Moving Toward Sustainable Land Grant Universities and a Sustainable Farming Community by Serving the Public Good

John M. Gerber

7^th Annual Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Roundup

“Serving the Public Good”

Manhattan, KS

February 17, 2001

I thank you for the invitation to join you today. It feels to me like an occasion for some humility on my part. While I am often asked to speak to large groups of farmers and academics, I need to be honest with you. I have nothing new to say. At least nothing you haven’t heard before from some of my friends, Jerry DeWitt, Fred Kirschenmann, Wes Jackson, John Ikerd and others. But when Dick Wooten called, I couldn’t say no. And it is important when you hold a minority perspective at either the university or among the farming community that you come together once in a while to be reminded that you are not crazy and you are not alone. And we surely are a minority.

So we are here today to support each other and to remind each other that to continue to support policies, institutions, a way of farming and living that destroys land, communities and people, when we know it is wrong is madness.

I’m here today to share some of my basic truths and to talk about what we need to do. Emerson wrote that to share one’s truth, is an act of love. I hope to be able to do this from the perspective of love. Here is my truth, at least for today.

My truth knows that the form of agriculture currently practiced in the U.S. is not sustainable, as it continues to leak toxins and other pollutants from their point of application, use natural resources at rates greater than replacement, and puts farmers and ranchers off the land.

My truth knows that the land grant university has lost its way, claiming to serve a public good while being driven by the political agenda of those currently in power, those corporations and large commodity organizations with enough money to get our attention, or perhaps the most influential, the disciplinary based societies that determine what is acceptable research.

My truth knows (as Marty Strange wrote in his book Family Farming) that the leadership of the farming community has come to “dominate farm policy and work their will on the system as a whole, producing public policies that reward expansion and economic cannibalism…” Get big or get out! Success is owning your neighbors farm.

My truth knows that many of us are running ever faster to stay even on a treadmill where farmers pursue technologies that don’t offer long-term hope, researchers pursue the next grant, the next research paper or the next academic award, while extension educators run faster to be at the next meeting, answer the next phone call for help, or file the next report for some anxiety ridden administrator who runs from crisis to crisis to crisis without end. There is nothing sustainable about the way we live, the way we work, the way we farm, or the way we treat the earth.

I’ve been asked to speak about the sustainability of the land grant university. And I will. But you know, if that becomes our primary focus, it also becomes self-defeating. Businesses or organizations that devote most of their own energy to their own survival rather than a higher purpose, fail. I think that sustaining the university system may turn out to be an outcome of our public work to sustain something bigger than ourselves. Finding that higher purpose is key. Much of our work today and our conversations focus on the trivial, for we lack what Fred Kirschenmann calls a “big hairy audacious idea.” And lacking a grand idea, we aggrandize the trivial. The paradox is that if we focus on a motivating big idea such our mission of public service, we just may save the land grant university in the doing.

My truth tells me that the human quest for sustainability of the earth, including human and non-human communities may be our best hope for the land grant university and the farming communities we love. So my own work of late has shifted from managing the latest crisis in extension or the university to sustainability of the earth, humanity, and the ideals that I cherish, like community, wisdom, service, and love. Maybe, just maybe, working in new partnerships with farmers, consumers, and environmental activists and others to find a new way to farm, and new ways to live, we may just revitalize the land grant university as well. Its all about sustainability.

The term sustainability is often overused and sometimes abused by politicians, academic leaders and corporation public relations representatives, those who hold economic and political power today. It has been co-opted by all sorts of interesting characters from government agencies to evangelists for the current industrial agricultural system. The word itself has been defined and re-defined, used and misused for all sorts of ends. There are times when I feel that we need a new word to describe the kind of agriculture that lasts. But mostly I feel the debate, argument and even some of the hyperbole has been a good thing, for it focuses our attention on the lack of sustainability of the current food and farming system. So for me sustainability remains a vision worthy to serve, a big hairy audacious idea.

