November 8, 2019
The dark history of land-grant universitiesRoundup
tags: Native Americans
Margaret A. Nash is a historian of education at the University of California, Riverside, whose article "Entangled Pasts: Land-Grant Colleges and American Indian Dispossession" is forthcoming in History of Education Quarterly.
President Trump recently declared November “National American History and Founders Month,” a move that critics have alleged aims to erase Native Americans’ heritage; November has been recognized since 1990 as Native American Heritage Month. This erasure builds on a longer history of failing to recognize harms perpetrated against native peoples.
And while reckoning with this history has created more open debate about sports mascots, state flags and seals, water and land rights, and the celebration of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, this expanded conversation is missing a crucial element: discussion of land-grant colleges and universities.
Land-grant colleges are some of the a country’s most-celebrated public universities, and they include many Big Ten institutions and other flagship state universities. Frequently referred to as “the people’s colleges,” these are great schools that educate students from within states, and from across the nation and around the world, often at a fraction of the cost of private education. The schools support research that helps boost state economies, and they collaborate with state businesses, government and K-12 schools in productive partnerships.
And they would not exist as land-grant institutions except for the forced removal of American Indians from their lands. As these institutions confront 21st-century challenges in higher education, they also need to grapple with the dispossession of Native Americans in the 19th century that made the colleges’ success possible.
“Land-grant” means that the federal government set aside tracts of unclaimed public land and said that when that land was sold, the profit would go to support new and already existing colleges in each state. The problem was that the U.S. government could only claim land as available for purchase because of earlier decades of warfare with Native Americans that resulted in coerced cessions of land by tribes to the government, and the forced removal of tribes to smaller and smaller reservations.
comments powered by Disqus
- A girl named Greta and the seriously sexist history of Time’s Person of the Year
- Poll: Majority of Democrats think Obama was better president than Washington
- Civil War Soldiers Used Hair Dye to Make Themselves Look Better in Pictures, Archaeologists Discover
- Monumental statue of black man defies Confederate monuments
- From Consensus To Deadlock: Is Impeachment Still A Check On Presidents?
- Black Scholars Respond to Dr. Lorgia García Peña Tenure Denial at Harvard
- Historians Kirsten Weld and Erik Baker Interviewed About Harvard Graduate Worker Strike in Chronicle of Higher Education
- Kate Shaw: Andrew Johnson Was Impeached for Being a Racist Demagogue
- Bullets That Killed John F. Kennedy Immortalized as Digital Replicas by Smithsonian
- 37 books for history lovers: 11 Historians Select Their Favorite Books of 2019