Bush Institute “inappropriate,” SMU theology prof writes
In response to my item on the ongoing George W. Bush presidential library controversy at SMU, which is now focused solely on the proposed Bush Institute, Suzanne Johnson, associate professor of Christian education at the Perkins School of Theology, posted a comment that I think will interest and enlighten readers. Professor Johnson writes:
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the policies of President Bush is totally beside the point in the controversy at SMU. While many people are unhappy with prospective plans to build a George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum on the SMU campus (since it might appear to endorse and enshrine his legacy), that issue is also beside the point. The real issue at stake in this matter is the fact that it is so utterly inappropriate for George Bush to demand that Southern Methodist University agree to dovetail a politically partisan policy center into the presidential library and museum. Not only is this an assault on freedom of academic inquiry (the center will be devoted to “polishing” the GWB legacy), such a center is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by SMU’s own Articles of Incorporation which stipulate that church-owned land can be leased for religious and educational purposes only. President Gerald Turner insisted to his administration and faculty that refusing the partisan center while accepting the library/museum would be a “deal-breaker” with the Bush Foundation, that the proposal is “all or nothing” and therefore it is okay for the school to ignore and violate (and disrespect) its own by-laws. What kind of “curriculum” does this constitute for SMU’s impressionable young people? I’m tired of the jokes about how many books the library will contain (one copy of My Pet Goat); the library/museum is not the crux of the problem. The real problem is with the inappropriateness of a politically partisan policy center on the campus of a university in a free, democratic society; the real problem is with a university administration being willing to tramp over its own rules of governance; the real problem is with a university that strong-arms church leaders into making decisions that are inappropriate to SMU’s by-laws as well as inconsistent with its academic mission. The South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church is the governing body which has the final say-so on this matter when it convenes in July. Why, then, did SMU move ahead with sealing-the-deal, signing a contract, and holding a press conference? In this, SMU thumbed its nose at the grassroots church, preempted the power and prerogative of lay people, and “stole” from them their right to vote and to decide on this matter. This was a psychological trump card on ordinary grassroots people, and an assault on their dignity. (When the public party has already been held, when legal contracts are already signed–-will the average, ordinary lay person be willing to reverse these actions? Probably not.) Again I ask, what curriculum is thereby being taught to SMU’s impressionable young people? There are profound issues at stake here; let’s keep them at the heart of the discussion.
Note: Professor Johnson was named one of two “SMU Persons of the Year” by the student newspaper, The Daily Campus. Further comments appear on her blog, www.smirkingchimp.com.
Porteno says:
This reads like a rant, not the reasoned thoughts of an intellectual.
Reply »
andrew weaver says:
Dr. Johnson is exactly right.
How did SMU get in this mess?
To answer that question one needs to look to the SMU board of trustees, particularly, Texas billionaire, Halliburton board member and Bush loyalist, Ray Hunt. A long-time trustee (continuously since 1976), Ray Hunt, served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee for George W. Bush in 2000. Hunt, who has given millions to both Bush senior and junior, has already donated a whopping $35 million toward the Bush Complex at SMU. According to Forbes magazine, Hunt’s personal wealth at the beginning of the Iraq war was $2.3 billion. This year it was $4.0 billion. Not everyone has been a loser in the “shock and awe” catastrophe in Iraq.
According to knowledgeable UMC bishops, as well as several informed clergy and SMU faculty, Ray Hunt has been the key person in a successful effort to pack the SMU Trustees with wealthy Republican allies of George W. Bush. At least 26 of the 41 trustees have personal, financial, and/or political relationships with Bush, and many have been major fundraisers and contributors to his political campaigns. Nearly all of the contributions to political candidates and campaigns by the trustees have been to Republican causes. In total, public records show that the SMU trustees have given $2,759,000 to Republican candidates and causes and $34,000 to Democratic candidates and causes in recent years (Campaign Finance in American Politics, 2007; Fundrace, 2007; NewsMeat, 2007; Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, 2004; 2007).
A balanced, responsible board of trustees would have protected the interests of the university and the church. Granting George Bush or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama permission to build an independent institute on campus to promote his or her policies is something no self-respecting university board of trustees would permit. The trustees voted for the partisan institute without one dissenting vote, even after three bishops called for many of the trustees to recuse themselves because of apparent conflicts of interests (Weaver, Sprague, Hicks and Yeakel, 2007).
