The end of the Civil War ushered a new era in American state-building as the government sought to reshape the structure and identity of politics, group formation, and individual identity. During this period, nongovernmental agencies became central to disseminating and legitimating state authority. Although universities have been recognized as influential agencies, Mark R. Nemec argues that prior works overlooked the process by which they gained this influence. In Ivory Towers and Nationalist Minds, Nemec illuminates the rise of American universities as active partners and independent agents of state building from 1862 to 1920. Universities provided services to national development through promoting democratic ideals, industrial competitiveness, and intellectual vanguardism. Primarily through the “institutional entrepreneurship” of university presidents, American universities rapidly expanded their role and influence in society. Rather than the government, it was the university leaders who took the leading role to define what their universities would become.

The book utilizes case studies drawn from four major groupings: older eastern elite institutions, newer midwestern and western state institutions, newer private institutions, and antebellum southern state institutions. Within these case studies, Nemec focuses on the “institutional entrepreneurs” who worked both in competition and conjunction with each other to expand the influence of their respective institutions. Specific leaders include Andrew Dickson White of Cornell, Daniel Coit Gilman of Johns Hopkins, James Burrill Angell of Michigan, and Gifford Pinchot of Yale.

Nemec categorizes the process of university expansion in two transition eras: the “loosely coupled era” of 1862–99 and the “formally aligned era” of 1900–1920. During the first era, the government initiated growth of public institutions through the 1862 Morrell Act. The act provided land grants for colleges that would focus on agriculture and mechanic arts. However, it was the university leadership who structured the act's implementation and impact upon further academic initiatives. University officials limited the government's influence and worked in cooperation with other universities to ensure autonomy. As problems of American expansion arose, universities, acting as independent agents, offered research and expertise. Nemec cites the example of the Federal Bureau of Education which lacked the resources and authority to regulate high school and university education. Driven by a desire to enhance their own reputations, universities stepped in. Universities began by creating standards for entrance into the university and then expanded to standardizing credentials for teaching and advanced degrees. Although universities competed with each other for quality students and professors, they recognized the need to work together to create these standards. The measures also represented the collective effort by university officials to keep American students from going abroad for undergraduate and graduate level education. By doing so, universities could control the type of education Americans received, further promoting American liberal democracy over socialism and, in turn, increasing universities' usefulness to the state.

Most of the initial initiatives during the first era resulted from informal networks of personal relationships between university presidents. The formally aligned era of 1900–1920 grew through the creation of the Association of American Universities (AAU) in 1900. Rather than limiting university presidents' autonomy and influence, the AAU provided additional legitimacy. Taking full advantage, the institutional entrepreneurs aligned themselves with private philanthropists, such as the Carnegie Foundation, to obtain new financial resources for their endeavors. The government responded by increasing its reliance on universities for experts and trained workers. Certain government agencies could not have existed without university programs. Nemec cites Yale's forestry school as a key example. The program made the Federal Bureau of Forestry viable by supplying it with trained graduates. The school served a secondary function of promoting America's colonial efforts in the Philippines. The university brought Filipino students to Yale to pursue advanced degrees. Upon completion, the students would return to the Philippines to assist the U.S. civil service.

Throughout the two eras, Nemec highlights the political savvy and vision of the key university leaders. Quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nemec describes institutions as the “long shadow of men” (p. 17). Their influence extended well beyond the ivory towers to all branches of government. University presidents utilized the relationships with governmental agencies, the AAU, and philanthropies to expand their own knowledge and experience. Presidents regularly took sabbaticals to work in outside departments—for example, Angell served three tours of diplomatic service. Universities subsidized presidents' service to the state, viewing this service as good publicity for the university. Each calculated action helped elevate the role and function of the university system. The pinnacle of university influence came as Woodrow Wilson, former president of Princeton, was elected president of the United States.

Nemec ends the book with a discussion of the place of public policy in university education, arguing that all political science departments should include public policy in the curriculum. Universities continue to be agenda-setting institutions by defining the importance of social and political issues. As such, political scientists must be trained in public policy. Nemec dismisses Jonathan Cohn's charge that political science has forgotten politics and that policy and public policy have parted ways (“Irrational Exuberance: When Did Political Science Forget about Politics?” New Republic [October 25, 1999]: 26). Theoretically the two may still be linked, but Nemec must recognize that institutionally they may be distant. As more universities create separate public policy departments, Nemec's hope for policy-oriented political scientists may become more difficult to realize.

State theory scholars or students may find Nemec's discussion of the state a bit sparse. The introduction briefly mentions the works of key theorists such as Mary Douglas and Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Far more attention is placed upon universities and the role of the institutional entrepreneurs. Overall, Nemec's book is well-suited for those interested in public policy, leadership, and education. The case studies provide ample evidence for his claim that strategic actors defined the relationship between the state and universities.