2004 Justin Smith Morrill Lecture
Adapting Justin Morrill’s
Vision to a New Century: The Imperative
of Change for Land-Grant Universities
Given by Martin C. Jischke, President, Purdue University
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Annual Meeting
November 14, 2004, San Diego, CA
Jischke Biography
Good morning. It is a great
honor to be given the opportunity to present
this Justin Smith Morrill lecture. I know
and admire many of the distinguished educators
who have given this lecture in previous
years. It is a special honor to be asked
to join them in talking about the great
land-grant college tradition we are carrying
forward today.
I have spent 45 years in higher education:
first as a student, next as a faculty member
and now as a university president. Half
of that time has been in land-grant universities,
including MIT, the University of Missouri,
Iowa State and now Purdue. I have led three
land-grant universities, and I have spoken
often and proudly about Justin Smith Morrill
and his vision for higher education. I
have talked about the power of his ideas
and the potential of his vision for many,
many years. But for me, Morrill’s
dream of opening the doors of higher education
to the American people is more than ideas,
vision and speeches.
As the proud son of a clerk, the grandson
of a farmer and the first person in my
family to earn a college degree, I have
lived Justin Morrill’s dream of education,
opportunity and, I hope, service. To me
Justin Morrill is one of America’s
great heroes whose impact on our democracy
and way of life has been quite profound
for now 142 years.
The Morrill Land Grant Act was a very
powerful, indeed revolutionary, set of
new and distinctive ideas that first challenged
and then changed the entire concept of
higher education in our nation. In the
early 19th century, universities were modeled
after European institutions that existed
to educate the male leisure class and government
and religious leaders along with members
of the professions.
The Morrill Act was about creating, through
our national government, an entirely American
kind of university. This was a concept
for higher education that was deeply rooted
in the American democratic ideal that opportunity
should be available to everyone and that
education was the vehicle for that opportunity.
Justin Morrill, who had no formal education
beyond secondary school, believed education
could provide people access to the American
dream. A congressman who later became a
U.S. senator, Morrill had some very, very
big ideas.
First, he believed that land-grant universities
should and could provide both liberal and
practical education and training. In a
speech to his home state Vermont Legislature
in 1888, Morrill explained: “The
fundamental idea was to offer an opportunity
in every state for a liberal and larger
education to larger numbers, not merely
to those destined to sedentary professions,
but to those needing higher instruction
for the world's business, for the industrial
pursuits and professions of life.”
Second, he believed that over time these
institutions would evolve a research agenda.
He believed that agenda would not only
be basic and focused on understanding the
world, but also that it would be practical
and, in particular, bring science and discovery
to America’s farms.
Third, and perhaps the most radical idea
in the land-grant vision, was the notion
that these institutions should extend themselves
and be engaged in outreach and become the
natural partners of America in the 19th
century.
These were all bold new ideas, and it
took courage and persistence to accomplish
them. As with all visionaries with an agenda
for change, Morrill found that his ideas
were not initially embraced by everyone.
His first proposal struggled through Congress
in 1858 and 1859. It then was vetoed by
President Buchanan, a fact Justin Morrill
neither forgot nor forgave. In June of
1862, while promising to deliver a speech
without the “pepper and spice of
party or sectional politics,” Congressman
Morrill nonetheless noted: “Among
other sins which (former) President Buchanan
now has leisure to repent ’is his
veto . . .’ of the land grant bill.”
Morrill persevered, and, in 1862, persuaded
another bold American leader, Abraham Lincoln,
to sign the act that now bears Morrill’s
name. In the year of its passage, 1862,
Morrill said of the land-grant act: “It
is a measure that should have been initiated
at least a quarter-century ago. And if
it had been, “our taxable resources
would now have been far greater than they
are, agriculture might long ere this have
felt its influence, (and) the statistics
of the country might have been more abundant
and valuable.”
This is a man who understood at the very
onset the full and far-reaching implications
of this fundamental change in American
higher education. But he wasn’t merely
changing education. He planned to use education
to change people and ultimately a nation.
The richness and full flowering of Morrill’s
land-grant vision took nearly half a century
to develop and it is still growing today.
It was not the Morrill Act of 1862 alone
that brought sweeping change to the American
educational landscape. The transformation
also included: The Hatch Act of 1887 creating
the agricultural experimentation stations;
the Second Morrill Act of 1890, which led
to creation of 17 historically black land-grant
colleges; and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914,
which created cooperative extension. Ultimately
in 1994, 29 Native American tribal colleges
gained land-grant status.