So, what have I learned about land grant universities over the past 30 years? Well, as a director of Extension, I often spoke out on how Extension and the University must change in order to survive and thrive. In Massachusetts I worked toward that end. But you know, the struggles we all experience today in state legislatures and in Washington, DC around budget time, which are getting more difficult all the time, are the result of our own success and our own failures.

We claimed that we would help agriculture become more efficient and we did. We helped create new technologies, practices and products that allow farmers to produce high quality, inexpensive food. And in doing so we developed partnerships with businesses and industries that made those products and technologies. Today, many public voices ask if that partnership isn’t just a bit too cozy. We are currently caught in what systems thinkers call a negatively reinforcing feedback loop. The public doesn’t trust us, so our budgets get squeezed. We look to our friends in industry and the big commodity groups for political and financial help, developing new deals and partnerships. And what happens? The public says “see it is true, they are in bed with industry”, and the budgets get squeezed more. So we turn back to our new partners and ask for more help. It is a vicious cycle, spinning us in a direction away from our primary mission.

Personally, I believe that we are a bit too cozy with industry and the big commodity groups, but not as much because of the financial ties. We are simply cut from the same cloth. We are tied to big farming and ag industry by something much more powerful than money. We are tied together by a common vision of industrial, high-input agriculture as the only way to farm. This mental model defines the limits of possibility for most of us. I think we need to reject the industrial model as God given and immutable. We can change it. We must. It’s not sustainable.

But what about this cozy relationship? In my mind, the public outcry against the financial deals being made between public universities and private industry are completely appropriate. But they are generally exaggerated. Except for a few instances, most public universities receive very little of their annual support from industry. If you look at their budgets (which are all available on the web or on request), you will see the average income from industry grants is about 3 to 5 percent of the total university budget.

So what is the problem? Why are we being criticized if the financial deals are not really that big? For me it has more to do with out lack of responsiveness to public questions than it is to being bought by industry. When asked how we have served the public good, most of us talk about the availability of low-cost, safe food as a grand success. And it is. Mostly. But when the public asked for more, when the public said, “yes, but what about the water, soil, and pesticide residues we are seeing on our food”, we did not respond in a way that said, “yes, we care.” “We are here to serve the public.” We did not say, “hmm, good question, maybe we need to look at that.” Our own track record of listening to the concerns of public voices is not too good. Remember LISA?

LISA, the Low Input Sustainable Agriculture program of the USDA was an attempt to bring attention to the non-sustainability of our current agricultural production system that exploits and degrades soil, water and people. And it worked. LISA got the attention of those of us working in agriculture. But in doing so, it unnerved a powerful political voice. LISA, which was clearly focused on lowering inputs of non-renewable resources and ecological toxins had to be changed to satisfy the political voice of the agricultural chemical industry. Lowering inputs was not an acceptable political strategy. And while I must admit that simply reducing inputs is a limited management strategy, it is surely one of those that must be considered. What happened to LISA?

From my viewpoint, farm leaders along with fertilizer and chemical industry voices, aided to a great extent by land grant scientists led a battle against the low input strategy using the political tactics of derision and ridicule. They voiced loud criticism of many of the flaws of LISA and also criticized many attributes that were not part of LISA but were constructed in their own minds to discredit the call for agricultural sustainability. It was all too easy to set up Astraw men@ and then burn them in effigy. Much like the response of agricultural science to Rachel Carson=s Silent Spring a decade earlier, it was a sad spectacle of public educators attempting to sustain their own worldview at the expense of an honest public discourse. It was an embarrassing moment for the land grant university.

I share this view of recent history today to give you some context for my own thinking about why it is so important today to focus on sustainability in a much more serious way. Some of us have created centers and programs focused on sustainability, and this is important but I don’t think it is enough. Recently a group of center directors came together to talk about their work and their own sustainability. A survey of those centers shows that their annual budgets range from somewhere around $60,000 a year to over $ 4 million at UC SAREP. If you exclude UC SAREP from the calculation, the average support level is about a half million.

