Spring Break
Can we change the topic of conversation, please?
Susanne Johnson, susannej@smu.edu
Issue date: 1/23/07 Section: Opinion
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.
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.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
George Purvis M.Div. Perkins, '67
posted 1/23/07 @ 2:41 PM EST
Thank you, Dr. Johnson. You display geinune conscience and courage by: 1)"going public" with the critically important article, written by you and Rev. (Continued…)
Benjamin Hufbauer
posted 1/23/07 @ 3:34 PM EST
In my recent op ed in the New York Times ("Archives of Spin," which was not my title, by the way), I suggested that *if* a presidential policy institute is put on a university campus that rigorous academic oversight is essential. (Continued…)
Post a Comment