Proposed modifications for home maintenance for a woman in a wheelchair (Cornell College of Home Economics). Women making and refurbishing furniture in the in the Department of Housing and Design, Cornell College of Home Economics, ca. 1940s. (Cornell College of Home Economics).
Read about the beginning of Home Economics here
Combatting Sex-Typing
Home Economics departments created new opportunities for women scientists. By 1910, the field resulted in the employment of hundreds of women in academia. Home Economists were some of the first women to receive tenured positions at land-grant universities, and they worked fiercely to develop a scientific reputation. Home Economics departments often overloaded their curriculums with science requirements and preferentially hired female doctorates as instructors and faculty. For example, a 1910 article in the Journal of Home Economics entitled “The Relation of Physics to Home Economics Courses” argues for the incorporation of more physics classes in Home Economics, given its usefulness in relation to new heating, sound, and heating technologies in the modern home. Notably, many faculty conducted research and wrote books on household technology. Iowa State College even offered undergraduate and master’s degrees in the study of household equipment. Such programs directly challenged stereotypes of female helplessness by suggesting that women should have both a scientific and practical understanding of household technology.
New York State College of Home Economics Curriculum for a Bachelors degree, 1940-41. 1/3 of credits had to be in the sciences, 1/3 in Home Economics, and 1/3 in General University requirements.
Research and extension work by Home Economists was a significant boon to the land-grant university. The 1914 Smith-Lever Act established the Cooperative Extension Service, mandating that cooperative agricultural extension work be conducted jointly by the USDA and land-grant colleges. Home Economists at land-grant universities developed educational materials and nurtured networks of clubs, thus helping the University to meet Smith-Lever Act requirements. Home Economics extension agents made many lasting, and durable impacts on American society. Ultimately, many of these efforts were beneficial, bringing resources and education to those living in poverty. For example, they trained extension agents who were involved in rural electrification during the 1930s-1950s. Home Economists also conducted nutrition research during wartimes and the Depression. Specifically, the implementation of the federally-funded school lunch program in the 1930s was a lasting legacy of Home Economists. However, it was Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) which were the main beneficiaries of such federal funding, which allowed them to focus so heavily on scientific research.
Inequitable funding for Home Economics at HBCUs
For African American women interested in Home Economics, those opportunities were primarily at the now-termed Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). It was rare that Home Economics programs at the large, research orientated land-grant institutions, like Cornell, Purdue, or The Ohio State University, admitted more than a few African American women a year. Notably, the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 had little to no provision for African American education and white students were disproportionately favored in funding. Nevertheless, four Black land-grant universities managed to receive funding under the first Morrill Land Grant Act (Alcorn State University, Claflin University, Hampton University, and Kentucky State University).
The Second Morrill Land Grant Act of 1890 specifically provided funds for separate colleges for African American learning. At HBCUs, there was a strong emphasis on vocational and teacher training. Courses in laundering, sewing, and cooking were quickly established at HBCUs in the late 19th century. These courses, with no degree offered, were typically popular to train domestic servants, rather than teaching science. However, by 1937, many Home Economics curricula at HBCUs had formalized into departments that awarded bachelor's degrees. At HBCUs, Home Economics was a popular major choice for African American women. Yet, the objectives of these programs throughout the 1930s and 1940s were less-science oriented and mainly for training teachers, future homemakers, or servants who would work in white households. For example, a 1937 thesis on Home Economics Education at Black institutions in Texas revealed these differences. The Home Economics division at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, had the objective “To create appreciation for scientific training in the field and its different phases” but also included “To give two years training in the intermediate principles and techniques of homemaking”. The Home Economics Division at Guadalupe College had the stated objective to “prepare more efficient domestic servants”. At Prairie View State College, the objectives of the Home Economics division were to train students to be “efficient homemakers, vocational economics teachers, home demonstration agents, and for “wage earning occupations”. Other states were no different. For example, the Home Economics major at Florida A&M University (FAMU) had the objective to “train teachers of domestic science and domestic arts”. Degrees in areas such as Child Development, Clothing, or Nutrition, which were common in Home Economic programs at predominately white institutions (PWIs), were largely unavailable to HBCU students. Tuskegee University, North Carolina A&T, and South Carolina State Colleges were the few HBCUs to offer specialized degree programs. Comparatively, the New York State College of Home Economics had the aim “to prepare its students to be not only intelligent homemakers but also intelligent citizens and contributors to the world of work”. Six departments were available to students including Economics of the Household and Household Management; Family Relationships and Child Development; Foods and Nutrition; Household Art; Institution Management, and Textiles and Clothing.
