When a colleague and I co-authorized an op ed piece for the SMU Daily Campus Nov. 10, little did we realize the firestorm it would ignite. Because we both love SMU, and because we then deemed the proposed Bush Presidential Library, Museum and Policy Institute to be inconsistent with SMU’s mission and its grounding in the United Methodist heritage, we expressed our conscience as a matter of record-definitely not because we had any self-inflated notions we could stop the whole thing. But when the lid was removed, steam came boiling out from the pot.
At her address during our general faculty meeting Jan. 17, Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair wondered out loud if our motives were not merely political in nature. Some others have raised that question.
Equally as troubling as having my motives impugned in public is the way the word ‘politics’ is being used. Sadly, recent generations have lost sight of the ancient Greek appreciation for politics as a fine art. At its finest, politics is not tantamount to defending, criticizing or aligning ourselves with one political party or another. It is not the same thing as running for office, or campaigning for candidates of choice. Though politics requires the judicious and collaborative use of power, the core of politics is not power struggles played out in public.
Politics involves the art of dialogue around mutual concern for the common good. Historian Phillip Wolin goes so far as to contend that our basic birthright as human beings is our nature as political beings. By this he means our calling and capacity to participate in caring for the common good, including endeavors to shape institutions that attend to the common good. This is profoundly important, for these institutions in turn shape us.
The art of politics requires that we be persons willing to engage in mutually respectful dialogue and to negotiate and compromise with one another. Greeks believed we grow into the capacity for politics through developing “sophia,” that is, wisdom and sound judgment.
Theologian Bernard Loomer says our self-agency as human beings involves not only the power to influence, but also the capacity to be influenced by “the other.” Tyrants seek only to influence or control the course of events; those with no ethical backbone too easily acquiesce to others. Reasonable, mature people are capable of a high degree of both.
So yes, Dr. Blair. You’re darned right I was motivated by politics-but not in its degraded form.
I believe the time has come for all of us to practice politics in its finer sense. In the same conciliatory spirit in which I helped spearhead a “call to dialogue,” I invite others to join me in a “call to compromise.” After intense struggle of mind and conscience, and in a departure from my earlier stance, I am prepared to compromise on this matter, and urge others to do the same. When politics is elevated to a fine art, compromise is a positive gain forward, not a negative concession backward.
After the opportunity to engage in faculty-wide dialogue and to hear diverse points of view expressed in other settings, I can concede potential merits of housing the Bush Presidential Library and Museum on our campus, and am willing to extend support.
I cannot accede to a partisan policy institute on the SMU campus. Aside from sectarian schools, the task of any reputable university is to teach students how to think, not what to think. By self-definition, a partisan institute runs counter to our mission as a university and our core values of open inquiry, academic freedom, and grounding in the United Methodist heritage.
Were we to take seriously the history of the Hoover Institution under the control of Stanford, we would be reticent to believe that bringing the Bush Institute under SMU governance is an attractive, viable way to accomplish compromise.
There’s no valid reason why these entities should be said to rise or fall together. And moreover, there’s no historical precedent that a third component must be added.
In his letter to the faculty, President Turner presented the library, museum, and institute as a pre-packaged or all-in-one deal. Thereafter, discussions about the library, museum, and institute have been muddled and conflated. Critique aimed at one component gets heard as critique of all. Likewise, praise of one particular component gets extended to the others. This has confused everybody. There may be valid grounds on which to accept one piece of the proposal, but not other pieces.
Research indicates that our campus could accrue the same kinds of important benefits from the museum-and library, of course-as we might gain from an institute: national and worldwide dignitaries; lecture series; visiting scholars; Fellows-in-residence; collaborative programs; joint appointments; educational programs for children and youth; and a host of other high-profile activities.
Until we disentangle consideration of the library and museum from consideration of the partisan policy institute, we will remain unable to bring anything into sharp focus. Let’s change the topic of conversation. Let’s talk “institute” not “library.”
About the writer:
Susanne Johnson, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Perkins School of Theology of SMU. She can be reached at [email protected].
