The George W. Bush
Library:
Scholarly Mecca or
$500 Million Oxymoron?
By DOROTHY SAMUELS,
EDITORIAL OBSERVER, NYTimes on the Web, January 28, 2007
The news reports that President
Bush’s representatives seem to be closing in on a deal to put a
half-billion-dollar presidential library and policy institute at Southern
Methodist University in Dallas has inspired the predictable lame jokes and
references to “The Pet Goat.”
But the project raises issues that are no laughing matter, touching on the
writing of history, the university’s scholarly mission, governmental integrity
and the rule of law.
S.M.U.’s negotiations regarding Mr. Bush’s library are bound to have a large
public impact, which is why I’m hoping that the university’s president, R.
Gerald Turner, and members of his board of trustees (presuming Laura Bush, the
best-known trustee, has removed herself from the deliberations) can be persuaded
to withhold a final go-ahead unless two basic conditions are met.
First, the university should insist that Mr. Bush rescind Executive Order 13233,
his 2001 directive that reverses — illegally in the view of many leading
historians, journalists and legal thinkers — the strong presumption of a public
right of access to presidential papers embedded in the 1978 Presidential Records
Act.
Under this early exertion of presidential power, both sitting presidents and
former presidents (and even their heirs) can indefinitely postpone public
release of sensitive material past the law’s usual 12-year waiting period by
simply denying a request for access. No explanation is required, and there
is no provision for appealing the denial to a trained professional archivist.
Instead, the executive order requires the person requesting the material to
begin a costly and time-consuming lawsuit challenging the stonewalling.
It’s a formula for keeping embarrassing facts secret in perpetuity and for
thwarting a full and accurate accounting of a president’s time in office, which,
presumably, was among S.M.U.’s prime goals in seeking to be home to the new
presidential edifice, along with enhancing the university’s visibility, prestige
and available financial resources.
Mr. Turner told concerned faculty members that the new library would house “a
treasure trove of documents and artifacts that describe one of the most intense
and controversial periods in our history.” For a university interested in
promoting historical research and open inquiry, especially one located in the
president’s home state, it’s undoubtedly a mighty tempting prize. But that
is all the more reason Mr. Turner and the trustees owe a duty to act decisively
to protect the university’s reputation, the public’s right to know and history
itself from Executive Order 13233, and Mr. Bush’s ignominious penchant for
excessive secrecy.
Second, there is the pesky issue of fund-raising. Following the corruptive
path blazed by White House predecessors, Mr. Bush and members of his library
committee apparently plan to spend the administration’s remaining days trying to
coax huge contributions to the budding library complex from friends and
well-heeled special interests. Under present law, the identity of
presidential library donors, and the amounts they contribute, need not be
disclosed. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, supports legislation to change
that, but its timing and fate remain unclear. Meanwhile, S.M.U. officials
have an opportunity to advance government integrity, and avoid entangling the
university in potentially compromising secret fund-raising, by insisting on
disclosure.
Dozens of theologians and S.M.U. faculty members have objected to locating Mr.
Bush’s library and institute at the university, saying among other things that
his awful record on civil liberties, the war in Iraq and the abuse of prisoners
should preclude any university affiliation. They have it wrong. But
so do those who would minimize the university’s duty for making sure the highest
standards of scholarship, openness and ethics govern the entire enterprise.
|
