Nourishing the Nation While Starving: The Underfunding of Black Land-Grant Colleges and Universities

Executive Summary

This year, 118th Congress will reauthorize the federal Farm Bill, the primary legislation through which Congress supports the nation’s system of land-grant colleges and universities for teaching, research, and cooperative extension, which supports local agriculture and the agricultural sciences. This report examines the contributions of and challenges confronting the nineteen Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that are also federally designated land-grant universities—at a critical time when federal policymakers will once again determine whether these institutions are worthy of receiving adequate federal support. The Century Foundation (TCF) policy recommendations detailed in this report aim to move equity and justice for these institutions to the center of the policy debate on the Farm Bill.

Today, the nineteen HBCU land-grant institutions, located primarily in Southern states, enroll over 117,000 full-time-equivalent students, of whom 75 percent are Black and 57 percent receive Pell Grants. Black land-grant universities provide markedly greater access to underrepresented students than other land-grant institutions and they play a critical role in educating the next generation of Black talent in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, agriculture, and mathematics) fields—workforce areas that tend to be the least diverse. Despite a legacy of limited support, HBCU land-grant institutions are making rich research contributions in crop production, soil sciences, food engineering, biotechnology, and other areas, and they are applying that scientific knowledge to tackle social, health, environmental and other problems in rural, distressed, and high-risk communities in their states. The nineteen institutions contribute $5.5 billion in economic impact, demonstrating the critical role they play in supporting their local, state, and national economies. In addition, they generate more than $52 billion in lifetime earnings for each graduating class.

The law required states to establish a “just and equitable” division of monies between the 1862 and 1890 universities, yet ambiguity in the legislative language created a loophole that would position states to provide greater and inequitable shares of appropriations to white land-grant institutions, while starving Black land-grant institutions.

This report finds that, unlike their white land-grant counterparts established in the Morrill Act of 1862 (1862 institutions), Black land-grant universities (1890 institutions) have been overlooked, dealt decades of discrimination, and starved for resources—even after designation as federal land-grant universities in the Second Morrill Act of 1890. While in theory, this Reconstruction Era legislation sought to expand educational opportunities to Black Americans, in practice, it fell short. The law required states to establish a “just and equitable” division of monies between the 1862 and 1890 universities, yet ambiguity in the legislative language created a loophole that would position states to provide greater and inequitable shares of appropriations to white land-grant institutions, while starving Black land-grant institutions. Federal policy aided and abetted discriminatory state funding of the Black land-grant universities, also denying just and equitable federal funding to them.

The resource inequities between 1890 institutions and their 1862 counterparts are vast. TCF examined data to compare resources available to the 1890 institutions and their counterpart 1862 institutions in the same states and found the following:

• Research expenditures per full-time equivalent student are nearly three times greater at the 1862 institutions than at the 1890 institutions ($10,774 versus $3,388)—a funding disparity due to deeply embedded biases, double standards, and scrutiny that 1890 institutions endure when competing for federal and state research dollars.
• Endowments per full-time equivalent student are six times greater at the 1862 institutions than at the 1890 institutions ($77,103 versus $12,532). At their inception, the 1890 institutions were denied perpetual funding for the “endowment, maintenance and support” provided to the 1862 institutions, resulting in untenable present-day inequities in endowment resources that support current operations and ensure future longevity.
• Through litigation and other means, Black land-grant institutions have had to fight the denial of federal and state support since their inception, and that fight continues. In the 2019–20 academic year, the 1862 institutions operated with $2 billion more in total revenues (federal, state, institutional) than the 1890 institutions. As a result, Black land-grant universities operate on shoestring budgets, with fewer resources for research, technology, academic instruction, student support, and community programs.
• Black land-grant universities were excluded from federal formula payments for research and extension activities for eighty years, while their white land-grant counterparts received routine federal support. Further, federal appropriations for 1890 research and extension have fallen far short of levels promised by Congress—a $436 million shortfall between fiscal years 2008 and 2022.
• States have failed to equitably support 1890 institutions, while 1862 institutions flourished with state resources. Between fiscal years 2011 and 2022 alone, Black land-grant universities lost nearly $200 million in resources because states declined to provide matching funds while they fully funded their white land-grant universities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to look the other way while states engage in discriminatory and inequitable funding of the 1890 institutions.

In order to achieve equity and justice for 1890 institutions, TCF makes the following recommendations for the 2023 reauthorization of the Farm Bill:

• Provide $600 million in new mandatory, equity funding for 1890 institutions. Mandatory funding of $600 million ($120 million a year over five years) will help compensate 1890 institutions for decades of inequitable and lost federal and state support for their land-grant education, research, and extension programs.
• Incentivize states to eliminate funding inequities by phasing out the waiver for one-to-one state matching of federal research and extension formula funds to 1890 institutions. Policymakers should increase the minimum percentage of 1890 research and extension funds that states must match (that is, cannot waive) from 50 percent to 80 percent in fiscal year 2024, 90 percent in fiscal year 2025, reaching 100 percent in fiscal year 2026. Over the years, states have not had a problem finding the resources to fully fund the 1862 institutions. It’s past time to end their discrimination against the 1890 institutions.
• Double the minimum funding percentages for appropriations for 1890 research and extension programs. Policymakers should increase the minimum funding percentages authorized in the Farm Bill for 1890 research from 30 percent to 60 percent of annual 1862 research appropriations, and for 1890 extension from 20 percent to 40 percent of annual 1862 extension appropriations. Then, the increased 1890 research and extension funding should be appropriated in the annual Department of Agriculture Appropriations Acts.
• Provide $100 million to expand student scholarships at 1890 institutions. Policymakers should adopt Congressman David Scott’s (D-GA) $100 million initiative to expand U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scholarship support for 1890 students studying agricultural sciences. Broadening the participation of historically marginalized students in STEM fields is needed for national economic growth and vitality.
• Substantially increase other federal resources for 1890 institutions. Policymakers should substantially expand federal support to 1890 institutions for such programs as 1890 Research Facilities and 1890 Centers of Excellence administered by the USDA, to help 1890 institutions obtain the top-level Carnegie ranking—R1 (very high research activity)—for a research university, which garners greater access to federal, state, and private research resources.
• Strengthen USDA reporting to Congress on federal funding, state matching funding and state waivers granted for 1890 education, research, and extension programs. Although the Farm Bill required USDA to report annually on allocations made to, and matching funds received by, 1890 and 1862 institutions, the USDA has not made this information readily available and transparent to Congress, the 1890 institutions, and the public.

Overview

The U.S. land-grant system of 111 colleges and universities is recognized for its breadth, reach, and excellence in teaching, research, and extension. Its original mission focused on promoting agricultural and mechanical arts through teaching, research, and extension.¹ Today, many of these institutions engage in a variety of academic disciplines. Under the Land-Grant Agricultural and Mechanical College Act of 1862 (the Morrill Act of 1862), fifty-seven land-grant colleges and universities were established—one institution within each state and U.S. territory. These initial land-grant institutions were created as part of a higher education system that was exclusively for white students. With the passing of the Agricultural College Act of 1890 (the Second Morrill Act), nineteen Historically Black College and University (HBCU) land-grant institutions were established to create a system for Black students. And, in 1994, twenty-nine Tribal land-grant colleges and universities were established in the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act. HBCUs and Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) are considered part of the nation’s system of minority-serving institutions (MSI), but they are the only two institution types with historic or equity-focused designations—a recognition of the nation’s legacy of discrimination against African Americans and Native Americans in its higher education system.

HBCU land-grants (commonly known as 1890 institutions)² educate students nationwide while nourishing the nation through agriculture research and cooperative extension activities. This report intends to distinguish the 1890 institutions relative to their land-grant counterparts. It will tell the story of Black land-grant universities, highlight their contributions to society, and highlight the need for greater public investment to bolster their student success, research, community impact, and technological innovation. It will also explore how HBCU land-grants have been stymied in pursuing their mission due to historical funding gaps, identify how systemic racism has impacted their growth, and recommend how federal policies can help ensure equity is achieved through the 2023 reauthorization of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill.³ The Farm Bill is the primary legislation through which Congress supports the land-grant system.

The 2023 Farm Bill can become the focal point for enhancing the furtherance of that partnership in ways that bring together the government, the 1890 institutions, and the major players in the agribusiness and technology sectors of the nation to expand American economic development.

Origins of the U.S. Land-Grant System

As America grew and expanded throughout the nineteenth century, its deficit in higher education institutions—particularly in agricultural and technical education—was perceived as a detriment to the development of the nation. In 1857, U.S. Senator Justin Morrill envisioned creating an opportunity for working-class Americans to access liberal arts and practical education. That year, Morrill proposed the novel land-grant concept to Congress, and while his legislation received Congressional approval, it was vetoed by President James Buchanan. Morrill would reintroduce the land-grant bill amidst the Civil War, with provisions to establish public institutions focused on teaching students the principles of engineering, military science, and agriculture, which were critical skills for a soldier’s livelihood. This time, the bill would become law, leading to the establishment of the U.S. land-grant system in 1862, with follow-on legislation establishing additional tranches of institutions in 1890 and 1994, to address the shortcomings of the land-grant system with respect to race and ethnicity.

