Jan. 10, 2007

History vs. Hagiography

Professors at Southern Methodist University who are worried about plans to create a George W. Bush policy institute there have said that they don’t want a partisan center to hurt the institution’s academic reputation. SMU officials are now saying that the center will not be part of the university, and will report to the Bush’s foundation. The question for faculty members is whether this independence insulates the university from a political taint or insulates the institute from academic oversight.

Looking for a job?

See all new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,481
Administrative: 1,574
Executive: 156
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Last month, the selection committee for the Bush library announced that it was entering into exclusive negotiations to locate it at SMU. The announcement capped years of competition in which universities vied for the presidential library. Southern Methodist administrators see the library as a coup that will strengthen the institution, attract scholars to the campus and — together with the libraries of Lyndon Baines Johnson and George H.W. Bush, at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, respectively — create a hub of presidential libraries in Texas.

But as SMU was winning the library, some faculty members have grown alarmed, especially by reports that the policy institute being created along with the library and museum would be dedicated to scholarship that supported President Bush’s vision and nurtured a new generation of scholars sharing the president’s views. Such an ideological agenda, some professors at Southern Methodist argue, is inappropriate for a university and antithetical to the idea that a presidential library should provide material to support a range of views.

In an effort to quell the criticism, SMU’s president, R. Gerald Turner, sent an e-mail to all students and faculty members last week providing some details of the arrangement — including word that the institute would report not to the university, but to President Bush’s foundation. (The e-mail was not intended for public release, but The Dallas Morning News posted it on its Web site Tuesday.)

In the letter, Turner outlined what he saw as significant advantages to the university of being selected for the library. SMU officials generally have been trying to suggest that only a small minority of faculty members are concerned, and an SMU spokeswoman on Tuesday said that only “a small group” of professors had expressed any concern and that many of them were “not conversant” with presidential libraries. But the Faculty Senate organized a closed door discussion of the library plans Tuesday, and more such meetings are being planned. A memo from the head of the Faculty Senate — while noting that the administration had consulted with faculty leaders about the plans — also said that there had been “lively” discussion on campus about the issues involved.

One of the leading faculty critics of the Bush library plans said Tuesday that Turner’s letter left him with more questions and that faculty dissent had not evaporated. And one expert on presidential libraries said that SMU professors had reason to be worried.

The key point made in Turner’s letter was that the institute — the part of the Bush complex about which professors have been most worried — would be controlled by the president’s foundation, not the university. Turner said that joint appointments or programs involving the institute and the presidential library, the museum or academic units would have to meet SMU’s standards. But he said that fears expressed by professors that the institute would become another Hoover Institution — the right-leaning think tank at Stanford University — were needless because the Bush institute wouldn’t be part of SMU.

Turner called on professors to see the benefits to scholarship of being host to the Bush center. “For SMU to be associated with the repository of historical documents on a pivotal presidency and era in U.S. history would be a service to the nation transcending political interests,” he wrote. “Universities, like the scholars they nurture, must take the long view in assessing their potential for impact.”

Rev. William McElvaney, a professor emeritus of preaching and worship at SMU’s theology school, is among the faculty members who have been circulating letters in opposition to the Bush project. He said Turner’s letter “was not reassuring to us at all.”

McElvaney noted that it was unclear what the institute would do, how partisan it would be, and what influence — if any — faculty members at SMU would have. He said that many professors are worried about these issues and that the administration wouldn’t know how widespread these concerns are “because they haven’t been in touch.”

The central concern of professors — that SMU would be associated with a partisan research center committed to spreading President Bush’s ideas — hasn’t been dealt with, he said. Having such a center linked to the university, regardless of whether it reports to a foundation or the university, “isn’t compatible with openness and academic integrity,” McElvaney said.

A scholar of presidential libraries said SMU faculty members are justified in having concerns — and that presidential libraries aren’t the neutral research centers that proponents make them out to be.

Archives themselves may be neutral, and there are numerous examples of scholars writing “rather unflattering” books based on material out of presidential libraries, said Benjamin Hufbauer, an associate professor of art history at the University of Louisville and author of Presidential Temples: How Memorials and Libraries Shape Public Memory (University Press of Kansas).

