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 institutions and various observers.

In gathering material on the establishment, administration and implications of the programs, it quickly became obvious that recent works on the subject of federal aid to higher education provide some informa.tion on federal activities during the Great Depression but do not deal in any detail with the federal student aid programs during the period. During this investigation, therefore, it Has necessary to rely almost exclusively on contemporary materials.

The periodicals of the era and the New York Times were utilized as were studies by contemporary observers. The lat-ter included investigations by individuals who were involved in the administration of the programs on the national, state, and college levels or who prepared reports on various aspects of the program within particular institutions or states. A number of educational associations, advisory committees, and investigatory corrmissions also contributed to the literature on the topic. Publications by government relief agencies,

Congressional corrmittee hearings and the Congressional Record yielded useful information.

The scope and specificity of the above materials was somewhat limited, however, and the records of the National Archives and The

Ohio State University Archives provided valuable supplementary infonna­ tion. The materials in The Ohio State University Archives included 7 the .minutes of the executive corrnnittee which administered the federal student aid programs and correspondence and reports of key university figures in the programs. 'These records provided insights into the cornmon experiences of colleges and universi-ties which administered student work plans under the F.E. R.A. and the N. Y.A. Of particular importance were the general files, statistics, correspondence and reports in the records of the National Archives. 'These materials were essential to the study. 'The author also examined the papers of the chief administrator of the N. Y.A., Aubrey Williams, in the Franklin

Delano Roosevelt Memorial Library at Hyde Park, New York, but found that most of the material was irrelevant or duplicated the holdings of the National Archives.

S1.ID'HTI.arY of the Study

'The first portion of this study briefly traces the history of federal aid to higher education as a reflection of economic, social, and political changes in America. Certain important landmarks are noted, including the early public lands legislation, the Morrill Acts, the Hatch Act, and the Smith-Hughes Act. 'The burst of federal relief activity in higher education which produced the college student aid programs of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the

National Youth Administration also resulted in assistance to colleges and universities for the construction and repair of physical facilities.

'The activities of the Recons·truction Finance Corporation, the Works

Progress Administration, the Public Works Aetninistration, and other 8

agencies lTI this area are summarized.

The colleges also became involved in certain other federal

relief activities. These included cooperation with the educational

programs of the Civilia..T1 Conservation Corps, the Federal Emergency

Relief Adrrcinistration, and the Works Progress Administration, and

participation in research programs sponsored by the Civil Works

Administration, the Works Progress Administration, and the Office of

Education. The involvement of the colleges in the educational pro­

. grams of the relief agencies is reviewed; however, no attempt is

made to detail the many relief activities in which individual college

faculty members and administrative personnel served. The extent to

which faculty and staff members were called upon for assistance in

various federal relief programs was reflected in Dean Charles E.

Clark's musing about the probable necessity of moving Yale law School

to Washington. 8 The Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University

found it necessary to prohibit leaves of absence or extensions of 9 leaves "save in exceptional cases."

The study focuses on the development of work relief

programs for college students under the Federal Emergency Relief

8''Yale law Faculty Members in the Service of the Government," School and Society, Vol. 38, No. 981 (October 14, 1933), p. 511.

9James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: The Story of its First Seventy-Five Ye~ I873-1948 (Columbus, OhiO:­ The Ohio State University Press, 1952), p. 318. 9

Administration and later the National Youth Administration. 'This means of assistance was chosen rather than scholarships or loans. The Ohio

State University was among those institutions which unsuccessfully advocated a combination of scholarships, loans and work projects through an "Educational Conservation Corps.II10

LE.R.A. student work grants were restricted initially to an experimental program at the University of Minnesota during December, .

1933 and January, 1934. TIle program became nationwide in February,

1934. Between December, 1933 and June, 1935, students employed in the program earned nearly fifteen million dollars ,11 The high point of the F.E.R.A. program was reached in March, 1935 when 104,740 college men and wanen earned $1,378,264. 12 Approximately one-fourth of the students were engaged in clerical or office tasks, one-fourth were working on research or laboratory projects, and the remaining students were performing a variety of tasks including library, museum, and community welfare projects.13

10C. C. Stillman and J. L, Morrill to President George W. Rightmire, December 21, 1933, M-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives),

llU. S. Work Projects Administration, Final Statistical Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1942~. 65,

12Ibid.

13Ibid. 10

In Jt.me, 1935, F.E.R.A. college student aid was replaced by the program of the National Youth Adrrrinistration. The N. Y.A. provided work-relief to high school as well as college students. Between 1935 and 1943, over 600,000 undergraduate and graduate students earned approximately ninety-three million dollars. 14 Undergraduates earned an average wage of $12.00 per month and graduate students earned approximately $20.00 per month. IS In 1939-40, the median yearly income of the families of N.Y.A. college students was only $1,124; therefore, small as these monthly earnings may seem, they made it possible for many students to attend college. 16 Of the 1,700 17 eligible institutions, 1,466 participated in the N.Y.A. program.

Despite the controversy and adrrrinistrative problems which attended these programs, testimonials fran students and college officials affinned the value of the work projects . In general, the student workers were carefully selected. The work projects were efficiently administered and were of considerable benefit to the participating institutions and students. There was considerable

14Richard G. Axt, The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education (New York: Coll..UIlbia University Pres~19S2), p. 80.

15Ibid.

16Ibid. , p. 81­

17Ibid. , p. 80. 11 sentiment among colleges and universities for the establishment of a federal student aid program on a permanent basis. Wartime needs took precedence, however, and after the Second World War federal aid to college students was confined to veterans' assistance until 1958. The passage of the National Defense Education Act in that year signified the return of the federal government to a policy of aiding needy college students. The extent to which that policy has been amplified in recent years is sUJYllIlar'ized ~ this study.

If it is true that knowledge of the past is useful in under­ standing the present, the significance of this study lies in its clarification of the Depression antecedents of more recent federal aid to college students. To the best of the writer's knowledge, the story of this period of innovation in federal aid to higher education has never been fully chronicled. CHAPIER II

BACKGROUND

Federal Activity Prior to the Great Depression

In a message to Congress in 1806, Thomas Jefferson placed education "among the articles of public care. ,,1 His acclamation re­ affinned the public interest in education. That interest had already becane evident in the early public lands legislation of Congress during the 1780' s and in the enabling legislation which led to the admission of Ohio to the Union in 1803.

Higher education in particular, from the earliest days of the nation, has benefited fran the almost mystical faith of the public in its contribution to an enlightened citizenry. The con­ tinuous trend in federal policy toward the democratization and expan­ sion of higher education during the past two hundred years lS a 2 reflection of this faith.

Prior to the Great Depression, federal concern with higher education was manifested on a number of·ocCasions. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 fostered the development of institutions for -the

IHaner D. Babbidge, Jr. and Robert M. Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Bcx::>k Co., Inc., 1962), p.li-:--­

2 Ibl·d ., p. Vll •

12 13 teaching ofagriculture and the mechanic arts. Those institutions grew into the comprehensive land-grant colleges and universities of the modern era. The Hatch Act of 1887 and supplementary legislation in the Adams Act of 1906, the Purnell Act of 1925, and the Bankhead-Jones

Act of 1935 established a network of agricultural experiment stations which functioned in conjunction with the land-grant institutions. The hOlle-demonstration activities, which were administered by the land-grant colleges under the terms of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and the teacher-training programs in vocational andagricultural education which began under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 were additional indications of the growing federal involvement in higher education. The federal interest until 1933, however, centered around aid to institutions rather than assistance to students. The shock of the Great Depression finally forced recognition of the financial needs of college students.

The Great Depression

Even before the D2pression the financial assistance available to students in colleges and universities was inadequate. 3 By February,

1930, the effects of the stock market crash during the preceding

October were reflected in the increased munber of students seeking assistance for the second semester fran college loan fllilds which were insufficient even during normal times. In the fall of 1930, the munber

3Palmer O. Johnson and Oswald L. Harvey, The National Youth Admin­ istration (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 5. 14 of applications fran students for financial help rose even more sharply. 4

The colleges and universities attempted to assist students through employment, loans, and scholarships and, when these funds were exhausted, many institutions began to defer fees. The econoJ11ic impossibility of deferring fees for any lengthy period of time quickly became obvious. In September, 1932, J. L. Morrill, Vice-President of

The Ohio State University, offered a personal loan to a needy applica't'lt in lieu of a fee defennent which, he regretfully stated, was no longer possible since "so many deferred fees last year were not paid that most distressing difficulties resulted . ,,4 Investigators found that, not only were many youth unable to enter college, but there was a sizable group of needy students who, rather than leave college, con­ tinued to attend on "a standard of living that was a menace to their health. ,,6

It is likely that many youth who could not find employment entered college during the early years of the Depression. As noted previously, however, the enrollment in institutions of higher education

4Dorothy Woolf, "Loans to Students on Business Basis," New York Times, October 5, 1930, Section III, p. 7.

5r1ary Cisler to J. L. Morrill, September 26, 1932, Morrill to Cisler, September 27, 1932, AA-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

6John H. McNeely, "Aid for the Toiling College Student," New York Times, July 29, 1934,Section VIII, p. 4. ----­ 15 suffered a decrease of 10 per cent between 1932 and 1934. The econOffilC effect of declining enrolJments was illustrated by the annual report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1938. The foundation condenmed the "fierce competition among colleges for tuition-paying students ....,,7 Declining enrolJments, however, were but one aspect of the financial problems encountered by colleges and universities during the Depression.

The Depression dilemma which the nation's colleges and universities faced ~7as succinctly summarized in 1934 by lotus D.

Coffinan, President of the University of Minnesota: 8

If ever there is need of maintaining univer­ sities as nearly at full strength as possible, surely that need is great in such a crisis as we are passing through. It seems clear that the future welfare of the human race will not be achieved by seeking cheap substitutes for brains, nor by curtailing the creative powers of talented persons.

Public colleges and universities in particular were confronted with a national mood which demanded retrenchment in tax-supported institutions of higher education and, at the same time, urged these institutions to expand their services. 9 George W. Rightmire, President of The Ohio

7" 'Unfair Recruiting' In Colleges Scored," New York Times, February 7, 1938, p. 1.

8lotus D. Coffman, Youth and Tomorrow's Education: President Coffman's Biennial Message to the People of Minnesota (Mirmeapolis: University of Minnesota, 1934), pp. 4-5 .

~alcoJm 1'1. Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education: ~ Report ~ Corrunittee r o~ the American Association of University Professors (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1937), p. 8. 16

State University, pointed out in 1934 that "the econcmic stringency has stripped the University academic and non-academic staff to a bare mini­ mum, . . . . [but] people do not expect less of the University under these conditions; indeed the urge to expand University activities into new fields is constantly being pressed ....,,10

In 1931, the biennial appropriation for The Ohio State Univer­ sity was $1,102,320 less than the previous appropriation. ll For the first time in a m.rrnber of years, there was no allocation in the appro­ priation for construction.12 By 1932, the impact of the Depression on the incane of colleges and universities was unmistakable, especially in tax-supported institutions, most of which lacked the reserve funds of some private institutions. During the next two years college expenditures for construction, land, a.."'1d purchases and repairs of buildings and new equipment declined nearly 70 per cent .13 Colleges and universities continued to feel the effects of the Depression throughout the 1930's. The Ohio State University, for example, pOLnted out to the state legislature in 1939 that, with the exception of grants

10James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: The Story of its First Seventy-Five YearS;-1873=t948 (Columbus, Ohio-:-The ohio State University Press, 1952), p. 316.

llIbid., p. 299.

12Ibid., p. 301­

13The Council of State Governments, Higher Education in the Forty-Eight States: A Report to the Governors I Conference(Chicago: The Council of State Governments, 1952), p. 79. 17 forrnaterials for relatively minor W.P.A. projects, it had not received an allocation for new buildings for ten years.14

Throughout the 1930's, all institutions of higher education confronted the question of how to econanize without sacrificing essential servlces. The self-examination which ensued was beneficial. In 1934, however, President Rightmire was not unique in maintaining that the

Depression had forced reductions in the teaching staff, administrative personnel and other vital areas at The Ohio State University to such an extent that "corrmendable efficiency cannot long be maintained under these circ1..llTIstances ....,,15

In 1931, the National Advisory Corrmit"i:ee on Education had recorrmended a comprehensive federal policy in education, including

"federal aid to the states for education in general ....,,16 Early in the 1930'S, colleges and universities began to manifest a willingness to seek federal assistance. Franklin D21ano Roosevelt's accession to the White House in 1933 brought a marked change in the attitude of the federal government toward the problems of the Great Depression. The new experiment, symbolized by the multitudinous initials of the New Deal

14"Requested legislative Appropriations for The Ohio State Univer­ sity," School and Society, Vol. 49, No. 1255 (January 14, 1939), p. 44.

15pollard, History of The Ohio State University, p. 316.

16Charles A. Quattlebaum, "Federal Policies and Practices and Higher Education," Chapter II of The Federal Government and Higher Education, ed. by Douglas M. Knight (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), p. 54. 18 agencies for relief and recovery, touched nearly all aspects of national life during the 1930's, including higher education. Federal aid to higher education during the Depression was an outgrowth of the relief programs and, as such, was incidental to the major purpose of the programs. The benefits to colleges and universities, however, were considerable. Initially those benefits were confined to federal assistance for the construction and maintenance of physical facilities.

Construction and Maintenance on College-Campuses

By 1932, the inability of the states and municipalities to handle the relief needs of the unemployed was obvious. Pressure developed for federal relief and a federal program for construction of public works,but President Hoover did not favor extensive federal intervention in the economic crisis. 17

The creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932 was the only major relief activity of Congress during the Hoover admin­ istration. The R.F. C. was established to aid corporations and agricul­ tural credit associations. The agency's scope was broadened sorrewhat by the Dnergency Relief and Construction Act of July 21, 1932. Under the tenns of the Act, the R.F.C. was authorized to loan three hundred million dollars to states and cities for relief at an i.~terest rate

17Henry J. Bittennan, State and Federal Grants-in-Aid (New York: Mentzer, Bush and Co., 1938), pp.~2-293. 19 of 3 per cent. 18

The loans were not designed to be a federal relief program.

The purpose of R.F.C. lending was simply to assist state and rnunici­ palities which had exhausted their relief funds .19 'The loans made it possible for' state and local governments to expand their relief work during the winter of 1932-33. By March, 1933, however, the R.F.C~ funds were depleted. 20

Same assistance to colleges and t.miversities had resulted from the R.F.C. loan program. 'The aid Has limited to tax-supported institutions for self-liquidating projects, primarily residence halls.

R.F.C. loans, in fp.ct, constituted virtually the only means of financing residence hall constl~ction in ~~y colleges and univer­ sities in 1932 and 1933 when private financing became increasingly difficult. 21

D:mnitory construction tmder the R. F.C. gave rise to some of the first problems in the relationship between colleges and the relief programs. A residence hall project at the University of Colorado brought forth a complaint to the R.F .C. fran Governor Johnson. Johnson

18u. S. Work Projects Administration, Final Statistical Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (Washington, D. C.: Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1942), p. 3.

19Bitterman, State and Federal, p. 294. 2au. S. Work Projects Administration, p. 3. 21Alex L. Trout, "Reconstruction Finance Corporation Funds for Self-Financing Dormitories," Journal of Horne Economics, Vol. 25, No. 3 (March, 1933), p. 201. --­ 20 spoke on behalf of 1,500 property owners in Boulder who feared a loss of income previously earned by housing students. At the State Univer­ sity of Louisiana, a firm of contractors instigated an injunction against the university's atte~pt to borrow R.F.C. funds for residence halls. The firm maintained that $300,000 in the university's notes which it held would be jeopardized if the university inc1..lYT€d addi­ tional debts. 22

The issue of whether or not private institutions should be granted federal assistance was also raised. In Congress an unsuccessful effort was made to extend R.F.C. borrowing privileges for self­ liquidating projects to private colleges and universities. 23 Public institutions remained sensitive to the issue, as reflected in the

National Association of State Universities' opposition to R.F.C. loans for private institutions. 24

The R.F.C. loans were only a prelude to the large-scale relief activities of the New Deal. Shortly after Roosevelt's inaugu­ ration as President, the relief program of the federal government began

22"The R.F.C. Dormitory," The Architectural Forum, Vol. 58, No.4 (April 1933), p. 331. --­

23"Loans for the Schools From the Reconstruction Finance Corpo­ ration," School and Society, Vol. 37, No. 946 (February 11,1933), p. 184. --­

24A. H. Upham, ed., Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities (l933'J'"; pp. 25-28. --­ 21 in earnest. Tne Federal Emergency Relief Administration was created under the Emergency Relief Act of May, 1933. Five hundred million dollars in relief funds were allocated to and administered by the states. Initially a large portion of the funds was used for direct relief; then the concept of work relief began to be increasingly errphasized.

The efforts of the federal government to rehabilitate and preserve the skills of the unemployed through work relief resulted in the establishment of the Civil Works Administration by an Executive

Order of the President on November 9, 1933. 25 Eight hundred and fifty million dollars were made available to the new agency which, though virtually a part of the F.E.R.A. administrative machinery, limited its program entirely to work relief. 26

C.W.A. projects emphasized work which would provide imnediate employment for the jobless. During the winter of 1933-34, C.W.A. workers repaired and constructed highways, parks, and public buildings.

Approximately $19,500,000 v.7as spent for school construction. 27 When the Civil Works Administration was terminated in March, 1934, its functions were absorbed into the Federal Emergency Relief Administration

25U. S. Work Projects Administration, p. 8.

26Bitterman, State and Federal, p. 31l.

27Charles A. Quattlebaum, Federal Aid to School Construction (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1954), p. 14. 22 which, in the prucess, expanded its work relief prugram. In 1935, the

F .E.R.A. reported that it had "impruved and repaired one-eighth of the entire school plant of the U. S. ,,28

Public colleges and universities as well as elementary and secondary schools had benefited fran the C.W.A. and F.E.R.A. prujects.

Relief workers at The Ohio State University cleaned, painted, and repaired buildings, constructed sidewalks, roads, and sewers and were involved in a variety of other tasks. Relief funds were pruvided for the enlargement of two residence halls. Many of these prujects could not have been carried out without federal assistance. 29

The success of the C.W.A. and F.E.R.A. prugrams led to further innovations in federal relief. The scope of the construction prugrams affecting college campuses was enlarged considerably by the

Public Works Administration which was established in the summer of 1933 with purposes different fran those of the F .E.R.A. and the C.W.A.

Instead of providing irrrrnediate employment, the Public Works Administra­ tion was designed to stimulate heavy industry and create public works of permanent value. These projects required more lengthy planning than was necessary in the F.E.R.A. and C.W.A. programs. The approach

28U. S. Federal Dnergency Relief Administration, Work Division, The Emergency Work Relief Program of the F .E.R.A., April 1, 1934-July 1, 1935 (Washington, D. C.: Govenurent Printing Office, 1935) ,~3-2-.--

29Pollard, History of The Ohio State University, pp. 315, 318; Federal Expenditures to July 1,~34, C.W.A. Projects Now Underway at University, December, 1933, AA-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 23 of the P.W.A. was also different. Instead of direct allocations to the states, the P.W.A. entered into contracts with private companies and joint arTangements with states and municipalities.

