​It is hard to find the appropriate words to express one's reaction to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend. White supremacy and Nazism have no place in our country, and I am shocked and disgusted at the thought that any President of the United States would fail to denounce them and make it clear that those are not the values of our country. 

One area that I will be paying close attention to, especially as we approach a new school year, is the reaction on our college campuses, which will be directly impacted by the situation in Charlottesville and at the University of Virginia. I have come across a few messages that cover well what I would want to say. And, as I’ve done before on my blog, if someone else has said it better, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

So I have shared a few excerpts and links to the full messages below:

One message is from our former K-State President, Kirk Schulz, now at Washington State University:
“As a higher education leader, there is no way to reconcile the work that we do with violence and hate…The senior leadership team at Washington State University is united—we strongly denounce racism and Nazism of any kind and condemn the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hate has no place at WSU…
…We also believe in the mission and purpose of higher education. As vile and offensive as we find certain speech and individuals who hold those beliefs, we are committed to wrestling with, challenging, and combating racism and anti-Semitism to become the community WSU must be. It is not just about our campuses—it is about our nation’s future…WSU is a microcosm of what is happening throughout our nation. Our work begins at home…”

Another message is from the new Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Douglas A. Girod:
“…Like many of you, we were horrified at the sight of white supremacists with racist and hate-filled messages marching on a university campus...As faculty, staff, and students return to Mount Oread this week, we will apply ourselves to discussing how we can continue to confront hatred and bigotry, both through our scholarship and efforts outside the classroom. More broadly, we will commit ourselves to our ongoing work to address diversity and inclusion on our campuses, and to ensure that all Jayhawks feel valued and welcome here.
The University of Kansas is a marketplace of ideas. We will–and should–have difficult conversations and disagreements with each other on complicated topics. But racism, intolerance, and hatred–and violence borne of those views–are never acceptable at KU and, in fact, are antithetical to our values as a university. We pledge to work with all of you to ensure we live up to those values and do our part to condemn and confront prejudice and hate wherever they exist.”

The final one comes from the President of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Peter McPherson:
“…Precisely because public universities are and always must remain committed to free speech, hate groups have aimed to turn campuses into flashpoints. What’s more, public universities have a large number of students who may well protest hate speech. Hate groups know their demonstrations, including violent ones, can and do spark a spectacle and ultimately draw attention to their hateful views.
Still, we must denounce their hateful rhetoric. The First Amendment is not just a right. It’s also a responsibility. We must speak out against evil, hateful beliefs through free speech of our own that advances the shared American value of equality. The struggle against hate will only be won through education and public understanding.”

Each of these messages make it clear that Higher Ed leaders are stepping up to the challenges we face. And, as a Wildcat, I know that our leadership and the entire Wildcat Nation join in these concerns so passionately expressed. And, as students of all ages return to school in Kansas and across the country, it is important that they enter in a welcoming environment that is focused on their success. They are the future, and it is critical that they learn from these challenging times, live out our country’s values, and continue working toward the ideals of our founding.

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—​here at K-State and in Kansas—​would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.  

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—​as our country has historically done—​appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.
​​
It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

This spring wrapped up my six years on the Advisory Board for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ Initiative on Global Food and Agriculture. The release of our latest work product, Stability in the 21st Century: Global Food Security for Peace and Prosperity, was shared at a symposium in Washington D.C. on March 29th. From the experience, I learned a lot about the challenges we face in feeding a growing population around the world (estimated to be 10 billion by 2056) and the impacts on national security. I’m sure without the influence of former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, I would have never had this opportunity. Dan and former Congressman Doug Bereuter from Nebraska currently chair the committee, following five years of outstanding leadership from Catherine Bertini, Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

My experience included getting acquainted with Roger Thurow, who has authored several books on food security. His most recent release, “The First 1,000 Days,” emphasizes the impact that the time span from conception to two years of age has on the rest of a child’s life. I also served with Howard Buffett, whose father Howard G. Buffett authored the book “40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World.” He graphically showed the incredible challenges many parts of the world have in feeding their people as well as showing the challenges we face in helping them address those issues. One of the most interesting contributors was Gordon Conway from the Imperial College of London, who taught me much about the importance of resilience in feeding the world given the reality of climate change. You can read more about this in my blog post from a previous symposium.

