December 6, 2006

President R. Gerald Turner anounces at a meeting fo the SMU Faculty Senate that the Bush Foundation has communicated the desire to change the Bush School component of SMU's proposal into an institute overseen by the Bush Foundation.

December 19, 2006

Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair sends an email to the SMU faculty providing a general history of the Presidential Library selection process and announcing the replacement of the Bush School with the independent Bush Institute. In response to calls for dialogue from mmbers of the SMU faculty, Blair announces a special faculty meeting to discuss the Presidential Library bid to be held on January 9, 2007.

December 21, 2006

President Turner announces that SMU is declared the sole finalist as the site for the Bush Library. "We're not announcing that it's coming to SMU. But, this is as good of an announcement as we could give you on this occasion," Turner says. "I can't say we have got it until (Search Committee Chair) Don Evans says we've got it, and he has not."

January 2007

Sixty-nine faculty members sign an open letter sponsored by Associate Professor Susanne Johnson (Perkins) and Professor Emeritus William McElvaney (Perkins). Read a profile on the sponsors.

January 9, 2007

Approximately 175 faculty members attend a special meeting called by SMU Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair that serves as a forum for attendees to air concerns about the proposed Bush Library Center. (The New York Times coverage, The Dallas Morning News coverage)

During an earlier Faculty Senate Executive Committee it is decided that the Senate Secretary Julie Maynard is to remain at the auditorium entrance to insure that only faculty attend the meeting. President Blair emphasizes that President Turner willing to attend but supported her request that faculty be able to air their views on the Bush Library among themselves at the meeting. Despite these precautions, a New York Times reporter remains inside the meeting and published a story the next morning with direct quotations from the meeting. Read about his April 17 visit to the Hilltop.

January 16, 2007

Ben Johnson, History professor at SMU creates a blog (bushlibraryblog.wordpress.com) to advance the debate on the Bush library.

 January 17, 2007

Approximately 150 faculty members attend a general faculty meeting in which President R. Gerald Turner addresses the Bush Library Center discussion (SMU Daily Campus).

Also read the Dallas Morning News account.

January 24, 2007

President Turner appears at another special Faculty Senate meeting with approximately 150 faculty members in attendance. Turner addresses faculty members’ questions and concerns about the Bush Library Center.

President Turner opens the discussion with the following comments:

"Acquiring the Bush Library Center would be a tremendous, unique opportunity.  Among the important consequences of this acquisition would be the opportunity to attract scholars, public officials, and prospective students to campus.

The Bush Library Center is a package, in the sense that by acquiring it SMU would have to accept all of its components (Library, Museum, and Institute).  The Library would be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, while the Museum and Institute would be administered by the Bush Foundation.  Thus, operating expenses for the entire Bush Library Center would be covered by the federal government and the Bush Foundation.

The Executive Director of the Bush Institute will select Institute Fellows.  However, any joint appointments to the Institute and the SMU faculty would be made within university departments and schools.  These appointments would reflect our academic standards and remain under the governance of the SMU Provost.

As an institution, SMU is strong and would not be 'overpowered' by the presence of the Bush Institute.  The Institute will be scholarly enterprise."

Read the questions asked and the answers provided in the meeting minutes. Also read the Dallas Morning News coverage.

February 7, 2007

The Faculty Senate denies a broadly supported referendum on the acceptability of the Bush Institute that is supported by a petition with 175 SMU faculty members’ signatures. During the meeting, a concerns are raised that neither the constitution nor the by-laws of SMU make provisions for referenda. (A referendum is a grassroots movement that must start outside of an elected body.) The referendum was voted down. After recognizing the SMU Faculty Senate Constitution empowers the Senate to obtain information about faculty attitudes, a motion carries that replaces the term “referendum” with the term “survey.” The Senate eventually votes down the written motion for a faculty-wide survey.   

February 14, 2007

The SMU Faculty Senate discusses a proposed resolution prepared by the faculty senate executive committee to President Turner concerning the Bush Library, Museum and Institute. The resolution lists a set of concerns that it felt was the faculty senate’s responsibility to bring to the attention of President Turner. The resolution passes.

The faculty senate also addresses two resolutions proposed by Senator Dennis Foster.  One resolution concerns concurrent appointments between the university and the proposed Bush Institute, the commingling of funds (the payment of such concurrent appointments are argued to be kept separate.) The resolution was tabled. The other resolution addresses Executive Order 13233 and it was passed.

