During winter term 2025 Dr. Kara Ritzheimer’s History 310 (Historian’s Craft) students researched and wrote blog posts about OSU during WWII. The sources they consulted are listed at the end of each post. Students wrote on a variety of topics and we hope you appreciate their contributions as much as the staff at SCARC does!
Blog post written by Whitney Leonard.
During World War II, the increasing demand for farm labor in the United States of America, and the decreasing hands to do so, resulted in national and local initiatives to fulfill labor needs. The larger programs, such as the Bracero program, which contracted temporary workers from Mexico in agreement with the Mexican government, required more localized support, such as the Emergency Farm Labor Program (EFLP), founded by Oregon State College’s (OSC) Extension Services. In a January 1947 twenty-page circular report, OSC Extension Services described to Oregon citizens the role of the EFLP from 1943 to 1946 and its focus on migratory labor moving forward through 1947. OSC’s Extension program proved to be vital to the labor effort through its EFLP and its administration over the Bracero program in Oregon.
OSC cooperated with larger, national organizations to aid the farm labor efforts within Oregon. The Extension Services of OSC, created by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 to bring specialized research and expertise to the everyday people of Oregon, were given “increased responsibility in 1943 in the recruitment, training and placement of farm labor,” by the U.S. Congress, which allocated 26 million among the states to do so.[i] The Extension Services took on this responsibility through an increased focus on their already established county farm labor subcommittees and the founding of the EFLP.[ii] The 1947 circular report, mentioned above, informed Oregon citizens that the Extension Service of OSC supported the EFLP by providing resources such as statistics to estimate the number of workers needed, placing available workers, organizing training courses, providing instruction on efficient labor practices, and planning for building labor housing.[iii] This was a big task, however, for the main Corvallis EFLP office to take on by itself, which is where the county agents came into play.
The EFLP, based in Corvallis, was simply at the center of this operation, providing aid for county agents who worked diligently for the Extension Services throughout the state. A letter from J.R. Beck, the Corvallis supervisor for the EFLP, dated October 30, 1944, to the county agents, offered support from Corvallis specialists in filing the monthly farm labor reports for their county, which the county agents sent to the Corvallis office responsible for compiling a statewide report.[iv] The April 1944 report disclosed that the number of seasonal workers (2,310) that farmers ordered through the county agents was much higher than year-round workers (479).[v] This means that a county agent would have been tasked with placing workers based on changing needs throughout the year.


The variety and changing nature of labor demands led to the Extension Services mobilizing many different types of workers. The EFLP, in the 1947 circular report, mainly highlighted the placement of 338,542 Oregon women and school children as laborers and even leaders in this operation.[vi] However, when these workers were not enough, the EFLP also placed laborers from Mexico and Jamaica, interned Japanese Americans, and prisoners of war.[vii] While the role of these other workers seems vital, the report leaves these key workers in the margins only in brief comments or even hidden in the captions of photos.
The transcript of a May 30, 1944 Oregon Farm Labor Radio national broadcast on May featuring a discussion between EFLP supervisors William Teutsch and J.R. Beck and a member of the Benton County farm labor committee, Harold G. Rumbaugh, brings the diversity of these workers into clearer view. The three men commented on different types of laborers, such as children, women, discharged soldiers and even Mexican workers, and how the EFLP, along with the county committees, allocated these laborers based on differing needs.[viii] Rumbaugh explained, for example, that his, “community can use local labor better because we do not have enough concentration of jobs at any one time to handle a camp of Mexicans.”[ix] Rumbaugh’s comment demonstrates the thought that went into placements, and how every county committee considered the demands of its community. Although this script provides another mention to Mexican workers, the speakers still leave the origin, purpose, and labor and living conditions of the Mexican migrant workers unclear.