The 1862 Land-Grant Universities

The Land-Grant Agricultural and Mechanical College Act of 1862 was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, establishing the 1862 land-grant universities at a time when the country was deep in the Civil War, and broke. To pay for the universities (commonly known as 1862 institutions), Congress authorized the granting of federal funds and federal land (or rights to the land) for each U.S. Senator and Representative in every state.⁴ The proceeds from the sale of the federal lands would be used for the “perpetual endowment” in each state of at least one college whose main aim would be—without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics—to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in such a manner as the legislatures of the states may respectively subscribe.⁵ Over time, the Morrill Act of 1862 allocated over 100 million acres⁶ of land to states, yielding a collective endowment of $7.55 million for the colleges (equivalent to $244 million today). Table 1 provides a complete list of the fifty-seven land-grant colleges and universities that eventually were established under the terms of the Morrill Act of 1862. While the Morrill Act of 1862 intended to provide education for all, the states undermined that goal, as they implemented the law in such a way that the 1862 institutions excluded Black students.

To pay for the universities (commonly known as 1862 institutions), Congress authorized the granting of federal funds and federal land (or rights to the land) for each U.S. Senator and Representative in every state. The proceeds from the sale of the federal lands would be used for the “perpetual endowment” in each state of at least one college whose main aim would be—without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics—to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in such a manner as the legislatures of the states may respectively subscribe.

Table 1

1862 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
City/State	Institution Name	Founded
Auburn, Alabama	Auburn University	1856
Fairbanks, Alaska	University of Alaska	1917
Tucson, Arizona	University of Arizona	1885
Fayetteville, Arkansas	University of Arkansas	1871
Berkeley, California	University of California	1868
Fort Collins, Colorado	Colorado State University	1870
Storrs, Connecticut	University of Connecticut	1881
Newark, Delaware	University of Delaware	1833
Gainsville, Florida	University of Florida	1853
Athens, Georgia	University of Georgia	1785
Honolulu, Hawaii	University of Hawaii	1907
Moscow, Idaho	University of Idaho	1889
Urbana, Illinois	University of Illinois	1867
West Lafayette, Indiana	Purdue University	1869
Ames, Iowa	Iowa State University	1858
Manhattan, Kansas	Kansas State University	1863
Lexington, Kentucky	University of Kentucky	1865
Baton Rouge Louisiana	Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College	1898
Orono, Maine	University of Maine	1865
College Park, Maryland	University of Maryland-College Park	1856
Amherst, Massachusetts	University of Massachusetts	1863
East Lansing, Michigan	Michigan State University	1855
St. Paul, Minnesota	University of Minnesota	1851
Starkville, Mississippi	Mississippi State University	1878
Columbia, Missouri	University of Missouri-Columbia	1839
Bozeman, Montana	Montana State University	1893
Lincoln, Nebraska	University of Nebraska	1869
Reno, Nevada	University of Nevada	1874
Durham, New Hampshire	University of New Hampshire	1866
New Brunswick, New Jersey	Rutgers University	1766
Las Cruces, New Mexico	New Mexico State University	1888
Ithaca, New York	Cornell University	1865
Raleigh, North Carolina	North Carolina State University at Raleigh	1887
Fargo, North Dakota	North Dakota State University	1890
Columbus, Ohio	Ohio State University-Main Campus	1870
Stillwater, Oklahoma	Oklahoma State University-Main Campus	1890
Corvallis, Oregon	Oregon State University	1868
University Park, Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania State University	1855
Kingston, Rhode Island	University of Rhode Island	1892
Clemson, South Carolina	Clemson University	1889
Brookings, South Dakota	South Dakota State University	1881
Knoxville, Tennessee	The University of Tennessee-Knoxville	1794
College Station, Texas	Texas A & M University-College Station	1876
Logan, Utah	Utah State University	1888
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands	University of the Virgin Islands*	1962
Burlington, Vermont	University of Vermont	1791
Blacksburg, Virginia	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	1872
Pullman, Washington	Washington State University	1890
Washington, D.C.	University of the District of Columbia	1851
Morgantown, West Virginia	West Virginia University	1867
Madison, Wisconsin	University of Wisconsin	1848
Laramie, Wyoming	University of Wyoming	1886
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture and U.S. Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.  *Two HBCUs—The University of the District of Columbia and the University of the Virgin Islands—are designated as 1862 land-grant universities due to their location and founding charters.

The 1890 Land-Grant Universities

During the Reconstruction era, Black legislators’ worked to establish Black colleges in southern states to provide higher education opportunities to newly freed Black slaves. Nonetheless, by 1877, Jim Crow–era laws began to emerge—short-circuiting efforts to support Black higher education—as white-dominated state legislatures sought to maintain white supremacy.

To address the failures of the 1862 Morrill Act to provide higher education avenues to Black Americans throughout the segregated South, Senator Morrill proposed the Second Morrill Act of 1890. However, Morrill’s new bill made a few distinctions. The Second Morrill Act of 1890 prohibited the distribution of money to states that excluded students based on race (that , banned Black individuals from enrolling) in admission practices and had not established a separate land-grant college for Black students.

While in theory, this Reconstruction-era legislation sought to expand educational opportunities to Black Americans, in practice, it fell short. The law required states to establish a “just and equitable division” of monies between the 1862 and 1890 universities. Yet, ambiguity in the legislative language created a loophole that would position states to provide greater and inequitable shares of appropriations to the white land-grant institutions while starving Black land-grant institutions

Between 1870 and 1890, under the terms of the Second Morrill Act of 1890, nine federally designated Black land-grant colleges were established in the South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions. This number increased to sixteen by 1915, and to nineteen by 2014, with the inclusion of Central State University.⁷ These universities—known as 1890 institutions—would be the start of the nation’s Historically Black College and University (HBCU) system. (See Table 2 for a complete list of the 1890 institutions.)⁸

TABLE 2

1890 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
Institution Name	City/State	Founded
Alabama A&M University	Normal, Alabama	1875
Alcorn State University	Lorman, Mississippi	1871
Central State University	Wilberforce, Ohio	1887
Delaware State University	Dover, Delaware	1891
Florida A&M University	Tallahassee, Florida	1887
Fort Valley State University	Fort Valley, Georgia	1895
Kentucky State University	Frankfort, Kentucky	1886
Langston University	Langston, Oklahoma	1897
Lincoln University (MO)	Jefferson City, Missouri	1866
North Carolina A&T State University	Greensboro, North Carolina	1891
Prairie View A&M University	Prairie View, Texas	1876
South Carolina State University	Orangeburg, South Carolina	1896
Southern University and A&M College	Baton Rouge, Louisiana	1881
Tennessee State University	Nashville, Tennessee	1912
Tuskegee University*	Tuskegee, Alabama	1881
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff	Pine Bluff, Arkansas	1873
University of Maryland Eastern Shore	Princess Anne, Maryland	1886
Virginia State University	Petersburg, Virginia	1882
West Virginia State University	Institute, West Virginia	1891
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture and U.S. Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.  *Tuskegee University is the only private, nonprofit university among the 1890 institutions. The other 1890 universities are public, nonprofit institutions.

While in theory, this Reconstruction-era legislation sought to expand educational opportunities to Black Americans, in practice, it fell short. The law required states to establish a “just and equitable division” of monies between the 1862 and 1890 universities. Yet, ambiguity in the legislative language created a loophole that would position states to provide greater and inequitable shares of appropriations to the white land-grant institutions while starving Black land-grant institutions (more on this below).⁹

The 1994 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities

The Tribal land-grant colleges and universities (commonly known as 1994 institutions) are the newest to be added to the nation’s land-grant system, designated through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 and subsequent amendments.¹⁰ Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico introduced this legislation, calling for federal resources to help improve the lives of the tribal students while respecting Native American sovereignty and supporting self-sufficiency. The legislation was critical to redressing the history of injustice and maltreatment experienced by the Native American and Tribal communities. The latest land-grant capacity programs would provide funding through formula, competitive, and endowment grants to the reservation community.¹¹ Today, the initial twenty-nine 1994 institutions have increased to thirty-five Tribal land-grant colleges and universities representing different histories, cultural orientations, and organizational structures. They primarily serve Native American students and their communities. Table 3 provides a complete list of the 1994 institutions. In addition to focusing on food and agricultural sciences, the 1994 land-grant colleges and universities provide high school and GED course completion, basic education remediation, job training, college preparation courses, and adult education programs.¹²

Table 3

1994 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
City/State	Institution Name	Founded
Harlem, Montana	Aaniih Nakoda College	1984
Brimley, Michigan	Bay Mills Community College	1981
Browning, Montana	Blackfeet Community College	1974
Fort Totten, North Dakota	Cankdeska Cikana Community College	1974
Lame Deer, Montana	Chief Dull Knife College	1975
Okmulgee, Oklahoma	College of the Muscogee Nation	2004
Keshena, Wisconsin	College of Menominee Nation	1993
Tsaile, Arizona	Dinė College	1968
Cloquet, Minnesota	Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College	1987
New Town, North Dakota	Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College	1973
Poplar, Montana	Fort Peck Community College	1969
Lawrence, Kansas	Haskell Indian Nations University	1884
Barrow, Alaska	Ilisagvik College	1996
Santa Fe, New Mexico	Institute of American Indian Arts	1962
Baraga, Michigan	Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College	1975
Chief Lake,Wisconsin	Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College	1982
Cass Lake, Minnesota	Leech Lake Tribal College	1990
Crow Agency, Montana	Little Big Horn College	1980
Winnebago, Nebraska	Little Priest Tribal College	1996
New Mexico	Navajo Technical University
Macy, Nebraska	Nebraska Indian Community College	1973
Bellingham,Washington	Northwest Indian College	1996
Kyle, South Dakota	Oglala Lakota College	1971
Red Lake, Minnesota	Red Lake Nation College	1987
Mount Pleasant, Michigan	Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College	1998
Pablo, Montana	Salish Kootenai College	1977
Mission, South Dakota	Sinte Gleska University	1970
Sisseton, South Dakota	Sisseton Wahpeton College	1979
Fort Yates, North Dakota	Sitting Bull College	1973
Bernalillo, New Mexico	Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute	1971
Box Elder, Montana	Stone Child College	1984
Sells, Arizona	Tohono O’odham Community College	1998
Belcourt, North Dakota	Turtle Mountain Community College	1972
Bismarck, North Dakota	United Tribes Technical College	1969
Mahnomen, Minnesota	White Earth Tribal and Community College	1997
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture and U.S. Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

The 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions have the same mission to support agricultural and mechanical sciences through teaching, research, and cooperative extension. Nevertheless, each type of land-grant institution was created and funded in a different manner. Unfortunately, as described further below, the manner in which the policies were written had negative implications for the growth of the 1890 institutions.