But Hufbauer questioned whether the archives would be as valuable in the years ahead. President Bush has supported more constrained classification policies, such that many records will be closed off. And the huge increase in the volume of presidential papers — while archivist positions to manage the papers have not increased — effectively means that it could be many decades before most Bush papers are even processed.

In theory, Hufbauer said, the museums, like the libraries, are run by the National Archives and Records Administration, and are scholarly. But that is not generally the case, Hufbauer said, and museum visitors tend to see a “whitewashed, propagandistic view of history.” (He stressed that his analysis found this to be the case with Democratic and Republican presidents alike, with improvements coming only when presidents are long dead.) Because 99 percent of people who visit a presidential library visit the museum and not the archives, he said that the image of the institution is more determined by the museum than the archives.

As for the institute, Hufbauer questioned whether having it run by the Bush foundation really dealt with the concerns being raised by professors. “The idea that the control of this would not report at all to SMU would not to me be comforting, but alarming,” he said. “So it’s a center run by Bush and his associates without regulation — an ideological center to burnish a president’s reputation — does that fit with the academic mission of SMU?”

Even if the institute must abide by academic standards when it does joint programs with the university, Hufbauer said, there will be an inevitable tilt. “With that kind of money to throw around, they will bring a large number of scholars and other people to serve and write articles and books that are all from one point of view,” he said. “That will affect the balance of the intellectual climate at SMU.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Um... hello

Such an ideological agenda, some professors at Southern Methodist argue, is inappropriate for a university.

Have these faculty looked at higher education lately... they are inherently ideological institutions. Issues like diversity, social justice, etc. etc. are ideological as well. Universities are among the most ideological American institutions today.

K.T., at 7:45 am EST on January 10, 2007

KT, And here I thought the only ideological issue was obtaining funding from pharmaceutical companies. Somehow, I think that when the first thing that comes to peoples’ mind when describing universities is a few political buzzwords, some bias might be shown. Really, KT, if you are an academic, you should have a tad more nuanced view.

Larry, at 8:30 am EST on January 10, 2007

One Wonders

If instead this were the Al Gore presidential library, and it also included a “partisan research center” not under institutional control, would the same parties be complaining?

jm, at 8:30 am EST on January 10, 2007

JM follows orders

JM drinks their Kool-Aid. Don’t like some comment? Say “partisan” or “PC” and then switch to an unreal situation. Don’t address the issue. You do well for your masters. You will get a nickname.

JH, at 8:41 am EST on January 10, 2007

Exactly, K.T.

” .. Universities are among the most ideological American institutions today.”

Why, having Shrub’s library on the SMU campus would turn it into a Republican hotbed! There actually might be some ideological balance to the lib-burr-al weirdness that is Austin, TX! Oh, the humanity!!

Oh. SMU already has a few Republicans on campus?

Never mind ..

Just spend the gub-mint’s money, just outside SMU’s campus borders. That would be a teachable moment — most of the benefits of the SMU campus without the picky-ante griping endemic in academia.

L.H.H., at 8:45 am EST on January 10, 2007

The National Archives exists to keep and record the history of the nation. The problem inherent with exiting presidents, is that each wants his statue in the park. The real issue is not that there is an agenda; the real issue is that we allow presidents the option to build these monuments to themselves. I say pull the rug out from under all of them. Let the Archives manage what they ought to be managing.

Donald H. Dyal, Professor at Texas Tech University, at 9:06 am EST on January 10, 2007

Hey, JH

FWIW, I don’t care much for the president either. Wish he weren’t, wish he hadn’t, etc.

But what I don’t like here is all of the doubletalk: the real issue here (since you want me to address the real issue) is that folks at SMU don’t like the prez and don’t want his name associated with the university. That’s cool with me. So why not say that, instead of feigning “concerns” about “institutional control” that wouldn’t be applied to others?

BTW, “partisan research center” is a direct quote from the article, not my own term — that’s why I put it in quotation marks.

jm, at 9:10 am EST on January 10, 2007

Really, KT, if you are an academic, you should have a tad more nuanced view.

