Daily Campus

I don't even know where to start. As someone who was actually on campus and talking to professors when the infamous series of faculty senate meetings took place, the crass misrepresentation of their stance makes me so angry I could spit.

The problem isn't that it's a partisan think tank. The problem is that faculty didn't want this think tank to use the smu logo to make playthings of facts, to hide distortions and half truths under the cloak of a (somewhat) reputable university. They did, indeed, object to censorship - they objected to the refusal on the part of the bush administration to release documents indefinitely. Yes, there's a Reagan library. But there's no accompanying think tank to spin the documents of his presidency.

And those visiting dignitaries you write of: Who, exactly, do you think would come to campus because of the library? Former UN representatives? Or only the most conservative, diehard bush supporters like Katen Hughes or Karl Rove? What educational value do they provide?

The few professors and scholars who do make the pilgrimage to study what scant documents are available will not, in fact, benefit the vast majority of the student body. It's not the conservative slant that is so repugnant to myself and so many other students and professors who prized the opportunities this school gave us. It's the association with a shameless PR mechanism that furthers aims antithetical to the spirit of free inquiry vital to any school worth it's salt. The idea that any increase in dialogue will happen is laughable at best.