9. Board of Regents, Cornhusker 1935 Yearbook,

29. Nebraska Legislature, Cornhusker 1935 Yearbook,

Jonathan Laska, History 250: The Historian Craft

On October 24, 1929, the New York Stock Exchange collapsed and plunged America into one of the greatest economic crashes in history. For an already ailing farm economy, the stock exchange collapse was the last nail in the coffin for many farmers throughout the United States, including those in the state of Nebraska. Many had already experienced hardships due the depression of 1920-1921 when farmers saw prices fall for their crops, and yet the price of maintaining their farms only increased. [1] Crop prices continued to fall, and during the year of 1932, wheat prices plummeted to less than twenty-five cents per bushel. [2] The low prices of crops, such as wheat, had a monumental impact on the amount of revenue gathered by state governments during the period of 1932-1933. Farmers demanded relief from their ongoing struggles, and some farmers decided to protest their troubles. In 1933, 3000 to 4000 Nebraska farmers protested in front of the state capital, and demanded that legislators act and give them relief from the high property taxes. [3] Marches and protests by farmers during the 1930s only put added pressure on a cash strapped legislature to act. Many of the decisions of the Nebraska Legislature during the period of 1932-1933 cut major programs targeted toward the University of Nebraska, however, the Chancellor at the time, Edgar Burnett, and the Board of Regents were able to help the university alleviate some of the damage when they stepped in to compromise with the Nebraska Legislature and Governor Byran.

In 1932, the University of Nebraska was beginning to feel the full effects of the Great Depression. Although, attendance numbers at the university during 1932 were ranked twentieth in the nation, and the university had over 5,412 students, [4] the University of Nebraska still experienced difficult financial troubles. Chancellor Edgar Burnett took steps that he thought were necessary to save the University of Nebraska. Chancellor Burnett knew that he, “would have to appeal to the legislature to finance the institution for the next two years.”[5] Burnett notified the alumni that the University of Nebraska faced deep cuts to its budget, likely in hopes of drumming up financial support from those who had successfully completed study at UNL In his plea, Burnett informed the alumni about “five percent cuts to maintenance… staff salaries were cut by ten percent… and the chancellor took a ten percent salary reduction as well.”[6] During 1932, the School of Music experienced a loss of 12,000 dollars, and was on the verge of getting eliminated.[7] Burnett stepped in and discarded the “accredited list of teachers,” which was a list of professors who paid only ten percent of their fees, compared to their fellow professors who paid forty percent.[8] When Burnett was forced to cut the salaries of professors by ten percent and removed the accredited list of teachers, it did not help his already fractured relationship with the faculty. However, Burnett believed these steps were necessary in to order to help keep the university financially viable. He was willing to take these drastic measures in order to help solve some of the financial difficulties, and to show the Nebraska Legislature that the university should keep its large budget to support the high student enrollment.

Chancellor Burnett worked with the Board of Regents in 1932, especially with Board President Stanley Long and Head of the Regent Finance Committee Marion Shaw, to protect the already dwindling budget of the University of Nebraska. [9]

 In December 1932, as the next session of the Nebraska Legislature was slated to meet in January, the Board of Regents constructed a letter outlining their defense of the university and why they believed it was vital that there could be no further budget cuts from the State of Nebraska. The Board of Regents pointed out when Chancellor Burnet lowered the salary of the staff by ten percent, it made morale much worse, and  many were earning only a “low maintenance wage.”[10] The Regents also mentioned the importance of a fully funded Agricultural Extension Service, which was vital in helping farmers deal with the farm crisis and the depression in general.[11] With the ongoing drought, the Regents explained to the legislature why it was crucial to fund the Conservation and Study Departments, two vitally important departments which helped teach farmers new ways of how to plant their crops, and how to deal with crop losses during drought of 1932.[12] Near the end of the letter, the Regents pointed out how “the cost of the University per student to the state is considerably below that of most leading universities… our student fees are not high compared with other leading state universities.”[13] The Board of Regents presented their case to the legislature that the intended budget cuts for the university would do more harm than good. Unfortunately for the Board of Regents and Chancellor Burnett, their problems with the state government were only beginning, and would become much worse during the year of 1933.