A significant focus for this Initiative was USAID and their Feed the Future program, which concentrates heavily on help to developing nations where significant potential for much larger food production exists but not without major help and change. Also working to address these challenges is Kansas State University and the College of Agriculture, with four Feed the Future Innovation Labs funded by USAID. Only the University of California at Davis has as many labs, with both having more than any other Land Grant Institution. This work will advance food security into the future, and I'm proud of the contributions being made by my alma mater to help address this global challenge.

The release of this report, our fourth product, not only pushes the importance of foreign aid but also makes the case for increasing such funding, which couldn’t be more timely. There have always been humanitarian concerns, but now, in addition, our own national security is a major issue. Such acceleration comes at a time in our country when the current administration has raised the possibility of dropping all foreign aid to fund increased military projects. It seems common sense to me that any country with a growing population and not enough food would be a target for internal instability and external exploitation. Contrast that with a country able to feed its population with help from outside while growing its internal capacity to feed themselves. I would oppose the current consideration of dropping foreign aid regardless (especially when you consider its percentage of the overall federal budget and the amount of good that is accomplished by a relatively small line item in the budget), but when you take the national security impacts into consideration, this is not just the usual partisan conversation. The differences of opinion on such an issue, if not dealt with intelligently over time, will put not just our country but all of the developed (and developing) world at serious risk. 

I have been enormously grateful for these experiences, and I plan to continue following and engaging issues related to this area of both personal passion for me and growing importance for our collective future.

Before the Legislature’s week off earlier this month, in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, legislation was voted on to exempt the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) from the July 1 implementation of guns being legally allowed into university buildings—​in addition to public hospitals and mental health clinics. The vote was 11 to 11, with the Chair abstaining, keeping the legislation in committee. If this is a signal that the House leadership doesn’t want this legislation to pass, it will make any further efforts later in the session much more difficult.

I already have serious concerns about concealed guns coming into classrooms at our colleges and universities. Unfortunately, given this earlier vote, it is clear for now that there will very likely be no change for higher education before July 1. In fact, the House has in committee a bill stripping any flexibility from institutions developing their own policy of implementation. But for today, my focus is on the Medical Center, where the issue takes on a whole new life.

I understand the strong beliefs that many have about access and citizen use of firearms. Repealing the Second Amendment has never seriously been discussed and is definitely not going to happen, but the threat of it remains a valuable weapon of use by the National Rifle Association to successfully impact elections. Hunting is accepted as appropriate by most Kansans for sure. And being able to have guns to protect yourself and your family certainly has majority support. But what we are talking about here with KUMC is a totally different breed of cats.

Regardless of how one might feel on this issue in theory, it would seem to me that sane people could understand why KUMC has practical and economic concerns. They have competition from medical centers just across the state line that are understandably taking doctors and patients away from KUMC because of the gun issue. I know from years of experience dealing with KUMC how difficult it is to fulfill its mission, serve the needs of the public, and do so in a way where the dollar numbers work out.  

As a state, we’ve invested in helping KUMC to achieve the National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation which, in turn, has helped our citizens access experimental drugs and has, no doubt, saved lives. Renewal of the NCI designation is currently in process, and this looming issue, which impacts both staffing and the bottom line, is certainly of no help.

Why would anyone see any advantage in having guns brought into KUMC? The current policy of prohibiting concealed weapons certainly has a positive record. Please speak up and let your legislators know that there is support for responsible legislative action on guns and that you will be there to back them up against any blowback from the NRA or other gun rights groups. The NRA has seemingly endless amounts of money, but the people of Kansas have their brains, their hearts, their voices, and their votes. A declining KUMC not only stifles further innovation in the medical field, it also means that Kansans will have to go further for some of their most critical medical needs.

Last week, I received a copy of a message that William Jones, President of Bethany College, shared with his Bethany College family and the Lindsborg community in response to the racially-charged threats aimed at him and his family. Having grown up in that area—I attended high school in Lindsborg and watched my father serve as a very successful volunteer fundraiser for Bethany College—this incident hits me on a deeply personal level. As well as the obvious disgust to learn that such racist actions are going on, the potential impacts are way beyond upsetting and are making folks feel unsafe in this small, tight-knit community. Apparently, because of Bethany’s success in recruiting minority students, a small faction want to shut the college down. Although the college is rightfully doing their best to protect free speech and avoid any connection to politics, I understand the folks responsible for the threats have made very clear their political leanings—going so far as to shift the message of their chosen Presidential candidate into the despicable phrase, “Make Lindsborg white again.”

