Dear President Turner,

You have just opened a letter from the granddaughter of a Methodist minister, also the niece and cousin of Methodist ministers, whose spiritual upbringing was shaped in part by Finis Crutchfield.

This is a letter strongly opposing any George W. Bush Library or institute at SMU from someone thoroughly appalled at the idea.

I am not an alumna, not a donor. My voice is one of your broader “publics.” I am giving you a reading of one effect of even entertaining the idea of a Bush Library.

I have long held SMU in enough esteem and fondness that when my Academic Olympics-winning nephew considered SMU, I argued for it strongly. I would not do that now. Were you to accept the Bush monument, I would laugh at the idea and oppose his attending at all.

To embrace to any degree – despite PR whitewash about it being academically valuable – the monuments to an administration which has so violated the precepts of Christ, of the common good, and of America’s founding principals is to inherently collude with that administration. Such a possibility abandons the faith of peace and humility inherent in John Wesley’s own prayer of commitment.

In addition, I would wave a red flag here at a time when we seem to have become so inept at considering the ramifications of our actions: Were a Christian-rooted university to embrace these Bush institutions, you would only deepen the growing chasms between faiths internationally.

You would, in effect, underscore in many minds that what the Bush administration has done is “Christian”… now approved of by a major Christian-affiliated university and, by implication, its denomination. You potentially make the situation worse – and worse for an untold amount of time. In the name of Methodism and in the name of Christianity, I say you may not do that.

Listen to biblical wisdom literature that tries to teach us about the impact of everything we do.

When Jesus was in the desert, Satan showed him three great temptations: to be powerful and have prestige, to be wealthy, and to be “effective.” You appear to be tempted by the same thing: by the cachet of having a Presidential Library and the fallacious idea it will only enhance SMU’s reputation, by the contrived idea that it will be an effective academic asset, by the dollars and supposed future dollars it seems would be connected with the Bush deal.

It appears fear is also a factor: the fear of the loss of influence with some donors and monied alumni. You have your model for what your answer needs to be.

If you give in to the temptations, you will have chosen the political version of the fate of Southern and Southeastern Seminaries. You will have failed to do the constant and risky work of academic independence that Wake Forest and Davidson have done and continue to do.

Say with honor, “No, thank you” to the Bush monuments. And say it now.

Sincerely,

Beth Resler Walters