The article includes information about the exhibit, the exhibit curation process as well as its promotion and community response, and plans for next steps.
The issue was featured in the September 17, 2025 “In the Loop” digital newsletter mailed to members of the Society of American Archivists (the image below is a screenshot from the digital newsletter):
In the archival field, enhanced description practices support biographical work. This includes the ongoing News and Communication Services Records (RG 203) biographies project that seeks to further facilitate access and searchability of former faculty, staff, and students through the identification of individuals listed in Series 4 of the collection through the addition of short biographies to the collection’s finding aid. For each individual listed, the series contains biographical documents like resumes, newspaper clippings, and obituaries that include key points about an individual’s life and career. These points are often references to an individual’s positive contributions to society. As a result, the biographical documents, and biographical work these documents support, may overlook harmful causes that an individual supported or actively participated in.
This is true of Oswald West, who served as the fourteenth governor of Oregon from 1911 to 1915. West did not attend nor work at Oregon State, but West Hall (former women’s residence hall and current Honors College Living-Learning Community) is named after him. RG 203 contains only one document related to West: a pamphlet advertising West Hall upon its construction in 1960. It reads:
Governor West’s single term of office has been called the most colorful in Oregon’s history… he laid plans for the state’s present highway system. He pushed through the farsighted legislation providing for public ownership of Oregon’s 400 miles of ocean beaches. He is responsible for the workmen’s compensation law, funds for caring for homeless children and foundlings, creation of the State Board of Control, and other notable changes. Students of this and future generations who make West Hall their campus home may well be proud to live in a hall named for such a vigorous, courageous, dedicated leader as the Honorable Oswald West.1
However, in performing routine research outside of SCARC’s collections to write West’s biography, I discovered that he was also a proponent of eugenics law in Oregon. More specifically, he passed Oregon’s first forced sterilization law.
Forced sterilization allowed physicians to sterilize patients without their consent, rendering the patient infertile. As a whole, sterilization laws were fundamentally Eurocentric and their racist foundations were concerned primarily with improving the white race by preventing the reproduction of individuals lawmakers saw as “unfit” to bear children.2 In today’s terms, the victims of forced sterilization laws in the twentieth century included people of color, the mentally and physically disabled, criminals, the impoverished, queer people, and sexually active women.
Eugenics was amongst West’s primary concerns during his term as governor. In his inaugural message to Oregon’s legislative assembly in 1911, West wrote, “Degenerates and the feeble-minded should not be allowed to reproduce their kind. Society should be protected from this curse.”3 He further wrote, “The State has been shocked by the recent exposures to degenerate practices… These degenerates slink, in all their infamy, through every city, contaminating the young, debauching the innocent, cursing the State.”4 West’s proposed solution was the implementation of eugenics laws. “Sterilization and emasculation offer an effective remedy,” he wrote. “I would recommend, therefore, that a statute be enacted making it the duty of our State penal and eleemosynary [adjective: related to charity; charitable] institutions to report all apparent cases of degeneracy to the State Board of Health. It should be made the duty of the said board to cause investigation to be made and, if the findings warrant, to cause such operations to be performed as will give society the protection it deserves.”5 West launched a “crusade against vice” in 1912 and thus urged the Oregon legislature to investigate “degeneracy.” 6
West was influenced by proponents of eugenics at the time. Bethenia Owens-Adair was a doctor and advocate for forced sterilization in Oregon. She authored and worked with Representative L. G. Lewelling to push a eugenics bill through the Oregon House of Representatives. On February 18, 1913, Governor West signed into law House Bill No. 69. The bill gave “broad powers to the state to sterilize citizens, regardless of the recommendations of medical, religious, and legal authorities.”7
The bill was signed into law in part due to the Portland Vice Scandal in 1912, which revealed a subculture for gay men in Portland, Oregon. The scandal “led states throughout the Northwest to strengthen and expand sodomy laws and, in the 1910s and 1920s, to encourage Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to adopt Eugenics programs that prescribed the sterilization of sex offenders.”8 By 1913, “sodomy” and the related phrase “crime against nature” in Oregon encompassed a breadth of sexual activity that was not completely defined, but did include oral and anal sexual activity.9 By categorizing these activities as sexual offenses, and by association, gay men and lesbian women as sex offenders, they were targeted as criminals. Moreover, the American Psychological Association “considered gender and orientation variance a mental illness in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” until 1987.10 Therefore, members of the queer community were also targeted for forced sterilization because the state considered their identity to be a mental illness.
The 1913 bill went to referendum due to lobbying by the Oregon Anti-Sterilization League and did not pass. Thus, it was repealed before it went into effect.11 The Oregon Anti-Sterilization League is credited for swaying public opinion on this vote. However, a new forced sterilization law was passed in 1917 by West’s successor, Governor James Withycombe, who stated:
I am more and more convinced that the reproduction of the mentally unfit is absolutely wrong. Through our shortsighted inaction we are populating our State with imbeciles and criminals, insuring ever-increasing public expense and opening the way for disease, sorrow and tragedy for generations yet unborn… To mend this situation, I earnestly urge the passage of a sane Sterilization Act.12
Withycombe, while not included in the contents of RG 203, was involved with Oregon State prior to serving in the state government. In 1898, he joined the Oregon State staff as a professor of agriculture, and in 1908, was appointed Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Withycombe Hall is named after the fifteenth Oregon governor.
The bill passed by Withycombe did not require a referendum and the state formed the Board of Eugenics. This board included superintendents from state institutions like the Oregon State Hospital, the Eastern Oregon State Hospital, the State Penitentiary, and the State Institution for the Feeble-Minded. The board reviewed quarterly reports of inmates recommended for forceful sterilization.13 Inmates recommended for sterilization were those who were “feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates, and sexual perverts. Habitual criminals were defined as those who have been convicted three times or more of a felony in any state, while moral degenerates and sexual perverts partly included homosexuals and promiscuous teenage girls.”14
Initially, the law did not require consent from individuals recommended for forced sterilization, but in 1923, state legislature changed the process for sterilization so that, “inmates and patients would be sterilized only if they consented or if a court determined that they should be forcibly sterilized.”15 Oftentimes, though, sterilization was used as a precondition for allowing individuals to leave state institutions. Thus, individuals often agreed to undergo sterilization if it allowed them their freedom. The statue was revised several more times through the twentieth century, stripping eugenic language and instead emphasizing prospective parents’ inability to care for children in 1935, removing additional eugenic language in 1967, and limiting the class of state wards considered for sterilization to mental hospital inmates in 1970.16
State-sponsored eugenic sterilization ended in 1983.17 From 1917 to 1983, over 2600 individuals were forced to endure sterilization in Oregon.18 While SCARC does not hold records directly related to Oswald West’s involvement in Oregon’s eugenics movement, enhanced descriptions for collections like RG 203 can give a more nuanced and informed approach to studying him, especially given his relationship with Oregon State.
