Where is the online traffic? I believe there were around 50 blog replies to the recent smudailycampus.com’s announcement that SMU won the preliminary bid phase for the George W. Bush Presidential Library. It was the largest amount of hits I have seen in my online reading history (less than a year).
I don’t think it is the faculty’s fault that they didn’t seek open discussions before now. But since the library now appears imminent (a reality rather than a possibility), it seems the faculty are taking time to see if others want to participate in dialogue.
I wrote a response to the two professors’ original opinion column on Nov. 10.
In it, I talk about the logic of talking-in all contexts:
1. In regards to the Library, “Open dialogue and tough questions promote and foster understanding”… I am not quite sure why faculty or others feel they must seek permission for dialogue. SMU’s mission states that, “The University is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry….” Hopefully no faculty members fear losing their job if they have a disagreement with the Board of Trustees or SMU’s administration. Not at SMU or in America. Aren’t Americans fighting in Iraq for freedom and democracy? Surely, the lack of debate is about waiting until students return and there is time to see if the two professors are the only ones who feel this idea is a good one. I thought it was a great idea! See my opinion! I give my alma mater credit for instilling the importance of questioning in me. It was my understanding that SMU was not about being “behind closed doors,” that it has made great strides since the cover-ups of that era.
2. The still-ongoing lawsuit over the property. I personally encouraged both sides to use shuttle diplomacy to resolve this. I am disappointed in SMU for not utilizing its own law school conflict resolution faculty members to advise the settlement of this legal dispute. I read that SMU’s Vice President of Development and External Affairs Brad Cheves is abreast of the latest. Has SMU sought counsel with regards to mediating this out of court?
3. Iraq War-Better too little too late than more of the same! I was thrilled when the president came on television before the American people, admitted mistakes, took responsibility. Plus, hebrought not only Democrats to the table, but women, research data AND the Iraqi people who have to live in their homeland when the troops come home.
Whatever the steps are toward talk solutions and toward resolution of disputes and toward melting-pot democracy think tank in action, I applaud those who are trying, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. America is better for its diversity.
Finally, my immediate thought with think tank is, “Where do you sign up?” It never even occurred to me that it was a Republican-only, right-wing think tank. Governor Bush passed legislation successfully during a time when the Democrats dominated the Texas Legislature.
I am glad many are hesitating to assume what President Bush means-no matter what people leak to the press.
He is quoted as saying the best thing he ever did was to marry Laura Bush and, by extension, the SMU family. This SMU family is very thoughtful and circumspect with its strong viewpoints and is respectful of differing perspectives.
President Bush said he would be a “uniter not a divider.” As governor he succeeded at that. Whatever the lawsuit over the property for the library, I want to say this: I don’t believe for a minute that either President Bush or Laura Bush would be a party to any civil wrong with regards to its purchase by SMU. They have too many irons in the fire. And have left the universities to tend to the issues required for consideration-i.e.: available land, parking, drawing up of architectural plans.
I don’t believe any university that wanted an honest shot at winning the bid would have developed those plans and considered all the details required to “win” a competition to host a Presidential Library. SMU noted that it had hired experts six years ago.
What has been difficult to understand is why information of SMU’s diligent efforts to pursue and win the library was so secretive.
Baylor hosted open forums and discussions. I don’t believe it was ever the faculty’s fault, or its responsibility in the first place, to host and have open discussions over a library that the administration was not even talking openly to the faculty, students and press about.
Cheves was constantly playing it down-saying the land could be used for soccer fields, intramural fields or dorms.
I don’t know if the faculty or students took it very seriously because the staff whispered the hope and played down its possibility.
Personally, I want SMU to host the library so that those who will be affected might have opportunity to publicly participate instead of whispering or fearing to speak out.
I hope for a collaborative think tank to develop from these open discussions. I hope that it is not only inclusive but that it is not elitist, consisting only of the wealthy and highly educated-I hope it includes current students and alumni members and SMU fans.
SMU is not elitist or exclusive. Discretion is appropriate in some contexts, talk-solutions are most always appropriate, but in certain contexts such as this highly important and historical event, stifling of open discussion is something that I find not only to be good, but I would find it troubling if it didn’t happen.
About the writer:
Shannon Jacuzzi is an SMU alum. She can be reached at [email protected]
