The intricate dynamics within LaFarm, reflective of broader challenges within higher education, highlight the need to address individual well-being and the systemic structures that shape these experiences. As we continue to explore alternative efficiencies, it is crucial to examine the political context within which LaFarm operates, considering the diverse roles and perspectives of key stakeholders.
The most involved member of LaFarm is the Head Farmer, who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the farm, educational integration, community outreach (such as food donation), and the hosting of events and volunteers at LaFarm. Through our research and discussions with the Head Farmer and other stakeholders, we’ve identified issues regarding workload balance on the farm, and communication gaps prevalent between LaFarm and those on campus. From 2018-2021, LaFarm had seen significant growth in its produce yield, going from 6361 lbs to 17312 lbs of produce. In the alternative efficiency scope, we have found similar issues still present at LaFarm, with our sources mentioning the high level of production as a strain that has reduced time allocation to other non-production-based initiatives at LaFarm, such as the newsletter and annual report that have not been updated since the last farmer’s departure. This situation is not one our group can directly address, as the most feasible solution is to hire another farmer, which has been recently denied by the college.
The transitory process between head farmers has highlighted the need for a more sustainable network and platform of communication. During the transition between farmers in 2017/18, the old LaFarm site was abandoned, leaving years of information, interactions, and events to the void of the internet. The latest farmer transition in 2021/22 resulted in a loss of networks developed over the tenure of the former farmer. Through our interviews, it was revealed that the current Head Farmer did not inherit the network of curricular integration that was previously developed, which had led to some communication issues between LaFarm and the other stakeholders on campus. Due to the noncontinuous network, there are worries that there could be a perception of lower engagement, as the new networks developed may not be as well understood or integrated into the legacy systems as well ones previously created. This network disruption also reduces the capabilities of continuous development for ongoing initiatives on LaFarm as those efforts do not have a centralized hub of communication.
The Office of Sustainability, established in 2016, helps guide sustainable development, initiatives, and policy at Lafayette. LaFarm falls under the domain of the Office and reports directly to them, but we separate them as stakeholders due to the independent nature of the head farmer position alongside the non-unilateral opinions held by the two parties. Through our interviews with those in the Office of Sustainability, we found a desire to increase the quality of their respective multipurpose missions: production, education/campus integration, and community outreach, but frustration surrounding the lack of funding from the school to accomplish these initiatives. While production isn’t necessarily in the scope of what we are trying to accomplish, the Office will need to gain funding in order to hire additional staff, an outcome our solutions can potentially assist in. This is especially important, as they view any reduction in produce yield as a failure of improvement for LaFarm. Part of the mission of LaFarm is to show students how to engage in economically feasible, but sustainable farming practices. The Office is worried about a cut-back in production potentially demonstrating ineffectiveness in their sustainable growing practices. This possible perception of failure is cited as a reason for not reducing production goals to ease farmer workload. If they would like to continue growth sustainably, more internal support is needed for LaFarm, to help push for additional funding that could be used to hire additional staff.
The Office also conveyed that they would like to see more integration between LaFarm and those on campus. Under the former Head Farmer, there seemed to be more engagement directly on campus than present day. While we don’t have the data to support the claim, this is the perception of the situation which is arguably just as important, as this is a system based around the development of relationships with LaFarm. Seeing as the new Head Farmer did not inherit the developed connections between LaFarm and the campus community, this worry about lower engagement further highlights the need for a more continuous hub of integration for LaFarm’s network of interactions and involvement. If there are future changes in the Head Farmer position or other structural changes in how LaFarm is managed, having this central communication can help allow for a smooth handoff of activity and prevent permanent disruptions in the relationships that have spent years forming.
There are hopes of having more events at LaFarm, such as a visit during one of the major campus tour days which would be a huge boost in visibility for LaFarm and be an important factor in early exposure for new students at Lafayette. Many current students haven’t visited LaFarm, as demonstrated by a poll taken during our final presentation, where well over half of the ~30ish attendees admitted to never visiting. We did not conduct official surveys as to why people haven’t visited LaFarm, but our discussions with students identify a general lack of knowledge surrounding LaFarm as a major factor for non-visitation. Students know LaFarm exists, but that is often the extent of conveyable information they can provide. As an example, LaFarm’s site does not have an events page for those interested in learning more about what they do or involving themselves. These sorts of communication breakdowns are prevalent within the apparatus of LaFarm. The Office needs to generate excitement and interest around LaFarm if it would like to see more integration within the campus or to promote its efforts as a reason to attend Lafayette. They can not hope to do this if information is inaccessible or fragmented between the various college-site domains.
The same rationale regarding the issues of fragmentation and non-continuity can be applied to community engagement as well. If students have trouble learning about LaFarm, we cannot reasonably expect community members to fare any better at navigating the information barriers present. Community integrated initiatives such as LaFarm’s farmstand, a pay-as-you-can produce stand, recently moved to increase access to community members as demonstrated by a statement from the Head Farmer, Josh Parr: “The farmstand has moved over the years, and we’re hoping this new spot will be a convenient location for College Hill neighbors as well as faculty, staff, and students,”. The updated location for the farmstand is not present on LaFarm’s website and is only accessible if a person already knows what the farmstand is. People can not look up what they don’t know exists and small changes of integration can combat these gaps in communication to better accomplish the goals of the Office of Sustainability.
The LaFAB (LaFarm Advisory Board) is the last major stakeholder we were able to conduct interviews with. The Board consists of professors and faculty at Lafayette, and they engage in quarterly meetings with the Office of Sustainability and the Head Farmer. In those meetings, they help facilitate discussions regarding the direction of LaFarm as well as mediate/advocate for issues presented by LaFarm. In previous meetings, they have discussed hiring additional farmers, integrating a semester-long lab at LaFarm, infrastructure investments, production levels, and other educational and community-focused initiatives. The LaFAB also engages in efforts outside of these quarterly meetings to further the objectives of LaFarm through less formal discussions and advocacy efforts. Historically, Lafayette professors integrate their education in some manner with LaFarm, either through trips during the semester or projects and initiatives revolving around LaFarm. For example, according to an article, written by Shiloh Harrill, from The Lafayette newspaper: “With Professor Benjamin R. Cohen of the Engineering Studies department, LaFFCo members formed the Lafayette Food and Farm Studies Salon (FFSS) as a way to remain active while learning from home. This initiative was open to students involved with LaFarm and local community members. Every week, members would read a piece or watch a film related to food and agricultural justice”. Benjamin Cohen is a longtime member of LaFAB and one of the most involved participants in the college’s sustainability efforts. Through our interviews with him and other members of LaFAB, our team was able to further identify issues regarding the integration of initiatives such as the Lafayette Food and Farm Studies Salon, the continual problem of worker sustainability, as well as the struggle to promote and gain traction for LaFarm.
The underutilization of LaFarm’s resources became apparent to our group when we were shown the old LaFarm website; the years of information not being brought over to the current site raised concerns. Similarly, the information from the Lafayette Food and Farm Studies Salon has not been integrated into the farm’s website and is relegated to a Google document that is at risk of being deleted, due to the owner losing access to their Lafayette student accounts.
Members of LaFAB also confirmed their awareness of the issues of maintaining a sustainable work-life balance for the head farmer position throughout the years, citing the importance of a farm-based around sustainable farming to promote worker sustainability as well. A commonly shared desire for another worker was put forth as the best next step to address those concerns, alongside expanding the missions of LaFarm. Again, there was frustration due to the lack of financial support from the school, which is much needed if the school would like to see growth within this system. LaFAB members helped our team identify weaknesses in the promotability of LaFarm and the lack of internal support needed to help push for more funding. For instance, Lafayette sends out surveys gauging student interests that they then use to formulate mission statements and allocate funding based on. Few students fill out these surveys, and even fewer support LaFarm. A more holistic, promotable, and engageable site could help create a network of students more involved with LaFarm who are willing to advocate their support through these various feedback systems employed at Lafayette, in turn increasing the likelihood of the college allocating funding towards LaFarm.
Navigating the intricacies of LaFarm’s political context, it becomes evident that the pursuit of alternative efficiencies extends beyond the farm’s boundaries to encompass the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders involved.