Spring 1993 (v5n3)
	From the Director Land Grants & Society Institutions across the country are changing because of demands being made by society. Land grant institutions have traditionally been very important to agriculture. They were created by legislation during the administration of Abraham Lincoln, a time of great change. These universities were brought into being to help an agrarian society deal with the day's contemporary problems. Today, many question whether land grant universities have a role in modern society. They question the relevance of what we do. They ask whether we work for society in general, or is the mission agricultural production only? Do we have a role in the stewardship of the state's natural and human resources? These are complex questions, particularly with financial resources declining in California and across the country. John Kinsella, dean of UC Davis' College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, said in a February newsletter that the land grant "model must now be adapted and directed to a broader range of activities (e.g., social issues, sustainable systems), in addition to agricultural production." I agree with Kinsella and believe that dialogue with people outside the land grant system is essential if we are to survive. Two very different pieces I read recently also make this point. One was an editorial in the mid-January issue of California Farmer by editor Len Richardson, an astute observer of California agriculture and the UC system. He said the university and the Regents must demonstrate that: the Land Grant vision of extension and public service is vital and relevant in today's urban society; the public service mission is supported as a prioritized goal in budgets and commitments at the highest levels of the university-i.e., the president and regents; this commitment to the next generation of Californians puts research to work for inner-cities, communities and families through the transfer of knowledge. This includes financial support for research to guide the development of youth programs needed in a fast-changing society. Finally, Richardson said, "we doubt that needed research or academic quality can be maintained in today's leaner environment unless something is done at all levels of education to eliminate the tenure system. At UC, the Academic Senate has a choke-hold that is strangling not only the university, but the future of California. If the Regents and legislature can't act, it is time for a ballot initiative." The second article was the text of a speech presented to the Board of Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences last year by Karl Stauber, vice president of the Northwest Area Foundation in St. Paul, Minnesota. The text appeared in the Minnesota Food Association's newsletter last October. The Northwest Area Foundation has given $6 million in recent years to land grant institutions focusing on agriculture, natural resources and rural poverty issues. Stauber asked all those who work within the land grant system: Will land grant universities survive? In the debate about the mission of land grant universities he says we should be prepared to answer the following questions about our work: Is the land grant university still an engine of positive social change? How do you prove it? Is there a size bias, sector bias, or capital intensity bias in your work? Is that bias socially responsible? Will your work lead someone to be disadvantaged? How do you decide who "should" be disadvantaged? Why should society let you make that decision? Why should society pay for this? Some would argue that increased yield without regard to externalities has been the driving strategic vision of the land grant university since at least the 1950s. Is this the case? If so, how is it justified? Why are professional societies given such an important role, directly and indirectly, in determining career advancement within the land grant system? How does one defend the weight given to the opinion of a peer scientist from another part of the country over that of a tax-paying resident and consumer in the state of origin? If we in the land grant institutions are to survive and succeed, Stauber suggested we must do the following: "be inclusive rather than exclusive. Become the place where diverse points of view come together. Develop new mechanisms for multidisciplinary, user-focused research." He said we must be aware that almost all decisions are tradeoffs, and that the land grant university can help society understand this. Stauber concluded by noting that for the past 30 years, many of us have made our professional careers on quantification. "If maximization of production is not going to be society's major objective for the land grant institution," Stauber said, people within the land grant universities can help fellow researchers address "critical, nonquantifiable issues where good science may not be able to predict the outcome, but can assist in the development of reasonable alternatives." These messages have a clear meaning. The public needs to be included in discussions of both natural and human resource issues and in setting the research and education agenda. We at the land grant institutions can be the positive change agents for this new agenda. We must see these changes for what they are: opportunities. Our very survival depends on this.-Bill Liebhardt, director UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program. [ Back | Search | Feedback ]