit your feedback using this
form <https://nwccu.tfaforms.net/77> and select Library from the listening
session drop-down menu.


In you would like inspiration for your feedback, here are my concerns:


All five of the options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw> that NWCCU
is proposing for the revised 2027 standard for libraries would weaken and
devalue libraries and librarians and do harm to the communities they serve.
I urge the NWCCU not to make any changes to the NWCCU standard except to
consider how to strengthen the work of libraries and librarians and realign
their standard for libraries with the Association of College and Research
Libraries (ACRL) Standards for Libraries in Higher Education
<https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries>. Institutions of
higher education need to be required to employ and support qualified
librarians to do their essential work for their communities.


NWCCU explained at the beginning of the listening session on March 4 that
the reason that they had proposed removing the requirement to employ
qualified library personnel was because there are several small libraries,
many of them rural, that have been unable to hire qualified library
personnel and would like to instead be able to work out a different
scenario, such as through a consortium, contract, or other formal
arrangement. They said that their intent was not to devalue libraries and
so they proposed five options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw> for the
language that they are requesting feedback on by March 6. Their intent with
the five options was to allow institutions options, other than employment,
for providing “librarian” services, such as through a consortium, contract
or other formal arrangement.


I am deeply concerned about this. A librarian is needed to manage the
resources and services of a library. The digital divide is very real and
has a huge impact on rural areas. A contract with a “librarian” service
provider for rural libraries will not cut it. This will reduce the quality
of services for rural areas if we go in this direction. Students and
faculty in rural areas need in-person support and space in addition to
online support. It is extremely important to their success. Each library
also needs a librarian who understands the local context, institution, and
can manage the library resources and services to meet the specific needs of
that community. Deciding not to employ a qualified librarian, but rather to
make some other arrangement will not suffice.


It is also a further step to devalue the profession in general. If
institutions are having difficulty hiring qualified, they would have more
success by offering competitive salaries, benefits, and good working
conditions.


This proposal would allow institutions to consider librarians as an extra
perk for their students and community. Institutions who have leaders who
don’t see them as valuable will be able to remove them or institutions who
are so pressed for funds that they need to cut everything that is not
absolutely required will remove them as well. This will increase the divide
between people who are able to attend institutions that have chosen to keep
a librarian because they value them and can afford them and those who are
not.


Changing this standard could cause irreversible damage to institutions and
their communities. Institutions can make decisions quickly based upon
little data. They are not required to have an understanding of the library
or current information issues, ask the library for data before making their
decisions, understand the impact of their decisions on their students and
communities, or consult the Association of College and Research Libraries
standards. But, once staff, resources, and services have been removed, it
is extremely difficult to get them back. Thus, it is essential that the
NWCCU keeps this standard intact.


Furthermore, librarians are needed more than ever with the increased use of
AI. They are needed to evaluate and curate AI resources and teach students,
faculty, and their communities about them. To see librarians and libraries
being devalued at this time when they should instead be given more support
to do this essential work is extremely concerning.


For background, the Association of College and Research Libraries - Oregon
(ACRL-OR) has provided information <https://acrloregon.org/news/>about the
original proposed change (although not the updated five options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw>), its
effects, and suggested actions to take. Here is ACRL-OR's sample feedback
language about the problems that would result from the original proposed
change:

   -

   Diminished accountability – Removes measurable standards for
   professional library staffing, making it difficult to evaluate
   institutional compliance with quality expectations
   -

   Inequitable outcomes – Under-resourced institutions may use this change
   as justification to eliminate or leave vacant librarian positions,
   disproportionately harming students at community colleges and smaller
   institutions who most need professional support
   -

   Compromised student success – Loss of professional research consultation
   and information literacy instruction directly impacts students’ ability to
   complete coursework, develop critical thinking skills, and meet program
   learning outcomes
   -

   Institutional mission negligence – Without specialized librarian
   expertise in collection development, licensing negotiations, archives, and
   emerging and cutting-edge technologies, institutions waste resources and
   cannot adequately support faculty scholarship or curricular needs


The NWCCU already weakened their standards for libraries with their 2020
revision by removing their alignment with the Association of College and
Research Libraries (ACRL) Standards for Libraries in Higher Education
<https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries>. Below, you can see
that "sufficient" is not defined and there are no associated rubrics or
metrics:

Current 2020 Standard (2.H.1): “Consistent with its mission, the
institution employs qualified personnel and provides access to library and
information resources with a level of currency, depth, and breadth
sufficient to support and sustain the institution’s mission, programs, and
services.”


All five of the options
<https://nwccu.app.box.com/s/gqmx5n3vtau7chvz4bd3yd8zq0bvw8jw> that NWCCU
is proposing for the revised 2027 standard for libraries would weaken and
devalue libraries and librarians and do harm to the communities they serve.


*Jennifer Lantrip* (she/her)
Health Sciences Student Success Librarian | Libraries
<https://www.lib.pacificu.edu/>
503-352-3121
Pacific University | 2043 College Way
Forest Grove, OR 97116
Tran Library 121

Schedule a meeting with me <https://calendar.app.google/jPFSxHRQMQgYUNEB6>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20260305/093314e8/attachment.html>