If you live in Minnesota and value its lakes, rivers, forests and fields, you should know a lot about, and support, the U, particularly its College of Natural Resources.
You should.
But probably don't.
That's partly the college's fault. But it's also our fault, yours and mine. Because for too long the university and its College of Natural Resources have labored in relative obscurity -- training our future fish, wildlife and forestry managers and industry professionals, and conducting important research -- but otherwise affecting us not very much. At least not directly.
That needs to change.
One reason is that the many environmental and conservation challenges Minnesota faces, and will continue to face indefinitely, can't be adequately addressed -- never mind solved -- without the help of the state's best and brightest minds.
Many of those minds reside at the U.
Another, and more immediate, reason is that the College of Natural Resources on July 1 will merge with the College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences and the College of Human Ecology's department of food science and nutrition.
The result will be the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences.
Not a big deal?
Actually, it is.
And depending how the merger plays out, it could reduce -- slightly to significantly -- the U's contribution to making Minnesota still a better place to live.
That's not an exaggeration.
Concerns fall in a few major areas.
One is that the new college's yet-to-be-named dean might be more experienced in, and biased toward, agricultural and/or food sciences than natural resources sciences.
Another is that the College of Natural Resources, which enrolls only about 700 of the university's 51,000 Twin Cities students, will be swallowed up by the merger, ultimately diminishing its budget and influence.
Still another is that the definition of what constitutes "environmental" research at the U will further evolve at the expense of citizen outreach and applied research in wildlife, fisheries and forestry, among similar disciplines.
That definition has been in transition for many years, and now includes everything from designing sustainable roads to complex theoretical inquiries into the biological sciences.
All well and good.
But stewardship of soil and water, fish and wildlife, prairies and forests is critically important to Minnesota.
And should remain so at the U.
Challenges, opportunities
Susan Stafford has been dean of the College of Natural Resources for more than three years. Though well-liked and respected inside the college and out, she won't be dean of the new, merged college.
Stafford agrees the merger poses challenges for the College of Natural Resources.
But she also sees opportunities.
"We have to realize the U is being responsive to trends in higher education in the 21st century," she said, explaining the reason behind the merger. "The reality is the College of Natural Resources is very small, relative to the size of the greater university."
Stafford said the College of Natural Resources forestry undergrad program is tops in the nation, fish and wildlife is No. 5 and environmental management No. 7. But she acknowledges slippage in enrollment and the need for the College of Natural Resources to consolidate to "preserve what we want."
"The new college will be one of the larger in the university, which will give us a good seat at the table as programs are being discussed," she said.
Perhaps.
But the U is a land grant institution, and as such is obligated to fulfill various missions, among them outreach and extension that directly benefit the state and its people. Few university colleges have done so to the extent of the College of Natural Resources.
Example: Faculty at the college are researching ways to control invasive species in the Great Lakes, such as the sea lamprey.
Studies also are being conducted in water quality, cold-climate housing and a wide array of other areas, including development of a master naturalist program similar to the popular master gardener program.
The Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also benefit from the college's research when they reclaim drained wetlands.
Similarly, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and other organizations benefit in their efforts to restore habitat needed to sustain game and non-game wildlife.
Now, as the College of Natural Resources is being integrated -- or swallowed up -- those who care about and benefit from its faculty, staff and research need to coalesce into a sort of constituency group.
The ag school, after all, has many such groups. And they're active.
Merger perhaps a good idea
Some ag college faculty say they think the merger is a good idea.
"Before you [natural resource advocates] throw in the towel and worry about being outnumbered, think about the fact some faculty in the ag school might be on your side," one ag professor said. (Like some other U faculty I talked to, he asked he not be named due to the reorganization's potential effect on alliances and research funding.)
"The truth is, many of the ag school's constituents argue for things that some of our faculty can't defend and won't defend," the professor said. "Externalizing environmental costs for the destruction that takes place in the name of production agriculture is one example."
A few decades back, the U's ag college and its natural resources college were one and the same -- as they will be again July 1.
With luck, the outcome this time won't be a diminishment of natural resources training and research, but an enhancement.
What can you do?
Soon, the U will trot out prospective deans for the new school. Public forums will be scheduled.
Show up.
Make sure the candidates know what they're talking about when the subjects are soil and water, fish and wildlife, forest and prairies.
Then, after a dean's appointment, keep informed. Make sure promises are kept and the College of Natural Resources doesn't die by a thousand small cuts.Minneapolis Star Tribune