In 1933, the Nebraska Legislature took many steps to undercut the University of Nebraska. For example, the Legislature conducted a private investigation into the university’s budget without help or consent of the Board of Regents. On January 24, 1933, the Nebraska Senate put together a committee of three senators to “investigate all facts pertaining to the moneys appropriated for, and used by the, State University of Nebraska… [to be] fully advised as to the present and future needs of the State University… [so] that the tax moneys collected may be wisely and effectively appropriated expanded.”[14] Over a period of two months, The Nebraska Senate conducted an investigation into university finances, and during that time, Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regents were preparing to be hit with a budget that would likely shatter the already unstable financial situation at the University of Nebraska.

The Board of Regents decided to fight back. Marion Shaw, a Nebraska Board of Regents member, and the one leading the fight, informed the Nebraska House Finance Committee of how the proposed cuts could lead to devasting consequences. The Board of Regents proposed a budget of $3,522,600, and Governor Bryan proposed a budget of $2,990,000.[15] Marion Shaw in his letter to House Finance Committee on March 7, 1933, notified them of the problems of the Bryan Budget. He also mentioned the problems of having to cut salaries of the staff even further than the ten percent cut the year before, the problem of having less money to use for the increased enrollment, and the ever-increasing costs of maintenance.[16] Shaw further pointed out that in the twelve years since 1921, the maintenance and salaries appropriation only increased by $104,300. He continued his argument that the Governor’s budget was $428,250 less than the budget of the years of 1921-1923, years also following an agricultural depression, and that the university’s student registration was 3000 greater in 1933 than in 1921.[17] Shaw hoped that his pleas to the House Finance Committee would lead to more money for the University of Nebraska. Shaw mentioned that if the budget had been cut as Governor Bryan wanted, then the University would be in deep trouble. Unfortunately for Shaw, the House Finance Committee took drastic measures and cut the budget even further than what Governor Bryan had proposed.

The Nebraska Senate’s Special Committee on the Affairs of the University of Nebraska had completed their investigation on March 18, 1933. Senators on the committee believed that Governor Bryan’s budget did not cut enough in salaries, and that all salaries over $1000 per annum should be cut, and that the employees of the University of Nebraska should not receive salaries in excess of more important state officials, such as judges.[18] Some departments like the College of Arts and Sciences were supposed to get an increased workload of fourteen hours a week, but with a lower salary and an even smaller teaching staff.[19] Another shocking move by the committee was a proposal to decrease the budget for maintenance by over $150,000. The final findings of the Senate’s committee proposed cutting the Bryan budget by over $385,000 because they believed it was necessary to help alleviate the already financially strapped Nebraska taxpayer from paying for a majority of the institution’s budget.[20] The Daily Nebraskan noted, “that the legislature would appropriate 23.2% less for the University of Nebraska’s General Fund due to the conclusions of the special committee’s findings.”[21] Senators on the committee believed that by cutting the University of Nebraska’s funding, it would free up more money to spend on the Nebraska farmers affected by the Great Depression. Many of these cuts were desperate attempts made by the Nebraska Legislature in order to appease the angry farmers that wanted- and needed- relief.

The Nebraska Board of Regents were shell shocked by the results of the special committee’s conclusions, and acted in order to help prevent some of the cuts. The Board of Regents sent a letter to Senator John Callen, a proponent of cutting university programs, in order to remind him of the Regent’s opposition to the extreme budget cuts. In this letter, the Board of Regents began to accept more of the recommendations of Governor Bryan’s budget, even though it cut university funds by 18%.[22] In essence, the Board of Regents understood things would need to be chopped and they were willing to work with the legislature if they would accept Bryan’s budget. Near the end of the letter, it was mentioned that cuts below Governor Bryan’s budget meant that, “professors of unusual ability [could] not be retained, the university [would] be severely crippled by such further reduction, and that the accomplishments of the last fifty years would be swept aside and that it will take years to repair the damage done.”[23] In the end, the Regents accepted that their budget would be cut by more than 15% percent and compromised with the Governor to take his budget recommendations.