Grants were pYDvided to federal departments, grants and loans to states and cities and loans to private companies. Initially the federal portion of P.W.A. pYDjects 1n states and municipalities was limited to 30 per cent of the cost of labor and materials. Under the Dnergency Relief- Act of 1935, the federal maximum was increased to 45 per cent. 30

Public colleges and universities were eligible for P.W.A. funds. The construction pYDjects which the public institutions were able to undertake, particularly during 1933, 1934, and 1935, were rrade possible in large measure by the P.W.A . Capital outlay in the private institutions came to a virtual halt. 31 The contYDversy con­ cerning federal aid to private colleges and universities, which began with the R.F.C. loan pYDgram, continued to gYDw.

In response to pressL~ from private colleges and univer­ sities, the P.W.A. changed its definition of "public" institutions in

1935. A public institution was defined as "one which 1S contYDlled either by the public, or by a private corporation, . • . so long as

30Alice M. Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education (Washington~C::---rr'he BYDokings InstituITon, 1961;;­ p. 99. .

31willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 198. 24 that private corporation is not a church.,,32 Since church-controlled colleges were still not eligible for assistance, this definition represented only a partial response to the desire of private insti­ tutions for federal aid. The college construction programs of the federal government were guided primarily by political rather than educational considerations throughout the Depression. As Babbidge and

Rosenzweig suggested, the federal government chose not to meet the needs of a large segment of higher education by conforming its involve­ ment "to the contours of anticipatable hostilities. ,,33

Those institutions of higher education which were eligible to receive P.W.A. funds profited in large measure from the numerous projects which were undertaken. Particularly in the early stages of the program, when the maximum federal contribution was only 30 per cent, colleges and universities were often more able to meet federal req1.11re­ ments for matching funds than were elementary and secondary schools.

The seventy-thirty arrangement, however, was not satisfactory to many institutions. 34 The increase in the federal share of project expenses

32Fred J. Kelly, "Activities of the Division of Higher Education, U. S. Office of Education," in Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities, ed. by A. 'H. Upham (1935), p. 216. ­

33Babbidge and Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest, p. 17.

34George F. Zook, "Education Opportunities in the Federal Program," in Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities~ed:l)yA. H. Upham(1934), pp. 218-219. - --­ 25 to 45 per cent in 1935 provided additional relief.

By 1940, the Public Works Administration had given impetus to school construction valued at nearly one billion dollars. 35 In March,

1939, the P.W.A. reported 662 building projects on college campuses with a cost of nearly two hundred million dollars. More than one-half of the funds had been supplied by the P.W.A. 36 Projects at colleges and universities included libraries, classroom buildings, laboratories, residence halls and many other additions to physical plants. At The

Ohio State University, the construction of two residence facilities,

Baker Hall and an addition to Mack Hall, was made possible with P.W.A. funds. 37

Supplementing the Public Works Administration were additional funds made available by Congress in 1935 for the Works Progress Admin­ istration. The passage of the Dnergency Relief Act in May, 1935 marked a change in attitude on the part of President Roosevelt toward the relief policies of the federal government. Under the Federal Dnergency

Relief Administration, direct relief as well as work relief had been provided. The projects of the Public Works Administration provided employment but jobs were not restricted to the needy unemployed. ...

35Hollis P. Allen, The Federal Government and Education: Tne Original and Complete St:UdY of Education for the Hoover CommissIOn Task Force on Public Welfare(New York: HcGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950), p. 99:""

36Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government.

37pollard, History of The Ohio §tate University, p. 343. 26

The Works Progress Administration (renamed the Work Projects

Administration in July, 1939) was established under the new relief act

to consolidate all federal relief activities other than the Public

Works Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Mter the

liquidation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in 1936,

direct relief to unemployable persons became the responsibility of the

state and rrnmicipal governments. The W.P.A. assumed sponsorship of a program of relief for needy, unemployed individuals which, unlike the

P.W.A. programs, employed non-relief workers only on projects which

required particular qualifications not possessed by relief workers.

The W.P.A. also differed fran the P.W.A., C.W.A., and F .E.R.A. in

that federal authorities played a much more direct role in the admin­

istration of the program.

Over a peT>iod of eight years W. P.A. funds were used for the

construction of more than 5,900 school buildings and improvement of

33,000 others at a cost of approximately four hundred sixty--six million

dollars: The W. P .A. furnished about 71 per cent of the funds used. 38

As a general rule the schools supplied the materials for projects and the W.P.A. provided the workers. Most school repair and construction under the W. P.A. was on the elementary and secondary levels; however, a number> of tax-supported colleges and universities also undertook projects. W.P.A. financing enabled The Ohio State University to build

38Quattlebaum, Federal Aid to School Construction, p. 14. 27 an addition to the University Hospital. 39 In 1940, the university reported $2,780,000 in W.P.A. construction;40

. The Educational Programs of the -- Federal Relief Agencies -­

Projects for the construction and repair of campus buildings were not the only link between institutions of higher education and the federal relief agencies . Thousands of white collar workers were employed on college campuses to provide professional and clerical assistance. More than $500,000 had been expended by the W.P.A. for this purpose at The Ohio State University by January, ~940.41 Colleges and universities also became involved, directly and indirectly, in the educational programs which were developed under the aegis of the relief agencies. One of the first relief agencies to promate an educational program was established in April, 1933.

In the second month of President Roosevelt's first term, on

April 5, 1933, the President created the Emergency Conservation Work

Administration to administer a Civilian Conservation Corps. Subsistence and employment were provided for young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five in a program of conservation and forestry on public lands. Various educational projects were also created in conjunction

39pollard, History of The Ohio State University, p. 326.

40Carl E. Steeb to President Bevis, March 21, 1940, M-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

41Ibid. 28 with the work progra.JllS in the camps.

The War Department was assigned the major responsibility for overseeing the work camps. Army officers were withdrawn from a number of R.O.T.C. units on college campuses to help organize the program.

College officials expressed some concern about the future of their

R. O. T. C. units and were relieved when the officers were returned to the campuses at the beginning of the 1933 school year. 42

Severel other agencies also had roles in the C.C.C. progrems.

The Department of Labor and state relief administrations were involved in the selection of men. Work projects were selected by the Department of Agriculture and'the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior, through the Office of Education, served in an advisory capacity in the developnent of an educational program in the C.C.C. camps.

Education was not the primary purpose of the C. C. C.; none­ theless, the C.C.C. work camps became educational institutions. In

May, 1933, shortly after the camps opened, the War Department issued an order authorizing an educational program which was to be supple­ mentary to the regular work assignments of the men in the camps. l.j·3

On November 22, 1933, the Emergency Conservation Work Administration

42"Report of the Corrrrnittee on Military Mfairs," in Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universlties, ed. by A. H. Upham TI"933) , p. 16. ­

43Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 400. 29 issued a general policy statement concerning the purposes and adminis­ tration of the C. C. C. educational program. 4-4- The War Department would continue to direct the program with the assistance of the Office of

Education. The general purpose of the instruction would be to return

"to the normal work-a-day world . . . citizens better equipped mentally and morally for their duties . . and with a better knowledge of the Governmerit under which they live . " The Office of Education would act "in an advisory capacity" in the administration of the educational programs. I t was charged with the responsibility for the "selection and appointment of camp educational advisors " and with recorrmenc'ling to the Secretary of War "the outlines of instruction, teaching procedures, and tyPes of teaching materials for use in the camps." The War D2.partrrent, through the corps area and camp corrmanders, would retain final authority in the educational program.

After the assignment of the first educational advisors to the camps in February, 1934-, the instructional programs expanded rapidly. By October, 1934-, there were 10,578 persons giving instruction in the camps. The number of instructors had tripled by June, 1936.4-5

4-4-U. S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Office of Education, A Hand­ book for the Educational Advisers in the Civilian Conservation-Corps (Washington, D. C.: Government PrintiJl.g Office, 1934-), pp.l-4-.

4-5Willey, Depres.sion, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 4-03. 30

The educational program of the Civilian Conservation Corps stressed a pragmatic, individualistic approach to the interests of the enrollees. Generally examinations and credit were not given. The value of the courses offered depended upon the relationship between teachers and students and the extent to which the enrollees could fit the courses within their framework of interest.

The emphasis in the program was on vocational courses. The number of college level courses grew very slowly. In March, 1936, there were 194,363 students in C.C.C. courses but only 3.8 per cent were enrolled in college level classes in the camps.46

Richard Axt has stated that "there were no direct relations with institutions of higher education" in the C.C.C. educational program. 47 Quite to the contrary, and despite the miniscule mrrnber of college level courses in the camps, colleges and universities were heavily involved in the program. A mrrnber of institutions offered courses to C. C. C. men on their campuses. Kansas State Teachers College, for example, enrolled 150 men in such vocational courses as welding, blacksmithing, auto mechanics and electrical repair. 48 Colleges and

46Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 405.

47Richard Axt, The Federal Government and Financing Higher Educa­ tion (New York: Cohrrnbia University Press, 1952), p. 79.

48Howard W. Oxley, "Cooperation With the C.C.C. ," School Life, Vol. 21, No.2 (October 1935), p. 38. 31

universities provided extension classes, library facilities, student

and faculty instructors, speakers and discussion leaders with a will­ 49 ingness that was applauded by C.C.C. officials. Correspondence

courses, both credit and noncredit and often at reduced rates, were made available to C.C.C. men. 50

A number of colleges and universities also provided

financial assistance to C.C.C. enrollees. At The Ohio State University,

for example, C.C.C. students were given preference in the H.Y.A. student

aid program and in low-cost housing. 51

In addition, the colleges and universities helped secure

educational personnel for the camps. Training programs in the fom

of conferences and courses for educational advisers and instructors were offered on a number of campuses. 52

Some difficulties arose in the relationship between

institutions of higher education and the Civilian Conservation Corps.

49Howard W. Oxley, "Colleges and C.C.C. Camp Education," School Life, Vol. 22, No.4 (December 1936), pp. 106, 120.

50Ibid., p. 120; "Correspondence Courses for the C.C.C. Camps," School and Society, Vol. l~5, No. 1162 (April 3,1937), p. 163.

5lv. L. Morrill to Howard W. Oxley, July 19, 1938, M-13-5-13 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

52Frank M. Debatin, Administration of Adult Education (New York: American BcDk Co., 1938), p. 417; HowardW. Oxley, IITrammg the Camp Adviser," School Life, Vol. 21, No.8 (April 1936), p. 208. 32

Transfer of credi"ts from camp courses presented a problem for sorre

academic institutions. 53 Though correspondence study was extremely

popular in the C. C. C. camps, the correspondence coursework of many

colleges and universities was not suitable for the less academic needs

ofC.C.C. men. 54

A major problem was exemplified in a resolution passed by

the American Association of University Professors in 1934. The resolu­

tion attacked Robert Feclmer, Director of the C. C. C., for banning the

book Men and Machines fran the camps. The book dealt with the relation­

ship between craftsmanship and mechanization. 55

There was widespread feeling among college officials that

effective development of education in the C.C.C. could come about

only if the program was placed under the direct control of the Office

of Education. The most bitter observations on the program were

reflected in a statement by Mervin G. Neale, President of the University

of Idaho: "I canIt think of anything that seems to me more of a dis­

. grace than the failure of the Government to realize the educational

possibilities of this situation."56 Neale and other college

53Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 406.

54william P. Tucker, "C.C.C. Library Work," School and Society, Vol. 43, No. 1097 (J~~uary 4, 1936), p. 20.

55"The C.C.C. Camps and the American Association of University Professors, rr School and Society, Vol. 40, No. 1041 (December 8, 1934), p. 767. --­

56A. H. Upham, ed., Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of .?tate Universities (1934) , p. 79. 33 authorities criticized the federal goverr@ent for slowness in develop- i.T1g the educational program, for not inviting greater participation by colleges and universities and for failing to provide the means by which qualified C.C.C. men could enroll in college. 57 The general success of the C.C.C. education program, however, was evident in considerable discussion during the period concerning whether or not higher education ought to emulate the atte.r:tpts of the C. C. C. to provide education for everyday living. The American Association of University Professors sumnarized the issue as follows: 58

The problem is not whether CCC enrollees should be given education along lines followed in the conventional elementary college class; but rather whether many yOWlg people now in conventional college classes would not profit more fran an education along the lines followed by the CCC. .

Equally successful were the educational programs of the

Federal Dnergency Relief Administration which began with the extension of grants to the states for the employment of elementary and secondary teachers in August, 1933. The effect of the Depression on the public schools was severe, particularly in rural areas. By July 1, 1935,

57A. H. Upham, ed., Transactions and Proceedings, pp. 79-82; James C. West and Herman G. James to George W. Rightmire, July 26, 1934, M-3-4-15 (Cohn'Ilbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives); Herman G. James, "Further Adj ustments in Economic Condit:ions ," in Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities, ed. by A. H. Upham-(933), pp. 121-122. . ­

58Willey, Depression, Recovery, and H:iJ;her Education, p. 402. 34 approximately 63,000 teachers were employed as a result of the F.E.R.A. grants. 59

In September, 1933, the F.E.R.A. educational program was expanded to include nursery schools for children of the unemployed, adult education, vocational guidance, and rehabilitation. In July, 1935, the F.E.R.A. reported that 1,500,000 adults and 60,000 children had participated in the programs. 60 Recreation projects were also incorporated into the activities of the F.E.R.A.

Particularly in the trai_ning of teachers and supervisors for the programs and in other ways also, the F.E.R.A. projects often paralleled the functions of the formed institutions of higher education.

There was little cooperation, however, between the F.E.R.A. and the academic institutions, except in the student work programs. 61 There were exceptions of course, for example in certain California institutions and at the University of Wisconsin, where colleges and universities actively cooperated with the F.E.R.A. in developing courses

59U. S. Federal Dnergency Relief Administration, Work Division, The Dnergency Work Relief Program, p. 99.

60Ibid.

61Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 391; William B. Bizzel, "Adult Education in State Universities," in Trans­ actions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Univer­ sities, ed. by A. H. Upham (1934), p. 98; George F. Zook, "Junior Colleges and Adult Education," Junior College Journal, Vol. 4, No.6 (March 1934), p. 280. ------.­ 35

for the W1employed and teacher-training programs in adult education. 62

The stimulus of the F.E .R.A. educational programs caused many colleges

and W1iversities to examine their Ii2sponsibilities in the aIi2a of

adult education. 63

In 1935, the educational programs of the Works ProgIi2SS

Administration began to Ii2place those sponsoIi2d by the Federal

Emergency Relief Administration. The dissolution of the latter agency

and the inCIi2ased Ii21iance upon work Ii21ief and education W1der the

W. P.A. Ii2flected the federal government's growing acceptance of the

importance of providing mOIi2 than simple Ii21ief for the needs of the

W1employed. 64- The W.P.A. embarked upon a wide variety of educational

projects which ranged from leisUIi2-time education and Ii2cIi2ation to

literacy, naturalization, and vocational education. 65

Colleges and W1iversities provided facilities and sometimes

staff assistance for various adult education projects which weIi2

62Walter C. Eells, "Adult Education in California JW1ior Colleges," JW1ior College Journal, Vol. 5, No. 8 (May 1935), pp. 4-37­ 4-4-8; "Department of Teacher Training of the llnergency Education Pro­ gram," School and Society, Vol. 4-1, No. 1055 (March 16,1935), p. 360; . "The School for Workers in Industry at the University of Wisconsin," School and Society, Vol. 4-0, No. 1038 (November 17,1934-), pp. 653-654-.

63Zook, "JW1ior Colleges and Adult Education," p. 279.

64-DJak S. Campbell, FIi2derick H. Bair, and Oswald L. Harvey, Educational Activities of the Works ProgIi2SS Administration (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 6.

65Ibid., p. 28. 36

sponsored by the W.P.A. The formal links between the W.P.A. and

institutions of higher education, however,were restricted primarily

to the training of teachers and supervisors. In the training of recreation leaders, the limited experience of the colleges and univer­

sities proved to be a handicap. Some insti-tutions did provide train­

ing centers and instructors and the number of cooperating institutions

increased significantly as the recreation training program evolved. 66

Similarly a limited but increasing nwnber of colleges and universities provided training for nursery school teachers. 67 In the area of adult

education, very few institutions offered formal training for teachers

during the Depression years. 68

As was the case under the F.E-R.A., the expansion of federal activity l.Il education under the W.P.A. did not result in wide-scale

involvement of institutions of higher education. The participation by the academic institutions in the federal programs was generally

limited and infonnal. In another area of federal educational activity ,

66IX:>rothy 1. Cline, Training for Recreation under the W.P.A.: An Account of the In-Service Training-program, Division of~creation, October,1935--0ctober, 1937 (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1939), pp~, 49, 53. ----­

67U. S. Works Progress Administration, Division of Education Projects, Conferences for the Education of Teachers

68U. S. vJorks Pr-ogress Administration, Division of Education Projects, Conferences for the Education of Teachers, p. 2. 37 however, the relationship was somewhat closer.

'The problems of unemployed high school graduates with limited finances and unemployed teachers gave impetus to the development of emergency junior college centers in a number of states under the Federal

Emergency Relief Administration and the Works Progress Administration.

Unemployed teachers were hired a..."'1d facilities, often makeshift, were aCC{uired from the public schools and a variety of other sources.

In sane instances colleges or universities sponsored the emergency college centers to the extent of providing supervision and instructors and accepting credits earned by students who wished to transfer from the e~ergency centers. 69 In other cases the institutions cooperated in a less formal manner by preparing syllabi and examinations.

'The Emergency Junior Radio College at 'The Ohio State University was an outgrowth of this federal activity. 70

Some colleges, however, regarded the emergency college centers as unfair canpetition, particularly when the centers were established in areas already served by low-tuition institutions. 71 Academic

69Walter J. Greenleaf, "Dnergency Junior Colleges," J tLniOl-o College Journal, Vol. 5, No.8 (May 1935), pp. 429-431; H~ry P. Srruth~ The Emergency Collegiate Centers of Central New York (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University, 1937). ----­

70M-2-8-13 and M-13-3-16 (Columbus, Ohio: 'The Ohio State University Archives).

7lPhilip C. Nash, "'The Combination of Cormnunity Adult Education with the F.E.R.A. Emergency School Program," School and Society, Vol. 41, No. 1067 (June 8, 1935), p. 774. 38 institutions were sometimes reluctant to accept emergency college credits for both economic and educational reasons. The federal program did provide college-level work, however, to many individuals who later transferred to four-year institutions.

Surrmary

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to summarize the relationship between the federal relief agencies and institutions of higher education during the Great Depression. The work relief programs of the Federal Dnergency Relief Administration, the Civil Works Admin­ ist-ration, and the Works PrDgress Administration, while designed to serve relief purposes rather than meet the needs of higher education, did make possible a lm:ge amolmt of construction and maintenance on public campuses.