I’m an academic who studies universities as political institutions. I call it as i see it... stereotypes (a.k.a. political buzzwords) generally exist for a reason. Thanks for the condescension though...

K.T., at 9:20 am EST on January 10, 2007

Hagiography: Not on My Watch.

It is an appropriate title, except Mr. Bush has proven to be no saint. It amazes me that the right wing ideological machine continues to so its very best to cover up the failures and blunders of this disgraced administration both during Mr. Bush’s reign, and now long after he meets his maker (where no propaganda will help!). I say flood his deeds with day, and declassify the thousands on mundane documents this administration has buried to hide its tracks as well. Perhaps we’ll then need a special wing for the Secret Energy Task Force or the PNAC or Sun Myung Moon’s vast influence over this weak minded sock puppet (It amazes me that millions of tax dollars were spent on Abstinence Programs generated by the Unification Church both here in the States and in (my God!) in Iraq).No. Primary Sources of presidential adminstrations are for scholars to determine the “truth,” not for propagandist to continue to weave a shameful web already populated by fake news, bribed journalists, hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on Lincoln Group and Rendon Group propaganda and false postings by right wing paid pundits working for Netvocates(owned by townhall.com) pretending to be real people. And frankly, the same standard should exist for any presidential library, whether its Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon or Ford! Yes Democrats and liberals have their own weak, sputtering propaganda machine too. But the far right has developed propaganda into an art form not seen since Europe in the 1930’s! A pox on them! Americans are sick of buzz words ("surge"), shallow reporting, partizan “history,” and inane slogans. Let the sources speak for themselves and scholarship do its work without more Horowitzes pretending they can spin “spin” into gold!

Mr Oit, Chairman of the Disgusted at Classified, at 9:31 am EST on January 10, 2007

In addition to JM’s comment

The professors can not be honest because that would destroy their illusionary world in which they are “objective” and “enlightened", and not partisan. Those who are not like them are simply misguided. It would be refreshing if these partisan professors were honest about their feelings.

MA, at 10:55 am EST on January 10, 2007

Good discussion, but my question is why does this President deserve a Presidential Library? He hasn’t done a single positive thing for the country. And no, I’m not a left wing liberal, I’m actually a Republican.

Ryan, Why?, at 10:55 am EST on January 10, 2007

It is unfortunate and disturbing that President Turner could not resist the temptation of SMU becoming the third university in the state to be associated with a presidential library. Clearly, the politics surrounding all things Bush would require those entrusted with the responsibility for protecting the academic integrity of SMU to question the university’s involvement with the proposed policy institute given its proposed governance structure. It is no wonder that some faculty members are concerned. One would hope, however, that Rev. McElvaney and his colleagues on the SMU faculty would insist on an arrangement with the Bush foundation that would promote scholarship and not a particular ideological agenda. After all, the archives are the public record and every effort should be made to promote the kind of scholarship that will inform the public. It is also clear that the interest of President Bush and the SMU administration is being advanced, but what is not clear is whether the public interest is being advanced by this proposed arrangement. Who is representing the public interest in this transaction? Is it the SMU faculty?

Curtis Johnson, at 10:56 am EST on January 10, 2007

rigor

“I call it as I see it” and “stereotypes (a.k.a. political buzzwords) generally exist for a reason”

Wow. That is some rigor. That scholarship sure contributes to the literature.

Larry, at 10:56 am EST on January 10, 2007

More K.T., please

” .. Mr. Bush has proven to be no saint ..”

Of course. Mr. Clinton ("I did not have ..") Mr. Carter (21% prime rate), LBJ (Vietnam) were perfect, by comparison.

If perfection were required for a presidential library — there would be none.

