The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W. Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement

by Roger L. Williams

The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education revises the traditional interpretation of the land-grant college movement, whose institutions were brought into being by the 1862 Morrill Act to provide for "the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes." Rather than being the inevitable consequence of the unfolding dynamic of institutional and socioeconomic forces, Williams argues, it was the active intervention and initiative of a handful of educational leaders that secured the colleges' future―above all, the activities of George W. Atherton. For nearly three decades, Atherton, who was the seventh president of the Pennsylvania State University, worked to secure consistent federal financial support for the colleges, which in their early years received little assistance from the states they were designed to benefit. He also helped to develop the institutions as comprehensive "national" universities grounded in the liberal arts and sciences―a conception that countered the prevailing view of the colleges as mainly agricultural schools. Atherton became the prime mover in the campaign to enact the 1887 Hatch Act, which encouraged the establishment of agricultural experiment stations at land-grant colleges. The act marked the federal government's first effort to provide continuous funding to research units associated with higher education institutions. At the same time, Atherton played a key role in the formation of the first association of such The Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. It was the Association that provided the critical mass needed to lobby Congress successively and to approach the many opportunities and threats the land-grant colleges faced during the 1885–1906 period. Atherton was also deeply involved in the campaign for the Morrill Act of 1890, which provided long-sought annual appropriations to land-grant colleges for a broad range of academic programs and encouraged steady growth in state support during the 1890s. Roger Williams traces the motives and tactics behind a series of laws that made the federal government irreversibly committed to funding higher education and scientific research and provides rich new insights into the complexities, polarities, and inherent contradictions of the history of the American land-grant movement.

Genres: Education

284 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 1991

Reviews

[George Siehl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Author Roger L. Williams has written an interesting, well researched account of the three inter-related topics of his title: a policy, a person, and a perspective. The person, George Atherton was a central figure. He served 24 years as president of Pennsylvania State College, one of the original land grant colleges. He also figured prominently in the evolution of the policy of federal financial aid to higher education. He worked closely for years with Congressional members in developing needed legislation and public support for its enactment. He was instrumental in the founding and operation of the association of presidents of land grant universities and the affiliated agricultural extension services.

Representative Justin Morrill, of Vermont, introduced the original bill to establish a system of land grant colleges. Congress approved, the bill by narrow margins in both chambers in 1859. However, It was vetoed by President Buchanan for various reasons, including opposition by Southern States. Following secession and the election of Lincoln as president, Morrill amended and reintroduced the bill. It was approved overwhelmingly and signed into law by Lincoln in July 1862.

Williams explains that the term "land grant colleges" stems from the fact that the federal government did not fund the new schools with dollars (there was a war on). Rather, each state was granted rights to 30,000 acres of public domain land in the West. The selected lands could then be sold to private interests and the proceeds used to fund the new schools. He also describes some of the shady deals which ensued in the sale of the acreage.

"Morrill's motives", Williams writes, "covered a complex web of concerns." These included." the urge to provide a practical and, especially, a liberal education for the industrial classes...80 percent of the population." Other reasons included "The perceived reluctance of existing colleges to tend to new subjects and new kinds of students." Broader concerns were " the inability of newer states to provide such colleges without federal help...concern over rapid dissipation of public lands to private interests, such as the railroads; [and] concern over soil deterioration and wastage."

Williams documents the many conflicts that emerged over the years as the original act was modified, first in the Hatch Act of 1887, and again in the new Morrill Act of 1890. Atherton successfully delayed he breakup of the Association of college presidents and experiment station directors for years, as the station directors struggled for independence and parity with the college presidents.

Other sources of conflict were the existing universities with whom there were continuing disagreements over who should teach what, and who should be entitled to the federal financial aid allocated to the land grant colleges.

Atherton emerges as a model of what a land grant university president should be. He was creative, worked well with others to achieve a common goal, and was widely recognized and appreciated for his work.

Williams brings into focus the evolution of this complex set of personal and institutional relationships, education policy, and the federal role in higher education.