As president of Iowa State, it is my responsibility to lead the entire institution, to ensure the many elements of this complex organization work together to provide high quality education to students and to fulfill our responsibilities to Iowans. That was my promise to the Board of Regents when I accepted this position in September 2011, and it remains my promise today.

Much has been said and written recently about the Harkin Institute of Public Policy at Iowa State and how it will function within the much larger university organization. Named for U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, eminent ISU alumnus, the institute is intended to conduct research and provide a forum for public policy discussions.

The Harkin Institute was established by the Board of Regents, at the request of Iowa State on April 27, 2011, before I became president. It is housed within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and is one of more than 50 centers and institutes at Iowa State.

It is unfortunate that controversies about the institute have arisen. I have received considerable pressure from interests on both sides of this issue and have been working as hard as I possibly can to reach a win-win solution that would be in the best interest of the university and its stakeholders.

This is important because Sen. Harkin is one of Iowa State’s most distinguished alumni. I am grateful for all he has done and continues to do for the university and the state of Iowa, and I am likewise grateful to Ruth Harkin for her leadership and service on the Board of Regents. I am confident that, given the opportunity, Iowa State would provide a great home to Sen. Harkin’s papers.

In an effort to explain my dilemma and my efforts to resolve differences over how the institute should function I must go into some history of the institute. The action item adopted by the Board of Regents in creating the Harkin Institute stated:

“The proposed institute will initially focus its work on key areas that reflect Sen. Harkin’s policy priorities and that are integral to Iowa State’s strategic plan — agriculture, education, international development and domestic social welfare.”

CARD overlooked in institute proposal

A standard part of the regents’ process for reviewing a center or institute is determining whether the institute will duplicate or overlap with other units not only at the institution but also at the other regent institutions. It is important we in higher education avoid unnecessary duplication. There is a reason we have only one history department, for example, and one College of Design. We have a responsibility to the people of Iowa to spend tax dollars wisely and efficiently, and clearly identifying the roles of our various units on campus is an important part of achieving that objective. Why would we want to create a new unit that duplicated or competed against an existing one?

The proposal Iowa State sent to the Board of Regents in March of 2011 indicated that the mission of the Harkin Institute was different from those of centers at the universities of Iowa and Northern Iowa. However, the proposal also indicated there was no other such institute at Iowa State and failed to mention the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. CARD has been conducting public policy research in agriculture since its founding in 1958 and is widely recognized as the leading research organization in this field.

This oversight occurred because during the process of developing a proposal for the Harkin Institute, there was concern for confidentiality, as would be typical for a transaction involving a prominent person and requiring solicitation of large donations. As a result, the proposal was not broadly discussed on campus. Most significantly, the dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences — which oversees CARD — was not aware of the proposal before it had been sent to the Board of Regents for action at the April 2011 board meeting.

Campus leaders would never want to diminish a successful and respected unit of the university. Therefore, several months after the board action, university officials adopted a memorandum intended to clearly identify the roles of both the Harkin Institute and CARD. In that memorandum, agricultural policy remained in CARD’s research portfolio, but it was not included in that for the Harkin Institute.

This memorandum, also adopted before I became president, was unfortunately not shared with everyone who had an interest in the Harkin Institute. After assuming the presidency, I shared the memorandum with Regent Harkin and discussed it with several members of the Harkin Institute advisory board (which had not been formed when the memorandum was originally adopted). After these discussions, I concluded the original memorandum was too restrictive and would not allow the Harkin Institute to thrive and that the best course forward would be for me to try to broker a compromise that would bring the interested parties together.

After numerous attempts, I was unable to achieve consensus. So, in November, I communicated to my leadership team that the Harkin Institute would be able to conduct research focusing on agriculture so long as that research was done collaboratively with CARD and related to the senator’s official papers.

Avoiding duplication has long been a concern

Some found this approach to be unacceptable, arguing the university should not attempt to administer the Harkin Institute in any manner that deviated from their interpretation of the original agenda item that created the institute.

Although most believed my directive was a reasonable approach to achieve common ground, I have continued to work with Board of Regents leadership, Sen. Harkin, Regent Harkin and others to achieve a mutually beneficial solution. In fact, I recently proposed the following approach: If the Harkin Institute pursues research on a topic covered elsewhere on campus, it should be “planned, conducted and published in a cooperative, collaborative manner.”

This, too, was deemed unacceptable to a few of the institute’s stakeholders, which is unfortunate since collaboration and cooperation are encouraged at Iowa State and should be encouraged at all universities. It is a hallmark of this university that faculty are encouraged to cross department and college boundaries and work together to conduct research on important topics and challenges.

Recent articles on these pages have suggested that Iowa State’s actions have compromised academic freedom. Yet, the Board of Regents has considered numerous proposals for centers and institutes in which discussions of duplication and coordination were addressed in their approval. That is good management, not a violation of academic freedom. Those who follow higher education policy nationally understand that collaboration, efficiency and avoidance of duplication have been constant topics of concern for regents and trustees around the country.

One article argued that any institutional attempt to coordinate between CARD and the Harkin Institute violates the policy in the docket item approved by the Board of Regents, while another article suggested it also violates fundamental principles of academic integrity. I would urge anyone interested in this issue to go to the Regents’ website and find the recording of the portion of the meeting where the institute was approved (http://tinyurl.com/c8dqoqm). There, they will find the following points that were made in the presentation to the regents by my predecessor, President Gregory Geoffroy:

• 1.

President Geoffroy indicated it was unusual to have a center with such broad scope and that the Harkin Institute would have to focus on a “couple of different areas rather than trying to be everything to everybody.” In other words, he made it clear that choices would have to be made about what areas the institute would cover. In response, no one at that time voiced any concerns about potential compromises of academic integrity or restrictions upon academic freedom.

• 2.

President Geoffroy said that while it was essential to have an advisory board, the point was made that the Harkin Institute must be managed by the university and ultimately by the president. So it was clear at the time of approval, that the institute would be managed in a manner consistent with other units on campus.

• 3.

There was, indeed, a discussion about academic integrity, and that discussion focused on the need in these circumstances for independence and objectivity in management of the institute. President Geoffroy said that Sen. Harkin would not be involved in determining issues to be addressed, nor would he have special or early access to the reports of the institute. He also said the academic integrity of the institution required the work be objective and free from influence of donors.

These important points helped form the foundation on which the Board of Regents approved establishment of the institute in April 2011, and they are as important today as they were when President Geoffroy stated them.

Harkin papers will be accessible to all

As President Geoffroy told the board that day, Sen. Harkin’s papers will be accessible to everyone. Every faculty member, staff member and student at Iowa State will have full access to the senator’s papers, which will be housed in the special collections section of our university library. The papers will also be converted to digital format so they are available to everyone, at any time. Students, faculty members, journalists and others all around the world will be free to use the materials to conduct their research, do their projects and teach their classes.

ISU faculty members will decide on their own accord if they want to be affiliated with the Harkin Institute or CARD, just as they make decisions every day about being affiliated with other centers and institutes on campus. Either way, faculty will have unrestricted access to the senator’s papers and will be free to conduct any related research they see fit, while also publishing any related findings or reports which they deem to be appropriate.

I continue to be fully committed to making the Harkin Institute a successful public policy resource and to forging a compromise, but the institute must function within the university’s policies and be consistent with Board of Regents’ policies and the promises that were made to the Board of Regents. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.