Did state regent Rastetter overstep his authority by seeking clarity in Iowa ethanol debate?
Related Stories
Regent Bruce Rastetter is defending his request for University of Iowa President Sally Mason to have a prominent environmental researcher speak with ethanol industry lobbyists upset over a recent speech.
Rastetter said Tuesday that he was trying to encourage a dialogue between industry officials and Jerry Schnoor, director of the university’s Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research.
Schnoor gave a talk last month in Washington warning that ethanol plants were using so much water that they were depleting the groundwater supply. One ethanol industry leader sent an email calling Schnoor an embarrassment to the university.
Rastetter forwarded that email to Mason and asked her to allow the industry to give Schnoor “factual information so this professor isn’t uninformed.”
The issue was cited Wednesday by supporters of a bill to expand openness and accountability on the Board of Regents, while removing politics from the board’s activities. Nearly two dozen Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) members spoke in support of the Senate bill at a hearing Wednesday.
During the hearing, CCI member Deborah Bunka of Ames accused regent members of abusing their power and promoting their political agendas while attempting to quash academic freedom in the process. Bunka pointed to the Rastetter email as an example of the “arrogance” she said he exudes.
“He had no shame in sending that email,” Bunka said. “It tells us that he feels he is above any ethics guidelines, that he’s untouchable because of how he was appointed.”
What do you think? Did Rastetter overstep his role by trying to foster more dialogue between the ethanol industry and the UI professor?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Agriculture and associated business is ripe with examples of academic misspeak. We have the vegan Harvard prof. who declared that eating meat would shorten one’s life and it turned out that his meat eating research group was stacked with smokers, obesity, etc. Then there’s the Cornell environmentalist who proclaims that ethanol is energy inefficient but “forgets” to include the nutrient rich by-product distillers grain as a substitute for grain produced for livestock. Closer to home, we have the U of I hydrologist who writes to the Gazette that he doesn’t believe drainage tile reduces peak flood flow which contradicts Iowa State and the U of North Carolina’s extensive research.
Maybe we could make a more informed decision on this question if we knew the details of the ethanol industry’s corrections! Do we want the University of Iowa going national with misinformation?! Somewhere, the ethanol industry will make their corrections public and it may not paint a pretty picture for the U of I.
“During the hearing, CCI member Deborah Bunka of Ames accused regent members of abusing their power and promoting their political agendas while attempting to quash academic freedom in the process. Bunka pointed to the Rastetter email as an example of the “arrogance” she said he exudes.”
Much like the chant of ‘civility’ has nothing to do with civility and everything to do with shutting off debate, “academic freedom” means, no one can question orthodoxy from professors. Asking a proffessor to address those that question his assertions and conclusions, in no way limits academic rigour. A man of intellectual means like Professor Schnoor will make quick work of anyone that would question his conclusions…….if they can be supported by facts. But there is the rub. providing facts that can be verified……or not.
As Curt has pointed out, Academicians dont have the best records in the area of enviromental alarmism. You can go back as far as blaming DDT for the demise of the Bald Eagle, or a little book called the ‘Population Bomb’ that was accepted orthodoxy on college campi for decades. Science actual demands that these conclusions be questioned, not accepted without consideration.
So, Regent Rastetter is seeking to have the ethanol industry give Mr. Schnoor …“factual information so this professor isn’t uninformed.” The Professor is uninformed? Yeah, and I’m sure the ethanol industry is only interesed in ‘facts’ and not angry over examples of their wastrel ways being shown. Nowhere does the industry alledge that Prof. Schnoor’s claims are false just that he is an embarrassment to the university. Why… because they don’t like scientific findings, or find them convenient?
Come on people___ Rastetter is manipulating academic functions to massage big business, and the Gazette is aiding the process by obfuscating the germane point, ie. are Schnoor’s claims academicaly valid? Rastetter is seeking to ‘foster dialogue’?? No, he’s seeking to impune academic research… period.
Leave it to the locals herein to attack the academic and defend the poor little captains of industry. (We’re not using water, waaahhh!)
IN-convenient. My bad.
“Allow the industry . . . to give “factual information . . . “” That’s fine. If the ethanol industry can supply peer-reviewed scientific studies ( preferably not financed by the ethanol industry ) that will further inform the professor, great. But all too often, history shows, a threatened industry will supply misinformation claiming “facts”, and in addition, attack and try to discredit and “smear” critics. The “embarrassment to the university” email from a “industry leader” appears to be an example of that.
No he did not over step his bounds. Why is encourage a dialogue to clarifying information or uncover misinformation wrong?
“During the hearing, CCI member Deborah Bunka of Ames accused regent members of abusing their power and promoting their political agendas while attempting to quash academic freedom in the process.”
The only thing I can glean from this story is that a regent requested that a professor listen to a different point of view. An open minded professor should not have a problem with listening to and evaluating different viewpoints. I’ve always thought that presenting the best opposing viewpoints was the definition of a liberal education. Are we to assume that professors have no political agenda, or that when an academician injects a political viewpoint it’s okay, especially if he has tenure, but anybody with a different viewpoint is forbidden from making a suggestion? Why should academicians be so thin-skinned, especially those on the public payroll.