Shame on Janis Bergman, David A. Freidel, Valeria A. Karras, Andrew Weaver, George Crawford, William McElvaney, and all others who have completely ignored the students of SMU and deemed them, by virtue of exclusion, to be irrelevant. My disgusted astonishment is so complete that I hardly know where to begin.
It is impertinent if someone is for or against the Bush Library and Institute; which side of the debate they fall on is immaterial. The sticking point that shocks me to the core is the complete and utter disregard of the true reason for a university’s existence: the students. In their recent article, “Focusing the discussion on the Bush Institute, NOT the Library” (Jan. 19), Bergman, Freidel, and Karras expressed concerns about the independence and ideology, among other things, of the proposed Bush Institute. All well and good; in fact, dialogue on the issue should be encouraged, and I’m the first to applaud their discursive intentions. However, in their three-page, 1069-word article, the authors used the word “students” a mere three times, and each time it was preceded by the word “faculty,” which was used fifteen times. Were I a math or psychology major, I might speculate as to the deeper meaning of using “faculty” five times as often as “students.”
Speaking of intentions, I also heartily support William McElvaney’s statement, “We feel we would be less than responsible if we didn’t find out what people really feel,” and agree wholeheartedly when he states that the discussions that have happened so far are “small and limited.” Yet it seems strange that instead of calling for a truly open discussion involving the student body, not just the faculty, he would decamp to one side of the debate concerned with only a certain facet of the issue.
What concerns me is the obvious implication that the students at SMU fall far below the top of the list of priorities. This impression is not limited to the aforementioned professors; remarks by other members of the faculty, administration and representatives of the student body, certain existing policies, and actions noted for their non-existence reinforce the overall notion that, on the hierarchy of concerns at SMU, the student body’s well-being sits shamefully low.
After the strides towards academic recognition the university has taken in the past twenty years, it would be criminal to situate ourselves as a school that cares less for its student body than its landscaping. This reputation has the potential to harm SMU far more than the presence of an ideologically driven think-tank. If members of our own faculty are more concerned about a politically oriented backlash and its ties to Methodism than the present status and future quality of the students, this surely is an indictment of the “university community” as a whole.
A quick Google News search for “Southern Methodist University” brings up article after article detailing “discord” and “revolt” among faculty and students, comments by University Park officials stating that enough SMU students are disrespectful to property that they will enforce a twenty-year-old ordinance restricting non-relative cohabitation, and news on the tragic death of a student due to drug use amid signs of substance abuse on and off campus. That this is most of the news concerning SMU speaks for itself.
As the Centennial Campaign draws near, this publicity should force all of us- students, faculty and administration- to ask some difficult and painful questions. The alcohol- and drug-laced anti-academic climate of the student body and the disconnected, elitist, and quarreling attitude of the faculty are perceptions that we must confront. I don’t for a minute believe that they are deserved, but they exist nonetheless, and we must confront them or risk endangering everything that we have gained in the past two decades.
For those outside of the religious aspect of the debate, please realize that the opinions expressed by the various members of the Methodist clergy in no way represent the position of the United Methodist Church nor the majority of its members. As a baptized, confirmed, active, and life-long member of the United Methodist Church, I am sickened by the political opportunism masquerading as religious opposition. In all their documents and press releases, the leaders of the religious opposition movement offer no scriptural support; indeed, they offer no religious justifications whatsoever as to why they object to the library and institute at SMU. They merely say that it would be “utterly inappropriate” and that it “will irreparably connect the denomination with this presidency.” Not only are there no religious justifications, there are no justifications whatsoever.
As a brother in Christ to these clergy, I feel compelled to cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If the clergy members believe this, as they should, why do they not cite scripture in support of their argument? Also, as siblings in Christ, it seems contingent upon us of Christian faith to hold accountable fellow believers who stray from the teachings of Christ, as stated again in 2 Timothy: “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction.” We should hold these clergy responsible for their attempted trickery, yet we must remain encouraging and cognizant of the fact that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” including myself.
Let me end by saying that I love SMU so much that I bleed red and blue. I have never regretted nor doubted my decision to come here; I couldn’t see myself anywhere else, and despite being able to graduate in two years I plan to stay for four. SMU is not perfect, though, and we now have a chance to address all those issues that face us as a university. Let’s stand united as students, faculty, staff, administration and community.
About the writer:
John Jose is a first-year accounting, international studies, and economics major. He can be reached at [email protected].
