Introduction
The "land grant ideal" of making useful
knowledge available to all Americans through affordable undergraduate
education, extension and interrelated research, has been tarnished by a limited
view of scholarship which values research over the other two core university
functions. Increasing criticism and declining financial support for public
universities offer us the opportunity to initiate a radical transformation of
the institution. I believe those public universities that are able to build on
the land grant ideal, re-engage with the larger community, and take advantage
of advanced communications technologies will thrive in the 21st
century. Our land grant history is one of continuous evolutionary change. This
essay briefly reviews this evolution and predicts that the next phase in the
development of the land grant university will be a community-based learning
system that extends access to all citizens through university outreach in the
new "communiversity". 1
A Brief Look Back
Americans have long valued public education. Early settlers built schools as cornerstones of their new communities, and leading farmers of the 18th and 19th centuries were known for their interest in public speeches and pamphlets introducing and debating new ideas. Federal investments in higher education began as far back as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which allowed the sale of government land to support colleges in states created from the Northwest Territory. In 1836, Congress allocated federal land to help fund higher education, resulting in the establishment of the Universities of Michigan in 1837 and Wisconsin in 1848. And, of course, in 1862 President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act establishing the land grant university system.
Jonathan Baldwin Turner, professor at Illinois College, graduate of Yale College, and native of Templeton, Massachusetts championed the idea of a public university to serve "the working classes" in speeches and pamphlets in the 1830's. Support for Turner's ideas grew among farmer groups, newspaper editors, industrial societies, and state and federal legislators. Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont introduced the legislation which would provide grants of public land (land grants) to be sold to finance a university in each state to ". . .teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts. . .in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes." This landmark legislation represented a major shift in thinking about the purpose of higher education, which previously had been available only to the wealthy classes. The second Morrill Act (1890) further broadened the availability of higher education by providing federal appropriations to support "separate but equal" colleges for black Americans living in the Southern states. In 1994, Congress gave land grant status to twenty-nine Native American tribal colleges, thus continuing the tradition of extending the land grant ideal to marginalized peoples of the nation.
Although the need for a national system of agricultural research was identified by President George Washington, it took nearly 100 years for Congress to pass legislation creating the agricultural experiment station system with the Hatch Act of 1887. This legislation represented the second evolutionary step in the growth of the land grants. It provided federal funding "to promote scientific investigations and experiments respecting the principles and applications of agricultural science." The research function was thus added to the evolving land grant ideal. The third stage in the evolutionary growth of the land grants was accomplished with the passage of the Smith Lever Act in 1914, establishing the national Cooperative Extension Service "to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics and to encourage the application of the same."
President of the University of Massachusetts Kenyon L. Butterfield was an early champion of the land grant ideal. In a 1904 speech, President Butterfield made a case for the three land grant functions when he called for each college to support ". . . its threefold function as an organ of research, as an educator of students, and as a distributor of information to those who can not come to the college." Butterfield recognized the necessary integration of the three functions when he stated ". . . these are really coordinate functions and should be so recognized. The college should unify them into one comprehensive scheme. The principle of such unity is perfectly clear; for we have in research the quest for truth, in the education of students the incarnation of truth, and in extension work the democratization of truth." While Butterfield expressed this vision in 1904, it was many decades before his ideas were realized.
Thus, the land grant ideal evolved over time to serve the practical needs of a growing nation by integrating research and extension into the university experience and making that experience available to previously excluded women and men. I believe the next expression of the land grant ideal will fully extend the university to those citizens not in residence on its many campuses. It will do so in ways which further integrate research and teaching through community-based university outreach. University of Wisconsin President C.R. Van Hise's 1904 statement that "a state university can only permanently succeed where its doors are open to all" must be reinterpreted to not only allow previously excluded groups in, but also to send university scholars out to meet the people of the nation where they live and work. New communications technologies will not only support this effort, but will make it a necessity if the public university system is to thrive in the next century.
Communications Technologies and the University
Advanced communications technologies will change the way people are educated, enhance global learning, and break the monopoly currently held by traditional institutions of higher education. The system of higher education that was born during the era of the printing press is now being challenged by communications technologies that are not only more far reaching but also more interactive. Books and journals provide unidirectional delivery of information and support a system that allows universities to control the creation and distribution of knowledge. The pattern of scholars joining together around great storehouses of accumulated knowledge, which began with Archimedes and Euclid working at the library of Alexandria in 250 B.C., will change in an era of instant access to large databases. The related pattern of students going to live and study in residence with scholars which began with Plato's academy and continues today, will change in the 21st century as scholars "go to the learning community" in new and creative ways.
