Abstract
This paper was inspired by the intersection of Tom Lyson’s interest in how power is concentrated in society’s institutions and his concern for the role of the land-grant system in revealing and addressing inequities that occur as a result of such concentration. This study examines the power structure that governs land-grant universities by presenting social and demographic information on 635 trustees at the 50 US land-grant universities established by the Morrill Act of 1862. Along with these data, Fortune 1000 companies with which land-grant universities are connected through board member interlocks are listed and charted out. The research found that land-grant governing boards are characterized by some degree of demographic homogeneity, but they are less corporately interconnected than their private university counterparts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This description of boards applies to both public and private institutions, but there are also ways in which public boards are unique from those at private universities. First, they are responsible for acting on the public’s behalf because the institutions they govern are funded by the public. Second, they are more visible than boards at private universities, in part due to Sunshine Laws that require the records of all public board meetings to be made available to the public (McLendon and Hearn 2006). Third, public governing boards are generally smaller and have higher turnover rates than private boards. For example, the average size of LGU boards is approximately 10 members, while private boards average 30 members and can have as many as 60 or more. The average term length for LGU trustees is 3–6 years, while private members often sit on a board for 10 or more years.
Including Puerto Rico, there is a total of 51 LGUs from the 1862 legislation. This study includes only the flagship LGUs in each of the 50 states.
This percentage is calculated based on 2003 Digest of Education Statistics projections (the latest that are available) that 6.4 million students would be enrolled in 4-year colleges or universities 2005, two-thirds of which would be enrolled in public institutions.
A handful of direct interlocks existed between LGUs and private universities, although only interlocks with Fortune 1000 companies are included in Fig. 1.
Abbreviations
- AAUP:
-
American Association of University Professors
- AGBUC:
-
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
- LGU:
-
Land-grant university
- NASULGC:
-
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
References
Anderton, J.F., IV. 1997. Constituting governing boards of land-grant universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 2004. Composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Beck, H.P. 1947. Men who control our universities: The economic and social composition of governing boards of thirty leading American universities. Morningside Heights, NY: King’s Crown Press.
Berry, W. 1977. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Berry, W. 1990. Economy and pleasure. In What are people For? Essays by Wendell Berry. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Bok, D. 2003. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Busch, L., and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, agriculture, and the politics of research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Counts, G.S. 1927. The social composition of boards of education: A study in the social control of public education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dillon, S. 2005. At public universities, warnings of privatization. New York Times: 12.
Domhoff, G.W. 2006. Who rules America? Power, politics, and social change, 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Douglass, J.A. 2007. The conditions for admission: Access, equity, and the social contract of public universities. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Edmond, J.B. 1978. The magnificent charter: The origin and role of the Morrill land-grant colleges and universities. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press.
Fain, P. 2005. Surveys find governing boards are older and slightly more diverse. Chronicle of Higher Education 51(43): A21.
Hearn, J.C., and J.M. Holdsworth. 2002. The societally responsive university: Public ideals, organizational realities, and the possibility of engagement. Tertiary Education and Management 8(2): 127–144.
Hightower, J. 1973. Hard tomatoes, hard times: A report of the agribusiness accountability project on the failure of America’s land-grant college complex. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.
Hofstadter, R., and C.D. Hardy. 1952. The development and scope of higher education in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hofstadter, R., and W.P. Metzger. 1955. Development of academic freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
Holland, T., and D. Jackson. 1998. Strengthening board performance: Findings and lessons from demonstration projects. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9(2): 120–134.
Ingram, R.T. 1997. Trustee responsibilities: A guide for governing boards of public institutions. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Kerr, C., and M.L. Gade. 1989. The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities. What they do and how well they do it. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Kezar, A. 2006. Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education 77(6): 968–1008.
Lyall, K.C. 2001. Recent changes in the structure and governance of American research universities. In Governance in higher education: The university in a state of flux, ed. W.Z. Hirsch, and L.E. Weber, 17–25. London, UK: Economica.
Lyson, T.A. 1998. Environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainable agriculture in American land grant universities. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 12(2/3): 119–129.
Lyson, T.A. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Lyson, T.A., and A.L. Raymer. 2000. Stalking the wily multinational: Power and control in the US food system. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 199–208.
Martin, M.V. 2005. A drift toward elitism by the people’s universities. Chronicle of Higher Education 51(25): B26.
McDowell, G.R. 2001. Land-grant universities and extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
McGrath, E.J. 1936. The control of higher education in America. The Educational Record 17: 259–272.
McGuinness, A. 2002. Reflections on post secondary governance changes. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McLendon, M.K., and J.C. Hearn. 2006. Mandated openness in public higher education: A field study of state sunshine laws and institutional governance. The Journal of Higher Education 77(4): 645–683.
Mills, C.W. 1956. The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
National Association of State Universities, Land-Grant Colleges. 1995. The land-grant tradition. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Nearing, S. 1917. Who’s who among college trustees. School and Society 6: 297–299.
Pusser, B. 2002. Higher education, the emerging market, and the public good. In The knowledge economy and postsecondary education, ed. P. Graham, and N. Stavey, 105–126. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pusser, B., S. Slaughter, and S.L. Thomas. 2006. Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education 77(5): 747–775.
Rasmussen, W.D. 1989. Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of cooperative extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Rauh, M.A. 1968. The trusteeship of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw Hill Press.
Rosovsky, H. 2001. Some thoughts about university governance. In Governance in higher education: The university in a state of flux, ed. W.Z. Hirsch, and L.E. Weber, 94–104. London, UK: Economica.
Ross, E.D. 1942. Democracy’s college: The land-grant movement in the formative stage. Ames, IA: The Iowa State College Press.
Schwartz, R.A., and T.A. Lyson. 2007. Retail relations: An interlocking directorate analysis of food retailing corporations in the United States. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 489–498.
Sinclair, U. 1923. The goose-step. Pasadena, CA: Upton Sinclair.
Tierney, W.G. (ed.). 1998. The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Veblen, T. 1918. The higher learning in America. New York: B.W. Huebsch.
Washburn, J. 2005. University, Inc. New York: Basic Books.
Winter, G. 2005. Shrinking student pools force public universities to fish afar. New York Times: A10.
Zusman, A. 2005. Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In American higher education in the twenty-first Century, 2nd ed, ed. P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Tom Lyson for his advising throughout the research process, Jeff Sobal for his assistance with editing, and Gil Gillespie for his input at various stages.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woodward, A.R. Land-grant university governance: an analysis of board composition and corporate interlocks. Agric Hum Values 26, 121–131 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9174-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9174-5