The Author Wishes to Express His Appreciation to His Chief Adviser, Professor Robert B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACKNOvlL.EIkMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to his chief adviser, Professor Robert B. Sutton, and to his wife, whos~ patience is exceeded only by her understanding. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS AC}(l\J'O'VJI..Effi1ENTS ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 VITA '~ 111 LIST OF TABLES. ................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES....... .....................................• . .. Vll Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDy . 1 Nature of the Study M~thod Summary of the Study BACKGROUND .. 12 Federal Activity Prior to the Great Depression The Great Depression Construction and Maintenance on College Campuses The Educational Programs of the Federal Relief Agencies . Summary III. THE COLLEGE STUDENT AID PR03AA"1 OF THE FEDEI~AL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION . 39 The Minnesota Program The Establishment of the College Student Aid Program 'l'he 1934-35 College Student Aid Program Selection of Students Quotas and Expenditures Projects Conclusion IV. THE COlLEGE S1UDENT AID PR03RPM OF THE NATIONAL YOUTtI AIMINISTRATION . 85 The Establishment of the National Youth Administration National and State Administration of the College Student Aid Program iv LIST OF TABLES . Table Page 1 Work Performed and Amounts Earned by F.E.R.A. Students at The Ohio State University, February through June, 1934 " ". .. .. .. .. 53 2 Earnings of F.E.R.A. College Students and Nunber flnployed, 1934-35 .....•.........•.....•.....•..•......• 63 3 Largest State Quotas, F.E.R.A. College Student Aid, November, 19 3L} •••••••••••••••••• •' •••••••••••••••••••••• 64 4 Nunber flnployed, Hours Worked, and Earnings, F.E.R.A. Students at The Ohio State University, 1934-35 . 65 5 F .E.R.A. Project Assignments, The Ohio State ·University, Spr~ng a~d Fall Quarters, 1934 . 76 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 National Administrative Organization of the N.y.A 93 2 State N.Y.A. Organizational structure . 97 vii CHAPTER I INIROroCTION TO THE STUDY Nature of the Study The Great Depression was a period of contrasts. Hardship and despair existed alongside the vital enthusiasm of social experimenta tion. The dynamics of federal activity during the 1930's affected virtually every area of PmericaTl life, including higher education. Not since the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862 had the federal goverrunent taken such an active role in the financial support of colleges and universities. Millions of dollars were spent for renovation and con struction of physical facilities &'1d for aid to students. Colleges and universities became involved, as never before, in the administration of public programs. The relationship between . government and higher education became so close in many respects that an investigative committee of the American Association of University Professors complained in 1937 about the "assumption that a department of the government has a right to utilize for its immediate ends the machinery centered at and identified with an educational institution. ,,1 41alcolm 11. Willey, Depression, Recoverry, and Higher Education: A Report !?y Committee 'i. 9f the. Pmerican AssociatiOn of University ~_ fessors (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1937), p. 375. 1 2 During this period the movement toward federal support at all levels of education gathered momentum. It was argued that the federal government should serve as an equalizing agency to correct the educa tional problems caused by inequitable distribution of the nation's wealth. The financial position of the colleges and universities dur ing the depths of the Depression is graphically illustrated by the figures for capital outlay expenditures in 1934 which show a decrease of nearly 70 per cent from the expenditures in 1932. 2 College enroll ments during the same two-year period declined 10 per cent. 3 Decreasing student enrollments were one reflection of the problems which youth in general experienced during the Depression. In May, 1935 the five million youth under age 25 who were unemployed and out of school constituted approximately one-half of the total unemployed in the United States. 4 Jobless and without the financial resources to continue in school, these youth lacked both the experience and training necessary to canpete in an overcrowded labor market. Youth's disillusionment 2The Council of State Governments, Higher Education in the Forty-Eight Stat~~: !::.. Report to the Governors' Conference(Chicago: The Council of State Governments, 1952), p. 79. 3u. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Commission, Final Report of the National Youth Administration: Fiscal Years 1936-1943 (Washingto~D-. C.: Government Printing Office, 1944), p. 46. 