A major transformation in centuries old patterns of learning is underway and universities must adapt quickly if they are to thrive in a world of rapid, interactive information flow. Most academics are blissfully unaware of the advances being made by businesses and a few aggressive universities in knowledge-sharing technologies. Commercial interests have already made inroads in specialized professional development and are preparing to capture the basic undergraduate education and professional graduate market by contracting with "the best" professors and offering inexpensive and expertly-packaged teaching modules. The new educational tools will include video servers offering stored lessons, computer linkages to customized reading materials, virtual reality simulations, computer and video conferencing, language translation programs, hypertextbooks, and electronic discussions among students, faculty, and public and business leaders. New communications technologies coupled with the emergence of community-based learning and action groups will continue to erode the monopoly universities hold on advanced learning. As the concept of “higher education” is replaced by the communiversity, advanced learning will be available to those formerly excluded from college by financial, space and time constraints. It remains uncertain whether the land grant universities will participate in this exciting educational era.
The future might indeed be bleak for institutions
unable to compete in this highly networked environment. While their current
control over credentialing and a thousand years of tradition may partially
protect some universities from immediate crisis, the pattern of increasing
competition, public distrust, and declining support is likely to continue
unless a new defining vision for public universities emerges. Extending current
trends suggests that alternative futures for the land grants will be slow
decline at best, or dramatic cuts at worst. On the other hand, by expanding the
definition of "students" to all citizens, and maintaining a focus on
serving the public good through affordable education, university-wide outreach
and interrelated research, a new, revitalized "communiversity" may
evolve.
The Land Grant University as
Communiversity
The mission of the university is often expressed as the production, preservation and transmission of knowledge. I believe the evolution of the communiversity and the emergence of community-based learning will extend this mission to acknowledge that productivity (application) of knowledge is just as important as the production (accumulation) of knowledge. Research will be fully integrated with campus teaching and off-campus outreach to capture the synergy of each function and best serve the educational needs of the nation. Preservation of knowledge will be in the form of both the written (published) and the older community-based (interactive) tradition. Indigenous community-based knowledge is not stored in textbooks or journal articles, yet must be integrated into the knowledge system of the new communiversity. Transmission will no longer be a one way "downloading" of information from the teacher to the student, but a mutual sharing of knowledge among learners. The communiversity of the 21st century will make "learning through inquiry" the integrative paradigm that finally resolves the tension between research and teaching.
The Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, David K. Scott, contends that the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts
is our campus, and the campus is our common wealth." If this ideal is to
be realized, a major commitment must be made to the outreach function.
University outreach must be recognized as a scholarly endeavor involving the
generation, transmission, and application of knowledge for the benefit of
off-campus publics in ways that are consistent with university strengths,
tradition and mission. Finally, there must be a fundamental shift in how we think
about learning. Our current educational practice, with the instructor as the
focus of the learning system and the student as a more or less passive
recipient of learning authorized by the instructor, must be transformed.
Communiversity Learning
In the 21st century communiversity, we must create new ways of using communication technologies that allow the "student" and the "instructor" to interact as co-learners, making learning itself the center of the educational environment. For communiversity learning to evolve, the first idea that needs to go is the assumption that knowledge must be validated by university experts to be "true." There is a long tradition in agricultural extension, for example, that university experts make recommendations that farmers are expected to implement. Agricultural extension educators are proud of their ability to convince others to act in ways they believe best. They do this with the authority of science, the arrogance of academia, and an 85-year old federal law that mandates Extension educators not only aid in the diffusion of knowledge but ". . . encourage the application of the same." These 20th century assumptions must be challenged.
I think public universities and their outreach programs should continue to offer technical expertise to individuals, businesses and communities. However to participate in community-based learning, universities must expand their focus to encourage more collaborative learning using techniques such as study circles and participatory research. The "teacher" must become more respectful of the "student's" own source of knowledge. In fact, some academics are actively trying to "invent" new ways of working with off-campus communities. Outreach educators for example, who use participatory research and education techniques, acknowledge the contribution of all learners in the inquiry process, those from the university and those from the community. All participants are expected to help identify and define problems from their own perspective, suggest alternative solutions, test those solutions, and interpret results, thus capturing the synergy of both the scientific and the lay learning experience. The outcome of participatory learning is not only community-based knowledge and scholarly publications, but empowered community members more likely to act on their new knowledge.
