Spring Break
Faculty dominates Bush Library forum
Kelsey Jukam, News Editor, kjukam@smu.edu
Issue date: 3/6/07 Section: News
"The library would draw more scholars from around the country and the world, and they will increase the knowledge base of both the campus and the community," Hemming said.
While Hemming thinks that the Bush Complex fits with the mission statement of the school because of its potential to expand knowledge, Karras contended that the institute should not be allowed at SMU precisely because it is incongruent with another part of SMU's mission statement, which says that "the university is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry and to its United Methodist heritage."
"For almost none of the faculty is this a political issue," Karras said. "It is a matter of how committed the university is to what it states in its mission. This is why you find broad support for the library and museum, which are open. By the same standards, the institute is incompatible with the mission of SMU or of any university."
Wilson began his presentation with a response to Karras.
"I'm glad to say that the debate has evolved, but some of the initial objections were political and were directed at the library as well as the institution," Wilson said. "It's useful to keep in mind that there are other grounds that may fuel objections of having the institution here. Clearly, what we envision of the institution is a policy institute that will focus on the issues of interest to President Bush."
Wilson believes that although the institute will certainly deal with issues of interest to President Bush, "it's not really safe to assume that it will be the monolithically conservative place" some are expecting it to be. He discussed the fact that there are liberals at conservative institutes such as the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, just as there are conservatives at some liberal institutes.
Rowe doesn't agree that the political bias of the institute will be so innocuous.
"It would be the same as SMU sanctioning these as the values and ideas that belong on this campus, and if these aren't your own values or ideas, then you don't belong on campus," Rowe said.
While Hemming thinks that the Bush Complex fits with the mission statement of the school because of its potential to expand knowledge, Karras contended that the institute should not be allowed at SMU precisely because it is incongruent with another part of SMU's mission statement, which says that "the university is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry and to its United Methodist heritage."
"For almost none of the faculty is this a political issue," Karras said. "It is a matter of how committed the university is to what it states in its mission. This is why you find broad support for the library and museum, which are open. By the same standards, the institute is incompatible with the mission of SMU or of any university."
Wilson began his presentation with a response to Karras.
"I'm glad to say that the debate has evolved, but some of the initial objections were political and were directed at the library as well as the institution," Wilson said. "It's useful to keep in mind that there are other grounds that may fuel objections of having the institution here. Clearly, what we envision of the institution is a policy institute that will focus on the issues of interest to President Bush."
Wilson believes that although the institute will certainly deal with issues of interest to President Bush, "it's not really safe to assume that it will be the monolithically conservative place" some are expecting it to be. He discussed the fact that there are liberals at conservative institutes such as the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, just as there are conservatives at some liberal institutes.
Rowe doesn't agree that the political bias of the institute will be so innocuous.
"It would be the same as SMU sanctioning these as the values and ideas that belong on this campus, and if these aren't your own values or ideas, then you don't belong on campus," Rowe said.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
Andre'
posted 3/06/07 @ 6:03 AM CST
The Bush library is definitely NOT something to make the school or state proud by any stretch of imagination. Name recognition in this case would serve only negatively, and having a "Library" or "Think Tank" in the name of this president is somewhat of the definition of oxymoron. (Continued…)
Jeff Hawkins
posted 3/06/07 @ 9:37 AM CST
How would it be beneficial for SMU to have a library full of books, articles, and papers giving only a one sided view of all things concerning Bush. Considering Bush's actions (executive order) it is clear that he intends to withhold information of his choosing instead of educating the public about the various issues surrounding his presidency. (Continued…)
Josh Wilburn
posted 3/07/07 @ 12:00 AM CST
This is crazy I work at the rec center and have not heard anything about this situation. I know of about 4 employees that have had items stolen from the rec center gym during intramural basketball games this year. (Continued…)
Post a Comment