Fearing that the Nebraska Legislature would cut even more from the budget proposed by Governor Bryan, The Board of Regents conducted an intense lobbying campaign to encourage the adoption of Bryan’s budget. Even though the University of Nebraska was a secular institution, the local ministers of Lincoln, from different churches such as the Grace Lutheran Church and the First Christian Church, backed the university. In an article in March 1933, the ministers of Lincoln, “[believed] that the proposed reduction in the university budget is unfairly applied and that drastic reductions are destructive to the policy of free education of Nebraska.”[24] When the ministers backed the university, it helped the Regents understand that everyone knew the significance of the budget cuts. However, the Regents campaigned further and in the March 23, 1933 issue of the Nebraska Alumnus, pleaded for former students of the University of Nebraska to write their Nebraska Representatives to request fewer cuts.

Reaching out to the Alumni was a very important step. The Nebraska Alumnus informed their readers about the dire budget situation. In the alumni journal, the budget cuts were called, “the greatest crisis in the history of the [University of Nebraska]. Under the cloak of economy an attempt is being made to destroy the state’s most valuable institution.”[25] The Alumnus also went further and discussed that the budget would be cut by 27 percent, and that the “[Nebraska Legislature] introduced a bill that would take from the Regents their duties as members of the Executive Board of the University and put them into the hands of the legislature.”[26] The Board of Regents, popularly elected by Nebraska citizens, would have lost their powers to conduct any business for the University of Nebraska, including a role in deciding future budgets for the school. Many of the Representatives in the Nebraska Legislature were determined to take away any power the Board of Regents had, and this could have led to a state constitutional crisis, due to the state constitution, “[vesting] the responsibility for determining salaries and other factors vital to the efficiency of the institution in the regents.”[27] In their plea, the Board of Regents and Chancellor Burnett placed their last hopes to save the budget into the hands of alumni, the people who elected the representatives to the Nebraska Legislature, to hold them accountable. The Board of Regents and Chancellor Burnett had argued their case for keeping the University of Nebraska’s budget, but it ultimately up to the Nebraska Legislature to decide what the budget would be.

The debate in the Nebraska Legislature over the University of Nebraska budget would rage on for almost two months, and each step of the way it was a contentious process.[28] The Nebraska House of Representatives continued to lower the budget any way they could, and there was little reason to believe they would accept Governor Bryan’s budget. Finally, they approved a bill, but it was almost $500,000 less than the Bryan budget. However, the amount was not decreased anymore when they sent their budget recommendations to the Nebraska Senate.[29] The Nebraska Senate favored the Bryan budget, but knew they would have to work with the Nebraska House of Representatives in order to get a compromised bill passed. Senators debated over the budget bill for over two weeks until a compromise had been met. After going into a conference with the House, both houses of the Nebraska Legislature agreed to a budget that was similar to the original Bryan budget. The Daily Nebraskan reported, “The university appropriations included a lump sum, amounted to $3,331,680, which are practically the same figures submitted by Governor Bryan.”[30] When the bill passed, it was a small victory for Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regents, but most importantly, the Regents were also able to keep their powers with the passage of this budget. However, once the university budget had  passed, Chancellor Burnett had to make the changes that were requested by the Nebraska Legislature.