Grace Knutsen is the former lead student archivist at Special Collections and Archives Research Center. She is an Oregon State alumna and Master of Library and Information Science student.
News and Communication Services Records, 1940-2004, Special Collections and Archives Research Center, Oregon State University Libraries, Series 4 Reel 2. ↩︎
Katherine N. Bush, “Oregon’s Racial Purity Regime: The Influence of International Scientific Racism on Law Enforcement, Legislation, Public Health, and Incarceration in Portland, Oregon During the Victorian and Progressive Eras (1851-1917)” (MA thesis, Portland State University, 2021), PDXScholar (5677). https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/5677/. ↩︎
Paul A. Lombardo, “Republicans, Democrats, & Doctors: The Lawmakers Who Wrote Sterilization Laws.” The Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 51, no. 1 (2023): 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.47. ↩︎
Deborah Josefson, “Oregon’s governor apologises for forced sterilisations.” British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 325 (2002): 1380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1380/b. ↩︎
The Oregon Multicultural Archives and OSU Queer Archives were interviewed by Choice, a source of reviews of new books and digital resources for academic libraries that publishes a bi-monthly feature called “Ask an Archivist” to profile select special collections. The feature is intended to introduce readers to the treasure trove of materials housed in all kinds of archives and libraries.
Oregon State University (OSU) houses the Oregon Multicultural Archives (OMA) and OSU Queer Archives (OSQA). Can you provide an overview of the two collections and the types of materials they include?
Both the OMA and OSQA contain a substantial number of university records, including meeting minutes and photographs from student organizations and documentation on the activities carried out by cultural centers on campus. Could you speak more about these records? How do documents from university groups and initiatives help center and amplify student voices?
The OMA and OSQA also feature oral history interviews with students, staff, and members of the wider Oregon community on their histories and experiences. Could you speak to the importance of oral histories, particularly for communities that are currently facing erasure? What does the transcription and cataloging process for the OMA and OSQA’s audio files entail?
The Oregon Tribal Archives Institute resulted from a grant project created by the Oregon Multicultural Archives. Can you describe the project and your work with Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes? How does the Institute support the tribes’ autonomy when it comes to preserving and cataloging their histories?
I understand that the OSU Queer Archives are overseen by you, an archivist, and Bradley Boovy, a professor. What is the value of archivist-professor partnerships? How can they enrich the development and use of archival collections?
What outreach efforts do the OMA and OSQA engage in? How do the collections build community among students and faculty, other universities, and the wider public?
In an article about the OSU Queer Archives titled “Co-Founding a Queer Archives,” you and Boovy write that, “…archives have the ability to shift the culture at institutions of higher education towards greater visibility and acceptance by acknowledging and validating the experience of marginalized students and other members of communities connected with universities including faculty, staff, alumni, and administrators.” Can you speak more about archives’ ability to “shift the culture at institutions of higher education” and how they can create opportunities for new stories and modes of understanding?
The Oregon State University Libraries Special Collections & Archives Research Center (SCARC) recently held an exhibit called “Anti-Racist Description Activities in the OSU Special Collections and Archives Research Center.” What does this exhibit entail, and how does OMA center anti-racist decision-making?
Homepage of the BIPOC Greek Letter Organizations in SCARC new research guide
In honor of Juneteenth, celebrated each year on June 19th to commemorate the emancipation of enslaved people, SCARC is delighted to publish a research guide featuring a curated list of collection materials documenting the histories of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) Greek Letter Organizations at Oregon State University.
The National Pan-Hellenic Council (the Divine Nine) and the Multicultural Greek Council (consisting of 11 chapters) focus on creating safe and inclusive spaces for students of color on college and university campuses. As part of SCARC’s broader anti-racist and enhanced description efforts that began in 2020, we engaged in a collections survey and conducted research to chronicle the history and activities of these organizations to identify archival collections that would support research on each group (for more information on SCARC’s on-going anti-racist work please see our online guide).
As noted in the guide, the sororities and fraternities featured in this subject guide surfaced as part of our initial round of research into BIPOC Greek life on OSU’s campus. This is an ongoing project for which we will continue to seek out and add materials to our collections, and will update this guide with additional information we or community members surface.
This summer we plan to update relevant archival collection finding aids to highlight specific materials. Look for another blog post later this year with more information documenting our process and providing more context for this project.
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.
J.R. Beck’s Letter to the county agents informing them about the reports, and how they will receive help from the Corvallis EFLP office. J.R. Beck, Letter to “Certain County Agents,” Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, October 30, 1944, SCARC, Extension Service Records, RG 111, Box 67, Farm Labor Emergency, April 1943 – June 1946.
This work clothes advertisement is one of many advertisements that appear in the Medford Mail Tribune that encourage workers to register with the local county farm labor office. “Tough Work Clothes for Pear Pickers and Packers,” (Medford Mail Tribune, July 25, 1943).
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.
This chart shows the number of Braceros in different states, and in the United States as a whole, across time. A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1951): 226, SCARC, Extension Service Records, RG 111, Box 67.
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.
Photo of Klamath county living quarters at the labor camp in 1943 which OSC donated to and helped construct. “Sleeping quarters,” Braceros in Oregon Photograph Collection, Oregon State University.
This segment from the Springfield News comments on the flexibility and ability of Mexican workers. “Oregon’s Fall Harvest Calls 50,000 Pickers,” The Springfield News, August 24, 1944.
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.
This image shows a dining tent in Hood River County where the Braceros would’ve eaten. “Dining area,” Braceros in Oregon Photograph Collection, Oregon State University.
This picture shows Bracero workers pulling onions in Klamath County in 1943. “Pulling Onions,” Braceros in Oregon Photograph Collection, Oregon State University.
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
[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.
[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.
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 Sylas Allen.
In July 1862, the United States government granted thirty-thousand acres of federal land to the states for the purpose of building universities. These universities aimed to fulfill this mission by creating institutions that would instruction in the fields of science, classical studies, agriculture and mechanical arts. Oregon State University (formerly Oregon State College) got its start as a one of these land grant colleges in 1868. In his book The People’s School: a History of Oregon State University, historian William Robbins writes, “Oregon State University exemplifies the importance of federal initiatives in fostering agricultural experiment stations, extension programs, and oceanic and space related research.”1
Today we see many different course offerings at Oregon State and many choices for majors and studies. However, expanding the curriculum took time and effort to get where it is now. One large push towards expanding and diversifying curriculum occurred during World War II. This unexpected change happened in part due to the soldiers Oregon State College (OSC) housed on campus during the war. Many college campuses were charged with hosting Army training operations. OSC’s Army Navy Specialized Training Program (A.S.T.P) created demand for an expanded liberal arts program. The A.S.T.P aimed to create technicians and specialists for the army, and sent these men to a variety of colleges and institutions for the purpose of receiving academic instruction deemed important towards serving their positions for the army.2 The army needed soldiers that had fundamental understandings of the conflict and political science and history classes were considered important foundations along with language classes (primarily German). The demand for these courses helped to push OSC authorities into expanding and improving upon their liberal arts offerings.
Published in October 1940, the 1939-1940 Biennial Report book from The Oregon State Board of Higher Education contains information about colleges and universities in the area, including their budgets, departments, and changes within them. In the past, liberal arts and humanities courses at OSC were referred to as “Lower Divison” or “Service Courses” and these programs were smaller and received less funding than the sciences. According to the budget for the year of 1938-1939, OSC spent a total of $68,838.10 on Arts and Letters, Lower Division and Service Courses (English, Modern Languages, Public Speaking and Drama). Social Science, Lower Division and Service Courses (Economics, History, Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology) received even less at a total of $36,990.58 for the year. This number is markedly lower compared what OSC gave to the School of Science (Dean of Science, Bacteriology, Botany, Chemistry, Entomology, Geology, Mathematics, Physics, Zoology and Science Survey). Their funding was a total of $202,640.52 throughout the year.3 This shows that the humanities was an underdeveloped program at the time.
Information on funding from the 1939-1940 Biennial Report Book. Shows how much money each department received within the year and divides it further into subcategories. Found in SCARC, Annual and Biennial Reports, Box 6 Folder 1.
Two Oregon State College Catalogs, one from 1940-1941 the other from 1943-1944, record enrollment numbers divided by major. Liberal Arts and Sciences in 1940-1941 had a total of 628 students enrolled in Lower Division courses.4 I hypothesized that enrollment numbers would be lower for 1943-1944 as enrollment rates dropped during the war. However, we can see that the number of students enrolled for Lower Division during this year was actually higher, at 713.5 This increase in students could be because of an uptick in students studying foreign language, history, or politics to aid the war effort. These classes provided foundational information to help understand and aid the conflict and build better informed citizens. Within administrative records there is record of a discussion about curriculum from March 10, 1942. During this meeting, Chancellor Frederick M. Hunter stated, “Characteristically all of the separate type have as a core curriculum basic science, and correlated and closely knit with this, broadening and liberalizing courses in language and social sciences. This, Oregon State College should have in considerably fuller provisions than it has at present.”6
More than three decades later, former OSC President August Strand observed in a 1975 interview that until 1953, OSC was still an agricultural college and was criticized during the war for not having a College of Liberal Arts.7 Unfortunately, he listed no further details about who specifically had criticized OSC or what was said. Another Biennial Report from 1941-1942 examined current liberal arts offerings and stated that OSC experiences, “the dominant interest in land-grant college education directed towards the applications of science.” The report then discusses ensuring that liberal arts education is up to standard.8
In November, 1941 Delmer Goode—a prominent figure within the OSC Publications department who advocated for changes regarding curriculum and higher standards—published a report titled “How ‘Complete’ is Oregon State College As a ‘Separate’ Land Grant Institution?.”9 In it he compared OSC to other universities and stated that the curriculum was “deficient in major opportunities in both liberal arts and professional fields.”10 In 1942, M Ellwood Smith, Dean of Lower Division, sent a letter to Goode drawing his attention to the new courses OSC had started offering that year. Smith noted a new course in Russian, and explained that new courses in English, American-European History, and other Lower Division courses provided foundational information to officers in training.11 An Oregon State Barometer article published in April 1942 and titled “New Courses Added to Meet Educational Needs of Oregon” discussed plans to “liberalize the curricula of the entire institution to meet the needs of modern citizenship training.”12 In January 1943, another Oregon State Barometer article talked about the A.S.T.P and their development of planned curriculum for their officers in training. It detailed coursework and training hours and shared that the army and a panel of specialists were working to create this curriculum and training plan.13
A.S.T.P associated Russian language class at OSC. Historical Images of Oregon State University, “Russian language class,” Oregon Digital.
Despite the lack of specific classes, given what we know about the A.S.T.P and their goals for creating soldiers with foundational knowledge, at least some of this planned coursework would be Lower Division. A report from Winter Term 1944 shows that the curriculum would contain “Modern History and Contemporary World Affairs, 4 hours; Language Study, 13 hours; Police Science and Law Enforcement, 1 hour” along with several other items.14 These planned curriculum changes show us that OSC administration was listening to demands from faculty for new classes and were implementing new courses in order to meet these requests.
Notes about what new curriculum is being added to meet A.S.T.P demands. Details what is being added and how many hours will be required. Annual and Biennial Reports, SCARC, Box 9 Folder 9; Winter 1944.
OSC was not the only institution going through curriculum changes during WWI; military training programs pushed other universities similarly to alter their curriculum. According to historian V.R. Cardozier, “almost 200 [small colleges] did attract college training programs sponsored by the military services.”15 Cardozier also shares that the war spurred greater interest in “social sciences, history, languages, politics, and international relations.”16 History and political science courses helped give students a better understanding of the current conflict through a more comprehensive grasp on the politics that caused it. Language courses provided valuable information to officers in training, especially with new German classes. Even without war influences on campuses, the period of 1920 to the 1950s was a time where many land-grant colleges wanted to start offering better liberal arts education. Educator Roger L. Geiger discusses this and the history of liberal arts education in his book The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to WWII. He shares that in the 1920s new standards were being created by education boards for teachers colleges. These new standards wanted to shape courses in the name of professionalism. Those in charge of higher education standards planned to remove any curriculum that was seen as not having functional value—primarily liberal arts courses. However educators and teachers disagreed with this course cutting approach. Geiger states, “By 1940 one-half of their [California state colleges’] enrollments were in liberal arts… However, other states failed to follow California’s lead until after the surge of postwar veterans under the GI Bill forced teachers’ colleges to expand enrollment and offerings.”17 This paints a picture of higher demand for a diverse education which included better developed liberal arts programs. These sources show us that OSC was not alone in experiencing pressure for diversified education.
Oregon State University has evolved much since its conception as an institution, and over time students have changed and so have their needs in regards to curriculum. We can very clearly track a shift within the WWII era encouraging colleges to offer more foundational liberal arts teaching. This shift happened not only within OSC but also within other colleges and universities across the country and it greatly improved course offerings. We can clearly see a correlation between A.S.T.P presence and the increase in class offerings within the liberal arts due to demands from military trainees and their leadership. This coursework provided students and soldiers in training with a more suitable framework for understanding the war and understanding the ways in which they could aid the war effort. Prior to this research, I would not have connected those two items but the story being told here begs to differ.
1William Robbins, The People’s School: A History of Oregon State University (Oregon State University Press,2017), 1.
3Oregon State System of Higher Education, “Biennial Report 1939-1940,” Special Collections and Archives Research Center (hereafter SCARC), RG 013-SG12 Annual and Biennial Reports, Box 6, Folder 1.
4Oregon State University, “General Catalog, 1940-1941,” Oregon Digital, 492, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/fx719v902
5Oregon State University, “General Catalog, 1943-1944,” Oregon Digital, 377, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/fx719v93w
6Administrative Council Records, SCARC, Box-folder 2.4, 55, 1941-1955.
9Delmer Goode worked within the Publications department at OSC and was later declared the first director of Publications. He worked on an academic journal titled Improving College and University Teaching. There are many mentions of letters and reports from him about how OSC could improve its curriculum or teachings to better serve its students and faculty.
10Delmer Goode, “How Complete is Oregon State College as a “Separate” Land Grant Institution?” 1941, SCARC, Institution Memorabilia Collection, 97.11.pdf.
11Oregon State University President’s Office Records, Oregon State University, “President’s Office General Subject File, Audit Reports, Correspondence reports with State Board of Higher Education Curricula, 1940-1942,” Oregon Digital, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/qv33rz03k.
12Oregon State Barometer, April 29, 1942, Oregon Digital, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/8k71p7448.
13Oregon State Barometer, January 26, 1943, Oregon Digital, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/871nj33f.
14Dean M Elwood, Winter Term Curriculum, 1944, SCARC, Historic Publications Collection, RG 013-5G12, Annual and Biennial Reports, Box 9, Folder 9.
15V.R. Cardozier, Colleges and Universities in World War II (Praeger, 1993), 109–19.
16Cardozier, Colleges and Universities in World War II, 109–19.
17 R.L Geiger, The history of American higher education : learning and culture from the founding to World War II (Princeton University Press, 2015), 436-438.
The OSU Queer Archives hosted a booth at OSU’s June 2nd Pride event in the MU Quad and we had a blast! Lots of organizations shared information with the hundreds of attendees, there was an assortment of games, crafts, a photo booth, and free rainbow tamales, and Poison Waters and her friends performed a special drag show on the steps of the MU – they were all fabulous!
OSQA Booth
We had over 150 people stop by to view the materials and/or chat with us! We featured copies of materials from a few of our collections including the Corvallis Lesbian Avengers Collection, the After 8 Records, and The Lavender Network Newsmagazine. We also included some materials pertaining to general information for archiving personal papers and some newsletters from the Society of American Archives Archival Outlook newsletter that showcased how archives across the nation support traditionally marginalized communities. And, we gave away free Pride themed as well as cute Benny the Beaver pins 🙂
Photos of the Event
BONUS: Pride Display at the OSU Pride Center
OSQA shared digitized content from various collections for the OSU Pride Center to showcase as part of their renovated space, which includes permanent display space!
Sol: LGBTQ+ Multicultural Support Network Collection: The Sol: LGBTQ+ Multicultural Support Network Collection consists of records and materials documenting Sol’s history, from its beginning in the early 2000s up to its operations in 2023, at Oregon State University. Sol’s intention is to create spaces that celebrate the intersectional identities of queer and trans people of color. Sol works closely with the Pride Center (historically known as the Queer Resource Center), as well as other Cultural Resource Centers on campus. The collection contains administrative and programming records, as well as art related materials. The collection contains digital and physical items, including oversize materials. Sol related oral history interviews can be found in the OSU Queer Archives Oral History Collection.
Ellen and Carolyn Dishman Papers: The Ellen and Carolyn Dishman Papers are the collected materials and photography by the Dishmans documenting their involvement at Oregon State University in the late 1990s to early 2000s. As OSU students, they were involved in prominent LGBTQ+ groups on campus and served as primary advocates for the establishment of the Queer Resource Center (QRC) in 2001; the QRC is now called the Pride Center.
Pride Center (RG 236) (currently closed for processing): The Pride Center serves as Oregon State University’s resource center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) members of the OSU community and their allies. In addition to its roles in outreach and education, the center provides a safe space for anyone in the community to “explore aspects of sexual orientation and gender identity in an open and non-judgmental atmosphere.”
Corvallis Lesbian Avengers Collection: The Corvallis Lesbian Avengers Collection documents the activities of the Corvallis chapter of the Lesbian Avengers throughout the 1990s. The Corvallis Lesbian Avengers were a local chapter of the national Lesbian Avengers organization. Originally formed in 1992 in New York City, the Lesbian Avengers were a direct-action group focused on issues vital to lesbian survival and visibility. The bulk of the collection is made up of photo albums and scrapbooks containing photographs, news clippings, flyers, artwork, poetry, and other paper material. The collection also includes a small collection of artifacts, an annotated calendar, and 3 issues of the Necessary Friction zine produced by the Corvallis Lesbian Avengers.
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 Nicholas Nowak.
As World War II began, and especially as the U.S. entered the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, virtually all institutions, from colleges and universities to film companies, adjusted their functioning to respond to the new environment and needs created by the war. These institutions had new restraints (lower enrollment and loss of faculty), opportunities (funding from the War Department), and goals (contributing to the war effort and preparing for the end of the war) that made change necessary. Colleges in particular had to adjust their functioning as the role of colleges and education in general grew.
Oregon State College (OSC, now Oregon State University), was no exception. One document, titled “Minutes of Meeting November 4, 1943,” offers insight into how the OSC administration responded to the war.[i] This document was likely typed by a secretary during the Administrative Councils November 4th, 1943 meeting for use by the meeting attendees. The OSC Administrative Council, consisting of the president and deans, attended this meeting to discuss current operations and potential changes at the college. The War Fund Canvas, a fundraising venture for the war set up by the community, was discussed, with the attendees claiming they exceeded the set quota by raising $5,394.57. The attendees also spent the majority of the time discussing the curriculum, particularly how they should change it for the upcoming year and after the end of the war.
This information offers some insight into how the administration changed in response to the war by taking practical steps towards contributing to the war effort and adjusting the curriculum. Overall, OSC, like most colleges in the U.S., faced increased restraints during the war due to limited resources, and responded by adjusting the curriculum and directly aiding and contributing to the U.S. war effort.
The war created a variety of new problems and issues that colleges throughout the U.S. had to respond to. After the U.S. entered the war in late 1941, many young men who would have previously gone to college entered the military, decreasing male enrollment throughout the country. This left a variety of jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, open to be filled by women, who also would have previously gone to college, decreasing female enrollment throughout the U.S.[ii] Given enrollment was a significant source of funding for most colleges, college administrators had to find new ways of funding their colleges (which will be discussed later). Faculty at colleges also entered into military or war related services, even if it wasn’t the military itself. This resulted in some departments, such as the psychology department at OSC, losing a significant amount of faculty. The psychology department had four full-time staff before the war, which turned into one full-time staff member with two emergency appointments. This loss of faculty made it difficult for those departments to function.[iii] The OSC administrators were concerned about how this loss of faculty might impact the ability of the college to function, as seen in the 1944 Biennial Report for the Lower Division and Service Departments. During the war, OSC administrators even considered cutting certain programs, for example, the biology program.[iv] While it is unclear why administrators thought biology should be cut specifically, given their concerns about the loss of faculty and lower income due to lower enrollment, it is possible administrators thought cuts were necessary, and prioritized cutting programs that were not as important to the military (engineering and humanities programs were particularly important to the military). The OSC administrators’ concerns, overall, related to their ability to keep the college operational amid the scarcity of students, faculty, and funds created by the war effort.
Image from the OSC general catalog of 1943-44, outlining some of the main changes OSC administrators made to the curriculum and institutions in response to the war. “General Catalog, 1943-1944.”
OSC administrators responded to these concerns and restraints partially by adjusting and adapting their curriculum. As mentioned earlier, administrators had to seek out alternative sources of funding amid declining enrollment, and one major source of funding came from the War Department. Many colleges in the U.S. adapted their curriculum to better suit the needs of the War Department in order to attract more funding and support.[v] Initially, the military focused on engineering related education, because they needed officers who understood how to use certain technology, but as the war dragged on, the military also began prioritizing humanities education. The military had to send soldiers to a variety of different locations in Europe and Asia during WWII, so having soldiers and officers well versed in the language, culture, and geography of the areas they were serving in became important.[vi] OSC, while initially an engineering and science school, expanded into the humanities. OSC administrators became increasingly concerned with creating viable and useful humanities programs for the war effort.[vii] OSC also offered different, special registration and starting dates for students enrolled in the ASTP (a World War II program that trained officers and soldiers in technical skills necessary for the war effort, such as in engineering and languages).[viii] OSC did not offer special registration and starting dates before WWII,[ix] and stopped immediately after the war ended.[x] OSC also emphasized physically training students to better prepare them for the demands of the war.[xi] These changes administrators made to the curriculum demonstrate that OSC adapted to the restraints brought on by the war, particularly financial ones, by aiding the needs and goals of the War Department.
August 1941 advertisement in the Oregon newspaper The Bend Bulletin, looking for volunteer soldiers to go to Europe or Asia. This advertisement demonstrates the need the military had for language and other cultural programs. “A Good Job for You,” The Bend Bulletin, August 26, 1941: 2, Historic Oregon Newspapers.
These changes, while likely being adopted partially because of financial restraints, may also have been adopted due to administrators’ desires for a U.S. victory in WWII, given OSC went out of their way to contribute to the war effort in much more direct ways. As mentioned earlier, OSC began a War Fund Canvas to help raise money for the war effort.[xii] On top of this, in 1943, administrators implemented a war bond buying program.[xiii] This program, set up by individual towns and cities, helped raise money for the war effort by buying bonds from the government, so that the government could fund the war, then pay back the buyers at a later date. The athletic department alone bought $15,000 worth of war bonds to kick off sales on the first day. The administration also created a program where students rolled bandages to contribute to the medical needs imposed by the war.[xiv] These efforts likely wouldn’t have been necessary to receive additional funding from the War Department, indicating that while some of the administration’s contributions to the war effort were likely an attempt to gain additional funding, it’s also likely that the administration was genuinely concerned about the U.S. winning the war.
Page from the 1943 OSC yearbook showing a billboard encouraging people to take the train rather than driving, in response to gas rations.[i] This demonstrates some of the changes both OSC staff and students underwent in response to the war. Beaver yearbook, 1943.
The war forced the administrators of OSC, like the administrators at most U.S. colleges, to adapt to new demands and a new environment. OSC, like many colleges in the U.S., saw enrollment decline, and with it, funding. They also saw faculty leave for military related service, further contributing to the difficulties of keeping the college running during the war. Partially in response to these challenges, OSC adjusted its curriculum to better serve the needs of the War Department and prepare students for war. OSC administrators did, however, also contribute to the war effort beyond what was necessary to get increased funding, such as by engaging in fundraising efforts and implementing bandage rolling programs.
[i] “Minutes of Meeting November 4, 1943,” Oregon State University Special Collections and Archives Research Center (hereafter SCARC), Administrative Council Records RG 032, Box 1, Administrative Council Minutes 1941-1942 to 1945-1946.
[ii] Taylor Jaworski, “‘You’re in the Army Now:’ The Impact of World War II on Women’s Education, Work, and Family,” The Journal of Economic History 74, no. 1 (2014): 174-176, doi:10.1017/S0022050714000060.
[iii] M. Ellwood Smith, “Biennial Report, Lower Division and Service Departments 1942-43 and 1943-44,” 1944, SCARC, Annual and Biennial Reports RG 013 – SG 12, Box 9, Folder 9.
[iv] F. A. Gilfillan, “Biennial Report, School of Science 1942-43 and 1943-44,” 1944, SCARC, Annual and Biennial Reports RG 013 – SG 12, Box 9, Folder 9.
[v] Charles Dorn, “Promoting the ‘Public Welfare’ in Wartime: Stanford University during World War II,” American Journal of Education 112, no. 1 (2005): 108, doi: 10.1086/444525.
[vi] William Robbins, The People’s School: A History of Oregon State University (Chicago: Oregon State University Press, 2017), 152-156.
[vii] M. Ellwood Smith, “Oregon State College, Lower Division,” 1944, SCARC, Annual and Biennial Reports, RG 013 – SG 12, Box 9, Folder 9.
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 Michael Metz.
Ralph Besse served as the assistant director for the School of Agriculture during the war.
When the United States entered World War II in December 1941, nationwide mobilization to contribute to the war effort began. The economy saw rapid changes to meet the needs of the US and its allies in the fight against the axis powers. In 1944, Ernest Wiegand, the director of Oregon State College’s (OSC) Food Industries Department, sent a report to Ralph Besse, the assistant director of the School of Agriculture. This report details the activities of the department’s research station, which included several food preservation methods such as: freezing, canning, and dehydrating. The college was using federal funding to carry out studies related to food preservation.[i] This funding was critical to the college’s contributions to the war effort. During the Second World War, OSC aided the war effort by conducting research on food preservation and production, as well as educating the public on how to increase food production and how to preserve it more efficiently.
The report, released in 1944, provides insight into OSC’s role in food preservation studies. It was written by Ernest Wiegand for Ralph Besse. The report’s purpose was to inform Besse, and likely other department members, on the food preservation research that the department was conducting. This would have been important especially when considering that the school was using federal funding directed towards agricultural research. This includes the Purnell Funds, an agricultural-based federal grant. Wiegand wrote this report in 1944 and it describes types of food the department was freezing, canning, and dehydrating—mostly fruits and vegetables. This document serves as an introduction to OSC’s involvement in the effort to increase the country’s food stock during the war, as it provides readers with information on the type of work the college was doing and introduces important figures in the School of Agriculture.
Ernest Wiegand was an integral figure in the college’s research into food preservation.
Wiegand’s report is an example of OSC’s contribution to food preservation and production, but it does not entirely illustrate the school’s agricultural research during the war. Through the Federal Cooperative Extension Service at OSC, the school conducted intensive research on food science. The Extension Service, an OSC program focused on community education, was mobilized during the war and staff were ordered by the college to make the war effort their top priority.[ii] Researching food preservation became a major focus of the extension service and Ernest Wiegand worked with the program to tackle a variety of issues regarding food preservation. A major issue that the country faced was maintaining the nutritious value of preserved food. In fact, according to the Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, when the United States entered the war, “two out of five US men could not serve because of disabilities related to malnutrition, especially rickets.”[iii] This reality prompted the need for better nutrition in the country.
In 1944, Wiegand and other members of OSC extension service studied freezing as a method of preserving perishable food, in particular meat and poultry. Their study, titled “Food Preservation by Freezing,” reports that when freezing food, “a greater quantity of essential vitamins can be preserved; less labor and time are required for preparation; and the finished product more closely resembles fresh food in palatability and appearance.”[iv] A common theme in OSC’s research into food preservation during the war was nutrient retention. Food that wouldn’t spoil and would also maintain much of its nutritious value was not just valuable for soldiers, but also for civilians faced with the challenge of rationing. Wiegand and his colleagues’ report provides the reader with information on how to improve the value of food with proper preservation. Their suggestions include selecting the proper ripeness of a fruit or vegetable, immediately freezing food after picking it, and how to properly blanch foods.[v] A year later, Wiegand and other researchers investigated methods to improve dehydration of berries and cherries grown in Oregon. Their findings include viable procedures for effective dehydration, techniques for retaining higher vitamin content, and different uses for dehydrated fruits.[vi] Despite the war coming to an end, the need for food preservation was not over, as many nations were facing food shortages. While these findings may not be revolutionary, they serve as a valuable educational resource that OSC would utilize in its outreach to communities across Oregon.
OSC’s effort to improve food preservation and production during the war extended out of the lab and into the community. With the nation facing food shortages, many ingredients were subjected to rationing. Products such as sugar were in high demand and in order to obtain them for canning, Oregonians were required to apply to receive an allotment of one pound per four quarts of canned fruit, plus an extra pound for each household member.[vii] This restriction was necessary for the country to keep its armies fed, but it put a strain on Americans who depended on ingredients like sugar to properly preserve much of their food. Extension services played a variety of important roles in order to ensure that people across the state had the knowledge and resources they needed to make an impact in the war effort. The Medford Mail Tribune reported that OSC sent a survey to homemakers, on behalf of the War Production Board (WPB), in 1943 to assess their knowledge of food preservation and the need for preservation equipment in Jackson County.[viii] Surveys such as this were useful in assessing the needs of Oregonians and were just one way the college provided community support during the war. Another task the college faced was increasing the state’s food production. OSC Extension Service reported that in 1943, for the third straight year, Oregon’s total crop acreage harvested and total livestock was at an all-time high. However, the state’s farmers had been tasked by the government with increasing that acreage to 151,000 acres in 1944.[ix] This was a major challenge for Oregonians, as labor was already hard to come by since many of the state’s men were deployed overseas.