4G.W.R., Student Dnployment, 1936--1938, M-3-8-6 (Columbus, Ohio: The O:b.io State University Archives) . 3 with American society was a subject of considerable concern to numerous national leaders. Charles W. Taussig, Chairman of the National Advisory Committee of the National Youth Administration, contended that "unless - we can give them the opportunities which they de'lland, they will seek a way for themselves that may endanger the very fundamentals of our liberties."S This study centers around one aspect of the federal govern~ ment's response to the needs of youth--the college student aid programs of the Federal Dnergency Relief Administration and the National Youth Administration. Part-time work for college students, instituted pri rnarily as a relief measure, quickly acquired educational significance. It established unparalleled precedents in the area of federal aid to higher education. Method In this study college student aid under the F.E.R.A. and the N.Y.A. is investigated with a view tCNJard: (l) the reasons for the establishment of the program, (2) the administration of the aid, (3) its effect upon higher education, and (4) the precedents estab lished. For purposes of illustration, special reference is -made to The Ohio State University as a participant in both programs. The college student aid programs at The Ohio State University were among 5Betty and Ernest K. Lindley, A New Deal for Youth: The Story of the National YOUt~l Administration (New York:---The Viking Press, 19-3~ p. viii. --- --_. 4 the largest in the nation. The experience of the university in adminis tering the programs was typical of that of many colleges and universi ties. The major issues which resulted from the scrutiny of educa tors and laymen are discussed. Generally speaking the controversies which developed concerned administrative matters. The need for financial aid to college students was wide1y accepted, but a number of problems arose in the implementation of the programs. For example, the Office of Education questioned the advisa bility of creating a separate bureaucracy on the national, state, and local levels for administration of the N.Y.A. program. The Office of Education was joined by many leading educators in charging that estab lished educational agencies had been by-passed in the formation of a hierarchy which "savors too strongly of an organization for political purposes, whose real public functions could be conveniently perfonned by existing educational administrative agencies."S The literature of the period reflects increasing concern with the danger of federal control and political interference. College officials experienced numerous problems in the administration of the federal student work programs. The uncertainty of funds from year to year made effective planning difficult. The money allotted, they contended, was not adequate for the needs of the ~. M. Chambers, "National Governmental Agencies and the Youth Problem," School and Society, Vol. 43, No. 1097 (January 4, 1935), p. 2. ----~_.- 5 college student population. For example, the special N. Y.A. fund for Negro undergraduate and graduate students was, according to one college official, ''more a matter of ballyhoo and publicity than one of any substantial intention."7 Some college and university administrators als.o complained that inclusion of private, high-tuition institutions in the F.E.R.A. and N.Y.A. program siphoned funds which might have . been more effectively utilized in public institutions where, suppo sedly, the needs of the students were greater. The whole system of fund allocations was thought to be insufficiently flexible to meet the varying financial problems of the states. Each college and university was responsible for choosing and supervising student workers and for selecting the work projects on which students would be employed. As the program developed, adminis t:rative problems arose in a number of areas. The institutions f01.md it difficult to ascertain which projects were acceptable by federal stand ards. Certain restrictions, such as those relating to student quotas, wages and hours, were found to be unsatisfactory in sane institutions. Many college officials felt that federal regulations relating to student eligibility were vague and unrealistic. The state N. Y.A. administrators were of little assistance in resolving these problems, according to some institutions, because the relationships between the state N.Y.A. offices and the colleges were never fully defined. 7J . L. Morrill to William McPherson, October 31, 1938, M-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 6 The value of the F.E.R.A. and N.Y.A. work projects was debated at great lengths. The effectiveness of the supervision and the educa tional and financial benefits of the projects were analyzed in sane detail by the participating