Open debate and dialogue are good things in all contexts. The recently published opinion “The George W. Bush Presidential Library: asset or albatross?” by Professors Bill McElvaney and Susanne Johnson, which recommend public conversation over the George W. Bush Presidential Library opens the door not only to the SMU Dallas community but also to the SMU alumni community. When I graduated from SMU in 1988 with a degree in history, I never would have imagined that I would be sued by my alma mater, especially over property for a presidential library. Because of my involvement in this lawsuit and my training in mediation, my interest has been especially piqued with regards to SMU hosting the presidential library. I am glad for the suggestion of a public conversation among lovers of SMU, for I consider myself one. Now that I am dismissed from the case thanks to legal work by SMU’s counsel, I feel free to offer thoughts and questions regarding dialogue, the lawsuit, conflict in general, and a reverie which was born out of musings over possibilities. Conducting university-wide open discussions within the SMU community is healthy for academia on any important subject matter. Open dialogue and tough questions promote and foster understanding. SMU – which exists to educate – teaches by example the importance of debate and dialogue by allowing such a forum. If communication is discouraged or opposing viewpoints are silenced, everyone loses in the end. Since SMU’s academic culture promotes open dialogue and educates in conflict mediation, I have often wondered why the university is not employing these tools as it seeks to resolve a lawsuit.I was disappointed to find little evidence of ongoing efforts at out-of-court settlement. Instead of working hard at talking to resolve the matter, SMU attorneys and staff members put their energies into fighting hard to win. I understand the need for lawyers and trial attorneys. But, in this situation, despite the options of traditional around-the-table mediation or other mediation formats, I encountered trial attorneys, both of whom are SMU-trained and very friendly, who nonetheless stubbornly determined to dare not blink and talk settlement unless court-ordered to do so. Only after a year of litigation was there a first attempt at table mediation this past August. “Shuttle diplomacy” – offers and counter-offers via a trained mediator – could have been ongoing from the start but has yet to be utilized. Trial lawyers may think mediation is only to be used if their case is weak, but I find that notion to be antiquated and especially disappointing when associated with an institution of higher learning.Surely, both sides realize that unless they come to an out-of-court settlement and soon, they both have a lot to lose. Is this an oversight? A gender thing? Or is it that trial attorneys and mediators are just oil and water? When less expensive and logical means to resolve a legal dispute exist, why not fully utilize them instead of spending enormous sums of money and over a year’s time litigating and fighting? And, for this reason, why not employ a permanent staff member in legal affairs with expertise in mediation?Has SMU’s strategy to resolve the matter primarily through the courts not itself risked the loss of opportunity to host the presidential library? SMU counsel recently mentioned in court to Judge Harlin D. Hale that if this phase of the litigation is not resolved in a timely manner, it could affect SMU’s chance to host the presidential library. Instead of fighting three to four more years in court over all the other lawsuit matters, the parties could begin to work toward a solution via shuttle diplomacy. If the parties still couldn’t settle, they could utilize a panel of arbitrators. Only if all attempts at diplomacy and mediation are exhausted should the parties go to court as the logical means of last resort. Also, SMU may have contributed to this quagmire by neglecting to disclose to the owners of the University Gardens condominiums that the property was being considered for the site of a presidential library. If the information was irrelevant, what precluded its disclosure to condominium owners as a possibility at the time of purchase? With the time frame for site determination looming, this possible use for the property was only revealed in court. I believe tough questions about all issues pertaining to the presidential library are fair. From an insider-now-outsider’s point of view, I believe both sides are manipulating to get the best deal they can. Maybe instead of fighting and pointing fingers, they can finally compromise on a price and just move on. I think it is in everyone’s best interest to do so, and soon, because a decision is forthcoming. Personally, the ordeal has been a nightmare, and dismissal from the case, a huge relief. Unfortunately, intransigence and lack of cooperation seem to permeate our political culture in general. Finally, after recent election day results, Republicans and Democrats are pledging to work together to solve the problems of the American people. According to Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven, “Both have much to lose if they do not find agreement somewhere.” I find this to be true in any area of life.I don’t know exactly what persuades people to willingly communicate so as to resolve issues in a timely way, but the professors’ suggestion of a public dialogue at SMU seems to me a logical and natural thing to do rather than a permission to be sought. The professors’ suggestion and my personal sense of disbelief and disappointment resulted in a reverie of “what ifs?” We live in a country where others have dreamed bigger dreams and where freedom and democracy put no ceiling on what can be achieved. Instead of just complaining or being angry, what could be wrong with looking at the downsides of stalemates and stand offs and thinking in creative ways so that they become a thing of the past? Mediators might call this brainstorming, and others may think me a dreamer, but I think pragmatic solution-seeking is a worthy pursuit. Take for instance the presidential library. Is it possible for one to serve a purpose beyond the traditional ones of hosting noteworthy scholars, holding a historical repository of presidential papers, enhancing tourism and the local economy – and additionally accommodate face-to-face, multi-party, open discussions with a goal of working hard towards solutions and agreement writing on the variety of public policy issues that impact Americans? Perhaps it is time to create such a facility, if not on presidential grounds, somewhere that welcomes the melting pot of Americans for an afternoon of good old-fashioned debate and productive discussions with a goal of drafting solutions that work. A center for solutions, with some hot coffee brewing.A safe place for debate and discussion of important public-policy issues: environmental issues, global warming, immigration, gay rights, alternative energy, health-care issues, mental-health issues or a favorite among mediators – constructive communication for effective conflict resolution. A lofty idea, I am aware. Seems like a better way to spend millions of dollars to me. In light of the recent election results, war and conflict, and the need for cooperation to enact effective resolutions, I think the season is ripe for Americans to consider alternative and pragmatic approaches to solving problems. If not on the grounds of a presidential library property, at least somewhere.I wonder from time to time what post-presidential legacy President Bush might leave when I see Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr. on the news working together to help those suffering from natural disasters. Personally, I do hope that SMU is selected to host the presidential library because it is a rare opportunity for our alma mater, and because I believe President Bush is sincere in his desire to find bipartisan solutions that work. President Bush and House Speaker to-be Nancy Pelosi have mutually pledged partnership; because of that I remain hopeful. Conflict and loss can result in good chang
es if we self-assess and move forward to explore alternatives.In Little Rock, Ark. we have greatly benefited from the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in all the academically and economically expected ways. I do not know that it is a forgone conclusion that SMU will obtain the presidential library, and I believe the questions Professors McElvaney and Johnson ask are worth public discussion. As for open discussion, questioning and suggestions, they are foundational to higher learning and democracy. SMU is strong because of its promotion of ethical reflection and discernment. In SMU history classes, my professors taught students to learn from the past so as to gain wisdom for the future. I remain hopeful that alternative dispute resolution is making headway in our court system. And, wherever this presidential library is located, I affectionately wish SMU all the best. Thank you Professors McElvaney and Johnson for encouraging lovers of SMU to speak.

About the writer:Shannon C. Jacuzzi is a 1988 SMU B.A. History/French minor. Graduate Certificate in Conflict Mediation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Mediator.