PonyFans.com

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

Does that count as protesting? In that case I had a good protest with a bag of cheetos and the first season of A-Team last night...

The Spaz wrote:

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

Does that count as protesting? In that case I had a good protest with a bag of cheetos and the first season of A-Team last night...

When will you be visiting Dallas again?

Many others, however, echoed the criticisms. One professor wrote: “Would SMU accept an endowed chair with the condition that the donor would pick the candidate?

Uh, yeah, they have, they do, and they will continue to do so. How obtuse!

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.

I think you are missing the larger point here. Nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning opposes the library. Just like nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning is in favor of a partisan policy institute without any ties to SMU being placed on the SMU campus. It's the institute, not the library. It's unfortunate that Dubya created this dilemma by his ultimatum of both or neither.

This complete thread is totally pointless. If this was Clinton's or the Democrat's War, the shoe would be on the other foot. End of story & a GREAT move by SMOOOOOOO!!!

jtstang 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.

I think you are missing the larger point here. Nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning opposes the library. Just like nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning is in favor of a partisan policy institute without any ties to SMU being placed on the SMU campus. It's the institute, not the library. It's unfortunate that Dubya created this dilemma by his ultimate of both or neither.

Good point. And that in large part parallels the tale of his presidency. I think that probably should've been a given when it was this particular president's library that SMU learned it had a good chance of landing.

RGV Pony wrote:

jtstang 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.

I think you are missing the larger point here. Nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning opposes the library. Just like nobody who cares about SMU as an institution of higher learning is in favor of a partisan policy institute without any ties to SMU being placed on the SMU campus. It's the institute, not the library. It's unfortunate that Dubya created this dilemma by his ultimate of both or neither.

Good point. And that in large part parallels the tale of his presidency. I think that probably should've been a given when it was this particular president's library that SMU learned it had a good chance of landing.

jtstang makes a great point.... I was beginning to warm to the library. This institute just goes against everything that makes a Presidential library great. Very disappointing.

Let us all hope that this think tank isn't anti-science by decrying stem cell research, evolution, etc. That will be the biggest disappointment in my opinion.

Question for those who know: How does the Stanford faculty coexist with the Hoover Institute? It's my understanding that the Hoover Institute is fairly conservative and publishes materials according to conservative ideals.

perunapower wrote: Question for those who know: How does the Stanford faculty coexist with the Hoover Institute? It's my understanding that the Hoover Institute is fairly conservative and publishes materials according to conservative ideals.

Found this online. Sounds like some at Stanford don't like the ties with the Hoover Institution. And it sounds like it is pretty tied in to Stanford. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030414/biuso

FWMustangGirl wrote:

perunapower wrote: Question for those who know: How does the Stanford faculty coexist with the Hoover Institute? It's my understanding that the Hoover Institute is fairly conservative and publishes materials according to conservative ideals.

Found this online. Sounds like some at Stanford don't like the ties with the Hoover Institution. And it sounds like it is pretty tied in to Stanford. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030414/biuso

Very interesting. Thanks for finding that.

I certainly don't think the Hoover Institute has damaged the academic reputation of Stanford, at all. The Hoover Institute even has major ties to the Bush administration, so that isn't absent. If anything, the institute at SMU will kindle political action and involvement on campus that is largely dead. Here's to hoping that is a consequence.

perunapower wrote:I certainly don't think the Hoover Institute has damaged the academic reputation of Stanford, at all.

Nor will it damage the "academic" reputation of SMU. But the ability to teach the "three r's" is beside the point. A university should be a bastion of free thought, a concept for which there is no degree program. All sides of an issue must be explored to truly understand the issue. When you invite a privately controlled partisan policy institute to make a permanent home on your campus, people will rightfully question your commitment to these basic principles of higher learning.

You do, however, make an interesting point. If the institute serves as a lightning rod for renewed discourse and involvement in a historically apathetic student body, it may be cast in a better light in the long run. Only time will tell.

And what pray tell will the Institute do to inhibit free thought? It sounds to me like the Professors want one point of view not two points of view on the SMU campus. Yes, the Institute will hire some right wing folk to work at the Institute, so what? It won't have any say on who is hired as a regular faculty member at SMU. So, if Kahne West gets offered a job by say the sociology department, the Institute can't stop that. If Mr. Eisenhower (the communist nut job from Colorado, I think that's his name) is hired by the Poly Sci department the Institute does not have a say in that. If the Theology school wants to hired Father Curran who was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church and fired from Catholic University to teach theology, it can. Wait, it already did and the Institute has no say on that, either. So, there will be a second point of view on campus different from the professors. And that is what bothers them. They might get shown up by people who are actually smarter than they are and have an opposite point of view. Personally, I am excited by the fact that there might be some really interesting debates on the SMU campus for decades to come.

I have to second EastStang's post. "The Institute" will have no power over SMU. If it ends up being as radical as some people on here fear it will be, good! It will spur more debate and 'free thought'. You can be sure if it starts spewing a bunch of creationist silliness, Prof. Scalise will be there causing 'discussion'.

EastStang wrote:And what pray tell will the Institute do to inhibit free thought?

But the Bush library complex will also feature an institute â€" independent of academic governance of the university â€" 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€

Really JT? And what is the mission of SMU? To have liberal professors spew atheistic, Marxist and Leninist views without a competing view point on campus? An institute that celebrates the ideas of President Bush (namely neo-con ideas), only promotes debate, it does not hamper the mission of the SMU to educate young minds. It gives them the challenge of wading through competing ideologies and come up with their own dogmas and own theories. And that is pretty much is what SMU is about. Perhaps these profs are afraid of competition of thought on their own campus. That's my take.