L.H.H., at 11:01 am EST on January 10, 2007

Larger Issue: Degree And Not Kind

The real issues here are those pointed out by Hufbauer. Every presidential library I’ve either read about or visited ~slants~ the perspective toward its namesake. Although I’ve visited and thoroughly enjoyed the Truman Library in Independence, MO, I didn’t expect a lot of space — or materials — to be devoted to those critical of his life and policies (i.e. dropping the atomic bomb). Were I to visit Clinton’s library in Arkansas, I wouldn’t expect to find Ken Starr’s papers there — or an exhibit dedicated to Monica Lewinsky. I wouldn’t expect a lot space in Ford’s library to be dedicated to those who thought he was less than adequate intellectually from playing too much football.

In sum, of course Bush’s future library will have hagiographical aspects. And of course it won’t house Michael Moore’s papers. In the end it’s a question of degree, not kind. Without knowing every detail of the SMU professors’ concerns, it would seem that their own presentist, partisan politics are getting in the way of seeing the long-term benefits of the library for SMU. Plus, if you’re a tenured professor at SMU and an opponent of Bush, wouldn’t you like it that his papers will be right there for your critical analysis in 15-20 years?! — TL

Tim Lacy, at 11:50 am EST on January 10, 2007

Can SMU really be surprised?

Given Bush’s record opposing independent scientific research, gag orders on scientific research counter to his thinking, and the anti-intellectual environment he has fostered: this seems a perfect tribute to Bush. What else did SMU expect from the likes of Bush? They are getting just the sort of limitations they deserve.

I. Ronnie, at 12:25 pm EST on January 10, 2007

Once upon a time presidential libraries existed to preserve the president’s documents and files so that future generations could use them for historical study purposes. Then they became monuments to the individuals. Then they became research centers focused upon a topic or point of view the former president advocated. Then they became repositories of recordings and such that sparked the prurient interests of the gossip columnists posing as journalists. Now, they are all of these things and more, not the least of which is a several hundred million dollar construction contract with a multi-million dollar endowment to keep it going. Academic freedom has never been a hallmark of such libraries, access to the private collections has always been doled out carefully. To raise academic freedom as a cause celebre for the George W Bush Library is a pathetic and duplicitous complaint from those who disagree with the man.

Michael, at 4:05 pm EST on January 10, 2007

Truman Library

Tim Lacy wrote:

“Every presidential library I’ve either read about or visited ~slants~ the perspective toward its namesake. Although I’ve visited and thoroughly enjoyed the Truman Library in Independence, MO, I didn’t expect a lot of space — or materials — to be devoted to those critical of his life and policies.”

You make a great comment Tim. The Truman Library is my favorite too. They’ve completely remade their exhibits to do true history and not just a campaign commercial in museum form. I devote a whole chapter to the Truman Library in my book.

There are some other presidential libraries with good exhibits, such as the Hoover, Johnson, and Ford libraries. But for the newer libraries it’s tends to be almost like political propaganda.

Ben Hufbauer

Benjamin Hufbauer, at 5:10 pm EST on January 10, 2007

Statutory control of Presidential records

Michael wrote “Academic freedom has never been a hallmark of such libraries, access to the private collections has always been doled out carefully.”

Having worked for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) as a federal employee between 1976 and 1990 with the assigned job of listening to Nixon’s White House tapes in order to determine what could be released to you, the public, I can tell you that not all the Presidential Libraries house “private collections.” Far from it.

In fact, since 1977, when it took physical custody of the Nixon records, the National Archives and the Libraries that it administers have been moving from private control (at the so called donor-restricted Libraries of Presidents Hoover through Carter) to public (statutory) control (at the Libraries starting with Reagan’s).

Until Watergate, a President’s records were considered by custom to be his personal property. That changed after 1974. Nixon’s White House records are covered by a one-time act, the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (1974). The PRMPA placed Nixon’s tapes and files in government custody and required us to release at the earliest reasonable date “the full truth” about Watergate. We also were required to open for public research the disclosable portions of White House tapes and files “of general historical significance.”

That process still is ongoing, many honorable and hardworking archivists have worked and still are working on those difficult tasks. Believe me, my generation of historian-archivists took the charge handed us in the PRMPA very seriously. We knew that all the stakeholders depended on us to do our jobs properly.

The records of all Presidents who have held office since January 20, 1981 also fall under statutory control (the Presidential Records Act of 1978). The effect of E.O. 31233 is not yet clear.

