Editor's Note: Future editions of the OCM newsletter will explore the growing concern over the evolution of America's land grant universities and the role they play, or perhaps fail to play, in carrying out their mission. OCM is pleased to initiate forthright discussions on what's right and what's wrong with today's land grant universities. 

George Washington proposed, in his last annual message to Congress in 1796, the new nation should establish a national board of agriculture. The proposal received little public support. European models were dominated by large landowners and seemed to confirm wide-spread suspicion that the proposal would only benefit elites at the expense of the people.

Should government fund its agricultural institutions to benefit primarily the elites of the yeoman farmer? The last 15 years have careened towards the former. The land grant university legacy is in danger as they become research and public relations arms for their corporate funders.

The Land Grant Act (Morrill Act) of 1862 established the first land grant universities during the Civil War. Dartmouth and Yale were among them, arguing advances would be made in the laboratories. The National Grange later succeeded in wrestling land grant funds away from Dartmouth and Yale, favoring more far flung universities further west and south. The Grangers argued that advances would be made in the field and should be spread widely.

The Populist movement strengthened as the 19th century progressed. The Hatch Act of 1887 created the Agricultural Experiment Station. The USDA achieved cabinet level status in 1889. Its designation as "The People’s Department" arose from populist farmer uprisings. The second Morrill Act of 1890 established the "1890 Land Grants" in the South - separate but equal. In 1914 the National Cooperative Extension Program was solidly established, though Iowa State University and others had predecessor programs.

Land grant institutions are now losing support within agriculture because they serve a narrow portion of the industry, ignore rural decline and support disastrous mega-trends.

State government funds are dwindling for land grants. But, universities have a thinner base from which to seek support. Instead, they transform into research brothels, selling their exclusive services to the highest corporate bidder, promising secrecy and receiving shiny new trinkets. Their effects are intra-institutional political effects. Researchers and teachers who serve an independent agriculture calling become politically isolated, unable to raise new grant money, and increasingly labeled as "outside the main stream."

Iowa State University benefits from large Pioneer Hybrid International (owned by DuPont) donations. Pioneer officials were installed on University strategic and planning committees.

Monsanto is a major donor to the University of Missouri, helping build a new biotech research center. University scientists work with Monsanto creating crop advances, signing confidentiality agreements, and playing material roles in subsequent patenting. Research benefits flow to Monsanto’s monopoly patent pricing structure, not to taxpayers and farmers.

There are over 200 state university and land grant colleges in all fifty states, each with an average of 6,000 full-time employees, and spending an average $284 million per university. Much of the spending is taxpayer money. As the major funders, we should be looking to reclaim the research and teaching benefits.

Land grant universities must redirect their mission to supporting independent farmers and ranchers rather than rationalizing their close and secret ties with
agri-businesses. Ted Schroeder, a Kansas State University ag economist, harmonizes his Big Packer ideology serving Tyson as an expert witness and preaching the
benefits of packer ownership to students.

Colorado State University (CSU) welcomes federally mandated beef checkoff dollars and the pro-packer National Cattlemen’s Beef Association headquartered in Colorado, ignoring the hundreds of independent livestock producers who choose different representation. Land grant universities like CSU continue to exclude groups like OCM from university-produced programs and presentations on the issues. 

Thus, Big Agri-Business redirects our universities with marginal funds as we pay for bricks, mortar, salaries and the utility bills. What is our vision for agriculture? Rural America deteriorates with depopulation, income declines, producer business exits, and faltering main streets. The current rationalization is "trickle down". If we help Cargill, the benefits will "trickle down".

The Cargill benchmark target is a failure. Consider a new, more direct benchmark target with benefits flowing to the mythical full-time 640 acre crop farmer. The question should be, does our agricultural teaching and research mission benefit this person, enabling him/her to make an average living? If so, how? Does it increase the number of his/her 640 acre peers?

Land grant university agricultural departments should also increase their resource commitment to providing solutions the private sector will not provide - conversely lowering their research commitment where the private sector is aggressively investing. This applies to livestock and crop production technologies, assisting creation of diverse, innovative, small processing and value-added plants, and research and support for open, accessible and competitive markets which are not centrally planned by dominant firms.

Independent agriculture creates significant jobs, rural quality-of-life benefits, rural environmental benefits and tremendous rural economic development. South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and other agrarian states are seriously dwindling to crisis level. The core, objective metrics are seen in rural depopulation, inflation adjusted wage and income decline, and farmers and ranchers leaving the business.

Land grant universities are not sufficiently engaged in driving solutions. Some have aided and abetted this trend. We should demand our multi-billion dollar public financial commitment producers public benefits. They should actively acquiesce, retooling their management and self-evaluation accordingly. Universities will receive increased public support and a broadened constituency, because they will provide a chance for Rural America’s success.MS