Senator STEVENSON. We will next hear from a panel representing the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, represented by Dr. John T. Caldwell, chancellor of the North Carolina State University; Dr. Alvin I. Thomas, president of Prairie View A. & M. College in Texas; Dr. Orville Bentley, dean, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois; and Dr. George McIntyre, assistant dean, College of Agriculture, and director, Extension Service, Michigan State University.

Welcome to our hearings, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNI VERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES REPRESENTED BY DR. JOHN T. CALDWELL, CHANCELLOR OF THE NORTH CAROLINA. STATE UNIVERSITY; DR. ALVIN I. THOMAS, PRESIDENT OF' PRAIRIE VIEW A. & M. COLLEGE IN TEXAS; DR. ORVILLE BENT · LEY, DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS; AND DR. GEORGE MCINTYRE, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, AND DIRECTOR, EXTENSION SERVICE, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. CALDWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am Dr. John T. Caldwell, chancellor of the North Carolina State University, and I am former president of the University of Arkansas, a land-grant university, and a graduate of Michigan State, and I was president of the association a few years ago.

I am not an agriculturalist. I have spent the last 25 years as a university administrator.

I am accompanied at this hearing by people who are agriculturalists in a professional way, and who are also engaged in administration, those whom you have already named, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous in your time this morning, and I have the feeling you will want us to make this short. Senator STEVENSON. I have a feeling I have been a little too generous with the time of the other witnesses, and I apologize to you for that. Take as much time as you would like.

If you do feel that you could conserve time, we will place your entire statement in the record, and you may summarize it if you wish.

Dr. CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, we have this longer statement, which runs to 20 pages or so, which we will have inserted in the record, and I wrote a shorter summary statement that I think I will read.

Senator STEVENSON. Fine. Without objection, the longer statement will be inserted at the end of your testimony.

Dr. CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I will now read my summary of the longer statement.

Mr. Chairman, my name is John Caldwell. I am Chancellor of North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina, a Land-Grant State University. I have been Chancellor of N.C. State for 13 years and prior to that was President of the University of Arkansas, also a Land-Grant State University. I received my bachelor's degree from Mississippi State University, also a land-grant institution. Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied to this hearing on your invitation by the following persons: President Alvin I. Thomas, Prairie View A & M College; Dean

Orville Bentley, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois; Assistant Dean George McIntyre, College of Agriculture, Michigan State University; Ralph K. Huitt, Executive Director, National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges.

In response to your specific questions we have prepared a rather extensive statement which we are filing with your secretary. I shall make a summary statement at this time, and then I shall ask President Alvin Thomas to make a statement to the Committee with particular reference to your Question 3 on the Land-Grant Colleges of 1890, the so-called "black land-grant colleges." I shall be pleased to respond to any questions during or following my statement and will refer to my colleagues when appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, you presented our Association with five questions. All of them bear directly or indirectly upon a basic question of the validity of the work of the land-grant colleges in serving American agriculture. The questions indicate a particular concern for the "family farmers" and farm workers and the responsiveness of the land-grant colleges to the people who live and work on farms or who have been displaced from farming.

I am confident that you and your colleagues are earnestly interested in getting at the facts which will help you in your deliberations on behalf of American farmers and farm workers. We, too, are interested in the facts. We want you to have them; we want you to have them without prejudice; and we want you to have them in the total perspective of American agriculture and the American society.

The land-grant colleges have been a vital part of American life in all its dimensions for over a century. The Agricultural Experiment Stations since 1887 and the Cooperative Extension Services since 1914 are integral to the spirit and accomplishments of these more than one hundred institutions. Because they are "human institutions" they require constant revitalization. They never have been perfect and they never will be. I would be hard put to it, however, to identify any American institutions which have built into themselves as many devices and mechanisms for keeping themselves vital and responsive. Even so, we welcome any informed criticism or questions from the Congress or any other source that cause us to sharpen our self-appraisal and keep us responsive to the needs of peope. So, Mr. Chairman, we welcome your questions and we appreciate this opportunity to speak.

The American farm economy is the envy of the rest of the world, and for good reason. The American enterprise system of which agriculture is a fundamental part, plus the enlightened public policies which have encouraged it, plus the indispensable research and educational activities of the land-grant colleges, all combined, have brought this success. We cannot escape feeling some pride in this achievement of abundant food and fiber for our Nation, of a higher standard of living for our farmers, and of the enrichment of American life made possible by an efficient agriculture.

Now to your questions.

Question 1. To what extent has the land-grant college system assumed responsibility and developed programs to assist farm workers and farmers and others in rural America who have been displaced or affected by the development of new agricultural technology?