Reply »
David Rogers says:
Presumably, Dr. Johnson has the same objections to the LBJ Center at the University of Texas?
“The real problem is with the inappropriateness of a politically partisan policy center on the campus of a university in a free, democratic society”
Or does he believe that an institution devoted to the legacy of LBJ could be (and is) non-partisan?
Presidents are, by their nature, partisans.
And “there are profound issues at stake here” is boilerplate pablum for someone who has no point other than regurgitation of Daily Kos talking points. This is no surprise, given her blog, http://www.smirkingchimp.com (latest post: Bush’s ‘War Crimes” and Misdemeanors.)
The good professor is quite obviously too partisan to be objective, and possible too partisan to be rational, about the “profound issues at stake here.” She and her views should be treated with the respect that she has shown the President; which is to say, none at all.
Reply »
Susanne Johnson says:
Porteno:
I’m dismayed by your comments. Over the past year, I’m one of few people who’s taken time to frame the conversation in philosophical and intellectual terms, encouraging people to raise the level of discussion far, far above worn out cliches. Through intellectual pursuit, I’ve been able to refine my position, and to clarify the issues that really are at stake, and to encourage others to do the same. Speaking as an educator, it’s important to help us all remain aware of the fact that schools teach not only an “official” curriculum (conveyed through lectures, syllabi, textbooks, assignments, examinations, and so on), but also a “tacit” or “hidden” curriculum. The hidden curriculum has to do with things such whose voices “count” and whose do not, how power is distributed, what names are etched on public buildings; it has to do with hidden rules, hidden messages, hidden norms and values. In my comment yesterday, I merely pointed out certain black-and-white facts, and then I raised questions, especially questions about messages we covertly communicate to university students when we as an educational institution publicly break our own by-laws in order to obtain something we really covet. You call this “ranting.” I’m sorry that pointing out facts and then raising questions for critical reflection does not come across to you as “intellectual.” Perhaps you and I have different notions of what that word means. There is nothing more intellectual (and moral) than critically reflecting on public practices carried out by an institution of higher education, and wondering about the impact of those practices on our nation’s future leaders. If this is not work of the intellect, then Porteno, please tell me what is.
Reply »
Susanne Johnson says:
I have nothing but respect for you. It is people like you that open up our minds to see way beyond what is not as obvious to us, and give us a much clearer picture of how things really are. Some of us are not as educated – and wait – and yearn – and hope – that people like you rise to the occasion and educate us. We are listening. Thank you.
Reply »
Concern says:
To: Susanne Johnson – I have nothing but respect for you. It is people like you that open up our minds to see way beyond what is not as obvious to us, and give us a much clearer picture of how things really are. Some of us are not as educated – and wait – and yearn – and hope – that people like you rise to the occasion and educate us. We are listening. Thank you.
Reply »
Susanne Johnson says:
David: It doesn’t matter what I think about the LBJ Center at the University of Texas; SMU is governed by its own set of by-laws, not the by-laws of the University of Texas, not the by-laws of any other university that houses a presidential library. Thus there are civil laws operating here that transcend my opinion, your opinion, and everyone else’s opinion; there are legal (and thus also ethical) ramifications that pertain uniquely to SMU, making it difficult to parallel or compare our situation with any other university. SMU is governed by a set of Articles of Incorporation which disallow SMU to lease land for any political entity to be built on campus, whether Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, or otherwise. The presidential library and museum serve an educational purpose and thus fall within the realm of what our by-laws allow; the partisan institute serves a political purpose–and thereby is legally excluded from being built on the SMU campus. These facts and these laws override personal opinion. Anyone who makes a case for building a politically partisan policy institute on the SMU campus is ipso facto making a case for breaching SMU by-laws.
Reply »
Reality Check says:
Ms. Johnson -
If you want to discover what your critics here regard as ‘intellectual’, go read the comments on Paul’s post regarding the Tom Davis email.
All that to say, I wouldn’t worry too much.
[I do think you're fighting an uphill battle here. If you're concerned about subtle messages being relayed to students when a University overturns it's own internal rules, what happens when a President overturns/ignores/circumvents both the Constitution and international law?]
Reply »
Valerie Karras says:
Suzanne,
Thank you for continuing to focus on the *real* issues at stake, not the subjective political preference disagreements that the media likes to highlight because it’s easy (requires no actual research or investigation) and they can dismiss everything as simple differences of opinion.
In adition to the failure of the proposed Bush institute to abide by SMU’s bylaws regarding the purposes for which campus property can be sold or leased, you briefly referred to another issue, which I consider the most serious by far. It, too, is enshrined in the university bylaws and is being unambiguously violated by the agreement signed by SMU and the Bush Foundation.
I am referring to the *complete* lack of oversight by SMU over the Bush institute. The bylaws explicitly require that any campus property sold or leased, in addition to having educational or religious (or student housing) purposes, must remain under the “immediate discipline and control” of the university. The Bush Foundation has insisted that the institute be completely independent of any university oversight or control (the institute’s board will include only two members appointed by SMU, and those appointments are subject to unlimited and unjustified veto power by those appointed by the Bush Foundation), and the university’s trustees and administration have given in to this demand, and in so doing are knowingly and egregiously violated the bylaws they have a fiduciary responsibility to uphold.
More is at stake than, bad as it is, the situation of SMU’s having a board of trustees and an administration who willfully violate the university’s own bylaws. The bigger issue is academic integrity (to which I believe you alluded in your comment about freedom of academic inquiry). Academia — in all its disciplines — operates accordingly to certain standards for research and writing. Professors and research associates who blatantly misconstrue or fudge facts and figures, who ignore or ineffectively respond to alternate opinions and criticisms, etc. have a hard time finding an academic position or getting their work published by an academic journal or press. At SMU, we have faculty of various political, religious, and other persuasions. To be hired and to receive tenure, however, they have had to demonstrate that they can do honest and thorough research and that they can draw reasonable conclusions based on that research.
By allowing on its campus an ideological think tank which will have no oversight by the university, SMU is potentially providing an academic venue, veneer, and springboard for political hacks and spin doctors (Karl Rove has already been actively involved in setting up the structure for the institute) to publish factually baseless or distorted revisionist history. While the institute may not advertise itself as a “component” of the university, it will be physically on SMU’s campus. The American public will hear that “so-and-so” is a research associate at the Bush Freedom Institute “at” Southern Methodist University, which will be an accurate statement that is simultaneously deceptive.
Contrary to the critical comments of an earlier respondent, The Bush institute will be *nothing* like the LBJ School of Public Affairs at University of Texas-Austin. That is a *school* that is completely under the control and oversight of the *university*; the same is true for Bush Sr.’s school at Texas A&M. The closest comparison isn’t close at all: the Carter Center is not even *on* the campus of Emory, yet Emory makes half the appointments to the Center’s board.
In fact, there have been two previous attempts to link an independent institute to a presidential library: for Kennedy at Harvard, and for Reagan at Stanford. Both of those universities’ administrations categorically rejected the proposals out of concern for their universities’ academic integrity. And, yes, both of them lost those presidential libraries because they adhered to their integrity. Interestingly, they are two of the top universities in the country. Would that SMU’s board and administration would care more for its academic integrity than for the “coup” of landing a presidential library.
Reply »
paulburka says:
To David Rogers (#3) –
You don’t know what you are talking about. There is no such thing as an LBJ Center at the University of Texas. There is the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library and the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. The latter is a graduate school that awards advanced degrees in public affairs as an academic discipline. Professors write about the discipline — not the Johnson legacy — in obscure academic journals. The Johnson Foundation supports the school but in no way runs it; the dean reports to the regular chain of command at the University of Texas. In short, the governance structure is totally different at UT than it is at the proposed Bush Institute at SMU and much more in line with typical academic governance.
Reply »
Porteno says:
_Over the past year, I’m one of few people who’s taken time to frame the conversation in philosophical and intellectual terms, encouraging people to raise the level of discussion far, far above worn out cliches._
Have a high opinion of yourself? Wow.
I have no dog in this fight. I don’t really care whether Bush’s library is at SMU or elsewhere, though I bet that there are other schools who’d be happy to have the prestige of a presidential library (even if for a very unpopular president). It’d be a plus for me in helping my kid pick a college, whether I loved or hated the president in question.