And while this is surely progress, I contend that all of our agricultural extension and research resources should be focused on long-term sustainability. Yes, all of it. 100%.

Now, this is not the official party line of either USDA or the land grant system. Most extension directors don’t agree with me. But what I see is a small group of industry and commodity leaders influencing the thinking of a small group of deans and directors. I’ve experienced the subtle pressure they can put on us. I also see a large group of rank and file farmer and farm families disenfranchised with their own leadership but struggling to stay even, they don’t know where else to turn. Some have turned to the many farmer-led sustainable agriculture organizations around the country. But they do not generally have the staying power of the big farm organizations. In Kansas, you are fortunate to have the Kansas Rural Center. My own experience suggests that as soon as one of these groups gets big enough to have some influence they get co-opted in some way. Lacking political experience and financial backing they themselves are not sustainable in these very competitive and ugly political arenas. It seems to me that they are the universities best friends in the long run. Not everyone sees it this way.

I think we would be better off today if a few more deans and directors looked to these groups as allies, or at least loyal opposition. I think we would have been better off if a few more deans and directors took Rachel Carson seriously in the 70’s and LISA seriously in the ‘80s. Today, I think we would be better off if a few more deans and directors and a few more agricultural scientists tried to understand the public rejection of GMO’s. Once again, we at the university are seriously out of touch with the public.

Happily, in spite of the short sightedness of those of us in leadership, a few faculty and extension staff began searching for better ways. Many of us who have thought about sustainability have come to accept economic viability, ecological integrity, and social justice as three principle attributes of a sustainable system. And I like these ideas and support these criteria. In fact when I teach sustainable agriculture, I use some of the writings of those of you at Kansas State. You know this stuff. But those of you who have already devoted yourselves to serving the public good by focusing your work on the sustainability of the planet (by working to sustain agricultural ecosystems) have often done so without the support of your institution or your colleagues.

A survey conducted by the Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education a few years ago, documented the widespread perception among agricultural scientists that work in the area of public interest science would hurt them professionally within their institution. Personally, I have never experienced this, but I have had the good fortune to be supported early in my career by some courageous and visionary land grant leaders. Actually, it matters less if this is true or if it is only a perception, since actions will be dictated by beliefs. And there is a strong belief among many academic scientists that work in the area of sustainable agriculture is a career killer.

On the positive side, I see changes within the land grant community. I see a widespread recognition that our current evaluation and reward system does not support the kind of research and education we claim we want. We say that we want to see more mission-driven, multi-disciplinary research, but our reward system does not support this work. In fact, the discipline bound departmental structure of research universities may be a greater deterrent to public interest science than the dollars provided by industry. The disciplinary based societies just about own academia. Without the approval of our disciplinary peers, we will not be valued at the university.

But that is not all. It seems to me the greatest barrier to our ability to serve the public good has been the coming apart of the agricultural research and extension system. The two components of one system, which must be connected to be successful, are moving in opposite directions. Agricultural research has learned to serve the master of the discipline and the federal granting agencies. In today’s language they have become customer focused, and their customers are journal editors and grant review panels (all made up of their own colleagues). Extension on the other hand has learned to serve the masters of the political arena. Large farm organizations with leaders seriously out of touch with the rank and file membership have undue influence on the extension agenda. In the past, county agricultural agents were told to “find themselves a big farmer, you take care of him and he’ll take care of you.” Today, the story is the same, except you have to get close to the leaders of commodity organizations for this kind of protection.