A 4-H club advertisement. Across the country these clubs rallied to increase food output. “4-H Victory Week Ad From 1942,” National WW2 Museum.
The task largely fell on Oregon’s youth. OSC Extension Service, as well as other extension services across the state, was directed by the state to mobilize Oregon’s 4-H clubs. 4-H clubs are youth clubs that provide children with leadership opportunities in their community. Across the country, 4-H clubs tasked their members with a variety of projects aimed at increasing food production. Their efforts earned the recognition of President Roosevelt who, in 1944, called them the “shock troops of food production.”[x] OSC was essential in organizing Oregon’s 4-H clubs. Extension services were tasked by the state with organizing the state’s clubs, as well as increasing club membership from the 25,000 youth members serving in the club at the start of the war. State leaders had identified 80,000 children across the state as eligible to join.[xi] However, this was not a program unique to Oregon. Across the country, 4-H clubs were mobilized with the help of local and federal governments, and were given the goal of increasing food output. In Utah, two teenagers and 4-H members, ages 13 and 15, received awards for producing and preserving the most food from their victory gardens. Their gardens turned a combined profit of $208.[xii] From victory gardens to farm labor, the nation’s youth were essential in winning the war at home and in Oregon, OSC’s effort to rally teenagers to the cause was invaluable.
During World War II, Oregon State College played a critical role in improving food production methods and community outreach to increase knowledge of food preservation and to increase production. From breakthroughs in the lab, to community engagement, the college was a key player in Oregon’s contribution to the war effort. However, OSC was not alone in this endeavor. Educational institutions across the country were vital in keeping the nation afloat during the war and continued to aid the country well after its conclusion.
[i] Ernest Wiegand, “Report Station Activities – 1943-44,” Oregon State University Special Collections and Archives Research Center (hereafter SCARC), Annual and Biennial Reports: Farm Crops, Farm Management, Fish and Game Management RG 25 – SG 1, Box 1.
[ii] Frank Ballard, “The Oregon State University Federal Cooperative Extension Service: 1911-1961,” 21, Scholar’s Archive at OSU, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/c821gq42j.
[iii] Alesia Maltz, ““Plant a victory garden: our food is fighting’: Lessons of food resilience from World War,” Journal of Environmental Studies and Science 5 (2015): 392-403, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0293-1.
[iv] Ernest Wiegand, et al, “Food Preservation by Freezing,” Scholar’s Archive at OSU (1943): 2, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/administrative_report_or_publications/0g354k10d.
[v] Wiegand, et al, “Food Preservation by Freezing,” 16.
[vi] Ernest Wiegand, et al, “Development of a commercially feasible method of producing dehydrated berries and cherries,” Scholar’s Archive at OSU (1945): 42, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/bv73c8011.
[vii] Glen Schaeffer, “Housewives Given Canning O.K.,” Oregon State Barometer, April 22, 1943, Oregon Digital, https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/8k71nj813.
[viii] Richard McMillan, “Jackson County Pantries, Lockers Bulge with Food,” Medford Mail Tribune, November 16, 1943, https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn97071090/1943-11-16/ed-1/seq-10/#words=food+preservation+preserved.
[ix] William Schoenfeld, Oregon Food-For-Victory Objectives, Scholar’s Archive at OSU (1944): 3, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/administrative_report_or_publications/h415pf30f.
[x] Katherine Sundgren, “Feeding Victory: 4-H, Extension, and the World War II Food Effort,” Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy 14, no. 3 (2019): 7, https://doi.org/10.4148/1936-0487.1098.
[xi] “Youths of Oregon to be Mobilized for Victory,” Beaverton Enterprise, January 1, 1943, https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn96088480/1943-01-01/ed-1/seq-1/#words=Extension+OSC+service+Service.
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 Lucas Ainsworth.
Two women overlook the construction of the Chemistry Building, now Gilbert Hall, 1938.[i]
Introduction
As World War II escalated, more and more resources were required from the home front, leading to sacrifices needing to be made. Colleges and universities across the United States were hotbeds for social and economic changes due to the war, with Oregon State College being no exception. Still a growing academic center, the college had aspirations to expand and build up its college campus, with new buildings and projects needing to be planned and constructed. However, wartime reductions of labor and finances made these projects difficult to plan and even more difficult to build. Throughout this blog, we will explore evidence from a variety of sources, including the President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, that add clarity as to what challenges Oregon State College (OSC) faced when planning out building programs for years following the outbreak of war in Europe.
Document Description
A memo promoted and adopted by the Wage and Hour Commission of the State of Oregon on May 23, 1941 mandated a list of orders that all firms, corporations, and private entities, including Oregon State College, must adhere to.[ii] These orders outlined building and occupational conditions that employers of women and minors must meet, including the availability of drinking water, adequate lighting, heat, and general cleanliness. The order ends with a declaration that any individual, firm, or corporation that is found to have disobeyed the mandate would be charged with a misdemeanor and fined no less than $25 and no more than $100 (roughly $540 and $2,150, respectively, in modern US dollars). This document was typed and printed on bright pink paper, ensuring it would be seen and read, as it was meant to be displayed publicly in spaces where workers would gather.[iii] While the document itself does not directly reference Oregon State College, it provided a list of mandates that the college would have to comply with should they hire any women as employees. With much of the male population being drafted into the war, this was a likely scenario. Additionally, the order would impact any future building plans, as it functions as a new building code that subsequent projects would have to adhere to.
The 1941 memo from the Wage and Hour Commission highlights the changes made to construction projects following the outbreak of war in Europe. At the time the previously discussed memo was published, the United States had not yet entered the war, but economic changes to labor and housing were impacting agricultural workers and minorities looking for housing.[v] After the U.S. entered the war, construction projects slowed due to a lack of funding and/or a lack of labor. Many buildings took much longer to complete, with several being started during the war but not being completed until well after.[vi] These impacts left colleges like OSC with a decision: what projects should be completed—and which would be left on the cutting room floor?