Though, as a country, we have made strides towards our founding belief that all people are created equal, the way this progress is perceived, disseminated to, and acted upon by the general public has often reminded us just how much work remains—on both a systemic and grassroots level. We have grown more conscious of intolerance and injustice and demanded greater respect for our historically-marginalized communities, but yet, hateful messages and actions persist in many ways and all across the country. So how have we arrived here, and what can we do about it? I do not pretend to know for sure with great accuracy. But I know we have had disagreements over the direction of our communities and our country throughout history and have been able to discuss these issues civilly within our political sphere. Today, I worry that this ability may be eroding, and these problems are only made worse by the intolerant rhetoric spewing outward from the Presidential election.

I understand there is blame to go around—in truth, no one is without some responsibility. But when Donald Trump suggests that the Secret Service guarding Hillary Clinton should not be armed, just to “see what might happen,” I fear we have done more than just reach a new low in this Presidential race. I believe we have, in essence, authorized politically compatible citizens—who in many cases are legitimately frustrated Americans—to take actions that were never before thought as acceptable for any person.

At a time when we should be debating the best way to grow the economy, take care of our infrastructure, deal with the challenge of immigration, and preserve our nation’s security—just to name a few—​instead what we see all too often looks like a food fight. This was made possible by irresponsible Republican candidates who failed to step up and seriously challenge the Donald. And, of course, the press always likes a horse race, so they did their best to provide him with as much free publicity as possible. But the outcome of this election will be decided by the people—one-by-one—who enter the voting booth, and before they do so, I strongly urge them to consider this question: Do we really want to elect a President whose primary “accomplishment” so far has been to bring out the worst in us?

All of this is now playing out in the area where I grew up—the place I originally learned the importance of community and the value of mutual respect. I have been encouraged by the response from the Lindsborg and Bethany College community, who have rallied around their leader and his family to affirm their support for a more inclusive campus and community. Though this supportive response doesn’t come as a surprise to me, I believe it sends a strong message to those who spew hate that the revolting actions they have threatened will not be tolerated. I also want to believe that come November 8th we will have significant positive results, so the message of darkness will have suffered a setback and, as a country and a state, we will have some hope for a stronger, more united future.

​One thing I’ve emphasized throughout my time teaching is the concept of learning as a “two-way street.” While I do my best to pull together interesting readings and examples to share with students, often times some of the most powerful learning comes from them to me. One such lesson, which I’ve been reflecting on a lot throughout this particular election season, happened several years ago when I had a student from Lithuania in my Practical Politics class (which I taught every spring semester for ten years). In one of the final papers assigned to the class, she shared her thinking on political candidates here in the United States. Her question for the voters was this: do you want to elect resume builders or problem solvers?

​In other words, do you want to vote for someone just angling for a higher office or someone who wants to be a part of solving the problems that exist? We need the latter, but I fear all too often we elect the former. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should expect our candidates to disavow any interest in a higher office. But what it does mean is that we expect them to deal directly with the problems at hand knowing there will be political risk involved.

Along the same vein, from Steven Sample’s book The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, is a chapter on "to be President" or "to do President." His focus is on leaders in higher education, but the point has general merit. Like my Lithuanian student raised, is the goal in seeking office to be a state legislator in order to build a resume that could lead to higher office? Or is it to do the job, to help legislate progress, and to actually help bring the change that is obviously needed?

I’ve thought a lot about this and, for me, both my student and Steven Sample have hit on a really important point. As we look for folks to fill key positions, whether in the political arena or elsewhere, we should be clearer about who it is we are looking for and really need. Do we want someone who will be likable, play it safe, appear to be leading, and willing to "just go along" in order to set him or herself up for the next job on the way to the top? Or do we want someone who has the talent, critical thinking, and will to own up to and take on the clear challenges we have, knowing that this direction often leads to less popularity (particularly over time)?