Answer. In our view the Nation has not done enough to assist displaced farm workers or others adversely affected by changing farm economy, either in rural areas or urban areas. Land-grant researchers and extension workers have al ways had as a goal improvement in the quality of community and family life in rural America. A basic approach has been the raising of income to the farm fam. ily, but along with it other efforts by home demonstration agents and in recent decades community development specialists. Where supplemental jobs and in come were needed, our researchers and extension workers have promoted co operatively new industry. We have, however, never been given the funds to pursu an individual counseling-guidance-retraining program for the rural dweller either displaced or on the way to being displaced from farming. We cannot be al things to all people. We cannot, therefore, undertake the responsibilities of th public school system at either state or county levels; we cannot undertake th responsibilities of state and county departments of public health and the medi cal profession; we cannot take on the responsibilities of public welfare depart ments. Nor are we bankers and chambers of commerce. We are, however, con cerned, aware, sometimes prodders, and thorough cooperators with every publi

and private agency charged with responsibilities for retraining, for family welfare, for medical care, for industrial development, and the like. The record is replete. Recent legislation and enlarged funding are permitting our institutions to become more heavily engaged in readjustment activities.

Question 2. What are the land-grant colleges doing to assist the family farmer and farm worker adjust to changing conditions in rural America and maintain their economic viability? Are you satisfied that existing steps are adequate? If not, what additional steps to assure that land-grant colleges are responding to all people of rural America are you proposing?

Answer. This question seems to assume that the land-grant colleges neglect the family farmer. And then it asks whether we are satisfied with what we are doing.

The family farm has been and is the characteristic farm enterprise of America. The central purpose of our land-grant research and extension has been to improve the efficiency of human effort in the farming enterprise. These efforts have been and are primarily devoted to the family-owned and operated farm.

There seems to be some notion abroad that the family farmer is neglected. This is not true. Every improved strain of wheat is just as available to the family farm as it is to some absentee-owned corporate farm. Every cultivation practice that is improved helps every farm.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of ignorance today, a great deal of innocence, and a considerable amount of romantic idealizing about farming. Because of this ignorance and innocence and romanticizing, there exists a fertile field for demagoguery. Family farms can be either self-subsistence farms or commercial farms, or a combination. In primitive agriculture all farms were self-subsistence farms and supported a primitive existence. Practically all family farms today are commercial farms. To be a happy human experience or even a tolerable human experience, the farm has to be profitable. Our research and extension efforts have been aimed at making farming happy and profitable for those who farm. Only a sound economic unit can pay a decent wage to a farm worker and provide a decent return to the owner and his family for their investment and labor. Our objective has been to make the farm unit a viable, economic human enterprise.

Family farms come in all sizes. Corn-hog farms of great size can be managed efficiently by a farm family with only occasional supplemental labor. A rice farm of 640 acres in Arkansas can be operated by a family. A small tomato patch in a mountain county in North Carolina combined with supplemental wages from other work becomes a family farm. A beef cattle farm can be managed in very large acreage by a family. But in all cases the products of research and extension advice are needed: for disease control, pest control, resistant varieties, improved yield varieties, tillage and fertilization practices, economic advice on land ilization, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, we glory in the service we have rendered the American farm family in freeing it from drudgery and poverty. Only the innocent or the ignorant or the romanticist would argue against efficiency in the use of human labor on the farm, represented by modern technology. The logic of arguing against machinery and fertilizer would take mankind back to primitive practices and to doomsday.

Are we satisfied with our effort? No. We never have been satisfied with it. We keep pressing. The Congress of the United States, the State Legislatures, the County Boards of Commissioners are more and more help in our efforts to improve American agriculture. If the planned programs of Experiment Stations and Extension Services all could be supported, we would indeed be responding more adequately to the needs of rural America.

Question 3. What do you see as the appropriate future role of the Colleges of 1890, the 80-called “Black Land-Grant Colleges"?

Answer. Dr. Alvin I. Thomas will speak to that question when I am done. Question 4. Who are the current beneficiaries of the research and other efforts of the land-grant colleges, and does your organization consider the current allocation of institutional resources and distribution of benefits equitable?

Answer. Unequivocably, every man, woman and child in America is the beneficiary of the research and educational efforts of the land-grant colleges. Ameria has lots of problems which are documented daily. But a shortage of food and fiber is not one of them. This is not to say that every American has equal access in his purchasing power to this abundant supply. But that is a problem

of distribution of income and is quite beyond the Experiment Stations, Extension Services and colleges of agriculture to solve.

On the second part of that question I would have to respond in this fashion. We do not believe that any of our present efforts should be diminished in providing an efficient and prosperous agricultural enterprise for the country. We do believe additional resources can be put into rural development efforts and family support efforts such as the nutritional aide programs of recent years. What needs to be done in rural America, however, goes far beyond the jurisdiction and responsibility of the colleges of agriculture.

Question 5. What mechanisms are needed, if any, to make the land-grant college system accountable to the public interest? Are changes needed in the composition of advisory committees at either the national level or on individual campuses? Is it necessary to have more public disclosure regarding research projects, administrative operations, foundation activities, fiscal policies, patent and licensing practices, industry contributions, and potential faculty conflicts, of interest?

