Anniversaries and funding crises prompt periodic calls to reevaluate the mission and public perceptions of the U.S. Land-Grant University system. One such call was issued by the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State Colleges and Land Grant Universities in their 1999 report, “Returning to Our Roots: the Engaged Institution.” Written by leaders of state universities and land-grant colleges, this report urges these institutions to engage more authentically and equitably in two-way relationships with their local constituents. Twenty years later, Land-Grant (...) Universities continue to struggle with building widespread public support for their missions and equitable involvement in research, teaching, and extension functions across diverse constituencies. While largely discounted by the Kellogg Commission, a fresh look at the role originally envisioned for the extension arm of the trifold land-grant mandate suggests that we may be conceiving of this system too narrowly. The establishment of statewide extension systems was once seen as a way to ensure that Land-Grant Universities would be accessible and responsive to all of a state’s residents. Extension systems continue to offer a front-door to a major public university in almost every county of the United States, but they tend to be viewed primarily as a way to translate science or distribute information from the university to the public. This discussion uses a historical and modern lens to reimagine the role that Extension could potentially play in catalyzing reciprocal, co-learning relationships between Land-Grant Universities and their diverse local constituencies. (shrink)