Furthermore, graduate programs in Home Economics at HBCUs were largely non-existent until after World War II. Only Prairie View A&M offered a master’s degree in General Home Economics, starting in 1938. Therefore, African American women interested in graduate study typically had to gain admittance to and persevere in the racist environment in PWIs. One of the most notable women to do so was Dr. Flemmie Kittrell. Kittrell was an African American Home Economist who received a Ph.D. in nutrition from Cornell in 1935. The first African American woman to obtain a Ph.D. from the university, Kittrell struggled with housing discrimination. In another case, Howard University students travelled to Cornell to take graduate work. Despite these obstacles, at least forty-one African American women earned master’s degrees in Home Economics at PWIs between 1925 and 1933.
Dr. Kittrell was the first African American to obtain a Ph.D. in nutrition, and the first African-American woman to obtain a Ph.D. from Cornell University.
In fact, the limitations of HBCU Home Economics programs were directly related to a lack of federal funding. There was underrepresentation of African American Extension agents and leaders in Southern States and disproportionally low funding directed towards Black populations for extension work. The Smith-Lever act made no provisions for funding African American farmers, thus placing all the funds into white hands. Unsurprisingly, major youth outreach programs, notably 4H, were segregated and did not provide scholarships to African American students, and state Home Economics associations often excluded Black members until the Civil Rights Movement [Ralston, “Black Participation in Home Economics: A Partial Account.”]. In turn, African American Home Economics graduates struggled finding employment. For example, in South Carolina, it was not until the late 1910s, that female African American extension agents were hired, with the disturbing motivations to protect the “white” agents from disease during the influenza outbreak. And the few extension programs for African Americans farmers often encouraged practices that would encourage “subsistence” rather than economic independence.
Extension and Outreach
Yet, the leaders of these Home Economics departments were resourceful. Unlike their white, female counterparts, Black female home agents developed highly successful “practical” programs (with little financial outlay) related to food production and conservation. Much of the extension work from PWIs were grounded in strong, gendered divisions of labor in rural life. Rural women were exhorted to keep their homes clean, efficient, and economical, in order to promote a “happy” home life that would seemingly extend into financial solvency. Meanwhile, the men were given practical advice on how to market their products effectively and cut costs. For example, female New York home agents (Cornell) could provide little advice for, and were even condescending of, wives seeking to earn additional income through selling craftwork or farm-based food products. Whether it was because they were worried about their own jobs, losing scientific credibility, or because of ingrained classism, it was nearly impossible for these often single, highly-educated white home agents, to grasp the immense problems rural wives were facing, rendering their advice in some areas nearly useless. This was exemplified by the eager enthusiasm which home agents touted scientific innovation as a way to solve “problems”. During the 1920s and 1930s, when rural farm families were struggling financially and advocating for increased prices for their products, they instead received encouragement to purchase coffee makers with their new electrical systems (many declined to purchase such items as “foolish luxuries”). Some Home Economists took a paternalistic stance and recommended that families should be encouraged to save for more “useful” electrical devices, like water pumps, instead of vacuum cleaners. Others attempted to skirt this “advertisement” side of rural electrification. For example, Home Economists at Cornell University, which had close associations with utility companies, noted these conflicts of interests with rural electrification. Professor Florence Wright, who served on the university committee that coordinated New York state’s electrification program, worked to keep extension outreach on a strictly “educational basis”.
In 1922, female African American home agents in South Carolina reported that canned fruits and vegetables produced by women using their demonstrations exceeded an estimated value of $79,000. Their programs were often more effective on a personal level than the ones created by white female home agents. They emphasized ways to earn money, rather than to save it. These programs developed community, and encouraged affordable, practical changes that could significantly impact life quality (e.g., how to brush one’s teeth, how to drain unhealthy ditches). Despite these limited resources, these Home Economics departments at HBCUs were able to implement several valuable programs.