The relationship between institutions of higher education and the educational programs of the relief agencies was not well defined. Colleges and universities did participate in the programs but primarily in an informal manner. The emergency education programs of the F.E.R.A. and the W.P.A. evolved independently of the academic institutions for the most part. Tnere Here, however, many instances in which colleges or universities significantly assisted and guided the development of various educational programs. CHAPTER III

THE COLLEGE STUDENT AID PRCGRAM OF THE FEDERAL

EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION

The Minnesota Program

Thene was one nelief measure for which colleges and univer­

sities assumed primary administrative nesponsibility--college student

aid. On August 15, 1933, several months befone the inauguration of

the college student aid program of the Federal Emergency Relief

Administration, the New York Times reported that President Roosevelt was considering financial assistance for college students. The same

article l.ndicated that Robert M. Hutchins, President of the Univer­

sity of Chicago, was sponsoring a campaign for college student aid

"in the intenest of taking youths out of competition with married men

for jobs. ,,1 On August 23, 1933, the President of the University of

Minnesota, Lotus D. Coffman, suggested that a federal program of

scholarships, loans, or part-time work for needy college students would be an "investment in future leadership" and would assist the

colleges as well as the students. 2

INew York Times, August 15, 1933, p. 13.

2Lotus D. Coffman, "Education of Unemployed Youth," School and Society, Vol. 38, No. 981

39 40

Hutchins and Coffman thus sumnarized two points of view about the value of a college student aid program. Hutchins envisioned i i:: as part of the total federal relief program. Coffman justified it on educational grounds. 'Therefore, prior to the inception of the program, a basic difference in philosophies about federal student aid had already been established. Conflict between relief and educational motives would be present throughout the duration of the program.

A pilot project for college student aid was established in

Minnesota through a special allotment from the Federal Emergency

Relief Administration to the state relief authority on November 17,

1933. 3 'The original conception of the program had been outright grants to needy college students. Instead, the plan which finally evolved under Coffinan's leadership set up aid on a work-relief basis. 4

'The federal student aid program, which was endorsed by the

United States Office of Education, operated exclusively in Minnesota during December, 1933 and January, 1934. In January, 1934, approxi­ mately 1,000 college and university students in Minnesota were employed on work projects and earned an average monthly wage of $15.00 eac..""l.5

3Dorothy G. Johnson and Malcolm M. Willey, IIBackgrounds of College NYA Students, 11 School and Society, Vol. 50, No. 1286 (August 19, 1939), p. 252. --­

4Ibid., p. 253; State Relief Ccmrnission of Ohio News Bulletin, March, 1935, AA-13-1-13 (Columbus, Ohio: 'The Ohio State University Archives) .

5Johnson and Willey, IIBackgrounds of College NYA Students. 11 41

Students who participated in the program were required to demonstrate financial need but did not necessarily corne from families on relief. 6

The experimental project in Minnesota was successful. On

February 2, 1934, the Federal Dnergency Relief Administration announced the establishment of a nationwide program of aid to college students.

Under both the Federal Dnergency Relief Administra.tion and the National

Youth Administration, the college student aid program remained essen­ tially the same as the work relief plan developed in Minnesota. 7

The original F.E.R.A. program in Minnesota had aroused interest in other states. In Decernber~ 1933, approximately four weeks after the F.E.R.A. made the special allocation to the Minnesota

Dnergency Relief Administration, The Ohio State University asked

President Coffman for the details of the program. 8 The Ohio State

University attempted to secure the support of the State Relief

Commission of Ohio for a similar program of college student aid but without success. The decision was made to carry the university's request to Washington, D. C. for discussion with Harry L. Hopkins,

F.E.R.A. Administrator. 9

6rIalcolm M. Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher EduC'.ation: A Report by Cormnittee Y of the Pmerican AssociatIOn of University Professors-(New York: -McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1937), p. 376.

7Johnson and Willey, "Backgrounds of College NYA Students."

%eorge W. Righbnire to Lotus D. Coffman, December 11, 1933, AA-2-8-13 (Coll.ID1bus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

9J . L. Morrill to Malco1m M. Willey, December 16, 1933, AA-13-1-14 (Coll.ID1bus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 42

During the latter part of December, 1933, Vice-President

J. L. Morrill and Professor C. C. Stillman journeyed to Washington to lay several proposals before Hopkins. 10 The proposals reflected the thinking of not only The Ohio State University but that of a number of other institutions which had become interested in the Minnesota program.

Morrill and Stillman hoped to gain Hopkins' approval of a grant to The Ohio State University for student work projects like that made to the University of Minnesota. They also asked Hopkins to consider establishing a nationwide "Educational Conservation Corps" with a budget of approximately thirty million dollars, the funds to be allocated in the form of loans, grants, or part-time work to needy students in public institutions of higher education.

Stillman and Morrill also conferred with George F. Zook,

U. S. Commissioner of Education, and Fred J. Kelly, Specialist in

Higher Education on Dr. Zook' s staff. They found the Office of

Education quite receptive to the university' s proposals. The Office of Education, they further learned, had been pressing the Federal

Dnergency Relief Administration to act in the area of student aid for sane time. According to Zook and Kelly, the plan which President

Roosevelt had considered during the previous surrrrner had been deferred

10J. L. Morrill and C. C. Stillman to George W. Rightmire, December 21, 1933, M-13-1-14

Hopkins expressed interest in the university 's plan and indicated that he was considering proposing an allocation of fifty million dollars for a nationwide program of college student aid. Con­ gressional sanction would be necessary, Hopkins stated, and until that could be secured funds would not be available for work relief projects.

The University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin had also requested federal funds for student employment. Hopkins stated that the Minnesota project was inaugurated because of his "personal acquaint­ ance with and confidence in" President Coffman and the willingness of the state of Minnesota to provide supplementary funds. No projects 1.TI other states would be authorized until the results of the Mirmesota experiment could be ascertained. Hopkins did state that existing work relief funds might be used for college students if the projects met r.E.R.A. and C.W.A. regulations and if they were endorsed by the state relief corrnnission. Hopkins, however, refused to issue instructions to this effect to the State Relief Corrnnission of Ohio.

Upon their return to the university, Morrill and Stillman expressed to President Rightmire their belief that a nationwide college student aid program was in the offing. They concluded that, although each of their proposals had been previously submitted to Washington in one form or another, The Ohio State University plan would "add impetus to the nationwide project .. .." 44 .

The Establishment of the College Student IUdP:rogram

The federal response to the needs of college students came perhaps more quickly than Morrill or Stillman had anticipated. On

February 2, 1934, a letter from Hopkins to the state relief adminis­ trations authorized and directed the establishment of a program of part-time employment for college students.ll Employment was to be made available until the end of the 1933-34 school year, except for the summer session. All non-profit making institutions of a collegiate or university character were eligible. Institutions which were exempt from state or local property taxes were classified a.s non-profit making. An institution was considered to be of collegiate or university character if it admitted only students who had earned high school diplomas or the equivalent. In a questionable case the state deparbnent of education would evaluate the institution's eligibility. The president of each institution which wished to parti­ cipate was required to submit an affidavit to the state emergency relief administration certifying the eligibility of the institution, listing its enrolJment and agreeing to adhere to F.E.R.A. regulations in the selection and supervision of sLLldents and work projects .

Work projects were to be "socially desirable" and the types of jobs "customarily done in the institutions by students who

IlHarry L. Hopkins to All State Emergency Relief Administrations, February 2, 1934, M-2-8-13 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives) . 45 are working their way through college, including clerical, library, research, and work on buildings and grounds, and in donnitories and dining halls, but excluding regular class instruction . . . ." At private institutions construction and repair projects were restricted to "nearby public property" and were to be supervised by local relief authorities. All other projects in private and public colleges and universities were to be selected and supervised by the institutions.

The participating institutions were instructed to use the funds for employment other than that already being provided by the ins"titutions .

Every participating college and university was granted a monthly allotment of $15.00 for each student in its quota. The quota for each institution was 10 per cent of its full-time enrollment as of

October 15, 1933. Full-time students were defined as those carrying at least three-fourths of the normal courseload. Students were to be selected on the basis of need, character, and ability to do college work. No student was to be granted assistance unless his financial status was such "as to make impossible his attendance at college without this aid." At least one-fourth of each institution's funds was to be used for students who were not regularly enrolled in college during

January, 1934. Jobs were to be proportionately allocated between men and women according to the enrolli11ent of each sex in the institution.

Students were to earn not less than $10.00 or more than

$20.00 per month. Hourly rates of pay were to be those "commonly paid by the institution for the type of service rendered but not less 46 than thirty cents an hour." Each student was limited to 30 hours of work per week and 8 hours per day. The institutions were required to waive all registration, tuition, and laboratory fees for students working on F.E. R. A. projects .

'The reactions of the colleges and universities to the new

F.E.R.A. program were overwhelmingly favorable. President Righbnire lauded "this generous enterprise which would not only make possible educational opportunity for thousands of deserving young men and women, but which would also emphasize the social validity of higher education in American life. ,,12 The New York Times suggested that the amount of money to be spent in the program (five million dollars to seven million dollars fran February through June, 1934) was not sufficient. None­ theless, stated the editorial, more than 100 ,000 students would be aided. If the aid was not available, jobs would have to be found in a crowded labor market for the students. The New York Times concluded that "this bread cast upon the waters will come back after many days. "13

The irmnediate problem confronting participating institutions was that of organizing as quickly as possible to take advantage of the financial assistance. The problem was compounded by the fact that the aid came suddenly and in mid-year, thus allowing the institutions

12Rightmire to E. O. Braught, Executive Director, State Relief Commission of Ohio, February 6, 1934, AA-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

13New York Times; February 5, 1934, p. 14. 47 little time to resolve the organizational difficulties inherent in a new program of such magnitude. In keeping with the general philosophy of the Federal Dnergency Relief AdrPinistration, the administration of the program was decentralized. The F. E. R. A. framed the general outline of· the program in Washington but the details were the responsibility of the state emergency relief administrations and the academic institutions.14 To a large extent the organization and administration were carried on by the colleges and universities, a responsibility which the institutions considered to be one of the best features of the program. 15

The Ohio State University faced basically the same tasks as the other participating institutions in attempting, on short notice, to establish organizational machinery for the selection of students and projects and for the general administration of the program. The university applied imnediately for inclusion in the program, listing a full-time enrollment, as of October 15, 1933, of 9,335 (6,480 men and

2,855 wamen).16 On February 17, 1934, the State Relief Commission of

Ohio accepted the application and allotted $5,220.00 to the university for expenditure during the Y'2JIlainder of F~bruary.17

14Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 378.

15George F. Zook, "Educational Opportunities in the Federal Program,"in Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities, ed.-by A. H. Upham U934), p. 214.

16Edith D. Cockins, Registrar, to Rightmire, February 7,1934, M-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

17Braught to Rightmire, February 17, 1934, M-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 48

In anticipation of its acceptance, the lliliversity had already established administrative procedures. The general responsibiliDj for

overseeing the program was vested in an Executive Ccmnittee which

consisted of the President, who served as chairman, and the chainnen

of .the Student Selection, Projects and Finance Ccmnittees, J. L Morrill,

W.H. Cowley and Carl E. Steeb respectively.18

The Student Selection Ccmnittee quickly began the process of recelvlDg student applications and determining eligibility.19

Students were interviewed by lliliversity officials. Statements con­

cerning the applicants' academic qualifications were obtained from the

college deans. Each student was asked to prepare a budgetary state­ rnent. To further assess his financial need, questionnaires were sent

to the applicant's home commllility to be completed by school officials, businessmen, ministers, and other inclividuals who had knowledge of the student's financial situation. Questionnaires were a1so sent to

the colliltyagents of the State Relief Ccmnission of Ohio to secure

adclitional financial infonnation about the applicants. Since the

F.E.R.A. had stipulated that at least 25 per cent of each institution's

aid fllilds was to go to students who were not currently enrolled,

18F.E.R.A. Student Aid, General Specifications, February 19, 1934, M-14-1-2 (Coltunbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

19F.E.R.A. Report, July, 1934, M-13-1-14 (Coltunbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 49

letters were sent to students who had withdrawn from school for financial reasons. High schools were also notified cif the program.

1he Projects Comnittee canvassed the college deans and

department chairmen for suggestions for work projects and then began the task of detennining which projects were most suitable for student employees. The extent to which the Depression had forced reductions 1I1 university personnel was reflected in the requests for student assistance.

The Department of Econanics asked for readers to "take the place of the

regular graduate assistants whom this depc.rbnent had to dispense with at the beginning of U:e current academic year. Their loss has been distinctly detrimental to the work of the department ... ,,20 The

Director of the Department of Ccmnerce Extension requested clerical help, stating that "the clerical personnel of this depa.ri:Irent was reduced fran two and two-thirds clerks to half the time of one clerk.

This staff is totally inadequate and has operated greatly to curtail the effective work of the department. ,,21

The regulations which the F.E.R.A. issued on February 2,

1934 to guide the colleges and universities through the initial

20A. B. Wolfe, Department of Economics, to Dean W. C. Weidler, College of Corrunerce and Administration, February 9, 1934, AA-14-1-2 (Coltrrnbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Universi ty Archives).

2lThcmas L. Kibler, Director, Department of Comnerce Extension, to W. H. Cowley, Chairman, Projects Comnittee, February 9, 1934, AA-14-1-2 (Coltrrnbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 50 phases of the program were limited. Nonetheless, two of the regulations posed immediate problems for serne institutions. President Rightmire pointed out that it would be impossible for The Ohio State University to adhere to the F.E.R.A. requirement that at least 25 per cent of the college aid funds be paid to students who were not regularly enrolled in college in January, 1934. The F.E.R.A. program began in the middle of the winter quarter. The Ohio State University could not enroll new students until the spring quarter. 22 Enrollment of new students in some institutions would have to be delayed even longer.

Rightmire also spoke against the stipulation that all registration, laboratory, and tuition fees be waived for work relief students. He questioned both the economic wisdom and the legality of fee waivers. 23 Rightmire I s opinion was buttressed by that of the

University of Illinois which requested the support of The Ohio State

University in a protest to the federal authorities. 24 The requiroJIlent

~.,as quickly rescinded by the F.E.R.A. 25

22Rightmire to Braught, February 6, 1934, M-13-1-14

23Ibid.

24Arthur H. Daniels, Acting President, University of Illinois, to Rightmire, February 7, 1934, M-13-1-14

25Aubrey Williams, Assistant Administrator, F.E.R.A., to all State Dnergency Relief Administrations, February 6, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 10, Records of the Work Projects Administration, National Archiyes. 51

The limited time available to determine student eligibility for the program also created problens for the participating institutions in the winter of 1934. During the spring quarter, The Ohio State

University was still experiencing difficulties in setting up an efficient means of evaluating the financial standing and scholastic records of the large number of students who applied for work relief. The possibility of an earlier application deadline and the need for ''much more careful" reports on the acad6nic records of the applicants were discussed. 26

In addition, college officials scmetimes found it difficult to interpret the college student aid regulations to the public. At

The Ohio State University, for example , Vice-President Morrill corrected an article in the school newspaper which described the program as work which had formerly been provided fran the university budget. As

Morrill pointed out, the LE.R.A. regulations specifically required that the funds not replace those which had previously been used for 7 employment in the universit)7 • 2

At the CDnclusion of the 1933-34 school year, despite the administrative difficulties, the popularity of the student aid program was obvious. There was widespread hope that the program would be extended. Ohio State University officials cooperated vigorously with

26Grace S. M. Zorbaugh, Associate Dean of Women, to Morrill, April 9, 1934, M-13-1-14 (Colwnbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives) .

27Morrill to The lantern, March 6, 1934, M-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio StateUniversity Archives). 52

a request from the VJash:L.Ylgton authorities for ''human interest stories"

about work relief students, suggesting to the faculty that the stories

be "as vivid and readable as the facts pennit. ,,28 In a response to a

questionnaire from the U. S. Office of Education, Vice-President

Morrill indicated that the benefits of the plan far outweighed the minor difficulties which had occurred. 29

The major benefit, of course, was the financial support

enjoyed by numerous students. During the months of February tfh""Dugh

JlU1e, 1934, the monthly quota of The Ohio State University was 933

students (648 men and 285 women). Owing to withdrawals, cancella­

tions and replacements, "the number of students aided was 1,272. 30

Table 1 lists the type of work perfonred and the aIIlOlU1ts earned by

students at The Ohio State University during those months at an

average wage of thirty-eight cents an hour. Nationally, during the " 31 same months, approximately 75,000 students earned $3,334,122. The

financial benefits to students increased significantly during the

following school year.

28F.E.R.A. Projects Committee to Department Chairmen, May 15, 1934, AA-14-1-2 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

2~orrill to George F. Zook, Commissioner, U. S. Office of Education, June 1, 1934, AA-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

30The Ohio State University--F.E.R.A.--July 17, 1934, AA-13-1-14 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University AI'chives) .

31U. S. Work Projects Administration, p. 65. 53

TABLE 1

WORK PERFOFMED AND AMOUNTS EAFNED BY F.E .R.A. STUDENTS AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

FEBRUARY THROUGH JUNE 1934

Type of Work Men Women Total laboratory Assistants $ 8,147.09 $ 968.96 $ 9,116.05

Research Assistants 5,230.72 1,824.97 7,055.69

Library Assistants 2,248.72 1,537.64 3,786.36

Readers 1,411.50 5l f9.23 1,960.73

Clerical and Office 8,908.28 6,307.97 15,216.25

Maintenance 6,307.66 888.55 7,196.21

Entertainment 415.16 259.26 674.42

$32,669.13 $12,336.58 $45,005.71

Total Hours 86,837.23 32,056.22 118,893.45

*"The Ohio State University--F.E.R.A.--July 17, 1934." 54

The 1934-35 College Student Aid Program

On July 3, 1934, a le-tter fran Harry L. Hopkins to the state

emergency relief administrations annoilllced the continuation of the

college student aid program during the 1934-35 school year and out­

lined. the conditions under which the program would operete. 32 The

instructions were si.'llilar to those issued by the F.E.R.A. in February.

There were some significant changes, however.

The earlier instructions had specified that, in questionable

cases, the state deparbnents of education would detennine whether or

not institutions were eligible. The new instructions added the

proviso that the F.E.R.A. might review those decisions.

The requirement that participating students earn at least

$10.00 per month was eliminated, as was the stipulation that the number of students employed monthly could not exceed the quota at any institution. The monthly fund allotments, however, would continue

to be based on $15.00 for each student in the quota. Student quotas were increased from ten to twelve per cent of each institution's

enrollment on October 15, 1933. The portion of the funds which each

institution was required to pay to students who were not regularly

enrolled in college in January, 1934 was raised from 25 to 50 per cent.

32Hopkins to All State Emergency Relief Administrations, July 3, 1934, Record Group 119, Series 106, Records of the National Youth Administration, Conferences on Youth Problems, Jillle 1-2, 1931+, National Archives. 55

The February instructions had indicated that work projects

could include "clerical, library, research, and work on buildings and

. grounds, and in donnitories and dining halls . . . ." so long as the

funds were used for Itj obs in addition to those being now provided by

the institution." The new instructions were considerably stronger on

the subject of work projects, as evidenced in the following regulation:

Inasmuch as the principal objective of using relief funds for student aid is to increase the number of young men and women going to college, funds allotted shall not be used to replace college funds heretofore available for student aid. Ordinary maintenance work about the college, waiting on table in din­ ing halls and other routine activities that would have to be carried on anyway shall be financed fran the usual sources, not fran F.E.R.A. funds. Violations of the spirit of this provision shall be considered a cause for withdrawing a college's entire allotment of student aid funds and assign­ ing it to other institutions.

