One of the benefits of locating a presidential library at a university is that historic materials for research and dialogue would seem to be at home in an academic setting. As presidential historian Michael Beschloss remarked on a PBS news show recently, presidential libraries associated with universities possess “a certain vitality.”
That is already proving to be true at SMU. On December 21 the George W. Bush Library Site Selection Committee announced that it was focusing on SMU as the potential site for the Bush Library, Museum and Institute. “I’m not here to tell you we have been finally selected,” said SMU President R. Gerald Turner at a news conference that day, “but this is as good of an announcement as we could have at this time.”
President Turner speaks to the media at a news conference in December.
Since fall 2006 dialogue on the project has indeed reflected the scrutiny and vitality of debate characteristic of the academic enterprise.
Shortly after the inauguration of President George W. Bush in 2001, eight Texas institutions began competing for the library project. In 2005 the Library Site Selection Committee asked each competitor to submit plans for the three components to be included in the project: a presidential library containing documents and artifacts related to the Bush administration, a museum with permanent and traveling exhibits, and an independent Bush Institute. Focusing on topics of interest to President Bush, the institute would host officials, scholars and others as fellows for research and symposia. The institute would be operated independently of SMU by the Bush Foundation, although appropriate interactions between the University and the institute would be determined.
In 2006 the field of competitors narrowed to SMU, the University of Dallas and Baylor University. Citing the need to release land for other purposes, the University of Dallas withdrew from the competition in late December. Baylor University has remained as a competitor, even as Selection Committee members and SMU officials have been involved in discussions. As of press time in mid-April, that process was ongoing.
“It would be a great honor for SMU to be chosen as the site of what will become a tremendous resource for historical research, programs and dialogue involving students and faculty, members of the public and visiting scholars and officials,” Turner said. “At SMU these resources would be associated with a university that has a tradition of debating important issues and bringing world leaders to campus. Over time, presidential libraries transcend politics and become increasingly valuable resources for inquiry, debate and education.”
Campus dialogue took on renewed vigor in the weeks following the Selection Committee’s announcement. President Turner spoke about the library project and answered questions at the opening-semester faculty meeting in January, participated in a special Faculty Senate forum and circulated answers to more than 30 questions resulting from that session.
Some faculty raising issues about the library project said they wanted to ensure that President Turner gained their input as he began discussions with the Library Selection Committee. Some critics opposed various aspects of the library complex, such as the independent Bush Institute. As skeptics and critics wrote commentaries for the electronic and print media, sponsored blogs, circulated petitions and offered their views to reporters, others used similar venues to express support.
The Bush Institute has been the major focus of debate, reflecting concern among critics that it would link SMU inappropriately with partisan politics and stifle academic freedom. Some faculty concerned about the institute have supported its proposed independence from SMU as a safeguarding separation, while others with concerns have urged that the institute be incorporated into the University to uphold academic principles and practices.
“I will say as emphatically and forcefully as I can that any agreement reached between the Selection Committee and SMU will be consistent with SMU’s mission, values and tradition of academic freedom,” President Turner said at the January meeting with faculty.
“It would be a great honor for SMU to be chosen as the site … Over time, presidential libraries transcend politics and become increasingly valuable resources for inquiry, debate and education.”
SMU PRESIDENT R. GERALD TURNER
For example, SMU’s Academic Planning Committee for the library complex, composed of 15 faculty members, recommended guidelines for concurrent appointments of fellows to the institute and the University. The Board of Trustees adopted the guidelines, which stipulate that concurrent appointments can occur only with the approval of the appropriate SMU academic department or school, using accepted standards and procedures.
Other important topics were addressed in resolutions passed by the Faculty Senate as the official group to convey issues to President Turner. Noting the presidential library’s “valuable opportunities related to research and service,” one resolution listed issues such as institute governance and the relationship between SMU and Bush Library fund raising. Another advocated increased access to presidential records. After presenting the resolutions to the SMU Board of Trustees, President Turner and the Board agreed to share the issues identified with the Library Selection Committee.
In its response to the resolutions, the Board noted that faculty perspectives “were particularly welcome in regard to academic freedom and excellence in higher education, guidelines for concurrent appointments [between SMU and the Institute] and access to materials in presidential libraries.”
SMU community members and the media gather to hear President Turner’s announcement of the University’s status as a finalist for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Museum and Institute. For updates see www.smu.edu.
Two resolutions passed after the February Board of Trustees meeting focused on more detailed issues – recommending clear delineation of funding and duties for those holding concurrent appointments with SMU and the institute, urging that the institute’s identity be clearly distinct from SMU and asking that institute programs involve participants of diverse viewpoints.
Some members of the United Methodist Church questioned the appropriateness of housing the Bush Library and institute at SMU as a church-related institution. Reflecting on the give-and-take generated among church members, William B. Lawrence, dean of Perkins School of Theology, wrote, “It is utterly appropriate within the approach of Methodism to question” the actions of a president. And it is “certainly legitimate in the practices of Methodism for one of its own universities to provide hospitable space for a presidential library, museum and institute. This is not because the university will commit its views and values to the ideology of a particular politician. It is because Methodist universities are unafraid to tackle the greatest challenges of the age.”
On March 14 the Mission Council of the Church, which acts on church matters between quadrennial conference meetings, approved SMU’s long-term lease of campus land for the presidential library complex. Approval is necessary for the sale or lease of land that previously has been used for campus activities.
Fund raising for the library, museum and institute would be conducted by the Bush Foundation. Once completed, the library and museum would be operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which also manages security for such facilities. Because the library and museum would be the property of NARA, the federal government would provide their operational funds.
The selection process for the Bush Library itself has been unprecedented. It is the first time, for example, that eight institutions were invited to submit proposals for a presidential library, museum and institute. Because of the competitive environment, some rivals, like SMU, kept their proposals confidential.
As campus dialogue ensued, “the goal of the Faculty Senate was to provide the appropriate forum for discussing and conveying key issues and to respect the diversity and nuance of opinion among the faculty,” said Rhonda Blair, president of the Faculty Senate and professor of theatre. In their response to the Senate’s resolutions, President Turner and the Board of Trustees expressed appreciation to the Faculty Senate for its “leadership in facilitating discussion” and for “the respect the Senate and the faculty have shown for University processes.”
Among numerous media reports on the library discussions at SMU, ABC World News Tonight noted that controversy is no stranger at universities hosting presidential libraries, among them the University of Texas as it opened the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and related school.
“The dialogue at SMU reflects our tradition of free and open debate, and much of it has been helpful in identifying topics of discussion between SMU and the Library Selection Committee,” said Brad Cheves, SMU vice president for development and external affairs, who has served as a spokesperson for the library project at SMU. “This tradition remains central to our academic mission.”