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
Email: amccross@smu.edu
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 nonpartisan, 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 nonpartisanship 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 nonpartisan
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