The requirement that construction and repair projects at private

institutions were to be restricted to "nearby public property" and

supervised by local relief authorities was dropped. The new

instructions simply stated that "all jobs must be under the direct

charge of the institution." Furthermore, although regular class

instruction was still excluded, students could be assigned to

"extension, adult education, recreation, and other activities that

increase the usefulness of the college to the community. It Finally,

while the February instructions had stipulated that the colleges and

universities would be the "final judge" of the acceptability of work 56 projects, the new regulations stated that the institutions would "pass on" the acceptability of work projects .

The July instructions, therefore, increased the administrative flexibility permitted colleges and universities in some areas. The minimum monthly wage regulation and the requirement that the number of students employed monthly could not exceed the institution's quota were dropped. This worked particularly to the advantage of low-tuition, . non-residential institutions where costs of attendance were lovJ and it was thought preferable to spread the funds over a larger g-roup of students than the original regulations had permitted. Similarly, private institutions were no longer required to limit construction and repair work to projects on public property. Finally, the colleges and universities were encouraged to expand their range of vJork projects to include COIIHnW1ity service.

On several points, however, the F.E.R. A. took a firmer stand.

The extent to which the academic institutions could aid students who were currently enrolled was lessened by the requirement that 50 rather than 25 per cent of the funds be used to assist students not regularly enrolled in college during January, 1934. The F.E.R.A. reserved to itself the authority to make the final determination in regard to institutional eligibility, a responsibility which had formerly been left to the state depe,rbnents of education. The new regulations implied a similar increase in federal authority with respect to the acceptability of work projects. The institutions were to "pass on," rather than be the "final judge of," the acceptability of the projects. 57

Perhaps most important, t:he new F.E.R.A. regulations re­ emphasized the basic purpose of the college student aid program. The federal funds were to be used to assist students rather than institu-­ tions. The intent of the program was to increase the number of stu­

.dents going to college, not to enable the institutions to use their . 33 existing student aid funds for other purposes.

In accordance with the new regUlations, colleges and univer­ sities which wished to participate in the continued program applied to the state emergency relief administrations. During the latter part of July, The Ohio State University received notification of its quota and allobnent for the 1934-35 school year. The quota was in­ creased from 933 to 1,120 students and the monthly allobnent was set 34 at $16,800.00. The administrative organization of the program at the university was reconstituted somewhat. J. L. MarTiJ.l was desig­ nated Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee and Bland L. Stradley,

University Examiner, took Morrill's place as Chairman of the Student

Selection Committee. President Rightmire retained the chairmanship of the Executive Conmittee. Carl E. Steeb and W. H. Cowley continued

33 L. R. Aldennan, Director, F.E.R.A. Educational Division, to All State Dnergency Relief Administrations, July 5, 1934, Record Group 119, Series 106, Record of the National Youth Administration, Conferences on Youth Problems, June 1-2, 1934, National Archives.

3~inutes of the Executive Corrrrnittee of the F.E.R.A., July 18 and September 14, 1934, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Univer­ sity Archives). 58 to serve as the respective chairmen of the Finance Committee and the . . 35 ProJects COIIn1llttee.

Selection of Students

On July 27, President Righbnire notified the department

-chairmen at The Ohio State Universii.-y of the continuation of the college student aid program and asked for their assistance in select­ ing needy students. He indicated that 60 per cent of the students to be selected would be individuals who had not been enrolled In any college in January, 193Lf. 36 Nationally during the 1934-35 school year, nearly 50 per cent of the students in the progrcun had not been enrolled in college in January, 1934. 37

At some small colleges, where students were well known by college officials, formal applications for the college student aid program were not found to be necessary. 38 Most of the larger institu­ tions, however, adopted formal selection procedures of varying degrees of sophistication. The Student Selection Committee at The Ohio State

University reviewed the financial need of the applicants, again

35Minutes of the Executive Committee of the F.E.R.A., September 14, 1934.

36P-.ightmire to Chairmen of Departments, July 27, 1934, AA-3-4-15, (CoIUTI'bus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

37U. S. Work Prujects Administration, p. 64.

38State Relief Commission of Ohio, "The Federal Student Aid Plan at Work in Ohio Colleges and Universities," March, 1935, AA-13-1-13, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 59 through questionnaires to prominent citizens in eaCh applicant's home community. The extent of the students' financial need is revealed ill the fact that there were 2,058 applications for the 1,120 openlngs available during the fall quarter. 39 The Student Selection Cornm:ittee met aJ..rrost continuously for more than a week in August and frequently at other times to examine the applications. 40 The flood of paper­ work continued during the sChool year. In December, Stradley reported that his office was "swamped by students requesting F.E.R.A. assistance " It was necessary for two of his staff members to. devote all of their time to F.E.R.A. work whiCh seriously impaired the operations of his office. 41 .

Colleges and universities were concerned about the flexi­ bility pennitted them in the selection of students. The F.E.R.A. requirement that jobs be apportioned according to the ratio of Iren and women enrolled was objectionable to some institutions. The Ohio

State University joined in a resolution passed by a conference of

67 Ohio college presidents and administrative officers on August 29,

1934 whiCh suggested that students be errployed "according to the relative need for jobs . . . ." The conference pointed out that ill

39W. H. Cowley, "F.E.R.A. Student Aid Program at Ohio State University," October 23, 1934, M-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

40Ibid.

4lt1inutes of thEX Executive Conmittee of the F.E.R.A., December 20, 1934, M-3-4-15 (Colurbus, Ohio: The Ohio-State University Archives). 60 some colleges the need of the men "is often more acute than that of the rnaj ority of the women. ,,42 Widespread feeling among colleges and univer­ sities across the country supported the Ohio resolution. 43

Similarly the regulation which stipulated that 50 per cent of the participants in the program were to be students who were not in college during January, 1934 was distasteful to many institutions. The rule was objected to on the grounds that it discriminated against many . . students who were currently enrolled but lacked the financial resources to continue their education. The desire of the participating institu­ tions to exercise as much freedom as possible in the selection of students for the program was manifested in another controversy which developed in connection with this regulation.

The Ohio office of the U. S. Employment Service notified the State Relief Commission of Ohio that new students for the 50 per cent quota were to be selected from lists of the unemployed furnished to the colleges and universities by the Drrployment Service. The instructions brought for~h a protest to the F.E.R.A. from the State

Relief Commission of Ohio. 44 The Commission pointed to the importance

42Resolution of Ohi.o College Presidents and Administrative Officers to F .E.R.A., August 29, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the Work Projects Administration, National Archives.

43"A Report on the Colle~e Student Aid Program of F .E.R.A. ," Record Group 69, Box 9, Records of the Work Projects Administration, National Archives.

44Braught -to C. F. Klinefelter, Acting Director, F .E.R.A. Educational Division, August 18, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the Hork Projects Administration, National Archives. 61 of diplanacy in dealiIlg with college administrators. The institutions, stated the Commission, should be reassured that "the final selection of new students will still remain in their hands. ,,45 The F.E.R.A. resolved the problem by stating that no direct referrals to the institutions should be made by the Thrployment Service. Individuals on the Thrployrnent Service rosters might be notified of the program and advised to contact a college or university but the institution would make the final selections.46

The removal of both of the above regulations during the fall of 1934 was applauded by the colleges and universities. As the

State Relief eoIIIrTlission of Ohio indicated, the colleges gained the freedom "to consider the prime factor of the need of the students regardless of class rank or sex." The Commission also stated that the waivers had made it possible for some insti~Jtions to use the

F.E.R.A. funds for positions requiring the special knowledge or abilities of qualified upperclassmen. The regular student aid funds of the institutions could then be used to employ less qualified freshmen on rrore routine tasks. 47

45D2an Snyder, Assistant for Special Projects, State Relief Canmission of Oloio, to John H. Millar, F.E.R.A. Educational Division, August 30, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the vJork Projects Administration, National Archives.

46Klinefelter to H. R. Justice, Director, U. S. Bnployrnent Service in Ohio, August 30, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the Work Projects Administration, National Archives.

47State Relief Caumissior. of Ohio, News Bulletin, January, 1935, AI\-13-1-13 (ColLnnbus, Ohio: 'The Ohio State University Archives). 62

The student selection processes of the colleges and univer­ sities improved steadily during the F.E.R.A. program. 'There were some charges of abuse, however. A Boston convention of the National

Student Federation, which included 150 heads of college student goverrunents, charged in January, 1935 that the Irgood character" clause in the student eligibility requirements was being used in some insti­ tutions to discriminate against students who held certain poIitical views. 48 By and large, however, the participating institutions were fair in the selection of students for the program.

Quotas and Expenditures

By September, 1934, a total of 1,465 academic institutions had been approved for participation in the college student aid program.

Of the institutions, 918 were private and 547 were public. Despite the preponderance of private colleges and universities, half of the students aided attended public institutions. Thirty-five per cent of the participating institutions had student quotas of less than 20 and 273 were pennitted 10 or fewer college aid students. One-fourth of the institutions had quotas of more than 25, but only 1 in 13 was entitled to more than 100 students. 49 Table II lists the earnings of college students under the F.E.R.A. program during the 1934-35 school year.

48New York Times_, January 2, 1935, p. 52.

49Willey, Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education, p. 379. 63

TABLE 2

EARNINGS OF F.E.R.A. COLLEGE STUDENTS AND NUMBER ~WLOYED, 1934-35

Nt.m1ber Drrp10yed Month Total Men WOllen Earnings

September 68,943 41,784 27 ,159 $ 547,098

October 96,375 60,749 35,626 1,267,592

November 99,734 62,692 37,042 1,340,194

December 100,095 62,814 37,281 1,267,732

January .102,296 64,157 38,139 1,31+5,567 February 103,254 64,535 38,719 1,346,573

March 104,740 65,251 39,489 1,378~264

April 104,445 65,160 39,285 1,384,995 May 100,013 61,809 . 38,204 1,297,419

June 52,191 32,579 19,612 384,052

TOTAL $11,559,486

i:U. S. Work Projects AdminisL.C'ation, p. 65. 64

In November, 1934, the state of Ohio ranked fifth in the nation in student quotas as indicated below.

TABLE 3

LARGEST STKIL QUOTAS, F.E.R.A. COLLEGE S'IUDENT AID, NOVEMBER, 1934

Participating State Quota Institutions

New York 10,955 76

California 7,446 78

Pennsylvania 6,126 69

Illinois 5,753 65

Ohio 4,979 57

Among colleges and universities The Ohio State University quota was fifth largest.

*State Relief Commission of Ohio, News Bulletin, March, 1935.

Table 4 lists the details of The Ohio State University's expenditure of student aid funds during 1934-35.

In addition to the F.E.R.A. aid, colleges and univer'sities continued, to the extent pennitted by their budgets, to provide other types of financial assistance to needy college students. In

Ohio, an estimated $1,440 ,000, rrore than uvice the assistance offered through the F .E.R.A., was granted to college students in the fonn of wages, scholarships and loans during the 1934-35 academic year. 65

TABLE 4

NUMBER EMPLOYED, HOURS WORKED, AND EARNINGS, F.E.R.A STUDENTS AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 1934-35

Number Dnployed Hours Month Total Men Women Worked Earnings

September 150 84 66 5,556.2 $ 1,951.50

October 1,100 803 297 41,474.2 15,463.41

November 1,113 807 306 44,670.3 16,627.69

December 1,130 824 306 44,358.7 16,624.91

January 1,118 791 327 43,799.7 16,658.12

February 1,120 789 331 43,894.6 16,782.35

March 1,119 787 332 43,694.5 16,687.12

April 1,113 783 330 43,896.5 16,752.74

May 1,108 778 330 43,658.0 16,670.10

June 911 631 280 10,590.5 4,037.55

TOTAlS 365,593.2 $138,255.49

1,737 students worked under the F.E.R.A. program at The Ohio State

University during the school year.

i:F.E.R.A. 1934-1935, M-13-1-13, The Ohio State University Archives. 66

The amounts granted to 11,580 students averaged $125.00 per student, approximately the same as the average yearly earnings of students employed under the F .E.R.A. program. 50 The University of Oregon found it possible to grant a large number of emergency loans during the school year because of the increased assurance, due to F.E.R.A. employment, that students would be able to repay the loans. Repayment of loans, the university noted, had becane increasingly better during the year and the demand for loans had decreased. 51

Since the number of qualified applicants greatly exceeded the F.E. R.A. quotas at rrost institutions, questions arose concerning how the funds might best be distributed among needy students. At The

Ohio State University, for example, The Executive Cornmittee of the

F.E.R.A. program debated the feasibility of hiring students on a rronthly or quarterly basis and replacing them with other applicants at the end of their work terms. Due to the administrative difficulties in the plan and the continuing financial need of the students who were initially selected, the Executive Corrunittee decided to abandon the proposal. It was discovered also that the turnover on F.E. R.A. projects at The Ohio State University was sufficiently great to

50State Relief Commission of Ohio, News Bulletin, January, 1935.

51"LDan Funds at the University of Oregon," School and Society, Vol. 42, No. 1073 (July 20, 1935), pp. 97-98. 67 permit selection of a large number of replacements each quarter. 52

The obvious key to the quota problem at The Ohio State

University and other institutions was the inadequacy of the available federal funds. The responses of the maj ority of 45 universities polled by the National Association of State Universities in April,

1935 indicated a desire for an increase jn F.E.R.A. college aid funds.

The questionnaire also revealed that the majority of the institutions favored an increase in the maximum monthly earnings pennitted students and in the $15.00 per student base used to compute each institution's monthly allocation of funds. 53 The Ohio State University suggested a more flexible system of allowances for students to pennit "individual monthly payments according to ccmparative need. ,,54 Other universities responding to the questionnaire also spoke In favor of greater dis­ cretion for the participating institutions In determining maximum payments for students.

52Minutes of the Execu-tive Ccmmittee of F .E.R.A., September 14 and December 3, 1934, AA-3-4-15 (Colurribus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives); Cowley, "LE.R.A. Student Aid Program."

53Replies of Presidents of National Association of State Universities to Questionnaire on Continuation of Federal Student-Job Program, April, 1935, AA-3-'+-15 (Colurribus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

54Righbnire to Chancellor Ernest Lindley, Univer'sity of Kansas, April 17, 1935, AA-3-4-15 (C61urribus, Ohio: The Ohio StateUniver­ sity Archives). 68

The need for greater flexibility was also reflected in com­ ments received on other occasions by the F .E.R.A. In a number of instances, the Washington authorities were asked to grant more funds to institutions or areas where drought or other circumstances had created economic needs greater than those prevalent in other parts of the country. 55 It was also suggested that relief clients would be unable to attend college without a substantial increase in the financial assistance which they could acquire under the college aid program. 56 The F.E.R.A. expressed the hope that the emergency collegiate centers which were being organized would meet the educa­ tional needs of the unemployed to some degree. 57

Many institutions, including The Ohio State University , were also concerned about the F .E.R.A. regulation which required that unspent balances in monthly allotments be turned back to the state relief administrations. 58 During the fall of 1934, Vice-President

55"A Report on the College Student Aid Program of F .E.R.A."

56Clark L. Mock, Acting Director, Cuyahoga County Relief Aclrn:inistration, Cleveland, Ohio, to Klinefelter, October 10, 1934·, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the ~!Jork Projects Administration, National Archives.

57Klinefelter to Mock, October 19, 1934, Record Group 69, Box 18, Records of the Work Projects Administration, National Archives.

58Lindley to Rightmire, May 5, 1935, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 69

Morrill attempted unsuccessfully to secure pennission for the university 59 to utilize monthly balances during subsequent months. The ultimate solution to the problem, according to President Rightmire, would have been yearly allocations with maximum payments to students and monthly allotments left to the discretion of the institutions. Rightmire pointed out the difficulty of "imposing a monthly administrative system upon an academic calendar which does not mesh readily with it."

In certain months at the beginning and a'1d of the school year and during vacation times, it was impossible for the university to use all of its assigned funds. 50 Dur~Dg the 1934-35 school year, The Ohio

State University lost $4,124.51 in monthly balances, the equivalent of nearly 11,000 hours of student employment. 61 Yearly allotments, some institutions argued, would resolve this problem and also preclude the delays which varlOUS schools had experienced in the monthly transmission 62 . of funds from the F.E.R.A. Such an allotment system would also have

59MorTill to Rightmire, December 14, 1934, Minutes of the Execu­ tive Comnittee of the F.E.R.A., December 20,1934, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: 'TIle Ohio State University Archives).

60Rightmire to Lindley, April 26, 1935, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

61"F.E.R.A. 1934-1935."

62"A Report on the College Student Aid Program of F.E.R.A." 70 given the institutions sufficient flexibility to deal with situations in which students did not receive paychecks due to administrative error.63

The F .E.R.A. funds which were granted to the participating institutions were to be used solely for student wages. No adminis­ trative allowances were granted to the institutions. 64 The Ohio State

University requested, again without success, that a small allocation be provided to defray the cost of the additional staff required to administer the program. 65 The university had considered asking the relief authorities for white collar workers to supervise F.E.R.A. students but had abandoned the idea. Instead, students were assigned to certain supervisory tasks in deparbnents with large numbers of federal aid students. 66 This, however, did not lessen the demands on the time of many faculty and staff members who were involved in the overall administration of the program.

Projects

Other administrative problems faced by colleges and univer­ sities which participated in the college student aid program concerned the selection of projects which would fall into the'category of

63Minutes of the Executive Corrrrnittee of the F .E.R.A., December 20, 1934.

64u. S. Work Projects Administration, p. 65.

65Rightmire to Lindley, April 26, 1935.

66Minutes of the Executive Cc:mmittee of the F .E.R.A., October 5, 1934, M-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 71

"socially desirable" work as defined by the Federal Emergency Relief

Administration. In addition, as previously noted, the participating institutions were warned that the F.E.R.A. projects should not replace

employment furnished by an institution. This admonition was set forth clearly in Hopkins' instructions of July, 1934 and was re-ernphasized during the school year. 67

The experience of The Ohio State University in organizing work projects and placing students was not atypical as that of other universities. In September, 1934, deparbnent chainnen were asked to submit project proposals for consideration by the Projects Committee.

