Where Would Jesus Build A Library?

Apparently, some Methodists aren’t quite as giddy as little girls over Bushie’s plans to build his presidential library at SMU. hehe. That’s funny.

As a resident of Fort Worth, though far away enough from Dallas not to be burned by the evil rays of bad karma the president undoubtedly emits, I am constantly in consternation of how frequently to toilet-paper Bush’s new digs. Placing a flaming bag of dog poo on his doorstep is, of course, another option I’m weighing all the possibilities and if any of you who live in the vicinity would like to participate in the effort, please let me know.

And I know you Methodists can be very spirited, so – just fyi – if you’re real good and pissed about such a disgraceful institution as Bush’s library (isn’t that an oxymoron. i mean, really, has the man read a book beyond the “Clifford” series?) being established on your turf, you just let Meredith know. No vigilante justice is too juvenile in my book! I’m loaded with tactics I perfected in my not-so-long-ago youth.


1 Response to “Where Would Jesus Build A Library?”

  1. February 1, 2008 at 11:02 am

    The “Fantastic Failure Institute” will undermine SMU
    “I’m gonna build a fantastic Freedom Institute … an institute that really, you know, just kind of imparts knowledge and deals with big issues.” In Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper

    Elected delegates of the United Methodist Church will meet in Dallas in July and will be asked by Southern Methodist University (SMU) to give final approval to the use of university land for the proposed Bush presidential library, museum and institute (1). The 290 delegates represent the 1.83 million United Methodists living in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Louisiana who founded in 1911 and own SMU – “lock, stock and barrel.” Should a majority of them vote to allow SMU to use the land to build the partisan Bush institute, it will be a lamentable precedent in higher education.
    While the wisdom of establishing a library and museum may be debatable, establishing an autonomous, partisan think-tank will unquestionably damage the academic reputation of a quality university. The partisan mission and independent structure of the proposed Institute, which has been obscured in the debate, is a bona fide threat to the academic integrity of SMU.
    How do we know the shape the Institute will take? According to a Bush Foundation document signed by the president’s brother, Marvin Bush, the institute’s mission is “to further the Bush Administration’s domestic and international goals,” which precisely defines partisanship. Further highlighting its partisan nature is the likely appointment of Republican mastermind Karl Rove to “take charge…of the design, fundraising, and planning” for the Institute, according to U.S. News and World Report.
    SMU President R. Gerald Turner admits that the Bush institute will engage in partisan hiring procedures and staffing. He explained to the SMU faculty that “the Institute will want to hire independently its fellows to address its areas of focus…. [T]his approach would fall outside of University practices and standards” (2). One can only imagine what this might bring to campus: How about Scooter Libby as distinguished fellow in political ethics?
    SMU History Professor Alexis McCrossen, who has researched the topic and gave a comprehensive report to the SMU faculty, wrote in 2007:

    There are twelve presidential libraries, all of which are administered and run by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Only three of them are associated with universities: the LBJ Library and Museum (University of Texas), the Gerald Ford Library (University of Michigan), and the George H.W. Bush Library and Museum (Texas A & M). None have associated institutes, although public policy schools are attached to the two presidential libraries in Texas (3).

    Schools of public policy at Harvard and the University of Arkansas were established when the presidential libraries of JFK and Bill Clinton were established nearby (though not in affiliation with the universities). The explicitly non-partisan Carter Center is under the oversight of Emory University, although not located on the campus. Emory’s trustees appoint half of the Carter Center’s trustees and the university human relations department oversees all of the Carter Center’s hiring.
    The four public policy schools are under the complete oversight of their respective universities. The schools report to the university president and trustees, all follow university personnel procedures, and each is pledged to the same goals as its host institution.
    Although the Hoover Institution at Stanford University has been presented as similar to the proposed “Freedom Institute,” it is a misleading analogy. First, the Hoover Presidential Library and Museum are not at Stanford, but in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Second, while the Hoover Institution has a reputation for sponsoring scholars with conservative agendas, its directors insist that it is a non-partisan think tank. Most importantly, the Hoover Institution is owned by Stanford and reports directly to the president of the University.
    A more accurate comparison for the anticipated Bush Institute is the project that was proposed to Harvard in 1963-1964 in relation to its bid for the presidential library of John F. Kennedy. In the emotional aftermath of the assassination, the Kennedy circle of friends proposed to Harvard a partisan institute that would be “a memorial to President Kennedy.” It would have been administered by its own board, independent of oversight by either Harvard or NARA. Harvard rejected the proposal, but did build the JFK School of Government, which houses the bi-partisan “Institute of Politics” (IOP). The IOP reports to the Kennedy School’s dean, who in turn reports to the president and Board of Overseers of the university.
    There are various political institutes on U.S. campuses. What they share in common is university oversight and non-partisan or bi-partisan agendas. These standards insure academic freedom and the unfettered pursuit of truth. If the SMU trustees establish an autonomous, partisan Bush institute on campus, it will undermine the university’s reputation and good-standing in the academy.
    In part, as a response to this concern, 28 bishops and 11,200 plus individuals, mostly representing United Methodist laity and clergy, SMU alumni, faculty, and people with strong University connections, have signed a Petition of Protest that you can review and sign at http://www.protectSMU.org).

    Rev. Andrew J. Weaver, Ph.D. is a United Methodist pastor and research psychologist living in New York City. He is a graduate of SMU’s Perkins School of Theology.


    1 From: “Severe, David”
    Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:27:48 -0500
    To: Alexis McCrossen
    Subject: RE: Inquiry concerning 2008 SCJ meeting
    Dear Alexis,
    All actions taken by the Mission Council interim the Jurisdictional Conference must be ratified by the next Jurisdictional Conference session. Until then, the vote of the Council has force. The Mission Council will report all its interim actions in one report for the acceptance of the Conference. As such, the Conference would have the option of accepting the action of the Council or rejecting it.
    The South Central Jurisdictional 2004 Journal: “The Council shall be subject to the following and specific limitations of authority: All actions taken by The Council shall be valid and in full effect within the South Central Jurisdiction until the next regular session of The (Jurisdictional) Conference…..The chairperson of The Council shall submit to each regular quadrennial meeting of the Conference a written report of all actions taken by The Council during the quadrennium”. (101)

    2 President Turner address to SMU Faculty dated 17 January 2007.
    3 Personal Communication with Dr. McCrossan dated 9 October 2007

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 96,191 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: