July 17, 2008

Methodist Group Affirms Plan for Bush Library, but Cautions on Integrity

Opponents of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, a library and museum complex that is scheduled to be built at Southern Methodist University, met defeat today in their long-shot effort to withdraw the United Methodist Church’s permission for the project, according to reports by The Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press.

Delegates who are gathered in Dallas for the quadrennial meeting of the church’s South Central Jurisdiction, which owns SMU, turned away two petitions aimed at the project. One would have withdrawn permission for the entire presidential center. The other would have granted permission for the presidential library and museum, but not for a policy institute that is planned for the complex.

Even if those petitions had passed, it is not certain what their impact would have been. The university insists that it won full and final approval for the library project from a different church body in 2007.

The planned policy institute has been viewed suspiciously by some faculty members at SMU, in part because it will not fall under the university’s academic-governance structure. Similar think tanks at other university-based presidential libraries are more integrated with their academic hosts. The agreement between SMU and the George W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation contains provisions (beginning on Page 97) that allow the university to name one or two members of the policy institute’s Board of Directors, but the foundation has the power to veto those nominations.

The delegates did approve a petition today that urges the institute to respect the university’s identity. That petition — a draft of which was published on a Methodist blog — instructs the university to report back to the church in 2012 on how well the library foundation and the policy institute are complying with “the covenants of agreements protecting the integrity of Southern Methodist University.” —David Glenn

Comments

1. Maybe if they called it a drunk tank…?

   — Hnaef    Jul 17, 10:26 PM    #

2. As an ex-Methodist, I would be insulted if the name Bush would ever be associated with Charles Wesley.

   — Savage Detective    Jul 17, 10:29 PM    #

3. As an alumni of SMU, and not in the least bit interested in church affairs, I think that the opportunity to support a library, museum AND policy institute in the name of ANY of our US presidents is terrific. The responsibility lies on SMU and the new foundation to build a program of excellence of which any individual, regardless of political persuasian or religious conviction can be proud.

   — Susan    Jul 18, 06:11 AM    #

4. Susan—
   As a practicing Methodist (and someone with NO connections to SMU, I find this whole prospect a frightening one. Do you really think library displays will admit that there were no WMDs? Doubtful…Laura B says history will prove George to be one of the great ones. I sure wouldn’t hold my breath. I would not call this library opportunity “terrific” so much as “terrifying.”

   — Kathy    Jul 18, 08:05 AM    #

5. #3 says: “The responsibility lies on SMU and the new foundation to build a program of excellence”

   BUT the legal language is: “The agreement between SMU and the … Bush Presidential Library Foundation contains provisions…that allow the university to name one or two members of the … institute’s Board of Directors, but the foundation has the power to veto those nominations.”

   Isn’t this just responsibility without representation?

   — cj    Jul 18, 08:12 AM    #

6. Can’t we chart new territory here and resist building a library for Bush? Creating a center for learning is so anathema to his publicly stated disdain for reasoning that it is more an indictment of man’s ability to think than a celebration of his “legacy.” That SMU would willingly fund such an atrocity is a sad, sad commentary on their leadership.

   — GodNO!    Jul 18, 08:39 AM    #

7. What do you suppose might be the content of a GWB library? My guess is comic books and perhaps the prez’s favorite book, “The Very Hungry Catterpillar.”

   — Savage Detective    Jul 18, 08:59 AM    #

8. SMU is embarking on a “legacy of embarrassment.”

   — rec    Jul 18, 09:02 AM    #

9. As a former United Methodist Pastor, I am horrified that SMU will have this facility on its campus. I know, SMU is an institution of higher learning without any tangible Christian ethos, but in my view, that’s of the problem. What is the church for, if not to speak against evil? This is exactly the kind of thing the Old Testament prophets would have railed against.
   I could go on and on. The Sanhedrin was in league with the Romans during the time of Christ because it wanted to maintain wealth and power – they were willing to forgo their ethics and morality by being unwilling to oppose a corrupt and violent occupying force. In doing so they “sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver.” What’s the difference?

   — AP    Jul 18, 09:14 AM    #

10. AP: I share your indignation.

    — Savage Detective    Jul 18, 09:21 AM    #

11. If the “Library” is part of the university, will it by definition have to support ‘academic freedom’? If W treats SMU like it has treated the rest of this nation, I fear for its students and faculty.

    — TL    Jul 18, 09:43 AM    #

12. What TL said, and in spades! I can’t believe the University is SOOOO shortsighted.

    dj

    — VRH    Jul 18, 09:58 AM    #

13. I’d suggest a more appropriate place for the Bush library would be on the “campus” of a diploma mill.

    — Dr. J    Jul 18, 10:38 AM    #

14. And they say there is no radical left wing bias in higher education. What to “they” know?

    — JEC    Jul 18, 11:20 AM    #

15. SMU worked for years to get the library and it won out after a long competition with other universities. The time is past to work against the library on the SMU campus. It will be at SMU, as will the GWB center if SMU were to pull out at this date theGWB library foundation would file suit vs SMU and end up with a very large settlement.