What the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions Bring to the Table

Today, 1890 land-grant institutions serve as important places of teaching, learning, and research, especially in agricultural sciences, biological and medical sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, environmental sciences, and other disciplines. Additionally, through cooperative extension programs, 1890 land-grant institutions provide low-income, Black, and marginalized farmers and agricultural producers with science-based information to help them succeed. And they offer practical life skills through programming, such as 4-H, after-school, literacy, nutrition, and other programs that provide invaluable instruction and learning for youth, seniors, and other citizens. Furthermore, these institutions generate over $5 billion in economic activity each year for their states and the nation.

Educating the Next Generation of Black Talent in the South

In today’s society, more education equates to more economic success for individuals, the states, and the country. Indeed, investing in the nation’s success through public postsecondary education is why Congress enacted the Morrill Acts in the first place. And, since their founding between 1871 and 1912, the nineteen Black land-grant institutions have excelled in providing educational access and opportunity for Black and low-income Americans, especially for those who might not otherwise attain a college education. The 1890 institutions are vital, given their geographic location primarily in the South, which historically has denied Black educational opportunities and continues to lag the nation in college attainment. In the South, only 22 percent of Blacks hold a baccalaureate degree or higher, compared to 34 percent of whites.¹³ In particular, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi rank near the bottom among the states in college degree attainment for Black adults.¹⁴

Despite confronting historic barriers, Black land-grant institutions—like all HBCUs—disproportionately enroll students facing economic, social, and educational barriers to success and elevate them to the middle class. Today, the 1890 institutions enroll 117,094 students, of whom 75 percent are Black, and 57 percent of their undergraduates receive Pell Grants—federal aid that goes to the nation’s poorest students. By comparison, white land-grant institutions provide substantially less access to underrepresented students—only 6 percent of 1862 students are Black, and 22 percent of undergraduates receive Pell Grants. For the 1994 institutions, only 1 percent of their students are Black (likely a reflection of the concentration of Tribal colleges located on Indian reservations), and 54 percent of undergraduates receive Pell Grants, reflecting the low-income status of Native American students. (See Table 4.)

TABLE 4

CHARACTERISTICS OF 1862, 1890, AND 1994 LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS, 2020–21
Type of Land-Grant Institution	Enrollment	Total Degrees	STEM Degrees	% Black Students	% Pell Students
1862 Institutions*	1,847,955	882,678	171,231	6%	22%
1890 Institutions	117,094	33,526	3,770	75%	57%
1994 Institutions	11,163	4,902	211	1%	54%
*The data included in this table for 1862 institutions include only their main campuses as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Sources: U.S. Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and College Scorecard.

The 1890 institutions produce over 33,000 degrees each year, of which more than 3,700 degrees (11 percent) are in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields, producing graduates desperately needed by the nation. They play a critical role in educating the next generation of Black talent in agricultural science, environmental science, veterinarians, and so on—workforce areas that historically tend to be the least diverse and exclusively for white workers. Of the top institutions across the country producing Black graduates with doctoral degrees in science and engineering, five of the 1890 land-grant institutions—Florida A&M University, North Carolina A&T State University, Prairie View A&M University, Southern University and A&M College, and Tuskegee University—are among them.¹⁵

Black land-grant institutions are models of STEM education reform for the nation. In 2020, the National Science Foundation awarded $9 million to establish the HBCU STEM Undergraduate Success Research Center (STEM-US).¹⁶ This is a collaborative effort led by researchers from Morehouse College, Spelman College, and land-grant Virginia State University to study and model the successful practices of HBCUs. With funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), North Carolina A&T State University has established a virtual center to support the science, technology, engineering, agriculture, and mathematics (STEAM) pipeline of students and address the growing need for talent in these fields. The knowledge generated by these centers will detail the practices that make HBCUs successful in educating Black students in STEM.

Helping to Nourish the Nation: Research at Black Land-grant Universities

Despite a legacy of limited support, there are so many ways in which historically Black land-grant institutions help to nourish the nation. While Black land-grant institutions are primarily centered on teaching and learning pursuits, they are making rich research contributions to address agriculture problems in rural, distressed, and high-risk communities in their states. The1890 institutions are conducting important research in crop production, plant protection, soil sciences, bioinformatics, biotechnology, ecology, computer and information systems security, agricultural engineering, computational mathematics, and other areas.¹⁷

For example, Fort Valley State University (FVSU) is leading the way in developing strategies to reduce food-borne pathogens in animals prior to processing for meat, which could reduce incidences of human exposure to these organisms.¹⁸ In FVSU’s food engineering laboratories, researchers are working on finding novel methods to kill pathogens without using heat and to see how this technology can be implemented in commercial operations such as meat processing plants.¹⁹

Researchers at North Carolina A&T State University are testing the viability of a market for U.S.-sourced, tissue culture-propagated ginger and want to bring ginger off the spice aisle and into more prominence as a niche specialty crop for North Carolina growers. The tissue-cultured ginger has shown promise in demonstrating better disease resistance, more vigorous growth, higher yield per cultivar, better consistency, and higher amounts of phytonutrients than seed-sprouted ginger.²⁰

Community Impact Is a Central Mission of Black Land-Grant Institutions

The cooperative extension work of the 1890 land-grants is truly a labor of love of community that focuses on bringing agricultural research findings to producers and so much more. Under the USDA model, the 1890 institutions’ unique mission enables field agents and specialists to support low-income and marginalized farmers across the southern states. In addition, the 1890 HBCUs are institutions that share knowledge to tackle various problems in their communities—including social and criminal justice, housing inequities, environmental justice, climate change, health disparities, and other issues. This network is unique and positioned to do so much more if agencies would only tap into the strengths of these institutions. The USDA has compiled stories of these institutions’ remarkable success, some of which are highlighted below.²¹

The 1890 institutions are helping small farmers and ranchers increase their profitability and sustainability. Tuskegee University’s Center for Innovation and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranchers, and Forestlands, for example, is funding research and extension projects designed to increase profitability, natural resource conservation, and market demand for small farms, ranchers, and forest landowners in high-poverty areas.²² Virginia State University extension faculty designed and developed a Mobile Processing Unit for goat and sheep producers to address limited access to state or federally inspected meat processing facilities, saving them from costly scheduling delays, increased labor and transportation costs, and premium processing charges. West Virginia State University’s extension service created a mobile cold storage program to help farmers extend the life of vegetable produce going to market.

The need to support marginalized farmers as well as to develop the next generation of agriculture leaders in agribusiness entrepreneurship is vital for feeding the nation, and HBCUs are answering the call. For example, North Carolina A&T State University recently received USDA funding to establish an Agriculture Business Innovation Center.²³ The center will serve as a hub to enhance agriculture-based business development opportunities nationwide while focusing on teaching the next generation of agricultural leaders and outreach to socially disadvantaged populations and historically underserved communities. This work is in partnership with Kentucky State University, Alabama A&M University, and West Virginia State University.

The 1890 institutions are addressing health disparities and educating low-income families about healthy lifestyle choices. For example, the Delaware State University extension service developed a Healthier Lifestyle and Health Nutrition Club using bi-weekly texting and email strategies to realize a 40 percent increase in more positive health behaviors of SNAP program participants. Black land-grant institutions have developed treatment options related to diseases prevalent in the Black community, including sickle cell and diabetes.

Research scientists and extension personnel at the Southern University Agricultural Center in Louisiana collaborated to inform the citizens of Louisiana of the impacts of food-borne illnesses. The goal was to help citizens, especially the elderly, low-income, educationally disadvantaged and poor families, enhance their skills in proper food selection, storage, and preparation. To ensure sustainable and safe food production practices, research and educational information was also directed at producers, food businesses, and food handlers. Nutrition educators reached over 2,965 families with 95 percent of the participants learning how to make their own healthy snacks and adhering to food safety guidelines. Additionally, 90 percent of all participants can now correctly identify healthy foods, 89 percent can correctly read the nutrition facts label, 90 percent practice comparison shopping, and 70 percent plan meals.

