A Critique of the Proposed Bush Institute at SMU Presentation to SMU Faculty Senate Wednesday 7 March 2007 Alexis McCrossen, Dedman Faculty Senator, Associate Professor of History

What is known about SMU’s plans for the Bush Institute? It will be political & ideological The institute will be political & ideological in its mission:  “to further the … domestic and international goals [of the Bush administration]”  “inspired by the principals [sic] of George W. Bush’s Administration” (Library Outline, 7 July 2005) The institute will engage in partisan hiring procedures & staffing: "[T]he 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.” (SMU President R. Gerald Turner, 17 January 2007) It will be independent “It is advantageous for the institute to be independent of the university. This separation allows the University to meet its goals and preserve its values and the Bush Foundation to meet its goals.” (SMU President R. Gerald Turner, 17 January 2007) The Institute will reside on SMU property, use SMU’s name, and benefit from SMU’s material and human resources

Plans for Bush Institute unprecedented for presidential libraries associated with institutions of higher education Three of the nation’s twelve presidential libraries are associated with Universities: LBJ Library & Museum (University of Texas, Austin) Ford Library (University of Michigan) [Note: Ford Museum is in Grand Rapids, MI] George H. W. Bush Library & Museum (Texas A & M) None of the presidential library centers associated with universities has an attached institute: Two have schools of public policy (LBJ’s and George H. W. Bush’s) A school of public policy at the University of Arkansas is part of the Clinton Library Center All three schools are under complete oversight by their host universities.

Operation and mission of political institutes associated with universities do not set a precedent for plans for Bush Institute at SMU None is independent of its host university  Some belong to schools or departments (SMU’s Tower Center; Harvard’s Institute of Politics)  Some report to Presidents and/or Boards of Trustees or Boards of Regents (Stanford’s Hoover Institution)  Some have significant University representation on their boards (Emory’s Carter Center) None is partisan  The institutes’ missions, goals, and work are explicitly non-partisan or in some cases bi-partisan  The Hoover Institution’s own directors claim that it is non- partisan, doing so by pointing to an even divide among fellows who vote for Democrats and Republicans

The institutes honoring former U.S. presidents at Stanford, Harvard, and Emory Universities set a solid precedent for university oversight and non- partisanship of presidential institutes associated with institutions of higher education [Note: None of the host universities hosts the corresponding Presidential Library & Museum] Hoover Institution, Stanford (f. 1919) First established as an archive for papers related to WWI; turned into a think tank in the 1940s. [Note: The Hoover Presidential Library is in Iowa]  Under university oversight: Reports to President of Stanford  Non-partisan: Critics claim it is partisan, but the director claims it is non-partisan. Clearly, appearing non-partisan is considered important. Carter Center, Emory (f. 1982) Not on Emory’s campus; part of Carter Presidential Center in Atlanta, which is not affiliated with Emory.  Under university oversight: Emory’s Board appoints half of the Carter Center’s Board Emory’s Human Relations Department oversees all the Carter Center’s hiring  Explicitly non-partisan

Instructive history behind the creation of Harvard’s “Institute of Politics” (IOP), which is known as “a memorial to President Kennedy.” [Quotation from IOP Web page] The Kennedy circle proposed a partisan institute that would be administered by its own board, independent of control by either Harvard or the JFK Library. Harvard President Nathan Pusey denied these requests. IOP placed in the Graduate School of Public Affairs, which was renamed the John F. Kennedy School of Government Mandated that all IOP activities “be conducted from a completely nonpartisan or bipartisan point of view.” (Nathan Pusey, quoted in “IOP History, “ IOP Web page, accessed 3 March 2007)

Why have U.S. universities insisted that political institutes come under their oversight and follow non-ideological agendas? 1. University oversight  Insures that the university coordinates its many efforts to achieve its goals as outlined in its mission statement  Insures hiring and evaluative consistency across the various operational units of the university 2.Non-partisanship  Insures academic freedom  Insures the disinterested pursuit of truth  Insures the university’s good standing as a site devoted to education, research, and scholarship

SMU Faculty Senate should recommend a remedy for the conflict between the operations & missions of SMU and the proposed Bush Institute: Option I Bring the Bush Institute under the complete oversight of the university Revise the institute’s goals such that they can be characterized as non- partisan Option II Sever the proposed Institute from the proposed Bush Library & Museum: The Bush Institute would not be formally or legally affiliated with SMU The Bush Institute would not reside on SMU’s property, use SMU’s name, or have claims on SMU’s resources or programming

Bush Institute Presentation Summary The Proposed Bush Institute -- partisan and with no SMU oversight Unprecedented mission & organization for presidential library centers & for political institutes at universities Political institutes at universities should come under university oversight and be non-ideological in their mission and activities to insure  Adherence to university’s mission statement  Hiring and evaluative consistency across university  Academic freedom  Disinterested pursuit of truth  University’s good standing as educational and scholarly institution Suggested remedies that the Faculty Senate might recommend  Establish a non-partisan Bush Institute under SMU’s oversight  Bring only the Bush Library and Museum to SMU