    If your political bias is such that you disagree with GWB so be it, however the country has various political views and they are not always of the liberal vent.

    It is most likely that the reason that GWB or GHWB did not look to Yale or Harvard Universities from which he graduated is because he wanted to avoid the problems faced by RR when he tried to place his library at Stanford.

    What causes me indignation is when academics of the left or the right do their best to stifle those of opposite political views.

    Every president has supporters and detractors, and the reality is that the time to evaluate a president in the context of history is well after that presidents administration, an example of this is President Harry Truman.

    — Warren    Jul 18, 11:50 AM    #

16. I don’t think the objections are with there being a GWB library, but rather to where it is being housed. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is counter to Christian teachings. We have cheerfully described foreign leaders with similar doctrines as war criminals, which has led to similar charges from some quarters regarding GWB. History may or may not judge whether such a charge is justified; however, it is troubling that an institution founded on Christian principles is willing to house an enterprise so closely linked to un-Christian behavior. Might I suggest Southfork Ranch as a more suitable location? :-)

    — CW    Jul 18, 12:10 PM    #

17. Warren: What world are you living in?

    — Savage Detective    Jul 18, 12:35 PM    #

18. So: SMU will have the George W. Bush Library and San Francisco will have the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. Which will be better off?

    — Lawrence S. Lerner    Jul 18, 02:08 PM    #

19. How about calling it the Barbara Bush Lbrary of Patience?

    — observer    Jul 18, 03:29 PM    #

20. Atheists? Snake, (snake??) the first mention of atheists was in your reply. Sheesh!

    It appears that the university got into a deal where they will not end up with sufficient control over academic excellence.

    — curt    Jul 18, 03:45 PM    #

21. I find it quite ironic that W wants to build a “Library” at all when he’s spent his entire political career ensuring that no documents of his or his father’s administrations ever ever see the light of day. He did this while governor too, trying to lock up his papers in his dad’s library at A&M.

    I foresee a very handsome monument to ultra-conservative philosophy with empty shelves and an online catalog that says “Coming soon….” Rich white Republicans who rule Dallas will no doubt think it’s a fine addition to their cityscape. But it’s naive to think that any presidential library would ever be free of bias in favor of its subject (visit the LBJ Library in Austin for a clear case in point). But I also think the SMU folks are right in predicting that this policy institute will be an embarrassment to their school in time, especially as the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of W’s criminal and corrupt regime becomes more and more evident to the world. Those schools that tried and failed to land this fish should be thanking their lucky stars!

    — David    Jul 18, 04:01 PM    #

22. The bottom line is that SMU has staked its future reputation on the reputation and legacy of Bush, certainly the worst President in my lifetime. History will not be kind to this President—unless it forgets him immediately.

    — Mervyn Emrys    Jul 19, 09:57 AM    #

23. JEC: Believe me, one doesn’t have to be “radical left wing” to feel contempt for our worst and most dangerous president.

    — Savage Detective    Jul 19, 03:56 PM    #

24. Warren (Post #15) said, “It is most likely that the reason that GWB or GHWB did not look to Yale or Harvard Universities from which he graduated is because he wanted to avoid the problems faced by RR when he tried to place his library at Stanford.”

    I am ignorant of the problems Reagan faced when he tried to place his library at Stanford, but I can imagine that they were much the same as I believe Dubya would have encountered had he approached Yale or Harvard. I would think that no self-respecting university would want to play host to such an obviously non-thinking, non-academic person, no matter he was elected President. The sooner this country sees the White House door slam behind GWB, the better!

    It’s unfortunate that SMU made this mistake. I agree emphatically with the post of Mervyn Emrys (#23) that history will not be kind to this President.

    — L Wood    Jul 21, 10:14 AM    #

25. Hmmm…I seriously doubt that SMU’s entire “future reputation” will ever be singularly defined by this one facility. As for “history will not be kind to this president”… that may be correct, or it may be completely wrong – and very few, if any, of us will be around to know for sure. No matter what is said now, this presidency will be studied and scrutinized and criticized and lauded and skewered and honored and ballyhooed and laughed at and pondered upon and pulled apart and whatever else for years and years and years. And years. Comments that have been made about this president and presidency have been made about previous presidents and presidencies, too. All this chaff and chatter and blustering and pontificating will be blown away with the passage of time. I can only hope to live so long to see how it all turns out.

    — Mike    Jul 21, 10:26 AM    #

Previous: Southern Cal Helps Develop New Journalism School in Dubai
Next: U.S. Congressman's Wife Is Hired as President of Community College in Illinois