So no, I cannot agree that “academic freedom” has never been a hallmark of Presidential Libraries. The people who decide what you will see of a President’s historical records mostly hold graduate degrees in history. But they also understand that they must apply difficult balancing tests and deal with often competing dynamics. There are, after all, human beings involved — every step of the way, from those who create the White House records that go into the Presidential Libraries to those who bear the weight of the public’s trust in assessing a President’s historical records for potential public release — or restriction.

Much of this is shielded from view, of course (what institution, governmental or academic, ever reveals everything about its internal processwes?), but some details have come to light, mostly in court records.

I was called as a witness by Professor Stanley Kutler’s attorneys in 1992 in one such case, Kutler v. Wilson (Civ. A. 92-0662-NHJ), which dealt with Nixon’s tapes. Sy Hersh studied my publicly available testimony and that of my colleagues and recounted the struggles over Nixon’s tapes in his New Yorker article, “Nixon’s Last Coverup.” (Dec. 14, 1992)

Stanley Kutler himself later wrote about the litigation in the Legal Times ("The Liberation of the Nixon Tapes,” May 6, 1996). And Joan Hoff has described the “researcher’s nightmare,” her take on trying to study Nixon’s history. Her article appeared in Presidential Studies Quarterly (Winter 1996). Dr. Hoff also has a later piece in Athan Theoharis’s book, _A Culture of Secrecy_. My own article, “Watergate’s Last Victim,” also appeared in Presidential Studies Quarterly (Winter 1996).

Last month, Paul Burka’s blog at Texasmonthly.com looked at some of the issues surrounding SMU and the proposed Bush Library. See http://www.texasmonthly.com/commu...ll-bush-control-his-presidential.php and the earlier blog entry at http://www.texasmonthly.com/commu...t-at-smu-targets-bush-library.phpYou‘ll find information on the differing roles of the separate entitites: a think tank, a Presidential foundation, aPresidential Library, and the university.

Curiously, except for Kutler and Hoff, academics, by and large, have turned away from NARA’s efforts to release Presidential records. I’m not sure why. Scholars study, seek information and ask questions about and produce numerous articles and books about other executive branch departments and agencies. But very rarely about the National Archives. So, I’m not surprised the public knows very little about NARA and its Presidential Libraries.

I haven’t read Benjamin Hufbauer’s book — as well informed as I am about NARA, I had never heard about it until today. But, I plan to get a copy. It’s not clear to me whether it focuses equally on the archival and the museum (exhibits) side of the Libraries. But, I’m interested in taking a look. I’d like to see what information he may have gleaned by filing FOIA requests and condeucting oral history interviews.

In addition to working with me on the Nixon materials, some of my former colleagues and friends, some now retired, have worked as government employees at the Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and Ford Presidential Libraries. Perhaps I’ll see some of them mentioned in Mr. Hufbauer’s book. As a Fed, I’ve had the privilege of working with some wonderful historian-archivists in public service.

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former archivist, at 8:50 pm EST on January 10, 2007

Compressed linkis for Texasmonthly items re SMU

Apologies for the typo, President Bush’s E.O. is, of course, 13233.

Also, since the links do not appear to work, I have compressed the URLs for Paul Burka’s blog at Texasmonthly.com. Mr. Burka discussed the SMU and Bush Library issues in December in two postings available at

http://shrinkster.com/l5n

and

http://shrinkster.com/l5m

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former archivist, at 9:25 pm EST on January 10, 2007

one finger victory salute for SMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_bylg-Jjz8

rk, at 1:01 pm EST on January 11, 2007

Bush library at SMU

Since Bush is by his own admission not a reader, I’m surprised there’ll beanything to put into a library....

Tina, Professor, at 5:20 pm EST on January 13, 2007

Library = Archives

Tina, in what field are you a professor? A Presidential Library is not like a public or academic library. It holds no books, except as reference publications. Rather it holds government records. You know, the stuff historians rely on to write about what went on during a President’s administration. Stuff that goes beyond contemporaneous press releases and news accounts.

See

http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guide.asp

for illustrative examples; click on links for access to the finding aids..

