PonyFans.com

Check out the comment section...

http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/02/25/smu

Inside Higher Ed
SMU’s Deal With Bush
Feb 25, 2008


Despite the concerns of many of its faculty members and historians nationwide, Southern Methodist University agreed to terms Friday for becoming the home of President Bush’s library and of an institute that will promote the president’s views and that will not be controlled by the university.

Presidential libraries — which are managed by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration — have generally been considered a plum for a university to obtain. Scholars are attracted by the archives, and tourists and name recognition come with the affiliated museums. But the Bush library complex will also feature an institute — independent of academic governance of the university — to sponsor research and programs designed to promote the vision of the president. At the press briefing announcing the agreement, Donald Evans, who chairs the president’s foundation, said that the complex would “celebrateâ€

For crying out loud. As a lifelong Methodist, I've usually described the religion as non-polarizing, laissez faire Chrisianity. What's with all of the polarizing comments? Because this President either sucks or does not suck, depending on to whom one listens, does that mean that there shouldn't be a presedential library (like every other president has?)

It's ironic, isn't it, to see all of these people opposing the library and thumping their chest, espousing everything from John Wesley to the Book of Discipline to the SMU Board of Trustees. Lest we forget who else competed for the library? Let's see...the Baptists (Baylor)...the Catholics (U of Dallas)...and the Texas Tech University System! I'd think all three of those groups would have had a stronger argument opposing the library than those associated with SMU.

RGV Pony wrote:For crying out loud. As a lifelong Methodist, I've usually described the religion as non-polarizing, laissez faire Chrisianity. What's with all of the polarizing comments? Because this President either sucks or does not suck, depending on to whom one listens, does that mean that there shouldn't be a presedential library (like every other president has?)

It's ironic, isn't it, to see all of these people opposing the library and thumping their chest, espousing everything from John Wesley to the Book of Discipline to the SMU Board of Trustees. Lest we forget who else competed for the library? Let's see...the Baptists (Baylor)...the Catholics (U of Dallas)...and the Texas Tech University System! I'd think all three of those groups would have had a stronger argument opposing the library than those associated with SMU.

It is true that Methodists are opposed to America's current war in Iraq. That is the official statement of the church. I actually do not understand why you think that other institutions would have better reasons to oppose the Bush library. If anything you have named schools affiliated with religious groups that have traditionally supported Bush. As for Texas Tech, as a state school it would not have the same moral/ religious quandary.

My true complaint here lies in that the Methodists speak of being active in the world and communities, but have allowed their institution to become an effective island for the children of the elite. It is utter hypocrisy for them to have sat idly by for years and only begin to assert any authority when there arises a prominent issue.

RGV Pony wrote:For crying out loud. As a lifelong Methodist, I've usually described the religion as non-polarizing, laissez faire Chrisianity. What's with all of the polarizing comments? Because this President either sucks or does not suck, depending on to whom one listens, does that mean that there shouldn't be a presedential library (like every other president has?)

It's ironic, isn't it, to see all of these people opposing the library and thumping their chest, espousing everything from John Wesley to the Book of Discipline to the SMU Board of Trustees. Lest we forget who else competed for the library? Let's see...the Baptists (Baylor)...the Catholics (U of Dallas)...and the Texas Tech University System! I'd think all three of those groups would have had a stronger argument opposing the library than those associated with SMU.

Yes yes, I had a friend describe Methodism as "the cliffnotes of religion". I later realized I shouldn't (and now don't) take offense to that at all.

I hope that people take their names and make sure that they write to grant making organizations in the Country not to give grants to those professors. Perhaps if their grants dry up and they have to actually teach lots of classes to keep their salaries, they'll move on to other places.

Samurai Stang wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:For crying out loud. As a lifelong Methodist, I've usually described the religion as non-polarizing, laissez faire Chrisianity. What's with all of the polarizing comments? Because this President either sucks or does not suck, depending on to whom one listens, does that mean that there shouldn't be a presedential library (like every other president has?)

It's ironic, isn't it, to see all of these people opposing the library and thumping their chest, espousing everything from John Wesley to the Book of Discipline to the SMU Board of Trustees. Lest we forget who else competed for the library? Let's see...the Baptists (Baylor)...the Catholics (U of Dallas)...and the Texas Tech University System! I'd think all three of those groups would have had a stronger argument opposing the library than those associated with SMU.