Come November the 8th, the entire Kansas Legislature is up for election. It is our opportunity to decide whether we want resume builders, someone to just be a legislator, or do we want problem solvers, folks to do the job and do what is best for the public? I don’t think it is too hard to decide who we need. The challenges we face are real, and they're beginning to be more fully understood by the public at large. Incumbent Legislators locked in to the Governor’s agenda and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, versus talented challengers ready to take on issues, make difficult decisions, build consensus, and lead—these are the choices we have. Now is the time that we identify who we want to support and help financially and by volunteering. In each race, I think you will find out who the real leaders are: they are the ones who are running for office to solve problems. Our future—the future of Kansas—come January, will be tied to whether problem solvers or resume builders control the majority in the Kansas Legislature. Each and every one of us can make a difference, and there are many problem solvers who will need your active support.

​In the 2004 Kansas legislative session, the Republican-controlled legislature—​led by Representative Kenny Wilk and Senator Nick Jordan, working with Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon—​created the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). For six years, it enjoyed across-the-board support from the Kansas Legislature, the Bioscience community, and communities and research institutions across the state. Funding came from income tax paid by the existing bioscience companies already employing people and doing business in Kansas.

KBA’s success was based on some really sound thinking that made good sense both for the private sector and the State of Kansas. The vision was to build on the already existing bioscience success in the state through strong public-private partnerships. Common sense indicated that much potential remained. In time, our dependence on agriculture, manufacturing, and the oil and gas sectors would have another partner. The genius of the plan was to take the existing revenue stream and put it into an Authority established by law. The Authority would be governed by appointments from the Governor and Legislative leaders to hire the talent to wisely invest and partner with projects in the best interests of the state. They would be able to work with outside investors, making commitments for periods longer than one fiscal year, and not dependent on annual appropriations from the Legislature—​a key for private sector involvement.   

Successes included providing key leadership and timely resources for Kansas to be awarded with the NBAF selection (National Bio and Agro Defense Facility) now being constructed in Manhattan. NBAF will do the highest level research on zoonotic diseases, the ones that can move from animals to humans. Also, the National Cancer Designation for the the KU Medical Center allows area citizens access to new drugs on trial. KBA resources were key for funding nationally-recognized consultants, hiring nationally respected cancer researchers, buying much needed support equipment, and securing key infrastructure improvements necessary to compete. Both projects required strong leadership from Kansas State University and the University of Kansas, as well as full support from our Congressional Delegation and the Kansas Legislature. These two projects alone will have broad positive impacts on the state of Kansas for decades to come, but it's likely that neither would have happened without the KBA's support and engagement.

The progress in that short six year window led to national recognition for Kansas and its growing bioscience sector and jealousy from surrounding states that didn’t have this engine for economic development.

Then came the election in November 2010 and a new Governor. Although nothing about the KBA was raised during the campaign, within 60 days of this new administration, that all changed. Concerns were raised that we were picking winners and losers (we did invest in proposals with the best potential), that we weren’t distributing the money across the state, and that the administration had evidence of criminal activity within the Authority and demanded a forensic audit.

No evidence of criminal activity was ever brought forward and a year later (and well over a million tax dollars wasted), they had found nothing of substance going back to the very beginning of the Authority. Oh yes, there were the drummed up charges against our CEO with the only findings tied to actions after the audit began.
​
The eventual death has been long and painful in coming. A tragedy for the state to be sure but only possible because enough legislators went along with the Governor’s actions and bought into a growing mentality that ignores the value of research and the need to wisely invest in the economic future of Kansas. For years, our state has been reaping the benefits of these important investments, but now I fear the only impacts we’ll feel will be the sighs of relief coming from the east, as economic developers in Missouri now see an opportunity to compete.

In the “good old days,” it was often said that when the legislature finally adjourned, everyone felt safer. Well, they have adjourned, but I know there are good people all across our state who feel anything but safe as a result of the most recent late-night governing session by the Kansas Legislature. I also know there were many who wanted them to try longer and harder to get the budget more acceptable. Some had hoped, for example, that delaying state transfers to KPERS could be avoided, worrying that the delay would lead to the transfer never taking place—​which, frankly, is a legitimate fear. But, from my experience, if they had failed Sunday night (Monday morning) to get the necessary votes in one house or the other on the budget, the follow-up product would very likely have been worse. Why? Because the leadership would have found ways to get the attention of key legislators who didn’t support what they, the majority leadership, had put together and that would have led to taking away, not adding, to the budget.

They are already letting the Governor finish the cutting and running the risk of their negative balance budget being declared unconstitutional. Included now is punishing research universities with a higher percentage cut than the other Regent institutions. Sure, the dollar cut being larger for our larger institutions might seem to make sense for some. But the specific way it was done, penalizing institutions for bringing federal research dollars to Kansas, boggles any sane person's mind. The lack of understanding for the value of the research itself, much less the economic value of such dollars to the state, is hard to comprehend and certainly hard to defend. Now, as always, there were those who fought against all this, but in the end, the majority ruled—​a majority we have a chance to address in this election year.

In the big picture, one key thing to understand is that there will only be one really good chance to get this done right, and for now, the votes are just not there to do what is best for Kansas. Half measures will not get it done. That is why the defeat of restoring some of the LLC tax cuts on Saturday was fine with me. Getting it right starts now—​with the hard work to achieve the positive results we need in the August primary and then in the November general election.  At that point, there can be some real positive expectations. We should be able to at least stop the digging and the passage of additional acts of ignorance, and who knows, there might be some other areas where positive consensus emerges. But not even then will there be the power to begin the real restoration of Kansas Government. For only in 2018 will we have the opportunity to bring back positive leadership to the second floor of the capitol, and then in January 2019, we have the chance to really start moving in a positive direction. That is a long wait and it’s unfortunate that rolling back all the damage done in the past few years will take so long, but it is the only realistic path we have towards restoring Kansas to its proud past.

The ongoing financial crisis here in Kansas, which has apparently come as a surprise to some, is becoming much more real to others who are directly impacted. Though some are quick to either blame the Revenue Estimators or point to low commodity and livestock market prices and the plunge of oil and gas values to explain how we got into this mess, in reality, these economic factors are tied to cyclical ups and downs that we should have the capacity to weather if we managed well and made good fiscal policy decisions. Instead, one only has to go back a few years to the Governor’s great experiment to blow up what had been for decades a very successful tax policy.

Unfortunately, this experiment was nothing new. Trickle down economics has been tried, and has failed, many times before. So you wonder, if that is the case, then why would we implement something with a failed track record? I, along with many others, am beginning to believe that it was never intended to work—​that the silent objective was to slowly starve state government and use the complaints about government not delivering to cut government even more. There is no discussion from the far right Republican leadership in Topeka about corrective action being on the table. They are getting what I fear they wanted.

The March $17 million cut to public higher education in Kansas was tied directly to the February decline in revenue of about 50 million dollars. We now have less than four months to go in the 2016 fiscal year, meaning with each passing month there is less and less time to make adjustments to end the year in the black. As I mention in a previous blog post, the period after a major tax policy change is typically a challenging time to accurately predict revenue. So (as Duane Goossen of the Kansas Center for Economic Growth accurately points out), rather than blaming the Consensus Revenue Estimators, one must look at the tax policy itself and ask the following questions: What if there are further declines in revenue? What about the next fiscal year? When is the leadership in Topeka going to be honest with the people of Kansas, accept responsibility for making mistakes, and start us on the road back towards sanity?
​
These monthly financial shortfalls will likely continue, forcing more and more cuts to public education. And why do I say that? Financial management of the budget in recent years has ignored the value of following the law and having a reasonable surplus to deal with monthly declines in revenue that happen, even in good times. If the current administration had followed the law on carry-over, there would be no immediate crisis from declining February receipts. We would have budgeted something in the neighborhood of $750 million for such a purpose, and the $50 million decline would not have made headlines—​let alone resulted in the robbing of our state’s future in order to pay for the same old mistakes of the past.

​For this year’s Veterans Day celebration, I salute WWII Veteran Bob Dole as he, once again, steps up to provide leadership on behalf of our veterans and to honor the legacy of another great Kansan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I have followed with interest for many years the struggle to successfully build the Eisenhower Memorial on the Washington Mall. Getting consensus on the design and raising the necessary money has had its ups and downs to say the least. Recently, there was clearly a positive step with the announcement of former Senator Bob Dole taking a strong and active leadership role in raising the money. Given his success with the WWII Memorial, this news I’m sure is welcomed by all who want to see this project become a reality. General Reddel, who has chaired this effort from the beginning, briefed me several times when I was the Archivist and since then has kept me advised while I’m here at K-State. The reason for the latter is the close proximity to the Eisenhower Library and his long-range plans to have the Memorial partner with a University on the planned educational aspect of the Memorial.

Dole’s leadership and active participation on the WWII Memorial did not stop with its construction. You may or may not be aware, but you should know that he greets every group of WWII veterans who are part of the effort to get them all to the Memorial before it is too late. On our recent flight to Albany, in the airport when we landed there, was another group lined up to board a flight to Washington, and this has been going on for years. Almost without exception, when we fly into Reagan National, there will be a group of Veterans landing from some part of the country, thanks to a lot of volunteer effort and private support.

For Eisenhower, Abilene was always his hometown. For Kansas, Ike will always be one of our most famous and influential citizens. Having his Presidential Library here with a link to the Memorial on the Mall and possibly Kansas State University would be huge. Senator Bob Dole just might, once again, make the difference—for which I thank him and wish him the very best on Veterans Day 2015.

It’s that time of year, at all levels from grade school, high school, college, and even post-graduate education, that folks are graduating, moving on to another step in education, or out into that world of expectations. I offer my congratulations to every and all for the accomplishments of the day with best wishes for whatever comes next.

Over the years, I’ve given my share of commencement addresses with, at best, mixed results. For a long time, I’ve considered the challenge of speaking at a graduation ceremony as one of the toughest. For one thing, no one comes to hear the speaker. One is either fussing with the camera and plotting where best to stand, totally disconnected and wondering why one even attended, dreading the party that will follow, uncomfortable because someone insisted you dress up, and on and on. This all stands in contrast to the tremendous honor of the achievement. Of all the addresses I gave, there was only one that proved a real success. It was at the University of Kansas. I delivered my prepared text of just 45 seconds in length and got a standing ovation from the graduating seniors.

This year at Kansas State University, we are honoring Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum with an Honorary Doctorate in the Graduate School ceremonies. I consider Nancy a friend and one of Kansas’ very best public servants. I had the pleasure of working with her as Governor when she was serving in the United States Senate. I always remember how fair she was to work with and how respected she was by her fellow senators from both parties. Looking back, we were very lucky to have her service. She won a very close race in a nine candidate primary election, with only one other female candidate. I say that because we don’t have a runoff election when the winner gets less than 50% of the vote in a primary. Her closest competitor came in a very close second and might have won a runoff. But she won and the state and the country has benefited greatly from her service. We are also blessed with her return to reside in Kansas on her ranch in the Flint Hills. Thank you Nancy, and welcome back to Kansas State University.

This Thursday, at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington D.C., the Chicago Council on Global Affairs will host the Global Food Security Symposium. The topic will be Healthy Food for a Healthy World: Leveraging Agriculture and Food to Improve Global Nutrition. Brilliant and experienced people from all over the world will be contributing, and they’ll be making this gathering another successful step in the challenge to feed the future. My attendance is as an advisory member to the Global Agricultural Development Initiative.

I was first asked to serve on the Advisory Group back in 2010, I’m sure on the recommendation of former Kansas Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, who has served as co-chair since its inception in 2008. The focus has been on the United States’ commitment to agricultural development as a way to alleviate global poverty, and last year’s report was titled: Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate. In addition to the fundamental concerns tied to malnutrition and poverty, I am particularly interested in the potential impacts on national security coming from a growing population and the challenges to feed that growth, with the failure to do so leading to more potential hotspots for terrorism and other human rights issues.

As an alum of Kansas State University (Dairy Husbandry '62), I am particularly proud of the talent within our College of Agriculture and Research and Extension. The role they are playing in helping address the many challenges of more successfully feeding our growing population is quite significant. They are the home of four new Feed the Future Innovation Labs, started in 2013, with funding of $100 million over five years from the U.S. Agency for International Development. In addition, the National Science Foundation named K-State the lead institution for the world’s first NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for Wheat Genetic Resources. For the Kansan or American asking, “What’s in it for us?” I would point to the advancement of knowledge and research that will have mutual benefit, the development of markets for our products, and the progress being made toward a more secure, prosperous world for us all.  

Through the Global Agricultural Development Initiative, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has released a series of blog posts leading up to the Symposium that I highly recommend, especially to those who are interested in global food systems. The Symposium will be streaming live here, and they will also be sharing updates on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. I am looking forward to this year’s Symposium and encourage others to tune in.

As K-State Salina celebrates its beginning going back to 1965, I think back to my small role that few, if any, folks today remember. Why would they? It happened a long time ago and it certainly wasn’t K-State Salina at that time.

It was 1971, just six years after the Schilling Institute (soon to be called the Kansas Technology Institute or KTI) had been established by an act of the Kansas Legislature, that I found myself involved. But first let’s go back to the school’s beginning to set the stage. The Salina location, for WWII and the Korean War, was a very active and critically important air base (Schilling Air Force Base) for our country’s military needs. Following the active need of the base, the military function in the early 60’s was slowly phased out. The economic impact to the community was significant. Local legislators, led by Senator Ernie Strahan, were able to get the state to establish the Institute to fill a real need but also to help the local community.

However, after several years of limited enrollment and numerous legislative threats to reverse direction and close the Institute, we get to my first legislative session and March of 1971. I had left Topeka on a Friday to return to Smolan and my weekend responsibilities on our dairy farm. In fact, it was Saturday morning, milking, that I heard on the radio that after I had left Topeka, the Appropriations Committee had passed out a budget for KTI that called for the school to be closed in two years. This was not exactly good news for Salina or this freshman legislator.

Come Monday of the following week, in meeting with the Salina Legislative Delegation, it was decided (maybe because of my 4-H and public speaking background) that I should lead the fight on the floor of the House when the Committee recommendation came up for a vote. When that day came, my strategy was to tell a story about football recruiting at K-State with Coach Vince Gibson and at KU with Don Fambrough. Given that the main and only real argument against the school was declining enrollment, I drew the parallel between KTI’s challenges in recruiting students with the football coaches recruiting players. If either President McCain or Chancellor Chalmers would float a rumor about dropping football, wouldn’t that have impacted recruiting? How did they expect KTI to recruit given the regular talk from the Legislature about closing the school?

The story helped many people connect to the challenges at hand, and the appropriations language closing the school was amended out. Thanks to strong and innovative leadership at the school and the work of faculty and staff at KTI (and eventually Kansas State University), along with solid community support, we today have the opportunity to celebrate 50 years of significant success for K-State Salina and the state of Kansas.

For a video of this story and my commentary on the value of telling stories in any effort to make change, Click Here or check out all the Leading and Learning Moments on YouTube.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the current proposed cuts to higher education would devastate any institution right away. However, the scary thing is that this might only be the beginning as we, as a state, must come to terms with the impact of the Kansas “economic experiment” currently underway. There have been major shortfalls in revenue for the current fiscal year, and the two year budget for 2016 and 2017 is looking no better.   

Right now in Topeka, they are dealing with the huge gap, between resources available and budget needs, primarily through cuts. At some point, reality in the larger picture is going to become clearer. What that means is: we are either going to be discussing revenue enhancements (so far most of these, such as increased taxes on liquor and cigarettes, have been rejected), reversing the income tax cuts for the LLC folks, or making truly devastating cuts to public education—​which makes up more than 50% of the budget. Whether that be elementary through secondary or higher education, these cuts would be disastrous for our future.

The only realistic solution is a bigger pot of revenue, which means raising taxes. But keep in mind: this doesn't always mean more taxes but rather smarter taxation. When the cuts were made to income taxes, eliminating them for LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations), the effect was similar to sawing off one leg of a three-legged stool; it threw off the balance of other taxes and fees that make up the overall budget. This puts pressure on things like property taxes, state and local sales taxes, and tuition at public institutions to all be increased, and unfortunately, it leads to declining services in terms of both quality and delivery—​which, in reality, is also a cost.

The ultimate goal should be a fair mix of taxes, coupled with fiscal responsibility. It’s not just about the either/or of raising taxes or cutting budgets but finding a balance that best serves our people, such as putting the income tax leg back on the stool.

Thirty years ago in Kansas, cuts to public education were not even considered, much less was any traction for them received. Our research institutions for sure and education in general had strong support on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, and both floors—​executive and legislative. Yes, there were differences. Strong debates happened and working out final budgets took time, and occasionally, frustration dominated. But in the end, we did what was right by properly and reasonably funding education for the best interests of our state and our people.

For those who look at our major research universities—​the University of Kansas and Kansas State University—​and see the capacity to raise significant private money, one might ask why they don’t just turn to the private sector for the resources, if it is so critical. The answer is a little complex. Even though the state’s support for higher education at our Regent Institutions has dropped from as high as 50%, during my time in state government, and headed down to 20% and lower, that resource has been and will continue to be tapped, the current discussion aside. Making up for the resulting gap has been private money as well as higher and higher tuition. The capacity to raise private money has been impressive. I know here at K-State, in President Kirk Schulz and now General Richard Myers (who was previously serving as the chair of the university’s capital campaign), we have a phenomenal fundraiser who can connect very well with supporters of the university. ​But there are realistic and practical limits. Funding the cleaning of the restrooms is not a naming opportunity, but I think most would agree that it’s important.

Here is the other hard reality: the capacity to raise private money for existing gaps and critical needs could be seriously hampered if the core financial supporters saw declining state support as an albatross that could not be overcome. We have a better choice. The question is: will we have the wisdom to make it?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and Are We Reversing Our Direction on Research?

Up until recently, Kansas policies placed a high value on research and public education as key economic drivers for the state. Just think for a moment about some of the wise investments and tremendous progress Kansas has made in the area of research in the fairly recent past. We’ve invested millions of dollars in the University of Kansas Cancer Center to successfully achieve the National Cancer Institute Designation. Likewise, we’ve invested $250 million plus to establish the Bioscience Research Institute at Kansas State University and to successfully bring the National Bio Agro Defense Facility, NBAF, to Manhattan. These are both very important successes that have major research implications and potential huge economic benefit for the state.

Where I’m headed is asking the question, as time goes on, with Kansas showing a lack of appreciation for research and decreasing funding to our two major public research institutions: isn’t it likely that we will pay a major price at some point?

For KU, the Cancer Institute Designation that has brought earlier access for Kansans to the latest cancer treatments, will that continue? The NCI Designation was for five years and will have to be renewed. In the current environment, how good will we look for renewal and/or expansion of that valuable designation? I think of the huge effort to attract the scientists, build the infrastructure, and put together a plan to implement that not only got the designation desired but put us on the path to producing real, tangible results. Will that all be for naught?

For NBAF to reach its full potential as a major federal lab, the talent to go into the building will make a big difference. Attracting that talent to a state disrespecting the value of research and cutting resources for education at all levels will not be easy. The same can be said for the Bioscience Research Institute, built with much Federal help, to be a level three lab and smooth the transition of zoonotic research from Plum Island to Kansas. As an economic aside, the potential to attract future private and Federal investment would surely be impacted.

How, in just a few years, could we go from bipartisan, united political leadership at all levels to an environment that questions the value of research in general and has little appreciation for the linkage to economic success for Kansas and its people? Will we continue on this path?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.

As I post this, education continues to dominate the news out of Topeka. The Governor is expected to sign a bill that demolishes the current funding formula for K-12 schools, which will not only lead to significant cuts but also make a mockery of our constitutional commitment to education. However, it looks like the courts may have something to say, so don’t conclude at this point that the issue is over, even for this session.

With that said, for now, I’d like to turn the attention to our institutions of higher education that face similar funding realities. In particular, I will focus on research and our two major public research institutions, the University of Kansas and Kansas State University.

With the recession fading, many states are increasing their support for higher education. So how can it be that the conversation and action out of our State Capitol seem to focus on cutting the budgets of our two major research institutions? Here in Kansas, with no tornado (at the moment) for excuse, we seem to be going backwards and, for some, with glee. Our Kansas Board of Regents recently expressed outrage at the latest Senate budget proposal as noted in a March 11th Lawrence Journal World article.

In the blog posts that will follow, I will lay out the significance of negative attitudes and dollars for university research, discuss the hard-to-believe reversal by leaders of our state following huge bipartisan-supported investments in research, provide some history about how all this took place, and—perhaps most importantly—raise the point that if those Kansans who support these institutions are not speaking up, it’s likely that we’re only seeing the beginning of the harm.

Also in this blog series on higher education: Some Personal Background, Are We Reversing Our Direction on Research?, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.