All of this in the land-grant chronology
was very much a forward-looking and outward-looking
agenda, an agenda for America. It was more
than an agenda for higher education. It
was an agenda for the country. I believe
it was fundamentally an agenda for our
emerging democracy. Like all great plans,
it was noble, inspiring and yet, at the
same time, pragmatic. It was designed very
much for the America of 1862, a largely
rural country with agriculture at the center
of its economy.
The focus on agriculture and its underlying
sciences — home economics, and veterinary
medicine — was very much responsive
to the America that Morrill saw changing
around him. It was initially very much
a partnership between the federal government
and the states, but later also the counties
of those states through cooperative extension.
The impact of all this has been utterly
profound. History has proven Morrill quite
accurate in his vision.
Today, there are 105 land-grant institutions.
Land-grant universities enroll about 3
million students and produce about a half
a million graduates every year. Land-grant
universities spend more than $13 billion
each year for teaching, research and public
service. During the history of land-grant
institutions, 20 million degrees have been
awarded. Land-grant institutions award
one-third of all U.S. bachelor’s
degrees, one-third of all master’s
degrees, and 60 percent of all Ph.D.s.
Land-grant institutions award 70 percent
of all engineering degrees.
Land-grant universities have always been
among the leaders in inclusion. They were
among the first to advance educational
opportunities for women and minorities.
If Justin Morrill returned today, he would
be justifiably proud of not only the land-grant
higher education system that he created,
but the impact it has had on our nation
and, indeed, the world.
But as he would marvel at all that has
been accomplished, I believe at the same
time Justin Morrill would also be concerned
about his land-grant universities and their
role in 21st century America. In the 142
years since President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Act, our nation has changed dramatically,
and our entire system of higher education
has changed with it.
First — America at the start of
the 21st century is quite different from
the America of 1862 when the land-grant
concept was designed. In 1862, the population
of the United States was about 31 million.
Today, it is approaching 300 million. In
1862, 60 percent of all jobs were directly
connected to agriculture. Today, that number
is less than 2 percent. In 1860, 80 percent
of the U.S. population was rural. Today,
nearly 80 percent live in urban areas.
America today is an urbanized country.
And this urbanized nation has changing
needs. In 1862, the least educated of Americans
lived in rural areas. Today, the least
educated are often found in our urban centers.
Second — agriculture itself has
changed dramatically since the mid-19th
century. One hundred fifty years ago, we
needed 60 percent of the population on
farms to feed the nation. Those farmers
were able to get all the assistance they
needed through university schools of agriculture.
Today, the food system is no longer just
production agriculture but includes engineering,
management, marketing, nutrition as well
as science including modern biology. And
today, with barely 2 percent of the population
engaged in farming, we are producing more
food than ever before.
America enjoys the most abundant, safest,
relatively cheapest food supply in the
world, in no small measure because of the
impact of these land-grant universities.
At the same time, U.S. Census figures show
a drop of nearly 350,000 farms since 1978.
With this drop in the rural agricultural
constituency comes an attendant drop in
political influence.
The face of farming is also changing.
For example, the role of women has changed
dramatically. Farming was virtually 100
percent male in 1862. In a U.S. Department
of Agriculture-Penn State University survey
of farm women in 2001, 81 percent of the
women said they were actively involved
in the farm; 10 percent said they were
the principal farm operator; nearly 33
percent said they were involved as a business
manager or helper. The sophistication of
the large-scale producers who produce the
majority of America’s crops today
means that the expertise they need and
regularly access is no longer county-based
or even state-based. The large-scale producers
either develop their own research capacity
or go to the best people in the country.
Off-farm income has also become a key
to survival for the vast majority of farmers,
which means that non-agricultural economic
development is absolutely pivotal to today’s
rural counties.
Research suggests that the price support
programs of the federal government have
not been altogether effective in fostering
rural economic development. They certainly
have helped keep food prices down, but
they don’t foster the growth of the
broader rural economy. The issues of rural
America today go beyond agriculture. They
include economic development, the environment,
health care, a growing diversity and poverty.
And the U.S. Department of Agriculture
is an increasingly smaller piece of federal
support for rural development. Other agencies
of the federal government, including, for
example, the Department of Commerce, are
taking on a larger and more important role.
To serve these rural communities, land-grant
universities must partner with a wider
range of federal agencies including the
National Science Foundation , the Department
of Commerce, the National Institutes of
Health, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, among others. For example, the
manufacturing extension program is not
housed in Agriculture; it is housed in
the Department of Commerce.
Agricultural enrollments today are less
than 10 percent of land-grant universities.
Agriculture and the issues surrounding
agriculture remain central to us, as they
should. But it is a different kind of agriculture
that requires a much broader range of university
capacities. For modern agriculture to prosper,
access to the entire University is needed
not simply to the assets in agriculture,
veterinary medicine and home economics.