The departments were told that the projects should be socially useful, needed and educationally valuable. Few projects, however, should require "high degrees of training and experience . . • since all approved students must be employed, and few have special abilities.,,68 The Ohio State University Projects Committee was chaired by W. H. Cowley and consisted of five faculty representatives of the

colleges. It was assisted by two full-time clerks.69 The Projects Carunittee was responsible for the selection of work projects and the

67Charles C. Stillman, Administrator, F.E .R.A. in Ohio, to the Pr€sidents of Participating Colleges and Universities, May 1, 1935, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 68H. W. Nisonger, Secretary, F.E.R.A. Projects Committee, to Departmental Representatives, September 29, 1934, AA-14--1-2 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

69Co,vley, "I'.E.R.A. Student Aid Program." 72 placement of si...lldents. The du-ties of the Cc:mnittee expanded rapidly during the 1934-35 school year. Reports to the State Relief Corrrrnission of Ohio were lengthier and more detailed than those required during the previous year. The new emphasis on comnunity service projects in

Hopkins' July instructions necessitated considerable contact with off-campus agencies. In addition, the Projects Comnittee inaugurated a policy of inspecting work projects frequently to make certain of their validity. As a result, according to Cowley, the Committee was

"overwhelmed" with responsibility. 70

The Projects Canrnittee chose the work proje'?ts on the basis of "desirability and departmental needs. II After the projects were selected, the Carmittee attempted to match students with appropriate jobs. The Committee felt it important to put superior students on projects "requiring high-grade intelligence." Students with less ability could be put on projects "of a more routine nature." Each student filled out a project application card listing, among other things, the kinds of work at which he was proficient, the departments in which he would like to work and any faculty member who had requested his services. The Projects Comnittee added other information to the application fonn, including i:he student's academic standing in high school or college, his intelligence test score and his course schedule. 71

70Cowley to Rightmire, October 16, 1934, AA-3-4-15 (Colwnbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 71 Cowley, "f.E.R.A. Student Aid Program." 73

An effort was made to ID2et deparbnental requests for particular students and vice versa. Inevitably some misplacements occurred. Early in the fall quarter it was necessary to transfer 80 of the 1,100 assigned students from one project to another. The transfers were made at the request of the students or departments with the concurrence of the student, the original supervisor and the new supervisor. 72

An interesting aspect of the experience of The Ohio State

University Projects Commi-ttee in placing students was the difficulty it apparently encountered in finding positions for Negroes. Negrues constituted 2.09 per cent of the student population at The Ohio State

University in the fall of 1934. Of the students employed on F.E.R.A. projects in February, 1935, 3.21 per cent were Negroes. The pay rates for Negro students ~",ere comparable with those of F .E.R.A. students in general. 73 Cavley, however, offered the following observations about

Negroes in the F.E.R.A. program: 74

The placeID2nt of colored students is, of course, always a problem. They are not available for office work, in general, because most white stu­ dents and white employees do not care to work in close proximity to them. Moreover, the public in caning to our offices are not likely to enjoy being attended to by a negro. We have, there­ fore, given considerable thought to the place­ ment of colored students and have reviewed their qualifications most carefully. Most of them are working in laboratories and shops.

72Cowley, "F.E.R.A. Student Aid Program."

73J . A. Park, Dean of Men, "Negro F.E.R.A. StUdents," February 14~ 1935, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

74Cowley, "F.E.R.A. Student Aid Program."

84

be the creation of a "dole-minded" element in the population.lOl Despite

this danger, Rightmire felt that college student aid was an important

part of the measures being undertaken during the Depression to combat

the malaise and discouragement of large numbers of American youth.

Rightmire surrrrnarized the social philosophy underlying the F.E .R.A. pro­

. gram as an attempt to "preserve the spirit, cultivate the morale and

enlarge the vision .. .." of youth. "We must somehow desperately·

strive . . . . to give to these young people the feeling that they

arB a vital part of our population, of our civilization," Rightmire

stated, "and that as they grow to years of maturity and responsibility

there is scmething expected of them both personally and publicly. ,,102

lOlRightmire to President John W. Davis, West Virginia State College,Decernber 9, 1935, AA-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

102Rightmire, "Social and Community Projects jn F.E.R.A. Stu­ dent Dnployrnent," in Transactions and P"roceedings of the National Association of State Universities, ed. by A. H. UphamQ 934), p. 113. CHAPTER IV

THE COLLD.;E SWDENT AID PR03RAM OF THE

NATIONAL YOUTH ArMINISTRATION

The Establishment of the National

Youth Administration

At the conclusion of the 1934-1935 school year, the continuing financial need of college students was evident. Equally obvious were the needs of other large segments of American youth . Initially,

President Roosevelt was reluctant to press for an increase in relief to young people. If the federal government wen-t beyond the scope of the

Civilian Conservation Corps and the existing student aid program, it might be accused of allocating a disproportionate share of relief funds to youth. It might also be charged with attempting to organize the l nation's young people for political purposes.

His hesitancy notwithstanding, the President announced the creation of the National Youth Administration on June 26, 1935 under the authority of the Dnergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. "I have determined that we shall do something for the Nation's unemployed youth," stated Roosevelt, "because we can ill afford to lose the skill and energy of these young men and wanen. They must have their chance

1Betty and Ernest K. Lindley, A New Deal for Youth: The Story of the National Youth Adrninistration (New York: The Viking Press, 1938), ~13. .

85 86

in school, their tum as apprentices and their opportunity for jobs--a

chance to work and earn for themselves. The yield on this investment

should be high. ,,2

Executive Order No. 7086 outlined the expanded relief pro­

. grams for youth which would be administered by the new agency. 3 The

National Youth Administration was assigned the responsibility for

developing "a program of approved projects which shall provide relief,

work relief, and employment for persons between the ages of 16 and 25

years who are no longer in regular attendance at a school requiring

full time and who are not regularly engaged in remunerative employ­

ment."

The Executive Order further specified that a National

Advisory Corrunittee and an Executive Ccmrnittee for the N. Y.A. would be

established. The composition of the National Advisory Cornnittee would

be "representatives of labor, business, agriculLure, education, and

youth . . . ." Josephine Roche, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,

would head the Executive Ccmnittee. The N.Y.A. would be under the

jurisdiction of the Works Progress Administration. Irrmedl.ate super­

vision would be the responsibility of the· Executive Director of the

N.Y.A., Aubrey W. Williams, who would also retain the title of

2Roosevelt, June 26, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 106, National Youth Administration-Miscellaneous, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

3Executive Order No. 7086, June 26, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 87

Assistant Administrator of the Works Progress Administration.

On August 1, 1935, Roosevelt announced that 34 representatives of business, labor , agriculture, and education had been appointed to C,....,.".,.,~t:tee. the Natl' onal Advl'sory U1mu. 4 The COrn:poSl. tlon . of the E'xecutlve Committee had also been determined by August 1 with the appointment of representatives from the Resettlement Administration and the D3partments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, and C011fllerce. 5

In replacing the student aid program of the Federal Dnergency

Relief Administration, the N.Y.A. enlarged the limited objectives of the F.E.R.A. By July 30, 1935, the N.Y.A. had defined its objectives as follows: 6

(1) To find employment in private industry for unemployed

youths.

(2) To provide employment for youths of certified relief

families at work relief projects suited to their abilities and needs.

(3) To provide vocational training or re-training for

youths without specific skills. (4) To extend part-time enrployment to needy college·

students and small cash assistance to needy high school students.

~ew York Times, August 2, 1935, p. 17. 5"Information Primer," July 30, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 106, National Youth Administration-l1iscellaneous, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 6Ibid• 88

Except for the Civilian Conservation Corps, all major relief programs for youth were to be consolidated under the National Youth Administra­ tion. The program would include an expansion of the aid to students which had been initiated under the F.E.R.A. and assistance to out-of­ school youth as well.

Until the establishment of the National Youth Administration, young people who were out of school and unemployed had received only limited relief under the W.P.A. and the C.C.C. In addition, education was only an incidental function of the work relief programs of the latter TIIO agencies. 7 Under the National Youth Administration, con­ siderable emphasis was placed on guidance and training.

The desirability of an expanded educational program for un­ employed youth who were not enrolled in school was stressed by the

Office of Education prior to the creation of the National Youth Admin­ istration. a The programs of the N.Y.A. incorporated many of the pro­ posals of the Office of Education. In addition to providing work relief for young members of relief families and job placement, the

N. Y.A. embarked upon a variety of formal and informal education

7U. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Commission, Final Report of the National Youth Administration: Fiscal Years 1936-43 (Washington-;-D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1944), p. v.

a"A Plan for the Relief of Unemployed Students," School and SocieJ][, Vol. 41, No. 1063 (May 11,1935), pp. 638-639. --­ 89 programs through numerous agencles, including the W.P.A., state depart-· ments of education, elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities. 9

Some obstacles were encountered in establishing the educa­ tional programs. Schools were crowded in many localities and, in addition, it was often difficult to get N.Y.A. youth back into the classroom.l° Many aspects of the program were successful, however.

Particularly no-teworthy were the "resident projects" in colleges and unl. verSl..tles. 11-­

'The N. Y.A. continued to provide financial assistance to students seeking degrees in institutions of higher education. In addition, under the N.Y.A. out-of-school program, colleges and univer­ sities offered numerous general and vocational courses to non-matricu­ lating students who resided at the institutions and were employed on work projects.

Resident projects were generally not designed for students capable of, or interested in, pursuing standard college programs. The projects focused on youth who had little secondary education and wanted basic instruction in agriculture, homemaking or a trade .12 A

9Palmer o. Johnson and Oswald L. Harvey, The National Youth AdrrLinistration (Washington, D. C.: Government PrintillgOffice, 1938)~p. 72-:- .

lOLindley, ~ New Deal for Youth, p. 77.

IlJohnson and Harvey, p. 88.

12Lindley, p. 106. 90 study of a N.Y.A. resident project at Oklahoma A. and M. clearly indi­ cated that the abilities and interests of the participating youth required education programs of a more elementary nature than those offered in the regular curriculum of the college .13

Not only did the coursework differ fran that normally offered by the colleges, but instructors from areas other than college facul­ ties were utilized. Regular college students provided instruction to

N.Y.A. youth as did W.P.A. adult education teachers, the Red Cross, and officials from state health services. 14

Many of the resident projects were developed at colleges and universities with agriculture and home economics programs, particu­ larly in southern states .15 The first resident project began at

Southwestern Louisiana Institute in December, 1936 with 25 out-of-school boys. A year later, 89 prospective fanners were housed lil cooperative donnitories at the institution, each working approximately 50 hours a month in agricultural departments and taking special courses. The

N.Y.A. paid each youth $21.00 per month of which $13.00 was given to the college. The N.Y.A. youth lived with regular college students and

13Adrian M. Slaughter, lID IIDal::[sis of N.Y .A. Vocational Students of Oklahoma Agricultural andMecharucal COllege (M. S. thesis, Oklahoma Agricultural-and Mechanical College, 1938), p. 25.

14Lindley, A New Deal For Youth.

15The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 120; Lindley, p. 94. ------

91 had access to the social and athletic activities of the college.16

Similar resident projects were established at colleges, universities, and vocational schools across the country.17 In addition to training for out-of-school youth on college campuses, the N. Y.A. embarked upon an expanded student aid program.

National and State Administration of the

College Student Aid Program

'file fonnal transfer of the student aid program frc:m the

Federal Emergency Relief Administration to the National Youth Adminis­ tration was acccmplished through Executive Order No. 7164 on August 29,

1935.18 The student aid program of the F .E.R.A. had been restricted to college students. Under the N. Y.A., the President stipulated, aid would be granted to high school, college, and graduate students "in exchange for part-time work upon useful projects." Payments to high school students could not exceed $6.00 per month. Graduate students

16Lindley, A New Deal for Youth, pp. 87-88.

17Lindley, pp. 91-98; Thelma McKelvey to Palmer O. Johnson, September 10, 1937, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 11, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives; "N. Y.A. Resident Training Project for Negro Girls at State Teachers College in Montgomery, Alabama," Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 9, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

18Executive Order No. 7164, August 29, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 1, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 92 could earn a maximum of $40.00 per month while undergraduate students were limited to $20.00. Average monthly payments to graduate students and undergraduate students were to be $30.00 and $15.00 respectively.

Executive Order No. 7319, issued on March 18, 1936, extended financial assistance to primary-school students at a monthly maximum of $6.00.19

Although nominally under the supervision of the Works Progress

Administration, the N.Y.A. functioned as a separate administrative entity. It did, however, utilize many of the facilities and procedures of the parent agency. The W. P.A. provided research and statistical service, certified the eligibility of youth under the out-of-school program and coordinated the preparation of payrolls and the purchasing of 'supplies and equipment. The N.Y.A. followed W.P.A. procedures in selecting and assigning youth except under the student aid program where this responsibility was assigned to the participating institutions.

W.P.A. safety regulations and compensation claims procedures were also followed by the N.Y.A. 20 The national administrative organization of the N. Y.A. under the W.P .A. lS described in Figure 1. Although she occupied no fonnal position In the organization chart, Mrs. Roosevelt was deeply interested in the N. Y.A. and attempted to keep the President infonned of its activities. The chairman of the National Advisory

Corrnnittee, Charles W. Taussig, described Mrs. Roosevelt as the

19Johnson and Harvey, The National Youth Administration, p. 93.

20Johnson and Harvey, pp. 8-9. The -­ PRESIDENT 1'-­ ...... - of the United States ...... ~- .... ~ NATIONAL PJ)VISORY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE I I ,I WPA I, AIMINISTRATOR t I I I IL _ EXECUTIVE ------'"! DIRECTOR, I DEPUTY EXECUTIVE I I' DIRECTOR I [ NATIOW\L STAFF 1 • • I L-' I r--::-:::O= I:--:-:=---r I, DIVISION OF .,I ...-,-D-I-VI-S-I-ON-OF GUIDANCE DIVISION I DIVISION OF RE- i DIVISION OF 1 ... WORK PROJ ECTS I AND FLACEMEJ'-J"T OF FINANCE PORTS A\fD RECORDS I NEGRO Al-"TAIRS I • j , J , I WPA DIVISION OF WPA DIVISION! II\NPA DIVISION OF RE­ I I E!'1PLDYMENT A"'ID SAFETY 1 OF FINANCE SEARCH G STATISTICS \. 1 I 'U S WLDY­ MENT SERVICE

FIVE REGIONAL DIREC'IDRS

Fig. 1. --National Administrative Organization of the N.Y.A.

i~Johnson and Harvey, The National Youth Administration, p. 10.

,.;) w 94

"spiritual leader" of the National Youth Administration. 21

On December 24, 1938, Aubrey Williams I title was changed frc:m

Executive Director to Administrator of the N. Y.A. The legal relation­ ship between the N.Y.A. and the W.P.A. remained the same; however, by mutual consent, Williams was given full authority for the administra­ tion of the N.Y.A. 22

The separation of the N.Y.A. frc:m the W.P.A. became complete on July 1, 1939 when CongY€ss approved the transfer of the N.Y.A. to the Federal Security Agency. 23 The Federal Security Agency encorrpassed, in addition to the N. Y.A., the U. S. Employment Service, the Office of Education, the Public Health Service, the Social Security

Board, and the Civilian Conservation Corps. The W.P.A. and the Public

Works Administration were placed under the Federal Works Agency .24

The N. Y.A. had been created primarily for relief purposes but had increasingly become an education agency . 25 The reorganization formalized the metamorphosis which the agency had undergone. In proposing the transfer of the N. Y.A., the Pr€sident stated that the

21Lindley, 6.. New Deal for Youth, p. xiv.

22U. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Canmi.ssion, p. 27.

23Ibid.

24New York 1'imes, April 26, 1939, p. 18.

25Hollis P. Allen, The Federal Government and Education: The Original and Comp1ete stUdY of Education for theHoover ConunissIOn Task Forceon Public Welfare(New YO:r'k: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950)~p. 9t~. ---­ 95

agency's "major purpose is to extend the educational opportunities of

the youth of the country and to bring them through the processes of traiping into the possession of skills which enable them to find employ­ ment. tI The N. Y.A. would be placed under the Federal Security Agency

rather than the Federal Works Agency , Roosevelt said, because work . , projects are "merely the process through which its major purpose is accomplished. ,,26

'The National Youth Administration operated for three years under the Federal SecurityAgency . On September 17, 1942, the N. Y.A. ,

along with several other agencies which were concerned with training

and employment, was transferred to the War Manpower Ccmnission. 27 At - 28 the end of 1943, the N.Y.A. was dissolved. 'The N.Y.A. followed the

example of the F.E.R.A. in attempting to decentralize its functions as much as possible. Directors were appointed in each state, in the

District of Columbia and in New York City. 'The state directors carried

considerable responsibi1ity for the program. Every state was divided

into districts. A supervisor was appointed for each district. 29 In

addition, state advisory c~ittees were appointed by Aubrey Williais.

By February, 1936, more than five hundred representatives of business,

26New York Times, April 26, 1939, p. 18.

27Executive Order No. 9247, September 17, 1942, Record Gruup 119, Series 206, Box 65, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

28u. S. Federal Security Agency, War ManpoHer Corrrrnission, pp. iii-iv.

29Johnson and Harvey, The National You-th Administration, pp. 9--11. 96 education, labor,agriculture, and social work were serving on state advisory committees. 30 Local advisory committees were also established in the states. 31 The structure of the state N. Y.A. organizations is described in Figure 2.

With specific reference to the college and graduate student aid programs (hereafter tenned the college student aid program), John

J. Corson, Assistant Director of the N. Y.A., outlined the following functions of the state N.Y.A. administrations on September 17, 1935: 32

1. Provision of infonnation concerning this program to all interested parties in the state.

2. D2tennination of the eligibility of institutions foY' allotments, obtaining the advice of the State Lepart­ ment of Education in all questionable cases.

3. Cernputation of the total monthly allotment of ead1 institution, based on evidence submitted in its affidavit, and transmission of infonnation to the institution concerning the total amount available for its students.

4. Redistribution of unused funds on the college aid program to institutions that ar€ in a position to give jobs to more than their official quota.

The same memorandum described the responsibilities of the participating institutions. The responsibilities were similar to those delegated to the institutions under the F.E.R.A. program. They

30New Yor~ T~~es, February 10, 1936, p. 15.

31Johnson and Harvey) The National Youth Administration) p. 11.

32Corson to All State Youth Directors) September 17, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206) Box 76) Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tT'ation, National Archives . r------_._----, j I ---­ .. - U_ J I I STATE ADVISORY LOCAL AND SPECIAL COMMITI'EES ADVISORY COMMITTEES

S~J NffiR~ .­ I,AFFAIRS I ~ .1.. -. • SCHOOLS AND STATE EMPLOYMENT I[SCHOOLS I ~ COLLEGES SERVICE

Fig. 2. --State N. Y.A. Organizational Structure

~':Johnson and Harvey, The National Youth Administration, p. 10.

lD -.J 98

included the selection of students, assignments to work projects and

preparation of time reports and payrolls. Corson observed that the

institutions had operated the program satisfactorily in the past.

"Detailed supervision by the State Youth office of the college and

. graduate aid programs," stated Corson, "is not necessary or expected."

The transfer of the college student aid program from the

Federal Emergency Relief Administration to the National Youth Adminis­

tration entailed no basic changes in the organization structures which

had been set up in the colleges and universities to administer the

F.E.R.A. program. At The Ohio State University, the Executive Committee,

under the chainnanship of President Rightmire, continued to oversee the

work of the Selections, Projects, and Finance Comnittees. The adrninis­

trative personnel of the federal student aid program at The Ohio State

University remained largely the same. 33

The philosophy of administrative decentralization, therefore,

remained intact in the shifting of the college student aid program from

the F.E.R.A. to the N.Y.A. The increased scope of the youth assistance

programs under the N. Y.A. , however, gave rise to criticism from many

educators concerning the limited role assigned to local, state, and

federal education authorities in the administration of the programs.