So these powerful forces, disciplinary societies, corporate funding, the fracturing of research and extension, and our own perception of what is valued by the institution push us away from public interest research and education. For the past 12 years, I have worked to make changes in this system. What I have observed is that in some institutions there has been real progress. Many of these progressive organizations have joined CSARE in trying to build bridges with the farmer-led organizations that work for sustainability. In others, the problems are getting worse. Even when some leaders seem to make progress, powerful influences tend to pull the changes apart when they leave. I’m not talking about powerful political and financial forces. The most powerful forces preventing change are in our own heads. The mental models we hold about how the world works is the greatest barrier to change. It is not money. Lacking a grand idea, politics and financial power always win. So I have changed my work. Today, I choose to work for a big hairy audacious idea. Here’s one.

Its the principle of sustainability developed by scientists in Sweden called The Natural Step. While the direct translation of the name of this concept from Swedish may not be particularly useful in English, the concept itself is sound and worth your consideration.

Scientists in Europe developed this protocol as the basic requirements for life on the planet. It’s a really big idea. I’d like to share with you some words of wisdom from Terry Gips who wrote:

“As noted historian Woody Allen has observed, "More than any time in history, humankind faces a crossroad. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

Fortunately, there is another, less perilous path. It leads to planet sustainability. Can you imagine a land where:

Hundreds of thousands of young people become concerned about the Earth and create their own environmental computer networks, video programs and a youth parliament?

More than 70 cities become eco-municipalities, decreasing waste, cutting costs and creating more jobs?

Farmers save money, and the environment, by reducing overall pesticide use by 75% in less than a decade?

Sixty major corporations clean up their act and begin offering ecologically sound products and services that not only reduce pollution, but increase profitability?

The largest oil company develops clean-burning, farmer-grown biofuels and lobbies the government to raise air-quality standards?

Even McDonald's serves veggie burgers and organic milk?

Would you like to live in a land like that? You can. Sweden has accomplished all this and more. And the ideas behind their success are spreading around the world–in part through a 10-year-old program called The Natural Step (TNS).”

So, what is this Natural Step? It is list of basic systems conditions, or rules by which human society must work if it is serious about sustainability. They are:

1. Substances from the earth=s crust must not systematically increase in the ecosphere. That is, fossil fuels, metals and other minerals must not be extracted at rates faster than their slow redeposit and reintegration into the earths crust. That means we should not be salting the desert with irrigation water. It means we need to find renewable sources of energy and reduce our energy use overall. In businesses this has been applied by extracting metals and minerals from industrial processes rather than dumping them. It is good business.

2. Substances produced by society must not systematically increase in the ecosphere. That is, substances must not be produced at a faster pace than they can be reintegrated into the cycles of nature or deposited into the Earth=s crust. That means we should not allow accumulation of toxins in the soil, water or oceans. This means we should not produce things faster than they can be broken down and returned to nature. We should eliminate hazardous chemicals, support organic farming, and stop large feedlots and farms from causing water and air pollution.

3. The physical basis for productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically diminished. That is, we cannot extract and use fossil fuels and geological water, or allow depletion of soil and biological diversity at rates faster than they are regenerated or replenished. Soil erosion is not okay. We must not harvest more than can be renewed. We should protect endangered species and ensure sustainable use of our farmland, forests, and waters.

4. We must provide fair and efficient use of resources with respect to meeting basic human needs. That is, basic human needs must be met in the most fair and resource-efficient methods possible or a population will destroy its own environment in an effort to survive in the short run. For me, that includes public institutions should serve the public good. This means that basic human needs should be met in the most resource-efficient way. Often the most eco-efficient designs save money as well.

I suggest that if the land grant system were truly serving the public good, including those citizens not yet born, we would embrace a big idea such as the Natural Step. We are not, at least not as a system. I want to make it clear that I admire and respect many of the land grant scientists and educators who truly are devoted to serving the public good. There are many. But the vocal defenders of current practices, particularly those used to manage natural resources such as soil and water in exploitive ways, do not have my respect.