To serve modern agriculture well, we must
bring in the capacities of engineering,
technology, pharmacy, nursing and health
sciences. We have to bring in modern management
programs. And more generally, the liberal
arts and sciences have to be embraced.
Science is changing agriculture. And the
ability to understand and serve the world
markets for agriculture requires the liberal
arts. At the dawn of the 21st century,
it takes a whole university to support
a prosperous agricultural system.
Third — land-grant universities
themselves have changed and are now part
of a much more complex system of higher
education, one that is quite different
from the system Justin Morrill nurtured
through the last half of the 19th century.
There has been an emergence of non land-grant
public universities. Community colleges
and vocational technical institutions have
emerged as part of a system of higher education
that now enrolls 16 million students. Barely
20 percent of these students are in land-grant
universities.
America has more than 4,000 institutions
of higher education. And the programs that
were originally at the heart of the land-grant
curriculum — agriculture, veterinary
medicine, home economics — today
constitute a relatively small fraction
of the total enrollment of these institutions.
The land-grant agenda of access, practical
and liberal education, basic and applied
research, along with outreach, extension
and engagement, is now clearly shared with
many other institutions. As a result, the
centrality of our land-grant universities
to the vital issues facing contemporary
society is less clear and unique than it
was 100, 50 or even 25 years ago.
These issues include economic development,
K-12 education, health care, community
renewal, homeland security and the challenge
of poverty, especially its impact on children.
Virtually every university in the nation
today is addressing some or all of these
issues and promoting their ability to be
a key player in the progress of their state.
Fourth — funding of public universities
is very different today from what it was
in the 1860s when the land-grant model
was conceived. The contribution to our
budgets that come from the original land-grant
model is minuscule. Tuition has become
a much larger fraction of our budgets.
Throughout the nation for many years, state
support as a percentage of our total general
fund has been in decline. As the cost of
higher education continues to rise and
states find themselves with limited revenue
and no taste for tax increases, we can
expect to see this trend continue in the
years ahead.
And fifth — generally, the American
society, including in particular our economy,
is taking on a regional structure rather
than a municipal or county-based structure.
While this regionalization is taking place,
land-grant extension remains a county-based
system. In addition, there is growing evidence
that the political support that land-grant
universities have historically enjoyed
is increasingly fragile.
Facing nearly a billion-dollar budget
deficit last fall, Michigan Governor Jennifer
Granholm included in a list of possible
areas for cuts the elimination or drastic
reduction of funding for Michigan State
University Extension and 15 agricultural
experiment stations. This summer in my
home state of Indiana, there was public
discussion about cuts in support for cooperative
extension in the state capital — Indianapolis/Marion
County. One morning, the Marion Extension
Office received a phone call from the County
Auditor's Office informing them that a
proposal would be presented at the City/County
Council meeting that night to rescind 25
percent of their total 2004 funding effective
immediately and to eliminate funding for
Cooperative Extension in the 2005 budget.
In the end, through a show of public support,
funding was fully restored for 2004 and
about 75 percent of the 2005 budget was
restored. But this is a proposal that never
would have been even suggested 25 or 50
years ago.
Both Republicans and Democrats at different
times have proposed zeroing out extension
budgets. What this says to me is that the
historic support that we have enjoyed for
this aspect of our land-grant mission is
eroding. And support at the federal level
for cooperative extension has, in real
terms, been declining for many, many years.
All of this is a national wake-up call.
And it is time for us to respond.
Morrill’s vision from the 19th century,
powerful as it has been, must be adapted,
reinvigorated and reconceptualized for
the 21st century. It is an imperative for
change, and to me the choices are clear.
If we continue business as usual, we will
certainly see this continuing slippage
in our support and importance. We can continue
the old land-grant model of 1862, which
I believe has been marginalized, and live
with the inevitable conclusion of the trends
we have seen for many years. Or we can
envision a broader, bolder agenda an agenda
for our time, and that is what I am proposing
today.
I believe the idea of the engaged university
is very powerful, but it has to be reconceptualized
in a more modern way. The narrow traditional
agenda of land-grant universities is not
sufficient to realize Morrill’s vision
in the 21st century. The world is changing
and we must change with it. And we don’t
have the 50 years that Morrill’s
vision had to fully flesh out. The world
is changing much faster today and we must
move with it.
I believe there are seven areas on which
we must focus as we fashion a contemporary
land-grant mission for a new century.