33W. H. Cowley, A Study of N.Y.A. Projects at The Ohio State University (Washington, D. C.-:- The National Youth Administratiorl, 1937), p. 4; Minutes of the N. Y.A. Executive Committee, September 9, 1935, M-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 99

Before the fonnal armouncement of the N.Y.A., while plans were being formulated for the new agency, John W. Studebaker, U. S.

Corrrrnissioner of Education, was asked by Harry Hopkins to comment on the proposals. Studebaker noted that nearly 80 per cent of the youth to be assisted would be attending the public school~ and colleges and universities. He strongly questioned the wisdom of establishing new administrative machinery, "controlled frcm Washington, to manage a program that is predominantly one of youth education. ,,34

No mention was made of the relationship between the N.Y.A. and existing educational machinery in the Executive Order which created the N. Y.A. on June 26, 1935. An addendum to the Executive

Order did direct that "the Ccmnissioner of Education is to be a member of the Executive Ccmnittee and is to have full administrative charge of the educational aspects of the youth program. 35 The N. Y.A., how­ ever, retained general administrative control of the programs.

Critics of the N. Y.A. administrative struCL-ure were parti­ cularly vociferous during the first year of the program. At its con­ vention in July, 1935, the National Education Association passed a

34Studebaker to Hopkins, Ju.n.e 8, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 106, N.Y.A.--Miscellaneous, Records of the National Youth Administra­ tion, National Archives.

35Addendum to Executive Order 7086, July ll!, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 106, N. Y.A. --Miscellaneous, Records of the National Youth Adrninistration, National Archives. 100 resolution requesting that the N. Y.A. be placed under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education. 36 On July 24, 1935, Professor George D.

Strayer of Columbia University suggested that control of the N.Y.A. by

" ,political appointees' " rather than the Office of Education " 'sets a pattern which a Fascist-minded gove:mrrent might utilize to make the schools a great propaganda machine.' " The N. Y.A. was a " , political plum,' " charged Strayer, and this, rather than educational considera­ tions, led the administration to assign the program to a relief agency. 37 It should be noted that, five years after Professor Strayer's suggestion that the N. Y.A. had Fascist overtones, Aubrey Williams,

Administrator of the N. Y.A., was accused of Communist leanings in the

House of Representatives. He was described by Representative Fish of

New York as " 'the most dangerous man in the government' ,,38 On

August 11, 1935, Strayer elaborated upon his earlier arguments, stating that the trained staff of the education authorities was ignored in the

"unnecessary, elaborate, and highly centralized machinery for the ,,39 National Youth Administration ...

Dr. Harold G. Campbell, Superintendent of Schools in New

York City, reinforced Strayer's position on August 26, 1935 when he

36New York Times, July 5, 1935, p. 5.

37New York Times, July 25, 1935, p. 17.

38New York Times, March 26, 1940, p. 10.

39George D..Strayer, "A Program for Youth," New York Times, August 11, 1935, Section 10, p. 9. 101 contended that the separation of the N. Y.A. pT'Ograms from the Office of

Education was " 'obviously political.' " New York Cit-y would not accept

N. Y.A. funds, stated Campbell, until the city received a guarantee that local school authorities would encounter no interference in using the money. Char'les Taussig, Chainnan of the National Advisory Corrmittee for the N. Y.A., ridiculed Campbell's fears but agreed that they reflected the feelings of numeT'OUS educators acT'OSS the nation. 40

Aubrey Williams defended the separate adrninistrative machinery of the N.Y.A. with the contention that the federal government "should not have a relationship with local units of education where it may seem to be contT'Olling these local educational units through alloca­ tion of funds for relief purposes." The N. Y.A., stated Williams, was a temporary measure and ought not to be confused with the policy and pT'Ograms of local, state, and federal educational authorities. 41

The issue conceITling whether or not the N. Y.A. pT'Ograms should be administered by the Office of Education was closely tied to more. general attacks on federa] contT'Ol and bureaucracy. J. L.

Morrill's thoughts were typical of those of many college

40New York Times, August 27, 1935, pp. 1, 14.

41U. S. House of Representatives, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess., Cormnittee on AppT'Opriations, Hearings on the Department of Labor-Federal Security Agency'" AppT'Opriation !?ill_ for 1941, pt. 2, Federal Security. f:gency (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1940), pp. 598-599. 102

~.:~.: aUIlLUllstrators: 42

It is . . . in this . . . area of wasteful use of public funds . . . under specially created federal bureaucracy that I personally have a good deal of fear that the New Deal will go on the rocks. We can see pretty well in our limited field of education . . . . that there is much that is unsound and wasteful and duplicative-­ and that time and again the established, experienced educational machinery and agencies in the states have been passed up or tied in very loosely in a verbalistic, "cooperative" way to do things which these agencies probably could have done better directly and less expen­ sively. I am still altogether sympathetic with the social vision of the New Deal but privately sort of hopeless about the way that vision is being translated into reality.

Other critics charged that, not only were existing educational agencies by-passed, but that control of the N. Y.A. programs was placed in the hands 0 f In· di Vl . dua 1s w h 0 were lnexperlence . . d' ill e d ucatlona . 1 matters. 43

The "political" nature of the N.Y .A. was particularly gall­ ing to many educators and laymen. The N. Y.A. was characterized as a

"propaganda machine for the New Deal. ,,44 Four days after the announce­ ment of the program, the Student League for Industrial Democracy

depicted the N.Y.A. as a " 'peril to the freedom of thought and action of American students' "which was designed to " 'retard the student movement against war . . . .' " through a " , mere shuffling of

42Morrill to Rightmire, January 31, 1936, M-13-1-13 (Columbus; Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

43John T. Wahlquist, "An Evaluation of the New Deal in Education," School and Society, Vol. 42, No. 1095 (Deceniller 21, 1935), p. 859.

44Ibid., p. 860. 103

· government agencies. ' ,,45 In September, 1935, the .American Youth Con­

gress, which claimed a membership of 1,350,000, attacked the N.Y.A. as

" ,insincere' " and " 'no more than a paltry sop to the youth of the

land.' ,,46 On a more reasonable note, !.Dtus D. Coffman, in November,

1935, questioned the value of the administrative organizations which

had been set up in each state and suggested that "it would be ext:remely

unfortunate if the impression gained ground that the federal govern­

ment was really trying to control education in this country. ,,47

'The N.Y.A. continually lauded the value of decentralization

in its administrative make-up. Nonetheless, the fear remained that

Washington might interfere with the independence of educational insti­

tutions. 48 In October, 1935, fearing" 'close control of education

by the government . • .,' " Hamilton College refused N. Y.A. funds. 49

Harvard also declined N.Y.A. assistance in the fall of 1935.50 On

February 20, 1937, Swarthmore College anriounced that the danger of

45New York Times, July 1, 1935, p. 10.

46New York Times, September 9, 1935, p. 14.

47!.Dtus D. Coffman, "'The Exploitation of Youth," in Transactions and Proceedi~ of the Nationa~ Association of State Universities, ed. by A. H. Upham (1935), p. 199.

48wahlquist, nAn Evaluation of the New Deal," p. 859; Herman G. James, ed., Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities (1937), p. 215. --­

49New York Tirres, October 11, 1935, p. 23.

50New York Tlffies,. November 4, 19 35, p. 1. 104

federal danination had prcmpted its decision to not participate ill the

N.Y.A. program. 51

Misgivings about federal control and bureaucracy notwithstand­

ing, college and university authorities were generally pleased with the high degree of local autonany pennitted in the administration of the

student aid program. 52 Early in the history of the N. Y.A. , Ernest H.

Lindley attempted to assuage the doubts of his colleClooues at a convention

of the National Association of State Universities. The Kansas Univer­

sity Chancellor contended that the Roosevelt administration had attempted

to make the N. Y..A. "as highly decentralized as possible." "I am sure," added Lindley, "there are enough forces in this country antagonistic to highly centralized control of public education to make it a very diffi­

cult undertaking if there were a change in the minds of those in charge of the N. Y.A. ,,53

Lindley's opinions were reinforced by the observations of

other educators as the N.Y.A. program progressed. M. M. Chambers,

speaking for the American Youth Corrrrnission in 1936, stated that the

51Lawrence E. Davies, "Bureaucl'acy H~ld Education's Peril," New York Times, February 21, 1937, p. 18.

52Richard G. Axt, The Federal Government and F~nancing Higher Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 80-81.

53Ernest H. Lindley, "The Care and Education of American Youth-­ The Federal Program," in Transactions and Proceedings of "[he National Association of §tat~ Un~versities, ed. by A. H. Upham -(l935),p.-~17O-:- 105

fear of centralized control had proved to be without basis. National

regulations were rrtinimal, Chambers pointed out, and state youth admin­ ,,54 is"trators exercised "only nominal supervision . . The

Advisory Commit-tee on Education concluded in 1938 that "the federal

. government has avoided encroachment upon institutional autonomy, and

the entire program has been carried forward in a cooperative spirit

,,55 A similar conclusion was reached by the American Associa­

tion of Colleges after a survey of its membership. 56 In 1940, President

Howard L. Bevis of The Ohio State University commended the federal and

state administration of the N. Y.A. in Ohio. The student aid program,

stated Bevis, "has been wholly non-political, with a complete reliance

upOn the autonomy and intelligence of the colleges and universities

participating. ,,57 Thus, while fear of federal domination remained

throughout the existence of the N. Y.A., in actual practice federal and

state authorities adhered to the philosophy of local autonomy which

has Characterized A~erican education.

54M. M. Chambers, "National Goverrrrnental Agencies and the Youth Problem," School and Society, Vol. 43, No. 1097 (January 4, 1936), pp. 2-3.

55The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, p. 14lL

56"Association of American Colleges Endorses Student Aid Program," July 25, 1937, Record Group 119, Series 182, !?:ox 44, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

57Bevis to John J. Tigert, February 12, 1940, AA-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: Tne Ohio State University Ay'Chives). 106

Certain other criticisms concerrung the national and state administration of the student aid program were more valid. The need for a closer relationship between participating institutions and state

N.Y.A. authorities was widely recognized. The state offices, suggested the American College Personnel Association, should be "looked upon, not as paymasters, but as a reservoir of ideas and a coordinating.unit for all the colleges in the state so far as N. Y.A. is concerned.1158

The same report noted the need for more corrununication between the institutions and the state N.Y.A. offices. State N.Y.A. directors also stressed the need for greater understanding between the state offices ... 59 and t he co11eges and unlversltles .

At 'The OlLio State University, the lack of contact between ·the institution and the state authorities created the impression, according to vJilliam S. Guthrie, Director of Student :Employment, that the state office was not concerned about the program in Ohio colleges and univer­ sities. A "visiting representative" from the state office, Guthrie felt, would improve the relationship between the institutions and the

N.Y.A. so long, of course, as his activities did not interfere with the

58American College Personnel Association, "Report of Cormnittee on Relationships with N. Y.A. ," February 21, 19L}O, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 74, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

59Surnrnary of Remarks frc:m TWenty-Eight State Directors Regarding the Student Aid Program, October 23, 1937, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 7, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 107

60 autonomy of the institutions in administering the program. National

N. Y.A. officials also recognized the importance of tact in the part of 61 the state offices in their dealings with colleges and universities.

In response to t'1e need for a more direct relationship be­

tween the participating institutions and state N. Y.A. offi<7es, Aubrey

Williams directed the establishment of a Division of Student Work in each state in 1940. 62 In 1941, Williams authorized the creation of

College Work Councils. 63 Each College Work Council was to consist of three to five members, serving without compensation, who would render

"advisory services to the National Youth Administration in the appraisal,

improvement, and further development of the college and graduate work program within the state." M official in the state office would serve

as executive secretary of the Council. The executive secretary would

visit participating colleges and universities to advise college officials

60Guthrie to Morrill, December 3, 1936, AA-13-5-9 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

61Meeting of educators and N. Y.A. officials, May 1, 1940, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 5, Records of the National Youth Administra­ tion, National Arc..'1ives •

62Willia;1lS to All State Youth Administrators, July 2, 1940, Record . Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tration, National Archives; S. Burns Weston, Administrator, National Youth Administration for Ohio, to Bevis, October 9, 1940, A-13-5·-13 (Columbus, Ohio: 'The Ohio State University Archives).

63Williams to All State Youth Administrators, July 8, 1941, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 67, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Arr..hives . 108 with respect to the administration of the student aid program and would make reports to the College Work COW1cil.

Improvements in organization on the state level, however, did not resolve the basic administrative problems inherent in the transient status of the N. Y.A. The emergency nature of the program made effective planning difficult on both the national and institutional levels.

Until the 1938 fiscal year, N.Y.A. fW1ds were allocated from W.P.A. appropriations. Even when the N. Y.A. began to receive eannarked appropriations from Congress, the agency's officials were never certain from year to year about the extent to which fW1ds would be available for the program. The W1certainty precluded long-term planning. 64

State N. Y.A. directors complained that delayed annOW1cements left little time to adequately explain the programs to the participating institutions each year. 65 A study of the N.Y.A. program at Ohio Unive!'­ sity indicated that doubt concerning the continuation of- the program made it extremely difficult to match student interest and training with appropriate work projects. University officials had little time to study the capabilities and interests of the students in light of project needs. Furthermore, the study contended, without more prompt notice of the availability of the aid, many students could not attend

640. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Corrmi ssion, p. 25.

65Suillnary of Remarks fran Twenty-Eight State Directors, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 109 college. 66 A survey of colleges and UDiversities in Idaho concluded that a sizable number of youth did not enroll in college because they were not notified of whether or not they would be able to obtain

N.Y.A. assistance. 67 Other college officials also pointed to the 68 administrative difficulties involved in a temporary plan. SU:rmJunt­ ing these difficulties, however, was only one part of the administra­ tive task which confronted participating institutions.

Institutional Administration of the College Student Aid PrDgram ­

'The N. Y.A. issued its first regulations concerning institu­ tional eligibility for participation in the college student program on August 15, 1935. 'The regulations were similar to those which had been formulated by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. 69

660. S. National Youth Administration, Ohio, An Evaluation of the ;N.Y.A. Student Aid Program at Ohio University,Athens , -Ohio: An Exploratory ~ttempt at the Measurement of th~ Values Lerived ~ the N.Y.A. Students from Their:. PrDject Employment (ColumbuS, Ohio: National Youth Administration in Ohio, 1939), pp. vii-viii.

67U. S. National Youth Administration for Idaho, An Evaluation of the N.Y.A. College Work Program, p. 131, Record Group 119, Series 206~x 72, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

6~orrill to William McPherson, April 25, 1939, AA-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives); Lindley, "'The Care and Education of American Youth--'The Federal Program," p. 167. .

69Williams "to All State Youth Directors, August 15, 1935, Record Group 119) Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tration, National Archives. 110

Any institution of a "collegiate or university character" was eligible if it required "at least the equivalent of high school graduation for admission of regular students to its principal curricula" and if it was "non-profit making in character." An institution was considered to be non-profit making if its charter defined it as such and if it was exempt fran local and state property taxes. Questions concermng institutional eligibility were to be resolved by the state deparbnents of education who were authorized to solicit the opinions of the state attorney generals if necessary. Decisions were subj ect to review by the Washington N.Y.A. authorities. As under the r.E.R.A. program, each institution was required to submit an affidavit certifying its willingness to adhere to N. Y.A. regulations and listing its full-time enrollment.

On August 30, 1935, the N.Y .A. published the first regulations for the new graduate aid program. 70 Eligible institutions were those of "college or university character" which required "at least the equivalent of graduation from a standard college for admission of regular students to graduate work" and awarded "non-professional master's or doctor's degrees." The regulations relating to the non-profit maJr-ing character of the participating institutions and the submission of affidavits were basically the same as those for the

70Williams to All State Youth Directors, August 30, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Pox 69, Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tration, National Archives. III undergraduate student aid program.

Beginning with the 1937-1938 program, each participating college and university was required to file a proposed work plan for approval by the state N. Y.A. office. 71 The work plan included a classification and description of the types of work projects which the institution llltended to sponsor, the kinds and a'1lounts of supervision, the number of students to be employed, the wage rates to be paid and the total hours of work to be performed each month. A proviso requir­ ing the approval of the state N.Y.A. office of "any basic deviations from the work plan . . ." was added on July 28, 1938. 72 The Federal

SecurityAgency concluded that the institutional work plans stimulated advance thought and planning and significantly improved the N. Y.A. 73 program.

There were no other major changes in the institutional eli­ gibility requirements during the re..Tffi.inder of the 1930 IS, although requests for rnodificaticn of the requirements were received by the

71N.y •A. Bulletin No. 10--College and Graduate Aid 1937-1938, August 12,1937, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

72N.Y.A. Bulletin No. 12--Student Aid Program, July 28, 1938, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

73u. S. Federal Security .Agency, War Manpower Commission, p. 59. ll2

. 74 N.Y ..A on a number 0 f occaslons. Co:rrmen~ial schools and other pri­ vately owned institutions were eager to secure work relief funds for their students. Williams, however, finnly resisted extending the ,~'r': program to sch001S Wlll;h. ch operated on a prof· It ~~ng baSlS. . 75

As previously noted, participating institutions were re­ quired to be of collegiate or university character. Critics complained that this criterion precluded the participation of many schools of art, drama, music, and nursing and other institutions which did not have college standing. 76 Also criticized was the N.Y.A. regulation which granted the state departments of education the authority to detennine whether 'or not an institution met the criterion. It was charged that, in the absence of stricter federal standards and greater authority on the part of state education authorities to rule on the quality of the institutions, many institutions of dubious character

74N.y .A. Bulletin No. 5--Student Aid Program 1936-1937, August 10, 1936, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76; N.Y.A. Bulletin No. 10-­ College and Graduate Aid 1937-1938; N. Y.A. Bulletin No. 12---Student Aid Program; Williams to All State Youth Administrators, July 17, 1939, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National ~hives.

7~7illiams, M~h 3,1937, Record Group 119, Series 173, Eox 8, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

76Interim Report on the Student Aid Program, April 15, 1936, Record Group 119, Series 173, Eox 7, Records of the National Youth Administration, National ~hlves. 113 were being admitted to the program. 77

In general, according to Harry Hopkins, the participating institutions presented no particular administrative problems. The success of the program, Hopkins believed, .could be attributed to the decentralization of administrative authority and the willingness of college and university officials to assume responsibility. 78 On the institutional level, the experience of Ohio University was probably representative of that of the participating institutions. 'The college student aid program at Ohio University, according to the Dean of Women, suffered fran disorganization during its initial stages but quickly deve1oped a sense 0 f purpose a.T)d lIDprove. d organlzatlon.. al te chn'lques . 79

There were, of course, a few instances in which college officials were guilty of flagrant violations of N. Y.A. regulations.

Perhaps the most significant of these was revealed following the suicide of a student aid administrator at Louisiana State University in August, 1939. The university was placed on probation by the N.Y.A. for six months while an investigation was conducted concerning the charges of malfeasance which allegedly had led to the death of the

77Malcolrn M. Willey, I:epression, Recovery, and Higher Education: A Report EY Committee r of the American Association of University . Professors (New York: McGraw-Hill Eook Company, Inc., 1937), p. 381; Johnson and Harvey, The National Youth Administration, pp. 46-47; Summary of Remarks from Tltlenty-Eight State Directors OJ Records of the National Youth Administration.

