ACTA's Must-Reads
« Meet Stephen Smith | Main | Bias is as bias does »
Not in Hamilton's footsteps
When the Southern Methodist University faculty balked recently at the prospect of SMU becoming the home of President Bush's presidential library, the situation seemed eerily reminiscent of that at Hamilton College, where plans for a new campus center were scuppered last fall.
The Alexander Hamilton Center was a casualty of faculty concerns that it would bring a new viewpoint to campus; intended to be devoted to the study of Western civilization, the center threatened and offended those faculty members who do not welcome intellectual diversity--and the debate it brings-on campus. Likewise, when word got out that SMU was bidding to become the host campus for the George W. Bush presidential library, some SMU faculty protested vociferously, writing op-eds in the student paper and to the university's president, R. Gerald Turner. The piece that appeared in the student paper makes the nature of faculty concerns quite clear: "We are concerned with deep ethical issues which transcend politics," wrote the professorial authors. "Do we want SMU to benefit financially from a legacy of massive violence, destruction, and death brought about by the Bush presidency in dismissal of broad international opinion?" The more recent letter to President Turner is more tempered, but still clear about the political dimension of faculty objections: It describes President Bush as engaging in "environmental predation" and accuses him of "disrespect of international treaties."
Luckily, the ideological objections to the Bush library are not the only comments SMU faculty are making about it. There is a range of views on SMU's campus (only 65 of SMU's 609 full-time faculty members signed the letter to President Turner), and there is, as a consequence, healthy debate.
Hence the reasoned and sensible op-ed in the New York Times by SMU political science professor James Hollifield. Noting that in 1981 Duke turned down the opportunity to house the papers of Richard Nixon, a Duke law school alum, Hollifield rejects the notion that institutional political posturing should trump the chance to develop important scholarly archives:
At Duke more than 20 years ago and at Southern Methodist today, opponents of such libraries have said that by building a presidential library and creating schools or institutes, a university compromises its values and endorses the policies of the president whose papers it accepts. I do not think this is the case. It is legitimate for anyone to criticize the president and his policies, but it is presumptuous for us as scholars to say that we know in advance and with certainty what the legacy of a sitting president will be.Campuses are good places to situate presidential libraries because universities are vital to the American marketplace of ideas, and they are bulwarks of our free society. They can serve as repositories of archives from which we will learn and grow as a nation. But the faculty is a university’s heart and soul, and faculty members are not disconnected from the politics of the moment.
As bad as the situation may seem today, back in 1971, when the University of Texas dedicated a library and school named for Lyndon Johnson, the country was in even greater turmoil. A storm of controversy raged over the Johnson papers. But I think the University of Texas made the right decision to accept the papers and build the library and school.
Southern Methodist University should do the same. Yes, former presidents are interested in polishing their legacies, and universities must be careful to remain nonpartisan and protect freedom of inquiry. But we must also take the long view, and that means building institutions that will serve generations to come, giving historians the chance to do their work.
Duke lost out in 1981. Hamilton shot itself in the foot last fall. SMU has a chance to do things differently--and to set a strong example of institutional wisdom and vision along the way.
Posted by acta online on January 20, 2007 at January 20, 2007 02:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/271
Comments
"Hollifield rejects the notion that institutional political posturing should trump the chance to develop important scholarly archives:"
If the point of SMU were scholarly or educational, this would, of course, be correct. But there's no reason to think that's true. Political posturing, rather, is the point of such outcry, as the public preening in this matter underscores. After all, only scholars, not political activists, would have interest in scholarly archives. The faculty's conduct here makes their values perfectly clear, and marks on which side of the scholarship/activism divide they clearly stand.
Posted by: Federal Dog at January 21, 2007 01:47 PM
"William K. Tell, Jr., a valued member of our National Council, spearheaded the creation of Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance in the 1990s; ACTA has worked with Mr. Tell and other reformers for more than a decade."
He was also embarrassed in a 1998 lawsuit he filed against Dartmouth. The Federal District Court dismissed the case and the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Perhaps tilting at windmills makes one a "reformer"...
Posted by: LBJ at February 12, 2007 11:01 AM