Several of my colleagues in the history department at SMU have publicly expressed their passionate opposition to the presence of a presidential library, museum, or institute on our campus. Lest it appear that they represent the views of all historians in the our department, I would like to say for the record that some of us think this enterprise will be a significant asset for SMU. It will help move our very good regional university closer to national prominence and it will contribute to the intellectual ferment that makes universities great.
My colleagues object less to the library and museum than to the Bush Institute. They suggest that an institute will compromise academic freedom by becoming a propaganda mill for conservative views. If the institute does advocate conservative causes, I say that’s just fine. My understanding of academic freedom suggests that conservative views, even if they take the form of propaganda, should compete in the marketplace of ideas where they will rise or fall on their merits.
The same is true of liberal ideas, but I doubt that my colleagues would object so vociferously to a Clinton or Kerry Institute. Polls of academic departments across the nation have revealed that a large majority of professors in the humanities and social scientists are on the liberal side of the political spectrum. That is certainly the case at SMU, and it suggests that our scholarly community should therefore welcome rather than rebuff dialogue with the conservative side. If our faculty creates a hostile environment for a Bush Institute, we only fulfill the stereotype, fostered by the political right, that professors are intolerant “tenured radicals.” If we reject the Bush Institute, we also lose an opportunity to put SMU at the center of the long scholarly journey toward understanding conservative Americans who did, after all, put George W. Bush in the White House twice in these troublous times.
Some of my colleagues who oppose the institute seem to support the library and museum. President Bush’s representatives, however, see the project as a single package. If we want the library and the museum, we need to accept the institute. I, for one, will do so enthusiastically.
This is a crossroads for the university. Historians can’t predict the future, but they do have a good sense of direction based on past trends. If the SMU faculty fails to make President Bush’s project welcome, I suspect that the next generation will criticize us for losing a splendid opportunity and for our intolerance toward perspectives with which we disagree. We will be seen as captives of the moment instead of custodians of an intellectual legacy of importance to all of our futures.
About the writer:
David J. Weber is a Dedman Professor of History & Director, Clements Center for Southwest Studies. He can be reached at [email protected].