There is no excuse in my mind for a public scientist or educator to defend agricultural practices which;

… result in the accumulation of natural toxins such as heavy metals from sewage sludge (in violation of system condition 1),

…or of human-made toxins such as pesticides and herbicides (in violation of system condition 2),

…or sacrifice the long term productive capacity of the soil and water (in violation of system condition 3)

… or accept the so-called inevitability that people must live stress filled lives (in violation of system condition 4).

There is no excuse for public science to support practices which trade short-term profit for the long-term capacity of managed ecosystems to support our children. We can do better.

Sacrificing the future for the sake of the present is irresponsible. Public science should seek to develop practices and systems that primarily serve the public good not primarily private interests of those who can afford to pay. Therein lies the relevancy that will result in the sustainability of the land grant university. We cannot afford to accept ever-increasing private support and remain a public institution. It will not work.

As my friend Dick Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, wrote in his book Democracy and Technology “The only criteria currently used for selection of technologies is, does it sell?@ I’d add the requirement, “does it work?” Once a scientist develops an idea or new technology, we want to try it out. It is basic human nature. We don’t want to leave these decisions to scientists and industry only. An engaged citizenry must be critically involved in the choice, governance and design of technologies. Dick suggests that technologies should:

- encourage cooperation, trans-community implementation

- increase human flexibility and self-actualization

- reduce hierarchical power relations

- not cause human health problems, such as stress

- contribute to the local economy

- increase choices and pluralism

Public bodies must be engaged in the deliberation and design around the technologies that are developed, especially those developed with public monies. This is one of the conclusions I come to when I study the fourth system condition of The Natural Step. So, lets turn to our understanding of public good for a few minutes. And remember, for me, sustainability of the earth, humanity and the ideals of community, wisdom, service and love, are the ultimate public good.

I believe that a clear understanding of how the land grant organization serves American citizens, those today and those yet to be born, is key to the sustainability of the institution. Most people agree that the system has an obligation to serve the public. But we have difficulty talking about "who is the public ‑‑ and what is the public good?" I suggest that many of the current research and extension programs are designed not to serve "the public" but to serve particular publics, or special interest groups. I propose that there are interests, common to all people that we might call "basic human needs.

So, who is the public—and what is the public good? We could argue that anyone who walks in our office or calls us on the telephone represents a public. After all, they are all citizens—they vote—they pay taxes—they expect service. However, this expectation can overwhelm a public organization—and often has. I suggest we need some guidelines.

Dr. Jeff Burkhardt, Coordinator of the Program in Philosophical Studies in Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Florida, argues that many of our current research and extension programs are designed not to serve “the public” but to serve particular publics, or special interest groups like farmers, 4-H members, even rural poor, inner city youth, the elderly, etc. Some of our leaders tell us that this is what we must do to survive. I disagree.

Over the past 20 or 30 years we have seen an increase in the number of groups we have tried to serve, yet we have experienced declining political support. Maybe there is a message here. Perhaps adding yet one more special interest group to a stable of constituencies is not the answer. Perhaps by serving many private interests, we have failed to focus on our mission of serving the public good. Let’s explore this for a moment.

Burkhardt’s idea of “the public” presents constituents as humans, not as individual farmers, 4-H’ers, etc. He states there is an interest, common to each of the special interest groups, which he describes as “basic human needs.” Burkhardt’s list of basic human needs is;

1) adequate, affordable, nutritionally adequate food;

2) adequate affordable, clothing and shelter;

3) a livable environment;

4) secure means to provide for one’s livelihood; and

5) accessible educational opportunities.

The point is that there are basic human needs that transcend any individual special interest. We can serve the public good by serving these basic human needs. We must work with farmers FOR the public.

Public support for research and extension education programs is justified when they serve the public good. Programs targeting environmental quality and economic development, for example, serve the public good by maximizing economic and social well being of the whole community.

Public investment is appropriate under certain conditions. For example:

1. Government should invest in public goods that can be used in a non-rival manner by all of society. Once created, these goods are available to all without additional cost. Private enterprise is unlikely to invest in goods used in a non-rival manner because it is difficult to capture a return on their investment. Knowledge created from basic research can be a public good as long as it is not provided to any single corporation in an exclusive manner. I support public investments in basic research under these conditions.