On second that, I think the posting was meant to be a joke (by a student?). You’re probably pulling my leg about being a professor, if so, sorry I took the posting seriously. LOL.

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former archivist, at 7:10 am EST on January 14, 2007

Bush Most Hated

G. W. Bush may go down as the U. S. President most hated by academics. Professors at any major university would carp if the Bush presidential library were to be located at their institution. SMU officials should simply acknowledge that fact and forge ahead.

John W. Bales, Professor at Tuskegee University, at 11:35 am EST on January 14, 2007

Little help for those on the inside of Presidential Libraries

I’m an historian but one who did not choose to work in academe. Instead, I’ve worked for the federal government for 34 years, in various areas related to archives, history and public policy. I mentioned earlier my work with the Nixon tapes as a NARA employee.

Judging by what I have read on Internet message boards, I don’t think it much matters what academics think of the Bush Presidential Library. It isn’t that they are timid or ill-informed or reluctant to learn from outside experts or that they care only about what affects their own line of inquiry, although a few may be that way. It’s that their way of thinking and strategic and tactical approaches to issues are unlikely to resonate with anyone in a position of power in government. Rarely do I see anyone in academe deal with archival issues in a way that actually would help the National Archives and its Presidential Libraries.

AHA is discussing a resolution condemning the war in Iraq. To my knowledge, no issues related to the work of the National Archives received as much attention at the recent AHA conference as did that resolution.

Why is that? I don’t know, I’ve been tryin to figure that out for some time. Look at blogs by academic historians and you will see little mention of, much less a sense of community with, the Federal historian-archivists who are struggling to ensure that government records are handled properly. When they mention records, blog postings by academics often focus on scholars’ individual research projects ("Look what I found, ah, the joys of discovery as I sit leafing through materials in an archives!").

Academics naturally also focus on campus issues, such as speech codes. Or current events. The Duke lacrosse team issue received much more attention on the History News Network last year than anything related to the National Archives.

Yet NARA struggled during the last year with the aftermath of the reclassification controversy. (The Washington Post and the New York Times reported last spring on what had happened with national security classified records in NARA’s holdings.) And as AHA wrapped up its convention, Rep. Tom Davis (R — VA) issued a staff report about the removal of documents from the National Archives by Sandy Berger, who performed a presidential privilege review at NARA in 2002 and 2003. According to the Davis report, a senior NARA official found herself “bullied” into leaving Berger alone with the documents. And the NARA Inspector General faced off with the Justice Department over what to tell the 9/11 Commission about Berger, only to conclude it was “career suicide” to cross influential officials in the Justice Department. In reading the Davis report, my mind flashed back to my own confrontations as a federal employee with Richard Nixon’s lawyers over deletions to his tapes.

We work in very different worlds and my sense is that academics for the most part have been very ineffectual in influencing what happens to historical records in government custody. Some of this is due to failure to study the issues and to think through all the perspectives, competing dynamics and potential roadblocks in release of government records. Are the scholars who depend on the National Archives even interested in learning about issues related to Presidential Libraries or declassification? I don’t know. I’ve been looking for years (H-Net, HNN) but haven’t seen any dialogue anywhere that suggests that that is the case.

So, from what I can see, academics mostly are silent on issues such as access to a President’s records. But do scholars take for granted that government employees will stand up to “bullies” on their behalf or even risk “career suicide” to ensure that matters related to a President’s historical records are handled properly? Perhaps dot dot dot.

My experiences suggest that although we all started at the same place, in graduate school studying history, we ended up in very different places, somehow. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as even the Internet can bring us together. There’s plenty of talking in the virtual world, that’s for sure, but it mostly seems to be people talking past each other.

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former Archivist, at 5:41 pm EST on January 14, 2007

“supporting a range of views”

Consider carefully please the sentence in the article, “History vs. Hagiography,” which reads “Such an ideological agenda, some professors at Southern Methodist argue, is inappropriate for a university and antithetical to the idea that a presidential library should provide material to support a range of views.” This is what troubled me Sunday afternoon and led me to write (above) about the problem of academics commenting on issues without studying them sufficiently. Let me take one more stab at this.

