Breaking News: SMU Press Announcement on Bush Library

[jtstang]

What is the 'policy center'?

As I understand it, the library will house a Bush "policy center" wherein Dubya will be accoladed for the great things he did like get us into the Iraqi quagmire. Now, that is not that bad, in and of itself, but I understand SMU has been told it will not have say in any of the content and programs connected with the "policy center", which will be run solely by Bush cronies. Rather, SMU's involvement will only be connected to the library collections. And yet, we will forever be connected with advocating Bush policies because it will be located on our campus. The kicker is that I understand the library was marketed as a package deal, that you could not be considered for the library if you wre not willing to house the "policy center" as well and cede all control to Dubya's buddies, most of who will have no connection to SMU. I just do not think this sits well with the mission of a university.

Now, I'm writing this off memory, and maybe the details are wrong. But this is what I understood the main gripe of the "liberal faculty" to be.

[ponyte]

What is the 'policy center'? I am not familiar with that organization. Is it part of the library? Or is it a separate entity? If there is a Clinton policy center connected to the library, it has been all but invisible. The Clinton library is primarily a public forum for Clinton to brag about his presidency. For scholars, it is a repository of information. There have not been any ‘policy’ forums or pronouncements from the library. And if there has been a policy center at the library, the city of Little Rock certainly has no say in it.

Granted my experiences with presidential libraries is the one about a half mile from my office. I visited it and little else. There may be much more than I am aware so any insight or further clarification would be much appreciated.

Isn't the Clinton School for Continuing Education (or something like that)connected to the Library? I am not sure who attends but the classes are usually "hosted" by some of Clinton's cronies althought they do bring in some balance every now and then. As with you, I am not a Clinton supporter, and I do not pay much heed as to what goes on there, but it is a good asset to the city.

From what little I have heard, there is a great deal of business and goobernment policy courses. I have had an invitation to attend one or two but was never able to go (nothing to do with politics, just it didn’t fit my schedule). Of course business and goobernment are so intertwined that it only makes sense to explore the relationship. There have been seminars for college and graduate students (usually through UA). I have heard that these courses are of benefit. However, what I am describing is courses one would expect any half decent business school to utilize and none of these courses are setting policies. That is what I want to know about. The Policy Center and its function.

[ponyte]

What is the 'policy center'?

As I understand it, the library will house a Bush "policy center" wherein Dubya will be accoladed for the great things he did like get us into the Iraqi quagmire. Now, that is not that bad, in and of itself, but I understand SMU has been told it will not have say in any of the content and programs connected with the "policy center", which will be run solely by Bush cronies. Rather, SMU's involvement will only be connected to the library collections. And yet, we will forever be connected with advocating Bush policies because it will be located on our campus. The kicker is that I understand the library was marketed as a package deal, that you could not be considered for the library if you wre not willing to house the "policy center" as well and cede all control to Dubya's buddies, most of who will have no connection to SMU. I just do not think this sits well with the mission of a university.

Now, I'm writing this off memory, and maybe the details are wrong. But this is what I understood the main gripe of the "liberal faculty" to be.

That seems a bit short sighted. Unless something changes, Bush and his cronies will some day die. Then they will no longer be in charge. Yet, the library will still be around. Reagan's library and LBJ's library don't get labeled as Simi Valley's policies or UT's polices.

I don't suppose that Hoover's, Roosevelt's, Truman's Eisenhower’s, Kennedy's, Nixon's or Ford's libraries are associated with their locales policies (or politics). Yet, all provide valuable resources for scholars and layman alike.

If I remember correctly, Carter has a policy center at his library. My perception is that Carter's policies are Carter’s and not Atlanta's polices. I don’t believe the post presidential policies of Clinton are considered to be the policies of Little Rock (of course I live in Little Rock and may not have an accurate idea of the perception others have outside Little Rock).

We are talking about presidents which are political creatures with specific goobernment policy beliefs. That is part of their presidency and their history. Most people understand that. Yes a few will believe that the location of the library is a fawning fan of the president. But most understand there is a difference between the library and all its associated functions and the physical location of that library.

I cannot think of a negative that the Clinton library has brought to Little Rock. I can think of a lot of positives.

[jtstang]

Okay, but the examples you are using are not located on college campuses and especially not MY college campus. If I understand the deal, the library will ALWAYS remain at SMU and SMU will NEVER have a hand in the policy center, which will ALWAYS also be located at SMU. This guy is the most controversial president in our lifetime, and SMU will always have the appearance of advocating his policies as a result of housing a policy center that really was forced on them.

Look I am glad we are getting the library, I just loathe that we are being forced to take on a policy center that we will have zero control over.

[Bergermeister]

Sounds a little one-sided as far as political philosophy goes, and I think that is dangerous.

If you're expecting "fair and balanced", forget it. Not everyone is opposed to "advocating his policies." Many people (graduates included) see this as a good thing.

[ponyte]

Texas A&M list GHW Bush's library as an on campus library
http://www.tamu.edu/home/academics/libraries.html

University of Texas list LBJ's library as a museum
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/help/librarylist.html

University of Michigan list Gerald Ford's library as a university library
http://www.umich.edu/libraries.php

I assume that UT, Texas A&M and UM have final say in any policy that these libraries release. It is good to know that the policies and beliefs of presidents are now subject to academics approval prior to release.

Perhaps I am older than you but LBJ's controversies cost him a second elected term. Vietnam in my memory dwarfs Iraq. Medicare (which is a wonderful program) has enormous financial consequences that we are only now beginning to address. Though we don't remember it, the Civil rights Act of 1964 was one of the most domestically controversial acts of the second half of the 20th century (As witnessed by the transformation of the solid south away form the Democrats and towards the Republicans). Bush is no doubt controversial but other presidents have been as well. That doesn't seem to affect the benefits UT, TX A$M and UM have received from the presidential libraries they host.

