Looking Back on the Lost Reagan Library
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
That the Reagan Library wouldn’t be based at Stanford probably came as a great surprise to a large number of people. Up until the point of the withdrawal of the proposal by the Reagan Foundation, all indications were that things were progressing normally. What, then, caused the Reagan Foundation to back out? Why did Stanford lose a valuable resource such as the Reagan Library?
The official reason cited by the Reagan Foundation, was that since they would not be allowed to base the Library and supporting facilities in the same location, the basing proposal was simply unsatisfactory. Although this is true, the decision was made in 1983 and had not been an issue for some time. Then suddenly, the Reagan Foundation changed its mind.
Does this make sense? Not really, especially since the pullout was coincidental with rising and increasingly vocal opposition to the Library. In fact, many of these groups “took credit” for the Library’s withdrawal, considering it a “victory” for Stanford.
The Reagan Foundation, of course, would never admit that the Library was withdrawn because, in essence, “Stanford didn’t want it”. That would be an embarrassment to President Reagan, not to mention the University. Yet that seems to be the most logical reason behind the Reagan Foundation’s decision, especially considering the amount of work that had already gone into the basing of the Library, work that would have to be completely redone should another site be chosen. This sentiment is echoed by Philip Williams, director of planning for the University, who said: “The fact that the center and the library were split had been accepted. In the long run, it had to be inhospitality that turned the trick.”
To say that there was inhospitality towards the Library is an understatement. Perhaps in an attempt to rectify what they considered to be a lack of representation in the process of approving the Library, various student groups and the Faculty Senate raised increasingly louder objections during the beginning of 1987. Some of the objections would appear on the surface to be legitimate concerns, such as the environmental impact on the area from the increased traffic flow. Other “concerns” were nothing more than thinly-veiled objections to Reagan himself, having little to do with the Library except in name only.
Since the Library proposal was withdrawn, other uses have been proposed for the site that the Library was to occupy. Some of those proposals are ambitious enough to impact the environment in ways similar to the Library. There has been no vocal opposition to these proposals, however, which leads one to wonder if the objections stemmed from the fact that the structure was a Reagan Library, and not some building of equal size.
So what exactly were the benefits that Stanford lost? First of all, Stanford lost convenient access to the Reagan archives, which would have been an invaluable resource of scholars studying this period of history. Regardless of what one thinks of Reagan’s policies, his administration has had a profound impact on this country and the world. To reject the opportunity for future Stanford students and faculty to study such policies simply because one finds these policies objectionable is clearly quite narrow-minded. For an institution that hopes to be as open as it claims to be, such rejection is uncalled for.
Stanford also suffered a loss of prestige. Having the Reagan Library and related facilities here would have made Stanford a prime location of modern political policy study. This would have increased the University’s profile in such areas of research, and quite possibly would have led to increased donations as a result. As it presently stands, outside opinion, be it conservative or liberal, can’t help but wonder “What did Stanford do to cause the withdrawal of the Reagan Library?” Peoples’ opinions of Stanford are lowered as a result of the “rejecting” of the Library, and perhaps some patrons of the University will find the situation so intolerable as to affect future donations. This is “victory?”
As has been previously stated, it is unlikely that we will ever know if the actions of the opponents of the Reagan Library had a direct impact on the Reagan Foundation’s decision. Officially they did not, but the coincidental evidence demonstrates otherwise. Add to this the fact that even the truly legitimate concerns seem to have been tainted with political agenda-making, and one is left with the opinion that Stanford is an intolerant environment for open expression. Stanford is so concerned with appearing affiliated with the evil of Reagan, that it would shoot itself in the foot by rejecting one of the greatest opportunities presented to it or any other all institution in recent memory.
Whether or not this is in fact an accurate view opportunity presents itself to the University again in the remains to be seen. The administration was quite responsive to the Reagan Foundation; most of the opposition resulted from a vocal minority, which drowned out all other opinions. Stanford is the worse for the loss of the Reagan Library in many ways. If such a tremendous opportunity presents itself to the University again in the future, everyone should take a good hard look at whether their intolerant political biases are adversely affecting the academic quality here at Stanford.