The Mexican workers under the jurisdiction of the EFLP in Oregon were contracted through the 1942 Bracero agreement, which was one major effort by the United States government to create a sufficient labor force during World War II. The U.S. State Department, the Department of Labor, and the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) collectively established the August 1942 Public Law-45, and they did so in collaboration with Mexico. At the time, the U.S. War Manpower Commission, founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 to address and estimate labor needs, predicted an overwhelming need for farm laborers.[x] The purpose of this Bracero agreement was to fulfill this great need, and, for INS purposes, to prevent farmers from contracting undocumented workers.[xi] Through the Bracero program, and “Operation Wetback,” where the INS deported undocumented migrants to then return them to the same farmers as Braceros, the INS provided a controlled labor force from Mexico.[xii] Although responsible for the Bracero program on an administrative level, these national agencies did not work alone.
The EFLP found the Bracero workers, as they were very able to adapt, to be very fitting for their shifting labor needs based on the seasons. Beck comments, in the same radio script mentioned above, that “1944 production could not be harvested without the aid of Mexicans,” and the EFLP, “hope to have enough Mexican labor to put into the 20 or more districts where extra help must be had.”[xiii] While a shortage in labor made these workers important, their ability to pick up the slack when children returned to school in September and for working, “distant from centers of population,” as a 1944 newspaper comments, seemed to make them perfect for the job.[xiv] One example of adaptability was on August 6, 1945, when Beck announced that Mexican workers would be moved to agricultural adjacent jobs, such as working in processing plants during a downturn in agricultural labor needs.[xv] Even though the Bracero workers met specific needs, the EFLP had an understanding that the program would be short lived.
Despite the EFLP’s original thinking, the program continued for many more years. After the war it was clear, through EFLP news notes from August 16, 1945, that jobs for returning military workers would be prioritized, and the United States would begin to repatriate Mexican workers.[xvi] This did not mean, however, that the Bracero Program in Oregon was over. Instead, in late August 1945, the OSC Extension Services aided in, “camp construction and loaning tents, tent platforms, cots, mattresses and tables” to a migratory farm camp in Malin (Klamath County).[xvii] As the Bracero program continued to thrive, it is clear how important these workers were to the EFLP in handling the shifting conditions of the agricultural industry during and after World War II.


Despite the support the Braceros provided to the American agriculture industry, they received little respect in return. The Bracero workers, unlike undocumented laborers, “received housing (albeit meager), food, transportation, and a greater assurance that they would in fact be paid for their work.”[xviii] However, the working conditions were difficult and hazardous, causing injuries.[xix] Additionally, Braceros often lived in tents, had little to eat, and received subpar medical treatment, if any.[xx] These workers, placed in an unfamiliar, and sometimes hostile, situation, had to make the decision between the path of least resistance, or the more risky path of authorship in their own story.
Braceros, decided to not be passive victims, but worked diligently to advocate for their rights. Braceros were able to protest more in the Northwest, where the workers were said to be, “constantly on strike.”[xxi] However, closer to the Mexican border, in the Southwest, where farmers more readily returned rebellious Braceros for new ones, there were limited strike efforts.[xxii] Furthermore, the Mexican government worked to protect Bracero workers. For example, Mexican officials ended the flow of Braceros to Texas and Idaho because of high rates of discrimination in those states.[xxiii] It is clear that the Bracero program was more than a neutral labor exchange. Due to the power differential, the United States actors took advantage of the Braceros. However, the Braceros also proved themselves to be active participants in their own history.


In sum, the expertise of Oregon State College, with support from both the U.S. government and county agents, created and ran a program which aided Oregon farmers in fulfilling labor requests fit to their circumstances. The interdependence of these actors within the Bracero Program and the EFLP, spanning all the way from the national level to the state level all the way down to the individual farmers and workers, shows the complexity of programs such as these. The intricacies of every actor’s interest, as well as their power to enforce their interests, shaped these farm labor programs. The Bracero Program and the EFLP continued after the war to support the national interest of the United States. The end of the EFLP, in 1947, however, did not even mark the end of the Bracero program, which operated until 1964. Even today we can see the ripple effects of these programs in the faces of agricultural workers, and the United States’ interdependence on undocumented Mexican labor.