2. Government should invest in private goods subject to market failure. These may have a value to individuals, but the private sector is likely to under invest because the market value of the product may not cover the investment. Government may choose to provide such goods to individuals or even to individual corporations if they have significant social benefits. It is appropriate for public extension to provide a direct educational service to individuals when it also serves the community. Examples of this might be pesticide contamination of groundwater, pest epidemics that would result in widespread crop failure, or soil conservation programs to reduce soil/pesticide loading of surface waters. Government investments in private companies that have no social benefit or may actually cause harm are not appropriate of course. The trick is to know which is which. I’ll talk more about this later.

3. Government should invest in social welfare goods and services for reasons of equity. Educational programs for populations at risk, access to food, and the availability of shelter are considered social welfare goods. Land grant universities that allowed inexpensive access to education were originally funded for this purpose.

Public universities should serve the public good by addressing basic human needs under the conditions of appropriate public investment. Colleges of food and agriculture can do this best by “sticking to the knitting.” We should serve the public by doing what we love and do best, working closely with farmers and farm families. And we must do so in a way that encourages public participation.

Recent USDA requirements to enhance our stakeholder engagement processes are a critical step toward this end. Of course, many of us have been involved in stakeholder engagement for some time. UMass Extension, for example, currently has over 1000 citizens of the Commonwealth serving on one or more of our many advisory committees. Our major challenge has been to ensure a diversity of voices on those committees so that we don=t become captured by our own constituency into serving their immediate short term needs at the expense of the public good.

At the same time, our engagement with stakeholders must become more meaningful. Weak rules of engagement will not improve our likelihood of serving the needs of primary stakeholders or the public.

The Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education has supported engagement standards that:

1. Fairness: Basic fairness requires equal access to the process by all citizens.

2. Transparency: All aspects of the stakeholder process should be in the open and on the public record.

3. Accountability: Those who take the time to provide input and recommendations should be given the basic courtesy of reviewing the written record of any meeting they participated in for accuracy as well as some type of timely reporting as to how the stakeholder input was utilized, and if any specific recommendations were rejected, the reasons why.

4. Balanced Representation: Each institution should be required to demonstrate a good faith effort to solicit input from, and active engagement with, traditionally under‑served or under‑represented constituencies.

5. Comprehensive and Meaningful Role: Stakeholder input should be sought on a variety of different levels, including but not limited to:

· advice on priority setting and program development

· participation in relevancy reviews

· guidance on monitoring, evaluation, and oversight systems

· counsel on technology development, and

· discussions about the mission of the institution.

The public research and education system should ensure accountability to the public good. Toward this end, the process that determines how some public funds are used should include an evaluation component that considers the potential impact of research and education on critical public needs. Further, the people most likely to be impacted by the work should be involved in the grant review process. While some may see this as interference with a grant review process that is currently controlled by scientists, a case can be made that if public institutions are to serve the public good, a review process is needed to ensure both accountability and scientific quality.

The USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program of the North Central Region (USDA) implemented a system that approaches this objective. This grant review process includes a two-step evaluation that begins with an analysis of potential impact of the research. Representatives of groups most likely to be affected, such as farmers, environmentalists, and rural advocates are included in the first stage of the review. This allows the research process to focus on critical issues. The second step of the review is the traditional scientific review by disciplinary peers that ensures scientific quality. This two-step review helps to enhance the potential applicability of research results, while ensuring scientific quality.

One common objection made by scientists to public involvement in helping to guide the research agenda is that researchers must be free to explore nature unfettered by specific goals. On the other hand, it can be argued that public involvement would not necessarily reduce the serendipity of making new discoveries. Nobel Prize winning scientist, Sir Peter Medawar, has argued that the search for fundamental knowledge doesn’t suffer by starting with a real problem, but the potential application of the inquiry process is greatly improved.

