In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion among SMU faculty members about the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Institute.
We believe that local and national media coverage of this discussion has frequently exaggerated the extent and intensity of faculty opposition to the Library.
In the case of the New York Times, remarks at a closed faculty meeting were quoted without appropriate context (or permission). As a result, important misunderstandings may have arisen about individual or collective faculty views.
As the chairs of two departments that will be vitally engaged in the scholarship to emerge from the Bush Library, we wish to make our views quite clear.
There are three elements to the proposal currently being discussed. First, and most important, is the George W. Bush Presidential Library, which would be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration in accordance with federal statutes, regulations and legal agreements. It is their responsibility to make documentary materials accessible to scholars and journalists fairly, impartially and as quickly as is practicable.
The second is an associated museum that memorializes presidents through public programs and exhibits.
The third is the Bush Institute that would exist independently from the University and report to the Bush Foundation. This Institute would presumably have resident and visiting research fellows to conduct its public policy research programs.
Some faculty voices have been raised in opposition to the Library on the grounds that the Bush administration has pursued policies at home and abroad with which they disagree. Whether one is a supporter or opponent of President Bush, we believe that individual political views should not be linked to the Bush Library.
A university’s purpose is to create and disseminate knowledge. Those institutions that house presidential libraries, such as the University of Texas at Austin, perform a great public purpose by providing access to the papers of a former President. A presidential library on this campus would serve this public purpose and would also provide significant educational benefits for our faculty and students.
Although there are legitimate caveats and concerns about both the library and museum, it would appear that the key issue for most faculty is the Bush Institute. It is important, we think, to acknowledge that the Bush Institute will undoubtedly have a strong ideological orientation. However, the credibility and reputation of the Institute will be determined by the quality of the research and scholarship it promotes.
Moreover, only if the university and faculty concur can there be joint appointments or educational programs between the Institute and SMU. Most important, opposition to the real or imagined character of the Institute should not overshadow the more important issue of obtaining the Library.
We should be honored that SMU will have the opportunity to be a major documentary repository that will over time allow generations of scholars and their audiences to understand better the undeniably crucial years of the Bush presidency.
We hope that our colleagues throughout the university, as well as the scholars who come after us, will be in the forefront of those who provide enduring analysis and interpretation of the times in which we live.
The Bush Library will be of immeasurable help in making this possible.
About the writers:
James K. Hopkins is a professor and Chair of the SMU History Department. He can be reached at [email protected].
Dennis Ippolito is a professor and Chair of the SMU Political Science Department. He can be reached at [email protected].