Answer. Mr. Chairman, the phrasing of this question I regard as unfortunate in its implications. The land-grant college system is thoroughly and completely accountable to the American people, to this Congress, to the State Legislatures, to County Boards of Commissioners, to women's organizations, to commodity groups, to farmers. In every conceivable way we try to report to our many constituencies, to hear them, and to serve them. I know of no calculated effort anywhere to conceal anything we do or to avoid responsiveness to the people who support us and to the people we serve. Furthermore, the integrity of our scientists and our teachers and our extension workers is not for sale. If in the vast organization and far reaches of what we call the land-grant college enterprise for agriculture there is some abuse, some malfunction, there are ample means for correcting them when they become known to us.

We are not a self-serving institutional system. We are in no position to be other than accountable, open, candid, and amenable to correction. I am not aware of any specific measures that devolve upon us to make public our relationships and involvement and activities than we already do. Whenever any citizen suspects a fault, I know no barrier in this free society to his calling it to our attention and getting a decent answer.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I add another comment and then my conclusion. I have first-handed knowledge of efforts to assist undeveloped and underdeveloped agricultural economies of other nations to improve their efficiency and their output in the interest of their people. In these circumstances much of what we in the United States take for granted stands out starkly as a graunt need. Research is a need: on soils, on pests, on seeds.

An array of services is needed, what we call the agri-business complex. Who is going to furnish the viable and reliable seed? Who the fertilizers? Who the insecticides? And when the crop is ready, who is going to buy it and store it and transport it and get it to market at a time and in a condition that makes it saleable? Who is going to furnish the credit for either the little operator or the large operator that will help him improve his efficiency, improve his income and raise the level of life for his family.

Mr. Chairman, a peculiar and amazing thing in recent years, in recent months, and even in recent weeks has been surfacing in the public media, in politicians' speeches, and in youthful rehtoric. What I am referring to is not only peculiar and amazing: it is also pitiful. An overwhelmingly urban population can easily take for granted an efficient agriculture. And then those few who become concerned about it may bring with their concern an ignorance, an innocence, and a romanticism that misses the point entirely. For thousands of years men have used their intelligence to try to free humanity from drudgery and burdens that sustained only poverty for all but a few. Man has sought to release himself, his body and his time and his mind for a higher quality of life. The goal of the land-grant colleges has been to further man's accomplishments on behalf of the human spirit. Nowhere has this success been more apparent and brought more blessings than in the agricultural enterprise and the homes of rural America. We joint wholeheartedly with any public or private endeavors to mitigate and overcome the hardships of those who for one reason or another find themselves left behind or not accommodated in the changing prosperity of rural America. At the same time we reassert our clear commitment to an efficient and prosperous American farmer.

Dr. CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to respond to any of your questions.

Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Dr. Caldwell.

We will hear from Dr. Thomas before we go to questions.

Dr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a statement I would like to have inserted in the record alsó, Mr. Chairman, and I will read a summary.

Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Dr. Thomas.

Your full statement will be inserted in the record at the end of your testimony.

Dr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Alvin I. Thomas, president of Prairie View A. & M. College at Prairie View, Tex.. one of the so-called land-grant colleges.

I am a native of Louisiana. I earned my bachelor's and master's degrees at Kansas State College, attended Pennsylvania State College, and earned the Ph. D. degree from Ohio State University.

I have been employed at Prairie View A. & M. College since 1949, and president of the college since 1966, I am currently a member of the executive committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and also a member of the advisory committee for the office for the Advancement of Public Negro Colleges.

I wish to express my thanks to Senator Adlai Stevenson and his committee for inviting me to testify before this committee as a member of the executive committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

I have been asked to concentrate my comments on the question: "What do you see as the appropriate future role of the college of 1890, the so-called black land-grant colleges?"

The report, "Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times," points out what we all already know; namely the 1890 colleges were created in 1890 under the "separate but equal" provisions of the Second Morrill Act. The report also points out that the black colleges have been less than full partners in the land-grant experience. It goes on to further point out that, as late as 1971, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture funds allocated to these States with both white and black land-grant colleges, 99.5 percent of the funds went to the white colleges and only 0.5 percent went to the black colleges.

Each of these allegations is true. These conditions are not only true of the land-grant system, but they have been true in general for the Nation as a whole. In general, black people have been less than full partners in any of the national experiences. Black people have, until recently, been subject to the "separate but equal" treatment in almost all national experiences including a large segment of the north. When it comes to money, black people can usually be credited with receiving the crumbs from any cake provided on the national scene. It is important that these points be brought out in reference to the and-grant system as well as the national scene as this situation must be corrected.

In recent years, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges has taken positive and affirmative steps to insure the full partnership of the 1890 colleges in the land-grant college

System.

82-656 0-72-pt. 4B- -16