Recently, national attention has come upon SMU over the placement of the George W. Bush Presidential Library. As elected representatives of the student body, we are both appalled by the quality of some of the arguments against SMU housing the library.
First, and the most obvious reason for our support, is that the library will be academically beneficial to the university. As President R. Gerald Turner noted at the Faculty Senate’s Jan. 17 meeting, the Presidential Library brings a “heightened opportunity for discourse and debate.”
The importance of this cannot be understated considering the historical significance of the present administration. The supporters and detractors of its policies will continue debating these issues for decades to come.
By our having the library, SMU will be able to lead the way in interpreting President Bush’s legacy. Presidential libraries are responsible for storing and maintaining historical documents and artifacts.
If SMU has the opportunity to host the library, our academic scholars will get the chance to utilize these resources. The library’s proximity to our campus will lead to our academics having unprecedented access to these files, and as such, SMU will become the national leader in analyzing, debating and publishing on the political and historical ramifications of Bush’s legacy.
The Presidential Library at SMU would simultaneously benefit the Dallas community and the university. The city of Dallas would benefit economically from increased tourism and SMU would benefit from greater national visibility.
As noted above, our faculty would benefit from the resources provided by the library, leading to a heightened academic reputation, which in turn would attract more students with elite academic profiles.
Lastly, we feel that it is incumbent upon us to respond to professors Bergman, Freidel and Karras who raise objections based on the independent status of the library.
We understand that they have two major concerns: first, that because the literature produced by the Bush Institute is independent of academic oversight that low-quality research may be produced and harm SMU’s reputation, and second, that the administration will be coerced into granting tenure to undeserving fellows of the Bush Institute who are producing ideologically slanted works of minimal academic value.
Ultimately, however, the desire of the faculty not to tenure scholars of the Bush Institute will destroy the openness that Bergman, et al. seek to attain.
By having non-tenured faculty members who are subject to departmental oversight, the research produced by the Bush Institute will inevitably be one-sided, as department heads are enabled to dismiss library scholars whose research and publications contradict the ideological or political beliefs of these professors.
Ultimately, we believe that the library will bring more good to this university than harm. We both understand that many of the students, faculty and staff on this campus may disagree with our position.
We also understand that many of our constituents support the library but not the institute. We hope that this op-ed will continue the dialogue and we encourage students, faculty and staff to speak up and let President Turner know exactly what they want at our university.
To us, having the Presidential Library and the Bush Institute is much better than having no library at all.
What do you think?
About the writers:
Taylor Russ is a senior finance major. He can be reached at [email protected]. Ben Hatch is a senior political science major. He can be reached at [email protected].
