Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:21:18.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The mission of land grant colleges of agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Robert L. Zimdahl
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 ([email protected])
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines what land grant colleges of agriculture were designed to be and do and, using their published mission statements, discusses what they now claim to be and do. Teaching ‘such branches of learning as are related to the agriculture and the mechanic arts’ and ‘to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes’ is what land grant colleges were designed to do; it is the land grant mission. The paper asks whether these things are what land grant colleges of agriculture do now. The original mission has been amended with new challenges that must be met in a time of declining public support for higher education, societal distrust of science and a negative public perception of agricultural technology, in a culture that wants cheap food. The agricultural community, including colleges of agriculture, has been slow to accept the challenges and opportunities inherent in the questions agriculture now faces. Agriculture remains an essential human activity in our post-industrial, information-age society. Colleges of agriculture are in trouble, and this paper suggests that the sensible thing to do may be to turn away from self-interest in survival to take a leadership role with emphasis on the obligations of service and humanism.

Keywords

agriculture's missionland grant universitymission statementMorrill Act
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 103 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, W. 1984. Ethical issues in agriculture. In Regan, T. (ed.). Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics. Random House, New York, NY. p. 247–288.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. The Next Society. The Economist November 3:3–20.Google Scholar
Belsie, L. 2000. The ecosystem an extension of self. Christian Science Monitor August 24:11, 12. 14, 16.Google Scholar
Berry, W. 2000. Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. Counterpoint Press, Washington, DC. p. 15, 144.Google Scholar
Berry, W. 2001. Thoughts in the presence of fear. The Land Report. No. 71. The Land Institute, Salina KS. p. 5–6.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. 1997. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Budiansky, S. 1984. Trouble Amid Plenty. Atlantic Monthly 01:65–69.Google Scholar
Busch, L. 1994. The state of agricultural science and the agricultural science of the State. In Bonano, A., Busch, L., Friedland, W.H., Gouveia, L., and Mingione, E. (eds.). From Columbus to ConAgra. University of Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. p. 69–84.Google Scholar
Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. p. 9, 35.Google Scholar
Carey, J.W. 2000. The engaged discipline. The Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture. National Communication Association. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Comstock, G.L. 2000. Vexing Nature: On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA. p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, L.T. 1998. Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. p. 219–222.Google Scholar
Francis, C.A. 2000. Designing a durable and positive future for agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 15:44–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, J.M. 1997. Rediscovering the public mission of the landgrant university through cooperative extension. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Visions of American Agriculture. Iowa State University Press. Ames. IA. p. 175–186.Google Scholar
Gitlin, T. 2000. The renaissance of anti-intellectualism. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 12 8:B7–B9.Google Scholar
Goodman, R.M. 1997. Ensuring the scientific foundations for agriculture's future. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Visions of American Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. p. 187–203.Google Scholar
Hanson, V.D. 1996. Fields Without Dreams. The Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hathout, H. 1995. Medical ethics, history of: Near and Middle East – contemporary Arab world. In Reich, W.T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics. The Free Press, New York, NY. p. 1456Google Scholar
Kunkel, H.O., and Thompson, P.B.. 1996. Thinking through higher education in agriculture. In Kunkel, H.O., Skaggs, C.L., and Maw, I.L. (eds.). Revolutionizing Higher Education in Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. p. 17–40.Google Scholar
Lawry, R.P., and Anderson, T.W.. 2000. University-industry research relationships, ethics, conflict of interest. In Murray, T.H. and Mehlman, M.J. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues in Biotechnology. Vol. 1. J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. NY. p. 1099.Google Scholar
Lockeretz, W. 1995. Removing applied agricultural research from the academy. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 10:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logsdon, G. 1994. The failure of agricultural education. In At Nature's Pace: Farming and the American Dream. Pantheon Books, New York, NY. p. 56–76.Google Scholar
Manning, R. 2001. Inside Passage. Island Press, Covelo, CA. p. 33.Google Scholar
Marcus, A.I. 1985. Agricultural Science and the Quest for Legitimacy: Farmers, Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1870–1890. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Mariantes, L. 2000. Institution of Higher Learning. Christian Science Monitor 01 25:17, 20, 21.Google Scholar
Pelikan, J. 1992. The Idea of the University – A Reexamination. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. p. 48.Google Scholar
Pollack, A. 2001. The green revolution yields to the bottom line. New York Times 05 15.Google Scholar
Press, E., and Washbum, J.. 2000. The Kept University. The Atlantic Monthly. 285(3):39–54.Google Scholar
Saul, J.R. 1995. The Unconscious Civilization. Anansi Press Ltd, Toronto, Canada, p. 177.Google Scholar
Schuh, G.E. 1986. Revitalizing land grant universities: It's time to regain relevance. Choices second quarter:6–10.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.R. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. 3rd ed. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, NY. p. 81–86.Google Scholar
Seuss, Dr. 1940. Horton Hatches the Egg. Dr. Seuss Publications, Random House, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. 1987. The limited applicability of agricultural research. J. Agric, and Human Values Fall:4–13.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. p. 120.Google Scholar
US Census. 2000. Web site http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t4/tab01.xls (accessed 10 30, 2002).Google Scholar
Yudof, M.G. 2002. Is the public research university dead? Chronicle of Higher Education January 11:B-24.Google Scholar
White, L. Jr., 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R.L., and Speer, R.L.. 2001. Agriculture's mission: Finding a partner. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 16:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar