For some time SMU has pursued the George W. Bush Presidential Library. We assume this quest will not likely change. Nor do we doubt that the best interests of the university are honored in the minds of SMU’s administration.

Indeed, we have great respect for SMU’s present leadership and its many remarkable achievements. In this instance, however, we seek to love the university in a different way by offering an alternative viewpoint and by raising questions we regard as healthy for both SMU and for public conversation.

We are perplexed and concerned on two levels. The first has to do with process, or lack thereof. In conversation with SMU faculty in several schools of the university, we have yet to find any substantial evidence that university-wide conversations regarding the library have been encouraged.

The right of the SMU administration, with trustee approval, to seek the library is not in question. The wisdom of such decision without broad campus discussion forfeits a golden opportunity for students and faculty to experience the give and take learning process so basic to a university’s purpose. This seems to us to be especially pertinent in a university striving to encourage ethical considerations through open dialogue.

In our judgment SMU’s best interests are served when leadership proceeds without assuming that the reasons for seeking the library at SMU are self-evident. Open conversation honors the academy as well as indicating respect for faculty and students.

Our second concern is with both the short and long term implications for SMU becoming the presidential library site. It is often said that a presidential library is not about the policies and practices of a given administration, regardless of the consequences of those actions. Rather the issue is said to be the providing of a permanent historical repository for presidential papers, documents, and artifacts. Presumably such a library becomes a prestigious center for scholars, historians, and interested citizens to participate in programs, study, and enjoyment, to say nothing of enhancing area tourism and thus the economy. It cannot be reasonably denied that a number or presidential libraries serve a positive purpose as stated.

That said, what does it mean ethically to say that regardless of an administration’s record and its consequences, it makes no difference when considering a bid for the library? What does it mean ethically for SMU to say a war violating international law makes no difference? That a pre-emptive war based on false premises, misleading the American public, and destined to cost more American lives in Iraq than the 9-11 terrorist attack makes no difference? That the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis by our “shock and awe” bombing in the name of democracy , verified by international organizations and Iraqi doctors, is of no consequence?

These realities are not about partisan politics. Rather we are concerned with deep ethical issues which transcend politics. Do we want SMU to benefit financially from a legacy of massive violence, destruction, and death brought about by the Bush presidency in dismissal of broad international opinion?

What moral justification supports SMU’s providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights, and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?

Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of insolation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers. What would that mean for academic integrity based on open inquiry?

In addition to our concerns already expressed, new revelations may well come to light that would render SMU’s decision to house the President George W. Bush Presidential Library highly regrettable.

SMU does not need a presidential library to host significant scholars and events on the campus in order to analyze the Bush legacy. In fact, SMU already has the presence of the Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility, which sponsors first-rate conferences on key issues and promotes ethical reflection and discernment on the campus and beyond.

Asset or albatross? The question deserves open debate and dialogue among lovers of SMU. Academic and democratic principles will be well served.

Susanne Johnson, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Christian education of the Perkins School of Theology.