To the Editor:
“Field of Discord” (The Chronicle, June 27) is akin to playground arguments among young boys over whose dad is the strongest or smartest, or to arguing over which brand of tractor is best—a red one or a green one. The incompleteness of the article allows readers to draw their own conclusions based upon emotions, not knowledge.
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture was created as part of the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act in 1987, and a key component of the center’s creation was the establishment of the Advisory Board. The legislative act creating the Leopold Center specifies the composition of the board to ensure that all voices of Iowa agriculture are represented, and the act further prescribes the role of the board. Contrary to some who believe that the Advisory Board has the ability to hire or fire the director, or in other ways control the center’s activities, the legislation states that “the Board shall advise the Director in the development of a budget, on the policies and procedures of the center, in funding of research grant proposals and regarding program planning and review.”
Because some on the Advisory Board are unhappy with the recent search process, they now see fit to carry their protest to the media. They are just as guilty of engaging in tactics to influence the outcome as they accuse other special interests groups of doing. Let’s be clear: Mr. [Richardo] Salvador is a friend of sustainable agriculture, and there was no hidden agenda to block his appointment. The role of the Center Director Search Committee and the Advisory Board was to identify a pool of candidates whom were judged to be qualified to lead the center. The entire board of 17 individuals had the opportunity to participate in the interview process and visit with the candidates, along with university faculty members, staff members, and department chairs. The board completed its responsibilities by submitting a list of candidates to the president of the university. It is unfortunate that neither of the top two candidates identified in the search process were successful; Dr. Louws withdrew his application, and Mr. Salvador was found to be unacceptable.
The center is financed by a tax on commercial fertilizers and pesticides sold in the state. Proponents of conventional agriculture recognize the unintended consequences of many modern farming practices and the need to eliminate or reduce these impacts. Hence the tax on agricultural inputs provides the resources to support the center. Is it unreasonable that those who generate the funds for the center have a voice in the director search? Would it be better to have decisions made exclusively by proponents of a particular interpretation of sustainable agriculture?
While some on the board were convinced that their candidate was clearly superior to the other candidate, and we respect their opinion, they should not be allowed to damage the center by accusations that it belongs to a special-interest group.
Quite frankly, those of us in production agriculture need to turn our attention to the pressing problems of the feeding the world and reducing the human footprint on the environment while acknowledging the days of cheap energy are over. Bickering and infighting do not contribute to addressing these broad societal goals. Sustainable agriculture needs to articulate a research, extension, and teaching mission. Criticism of conventional agriculture alone is not sufficient if these broad goals are to be met. It is our view that any director too closely associated with either conventional or sustainable agriculture will be viewed as “tainted” by the opposing side, and will be less effective in finding mutually acceptable solutions.
Arguments about whether cattle evolved to eat forages are only a distraction from the key issues of sustainability. Understanding the pressures from outside groups is systemic in the age of special-interest politics and certainly is not new in agriculture research. Each of us is likely a member of several interest groups, groups eager to promote healthy lifestyles, advocate for individual or personal freedoms, and influence who gets elected to public office, who should pay for elder care, or oppose war, etc. The key attribute of the center director is to guide and protect the research and extension effort so that no single group or coalition has undue influence.
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture was envisioned to include all of Iowa agriculture, not just sustainable practitioners. These disagreements about leadership are to be expected. What was not expected was the length to which some would go to make sure that their views prevail. Undoubtedly this is why the Iowa Legislature created an Advisory Board rather than a board of directors to assist in the direction of the center, and gave authority to the university president to hire and fire the director: so that the center would not be captive of special interests in either conventional or sustainable agriculture. The wisdom of their decision is self-evident.
Paul Lasley
Professor and Chair
Department of Sociology
Chair
Department of Anthropology
Maynard Hogberg
Professor and Chair
Department of Animal Science
Iowa State University
The writers are members of the Leopold Center Advisory Board.