Daily Campus

Where are all the 50 blog replies? And what happened to the online traffic? I believe there were around 50 blog replies to the recent smudailycampus.com's announcement that SMU won the preliminary/narrowing bid phase of the Presidential Library competition. The most I have ever seen online in my online reading history (which is less than one year.) And that was during a Christmas break - even. I thought when the students return to campus - the blogs might really fill up?

My thought/s - I don't think it is the facutly's "fault," that they didn't seek Open Discussions before now. It just seems to me that since it appears imminent now (a reality rather than a possibility), that the faculty are taking time to see if others (faculty, staff, students) want to together participate in such an event before presuming it upon them - by asking first.

I wrote a "piggy back" Opinion to the two professors original Opinion on November 10, 2006 which smudailycampus.com published November 15, 2006 - 5 days later regarding the subject and importance of "open dialogue among lovers of SMU."

I was told that the reason that my Opinion did not appear online that day or afterwards (but only in print form) was due to a technicalogical/computer error. I was able later to access that Opinion online by typing my name in the "search" line - as it was later catalogued into the smudailycampus.com archives.

Feel free to reprint it where online readers might have access to it. In it, I talk about the logic of talking - in all contexts:

1-With regards to the Library, "Open dialogue and tough questions promote and foster understanding"......To me I am not quite sure why faculty or others feel they must seek permission? In SMU's mission, it states in part, "The University is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry...." Hopefully no faculty fears losing their job if they have a disagreement with the Board of Trustees or SMU's administration. Not at SMU - Not in America! Aren't Americans fighting in Iraq for "freedom" and "Democracy?" Surely, this is about waiting until the student's return and there is time to see if the two professors are the only ones who feel this idea is a good one. I thought it was a great idea! See my Opinion! Inquiry is what I give my alma mater credit for instilling in me as a student of History. It was my belief that SMU has progressed with the times since I graduated in 1988 (the year of homecoming on the soccer field.) It was my understanding that SMU was not about "behind closed doors." That it has made great strides at the cover-ups of that era.

2-The still on-going lawsuit over the property - I personally encouraged both sides to use "shuttle diplomacy" to resolve this. Maybe that is going on behind closed doors? I still am disappointed in SMU for not utilizing its own law school conflict resolution faculty members to advise/openly assist in the settlement of this legal dispute. I read that SMU's VP of Dev. and External Affairs, Brad Cheves is abreast of the latest. Has SMU sought counsel with regards to mediating this out of court?

3-Iraq War - Better too little too late than more of the same! For the President to come on TV before the American people, admit mistakes, take final "buck stops here" responsibility, bring not only Democrats to the table, but women, research data AND the Iraqi people who have to live in their homeland when the troops come home caused me to cheer in my TV room!

Whatever the steps are towards talk solutions and towards resolution of disputes and towards melting pot Democracy Think Tank in action - I applaud those who walk in that direction - no matter what side of the aisle they are on. America is better for its diversity.

Finally, my immediate thought with Think Tank is where do you sign up? I think that would be great to be a part of! It never even occured to me that it was a Republican-only Right-wing Think Tank. Governor Bush passed legislation successfully during a time a Democrat-dominated State house and senate. I was in Texas during those times.

I am glad many are hesitating to assume what President Bush means - no matter what people leak to the press. With SMU's rich tradition of open inquiry that surely preceeded my time -- going as far back as the days Laura Bush attended and graduated at SMU -- I would assume that when President Bush said Think Tank - he ment melting pot American Democracy Think Tank.

He is quoted as saying the best thing he ever did was to marry Laura Bush and into the SMU family. This SMU family is very thoughtful and circumspect with their strong viewpoints and respectful of differing perspectives.

Why not? I would love it if the public policy institute was "A center for solutions: with some hot coffee brewing."

President Bush said he would be a "uniter not a divider." As Governor he succeeded at that -- it is in his toolbelt. And whatever the law suit over the property for the library, I want to say this, I have no belief whatsoever that either President Bush or Laura Bush would be a party to any civil wrong with regards to its purchase by SMU. They have too many irons in the fire. And have left the Universities to tend to the issues required for consideration - ie. available land, parking, drawing up of architectural plans.

I don't beleve any University that wanted an honest shot at winning the bid, would have not developed those plans and considered all the minutia of details required to "win" a competition to host a Presidential library. SMU noted that it had hired experts 6 years ago. And I have read that we who are interest only have to "wait and see" all the work that has been done - and the various sites and options SMU offers to the selection committe for consideration.

What has been difficult to understand, however, is why SMU held those cards so close to their chest (information of SMU's diligent efforts to pursue and win the library.) Honestly, that bothers me.

Baylor hosted open forums and discussions. I believe they even printed brochures. So, I don't believe it was ever the faculties fault, or their responsibility in the first place, to host and have Open Discussions over a library that Administration was not even talking openly to the faculty, students and press about.

SMU's, Brad Cheves was constantly playing it down - saying the land could be used for soccer fields, intermural fields and/or Dormitories.

I don't know if the faculty or students took it very seriously, because the Staff whispered the hope and played down its possibility - at least in the press articles I had opportunity to read.

Personally, I want SMU to host the library and hosts these talks so that those who will be affected might have opportunity to publicly participate instead of whispering or fearing to speak out.

Also, I hope for a "Collaborative" Think Tank to develop from these Open Discussions. And I hope that it is not only "inclusive" but that it is not "elitist." Consisting only of the wealthy and/or highly scholared - I hope it includes current students and alumni members and plebeian-"lovers of SMU."

Surely, SMU is not "elitist" or "exclusive." Discreetness is appropriate in some contexts, talk-solutions are most always appropriate, but in certain contexts such as this highly important and historical event "stifling" of Open Discussion is something that I find not only to be good but I would find it troubling if it didn't happen.

Go Mustangs!