You may be a great person in real life. But you write like someone who is focused on convincing other people that you are smart.
Reply »
Susanne Johnson says:
Porteno: Your comments would come across with much more credibility if you’d stick to criticizing ideas, not individuals. You still seem not to grasp the fact that I am not protesting the presidential library and museum. I am protesting the breaking of SMU by-laws by dovetailing a politically partisan policy center into the library and museum. The best solution for all concerned is a “win-win” one: build the presidential library and museum on the SMU campus, and locate the policy center in the city of Dallas. The art of negotiation and compromise would carry this situation–and our entire society–a lot further than the current win/lose scenario.
Reply »
Porteno says:
Please point out to me where I suggested, implied, or otherwise gave you reason to infer that. Thanks.
I know I’m not as much of an ‘intellectual’ as you are, but maybe you could humor me by not putting words in my mouth. Us simple-minded folk would appreciate that.
Also, could you continue to write sentences like the one above: _There is nothing more intellectual (and moral) than critically reflecting on public practices carried out by an institution of higher education_.
Your bombast is hilarious. I hope one day to join you at the height of intellectualism and morality…by critically reflecting university policies!
Reply »
Porteno says:
obviously that should read “by critically reflecting on university policies.”
One day, far in the future, when I am at the pinnacle of intellectualism (when reflecting on university policies), I won’t make typos.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Of course, the avenue available to Prof. Johnson and her like minded activists who fear the location of a policy institute at SMU that does not reflect their political thinking is to engage the students, faculty, administration and public at large with their own leftist ideology on the issues. Get in the arena of ideas and if they can make the more convincing case and win over more citizens to their own policy preferences, that’s fine with me.
Liberal academia has a long record of intolerance to political and policy viewpoints that are different from their own. Witness the liberal college campuses that have driven ROTC recruiters off campus; that allow the most odious left wing hate-monging speakers on campus to spew their bile unchecked while disinviting mainstream conservatives speakers because of “security” concerns; that continue to advocate for unconstitutional race based admissions criteria that have resulted in exclusion of superbly qualified candidates to the enrichment of those who are ill prepared.
Of course, Johnson will completely ignore any discussion of her own political preferences (have you ever voted for a Republican in the last 20 years, Prof. Johnson?)and say it not relevant. But it is, because it reveals her own agenda which is really at the heart of the leftists’ objections. SMU worked out a compromise that was well received to all but the most fanatical left-wingers who will now forum shop for a like minded judge to overturn the will of the majority. But such is the way of the left, whose extreme agenda, unplatable and unreasonable, cannot be implemented through democratic processes, so resort must be made to the appropriate activist jurists to get such policy preferences mandated to their liking (witness the recent gay marriage decision in Californa).
Reply »
David Rogers says:
Paul:
“There is no such thing as an LBJ Center at the University of Texas. There is the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library and the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.”
Pedantic much?
Reply »
Porteno says:
I saw this quote by Michael Barone today and thought it relevant (although I’d like to reiterate that I have no dog on this fight and don’t particularly care where Bush’s library is…although I do enjoy making fun of academics who try to puff themselves up by sounding intellectual cognoscenti):
_…one of my rules of life is: All process arguments are insincere, including this one._ — Michael Barone
Reply »
Porteno says:
ha. guess i haven’t genuflected on university policies enough. that should read “by sounding like intellectual cognoscenti.”
Reply »
Porteno says:
A friend of mine read this thread and said “you totally eviscerated that overly arrogant pompous religion prof.”
Thanks. Let the record reflect it. I’m good at mocking the self-important.
Reply »
Rockyroad says:
SMU is a private university, unlike UT. SMU has its own bylaws that are different from those of a public university.
At SMU, I studied the separation of church and state, human rights and constitutional law . . . this man has no respect for any of these principles. As a Methodist, an American and an alum, I say, kick this idiot in the ass. He does not merit a library, a museum or an institution on the grounds of SMU. He represents none of the values that I learned and practiced while at SMU nor of the values that I hold dear as a human being.
Frankly, he should be tried for crimes against humanity and impeached.
Reply »