SMU faculty members oppose Bush library Let's start with my personal views of the two principals of this article.
I don't like Bush's politics. I think the War in Iraq is a quagmire it'll be nearly impossible to pull ourselves out of. I think his pandering to the Religious Right with the Marriage Amendment was a violation of the First Amendment. I think his record of spending is atrocious, and the fact that he increases spending while cutting taxes is financially irresponsible from any standpoint.
Furthermore, I am not unbiased about SMU. The Psychology and Religious Studies departments I majored in were wonderful, as were most of my professors. I still have good relations with some of the supervisors I had as a work-study student. I made quite a few good friends there, including
one person who if he isn't my best friend is damn near it. I still root for the athletic teams the three times I see them on television. However, if I had known the games the administration played with financial aid, I never, ever would have gone there. I wouldn't recommend the school to anybody who doesn't have the money, and I might even discourage the less well-to-do from considering going there.
All the above aside, here's my opinion: I think that landing a presidential library is a rare opportunity, and can even be construed as an honor. I disagree with the external affairs vice president slightly; the library could be a benefit to the university, depending on how Bush 43 is viewed in the immediate future. It can attract more conservative students, on the other hand, it may be detrimental to attracting, well, non-conservatives. Thirty years from now, however, it might not matter so much. Might not.
The opposing views in the article both have a point. There are a limited number of presidential libraries, and having one on your campus can definitely be a boon. However, the views of Bush's administration -- current and future -- could be problematic. (I wouldn't go so far as it being a terrorist threat, though. That's a bit extreme.) If the university is comfortable in being labelled, perhaps permanently, as conservative, then I'd say build it. If it would like to remain potentially attractive to non-right-wingers, I'd have second thoughts, because Bush's presidency may be long remembered in a negative light by those who aren't conservative, perhaps even longer than Nixon's.
By the way, I don't think the university is quite as conservative as many see it, but it's definitely not as liberal as the conservatives on campus claim it is. SMU is more conservative than liberal, but the liberals are usually more vocal.