It is true that Methodists are opposed to America's current war in Iraq. That is the official statement of the church. I actually do not understand why you think that other institutions would have better reasons to oppose the Bush library. If anything you have named schools affiliated with religious groups that have traditionally supported Bush. As for Texas Tech, as a state school it would not have the same moral/ religious quandary.

My true complaint here lies in that the Methodists speak of being active in the world and communities, but have allowed their institution to become an effective island for the children of the elite. It is utter hypocrisy for them to have sat idly by for years and only begin to assert any authority when there arises a prominent issue.

So you're saying if Tech got the library you don't think we'd hear all manner of arguments how taxpayer $$ shouldn't go to support such a thing? Regarding the other institutions, why don't we rank in order 1-3 which denominations are usally at the forefront of socially polarizing issues . The point of my post is that I believe it to be 1) Baptists 2) Catholics 3) Methodists.

And before anyone [deleted] I put two stepkids through Catholic school, and I have nothing against Baptists.

There cannot be any dialogue between scholars who pursue their research no matter where it might lead them and scholars who are paid to defend a certain ideology.

I wonder where our favorite Spanish instructor's research leads him? Or is he being paid to defend his ideology?

I always thought that a goal of a university is to promote the free-flowing debate of ideas. If a professor doesn't like Bush or his policies, I'd strongly suspect that the good administration at SMU will not prevent a critical article from being published. If I were a faculty member at SMU critical of Bush's policies, I would want the library close by so I could scour whatever documents are there to serve as a resource for my research. My gosh, how nice would it be to walk across the street to debate with someone at the policy institute!

As far as purely partisan research being generated, I'm sure that such research will be published in scholarly journals only after surviving the rigorous peer-review process found in most scholarly publications, which means the outcome would not be particularly partisan. Otherwise, any partisan research will merely find its way to the same places where Brookings, Heritage, and other similar institutions find their works published.

All presidential libraries (at least the ones I've been to) celebrate their namesake. I'm not a big fan of LBJ's policies, but a visit to the LBJ library was very educational.

SMU and Dallas are fortunate to have landed the library and the institute. I'd say this no matter the president or the political party.

I passed the Methodist Church yesterday, a Rabbi was preaching.

RGV Pony wrote:So you're saying if Tech got the library you don't think we'd hear all manner of arguments how taxpayer $$ shouldn't go to support such a thing?

In Texas? No. At least not as much as Methodist leadership has protested the library. Particularly considering that the library would be largely paid for, if not entirely, by donations.

EastStang wrote:I passed the Methodist Church yesterday, a Rabbi was preaching.

Then he and the preach walked into a bar, one turned to the other and said...

Samurai Stang wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:So you're saying if Tech got the library you don't think we'd hear all manner of arguments how taxpayer $$ shouldn't go to support such a thing?

In Texas? No. At least not as much as Methodist leadership has protested the library. Particularly considering that the library would be largely paid for, if not entirely, by donations.

Who is paying for the library at SMU?

RGV Pony wrote:

Samurai Stang wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:So you're saying if Tech got the library you don't think we'd hear all manner of arguments how taxpayer $$ shouldn't go to support such a thing?

In Texas? No. At least not as much as Methodist leadership has protested the library. Particularly considering that the library would be largely paid for, if not entirely, by donations.

Who is paying for the library at SMU?

The outrage from SMU is religious, not financial.

couch 'em wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:

Samurai Stang wrote:

RGV Pony wrote:So you're saying if Tech got the library you don't think we'd hear all manner of arguments how taxpayer $$ shouldn't go to support such a thing?

In Texas? No. At least not as much as Methodist leadership has protested the library. Particularly considering that the library would be largely paid for, if not entirely, by donations.

Who is paying for the library at SMU?

The outrage from SMU is religious, not financial.

The financial argument was made to rebut Samurai's statement about Tech's bid. If anything, I'd argue that the "outrage" is ideological, which may or not include religious extensions. However, I tend to agree with at least one of the statements and some other opinions on this board, specifically:

“If faculty opposition causes this $500 million complex, with its attendant hundreds of thousands of annual visitors, to go elsewhere, it would be the most extraordinary act of institutional self-sabotage that I have ever witnessed. I hope that cooler heads prevail before that is allowed to happen.â€

After its built, the Profs are free to go light their bongs in front of the library in protest.

They should attempt to come to Japan with their drugs.