Another argument made by scientists is that research must remain free from potential influence by special interest groups. This argument seems to ignore the fact that a special interest group already is involved in setting the research agenda. Agricultural scientists largely control public grant approvals through a peer-review process that doesn’t necessarily screen for relevancy nor service in the public good.

My own experience building a public oversight function in Massachusetts was one of frustration. Transparency around power issues is needed for honest public participation. The fact is that we don’t know how to act in ways that are truly collaborative. We don’t know how to share power. We don’t know how to listen respectfully. We don’t value diversity of opinion. The culture of our institutions is one of competition and power-over relationships. I have recently become involved with the Learning Community Project’s Taproots Seminars in which we learn how to learn together. We learn how to communicate in ways that are respectful and community building. We learn how to be differently in relationship with each other and the world. It is not easy work.

I want to finish up with some thoughts on personal truths. When I am clear on my personal values and my actions are consistent with those values, I know that I am not only more effective in my work but I find more satisfaction in my life. Land grant universities do not encourage us to contribute to the public good, something I value. Our funding sources, disciplinary bound departments and rigid evaluation systems drive us away from public work.

Many of us who came to work in agriculture because we deeply cared about people, hunger, or the environment find ourselves working for the economic self-interests of those who hold money and power. Our current system drives us in this direction. If we are to save ourselves, we must be true to our values. In doing so, we might just save the land grant system. One of the things the Taproots Seminar I mentioned earlier is good at, is helping us be clear on our personal and community values.

Some of the personal values I choose to profess and try to act upon on a daily basis are;

· truth over objectivity,

· service over selfishness, and

· compassion over competition.

Finally, we must tell the truth as best we understand it today, and expect others to disagree. Telling your truth isn=t always a well-received activity. University Deans and Extension Directors generally dislike controversy. But that is exactly land grant universities must be. If there is a controversy in an area in which we have some experience, we should be in the middle of it. Sometimes that means we must speak out on issues that may anger our traditional clientele. In fact, that may be the best way to serve them.

If we defend our traditional clientele when their practices are not serving the public good, we may are not serving their long-term best interest either. Deans and Directors who do not support and encourage staff engagement in controversial issues are not working in the best interests of the staff member, the clientele, the public, or the institution. To be relevant, we must be willing to get involved. One of my concerns about the future of the land grant system today is our failure to speak out when we think something is not right. Of course if we do speak out, there is a chance that on occasion we will be wrong. We need to be willing to acknowledge when we are wrong. I=ve spent a good part of my academic career being wrong.

Nevertheless, I know that when I am true to my values I sleep better at night. When I sacrifice my ideals out of fear, I do not. I meet too many academics today that began their careers with grand ideals and a strong social commitment that have been beaten down by a system more concerned with selfishness than service. I find this sad. But at the same time there are many who have rediscovered their ideals and commitments and are willing to speak out with courage and humility to work on issues of worth. And you can join them.

I encourage you to begin by telling the truth about what you know to be true today. And then most important of all, try to act in ways that are consistent with your truth. It will save your life.

Maybe we can save our land grant institutions if we relearn to serve the public good. Maybe we can save the land, water and ecosystems that provide the productive capacity for agriculture in this country if we change the way we farm. Maybe we can save our own lives, if we change the way we live.

My friend Carolyn Raffensperger, the coordinator of the Science and Environmental Health Network, tells me that every decision we make is based on either fear, or based on love. Today, I try to choose love. Jimmy Stewart said it in a different way. Remember the movie Harvey, the one with the big invisible rabbit? Jimmy Stewart was playing the character, Elwood P. Dowd. My favorite part of this movie was when he said that there are two ways to make it in this world. The first was to be “ oh so clever.” And the other was to be “oh so kind.” He recommended kindness. So do I.

Thank you.