78Lindley, A New Deai for..:. Youth, p. x.

79U. S. National Youth Administration, Ohio, An Evaluation of the N.Y.A. Student Aid Program, p. vii. 114 administrator. It was determined that the university had been delin­ quent in its method of selecting students for the program, in super­ vising work projects and in keeping records. 80 Similar charges of administrative laxity were levied against Wilber'force University in

Wilberforce, Ohio in 1942. 81

Serious violations of N. Y.A. regulations were rare. A number of participating institutions, however, were criticized for fail­ ing to develop educational objectives for their work program. A survey of the college and graduate aid program in California institutions declared that the most glaring weakness in the administration of the program was the absence of a goal other than the imnediate allevia­ tion of financial need. In many California institutions "policies and procedures . . . tended to be based on makeshift decisions which had little correlation to a broader educational philosophy." The effect, the survey concluded, was manifested in inadequate supervision and indiscriminate assignment of students to projects in a number of institutions. 82

80Tom L. Popejoy, N.Y.A. I:€put.y Administrator, to Floyd Reeves, August 16, 1939, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 8, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

81Jacob Fullmer, Administrator, N.Y.A. in Ohio, to Stewart Campbell, Director, N.Y.A. Region II, May 25, 1942, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 75, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

82National Youth Administration in California, Report on the Admin­ istration of the College and Graduate Aid Program, 1937-1938, p. 45, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 71, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 115

The results of a national study by the American College Per­ sonnel Association were similar to the findings of the California survey. 83 A major criticism expressed by the state N.Y.A. administra­ tors questioned by the A.C.P.A. was that college officials had not

"taken the trouble to understand and fully appreciate the educational implications and potentialities that are inherent ill the Student Aid

PrDgram." Administrative weaknesses were evident l!1 "1-'001' selection of students, poor selection of work projects, and failure to impress upon the students their responsibility in return for the opportunity that the work program gives them. I!

The A.C.P.A. study also revealed that, in a m.rrnber of cases, the administration of the student aid programs had been turned over to individuals who had heavy responsibilities in other areas and were not able to devote sufficient time to the N. Y.A. programs. The full- time attention of a college official would have improved the adrninis­

~ I.L-at· lon 0 f t h e program In. many l!1stl...tutlons. 84. Fe d eral f und s were not available for administration. The N. Y.A. suggested that work relief students be assigned to handle reports, records, and other administra­ tive details in the participating institutions. In response to a suggestion that me.mbers of the state staffs be detailed to perform adrninistrative duties in the institutions, the N. Y.A. replied that

83~lerice;m College Personnel Association, llReport of the Comnittee on Relatlonslnps with N. Y.A. 11

84Cowley , "F.E. R.A. Student Aid Program," p. 94; Federal Security ~ef)CY, National Youth Administration for Idaho, Record Group 119, Serles 206, Box 72, p. 135. 116

"this would raise too many canplex problems concemJ!1g divided authority to work satisfactorily.1I85

During the early stages of the N. Y.A. program, university officials began to support the inclusion of students in the policy- making areas of the program. Initially the N. Y.A. felt that the issue of student representation was "outside its province . . . ." and should be resolved by the participating institutions. 86 By August, 1936, how­ ever, the N.Y.A. was encouraging colleges and universities to invite student participation, "not only in the selection of students and the administration of the Work Program, but also in the detenmnation of policies relating to the program in their institutions. 1187

At The Ohio State University there was sane reluctance to involve students in the aoonistration of the program. Vice-President

Morrill indicated that "the whole enterprise is so very large here and so ccmplex that we frankly wonder whether anything would be gained by our doing so.,,88 A student representative was appointed to the Projects

85Richard R. BrcJNn, Deputy Executive Director, N. Y.A., to the National Advisory Committee of the National Youth Administration, April 15, 1936, Group 58, Box 6, Aubrey tvilliams General File, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library.

86Ibid.

87Brown to All State Youth Directors, August 10, 1936, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of tl-ie National Youth Adrrrinistra­ tion, National Archives.

8~orrill to Guthrie, January 3, 1936, AA-13-5-13 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 117

Committee at The Ohio State University in 1939, ho",ever, and, according

to the carnnittee chainnan, "showed a canplete understanding of his . . . work. ,,89

Selection of Students

A major admU1istrative problem for the participating insti­

tutions continued to be the selection of students. Regulations relat­

ing to student eligibility were issued by the N. Y.A. on August 15,

1935. 90 Similar regulations were announced for the graduate aid pro­

gram on August 30, 1935. 91

All student aid under the N. Y.A. was restricted to youths

age,d 16 thrDugh 24. The Ohio State University unsuccessfully attempted

to secure a relaxation of the age l:imits, pointing out that a large number of its applicants for N. Y.A. aid were over the prescribed age

limit. 92 The Ohio State University effort was supported by a number

of colleges and universities, including a conference of Ne"\", York State

89Guthrie to Bevis, August 17, 1940, AA-13-5-13 (Columbus, Or,io: The Ohio State University Archives).

90Williams to All State Youth Directors, August 15, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69.

91Williams to All State Youth Directors, August 30, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69.

92Morrill to Harry E. Rabe, Supervisor, N. Y.A. Student Aid Pro­ gram in Ohio, October 21, 1937, AA-13-5-9 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives). 118 col~ege officials. 93

The instructions of August 15) 1935 specified four other criteria for the selection of undergraduate students which were similar to those which had been established by the F.E.R.A. Only students carrying at least three-fourths of the institution's nonnal course load would be eligible. N.Y .A. students were to be of "good character."

Furthe:rmJre, the students were to "possess such ability as to give assurance that they will do high grade work in college." Finally,

N.Y.A. assistance was to be given only to students for whom college attendance would be impossible without such aid. The regulations relat­ ing to the selection of the graduate students, released on August 30, were virtually the same as the student selection procedures for under­ graduates.

A continuing controversy developed around the regulation con­ cemlllg student need. Unlike the out-of-school program, N. Y.P.. college student aid was not limited to youth from families on relief. 94 No such limitation was ever incorporated into the college student aid prog-ram, despite the contention by several member's of Congress that it was illogical to use relief funds to finance the education of

93Thelma McKelvey to Richaro R. Brown, May 25, 1937, Recoro Group 119, Ser'ies 173, Box 7, Recoms of the National Youth Administration , National Archives. .

94Lindley, A New Deal for Youth, p. 159. 119 students who were not on relief.95 Many participating institutions favored greater flexibility in the N.Y.A. 's definition of need. The

N. Y.A. in California suggested that a more acceptable definition would be that "without such assistance the student could not enter or remain incollege under conditions conducive to good health and scholarship. ,,96

A study of the N.Y.A. at the University of Vermont offered a similar alternative in recommending that the definition be changed to read that

''without such aid the applicant would be seriously handicapped in attend­ ing the institution." The study indicated that, in most cases, if N. Y.A. aid was not available, students would obtain the necessary money from some other source. Most students, therefore, could not in good conscience claim that without their N.Y.A. earnings they could not attend college. 97

On August 10, 1936, the N.Y.A. modified the student selection regulations. 98 Students could qualify if "in need of such assistance

95U. S. Senate, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Corrmittee on Appropriations, Hearings on !i.. J. Res. 361, f:... Joint Resolution Making Ap'proEriati~ns for Relief Purposes (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1937), p. 102.

9~.Y.A. lD California, Report on the Administration, p. 2.

97Arthur D. Butterfield, Histor-y of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and National Youth AdmiilIstretion Part-Time Work at the Dniversity of Vermont and State Agricultural College, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

98N.Y.A. Bulletin No. 5--Student Aid Program,1936-1937, August 10, 1936, Record GrDup 119, Series 206, Box 76. 120 in order to enter or remain in school properly." The insertion of

"properly" broadened the original definition of financial need. In addition the earlier regulation relating to academic ability was expanded. Originally the regulation specified that students receiving

N.Y.A. aid should "possess such ability as to give assurance that they will do high grade work in college." The new regulation added the proviso that N. Y.A. students "must continue to do good scholastic work while receiving aid." The N.Y .A. continued to require participating students to carry at least three-fourths' of the institution's regular course load. Night students, however, were now eligible for assistance.

In 1940, the regulation was again changed and students attending evening sessions were no longer eligible for the student work program. The student work program, stated Aubrey ~villiams, was "for the benefit of regular day students ...." Night students might apply for employment under the out-of-school program but could not qualify for the student aid program since, according to Williams, "night sessions are designed primarily for employed persons ...." and "in a majority of the evening schools it would be d.i..fficult to provide an effective work program for the employment of students." 99

Prior to the 1937-1938 school year the N.Y.A. incorporated two significant revisions into the student eligibility regulations.

99Williams to All State Youth Administrators, June 10, 1940, Record Group 119, Series 194, Box 85, Records of the National Youth Administra­ tion, National Archives. 121

As a result of a reduction in funds, it reverted to a strict definition of f lnanCla· . 1 need. 100 The participating institutions were admonished to "exercise every precaution to make certain that no portion of the funds are made available to any student who dOes not produce satisfactory evidence ...• that he could not enter and/or remain in school with­ out aid through employment on the Student Aid Program. ,,101 The return to the old definition sparked a vigorous protest frc:m a number of colleges and universities. l02 The second revision limited student aid to youth who were, or had filed declarations of intent to become, citizens of the United States.

In the surmner of 1938, the N.Y.A. tightened the citizenship requirements further by declaring that aliens who had not filed declara­ tions of intent to becc:me citizens prior to June 21, 1938 would not be eligible for the 1938-1939 program. l03 The regulations foy' the 1939-1940 program stipulated that no aliens, including those who had filed 104 declarations of intent, would be eligible for N. Y.A. employment. The

100New York Times, September 19, 1937, Section II, p. 1; N.Y.A. lI1 California, Report on the Administration, p. 2.

lOlN.Y.A. Bulletin No. lO--College ill1d Graduate Aid, 1937-1938, August 12, 1937, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69.

102N.y .A. in California, pp. 14-15.

103N•y .A. Bulletin No. 12--Student Aid Program, July 28, 1938, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76. . l04Williams to All State Youth Administrators, July 17, 1939, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69. 122

1939-1940 regulations further specified that "no person who advocates,

or who is a member of an organization that· advocates, the overthY'Qli]

of the Goverrunent of the United States through force or violence .. 11

WJuld be employed under the N. Y.A. progro3Jll.

The N.Y.A. again liberalized its definition of financial need for the 1940-1941 program, stating that the need of the applicant must be such that N.Y.A. assistance would be essential to enable the

student to "continue properly his education. "lOS It also announced that an oath of allegiance would be required from each student employed under the program. l06 The oath included an affirmation of the appli­

cant's willingness to "support and defend the Constitution of the

Unl'te· d States agamst . a 11 eneml.es. f'orelgn and d'Q'1lestlc.... ,,107

Protests fran conscientious objectors notwithstancEng, the N. Y.A. refused to permit any alteration of the wording or authorize payment to any person who could not accept the oath "precisely as prescribed ,,108

l°5t1inutes of the N.Y.A. Executive Committee, October 10, 1940, AA-13-5-13 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

106Williarns to All State Youth Administrators, July 2, 1940, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69. 107Dnployment Affidavit and Oath of Allegiance, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 6, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

108Rabe -to Guthpie, October 10, 1940, M-13-5-13 (Colwnbus, Ohio: The Ohio Sta-te University Archives). 123

The mechanics of selecting the students were very similar to the pTDCedures followed by the participating institutions W1der the

F.E.R.A. program. At The Ohio State University, Bland L. Stradley,

University Examiner, continued to chair the Student Selection Comnittee.

The Committee included the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women. l09

Stradley remaLT1ed in charge of th~ selection of students at the W1iver­ sity throughout the 1930' s. In 1940, havever, many of the administra­ tive responsibilities for student selection were shifted from the

Entrance Board to the Student Employment Office .110

As the college student aid program progressed, the N. Y.A. developed administrative procedures for the selection of students. 'TIle regulations for the 1936-1937 program stipulated that each student desiring to parHcipate would be required to make a written application

"on a form prescribed by the head of the institution." Colleges and universities were encouraged to make use of outside agencies and individuals to determine the financial status of the applicants .111

The 1937-1938 regulations required the use of a standard application form and also stipulated that approved applications be forwarded for exarrunatlon. . b y the state NY·. .A. director. 112

109Cowley, "F.E.R.A. Student Aid Program,"p. 5.

llCMinutes of the N.Y.A. Executive Committee, May 24,1940, AA-4-2-4, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

IllN.Y.A. Bulletin No. 5--Student Aid Program, 1936-1937, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76.

112N.y .A. Bulletin No. 10--College and Graduate Aid, 1937-1938, August 12, 1937, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69 124

The most difficult problem for the participating institutions was that of detennining the financial need· of each applicant. 1he

Ohio State University found unsatisfactory the N.Y.A. 's suggestion that outside agencies be utilized. The infonnation provided to the univer­

Sl.ty f rom soclal . work' ers was lnadequate and slor,v ill" cOffilng .. 113

Undoubtedly some students received assistance who did nct properly qualify for it under the N.Y.A. 's strict definition of financial need. Departmental "wire-pulling" was cited as one reason for the occasional assignment of a non-needy student.114 Scholastically superior students were sometimes rewarded with N. Y.A. jobs even though their financial need was less than that of other> students. Furthennore , offlcials in the participating institutions were frequently confused about the criteria to be applied in selecting students.115

Initially there was criticism of some institutions which granted N.Y.A. assistance to students who were members of fraternities and sororities. Mter a short while, however, most institutions excluded fraternity· and sorority members from consideration for N. Y.A. aid. 116 One controversy which was never resolved concerned whether

113Stradley to Morrill, December 2, 1936, M-13-5-9 (Colunlbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Ar'chives).

llL~Cowley, "F.E.R.A. Student Aid Program," p. 104; Lindley, A New Deal for Youth, p. 164. .

115.Arnerican College Personnel Association, "Report of the Corrmittee on Relationships with N.Y.A."

116Lindley, !::.New Deal for Youth, p. 164. 125

or not N.Y.A. aid should be denied to expenSlve private institutions or

severely limited on the grounds that N.Y.A. students in those institu­

tions could probably attend a state school without aid. 117

'There is little doubt that, on the whole, colleges and uni­

versl.tles . restrlcte . d N... Y A al . d to nee dy stud ents. 118 An'lTl d'lcatlon .

of the financial status of the applicants was revealed in a five-year

study of freshman applicants for the N.Y.A. program at Indiana State

Teachers College in Terra Haute. Nearly one-half of the freshmen vJho

failed to get N. Y.A. jobs did not enter college.119 A survey of the

N.Y.A. students at the University of Minnesota indicated that nearly

one-fifth were fn:im families in which the breadwinner was unemployed

or on relief. 12 0 Other studies also pointed to the tenuous financial

117Lindley, A New Deal for Youth, p. 164; Stradley to Horrill, December 2, 1936,-M-13-·5-9 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives) .

118N•y .A. in California, Report on the Administration, p. 10; University of Wisconsin Student Thlployment Bureau, The Student Federal Aid Program at the University of Wisconsin, 1934-19~ p. 32, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 76, Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tration, National j\rchives; Cowley, "F.E .R.A. Student Aid Program," p. 19; J. H. Feth, "Report on the N.Y .A. Program at the University of New Hexico,1i November 12, 1941, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 72, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

119A. C. Payne, "Where Go Freshmen Who Fail to Get N. Y.A. Thlploy­ ment," School and Society, Vol. 51, No. 1318 (March 30, 1940), pp. 423­ 424.

12°Dorothy G. Johnson and Malcolm H. Willey, "Backgrounds of College N.Y.A. Students," Vol. 50, No. 1286 (August 19,1939), p. 256. 126

status of N.Y.A. students. 121

Quotas and Expenditures

. N. Y.A. assistance alone was not sufficient to enable impoverished

students to attend college. It was, however, an important factor for

many students. The regulations of August 15, 1935 establishing the W1der­

. graduate student aid program al.lotted $15.00 per month for each student

in the participating institution's quota. The quota was set at 12

per cent of the institution's full-time enrollment on October 15, 1934.

Students were limited to 30 hours of work per week and 8 hours per day.

Monthly earnings could not exceed $20.00.122 The instructions for the

. graduate aid program pennitted first-year graduate students to earn a

maximum of $30.00 per month. Advanced graduate students could earn up

to $40.00 per month. 123

The N. Y.A. also set up a national Division of Negro Affair'S

ill 1935 and allotted special fW1ds for Negro college and graduate stu­

dents who could not be assisted within the regular quotas of the

121Lindley, A New Deal for Youth, pp. 162-163; Johnson and Harvey, The National Youth Adffiinrstra-tIon, p. 35; Federal Security Agency, N. Y.A. , YOUth on the Student Work Program (1940), pp. 36-42, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 65, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

122Williams to All State Youth Directors, August 15, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69.

123Williams to All State Youth Directors, August 30, 1935, Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69. 127 participating institutions.124- No more than 780 Negro students were assisted from the funds in any given year during the Depression, however. 125 The Ohio State University was quite critical of the limited scope of the program.126 After having widely advertised the special aid, stated Vice-President Morrill, the N. Y.A. then "failed to substantiate in any real degree its promises. ,,127

As previously noted, the N. Y.A. was uncertain from year to year of the extent to which funds would be allocated by Congress for the student aid program. In 1938, Williams protested a one-third reduction in funds as a "severe blow" to equality of educational opportunity.128 In testifying before Congressional committees, hoWever, Williams and Hopkins were primarily concerned about expanding the out-of-school work program rather than student

124-"N. Y.A. and Negro Youth," January 194-0, Record Group 119, Series 173, Box 9, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

125U. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Commission, p. 52. .

126Guthrie to Rightmire, November 27, 1936, M-3-8-6 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives); Morrill to McPherson, October 31, 1938, M-4--2-4- (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives) .

127Morrill to Rabe, November 2, 1938, AA-13-5-13 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

128Aubrey Williams, "Protests Cut in N. Y.A. Funds," New York Times, January 2, 1938, Section II, p. 5. 128 aid. l29

In response to college officials who asked that a larger share of the relief funds be allocated to the student aid program, the

N.Y.A. cited its "obligation to our inarticulate out-of-school youth who are less able to secure a champion for their cause. ,,13q

The Ohio State University was one of many institutions which strongly opposed curtailmBnt of N.Y.A. funds during the late 1930's.131

N. Y.A. aid was never adequate to meet the financial needs of college students durlng· t h e vepresslon.n.-- • 132 Eo t h the n umber 0 fstu d ents al'd e d and the amount of assistance provided were limited. Federal aid

- 129U. S. Senate, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., Committee on Appropria­ tions, Hearings on ~ Joint Resolution Making 6£Eropriations for Work Relief, Relief_, and Otherwise to Increase Employment £L Providing Loans and Grants for Public Works Projects (Washington, D. C.: Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1938), p. 181; U. S. House of Representatives, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., Subcorrunittee of the Corrunittee on Appropriations, Hearings on the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1938 and Public Works Administration Appropriation Act of 1938 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 167; U. S. Senate, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on ~ Joint Resolution Making !\I?Eropriations for Relief Purposes (Washington, D. C.: Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1937), p. 90.

