On Feb. 1, Dr. Valerie Karras responded to my article (The Daily Campus, Feb. 6).
In her reply, her argument was so compelling that I made a major. I quit acting as a self-assigned neutral party and joined her in her effort to block SMU’s involvement with the Bush Institute in any form.
I also withdrew my suggestion that an effort be made to have the Bush Institute hosted at the University of Dallas. It would be hypocritical to oppose it at SMU for the reasons she gave and then urge it on another university.
It is not possible to do justice to the argument put forth by Dr. Karras without quoting her entire article, but, with her permission and encouragement, I will quote the following portions.
“—- the true fundamental issue is whether it is possible for the university to compromise on the principles of academic freedom, academic process, and academic standards of research and publishing. These are not matters for compromise – the university will inevitably damage its academic reputation if it allows on its campus an institute which does not adhere to these principles. Adding what is essentially another institute with a different purpose and focus – even one diametrically opposed to the Bush Institute’s – may indeed serve the admirable aim of encouraging further dialogue and debate on the issues of concern to the two institutes (which may in any case be furthered by other means, such as lecture and debate programs), but it does not resolve this problem.”
“Actually, your solution exacerbates the true problem, which is not one of bias toward a so-called “conservative” political or ideological orientation: the problem is allowing on campus an institute having an ideological orientation of any kind. This is why your proposal to create a second institute with a (presumably) opposite orientation exacerbates the problem rather than resolving it.”
“SMU will lose its academic integrity and credibility if it allows on its campus an institute whose hiring practices include an ideological litmus test and whose fellows (perhaps even with institute funding) publish materials which do not meet the research standards of academic peer review.”
I believe she is correct in pleading that the issue is that of maintaining the academic integrity of SMU. The beauty and power in her argument is that it does not depend on one’s politics nor denominational affiliation.
It not only applies to SMU, it applies to all universities for all times. That being so, all other appeals only dilute the case against the Bush Institute becoming affiliated with SMU. It would be more effective to launch a major informational campaign to alert all universities of the dangers described by Dr. Karras. Once that succeeds, the three-part package of library/museum/institute would crumble. Once all universities have rejected the Bush Institute for the sake of maintaining their own integrity, it would have to find itself a home away from all of them. With that problem eliminated, the library and museum might well find its home at SMU.
I greatly appreciate the respectful manner in which Dr. Karras dealt with my proposal and wholeheartedly join in her efforts to preserve the integrity of this great institution.
-Charlie Hogge