First — we need to see the land-grant
mission of the 21st century as embracing
all sectors of society, including, but
not only, agriculture. While agriculture
and rural America should remain a priority
for land-grant universities, especially
those in agriculturally intensive states,
we must embrace a larger agenda if our
universities are to realize our full potential
in higher education and in society. Land-grant
universities cannot be synonymous with
agriculture if they are to serve contemporary
America and contemporary American agriculture,
and if American agriculture is to grow
and prosper.
We need to recognize that the issues of
rural America, while involving agriculture,
go well beyond agriculture. Land-grant
universities must be distinctive because
of their excellence in learning, discovery
and engagement, their commitment to access
and opportunity, and their commitment to
civic-minded engagement with the most important
issues facing society — not because
they teach specific disciplines. Today’s
cutting-edge educational programs and research
opportunities have become more and more
interdisciplinary. Traditional organizations
and disciplines within the university must
find new means of collaboration and cooperation
to address the complexities and challenges
of our time.
Second — we need to broaden the
extension service and outreach missions
beyond agriculture, veterinary medicine
and consumer and family sciences to include
the entire university and organize this
mission as a university-wide activity.
Every academic unit at the university should
have a share of the engagement agenda.
We must develop a more flexible and adaptable
engagement organizational structure in
order to capture the emerging regional
and multi-state character of many activities.
Not all important issues can be addressed
on a county basis.
Third — we must adapt new language
to capture these new ideas so that the
change is evident and transparent both
internally and externally. I personally
like the language of engagement rather
than extension. It is more mutual, more
respective of partners. It is less directive,
less unilateral. We must find new language
to recapture the public’s imagination
about our connectedness to them.
Fourth — we need to connect student
learning to the engagement mission to foster
a distinctive land-grant form of education
to reinforce the public purposes of our
universities and to justify the use of
general fund dollars to support the broader
engagement agenda.
Fifth — we need a broadened research
agenda that is more interdisciplinary and
problem-focused. We need a broader, problem-oriented
interdisciplinary research capacity to
complement the disciplinary strengths we
have. In particular, to serve our historic
constituencies, we have to bring the capacities
of the entire university’s research
infrastructure to bear on the issues of
the American food system and the challenges
facing rural America.
Sixth — we need to change our model
for financing engagement to include general
fund support, increased fees for service
programming, and private fund raising.
Like the rest of the modern research university,
the engagement organization must become
more entrepreneurial, more market-driven
with leveraged funding, so-called soft
funding, and become less dependent on the
formula-driven funds based on traditional
government financing.
Seventh — we must reconceptualize
the relationship of the federal government
to land-grant universities to include engagement
and research funding in other departments
of government such as Commerce, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the National Institutes
of Health. A broader engagement agenda
requires a broader range of partners. The
Department of Agriculture is too slender
a reed upon which to build our future.
It should be only one of several strategic
federal partners.
All of this is about change. Change can
be seen as a threat or an opportunity.
There are those who respond to change in
the wind by trying to hunker down, preserve
what is and keep from being blown over.
They fear change. And there are those who
welcome change and see it as the means
of opening new possibilities and potentials.
Change produces opportunity.
Justin Morrill was a leader for change
142 years ago. And he foresaw the need
for change in the future. Concluding a
speech on his land-grant act from the floor
of the House on June 6, 1862, Morrill said: “I
have faith in the sagacity of the people
to profit by the experience of the world,
and that they will mold these institutions
in a form . . . as will secure permanent
usefulness and enduring honor to the whole
country.”
Let us hope that we can be worthy of his
legacy and have his courage, and boldness,
and tenacity to mold our institutions to
serve our entire nation usefully and honorably
in the 21st century and beyond.
Thank you.
Jinske Biography
Martin C. Jischke became Purdue University's
president in 2000. He came to Purdue after
serving as president of Iowa State University
from 1991 to 2000. Prior to his presidency
at Iowa State, Dr. Jischke served as chancellor
of the University of Missouri-Rolla from
1986 to 1991. Dr. Jischke received his
doctoral degree in aeronautics and astronautics
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in 1968. He then joined the faculty of
the University of Oklahoma's School of
Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
where for the next 17 years, he served
in multiple capacities. He became director
of the School of Aerospace, Mechanical
and Nuclear Engineering in 1977. He served
as dean of the College of Engineering from
1981 to 1986. In 1985 he was named the
university's interim president.
Dr. Jischke was born in Chicago and graduated
from Proviso High School in Maywood, a
suburb on Chicago's west side. In 1963
he earned his bachelor's degree in physics
with honors from the Illinois Institute
of Technology. Martin and Patty Jischke
were married in 1970. They have two children,
Charles, an audio engineer living in Southern
California, and Mary, an engineer living
in Indianapolis. |
