Today’s Daily Campus includes two pieces from different perspectives, both arguing that the Institute in particular is a danger to SMU. Retired statistician Campbell Read argues that the institute will put SMU’s science programs at risk, pointing to what he sees as a long history of Bush administration attacks against scientific findings that it finds inconvenient. SMU alum and retired Perkins theologian Bill McElvaney, a member of one of SMU’s most distinguished and storied families, mounts a vigorous defense of the protest against the Institute, arguing that it “seeks to affirm the university’s motto for the whole campus: ‘You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.'” He takes particular umbrage that ways in which, to him, “[a]dministrative lack of openness has communicated disrespect for the university’s most valuable on-campus assets, namely, faculty, staff and students.” On the other hand, an alum writes to the editor to argue that if “this library and institute are eventually located on the SMU campus, they will do much to bring credit to SMU and the City of Dallas.”
Later today: an interesting perspective on the Library-Institute debate from outside of SMU.