The Challenge
In 2013, UNUM Fellow and Tennessee General Assembly Representative Harold Love, Jr. discovered that the state of Tennessee unlawfully denied Tennessee State University (TSU), a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), one-to-one state-matching funds owed under the 1890 Land Grant Act.
In 2020 and 2021, Representative Love identified over $500 million in owed funding for Tennessee State University from 1957 to 2020. In 2021, he secured over $300 million in the state budget.
The Opportunity
If a historically black land-grant institution was established through the 1890 Land Grant, the state may also owe it funding.
Representative Love figured out how to do this on his own. Others do not have to. Below is a primer on how to recover owed HBCU funds, taking inspiration from the process Representative Love used.
Secure State-Matching Funds for a Historically Black Land-Grant Institution: A Primer
This toolkit guides efforts to recover state-matching funds that may have been withheld unlawfully from other historically Black land-grant colleges and universities. It synthesizes political and legislative steps Rep. Love took to recover that initial $300 million owed to TSU and shares how it can be replicated for other historically Black land-grant institutions. Here are the major steps:
At the end of this step-by-step breakdown is a full case study of Representative Love’s work. It includes specific legislation names and constituent outreach. It is also available as a PDF you can download.
Background: The 1890 Land Grant Act
The 1890 Land Grant Act, also known as the Second Morrill Act of 1890, provides federal grants through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to nineteen historically Black land-grant institutions (“1890 institutions”) for agricultural research, education, and extension. These 1890 institutions are often called Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs.
These nineteen HBCUs did not always have access to land-grant funds. Initially, those funds were only provided to the fifty-seven institutions deemed eligible under the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. Those predominantly white land-grant institutions and universities are known as “1862 institutions.”
The USDA distributes capacity grants, also called formula funds, among eligible 1862 and 1890 institutions based on statutory formulas. These grants generally require one-to-one non-federal matching funds provided by the state or a non-federal source.
Currently, the law permits the USDA to give waivers to states. These state waivers allow them to match less than half of federal funds for 1890 institutions. The waivers were intended to ensure that historically Black 1890 land-grant institutions would still receive federal funds even if the states could not provide the full match.
However, states have used these waivers to underfund historically Black 1890 institutions while fully funding their 1862 institutions.
From 2011 to 2020, historically Black 1890 institutions failed to receive up to $165 million because of USDA-granted waivers.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 2020, historically white 1862 institutions received over 80 percent ($574 million) of federal capacity funds. Historically Black1890 land grant institutions received 18 percent ($124 million).
State failures to provide a one-to-one match to historically Black 1890 land-grant institutions is a problem that must be fixed—and can be.
The Process
Case Study: Representative Harold Love Jr. & Tennessee State University
This case study shares the innovative and effective work of Representative Harold Love, Jr. to inspire and enable others to take similar actions in their home states.
In 2013, Rep. Love discovered that his state’s 1890 institution, Tennessee State University (TSU), was unlawfully denied state-matching funds under the 1890 Land Grant Act. While federal law permits USDA waivers, for decades TSU had not received funding on par with the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, a state 1862 institution.
Before Representative Love’s legislation, the impacts of this funding disparity at TSU included:
Rep. Love spent seven years doing archival research on the state-matching funds provided to TSU.
The first research was to understand the capacity grant matching requirement. This was an important first step because he needed to show how crucial the state funding was to the university and why there was a need for capacity grants.
The second step was to engage in conversation with the state agency responsible for recommendations for funding to discover why the funding was not being provided.
The third step was to access budget records for the capacity grant funding history of both land-grant institutions in Tennessee. Rep. Love needed these to show the clear difference in the funding of the two institutions.
Rep. Love was careful to craft bipartisan messaging to try to limit a protracted fight. It included using terms such as “deferred maintenance,” “return on investment,” and “equitable funding.” He also stayed away from “us vs. them” narratives.
For example, when he crafted messaging around deferred building maintenance, he emphasized that Tennessee State University buildings are state buildings. Because the funding was different, buildings on TSU’s campus couldn’t be maintained in the same way as buildings at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Reminding members of the General Assembly and the Executive Branch that these are state buildings helped reinforce the argument that it is a state matter when Tennessee State University is treated differently.
On June 20, 2020, the Tennessee General Assembly formed the Land Grant Institution Funding History Study Committee. This six-member bipartisan committee was tasked with studying inequities of prior years’ federal and state funding for land-grant higher education institutions, including TSU.
This committee was essential for building TSU’s legislative and political support to obtain its state-match funding.
Hearings
- On November 10, 2020, the Study Committee held a hearing with the Higher Education Committee entitled “Historical Overview of Land-Grant Institutions” with the Tennessee Higher Education Committee, Director of HBCU Success, Dr. Brittany Mosby.
- On December 8, 2020, it held a hearing,“Overview of Historical Funding,” with Peter Muller, House Budget Analysis Director.
- On January 11, 2021, it heard presentations from TSU leadership, including University President Dr. Glenda Glover.
- On April 5, 2021, it held a hearing with the Office of the Legislative Budget Analysis
Budget Analysis
Representative Love used the Office of Legislative Budget Analysis to find funding disparities between 1890 and 1862 Institutions.
He found that between 1957 and 2020, TSU did not receive the required match from the state of Tennessee. He also discovered that in many instances, it still needed to receive the total amount of federal funding passed through the state.
Policy Work
On June 30, 2021, he held a TSU planning recommendations meeting to discuss applicable laws on land-grant institutions.
Step 5: Execute A Legislative Strategy
On February 5, 2019, Representative Love introduced HB823. It required the Tennessee Higher Education Commission to submit a report on the federal appropriations and matching funds allocated under the 1890 Land Grant Act. HB823 became law on May 2, 2019.
On June 20, 2020, appropriations bill HB2922 created the General Assembly Study Committee on Land-grant Institutions.
On February 1, 2022, Representative Love introduced HB2293. It required TSU to submit annual reports to the Governor related to:
- The progress made in addressing the improvements to TSU’s facilities and infrastructure
- How the improvements address needs identified in the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s evaluation of TSU facilities and infrastructure needs
What Comes Next?
EPU’s mission is to build a more just, equitable, and inclusive South, uprooting barriers that have long divided the region by race and class. We believe our cities and towns will only thrive if they find a way to unite around a common purpose.
In fulfillment of our mission, EPU serves as a resource serves as to community leaders, policymakers, and advocates taking actionable steps to accelerate positive change. Here are ways you can contact us.