Unexpected Change At Leopold Center?

Something rather disturbing crossed my e-mail inbox this morning.  I don't have a supporting link - but will try to provide one if the story hits one of the local papers. (Take that as a disclaimer - if anyone has supporting or refuting stories, I welcome your posts in the comments section.)
Last week, Fred Kirschenmann was given 48 hours to resign as director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and to accept a position as the "Distinguished Fellow" of the center.

A new director was appointed before Dr. Kirschenmann was given notice. Over the past five years, Dr. Kirschenmann has worked tirelessly and with great dedication to the vision and work of the center. He has been highly respected by the Center's staff.

The reason for Fred Kirschenmann's removal from the directorship of the Center seems clear. Fred Kirschenmann had not placated agribusiness. They've been ferociously lobbying the dean's office for the past year and a half to get him to stop his work on Ag in the Middle and other projects that benefit farmers and the land.

If you see fit to protest Fred Kirschenmann's removal as Director of the Leopold Center for Sustainble Agriculture, you might make the following points:

1) This is a violation of academic freedom;

2) Fred Kirschenmann's tenure brought hope and opportunity for Iowa's farmers. Removing him caves in to the old paradigm of factory farms and environmental degradation.

3) Agribusiness should not be allowed to dominate the agenda.  Its time to establish a public interest agenda that honors the original mission of the center and mandate of Aldo Leopold's philosophy.

4) The next dean of agriculture at Iowa State should have the guts to stand up for a healthy economy for farmers and a healthy land for all of Iowans. This is what Fred stood for.

Dr. Kirschenmann has worked tirelessly and with great dedication to the mission of the Center. He has not only brought hope and opportunity to farmers in the Midwest, but his vision and skills have also reached into all corners of the country where people who deeply love the land and their communities have seen new ways forward that promise to reverse the environmental degradation and economic decline that they face today.

By removing Dr. Kirschenmann from this position, Iowa State University is allowing outside business interests to effectively control the agenda of a prominent American university, thereby further eroding the once unique independent status of academic institutions in American life. It is particularly troubling that this should occur at a Center established to honor the insights and teachings of Aldo Leopold.

Letters can be sent to:

Benjamin J. Allen
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Iowa State University
Office of the Provost, 1550 Beardshear Hall,
Ames, Iowa 50011-2021
Phone 515-294-9591, provost@iastate.edu

Gregory L. Geoffroy
President, Iowa State University
1750 Beardshear Hall
Ames, Iowa 50011
(515) 294-2042
president@iastate.edu

For those interested, the offending "Agriculture of the Middle" program has it's own website:


It would be grievously offensive to nearly everyone in the state of Iowa if Dr. Kirschenmann was removed for researching and promoting economic models that allow Iowa's family farms to stay solvent - isn't that one of the supposed benefits of our land grant universities?
UPDATE:  The Rural Populist blog has been collecting many aspects of this story.  Of particular interest is this story from the Iowa State Daily:
Frederick Kirschenmann, who has held the position since July 2000, was removed from his position Tuesday concerning complaints from Iowa agriculture groups accusing Kirschenmann of not communicating with them, Wintersteen said.

"There was a significant number of folks who felt like they didn't have significant connection to the center," she said.

Among those who complained of Kirschenmann's performance are corn and soybean producers who wanted more research on issues the center had historically dealt with, such as water quality and conservation research, Wintersteen said. She said although the center had some projects in that area, "It was probably just not enough and also there probably could have been more communication on those topics."

These three paragraphs largely confirm the previous story, in particular the following two motivations:

1)  The removal was politically motivated with pressure from outside groups.

2)  The pressure came from people who were bothered by the socio-economic research being done by the Center - evidently the non-controversial "soil and water conservation" research doesn't upset many apple carts.