[i] Frank Llewellyn Ballard, The Oregon State University Federal Cooperative Extension Service:1911-1961 (Oregon State University Extension Services, 1960), 1, 22, Oregon State University (hereafter OSU), Scholars Archive, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/c821gq42j?locale=en; “Rieder Starts Labor Checkup,” The Oregon Statesman, May 27, 1943 4, Historic Oregon Newspapers (hereafter HON), University of Oregon (UO) https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn85042470/1943-05-27/ed-1/seq-4/#words=county+farm+labor+subcommittee
[ii] Ballard, The Oregon State University Federal Cooperative Extension Service, 22; “1943 Farm Labor Problems to be Studies Locally,” Roseburg News-Review, March 1, 1943: 3, HON, https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2003260227/1943-03-01/ed-1/seq-3/#words=county+farm+labor+subcommittees
[iii] Oregon State College Extension Services, Fighters on the Farm Front: A Story of the 1943-46 Oregon Emergency Farm Labor Program (Oregon State Federal Cooperative Extension Services, 1947), 2,10,13-15, OSU, Scholars Archive, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/br86b846h.
[iv] J.R. Beck, Letter to “Certain County Agents,” Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, October 30, 1944, Special Collections and Archives Research Center at Oregon State University (hereafter SCARC), Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, Farm Labor Emergency, April 1943 – June 1946.
[v] “State Farm Labor Report,” Oregon State University Extension Services, April 5, 1944, SCARC, Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, Farm Labor Emergency, April 1943 – June 1946.
[vi] Oregon State College Extension Services, Fighters on the Farm Front, 4.
[vii] Oregon State College Extension Services, Fighters on the Farm Front, 7.
[viii] William L. Teutsch, J.R. Beck and Harold G. Rumbaugh, “Script for National Broadcast,” Oregon Farm Labor Radio, May 30, 1944, 1-4, SCARC, Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, SG 2 Director’s Office: IX: Projects, Extension Specialists: Farm Labor Emergency Radio.
[ix] William L. Teutsch, J.R. Beck and Harold G. Rumbaugh, “Script for National Broadcast,” 3.
[x] Erasmo Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” Pacific Historical Review 56, no. 3 (1987): 379, https://doi.org/10.2307/3638664; Marjorie S. Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers: The Bracero Program and the INS,” review of Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. by Kitty Calavita and Mexican Labor and World War II: Braceros in the Pacific Northwest, 1942-1947 by Erasmo Gamboa. Law and Society Review 26, no. 4 (1993): 851, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053955.
[xi] Erasmo Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” 379; Marjorie S. Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 851.
[xii] Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 853.
[xiii] William L. Teutsch, J.R. Beck and Harold G. Rumbaugh, “Script for National Broadcast,” 3-4.
[xiv] “Oregon’s Fall Harvest Calls 50,000 Pickers,” The Springfield News, August 24, 1944, 3, HON, https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn97071003/1944-08-24/ed-1/seq-3/#words=centers+distant+from+population.
[xv] Fred M. Shideler, “Farm Labor News Notes,” Oregon State College Extension Services, August 6, 1945, SCARC, Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, Farm Labor News Notes.
[xvi] Fred M. Shideler, “Farm Labor News Notes,” Oregon State College Extension Services, August 16, 1945, SCARC, Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, Farm Labor News Notes.
[xvii] Fred M. Shideler, “Farm Labor News Notes,” Oregon State College Extension Services, August 27, 1945, SCARC, Extension Service Records (RG 111), Box 67, Farm Labor News Notes.
[xviii] Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 852.
[xix] Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” 390.
[xx] Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” 381-384, 389-390.
[xxi] Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” 393-394; Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 855.
[xxii] Gamboa, “Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,” 393-394; Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 855.
[xxiii] Zatz, “Using and Abusing Mexican Farmworkers,” 856.