Iowa State is searching for a new president to replace Gregory Geoffroy. He has served for ten years, steering Iowa State skillfully through some very difficult times.

I am a 40-year veteran of Iowa State and have served under numerous presidents. I am very interested in the next leader, so I occasionally talk to people about that process as I go about my daily work around Iowa (with alumni when I travel and generally as I email and Facebook with others interested in this process).

University presidents wear many hats and have to unify faculty, students and staff. They are chief fundraisers in times when public funding has declined, visionaries who have a good grasp on what the future will look like for universities in a fast-changing world, and official “diplomats” for their institutions. And at big sports universities such as ISU, presidents are chief fans their teams and CEOs of their respective coaching staffs (even though, of course, they don’t personally train and coach the teams).

So let me share with you what many of us at Iowa State and other public universities are talking about.

We need to be reminded that the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 funded Land Grant Institutions by granting federally controlled land to the states for the states to develop or sell to raise funds, and to establish and endow “land-grant” colleges. “The mission of these institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class rather than higher education’s historic core of the Liberal Arts.”

The Washington State University account adds ” … emphasizing agriculture, military science and mechanic arts in addition to classical studies, for the education of working classes.” Cornell University says, “… as well as classical studies, so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education.”

“Working classes” is an interesting concept, and I’m sure that in the 1800 it was not what conservatives today would label a “Marxist term.” I assume our legislators wanted this group of Americans to be distinguished from the plutocrats, bankers, big industrialists and others.

The Iowa State Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) was the first existing school whose state legislature accepted the provisions of the Morrill Act. These provisions were accepted on September 11, 1862. You can use Google to find more information on these unique institutions. But as you learn, remember that they were all intended to be affordable for the common man and woman.

Over time they morphed into full-service universities, which they have remained for at least 50 years. They grew and expanded, meeting the rising demand for accountants, writers, editors, programmers, policymakers, analysts and other skilled workers that grew at the same time that the economy was transformed. The mission of these institutions remains to provide students with an affordable (emphasis here on “working classes”) education that can lead to a productive, gainful and (potentially) happy life. President Robert Parks led that process at Iowa State.

These institutions were publicly funded and different from private universities like Harvard, Columbia, Yale and Princeton.

In 2011, we are faced with a changing world, a changing US economy, antipathy to raising taxes, and a distaste for public funding by many state governors and legislatures.

The research on the response of public universities is lively. I recommend E. Clorisa Phillips, Christina Morell and Jay L. Chronister’s “Responses to Reduced State Funding” in the journal New Directions for Higher Education. This is a classic text on the subject. The authors conclude that “Strategies of public institutions increasingly resemble those of private enterprise.” In other words, look at the university as a business, not a public good.

Roughly 43 states have reduced funding for public colleges and universities, and increased tuitions and fees. The University of California has increased tuition by 32 percent and reduced freshman enrollment by 2,300 students. According to Robert Reich, the California State University system cut enrollment by 40,000 students.

The next president of ISU will need to steer the university carefully into these new and uncharted waters for land-grant institutions. Otherwise they will become either “wannabe” Ivy League schools or “Technical Research Institutes” like the ones they have in China and India. The latter are dedicated to specific and narrow fields such as engineering and mathematics, and often meant to promote economic development rather than classical learning.

If that happens, America’s land-grant public schools may need to be reclassified. The “public” part becomes a misnomer. At that point, the continued state political involvement — which the great private schools don’t have — actually inhibits the transition to a new model. If the state wants out, then it needs to also get out of the way and allow the flexibility and self-governance afforded to private institutions.

I realize that I’m “old school,” but I hope that instead of privatizing and using a quasi-corporate-for-profit model we rededicate our commitment to the original spirit of these great public schools and refund them with tax dollars so that they remain both excellent and affordable. That’s how we will educate successful students and compete in an increasingly tough world.

(This is a revised version of a column that appeared in The Tribune newspaper June 5, 2011.)