Chancellor Burnett informed the students, faculty, and alumni about the cuts that would happen to the University of Nebraska through an article he wrote for the Nebraska Alumnus. The article talked about, “22 percent reduction of all salaries of $1,500 more… the elimination of the school of fine arts, but the school of music will remain a separate collegiate school… the elimination of all tuition-based scholarships and reduction of all graduate scholarships by 25 percent.”[31] Chancellor Burnett was forced to take these steps because of the ongoing economic depression the whole country was experiencing, but this was a victory for the Board of Regents and Burnett because they were able to keep many programs intact at the university. Burnett noted the significance of working with the cuts, “If these forces cannot carry on in times when the economic problems are great, then education cannot expect to hold its dominant position in the life of the state… [If education survives the economic problems] then [it] will have proved its right to be the dominating influence in our social institutions.”[32] The University of Nebraska would spend the next two years with a small budget, but it was able to carry on through the hard work of Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regents. By the time the next budget negotiations were due in 1935, things began to look much more favorable for the University of Nebraska.

In the year of 1935, the University of Nebraska budget negotiations went much more smoothly, but the harsh years of 1932-1933 were not forgotten. Budget appropriations in the year of 1935 had returned to levels during the years of 1931-1932, and fewer cuts would have to made. The bigger budget was due to the recovering farm economy in the state of Nebraska, and the state legislature was finally able to appease the angry farmers by giving them some relief from the depression. It was noted, “Wheat prices returned to one dollar per bushel, corn at more than one dollar per bushel, hogs at six cents per pound, hay at $15 to $30 per ton, and butter fat at 30 cents per pound.”[33] With these rising farm prices, the University of Nebraska received an increased appropriation of over $832,920, restoring the financial levels of the university to the year of 1931.[34] It was also during this time that the Nebraska Legislature amended the Nebraska Constitution to give more powers to the Nebraska Board of Regents, because they recognized their mistake of two years earlier of trying to take away powers from the regents. The changes to the amendment included, “consolidating the Board of Regents and the Board of Education of State Normal Schools into a Nebraska State University Board of Education and giving it more control of the University of Nebraska, all state normal schools, and the Nebraska School for the Deaf and Blind.”[35] After the turbulent years of 1932-1933, the University of Nebraska was able to recover and returned to being the best higher institution of learning in the state of Nebraska.

The Great Depression had a dramatic effect on the state of Nebraska and also impacted the University of Nebraska budget. During 1932-1933, the farm economy was in a deep decline and farmers were angry at the State Legislature for not helping them. This led the Nebraska Legislature to take significant actions to reduce the University of Nebraska budget and use the funds to give farmers relief. Throughout this entire essay, we examined the historical significance of the budget negotiation years of 1932-1933 for the University of Nebraska, and how important it was that the Board of Regents and Chancellor Burnett stepped in to help protect the University of Nebraska from severe budget cuts. If Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regents had not acted and compromised with the legislature, then the University of Nebraska would have been in much worse financial shape than it already was at the time. By the year of 1935, Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regent’s actions of two years prior helped build a brighter future for the University of Nebraska, and they were able to regain a larger appropriation from the Nebraska Legislature. These were the tense budget negotiations between the University of Nebraska and Nebraska Legislature during the cash-strapped years of 1932-1933, and because of the courage of Chancellor Burnett and the Board of Regents, the University Nebraska remained an outstanding university even during the tumultuous years of the Great Depression.

Endnotes:

1. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company, 2009), https://books.google.com/books.
2. Gilbert C. Fite, “Great Plains Farming: A Century of Change and Adjustment,” Agriculture History 51, no. 1 (1988): 244-256, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741648.  
3. William C. Pratt “Rethinking the Farm Revolt of the 1930s,” Great Plains Quarterly 8, no. 3 (1988): 131-144, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23531119.
4. “Survey Reveals Big Enrollment at Nebraska U,” The Daily Nebraskan, January 8, 1932, Nebraska Newspaper Archives. http://nebnewspapers.unl.edu/lccn/sn96080312/1932-01-08/ed-1.
5. E. A. Burnett, “Our Next Two Years,” Speeches, Box 1. Folder 6, Correspondence, Speeches, 1932, Chancellor Records (RG 05-11-02). Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
6. E.A. Burnett, “Our Next Two Years,” Speeches.
7. Edgar Burnett to the Nebraska Board of Regents, 9 February 1932, in Box 1 Board of Regents Letters 1931-1932, Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
8. Edgar Burnett to the Nebraska Board of Regents, 9 February 1932.
9. University of Nebraska, Cornhusker 1935 Yearbook, (Lincoln, NE: Administration 1935, 1935), University of Nebraska Yearbook Online Archives, University of Nebraska, pg. 38, No reading room.                
10. Board of Regents President Stanley D. Long to Governor Charles W. Bryan, 5 December 1932, in Box 1, Bryan, Charles, Governor 1930-1934, Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
11. Stanley Long to Governor Charles Bryan, 5 December 1932.
12. Stanley Long to Governor Charles Bryan, 5 December 1932.
13. Stanley Long to Governor Charles Bryan, 5 December 1932.
14. Senate Resolution. Session of 1933, 49^th session. (Neb. 1933)
15. Board of Regents Member Marion Shaw to Nebraska House Finance Committee, 7 March 1933, in Box 5 Subject Correspondence, Legislative Business 1933, Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
16. Marion Shaw to House Finance Committee, 7 March 1933.
17. Marion Shaw to House Finance Committee, 7 March 1933.
18. Committee to Study the Affairs of the State of Nebraska, Report of Committee to Investigate State University, report prepared for the Nebraska House and Senate Finance Committees, 49^th session of Nebraska Legislature, 1933, Nebraska House Journal 1051-1055
19. Committee to Study the Affairs of the State of Nebraska, Report of Committee to Investigate State University.
20. Committee to Study the Affairs of the State of Nebraska, Report of Committee to Investigate State University.
21. “Recommended University Salary Slash: Committee Wants Bigger Cut Made,” Daily Nebraskan, March 19, 1933, http://nebnewspapers.unl.edu/lccn/sn96080312/1933-03-19/ed-1/seq-1/.
22. Board of Regents to Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Callan, in Box 5 Subject Correspondence, Legislative Business 1933, Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
23. Board of Regents to John Callan.
24. Reverends Ray E. Hunt, Walter Aitken, Ben F. Wyland, Paul Johnson, Paul Calhoun, Ervine Inglis, Clifton H. Walcott, and G. Keller Rubrecht, “The Ministers of Lincoln Back the University of Nebraska,” March 1933.
25. Oscar D. Norling, “What are you going to do about this?,” Nebraska Alumnus, March 23, 1933. Section 1.
26. “What are you going to do about this?,” Nebraska Alumnus, March 23, 1933. Section 1.
27. “What are you going to do about this?,” Nebraska Alumnus, March 23, 1933. Section 1.
28. “Senate Favors Bryan Budget,” The Daily Nebraskan, April 20, 1933, http://nebnewspapers.unl.edu/lccn/sn96080312/1933-04-20/ed-1/seq-1/.
29. University of Nebraska, Cornhusker 1935 Yearbook, (Lincoln, NE: Administration 1935, 1935), University of Nebraska Yearbook Online Archives, University of Nebraska, pg. 37, No reading room.
30. “Legislative Groups Pass State Budget Measure on Friday,” The Daily Nebraska, May 7, 1933, http://nebnewspapers.unl.edu/lccn/sn96080312/1933-05-07/ed-1/seq-1/.
31. E.A. Burnett, “The University Budget,” Speeches, Box 1. Folder 7. Correspondence, Speeches, 1933, Chancellor Records (RG 05-11-02). Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
32. Burnett, “The University Budget,” Speeches.
33. Board of Regents to House Finance Committee, in Box 5 Subject Correspondence, Legislative Business 1935, Archives & Special Collections, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries.
34. Board of Regents to House Finance Committee.
35. House of Representatives Roll No. 396, session of 1935, 50^th session (Neb. 1935).