Examples of Communiversity Programs
Many university outreach programs today, from professional development and consulting to service learning and continuing education, provide a foundation for the development of communiversity outreach. Faculty and outreach staff of the new communiversity must do more than simply transfer technology to off-campus constituents. They must also join hand-in-hand with citizens in mutually beneficial learning experiences, serving their individual needs and the public good. Some outreach programs currently meet this standard, but new models must also be explored.
A concept that should be adapted by the new
American communiversity is the "science shop" of the Netherlands,
where citizens can access their public universities. Local university-managed
and community-based offices should serve as access points to public university
and other community networks through communications technologies. In these
"shops", citizens will acquire and share knowledge, and initiate
research studies to solve problems of importance to themselves, their neighbors
and their neighborhoods. These centers will also offer an excellent training
ground for students through service learning. In the new land grant
communiversity, these local centers might serve as "free spaces"
where community-based learning and participatory democracy are fostered.3 This tradition which extends back to the Greek polis, encourages
citizens to be directly involved in civic activities in support of the common
good. Community learning centers would offer a public space for citizens to
build self respect, group identity, and public skills, while encouraging local
learning and local action. These centers would provide land grant universities
with the added benefit of engaging scholars in the public sphere.
As
a first step in the creation of more community-based learning centers, a new Community
Research Network (CRN) was established in 1996 by the nonprofit Loka Institute,
several community-based organizations, and the University of Massachusetts
Amherst. This network will allow community-based groups throughout the nation
to support and learn from each other as they address their own local needs.
UMASS Extension and its federal partner, the U.S.D.A., are supporting the
creation of a computer information and communication system for this new
national network. The next development should be pilot learning centers
(science shops) managed by the public university in partnership with local
groups, particularly in marginalized communities.
If established,
these community learning centers would capture the imagination and good will of
a suspicious public. They would be popular with legislators who ask how the
university serves the needs of their particular constituents. Increased public
trust would help the university acquire the financial support necessary to
provide limited-income and limited-access students a quality education. By
offering service learning opportunities to students at local centers, perhaps
in their own neighborhoods, the synergy of community- based research and the
undergraduate learning experience would enhance all three core functions of the
communiversity in the 21st century.
A Recognized Need for Change
Discussions
among university presidents have highlighted the need to build our university
outreach capacity. At the 1993 National President's Invitational Forum on
Outreach, Dr. Peter McGrath, NASULGC President, said; "I believe the
order of the day is thoughtful change brought about by leaders and supportive
trustees, presidents and chancellors who make restructuring and revitalization
of the land grant mission a personal priority, and extension directors who,
with other university academic officers, can help put together the new
structures of service to society through outreach." Many public
university presidents have recognized the need for change. Bryce Jordan,
past-president of Pennsylvania State University for example, called for a
better balance between research and outreach so that "public
research universities. . . may make themselves far more valuable to the
American people."
I argue that a
radical transformation of the land grant university is needed to better serve
the citizens, businesses and communities of the nation. Citizens should be
actively engaged in the research and education programs of their land grant
"communiversity" through programs in university outreach. Of course,
the changes necessary will not occur without much dialogue and debate. A.
Bartlett Giamatti, past president of Yale University wrote, the university
should be: ". . . a community open to new ideas, to disagreement, to
debate, to criticism, to the clash of opinions and convictions." Personally,
I look forward to the debate.4
John M. Gerber
Professor of Plant Sciences
January, 1997
Notes:
1.
Thanks to Richard Sclove, Director of the Loka Institute in Amherst,
Massachusetts for sharing the term, "communiversity" and his
thinking on the "Dutch Science Shops." To learn more from Sclove, see
web page: http://www.amherst.edu/~loka/.
2.
The section on technology was influence by an article by Dr. Eli Noam, Director
of the Institute for Tele- Information at Columbia University, titled "Electronics
and A Dim Future of the University" published in Science Vol. 270; pp.
247-9; October 13, 1995.
3.
This idea is described by S. Evans and H. Boyte in their book, Free Spaces,
1986.
4. Additional related articles may be found by Gerber at the following web address: http://www.umass.edu/umext/jgerber/articles.htm. For an article on the history of universities prior to the land grants, see… Universities: Before the Land Grants.