130Brown to Weston, July 7,1937, M-,-3-8-6 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

13~inutes of the Executive Corrunittee of the N.Y .A., February 7, 1938, M-3-8-6 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

132U. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Commission, p. 58; Cowley, "F.E. R.A. Student Aid Program," p. 20. 129 students at the University of Minnesota were advised not to enter the university unless they were able to provide for the bulk of their expenses from other sources .133 For many students, however, parti­ cularly those living at hone while attending public institutions,

N.Y.A. assistance covered the expenses of tuition, fees, and books. 134

Unquestionably the N. Y.A. made it possible for a large number of stu­ dents to attend college. 135

The average number of students employed each month under the college student aid program in the 1930's ranged from 139,000 during the 1936-1937 academic year to 96,700 during 1937-1938.136 The tot~l number of youth employed under the college student aid program was approximately 620,000. 137 The Ohio State University program was one

13~alcolm M. Willey, University Dean and Assistant to the Presi­ dent, University of Minnesota, to Charles W. Taussig, Chairman, National Advisory Committee for the N. Y.A., April '21, 1938, Record Group 119, Series 173, Eox 3, Records of the National Youth Adminis­ tration, National Archives.

134John H. McNeeley, lIFederal Student Aid for 109,000,11 School Life, Vol. 21, No.6 (February 1936), p. 147. --­

135Alice M. Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education (Washington, D. C.: The BrookingsInsti­ tution, 1961r;p. 63.' .

13611Average Number of Youth Dnployed Per Month, Student Work Program," Record Group 119, Series 206, Box 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

13711 EstJJnated• Numb er 0 f·Dlfferent Youth Employed on the Student Work Program by Academic Years 1936 through 1943,11 Record Group 119, Series 206 , Eox 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 130 of the largest in the country. The university employed 1,200 to 1,500

N.Y.A. students each month during the Depression at pay rates of 30 to 50 cents an hour for undergraduates and up to 75 cents an hour for graduate students. 138 Nationally N.Y.A. 'students earned an average wage of $12.00 per month. 139

The Ohio State University pressed unsuccessfully for two major changes in the N.Y.A. quota system. As it had under the F.E.R.A. program, the university asked for an allowance for administrative expenses. 140 Ohio State University officials also believed that col­ leges with high tuition costs should be restricted in their partici­ pation in the pro~rarn.141 Other institutions pointed out that the rigidity of the quota system prevented consideration of the diverse economic needs of various areas of the country. 142 Williams defended

138Guthrie to McPherson, August 1, 1939, AA-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives); N. Y.A. Projects Corrmittee to Departmental Representatives, May 24, 1941, M-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University A('chives).

139"Average Earnings Per Month Per Student by Academic Year and by Program," Record Group 119, Series 206, Pox 69, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives.

14%inutes of the Executive Cc:mnii..-tee of the N.Y.A., June 30, 1936, M-3-4-15 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Archives).

14~uthrie to Morrill, December 3, 1936, AA-3-4-15 (Colunbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University AY'Chives ) .

142Surnmary of Remarks from Twenty-Eight State Directors, Records of the National Youth Administration, National Archives. 131

the standard quota, believing that any other system might open the N.Y.A. .. 143 to charges 0 f f avorltlsm.

Projects

The N.Y.A. continued the F.E.R.A. 's emphasis on socially

. desirable work projects which would not displace the nonnal employrrent

activities of the participating institution. The tasks of the colleges

and universities in administering the projects were quite similar to

those which they encountered under the F.E .R.A. program. The Projects

Committee at The Ohio State University followed basically the same

procedures in soliciting and evaluating suggestions for projects from

the faculty and staff. The Corrmittee reviewed the projects during

the school year. 144 It also inaugurated a grading policy for student

perfonnance on projects.145

Students continued to work on much the same kinds of projects

as those initiated under the F.E.R.A. program. Numerous studies of

the N.Y .A. programs in various institutions revealed highly favorable

opinions of students and supervisors about the value of the projects

to the students and to the institutions. There were occasional

143U. S. House of Representatives, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess., Hearings on the Department of labor-Federal Security Agency, p. 59l.

144Co:,vley, "F .E.R.A. Student Aid Program," p. 7.

14~inutes of the N. Y.A. Executive Corrunittee, May 24, 1940, AA-4-2-4 (Columbus, Ohio: 'The Ohio State University Archives). 132 charges of waste and abuse .146 In general, however, as the Advisory

Corrrrnittee on Education pointed out, the work had "a distinct educa­ tiona1 value for the youth concerned . " and was "of substantial value to the institutions ....,,147

146Robert L. Kelly, The .American Colleges and the Social Order (New York: The Macmillan-Co., 1940), p. 291. -­

147The Advisory Ccmrnittee on Education, Report of the Carmittee , p. 102. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Prior to the Great Depression, federal aid to higher educa­

tion did not include assistance to students. Institutions, hcwever, benefitted frcm a variety of federal measures, begirming with the

early public lands legislation and continuing with the Mor!'ill Acts, the establishment of agricultural experiment stations and home­

demonstration centers and the development of teacher-training programs

in vocational and. agricultural education.

The relief activities of the federal government during the

Great Depression were designed to assist the unemployed rather than higher education; however, public colleges and universities were able to take advantage of the relief funds . Initiated with loans from the

Reconstruction Finance Corporation for self-liquidating projects and expanded through the programs of the Federal Emergency Relief Admin­

istration, the Civil Works Administration, the Public Works Adminis­ tration, and the Works Progress Administration, federal assistance made possible considerable enlargement and improvement of physical plants in colleges and universities.

Instittltions of higher education also participated in the educational programs of the relief agencies . A nwrber of colleges

and universities cooperated quite actively with the Civilian

133 134

Conservation Corps. These institutions provided courses on their cam­

puses, extension classes, correspondence courses, instructors, speakers,

discussion leaders, library facilities, and financial assistance to

C.C.C. students. Many institutions also established training pro­

. grams for C. C. C. educational personnel. Colleges and universiti~s

also assisted the emergency junior colleges with supervision,

instructors, and acceptance of transfer credit and, on a less fonnal

level, through preparation of syllabi and examinations.

The effect of this involvement with the programs of the

New Deal was to bring higher education into a closer relationship

with the federal government. The relationship was made even closer

by the college student aid prog-t'ams of the Federal Emergency Relief

Administration and the National Youth Administration.

Financial assistance to needy college students was inadequate

even before the Depression. The problem was compounded by the economic

collapse of 1929. Tentative efforts toward a solution took the fonn

of an experimental student aid program in Minnesota during December,

1933 and January, 1934. The Ohio State University was one of the

colleges and universities which pet:itioned the Federal Emergency

Relief Administration for a nationwide extension of the program. On

February 2, 1934, the F .E.R.A. expanded college student aid to

include all non-profit making institutions of higher education. In

the sumner of 1935, the program was transferred from the F .E.R.A.

to the National Youth Administration. 135

During its early stages, the college student aid program

was regarded primarily as a relief measure. Many institutions were

criticized for failing to develop educational goals for their programs

and for laxity in the selection and supervision of students and pro­

jects. In ~Tuly, 1934, the F.E.R.A. reminded the participating insti­

. tutions of the basic purpose of the program. The assistance, the

F .E.R.A. ac'bnonished, was intended to make it possible for more students

to attend college through part-time work on socially desirable pro-

j eets . Colleges and universities were not to regard the program as

simply a means by which institutional flmds normally used for student

aid could be diverted to other areas.

The federal government was also criticized for emphasizing

a philosophy of relief rather than educa-tion in administering the

program. Observers castigated the creation of a relief bureaucracy

to oversee the program and the exclusion of local, state, and federal

education authorities. Some critics maintained that the organiza­

tional pattern established would inevitably lead to federal inter­

fer"€nce in education.

This fear proved to be unfounded, for both the F.E.R.A. and

the N.Y.A. assiduously adhered to a philosophy of administrative

decentralization. On a number of occasions, however, college

officials suggested that certain regulations promulgated by the

federal authorities were unrealistic and prevented full realization of

the educational potential of the program. The recurring theme in 136

INew York Times, April 26, 1939, p. 18. 137

Work-Study Program, Economic OpIXJrtunity Grants, increased Social

Security benefits for educational purposes, the Guaranteed Loan

Program and a variety of other programs. 2

The college student aid program of the Depression years had

furthered the process of democratization in American higher education.

The programs of the past decade reflect the precedents established by

the Federal Dnergency Relief Administration and the National Youth

Administration. There was a major difference, however, between the

Depression program and the more recent measures.

The F.E. R.A. and N. Y.A. programs were inspired by the re­

lief needs of a generation of Depression youth. Although the college

student aid program of the repression era did develop educational

significance, the program remained transient in nature. The National

Defense Education Act, however, marked a Change in attitude on the

part of the federal government.

2Guide to Grants, Loans, and Other Types of Government Assistance Available to Students and Educational Institutions (Washington, D. c.: Public Mfairs Press, 1967); U. S. Office of Education, Federal Aids for College Students. (Washington, D. C.: Government P-{'inting Office, 1966); U. S. repartment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, School Certification of full-Time Attendance for Social Security Purposes (Washington, D. C-:= Government Printing Office, 1966); U. S. Office of Educa·tion, Bureau of Higher Education, ~anual of Policies and Procedures: Educational QEIXJrtunity Grants Program (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967). 138

Under the N.D.E.A. and subsequent measures, college student aid acquired social rather than economic goals. The purpose of the programs was not to remove a large number of unemployed youth from an overcravded labor market; rather, the intent was to increase the nation's reservoir of trained manpower. Along with a realization of the importance of higher education to the security and effective development of the nation came a growing awareness of the needs of . disadvantaged youth. Accessibility to higher education fOl' all capable youth, regardless of conditions of birth, has not yet been realized. The fact that it has become a stated goal in federal policy is, in itself, a milestone in the history of higher education in this country. 139

Bibliography

Books

1. Allen, Hollis P. The Federal Goverrunent and Education: The Original and CoTIipIete Study of Educatioofor the Hoover­ Corunission Task Force on Public Welfare. New York: McGraw­ Hill Book C~Inc., 1950.

2. Axt, Richard G. The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education. New York: . Columbia University Press, 1952.

3. Babbidge, Homer D., Jr., and Robert M. Rosenzweig. The Federal Interest in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962.

4. Bittermarm, Henry J. State and Federal Grants-in-fl.id. New York: Mentzer, Bush and Co., 1938.

5. Burdell, Edwin S. An Adventure in Education for the Unemployed: A Report and CornmE3nt on Two Six Weeks Sessions of a Free School for !he Unemployed. ColumbuS-;-Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1933.

6. Butts, R. Freeman. The College Charts Its Course: Historical Concep!ions and cUrrent Proposals. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1939.

7. Cline, Dorothy I. Training for Recreation under the W. P .A.: An Account of the In-service Training Program, DiVISion of Recrea­ tion, October; 1935--0ctob~1937. Chicago: Universlty of Chicago Press, 1939.

8. Cofftnan, lotus D. Youth and Tomorruw's Education: President Coffman's Biennial Message to the People of MinnesOta-:--Mirmeapolis: Univer­ sity of Minnesota, 1934.

9. Council of State Governments. Higher Education in the Forty-Eight States : ~ Report to the Governors' Conference:- Chicago: The Council of State Goven1ffients, 1952.

10. Debatin, Frank M. Administration of Adult Education. New York: American Book Co., 1938. 140

11. Dc:lbbins, Charles G., ed. Higher Education and the Federal Govern­ ment: Programs and Problems, Papers Presentedat the Forty­ Fifth Annual Meeting, October 3-5, 1962. Washington, D. C.: American COW1cil on Education, 1963-.-­

12. Educational Policies Commission. !2. Bibliography on Education in the Depression. Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa­ tion and the American Association of School Administrators, 1937.

13. Eurich, Alvin C., and James E. Wert. Applicants for Federal Aid at Minnesota Colleges. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1937.

14. Foerster, Norman. The American State University: Its Relation to D2.rnocracy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1937.

15. Gibbons, Jimmie lee. "The Status of the College Aid Program of the National Youth Administration in Texas." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1937.

16. Holland, Kenneth, and Frank Ernest Hill. Youth in the C.C.C. Washington, D.C.: American CouLIcil on Education~942.­

17. Howard., William L. "A PersomelStudy of N.Y .A. Students of Indiana University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1940.

18. Jarres, Hennan G., ed. Transactions and Proceedings of the National Association of State Universities~936 and 1937.- -­

19. Kelly, Robert L. The American Colleges and the Soci_C1! Order. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1940.

20. Knight, Douglas M., ed. The Federal Government and Higher Educa­ . tion. L'1g1ewood CliffS-;-New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.

21. Knight, Edgar W. What College Presidents Say. Chapel Hill: univer­ . sity of North Carolina Press, 1940.

22 . Lindley, Betty, and Ernest K. Lindley. A NevI Deal for Youth: The Story of the National Youth AdministratlOI1. New York:-The Viking Press, 1938. 141

23. Pollard, James E. History of The Ohio State University: The St9YY of Its Firs! SeventY-FIVe rcar~, 1873-1948. Columbus, Ohlo: The Ohio State University Press, 1952.

24. Public Affairs ~ss. Guide to Grants, Loans, and Other D'Pes of Government Asslstance Available to Students and Educatlonal Institutions. Washington, D. C.: PublIc Mfairs Press, 1967.

25. Rivlin, Alice M. The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Educatioi1':"""- Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution, 1961.

26. Slaughter, Adrian M. "Pm Pmalysis of N.Y.A. Vocational Students of Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College." Unpublished M. S. thesis, Oklahana Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1938. .

27 . Srnith, Harry P. The Dnen;ency Collegiate Centers of Central New York. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University-;-1937. -­

28. Upham, A. H., ed. Transactions and Proceedings S:?£ the National Association of State Universities, 1933, 1934, and 1935.

29 . Willey, Malcolm M. Depression, Recovery, and Higher Education: f:. Report !?y Committee '£. of the American Association of Univer­ ~ Professors. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1937.

Periodicals

30. Junior College Journal, March, 1934; May,1935; January, 1936.

31. National Education Association. "Federal Support for Education: The Issues and the Facts." National Education Association, Research Bulletin, XV (September, 1937).

32. The New York Times, October 5, 1930-Septernber 27, 1940.

33 . I1The R. F. C. Dormitory. rr The Architectural Forum, LVIII (April, 1933), 331. --­

31L School and Soc~, February 11, 1933-August 17, 1940.

35. School Life, January, September, 1934; October, 1935; February, April, May, Dsce.mber, 1936. 142

36. Trout, Alex L. "Reconstruction Finance Corporation Funds for Self-Financing Donnitories." Journal of Home Economics, 25 (March, 1933), 201-207. --­

37. Williams, David R. "N.Y.A. Student Aid Research Projects." 'The Educational Record, 20 (Ja~uary, 1939), 118-130.

Public Documents

38. The Advisory Carmittee on Education. Report of the Corrmittee. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1938.

39 . Campbell, Doak S., Frederick H. Bair, and Oswald L. Harvey. Educational Activities of the Works Progress Administration. Staff Study No. 14, prepared for The Advisory Carmittee on Education. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1939. .

40. Cuthbertson, Gilbert. Federal Student Aid in Missouri, 1934-35. Missouri Relief and Reconstruction Corrmission, July 1, 1935.

41. Johnson, Palmer 0., and Oswald L. Harvey. 'The National Youth Administration. Staff Study No. 13, prepared for The Advisory Carnnittee on Education. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1938.

42. McPherson, AA-4-2-4, AA-13-5-13, The Ohio State University Archives.

43. Rightmire, AA-2-8-13, AA-3-4-15, AA-3-8-6, AA-13-1-13, AA-13-1-14, . AA-13-3-16, AA-13-5-9, AA-14-1-2, AA-14-9-4. 'The Ohio State University Archives.

44. U. S. DepartJnent of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Secur,ity Administration. School Certification of Full-Time Attendance ~ ?ocial Security ~rposes. Washington, D. C.: Government Prlnting Offic€, 1966.

45. U. S. Depa:r1Jrent of the Interior, Office of Education. A Handbook for the Educational Advisers in the Civilian Conservation Corps. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1934.

46. U. S. Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Work Division. The Dnergency Work Relief Program of the F .E.R.A., April l, 1934=-­ July l, 1935. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1935. 143

47. U. S. Federal Security Agency, War Manpower Corrunission. Final Report of the National Youth_ Administration: Fiscal Years 1936-1943. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1944.

48. U. S. Federal Works Agency, Work Projects Administration. Final Statistical Report of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1942.

49. U. S. House of Representatives, Carrmittee on Appropriations. Hearings on the Department of Labor-Federal Securi!y- Agency Appropriation Bill For 1941, pt. 2, Federal Security Agency, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1940.

50. U. S. House of Representatives, Ccrnmittee on Education. Federal Emergency Aid to Education. Hearings on House Bills Providing For Federal Emergency Relief for Education, 73rd Cong., 2nd . Sess., 1934.

51. U. S. House of Representatives , Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Hearings on the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1938 9Dd Public Works Administration Appropriation Act of 1938, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1938.

52. U. S. National Youth Administration. Record Group 119, Series 106, 173, 182, 184, 194, and 206. National ArChives.

53. U. S. National Youth Administration. A Study of N.Y.A. Projects at The Ohio State University, by W. H.-Cowley. Washington, D. C.: The National Youth Administration, 1937.

54. U. S. National Youth Administration, Ohio. An Evaluation of the N.Y.A. Student Aid Program at Ohio UniverSl-ty, Athens, Ohio: An Exploratory Attempt at the Measurement ~f the Values Derived 9Y the N. Y.A. Students from Their Project Employment. Columbus, Ohio: National Youth Administration in Ohio, 1939.

55. U. S. Office of Educa-tion. Federal Aids for College Students. Washington, D. C.: GoveITlJllent Printing-Office, 1966.

56. U. S. Office of Education. Federal Aid to School Construction, by Charles A. Quattlebawn. Washingtor:l; D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1954 ..

57. U. S. Office of Education, Bureau of Higher Education. Manual of Policies and Procedures: Educational Qpportunity Grants Program. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. 144

58. U. S. Senate, Corrrrnittee on Appropriations. Hearings on a Joint Resolution Making Appropriations for Relief Purposes,-75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937.

59. U. S. Senate, Corrrrnittee on Appropriations. Hearings on H. J. Res. 361, 6 Joint Resolution Making Appropriations for RetI"ef-Puij?Oses, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937.

60. U. S. Senate, Corrrrnittee on Appropriations. Hearings on ~ Joint Resolution Making Appropriations for Work Relief, Relief, and Otherwise to Increase Dnployrnent !?y Providing wans and Grants for Public1Works Projects, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., 1938.

61. U. S. Work Projects Adninistration. Record Group 69, Box No.9, 10, and 18. National Archives.

62. U. S. Works Progress Administration, Division of Education Projects. Conferences for the Education of Teachers. W.P .A. Technical Series, Education Circular No.6. Washington, D. C.: Government PrintiTlg Office. .