The Small Farm Training Institute in Maryland provides horticultural training and marketing of products to urban farmers who are new to farming and who have little or no agricultural experience. Annie’s Project has expanded into a statewide program, reaching over 350 women and their farm operations. The University of Maryland Extension (UME) is a partner in training and business planning assistance to current and prospective shellfish growers. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore Small Farm Extension Program has designed and supervised the construction of a new generation of high tunnels (greenhouse-like structures) for seven non-profit organizations and interested private companies. With local technical support through Baltimore City Extension, these seven nonprofit groups and Big City Farms, LLC, have produced and marketed over 150,000 pounds of fresh local products through grocery stores, Whole Foods, restaurants, and farmers markets last year.

Small farmers need new technologies to increase farm income. In Missouri, Lincoln University Extension is teaching small farmers about building more high-tunnel greenhouses and organized computer literacy training to assist them in good farm record keeping. As a result farmers’ income increased by approximately $3,000. Besides increasing their electronic record-keeping skills, the farmers gained invaluable knowledge of computers for purposes other than record keeping.

West Virginia State University (WVSU) Extension Service’s Community and Economic Development programs support community development and revitalization, regional and local economic development, micro-enterprise and small business development, disaster preparedness, and tourism. In West Virginia, one-third of entrepreneurs make their living in the creative sector and struggle to find affordable office space, internet service, equipment, and training. WVSU’s Economic Development Center, which supports WVSU’s Extension, serves over 3,000 clients annually with meeting and office space, a digital conferencing center, and voice and video production studios. The facility provides space to twenty-five local nonprofit and community organizations and is home to twenty-eight creative media businesses. Economic Development Center clients have launched more than thirty new businesses, which helps West Virginia’s communities become viable, energetic, and economically sustainable.

Black Land-Grant Institutions Produce $5.5 Billion in Annual Economic Impact

The nineteen Black land-grant institutions play an important role in supporting their local and state economies and the country’s economy at large. The economic impact report released by the UNCF, HBCUs Make America Strong: The Positive Economic Impact of Historically Black Colleges,²⁴ using data from 2014 shows that Black land-grant institutions collectively generated a positive $4.4 billion annual impact on the nation, creating nearly 41,000 jobs and generating lifetime earnings for a single graduating class of more than $42 billion. Accounting for the value of today’s dollar and inflation, that collective annual economic impact of the 1890 institutions now amounts to more than $5.5 billion and $53 billion in lifetime earnings for one graduating class. (See Table 5.) That is a powerful economic punch for the nation, particularly the country’s southeastern region. Nearly half of this economic impact flows from four powerhouse land-grant HBCUs: Florida A&M University, North Carolina A&T State University, Tennessee State University, and Prairie View A&M University.

Table 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 1890 INSTITUTIONS
Institution Name	Annual Economic Impact	Jobs Generated	Lifetime Earnings for One Graduating Class
Alabama A & M University	$338,520,000	2,620	$2,356,000,000
Tuskegee University	$300,080,000	2,081	$1,488,000,000
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff	$124,000,000	1,120	$1,488,000,000
Delaware State University	$301,320,000	2,235	$2,232,000,000
Florida A & M University	$690,680,000	5,104	$7,936,000,000
Fort Valley State University	$135,160,000	1,125	$1,612,000,000
Kentucky State University	$126,480,000	1,114	$1,151,960,000
Southern University and A & M College	$343,480,000	2,765	$3,472,000,000
University of Maryland Eastern Shore	$261,640,000	1,968	$2,604,000,000
Alcorn State University	$181,040,000	1,534	$1,860,000,000
Lincoln University	$117,800,000	996	$1,364,000,000
North Carolina A & T State University	$605,120,000	4,325	$6,324,000,000
Central State University	$120,280,000	940	$943,640,000
Langston University	$159,960,000	1,035	$1,488,000,000
South Carolina State University	$179,800,000	1,546	$2,232,000,000
Tennessee State University	$567,920,000	3,699	$4,960,000,000
Prairie View A & M University	$499,720,000	3,178	$4,836,000,000
Virginia State University	$334,800,000	2,644	$3,100,000,000
West Virginia State University	$116,560,000	876	$1,364,000,000
Total	$5,504,360,000	40,905	$52,811,600,000
Source: HBCUs Make America Strong: The Positive Economic Impact of Historically Black Colleges. Note: UNCF economic data is in 2014 dollars and is updated to 2022 dollars using a 1.24 inflation factor derived from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve inflation calculator, available at https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator#.

The Underfunding of 1890 Institutions Relative to 1862 Institutions

The nation’s land-grant universities depend on state and federal funding to sustain themselves and other revenues, including student tuition and fees. This is particularly true for the 1890 institutions facing multiple financial threats. Most importantly, Black land-grant universities have had to fight the denial of state and federal support since their inception, and the fight for equitable funding continues. At the same time, their mission includes providing college access to Black students with greater educational and financial needs, with nearly six of ten Black land-grant undergraduates receiving Pell Grants. Plainly said, students at 1890 institutions—like all HBCUs—need more support, which requires significant investments. Yet, 1890 institutions are limited in their ability to raise tuition to offset state and federal funding shortfalls without cutting off access for the students they serve. Finally, paltry endowments at the 1890 institutions translates to inadequate financial cushions to weather unexpected events such as the transition to at-home attendance during the pandemic, which required significant investment in online education technology, or the bomb threats that menaced HBCU campuses the last two years, which required institutions to invest more heavily in campus security.

The historic and current underfunding of vital 1890 institutions shortchanges every aspect of their present and future capabilities—their academic programs, student support, research, technology, infrastructure, facilities, and community services. In short, the paltry endowments at 1890 institutions greatly limit their potential.

Black Land-Grants Receive Much Less Research Funding

Black land-grant research contributions are limited not by their ingenuity and innovation but rather by their resources. Many HBCUs conduct research to address the challenges within the Black community, but that research is not always supported in the form of grants to further expound on that work. Research intensity is largely governed by the availability of federal, state, and private resources for academic research activity. In 2021, Black land-grant universities spent $272 million on research endeavors—a significant sum, but only a tiny fraction of the $6.3 billion available for research at the larger, more research-intensive 1862 institutions in the same states.

Normalized for the institution’s size, research expenditures per full-time student at the well-resourced 1862 institutions were $10,774 per student, more than three times greater than the $3,388 per student at Black land-grant institutions (see Table 6). This disparity further highlights how Black land-grant institutions are severely disadvantaged and overlooked when competing for federal and state research dollars due to deeply embedded biases, double standards, and scrutiny, which their non-HBCU counterparts don’t experience.²⁵

TABLE 6

RESEARCH EXPENDITURES AT 1890 AND 1862 LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS
State	1890 Land-Grant Institution	Total research expenditures, 2020-21	1862 Land-Grant Institution	Total research expenditures, 2020-21
AL	Alabama A & M University	$12,843,275	Auburn University	$238,033,142
AL	Tuskegee University	$21,475,641	Auburn University	*
AK	University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff	$8,501,363	University of Arkansas	$168,671,034
DE	Delaware State University	$30,790,929	University of Delaware	$174,762,404
FL	Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University	$29,684,819	University of Florida	$780,561,000
GA	Fort Valley State University	$8,073,409	University of Georgia	$469,771,944
KY	Kentucky State University	$8,755,997	University of Kentucky	$351,886,081
LA	Southern University and A & M College	$7,207,106	Louisiana State University and A & M College	$230,629,728
MD	University of Maryland Eastern Shore	$13,179,992	University of Maryland-College Park	$509,027,980
MS	Alcorn State University	$6,184,289	Mississippi State University	$168,599,322
MO	Lincoln University	$6,931,155	University of Missouri-Columbia	$185,342,093
NC	North Carolina A & T State University	$31,819,419	North Carolina State University at Raleigh	$353,323,032
OH	Central State University	$6,906,875	Ohio State University-Main Campus	$572,956,800
OK	Langston University	$20,644,778	Oklahoma State University-Main Campus	$147,259,416
SC	South Carolina State University	$7,724,057	Clemson University	$224,080,901
TN	Tennessee State University	$13,090,206	The University of Tennessee-Knoxville	$278,666,249
TX	Prairie View A & M University	$23,404,490	Texas A & M University-College Station	$952,518,954
VA	Virginia State University	$9,860,016	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	$381,019,551
WVA	West Virginia State University	$4,989,250	West Virginia University	$148,848,114
Total		$272,067,066		$6,335,957,745
Average		$14,319,319		$351,997,653
Per FTE		$3,388		$10,774
* Included above. Note: This table includes only those 1862 institutions located in states where 1890 institutions are located. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

One measure of research prestige and productivity throughout the higher education system is the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. A recent update has focused some attention on the eleven HBCUs that are bolstering their research efforts to attain a “very high” research status—the highest Carnegie ranking for a research institution, known as R1.²⁶ Currently, 146 institutions have that ranking of R1, and, notably, all eighteen 1862 institutions across the southern region hold that title. But, not one 1890 institution has achieved R1 status.

Currently, 146 institutions have that ranking of R1, and, notably, all eighteen 1862 institutions across the southern region hold that title. But, not one 1890 institution has achieved R1 status.

Of the eleven HBCUs that already are categorized as “high” research activity or R2, six institutions are land-grant HBCUs: Florida A&M University, North Carolina A&T State University, Prairie View A&M University, Southern University and A&M College, Tennessee State University, and University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Increases in research support from federal agencies such as the USDA and the U.S. Department of Defense, doctorate production in STEM and the social sciences, enhanced faculty capacity, and other factors would move these institutions closer to, and eventually into, R1 status.