February 22, 2007

The two resolutions that passed are delivered to the Board of Trustees. The board “expressed its support of the recommendations of the faculty Academic Planning Committee concerning concurrent appointments.  Regarding the Senate’s Resolution concerning Executive Order 13233, it was the consensus of the Board that the proper channel for communicating and deliberating issues raised within the University related to the Presidential Library project is through the Library Selection Committee.”

March 7, 2007

Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair announces a meeting to address two more resolutions. Senator Foster proposes a resolution that asks that all concurrent appointments remain strictly independent without overlapping responsibilities and be subject to regular faculty guidelines.  Faculty Senators Alexis MCrossen and Tom Knock propose a resolution on legal relationship Bush Institute. The resolution calls for the university reject any relationship whatsoever with the Institute and to disallow the use of the name of Southern Methodist University by the Institute. The vote is split on whether the campus should consider dissociating from the institute. (Read the DMN coverage.)

An “Opportunity for Comments” is also opened to faculty. Faculty are asked to e-mail responses to the senate secretary who would compile a list of opinions without listing the author.

March 20, 2007

Dr. Valerie Karras of the Perkins School of Theology emails an "open letter" authored by Susanne Johnson (Perkins) to the SMU Faculty, requesting signatures. The letter protests the establishment of a partisan Bush Institute that would not come under the sovereignty of the University as part of the proposed Bush Library Center. Some faculty respond by challenging portions of the letter. Some faculty asked to be excluded from the email conversation.

Read the Dallas Morning News coverage.

March 21, 2007

First publicly posted response to "Open Letter" sent through Professor Matt Wilson's email account from SMU Professors Matt Wilson, Michael Lusztig, Dennis S. Ippolito, Dennis Simon, David J. Weber, Daniel Orlovsky, & James F. Hollifield.

Peter Heslin from Cox Business School is one of the first faculty responses to Matt Wilson et. al.’s critique of Susanne Johnson’s “Open Letter”

Faculty Senate President Rhonda Blair provides clarifications and information in response to Professor Valerie Karras e-mail regarding the proposed Bush Institute.

David Wilson from Department of Anthropology comments on the importance of pursuing the debate of the Bush Institute and Library.

March 22, 2007

March 22 Alexis McCrossen, associate professor of History, refutes the characterization of Matt Wilson’s letter suggesting that in “circumventing the duly constituted authority of the Faculty Senate,” the open letter itself is an illegitimate and unauthorized act of insubordination.

Karen Baker-Fletcher, associate professor of Theology, views her role as one of an objective observer and distance mediator. Fletcher proposes a question: she wonders why faculty of color are not more involved in this debate.

March 23, 2007

Matt Wilson responds to Alexis McCrossen’s assertions that his e-mail was attempting to stifle free speech among the SMU faculty. Wilson also claims that “not once did his e-mail characterize the open letter of opposition to the Institute as “insubordinate” or “illegitimate.”

Rajani Sudan, associate professor of English, addresses omissions in Matt Wilson’s e-mail. Sudan says the authors of Wilson’s e-mail don’t state that an important first resolution addressing the financial and academic separation of SMU from the Bush complex passed by an overwhelming majority.

Thomas Knock responds and questions Wilson’s latest e-mail. Knock infers to the changing pronoun of “we” to “I.” He also makes reference to the absence of professors Ippolito and Simon as co-signers.

March 27, 2007

Shubba Ghosh, professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law, proposes an empirical question to the various arguments.

Susanne Johnson provides a thorough response to the issues raised by Matthew Wilson el al e-mail of March 21. Johnson also explores points made by a 2004 report “Presidential Libraries: A Background Paper.”

April 4, 2007

The “open letter” is released featuring 120 faculty members’ signatures.

April 11, 2007

Another meeting is held to discuss two more resolutions. Both resolutions (Resolution 1, Resolution 2) call for the Institute portion of the proposed Bush library center to be separate from the university and not use the SMU name.  A resolution which urges President Turner to reject any contractual relationship between the Institute and the university as well as consider rejecting any contractual relationship between the entire Bush Center, does not pass by a narrow margin (18 senators voted against, 15 in favor with 2 abstentions). A fourth resolution is withdrawn by the author after the senate heavily amended it by stripping it of details. The resolution presented a time line addressing the faculty’s involvement thoughout the discussion and thanking them for their contributions. Although many in the senate supported the purpose of the resolution, disagreements surrounded the details to be included in the history of the debate presented within the resolution. Read the DC article. Read the DMN article.