A move is afoot at SMU to have an open campus dialogue over two conflicting visions for the Bush Presidential Library. A faculty member has posted an e-mail asking faculty and staff to sign a “Call to Dialogue” letter to be sent to SMU President Gerald Turner and members of the board of trustees. The conflict is over whether the library will be a neutral space for non-partisan academic inquiry or whether it will be a partisan space, designed as a conservative think tank for scholars to write papers and books favorable to the President.

TO: R. Gerald Turner, President Board of Trustees, Southern Methodist University

FROM: Faculty, Administrators, & Staff [undersigned] of Perkins School of Theology

DATE: December 16, 2006

We, the undersigned faculty and staff members, want to express our gratitude for your loyal service to the University as a Trustee. We’re writing because, like you, we dearly love SMU, and want nothing less than its continued flourishing.

In our understanding, the Board of Trustees stands fully in favor of SMU’s bid to house the George W. Bush Presidential Library. At the same time, we know that not everyone else, either on campus or beyond, is in one accord regarding this issue.

There is some confusion surrounding the role the Library will play in the school’s overall curricular program. It appears that no uniform view exists. Instead, there seems to be two distinct visions.

In the first vision, the Library will be a neutral space. Using archived artifacts and documents from President Bush’s administration, scholars will do non-partisan, academic inquiry into his presidency. They will attempt objective, balanced assessment of the President’s thought, legacy, and import for the future of our country.

In the second vision, the Library will be a partisan space. Going by various terms, such as conservative think tank, institute, or policy center, the Library will hire conservative scholars to pursue a partisan agenda in favor of the President’s policies and programs.

SMU decision-makers seem uniformly to hold the first vision. That is, the position that whether or not one supports the policies of the President, or whether or not one believes some of his actions to be unethical, issues addressed during his presidency bear enough import for the future of our country that they validate and merit our decision to host the Library -- which will afford scholars opportunity to study the issues objectively. If the George W. Bush Presidential Library is to be situated on our campus, then this is the approach we would champion.

We wonder, however, if this model of the Presidential Library will be able to come about. We say this because, on several occasions, President Bush has spoken of his personal dream for a conservative think-tank, modeled in large measure on the Hoover Institution, a Stanford University affiliated policy center. According to an article recently published in the New York Daily News, close associates of the President envision this model as well. They are quoted as saying that the think-tank will “spread the gospel of a presidency that now gets poor marks” by hiring conservative scholars “to write papers and books favorable to the President’s policies.”

Many Americans today question actions and attitudes expressed by President Bush during his term in office. Among these: erosion of habeas corpus, denial of global warming, alienation of long-time U.S. allies, environmental predation, disrespect for rights of gay persons, a pre-emptive war based on false premises, and other forms of disrespect for the created order and global community.

These issues beg for the kind of space, presently envisioned by the school, where historians and scholars can fairly assess the years of George Bush’s presidency and its impacts on the world. It seems to us that before SMU proceeds forward, the tension between the two apparently contradictory visions for the Library needs to be explored, clarified, and resolved.

Baylor University held a series of open, public forums to discuss their pursuit of the Library and reasons for it. We recommend something along these lines as a way forward.

We encourage further dialogue among faculty, staff, students, SMU alumni, and others committed to the University. Democratic and academic principles alike will be well-served, regardless of the outcome of such dialogue.