Connection to OSU History
Due to limited resources during WWII, OSC had to shelve several campus projects that were initially planned and approved. On October 20th, 1943, a memo from the Oregon State System of Higher Education (OSSHE) was sent to several Oregon college presidents requesting that each institution provide a list of building projects planned for the following ten years. The OSSHE asked colleges to list the cost, status, site, and finances of each project. The OSSHE would then review and approve the proposals.[vii] Additionally, a November 9, 1943 letter from OSC President August LeRoy Strand to the college deans passed along the request and acknowledged the time constraints, as the building program was due back to the board by December of that year.[viii] Importantly, Strand mentioned that any future project not included on the list would have to be brought to his office and the Campus Plan Committee. On November 23, 1943, landscape architect Arthur. L. Peck and architect L.N. Traver listed proposed building projects, including a social science building and the president’s residence.[ix] The short timeframe of the OSSHE request and the acknowledgement of the difficulties in getting this list completed suggest that budgets for construction projects were running thin and that projects deemed unnecessary or overly expensive were potentially at risk of being denied.
Notably missing from the proposal brought to President Strand were plans for a Naval ROTC building, which letters from Mr. Traver and Naval Captain J. Carey discussed in December 1945. These letters state that preliminary plans for the NROTC building/Naval Sciences Building were cleared by the naval and architectural offices and now needed presidential approval, as directed by the 1943 memo from President Strand.[x] The blueprints and sketches of the building’s exterior show how finalized these plans were, with classrooms, offices, and military equipment storage all present.[xi] However, this building was never built, potentially due to limited budgets during wartime and because the project was not included in the initial ten-year plan requested by the OSSHE. As stated in William Robbins’ chapter, “the State Board of Higher Education reduced the system’s budget by $141,000 for the 1944–1945 biennium” due to declining enrollment, meaning fewer funds were available for construction projects.[xii] As the previously mentioned building projects were already submitted in the years prior, funds were not allocated for future projects, resulting in the Naval Sciences building never breaking ground. This alludes to a greater issue within higher education: decreased budgets led to fewer funds available for campus projects and maintenance.
Floorplan for planned Naval ROTC building, 1945.[xiii]
National Context
OSC was not the only college in the nation dealing with labor shortages and/or forced changes to previously established building programs. Across the U.S., colleges and universities faced depleted capital funds for campus projects. In his chapter about WWII’s effect on higher education, V.R. Cardozier states that the expenditures for building programs were “virtually halted on most campuses during the war not only because of lack of money but due to unavailability of materials, shortage of labor, and in recognition of the need to conserve resources.”[xiv] Most importantly, between 1941 and 1943, administrators from some 130 colleges reported that expenses for construction and capital equipment faced a reduction of nearly 70%, with additional reductions in funds for athletics, instructional salaries, and library purchases.[xv] Military training during the war resulted in reduced funds for less-essential expenditures. The reduction of enrollment and tuition income led to decreased funds for these projects.[xvi] Michael Bezilla’s 1991 article from the Penn State Libraries outlines how Penn undertook expansion in a budget-conservative manner. An influx of enrollment after the war led to the need for more residence halls and campus facilities, but wartime expenses depleted budgets.[xvii]
In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, otherwise known as the G.I. Bill. This law sought to prepare veterans for civilian life and made many buildings available for housing, which allowed for depleted budgets to be saved for other areas.[xviii] OSC felt these challenges as well, where reduced budgets called for new plans for construction and campus facilities.
Picketing outside the Sackett Hall construction site protesting the unfair conditions and expectations, 1947.[xix]
Conclusion
To conclude, Oregon State College, as well as other institutions of higher education around the nation, faced financial and labor shortages during the Second World War. These reductions in resources led to the delaying or cancelling of construction projects, as well as causing preapproved projects to take much longer. Universities had much to adjust to following the war escalating and eventually ending, including preparing for veterans to return from war as well as adjusting existing construction projects. Because of requests from the board of education and resource management, some projects, including OSC’s planned NROTC building, never had the chance to break ground.
Works Cited
Bezilla, Michael, “Challenges of the Post-War Era” in Penn State: An Illustrated History. Penn State Special Collections Libraries, Penn State University Press, 1991
Cardozier, V.R., Colleges and Universities in WWII, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1993
Historical Images of Oregon State University, Oregon State University. “Picketing adjacent to the Sackett Hall construction site”, 1947. Oregon Digital. Accessed 2025-02-15. https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df719c417
OSU Special Collections & Archives Research Center, Oregon State University. “Chemistry Building (Gilbert Hall)”, 1938. Oregon Digital. Accessed 2025-02-15. https://oregondigital.org/concern/images/df70d2774
OSU Special Collections & Archives Research Center, Oregon State University. “President’s Office General Subject File, Physical Plant – Buildings, Saddle horse barn, 1941” Oregon Digital. Accessed 2025-02-15. https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/5x21th01w
OSU Special Collections & Archives Research Center, Oregon State University. “President’s Office General Subject File, War Activities, Office of coordinator, 1942” Oregon Digital. Accessed 2025-02-15. https://oregondigital.org/concern/documents/g445cf551
President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, “Memo from Oregon State System of Higher Education to Oregon College Presidents”, RG 013-SG 11, 174 https://oregonstate.app.box.com/file/1781119845278
[vii] “Memo from Oregon State System of Higher Education to Oregon College Presidents,”1943, SCARC, President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, RG 013-SG 11, 174.
[viii] “Letter from President Strand to Deans of Oregon State College,” 1943, SCARC, President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, RG 013-SG 11, 175.
[ix] “Building Program Proposals,” 1943, SCARC, President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, RG 013-SG 11, 176-180.
[x] “Navy ROTC Building (Not Built),” SCARC, RG 193, Buildings.
[xi] “Naval Sciences Building Plans,” 1945, SCARC, President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, RG 013-SG 11, 334-343.
[xii] William Robbins, The People’s School: A History of Oregon State University (Oregon State University Press, 2017), 164-167.
[xiii] “Naval Sciences Building Plans,” 1945, SCARC, President’s Office General Subject and Correspondence Files, RG 013-SG 11, 334-343.
[xiv] V.R. Cardozier, Colleges and Universities in WWII (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1993), 213.
[xv] Cardozier, Colleges and Universities in WWII, 214.