Black Land-Grant Institutions Smaller Endowments Impact Potential

At their inception, Black land-grant institutions were denied perpetual funding for “the endowment, support, and maintenance” provided to the 1862 institutions, which enabled the White 1862 land-grant institutions to grow and thrive. The present-day result of this decades-long discrimination against the 1890 institutions is an untenable inequity in endowment resources that support current operations and future viability.

Collectively, the eighteen 1862 land-grant institutions that are located in the same southern states as 1890 institutions, hold more than $45 billion in endowment assets—an astounding forty-five times the $1 billion in endowment assets that the nineteen 1890 land-grant institutions in those states hold. Normalizing for the institution’s size, white 1862 institutions’ endowments average $77,103 per full-time equivalent student or six times more than the $12,532 per full-time equivalent student at Black 1890 institutions. This data pertains to institutional endowment assets at the end of academic year 2020–21, as reported by the U.S. Department of Education. Table 7 provides a comprehensive comparison between the two types of institutions.

Collectively, the eighteen 1862 land-grant institutions that are located in the same southern states as 1890 institutions, hold more than $45 billion in endowment assets—an astounding forty-five times the $1 billion in endowment assets that the nineteen 1890 land-grant institutions in those states hold.

Fortunately, some of the HBCU land-grants have been able to significantly boost their endowments due to generous support from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. For example, North Carolina A&T State University has more than doubled its endowment since the 2020–21 academic year, to $175 million—now the largest endowment of the 1890 institutions. Yet, it is striking that, even with significant philanthropic support, North Carolina A&T State University’s endowment is only 9 percent of its white counterpart, land-grant North Carolina State University, which has $1.9 billion in endowment assets. On a full-time equivalent student basis, North Carolina State University enjoys $62,669 in endowment resources per student, compared to only $14,630 per student at North Carolina A&T State University.

By any measure, the enormous racially based disparities in resources between Black and white land-grant institutions carrying out the same missions of teaching, research, and service are disturbing.

TABLE 7

ENDOWMENTS AT 1890 AND 1862 LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS
State	1890 Land-Grant Institution	Endowment per FTE, 2020-21	Endowment at end of 2020-21	1862 Land-Grant Institution	Endowment per FTE, 2020-21	Endowment at end of 2020-21
AL	Alabama A & M University	Data missing	Data missing	Auburn University	$35,006	$993,955,140
AL	Tuskegee University	$57,724	$154,987,957	Auburn University	*	*
AK	University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff	$3,497	$8,144,917	University of Arkansas	$67,074	$1,682,003,955
DE	Delaware State University	$9,002	$40,596,772	University of Delaware	$87,730	$1,957,793,296
FL	Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University	$11,716	$92,852,706	University of Florida	$49,844	$2,375,793,000
GA	Fort Valley State University	$5,029	$13,000,000	University of Georgia	$46,717	$1,818,866,444
KY	Kentucky State University	$12,138	$21,945,544	University of Kentucky	$74,620	$1,863,781,454
LA	Southern University and A & M College	$2,074	$11,997,893	Louisiana State University and A & M College	$23,338	$702,094,512
MD	University of Maryland Eastern Shore	$28,230	$58,520,053	University of Maryland-College Park	$26,336	$943,172,167
MS	Alcorn State University	$6,921	$21,283,437	Mississippi State University	$32,777	$698,084,241
MO	Lincoln University	$1,695	$2,937,725	University of Missouri-Columbia	$52,737	$1,360,462,170
NC	North Carolina A & T State University	$14,630	$174,626,579	North Carolina State University at Raleigh	$62,669	$1,946,242,000
OH	Central State University	$2,092	$7,465,403	Ohio State University-Main Campus	$124,781	$7,017,185,469
OK	Langston University	$29,380	$57,908,510	Oklahoma State University-Main Campus	$24,862	$528,389,587
SC	South Carolina State University	$7,352	$15,115,496	Clemson University	$39,374	$1,008,750,237
TN	Tennessee State University	$10,541	$63,520,117	The University of Tennessee-Knoxville	$36,241	$1,031,893,446
TX	Prairie View A & M University	$16,770	$148,586,258	Texas A & M University-College Station	$275,836	$16,895,503,878
VA	Virginia State University	$25,705	$100,222,934	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	$45,292	$1,680,300,000
WV	West Virginia State University	$5,764	$12,601,083	West Virginia University	$31,356	$838,045,685
Total			$1,006,313,384			$45,342,316,681
Average			$55,906,299			$2,519,017,593
Per FTE			$12,532			$77,103
* Included above. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Endowments are a determining factor in the health of a college or university. Endowments are vital to the longevity of an institution, particularly any financially fragile college or university that cannot count on ongoing public or philanthropic support. Endowments offer financial stability to an institution, leverage other sources of revenue to offset tuition costs for financially needy students, and provide opportunities for growth. With prudent management, endowments enable an institution to provide a higher quality of service—now and into the future.

By any measure, the enormous racially based disparities in resources between Black and white land-grant institutions carrying out the same missions of teaching, research, and service are disturbing.

Black Land-Grant Institutions Operate with Far Fewer Total Resources Than 1862 Institutions

When we look at all resources (federal, state, institutional) available to Black land-grant institutions compared to their white counterpart land-grant institutions, data from the U.S. Department of Education provide another lens through which we see that the 1890 institutions do their part to nourish the nation while receiving far less in resources themselves.

Looking at total revenues per full-time equivalent student (which provides an apples-to-apples comparison for universities with different enrollments), we see that all 1890 institutions lag behind the 1862 institutions. Table 8 shows that on a per-student basis, revenues for the 2019–20 academic year for the 1890 institutions were 1 percent to 74 percent below those for the 1862 institutions. For example, per-student revenues at Black land-grant Alabama A&M University were $29,268 compared to $43,781 at Auburn University, or 33 percent less. Black land-grant Kentucky State University’s per-student revenue of $42,767 was a whopping 74 percent less than the University of Kentucky at $161,486 per student. Prairie View A&M University—a flagship 1890 institution in Texas—operated with 51 percent less in per-student resources than Texas A&M University.

In total, the gap in total revenues between the 1890 institutions and their 1862 counterparts exceeded $2 billion in the 2019–20 academic year. Despite having the same mission to foster agricultural instruction, research, extension, and innovation, Black land-grant universities continue to operate on shoestring budgets relative to their counterpart institutions.

TABLE 8

The Federal and State Funding Inequities That Starve 1890 Institutions of Resources

The central reason that Black land grant universities have far fewer resources than their white land grant counterparts can be directly linked to federal and state governments and programs deliberately excluding or shortchanging Black land-grants from revenue streams. State legislatures, for example, have for many decades withheld funds from 1890 institutions, or simply sent more resources to 1862 institutions than their 1890 counterparts.²⁷ Meanwhile, the federal government has been just as complicit in starving 1890 institutions of the resources they need, most notably through reauthorizations of the Farm Bill, the primary legislation through which Congress currently supports the nation’s system of land-grant colleges and universities.

USDA research, teaching, and cooperative extension programs—currently funded through the Farm Bill—provide the funding foundation for land-grant institutions, enabling them to advance knowledge in agriculture, the environment, human health, and well-being, and apply this knowledge in their communities. Table 9 displays the key USDA capacity programs for 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions, which will be reauthorized in the 2023 Farm Bill.

Table 9

KEY USDA CAPACITY PROGRAMS FOR LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS
Legislation	Hatch Act		McIntire- Stennis Act		Smith-Lever Act		Evans-Allen Act		Section 1444, National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy Act		Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act
Enactment	1887		1962		1914		1977		1977		1994
Eligible Institutions	1862		1862, 1890, 1994		1862		1890		1890		1994
Elements or Outcome of Funding	Agricultural Research; Agricultural Research Experiment Stations		Forestry Research		Cooperative Extension Service		Agricultural Research		Cooperative Extension Service		Teaching, Research Extension, Endowment
Funding Distribution	Statutory Formula		USDA Formula		Statutory Formula		Statutory Formula		Statutory Formula		Statutory Formula and Competitive
FY 2023 Federal Appropriation	$265M		$38M		$325M		$89M		$72M		$35M
Nonfederal Matching Funds Required	Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		No
Waiver of Nonfederal Matching Funds Allowed	No		No		No		Yes		Yes		Not Applicable
Source: Compiled by author from these sources: Congressional Research Service, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research; Congressional Research Service, 1890 Land-Grant Universities: Background and Selected Issues, Congressional Research Service, 1994 Land-Grant Universities: Background and Selected Issues; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, FY2022 Explanatory Statement, Division A; Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.

Black Land-Grant Universities Were Excluded from Federal Formula Payments for Research and Extension Activities for Eighty Years

In 1887, Congress determined under the Hatch Act that white land-grant universities needed a predictable and routine flow of federal funds to support the nation’s need for agricultural research innovations. The Hatch Act authorizes federal appropriations for the establishment and support of Agricultural Research Experiment stations to advance research in the areas of farming, ranching, and food production. These federal formula payments are required to be matched 100 percent by nonfederal funds—typically provided by states. Currently, all states provide the dollar-for-dollar matching funds for the Hatch Act funding to 1862 institutions, and this federal and state support has catalyzed robust research programs and facilities at the 1862 institutions.

