Two professors are circulating a letter that questions the ethics of aligning the school with this president: (emphases supplied)
We are perplexed and concerned on two levels. The first has to do with process or lack thereof. In conversation with SMU faculty in several schools of the university, we have yet to find any substantial evidence that university-wide conversations regarding the library have been encouraged.
The right of the SMU administration, with trustee approval, to seek the library is not in question. The wisdom of such decision without broad campus discussion forfeits a golden opportunity for students and faculty to experience the give-and-take learning process so basic to a university’s purpose. This seems to us to be especially pertinent in a university striving to encourage ethical considerations through open dialogue.
Unilateral decisions without consideration for the people affected? Sound like anyone you know? But I digress...
There's more...
Our second concern is with both the short and long term implications for SMU becoming the presidential library site. It is often said that a presidential library is not about the policies and practices of a given administration, regardless of the consequences of those actions. Rather the issue is said to be the providing of a permanent historical repository for presidential papers, documents and artifacts. Presumably such a library becomes a prestigious center for scholars, historians and interested citizens to participate in programs, study and enjoyment, to say nothing of enhancing area tourism and thus the economy. It cannot be reasonably denied that a number of presidential libraries serve a positive purpose as stated.
That said, what does it mean ethically to say that regardless of an administration’s record and its consequences, it makes no difference when considering a bid for the library? What does it mean ethically for SMU to say a war violating international law makes no difference? That a pre-emptive war based on false premises, misleading the American public, and destined to cost more American lives in Iraq than the 9-11 terrorist attack, makes no difference? That the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis by our "shock and awe" bombing in the name of democracy, verified by international organizations and Iraqi doctors, is of no consequence?
These realities are not about partisan politics. Rather we are concerned with deep ethical issues that transcend politics. Do we want SMU to benefit financially from a legacy of massive violence, destruction and death brought about by the Bush presidency in dismissal of broad international opinion?
What moral justification supports SMU’s providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?
Given the secrecy of the Bush administration and its virtual refusal to engage with those holding contrary opinions, what confidence could be had in the selection of presidential papers made available to the library? Unless the Bush library philosophy is radically different from the already proven track record of isolation, the library will be little more than a center for the preservation and protection of privileged presidential papers. What would that mean for academic integrity based on open inquiry?
I don't know if this protest will get them anywhere, but this letter makes two important points. One is that this just brings out in the open how far GWB is from the UMC on issues ethical and moral. Secondly, though, is this question about academic integrity. Bush will be Bush and do what he wants. SMU, on the other hand, has an ethical responsibility to students and academia to foster an atmosphere conducive to honest, transparent critique. There just seems no way this will happen.
Of course, if they are able to persuade the administration, I hear James Dobson has some nice property in Colorado.
Comments are closed on this story.