Raises eight questions for ACE members: " 1) Are we glorified clerks or are we scientists? 2) What are desirable forms of publication and information materials? Scientists are demanding longer bulletins. The public is calling for shorter. 3) What should be the professional training of men and women to become agricultural and home editors? One school suggests that all that is needed in our fields is a certain facility -- we are engaged in a science -- home scientists measure success by acceptance in AP and UP. 4) Is there opportunity for research in the field of farm and home editing? 5) What is to be the future of agriculture and what leadership will the college of agriculture, the experiment stations, and the USDA be called upon to give? Together with our institutions, we must begin long-time planning. 6) What place has and will the radio have in carrying to the people the results of research? 7) How shall we measure results in our field? 8) What are we going to do about it?"
Author reports that Kansas State has offered a news writing course for agricultural students for more than a decade, and with good results.. Believes a course in news writing should not be a universal requirement in the agricultural college curriculum, but emphasizes skills in English.
Recommendations from the Professional Development Committee of AAACE. They include sabbatical leaves, exchange appointments, short-term media experience (unpaid leave from college position). "Members of the association were emphatic in their statement that editors should be given the same privileges of sabbatical leave as other college workers and that they should develop their jobs and positions so that they would have a rank equivalent to that of any professorship on the campus."
Abstracted from a talk at the 1935 AAACE meeting, Cornell University, New York. A strong case for reporting vividly, from observation, and with heart. "Flesh and blood on bare bones."
"The organic act which lies back of the work college editors are doing provides for the gathering and dissemination of information. It was never intended that public funds should be used for "institutional promotion," "propaganda," "press-agenting," "space-grafting," "publicity," "self laudation," "selling" or call it what you will. If "institutional promotion" - to give it the benefit of the least obnoxious designation - comes as a "by-product" of news and helpful information, there's no harm done. But an item aimed to benefit the institution rather than the person who reads that item is not only subversive to the purposes of the college, but is also subversive to the interests of the so-called "by-product." The college has no mandate to work the newspapers; yet it has a sufficient warranty to work for its readers."
Response to "'Selling' vs. news" by Bristow Adams, Cornell University. Harris notes that the Cornell president and dean probably spend time seeking support from the legislature or other sources for their institution and its work. Asks if their efforts are (as Adams argued) "subversive to the purpose of the college?" Also observes that a pastor is paid for ministering to the souls of his flock, but he pauses frequently to pass the collection plate. "I maintain that if education is worth having, then it is justifiable to educate people to support educational institutions."