But, once again, Black land-grant institutions faced yet another discriminatory reality. Regular federal research payments to sustain these institutions did not materialize until 1967—eighty years after payments started for their white counterparts—when Black land grants would receive $283,000 in discretionary funds, to be divided among the 1890 institutions.²⁸ A decade later, the funding would be formalized in 1977, when the Evans-Allen Act was enacted specifically to provide federal formula payments for agricultural research at Black land-grant universities. The Evans-Allen research appropriations are authorized to be at least 30 percent of Hatch Act appropriations. While Evans-Allen formula grants to 1890 institutions include a 100 percent nonfederal matching requirement like the Hatch Act grants to 1862 institutions, Black land-grant universities must seek a waiver (up to 50 percent) of the Evan-Allen funds if they are unable to secure matching nonfederal (state) funding so that they do not forfeit the federal research funds. While filing the waiver allows 1890 institutions to keep their federal funding, the waiver reduces the total public (federal and state) support for the institution compared with what it would receive if a complete match was provided. This is a key factor that creates an additional disparity in funding between 1890 and 1862 institutions.

In 1914, Congress enacted the Smith-Lever Act to boost federal formula payments for the nation’s cooperative extension system operated by the 1862 land-grant universities in partnership with state and local governments. These federal formula payments also require 100 percent nonfederal matching funds—typically provided by states. Currently, all states provide the dollar-for-dollar matching funds for the Smith-Lever Act funding to 1862 institutions.

Again, Black land-grant universities were treated as second-class citizens, excluded from these critical resources for years, as 1890 institutions did not gain access to federal sustenance for extension programs serving marginalized communities until 1972. Black land-grant extension funding was more firmly established in 1977 when Congress authorized formula payments to 1890 institutions under section 1444 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act (NARETPA). Section 1444 extension appropriations are authorized to be at least 20 percent of Smith-Lever Act appropriations.

In 1962, under the McIntire-Stennis Act, federal support for forestry research became available to certified forestry schools, including at the 1862 institutions. Nonetheless, 1890 institutions did not gain access to these formula grants until 2008, forty-six years later, and 1994 institutions did not gain access until 2018, fifty-six years later. The McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 provides funding for state agricultural experiment stations and forestry schools and programs. The funding formula allocated $10,000 to each state, 40 percent of the remainder according to a state’s share of the nation’s total commercial forest land, 40 percent according to the value of its timber cut annually, and 20 percent according to its contribution of nonfederal forestry research dollars.²⁹

To recap, for eighty years, resilient Black land-grant universities were forced to “make a way with no way,” as the Black expression goes, starved in their efforts to nourish Black farmers, high-risk populations, and disadvantaged communities with the farming, food, and nutrition services they needed. All the while, white land-grant universities flourished.

This report does not fully quantify the federal research and extension resources lost to the 1890 institutions during this period due to the challenges in accessing federal appropriations data for the nation’s land-grant system dating back to its inception in the 1800s. But, the figure, when adjusting for inflation, is likely in the billions.

Much like Black land-grant institutions, the Tribal colleges and universities also face chronic disparate treatment in accessing federal land-grant funding, which ultimately led to the passage of the Equity for Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994. This law and subsequent amendments led to a federal funding formula and competitive grants for education, research, and extension activities that do not require nonfederal matching funds. Additionally, the 1994 Equity Act established a federally funded endowment fund for the Tribal colleges and universities with annual interest payouts to the institutions. A deeper dive into the funding inequities of the 1994 institutions is necessary but beyond the scope of this report.

This report does not fully quantify the federal research and extension resources lost to the 1890 institutions during this period due to the challenges in accessing federal appropriations data for the nation’s land-grant system dating back to its inception in the 1800s. But, the figure, when adjusting for inflation, is likely in the billions.

Federal Appropriations for Black Land-Grant Universities Fall Far Short of Intended Levels

While the failure of states to meet fundamental funding obligations to Black land-grant universities has garnered some attention—most recently in Tennessee, which authorized a $250 million payout to Tennessee State University for past racial discrimination—less attention has been paid to various federal funding inequities that continue to confront the 1890 institutions.

In both the 2008 and 2018 Farm bills,³⁰ Congress attempted to ameliorate the funding disparities experienced by the Black land-grant institutions by authorizing minimum funding amounts for 1890 research and extension. Congress authorized that Black land-grant universities should receive not less than 30 percent of the research formula funds appropriated under the Hatch Act and not less than 20 percent of the extension formula funds appropriated under the Smith-Lever Act for white land-grant universities.

Unfortunately, Congress’ rhetoric has not resulted in the resources that Black land-grant institutions deserve and that Congress said they should receive. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2022, white land-grant universities were appropriated a total of $3.565 billion for research activities under the Hatch Act. Under the Farm bills, Black land-grant institutions should have received 30 percent of this amount, or $1.069 billion in Evans-Allen research payments. Instead, the Congressional appropriations bills for this period provided only $829 million for 1890 research programs, a shortfall of $240 million.

Similarly, between fiscal years 2008 and 2022, white land-grant universities were appropriated a total of $4.484 billion for extension activities under the Smith-Lever Act. Black land-grant universities should have received 20 percent of this amount ($897 million), as stipulated by the Farm Bills. Instead, only $700 million was appropriated for 1890 extension activities in the annual Congressional appropriations bills, a shortfall of $196 million. Only in the most recent funding cycle for the fiscal year 2023 have 1890 research and extension formula appropriations met the respective 30 percent and 20 percent funding thresholds that the Farm Bills envisioned.

Once again, over a fifteen-year period, Black land-grant institutions were shorted $436 million in federal appropriations for core research and extension activities. (See Figure 1.) Resources lost for academic programs, quality classrooms, cutting-edge research, state-of-the-art research facilities, new equipment and technology, and outreach programs that serve disadvantaged communities and citizens. While 1862 universities received substantial resources to grow their academic programs, invest in impressive research facilities, and extend services beyond their campus walls to local communities, 1890 universities continued to face deep disparities in federal support.

Figure 1

Discriminatory State Matching Fund Waivers Continue To Be a Pain Point for Black Land-Grant Universities

Under the Morrill Acts, the federal government committed to providing financial support to the nation’s land-grant universities, provided that nonfederal matching funds were provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the federal appropriations for research and cooperative extension programs. Unfortunately, provisions added in various Farm Bills have led to inequitable funding for Black land-grant institutions located in states where the state has refused to provide required matching funds. A state’s refusal means that the 1890 institution is punished by having to forfeit federal research or extension funds unless the university seeks a waiver from the USDA.

While all states have long met the one-to-one state matching requirement for their 1862 land-grant universities, many states have continued racist policies by denying state matching resources for the Black land-grant universities, forcing them to seek waivers for state resources they desperately need.³¹

Table 10

SHORTFALL IN STATE MATCHING FUNDS FOR 1890 RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ($ MILLIONS)
Fiscal Year	Research and Extension Funding Shortfall
2021	22.3
2020	21.5
2019	15.5
2018	15.0
2017	15.0
2016	18.5
2015	17.0
2014	19.0
2013	16.0
2012	18.0
2011	17.0
Shortfall, FY2011–FY2021	194.8
Source: Author calculations using state waiver data from USDA and Congressional Research Service for Evans-Allen Act research and Section 1444 extension.

Using data from the Congressional Research Service and the USDA, The Century Foundation analysis underscores that inequities in the state match for 1890 institutions still persist. Table 10 shows that over a ten-year period (fiscal years 2011 to 2021) Black land-grant universities lost nearly $195 million in state matching resources. In other words, if states had contributed 100 percent matching funds for 1890 institutions—as they did for 1862 institutions—state funding for research and extension activities at Black land-grant institutions would have been close to $200 million higher than the actual matching contributions.

Twelve of the nineteen Black land-grant universities lost significant resources because the USDA relieved states of their obligations to provide one-to-one matching for the federal resources received, and several institutions were particularly hard hit by state matching waivers. In just the last four years, Prairie View A&M University lost over $22 million, Alcorn State University lost over $12 million, and Florida A&M University lost over $9 million in state resources. (See Table 11.)

Table 11

1890 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY STATE MATCHING WAIVER SHORTFALLS, Fiscal Years 2018–2021
		FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY2018– FY2021
		Total Research and Extension	Total Research and Extension	Total Research and Extension	Total Research and Extension	Total Research and Extension
		State Waiver	State Waiver	State Waiver	State Waiver	State Waiver
Alabama A&M University	AL	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Tuskegee University	AL	$600,507	$525,508	$1,278,367	$1,666,886	$4,071,268
University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff	AR	$0	$0	$1,483,181	$0	$1,483,181
Delaware State University	DE	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Florida A&M University	FL	$1,893,561	$2,054,476	$2,416,243	$2,659,017	$9,023,297
Fort Valley State University	GA	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Kentucky State University	KY	-$252,127	$0	$0	$0	-$252,127
Southern University and A&M College	LA	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
University of Maryland Eastern Shore	MD	$1,311,599	$0	$456,629	$0	$1,768,228
Alcorn State University	MS	$0	$3,535,372	$4,293,350	$4,585,090	$12,413,812
Lincoln University	MO	$3,535,373	$0	$0	$0	$3,535,373
North Carolina A&T State University	NC	$1,083,677	$1,083,677	$2,267,741	$388,442	$4,823,537
Central State University	OH	$0	$0	$575,901	$2,426,412	$3,002,313
Langston University	OK	$677,260	$1,986,796	$2,754,547	$3,025,643	$8,444,246
South Carolina State University	SC	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Tennessee State University	TN	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Prairie View A&M University	TX	$4,815,144	$4,815,144	$5,992,596	$6,621,181	$22,244,065
Virginia State University	VA	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
West Virginia State University	WV	$1,361,436	$1,449,779	$0	$896,516	$3,707,731
Total		$15,026,430	$15,450,752	$21,518,555	$22,269,187	$74,264,924
Source: Author calculations from USDA and CRS data on state matching waivers granted for 1890 research and extension programs.

While the state matching picture did improve in fiscal year 2021 (likely because of greater scrutiny of this issue), Black land-grant institutions should not be held hostage to the whims of previously hostile state governments as to whether they will comply with the matching requirements. For those institutions that do not receive their full state match, the consequences are significant in terms of loss of needed resources to invest in research and extension services that benefit rural farmers and communities.

Fighting the Hand That Feeds: Many Black Land-Grant Universities See Funding Gap from Their State

History shows that HBCU leaders and students have long advocated for additional funding for Black land-grant institutions. When those requests fell on deaf ears, the 1890 institutions (and other HBCUs) were forced into decades-long litigation against the very state policymakers upon whom they depended for their very survival. Notably, students and alumni of Alcorn State University, the first HBCU land-grant institution, joined with the alumni of two other HBCUs in 1975 in Ayers v. Fordice, suing the State of Mississippi, claiming it had not provided adequate resources to the schools; in 2002, the plaintiffs reached a $503 million settlement with the state.³² After almost a decade-long legal battle, the state of Maryland settled in 2021 to deliver $577 million to the HBCU land-grant, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, along with three other Maryland HBCUs.³³

Unfortunately, these same HBCUs and many more still struggle to receive equitable support from the states they serve so well. The focus of these litigation cases is not just to get funding for past wrongs but the end goal is to ensure that states provide consistent, equitable, and sustainable funding support to ensure the longevity of the Black land grant universities.

More recently, the lawsuits have continued with students at the land-grant Florida A&M University suing the State of Florida in 2022 for underfunding of $1.6 billion, dating back to 1987.³⁴ These and other court cases have been catalysts to force states to provide equitable funding to HBCU land-grant institutions to right past wrongs. Unfortunately, these same HBCUs and many more still struggle to receive equitable support from the states they serve so well. The focus of these litigation cases is not just to get funding for past wrongs but the end goal is to ensure that states provide consistent, equitable, and sustainable funding support to ensure the longevity of the Black land grant universities.

Recent Federal Initiatives Are Not Enough

Congress has taken some modest steps recently to address concerns raised by the 1890 institutions and boost their federal funding profile. The 2018 Farm Bill delivered a few wins for 1890 institutions, mainly establishing a new scholarship program under Congressman David Scott’s (D-GA) leadership for students pursuing agricultural sciences at 1890 institutions. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, championed by President Biden, includes $250 million for a new federal initiative at minority (Black, Tribal, and Hispanic-serving) land-grant institutions to build capacity for a twenty-first-century agricultural workforce. And, modest federal appropriations are available in fiscal year 2023 for 1890 research facilities ($21.5 million) and 1890 centers of excellence ($10 million). Nonetheless, the check to compensate separate and still unequal 1890 institutions for decades of discriminatory treatment is still in the mail.

Achieving Financial Equity for Black Land-Grant Universities: Policy Recommendations

This year, 118th Congress, under the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture, will undertake the massive reauthorization of the Farm Bill. The 2023 reauthorization of the Farm Bill is an opportunity to recognize and reward the significant contributions Black land-grant universities have made and continue to make to the nation. This report documents persistent and pernicious racially based inequities in federal and state funding for the 1890 institutions that have compounded over time. The Century Foundation policy recommendations discussed below are aimed at maximizing this moment in Congress to move support for global competitiveness as well as equity and fairness for Black land-grant universities to the center of the policy conversation on the farm legislation.

Provide $600 million in new mandatory equity funding for 1890 institutions.

The president of Tennessee State University (TSU), commented that “It’s never too late to do the right thing” when she learned that the state of Tennessee would provide $250 million to TSU to compensate for past discriminatory funding practices.

It’s not too late for Congress to address the glaring federal and state funding inequities suffered by the nation’s land-grant institutions since their founding in 1890. Policymakers should include a new mandatory or guaranteed funding stream in the next Farm Bill to finally bring equity to the 1890 campuses.

Black land-grant institutions lost millions when they were systematically excluded for eighty years from core federal funding streams for research and extension programs allocated to white land-grant institutions. More recent history shows that discriminatory funding for Black land-grants has continued. In the past fifteen years, 1890 institutions lost over $400 million in federal appropriations for research and extension services due to Congress’ failure to appropriate minimum funding percentages for 1890 research and extension programs. In the past twelve years (fiscal years 2011 to 2022) Black land-grant institutions lost approximately $200 million in required state funding that was waived by the USDA.

Congress can remedy these wrongs by putting into place guaranteed funding of $600 million ($120 million a year over the next five years) for 1890 agricultural research, extension, and facilities. Congress can accomplish this in one of several ways—for example, enhancing funding for existing discretionary 1890 research and extension programs with additional mandatory funds, much as the 2018 Farm Bill created the 1890 Scholarship Program.

Alternatively, new mandatory funds could supplement the existing 1890 Teaching, Research and Extension Capacity Building Grants (CBG) program, which builds and strengthens research, teaching and extension capacity at the 1890 institutions. The CBG program focuses on key problems of national, regional and multi-institutional importance in sustaining all components of agriculture, including farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable energy, forestry, aquaculture, rural communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, family and consumer sciences, biotechnology and conventional breeding.

Congress (and the 1890 institutions themselves) may prefer other ways of structuring the additional $600 million in equity funding. The point is providing this overdue, additional federal support for resilient, but resource-challenged, Black land-grant institutions must be part of a national commitment to building a healthy and robust national land-grant system.

Incentivize states to eliminate funding inequities by phasing out the waiver for one-to-one state matching of federal research and extension formula funds to 1890 institutions.

A significant source of funding inequity between the white and Black land grant universities has resulted from states failing to meet their one-to-one matching requirement for 1890 institutions while meeting the matching requirement for 1862 institutions. Unfortunately, from fiscal years 2018 to 2021, half of the eighteen states where 1890 institutions are located waived a portion of their state match, and four of these states—Texas, Mississippi, Florida, and Oklahoma—waived more than 40 percent of their state match, totaling over $40 million.³⁵ This has required Black land-grant institutions to scramble to seek a state waiver of the nonfederal matching requirement when states failed to meet their obligations, fill in the financial gap with their own operating funds, or forfeit their federal formula research and extension payments.

It’s time to eliminate this disparity by phasing out the existing waiver that allows states to waive 50 percent of their financial obligation to 1890 institutions. Policymakers should increase the percentage of research (Evans-Allen Act), and extension (Section 1444, NARETPA) funds that States must match (that is, cannot waive) from 50 percent to 80 percent in fiscal year 2024, 90 percent in fiscal year 2025, and reaching 100 percent in fiscal year 2026.

Currently, it is the responsibility of the president of the 1890 institution to file a waiver request with the U.S. secretary of agriculture, while 1862 institutions do not face this obligation, since state matching for 1862 research (Hatch Act) and 1862 extension funds (Smith-Lever Act) cannot be waived. During the period that the 1890 waiver is phased out, policymakers should change the waiver process by placing the responsibility for submitting a waiver request on the state’s governor rather than the president of the 1890 institution. Each governor submitting a waiver request to USDA should explain and document why the state cannot meet its matching requirement for its 1890 institution but can do so for its 1862 institution.

All fifty states should be incentivized to provide a 100 percent match for 1890 institutions as they have done and continue to do for 1862 institutions. Eliminating these state waivers is achievable, because in recent years more states are providing a one-to-one state match, and those that aren’t would have three years to adjust to the new requirement. USDA data show that, in fiscal year 2022, sixteen of the eighteen states where 1890 institutions are located provided a 100 percent match for 1890 research, and seventeen states provided a 100 percent match for 1890 extension services. Only three states—North Carolina, Maryland, and West Virginia—did not provide the required 100 percent state matching funds due to waivers granted by USDA. As a result, the 1890 institutions in those states lost real resources: North Carolina A&T State University lost $1.2 million, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore lost $986,000, and West Virginia State University lost $1.2 million.

Over the years, states have not had a problem finding the resources to fully fund the white land-grant institutions. It’s past time to end their discrimination against Black land-grant institutions.

Double the minimum funding percentages for appropriations for 1890 research and extension programs.

Congress should fulfill and enhance its promise to provide core payments that are the building blocks of the land-grant system for 1890 institutions, enabling them to continue their mission to serve limited-resourced farmers, families, individuals and communities. Policymakers should increase the minimum funding percentages for Black land-grant institutions from 30 percent to 60 percent of annual Hatch Act research appropriations and from 20 percent to 40 percent of annual Smith-Lever Act extension appropriations. There is precedent for doubling these percentages, which was done in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Ensuring that 1890 institutions receive federal research and extension support that they can count on in the future would bring financial stability to their often-overlooked institutions and enable them to continue scientific breakthroughs and innovations.

Provide $100 million to expand student scholarships at 1890 institutions.