[jtstang]

You are not that much older than me, and Vietnam dwarfs Iraq in terms of length and lives lost, but Iraq ain't over yet. And let me be clear...the policy institute itself is understandable, it's the exclusion of SMU from any say which bothers me. What if the polcy center wants to hold a Bush cheerleading camp, and SMU wants to invite a speaker like Obama or somebody to counterpoint at the same conference. Well, guess who gets to present their speak on campus at SMU and who doesn't. It just seems wrong for a university to be asked to house a partisan policy center without having a seat at the table.

And by controversial, I am talking about being accused by some of starting an illegal war. It don't get more controversial than that.

[couch 'em]

What if the polcy center wants to hold a Bush cheerleading camp, and SMU wants to invite a speaker like Obama or somebody to counterpoint at the same conference. Well, guess who gets to present their speak on campus at SMU and who doesn't. It just seems wrong for a university to be asked to house a partisan policy center without having a seat at the table.

I don't see how this would prevent SMU from bringing in Obama or even having a non-biased conference seperate from the policy center. It seems to me that this policy center is the equivalent of using rental space on SMU property. I have no problem with them doing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't prevent SMU from doing whatever it wants, even when those two agendas contradict.

I just hope it is something like "Policy Center at Bush Library" not "Policy Center at SMU"

[friarwolf]

If the Bush Institute or whatever they call it becomes a "Cheerleading School" for Bush, then it will quickly be dismissed for what it is with little long lasting impact on SMU. This institute is going to have to generate money over the long haul by appealing to donors, producing research that is valuable, filling an educational need, or a combination thereof. Since the vast majority of donors are in the "what have you done for me lately" camp, they will soon tire of forking money over and the thing will quickly wither unless it is serving some type of useful purpose - re, education or research. If it becomes some type of reasoned institute, then it will be considered as such and enhance SMU.

Love or absolutely revile someone like Rove, the man is brilliant at dissecting polling data - not to mention hard ball campaigning. I would think lots of people would love to attend lectures or graduate level classes conducted by this guy.

[jtstang]

The only difference is this "rental space" is permanent. And if your are not engaged directly with the partisan policy center, bringing in a rebuttal speaker to address a different audience is not nearly as effective a teaching tool.

Again, I am not saying that the library is not a good thing for SMU--it obviously is--it is just this partisan policy center which is being forced on SMU that I object to. And really, my only objection to that is SMU being excluded from any control over a partisan policy center on its campus. I'm pretty sure if Dubya said SMU could select a couple of people to sit on whatever board runs the thing, I'd be alright with it as well.

[MustangIcon]

Again, I am not saying that the library is not a good thing for SMU--it obviously is--it is just this partisan policy center which is being forced on SMU that I object to. And really, my only objection to that is SMU being excluded from any control over a partisan policy center on its campus. I'm pretty sure if Dubya said SMU could select a couple of people to sit on whatever board runs the thing, I'd be alright with it as well.

I don't know much about Presidential Libraries but I was assuming the policy center is just where each library talks up what a great job that president did in his term(s) in office. If Bush's people control it, they will obviously spin everything to make Bush's terms seen in as positive of a light as possible. That doesn't bother me in the least bit. It is the cost of doing business, and a small one at that as far as I am concerned.

[EastStang]

The Bush Institute will be called the Bush Institute, I suspect, not the Bush Institute at SMU. Just like the Hoover Institute is called the Hoover Institute, not the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. So, having a conservative think tank next door to campus will not hurt the University. Its scholars may be available to the University to teach some classes if the University invites them to teach. So for example, let's say that Dr. Condoleeza Rice is at the Bush Institute. Why wouldn't one want someone of her stature to teach a course in Political Science and diplomacy? We've only had about 100 Secretaries of State in our history. What student wouldn't beneift from her knowledge? On the other hand if Donald Rumsfeld wanted to teach a course at SMU on the Iraq war, the Administration might not go along with that. I would attend, but I could see others being stressed about that. I suspect that the institute will be involved in research primarily and that its staff will not be likely to be teaching at SMU.

[Water Pony]

Okay, but the examples you are using are not located on college campuses and especially not MY college campus. If I understand the deal, the library will ALWAYS remain at SMU and SMU will NEVER have a hand in the policy center, which will ALWAYS also be located at SMU. This guy is the most controversial president in our lifetime, and SMU will always have the appearance of advocating his policies as a result of housing a policy center that really was forced on them.

Look I am glad we are getting the library, I just loathe that we are being forced to take on a policy center that we will have zero control over.

SMU will not be advocating for the Policy Center, just as Stanford does not advocate for the Hoover Institute on their campus.

Second, regardless of anyone's politicial persausions, Bush's policies do need review, challenge and visibility, especially since this policies are so controversial. The value for the world, country and the school is that these issues need to be tested overtime, not on the politics of the moment. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

[mr. pony]

Will SMU welcome the Dubya "policy center" to our fair campus without having any control over it? Sounds a little one-sided as far as political philosophy goes, and I think that is dangerous.

Dangerous ...

[SoCal_Pony]

JT, from an over-taxed Republican who voted for W twice and has benefited enormously from the Bush tax cuts, I understand your concerns. They are legitimate and hopefully won’t diminish our school’s reputation. In the end, I also believe this library will be a plus for our university.

But putting down my SMU alumni glasses for a moment, I personally think the Bush library would have been a better suited down south.

That way, supporters could have spent a lovely week-end in Waco touring Baylor University, the Branch Davidian compound, the Dr Pepper plant, and the W Library. Somehow there seems to be a natural harmony there.