Controversies over Memorial Libraries

by Cliopatria

There are current controversies about both a Billy Graham Memorial Library and the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

The plans of Franklin Graham to bury his parents at a Billy Graham Library outside Charlotte have, apparently, divided members of the Graham family. The details of that decision will not intensely concern historians, because the records of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association have long been committed to the Archives of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. At most, the Billy Graham Library outside Charlotte will feature significant multimedia exhibits, some memorabilia, and, if Franklin has his way about it, his parents' burial site. But, if the Washington Post article is to be believed, the disneyfication of public memorials in the United States guarantees we'll not run out of the weird in the new America. Tourists at the Billy Graham Library would be introduced to the evangelist's life by"Bessie," a talking cow. I'm reminded of early reports on disneyfication of the Civil Rights Museum at Memphis would feature a replica of Dr. King's exploding head.

The faculty of Southern Methodist University's Perkins School of Theology is challenging plans to locate a $500 million George W. Bush Presidential Library at SMU. I'd take exception to the claim of Texas Monthly's Paul Burka that there is no ethical dimension to such a decision. Bush is not even an SMU alum, though his wife is on its board of trustees. Plans for the Bush Library are grandiose, even by Texas standards, and, if the fund raising for it is conducted with approval by SMU's board of trustees, it could have a negative effect on fund raising for other SMU projects. There's precedent for a University's rejection of a presidential library at its campus in Duke University's rejection of plans to locate the Richard Nixon Presidential Library at Duke, where Nixon studied law. Nonetheless, Burka is right to emphasize that the ethical dimension of the decision depends largely on the attitude of a library's administration to open access and research. The Johnson library at Austin has been a model for open access, but both the Kennedy and the Nixon libraries have a much more mixed track record. Does the Johnson library's location adjacent to the University of Texas encourage open access? Does continuing family influence in the governance of a presidential library inevitably limit open access? What strings would tie the hands of administrators of a Bush presidential library at SMU?
Update: Scott Jaschik,"Scholarly Archive or Ideological Center?" Inside Higher Ed, 18 December.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Oscar Chamberlain - 12/17/2006

When I read about that talking cow for the first time, it almost scared me. At one level it reminded me of the time in the early 80s when I was in the vistor's center by the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. It had an auditorium in which, according to the sign outside, "a living mannequin" would guide me through some aspect of Mormon history. Somehow I did not want to enter.

At another level, the cow is so sad. I went to one of Billy's Crusade appearances; it was at the Texas Tech football stadium in 1975.

I went in curious and suspicious. I knew through my mother, who had been to one a couple of years earlier, that he had followers stationed in the audience to walk down to the field at the end, when Billy would call for people to come down and accept Jesus. The bit of cynicisn that piece of knowledge engendered was enhanced when all of us entering received a program that had a blank counter check (and envelope), in case we wanted to donate.

However, the program was interesting, sometimes enjoyable. He had talented people on tour with him. And then, without announcement or introduction, Billy appeared at the Podium (which I could hardly see from where I was) and he began to speak.

Few people can exude charisma over a loudspeaker system. He did so, and at least that evening he did so in a quiet, almost contemplative manner. From an outsider's perspective, it was manipulative. From the perspective of a Christian of his stripe, simply honest. Either way. I remember that what he said tended to strip away the emotional supports that this world provides, so as to leave the listener alone in the universe, and so to make the acceptance of Jesus seem so necessary. The bright lights of the stadium and the darkness surrounding it only enhanced that message.

Manipulative or not, I found myself convinced that he was sincere. That sincerity impressed me, enough so that I came to see those people planted in the crowd--as I am sure that he saw them--not as deceivers playing on mass behavior but as ice-breakers, helping those who felt called down to overcome their own fears.

He had some huckster in him. The book that he was pushing at the time was titled "Angels: God's Secret Agents," a title that I still find off-putting in the extreme. I am sure there are many other examples. I can imagine someone seeing the talking cow as the huckster's come-uppance.

But it does not strke me that way.
He tried to be a force for good, as he saw it. Some of what he did and said were wrong, as I see wrong. But he deserves better honor from the people who call themselves his followers than a talking cow in the doorway.