Because 1890 institutions excel in producing Black graduates who are well prepared to tackle today’s challenges in food, agriculture, natural resources and human sciences, policymakers should adopt Congressman David Scott’s (D-GA) $100 million initiative to expand USDA scholarship support for Black land-grant students studying agricultural sciences, who overwhelmingly have financial need.

In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress established a new 1890 Scholarship initiative to broaden the participation of historically marginalized students in STEM for national economic growth and vitality. There are almost 60,000 food and agriculture-related jobs available annually, but only 35,400 U.S. students who graduate each year with food and agriculture-related degrees, according to a 2020 press release by the USDA and Purdue University.³⁶ Yet, one workforce analysis found that enrollment in agriculture-related areas across all four-year institutions between 2010 and 2012 included just 5 percent Black students.

Substantially increase other resources for 1890 institutions.

Policymakers should consider substantially expanding federal support to Black land-grant institutions for such programs as Research Facilities and Centers of Excellence. Institutions must compete for funding for these research programs, rather than automatically receiving funds as formula payments.

Consider that a study commissioned by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities documented over $11 billion in unmet research facility repair and renewal needs at all land-grant institutions,³⁷ and the Government Accountability Office has documented substantial unmet infrastructure needs at all HBCUs,³⁸ Black land-grant institutions, a subset of both groups, have a particular need to improve infrastructure suitable for twenty-first-century science—a need not sufficiently addressed under the current $21.5 million Research Facilities Grant program for 1890 Institutions administered by the USDA. Improving research infrastructure is especially critical for those land-grant institutions—North Carolina A&T State University, Tennessee State University, and others—that are on the cusp of moving into the coveted R1 very high research status.

Further, establishing a national center of excellence at each of the 1890 institutions, from the current six centers, would enable Black land-grant institutions to focus on: (1) increasing profitability and rural prosperity in underserved farming communities, (2) addressing critical needs for enhanced international training and development, and (3) increasing diversity in the STEM pipeline.

Looking Ahead

Our country is in the midst of a reckoning of how it treats its Black citizens, churches, communities, and institutions, including HBCU land-grant universities. Today, these institutions, which lead the nation in educating the next generation of Black scientists and leaders, still face discrimination and, on occasion, even hate-filled violence. Yet, the question still remains: Where would the nation be without them? During these troubling times when the nation is divided over how to close inequitable racial gaps in education, income, and wealth, the 1890 institutions are offering hope, teaching new skills, producing the next generation of Black scientists and leaders, and enhancing prosperity for marginalized Black individuals and communities. As the nation struggles with these issues, it should look to the institutions it supports the least to help close these gaps.

1. Genevieve K. Croft, “1890 Land-Grant Universities—Background and Selected Issues,” Congressional Research Service, June 15, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11847.
2. This report uses the terms “HBCU land-grants,” “1890 institutions,” and “Black land-grant universities” interchangeably to describe HBCUs with a federal designation as an 1890 land-grant university.
3. Public Law 115-334. Also see “Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?” Congressional Research Service,  updated February 22, 2023, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12047.
4. F. Erik Brooks and Glenn L. Starks, Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Encyclopedia (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2011), 75–76.
5. Ralph Christy and Lionel Williamson, A Century of Service: Land Grant College and Universities, 1890–1990 (New York: Routledge, 2011), 96.
6. Act of July 2, 1862 (Morrill Act), Public Law 37-108, which established land grant colleges; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789–1996; Record Group 11; General Records of the United States Government; National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act.
7. James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.
8. The Second Morrill Act provided a federal designation of “land grant” status to Black land grant colleges and universities that were established before 1890 and those established after 1890. This legislation provides federal and state support to these institutions
9. Katherine I. E. Wheatle, “Neither Just nor Equitable: Race in the Congressional Debate of the Second Morrill Act of 1890,” American Educational History Journal 46 (2019): 1–20.
10. H.R.4806—Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, 103rd Congress (1993–1994), https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/4806.
11. Genevieve K. Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service, August 29, 2019, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45897/4/.
12. Sonny Ramaswamy, “Tribal Colleges: Acknowledging the Past, Understanding the Present, and Aspiring to a Successful Future,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 3, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/10/25/tribal-colleges-acknowledging-past-understanding-present-and-aspiring.
13. Meagan Crowe, “Economic Vitality and Education in the South – Part I: The South’s Pre-Pandemic Position,” Southern Education Foundation, December 13, 2022, https://southerneducation.org/publications/economic-vitality-and-education-in-the-south-part-i-the-souths-pre-pandemic-position/.
14. Andrew Howard Nichols and J. Oliver Schak, “Degree Attainment for Black Adults: National and State Trends,” EDTrust.org, 2017, https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Black-Degree-Attainment_FINAL.pdf.
15. Michael T. Nietzel, “HBCUs Lead Nation in Black Baccalaureates Who Later Earn Doctoral Degrees,” Forbes, August 22, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/08/19/hbcus-are-nations-leading-institutions-for-black-baccalaureate-graduates-who-later-earn-a-phd/?sh=44140ee98903.
16. “NSF Establishes New Center to Study Successful Undergraduate STEM Education Practices at Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” National Science Foundation, accessed March 21, 2023, https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/announcements/081920.jsp.
17. “Research Activity at the 1890 Universities,” Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, January 13, 2023, https://www.aplu.org/library/research-activity-at-the-1890-universities.
18. Partner Content, “Fort Valley State University: Where World-Bettering Leaders Are Made,” Study International, March 23, 2022, https://www.studyinternational.com/news/fort-valley-state-university-where-world-bettering-leaders-are-made/.
19. “Food Safety,” Fort Valley State University, accessed June 2023, https://www.fvsu.edu/about-fort-valley-state-university/academics/college-of-agriculture-family-sciences-and-technology/ag-research-program/food-safety/.
20. “Spicing Up North Carolina Farming,” Re:search 17, (2020): 8–13,  https://www.ncat.edu/caes/agricultural-research/documents/2020-research-magazine.pdf.
21. “USDA Invests over $21.8m to Build Agricultural Capacity at HBCUs in the Nation’s Land-Grant University System,” National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 2021, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/press-releases/usda-invests-over-218m-build-agricultural-capacity-hbcus-nations-land.
22. “Research and Sponsored Programs, Annual Report, 2019–2020,” Tuskegee University, 2020, https://www.tuskegee.edu/Content/Uploads/Tuskegee/images/Research%20and%20Innovation/66709_TU%20Annual%20Report%202020_PROOF%204%20picture.pdf; Angela McKenzie-Jakes, “Understanding the Mission of Black Land-Grant Institutions in Servicing Rural Communities,” PhD diss., Indiana State University, 2020.
23. Lydian Bernhardt, “USDA Awards N.C. A&T $1.92M to Launch HBCU Agriculture Business Innovation Center,” North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, June 9, 2022, https://www.ncat.edu/news/2022/06/agriculture-business-innovation-center.php.
24. J. Humphreys, “HBCUs Make America Strong: The Positive Economic Impact of Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, 2017, https://uncf.org/programs/hbcu-impact.
25. Qyana M. Stewart and Denise A. Smith, “The Chips and Science Act Passed—What’s That Mean for HBCUs?” The Century Foundation, December 13, 2022, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-chips-and-science-act-passed-whats-that-mean-for-hbcus/.
26. Katherine Mangan, “A Race to the Top in Research: Infused with overdue money, historically Black colleges are vying to win Carnegie’s highest rank,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 25, 2022, https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-race-to-the-top-in-research.
27. Denise A. Smith, “Achieving Financial Equity and Justice for HBCUs,” The Century Foundation, September 14, 2021, https://tcf.org/content/report/achieving-financial-equity-justice-hbcus/.
28. Christy, Ralph D., and Lionel Williamson. Essay. In A Century of Service: Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,1890-1990, 97. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2012.
29. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 1995), https://doi.org/10.17226/4980.
30. Public Law 110-234 and Public Law 115-334.
31. Lee, J.M. and Keys, S.W. (2013). Land-grant But Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for 1890 Land-grant Universities. (APLU Office of Access and Success publication no. 3000-PB1). Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.
32. “Ayers v. Fordice,” Mississippi Encyclopedia, https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/ayers-v-fordice/.
33. Elizabeth Shwe, “Maryland Settles HBCU Federal Lawsuit for $577 Million,” Maryland Matters, April 28, 2021, https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/04/28/maryland-settles-hbcu-federal-lawsuit-for-577-million/.
34. Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, “Florida A&M students sue state over funding, allege discrimination of HBCUs,” Washington Post, September 22, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/22/famu-funding-lawsuit-florida-hbcus/.
35. “Capacity Grants,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, FY 2018 to 2021, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants.
36. “Employment Outlook Is Promising for New College Graduates,” Purdue University College of Agriculture and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, December 9, 2020, ​​https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/press-releases/employment-outlook-promising-new-college-graduates-agriculture.
37. Peter Reeves, Sophie Mason, and Luke Sanders, “A National Study of Capital Infrastructure at College and Schools of Agriculture,” Gordian, March 2021, https://www.aplu.org/wp-content/uploads/a-national-study-of-capital-infrastructure-at-colleges-and-schools-of-agriculture-an-update-1.pdf.
38. “Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Action Needed to Improve Participation in Education’s HBCU Capital Financing Program,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 26, 2018, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-455.

Tags: higher education, HBCU, land-grant institutions