I’m tired of the “raging debate” over the Bush Library proposal. Personally, I want the library. I don’t care if SMU has to accept an institution or think tank with it. That’s my choice and that’s my vote.

Now you know my bias, and I hope we can work past that.

The whole argument seems to boil down to two main points: First, we have a problem, and second, it’s time for us to come up with a solution.

As for the first point: There was little argument against the library before SMU began exclusive negotiations. The campus seemed mostly in favor of the Library. Some argue that this is because many faculty and students blindly pursued institutional pride instead of assessing the consequences. This idea, however, undermines the truth of the situation; many faculty members and students were unaware an institution could be attached. Originally, it was proposed by SMU that there be some sort of Bush school attached to the library that would be governed by SMU. But the Bush Administration rejected that idea and in its stead proposed an institute. These facts were not widely known until December when the “uproar” began.

Now on to the second point. The focus of the argument right now is the institution. Many students and faculty who seem opposed to the library are actually opposed to the institution. This makes it seem as if a lot of people don’t want what’s best for SMU. Realistically, they are trying to look out for SMU by keeping a political policy machine from being attached to our good name. Other people just don’t care if we have to deal with this institution because they feel that its long-term negative impacts are being exaggerated. Lastly, other students and faculty are in favor of an institution for a number of reasons, such as bringing a stronger conservative voice to our campus (not my opinion).

So… now what? I tend to avoid writing political opinions because I don’t see how they lead to problem-solving. I understand it’s important to examine both sides, but it’s something I feel other people are usually better at doing. So why did I just look at two important points of this argument?

I’m here to propose a solution of sorts. I know this is radical, but I think this is a hugely important decision and we need to take some sort of drastic step to make it. I’m tired of reading arguments with people talking about democratic organizations making decisions. Why don’t we just put it to a vote? There would be two questions. Do you support the Bush library (exclusively): Yes/No? Would you allow the Bush Institution: Yes/No? I understand that some might not like the wording of the second question, but that’s the best I could think of (being an ignorant, biased conservative).

The way I see it students, faculty and alumni each get an equal voice. If people say they don’t want the library, we respectfully withdraw our bid. If we say yes to the library and no to the institution, we inform the negotiating committee that we will not accept an institution and force the it to make its decision accordingly. If it rescinds the offer, we have made a decision for the best interest of the school. If we say yes to both, hopefully we can all respect the decision and can let this issue go.

I know that logistically this vote could be a nightmare, but I don’t think it has to be that hard. We could just pick a weekend and have an open vote in Dallas Hall. An SMU ID or some other proof of attendace would be required to cast a vote. We vote, we count, and we celebrate a decision. Ok, maybe not celebrate… but at least we can attempt to put it to rest.

About the writer:

Bill Meehan is a Senior Computer Science and Math Double Major. He can be reached at [email protected].