A think tank or institute associated with a private foundation or even with a university may or may not have an ideologocial agenda. A NARA (government) Presidential Library never would, at least in concept and in legislative intent.

An institute would not house or control access to records created since President Bush entered office in January 2001. Rather, the library would, with government archivists screening them under the PRA and other applicable laws and regulations, such as EO 12958, as amended, which covers national security classified material. EO 13233, the 2001 order by G. W. Bush which permits him and his descendants to block release of materials which federal archivists at the library otherwise might have opened for research, still is in litigation and its impact is unknown.

Consequently, it is the sentence with which I began this posting that is so worrisome to me. And which makes me believe that some scholars have not done enough research before weighing in on these issues. (Of course, since SMU has been a contender for the Presidential Library site since 2001, academics associated with the university have had plenty of time to educate themselves. That some seem ill prepared to debate the issues now, when they feel they need to weigh in, is unfortunate.)

Where, for example, does the idea come from, that a PRA-administered presidential library would not provide material to support a range of views? Or that a range of views comes in to play, at all? That simply is not the way it works. An Independent since 1990, I once used to vote straight Republican. I voted for Nixon in 1972 and worked on his campaign as a senior in high school. That did not stop me from tangling with his lawyers when I thought they were pushing us historian-archivists beyond the limits that I believed Congress intended in passing the Presidential Recordings and Materials and Preservation Act. In application of laws and regulations, I took exactly the same position as some of my colleagues at NARA’s Nixon Project, whose personal views and voting records spanned from Republican to Libertarian to Democratic to Socialist. We all checked our personal political views at the door when we came in to work each morning; they were irrelevant to our archival work.

In fact, after I left NARA employ to take another federal job, I filed a petition with the Archives, arguing that portions of meeting notes written by Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. “Bob” Haldeman, had been improperly blocked from release by Nixon’s lawyers. The notes were part of the Nixon collection which archivists had screened for release under the PRMPA. These were portions of the notes of Bob Haldeman’s meetings with Nixon which we archivists had marked for opening for you, the public to peruse, but which Nixon blocked us from releasing in 1987. Nixon argued they were private and personal and should be removed from government custody altogether and returned to him.

Haldeman, whom I met and worked with in the mid 1980s and actually came to like, did not block release of his meeting notes. Bob was very interested in adding to the known historical record. He sat for a wonderful oral history interview with us. And in the period before he died in November 1993, he prepared for publishing his own diary which covered some of the same events as the then still blocked meeting notes. He was that rare figure, a Washington power player who later did not shirk from confronting and letting others analyze what he had done while he held power. Including his Watergate related actions. Fortunately, NARA eventually opened for research (instead of returning to Nixon’s estate) the portions of Haldeman’s notes covered by my petition — by then, Nixon had died.

First, history is everything that happens. It also is what those who participated in events say happened, in memoirs and in interviews. And what historians later are able to glean from the materials available to them.

It falls to archivists to release the disclosable portions of records that once captured history as it was happening, regardless of whether it supports any one point of view. Or what someone may have said in his or her memoirs. Never once in listening to Nixon’s tapes or reading his files to see what could be released did I consider what the conversation or written document supported or did not support. That simply does not come in to play, at least as far as archivists are concerned. Obviously, it may for a think tank, whose scholars may or may not cherry pick through the materials that the archivists were able to open for research.

If any of the academics who are discussing this on the SMU campus read this long posting, I hope I have assured them that government archivists — the feds who staff the Presidential Libraries — do their utmost to uphold the public’s trust.

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former archivist, at 6:30 am EST on January 15, 2007

historians and archivists

Maarja Krusten: I think the two of us may be the last two looking at the posts on this article. I think most historians, such as myself, are *quite* grateful for the many things that archivists do to make the work of history possible. If you look at almost any biography of a recent president, the authors almost always give many thanks to the archivists who have helped them, and they usually thank them by name. Robert A. Caro, in his Pulitzer-Prize winning biography, devotes several sentences of thanks to just one archivist at the LBJ Library.

