After 2 months of controversy, the Harkin Institute of Public Policy faces an uncertain future. Last week, reversing course on his involvement with the Institute, Sen. Tom Harkin stated that he would not deposit his congressional papers with Iowa State after all.

The controversy began a few months ago when ISU President Steven Leath issued a memorandum to the effect that agriculture-related research done and published by the Harkin Institute should be approved by and coordinated and published with, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD). Additionally, CARD should “approve these projects” related to agriculture and “play the lead role” in them.

Charges of academic freedom flew from Michael Gartner, former president of the Iowa Board of Regents, and Leath insisted academic freedom was not at issue. Then, at the beginning of January, Leath removed the restrictions with a new memo. The new idea was to mandate that “Any public policy research conducted by the Harkin Institute focusing on areas found elsewhere on campus is expected to be planned, conducted and published in a cooperative, collaborative manner.”

Alas, this was not enough for Harkin and the Institute’s advisory board, which voted 5-1 against recommending that Harkin give his congressional papers to Iowa State.

This series of unfortunate events is replete with drama and intrigue. The aftermath, however, contains one of the more interesting remarks. “We will try to build it as a premier public policy institute, although it may not carry the Harkin name,” Leath said afterward.

The events of this winter were not the first time the Harkin Institute came under fire. In April 2011, when the Regents were about to consider it, a state senator objected to it on the grounds that the Institute would be named for a sitting politician. Craig Lang (now president of the board but at the time only a member of it) raised the same concerns.

Having an institute of public policy unattached to a partisan, polarizing politician such as Harkin and free of the controversial baggage the institute named for him carried could be a good thing. With an institute dedicated to the pursuit of policy solutions and political education in general, Iowa State would do the State and people of Iowa a great service.

Indeed, that service would maintain one facet of the propagator of the land-grant colleges bill of 1862, Vermont Rep. Justin S. Morrill noted in his speeches. According to the Morrill Act, such colleges would provide education in agriculture and the mechanic arts “without excluding other scientific and classical studies.” Speaking on his bill in 1862 Morrill said: “Just in itself, benevolent in its scope, demanded by the wisest economy, it will add new securities to the perpetuity of republican institutions.”

If Iowa State is going to become a place where the natural sciences reign supreme, or a corporate research and development department, or a technical institute, that’s fine. But as long as incoming presidents and candidates for vice presidencies and deanships continue to invoke Morrill’s ideals, they must consider all aspects of his oft-quoted speeches.

Equal with education in agriculture and the mechanic arts for the benefit of personal and national wealth, is the benefit to a democratic polity of a populace educated in the nature of public affairs rather than only knowing about the production of economic goods and services.