Mikaela says:
Two theology professors at SMU have caused a groundswell of discontent among faculty and students at the idea of offering the university as home to Bush's Library.
Here's what Bill McElvaney and Susanne Johnson said in their editorial for the University newspaper:
"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?"What moral justification supports SMU's providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights, and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?
"Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of insulation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers. What would that mean for academic integrity based on open inquiry?"
NY Times :
"Many professors, including some who want the library on campus, are concerned about the relationship between a proposed Bush policy institute and the library and the effects the institute might have on the university's academic independence."
Ralph Blumenthal wrote in the New York Times last week:
"Intimates of President Bush have singled out Southern Methodist University as the likely site of his presidential library, but faculty members, complaining of being bypassed, are raising sharp questions about the school's identification with his presidency."
|