But, you’re right, there could be more understanding and cooperation.

I cover some of the reaction of the historical community to Bush’s Executive Order 13233, restricting access to some presidential records, in my book. The reaction was fairly strong.

You might be interested to look at the special coverage of the Bush Library in the newspaper the Texas Catholic (www.texascatholic.com). If you click on the button on the upper left of the website, called something like “Bush Library feature” there are some articles on the future Bush Library.

Benjamin Hufbauer, at 6:30 am EST on January 15, 2007

Perspective

Thanks, Dr. Hufbauer, I’ll take a look at the link you mentioned! And I also have your book on order, look forward to reading it when I receive it.

I’m one of many people who has enjoyed Robert Caro’s splendid books. Of course, historians such as Steve Ambrose, Joan Hoff, and Stanley Kutler mentioned my generation of archivists (including me my name) in acknowledgements to their books. Steve especially said some nice things about archivists in general. All three were grateful, yes, I’m sure other Nixon scholars have been, also. As far as I can tell, two actually analyzed what Nixon was doing and took actions to shake loose records from the Archives, notably Dr. Kutler. Many historians have benefited and will continue to benefit from his decision in 1992 to file a lawsuit.

My frustration stems from the fact that I looked with interest at Paul Burka’s blog in December when I first heard that academics had written a letter about the proposed Bush Library. Only to discover that their letter focused on a list of his actions and policies which they opposed. Had I been outside government, and been in a position of addressing the administrators of a university with which I was associated, I would have used a different approach. But it was for me an interesting glimpse into their thinking and approach.

Rather than stretching this out further, I’ll simply link to what I posted on the History News Network when I first tried to engage historians there in 2004:

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=28951

I appreciate the courtesy of your reply! And you’re right, the posts have petered out. This interesting article about history or hagiography drew fewer comments than I, for one, would have hoped.

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former archivist, at 9:30 am EST on January 15, 2007

The Bush Library

I am a 1978 graduate of SMU and I think the George W. Bush collection would have been great for SMU. At this point, though, they should give it up due to all the opposition from short-sighted individuals and movie stars on a pro-terrorist kick. The fact is that the US has not had another terrorist attack on our shores since 2001. This is due in large part to a strong presidency. President Bush has attacked the terrorists where they live rather than simply waiting for them to blow us up here. I hope Dr. Turner wins this battle, but it does not look promising.

Have a happy day!

Cal, at 9:20 am EST on January 19, 2007

New article with background info on Presidential Libraries

See http://hnn.us/articles/34128.htmlfor new article with background information on Presidential Libraries

Maarja Krusten, Historian and former National Archives’ Nixon tapes archivist, at 5:15 pm EST on January 21, 2007

GWB Library at SMU

A GWB Library at SMU would be an insult to the University. And a library in HIS name??? He doesn’t even read!!! Why connect yourself and his greedy philosopy with your university. Joy Johnson

Joy Johnson, Dietition at Mankato State University, MN, at 10:50 am EDT on May 1, 2007

Jobs Related to History vs. Hagiography

or search for jobs directly.

Career Services Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest College, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor — SSEM Online Master’s Degree Program
Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job

Research Specialist/Plant Biology
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Theatre Technical Director, Safety Specialist & Lighting Designer
University of La Verne

University of La Verne Position #2953 – Theatre Technical Director, Safety Specialist & Lighting Designer The University of ... see job

Assistant Dean — Design and Hospitality
Johnson County Community College

A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job

Blanket Posting Lecturers (9753) and Teaching Specialists (9754)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Physical Education/Head Football Coach
Harper College

Job Description: Physical Education teaching position also includes responsibility as Head Football ... see job

CINS Faculty (Information Technology)
Community College of Baltimore County

Job Responsibilities: Teach a full range of IT courses including Introduction to Computers (basic computer ... see job

Senior Financial Aid Assistant
Harper College

Job Description: Responsible for providing information and assistance with the federal and state financial ... see job

COE-N-2237 Chairperson
Towson University

The Department of Secondary Education invites applications for Chairperson, at the rank of Associate or full Professor. see job