larger measure of autonomy to the States in the determination of administrative policies.

Extension and Research in

the Negro Land-Grant Colleges

The evidence regarding the extent to which funds have been made available for resident instruction, research, and extension for Negroes has been presented for those States in which separate schools are maintained for the white and Negro races. It is evident that the provision in the Second Morrill Act against racial discrimination has brought results in the case of resident instruction. It is not believed that there is a case for complete parallelism between resident instruction on the one hand and research and extension on the other. But after allowance has been made for such factors as the utilization of the services of white county agents in behalf of Negroes, interracial meetings, and the segregation in research reports of the data for the races, and the more recent attempts in the work of the experiment stations to give attention to the rural problems peculiar to the Negro, there is still evidence that in research and extension there has been discrimination against the Negro. This appears to be more marked in extension than in research. Experience under the several land-grant acts points toward the need of a Federal safeguard if discrimination on racial grounds is to be prevented.

Relationship of Extension to Regulatory Functions

In recent years, extension workers have been pressed into service in connection with each of the major Federal programs for the readjustment of agriculture. It has not been feasible to make any clear distinction between educational work and regulatory work in connection with these programs, and in many States much of the time of the extension workers has been devoted to activities of a regulatory character. The result has been that in some States sharp differences of opinion have developed between Federal and State representatives. There is no doubt that the force of trained agri

cultural personnel scattered through the country has been of great assistance in carrying out the Federal agricultural programs. Their use was probably justified by the emergency but the issue is crucial and should be settled in the near future.

As an illustration of an approach to this problem, action taken by Iowa State College on May 3, 1938 may be cited. It is designated a "Statement of Policy Concerning the Operation of the Publicity Services of the Iowa State College in Relation to Action Programs for Agriculture."

A long history of cordial cooperation has marked the relations of federal and state agencies concerned with agricultural programs and the Iowa State College research, resident and extension staffs.

A new phase of this cooperation would seem to be inaugurated with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which associates the agricultural colleges with the dissemination of information concerning the federal agricultural adjustment program.

This association of the college with the federal information program brings to the fore certain problems concerning the function and operation of the news disseminating agencies of the College.

These problems derive from the fact that, in any action program, there are two aspects of publicity: that which is expository and factual and that which is persuasive and propagandistic.

It is the basic policy of the Iowa State College to give its very best effort to the educational program connected with any agricultural movement of interest and significance to the people of the state.

It is equally the policy of the College to "take sides" in no movement except as its own research and the findings of its own staff serve as the basis for such advocacy.

This policy is made imperative in connection with action programs by the necessity that the College be always free to support or oppose action programs on the basis of its own findings and judgment as to their intrinsic merits.

The conclusions from the above, as applied to the publicity services of the College (news services and radio), are:

1. That the College must always retain final authority as to what material it will or will not disseminate.

2. That the College will give its best effort to the dissemination of factual material concerning significant agricultural programs. 3. That the College will feel free to disseminate the findings or judgments of its staff whether those findings or judgments are in agreement with or opposed to current action programs. It is hoped that a clear understanding of the policy outlined above, on the part of College staff members who have to decide what shall be disseminated through the College's news and radio services, and on the

part of those connected with action programs, will facilitate effective cooperation, will tend to forestall unreasonable requests from the sponsors of action programs, and will define their duties for those who administer the College's services.

Variations in Federal Control

The trends in Federal relations to the States as exemplified in the acts affecting the land-grant institutions are:

1. An increase in the measure of control.

2. Lack of consistency among the several measures. The increase in Federal control is shown in the restrictions carried by the successive acts and in the powers placed in the hands of Federal authorities having responsibility for the administration of the several acts. In the discussion of the specific acts it has been pointed out that the Second Morrill Act contained restrictions on curriculum offerings that did not obtain under the First Morrill Act. The Hatch Act introduced a new feature in providing for annual grants for maintenance instead of lump sums of money or of grants of land for endowment as had been the practice of the Federal Government in previous aid to the States. This Act also placed greater discretionary powers in the hands of the Federal administrative authorities than had been the case under the First Morrill Act. The Adams Act made a more rigid definition of research and introduced a further element of Federal control by providing for the "proper administration" of the law by the Secretary of Agriculture. This is done through the Office of Experiment Stations by approving the "projects" in advance of the expenditure of the Federal funds.

The activities coming within the purposes of the SmithLever Act and the methods of carrying them out are defined as "... the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through field demonstrations, publications, and other

7 Sec. 4.

127403°-39-8

wise.... 11 8 In addition certain limitations and restrictions of a negative character are made. A further measure of Federal control is exerted through the provision that "... this work shall be carried on in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this Act." This provision opens the way for a large measure of control by the Federal Government, as its representatives have the responsibility for deciding whether or not the projects proposed by a State are acceptable. When the CapperKetcham Act was passed, a requirement was made that “... at least 80 per centum of all appropriations under this Act shall be utilized for the payment of salaries of extension agents in counties of the several States . . ." 10 This restricted the States not only as to the type of work but defined still further the methods by which the work was to be done.

The inconsistencies among the several acts are numerous. Provisions having to do with the financial records create a great deal of unnecessary work in the financial offices of the land-grant institutions and the United States Department of Agriculture. In general it may be said that there are fewest specific controls exercised in those measures relating to resident instruction. They are most evident in the measures affecting extension. The experiment station acts occupy an intermediate position. The different bases for grants and the different degrees of control to be found in the series of acts relating to extension, resident instruction, and experiment stations not infrequently create embarrassment in the administration of a land-grant institution, since all of the acts come under a single administration within each State. Evidences have not been lacking on this point, especially during the depression, when it has been easier for the Federal Government to secure funds than it has for some of the State governments. Differences have resulted in some cases in the necessity for reduction in the salaries of staff members employed in one branch of the service when comparable reductions in salaries of their colleagues in other branches were not made.

8 Sec. 2.

• Sec. 2.

10 Sec. 1.

The interactions of resident instruction, research, and extension are so numerous and frequently so subtle that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the objective data to show conclusively that any one of the three degrees of control exercised through the administration of the acts relating to resident instruction, research, and extension is the best. It is the judgment of the writers that, from the point of view of the State, resident instruction is administered as effectively as extension work, in spite of the much greater measure of control found in the series of extension acts than in the Morrill Acts and the supplementary legislation. In the development of legislation affecting education it is important to bear in mind that a large measure of prescription in law has a tendency to restrict innovation, and that innovation has been an important element in educational progress.

The discussion may be extended beyond the boundaries of the individual State to consider the possible effect of Federal control in the regional coordination of effort in instruction, research, and extension. In this respect more progress has undoubtedly been made in research than in either of the other activities. As previously indicated, it seems likely that under the provision of the Bankhead-Jones Act a still larger measure of coordination will be developed. It should be borne in mind, however, that the plan of regional cooperation among experiment stations was started several years ago in New England on State initiative. It is not intended to deny the interest of the United States Department of Agriculture in the development of regional cooperation in research but only to show that it had its origin in State action. There is additional evidence on this point in the extent to which cooperation has been developed among higher institutions in curricular offerings, a tendency which promises to develop even further in the future. The increasing complexity both of research and of instruction at the graduate level is a force for cooperation.

But of much more fundamental importance than the rapidity and extent to which coordination and cooperation may be secured through a supervisory oversight by the Federal Government is the question of whether or not to