Finding a Home for Tricky Dicky: the Nixon-Duke Presidential Library Controversy

Letters of Opposition

Letter, Duke history department to Sanford, August 22, 1981. Terry Sanford Records, 1969-1985. Office of the President, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University.

         Among the many voices of concern and opposition, the history department, with its expertise and its hard-earned reputation, was one of the strongest and most vocal forces. Sanford telephoned Richard Watson, the acting chairman of history department, on the morning of August 8th, same day that he sent out the confidential memo bringing up the proposal in writing for the first time. However, the opposition that he would get from the history department perhaps came as a shock to him. On August 10th, Dean Goodwin, who Sanford appointed to inform faculty member of such proposal, met with the history department and discussed the negotiations. This letter signed by the history department dated August 21st demonstrates perfectly the confusion felt by many on campus, the chaos of the negotiations, and the frustration. In this letter, the faculty highlighted the discrepancy with deadlines, including the USC decision. The fact that the timing of the negotiation seems intentional was also brought up, further emphasized by the “intolerable chain of events” where such no conversation was had about such a public issue.

Report, Subcommittee of Library Relations to Academic Council. October 21, 1981. Nixon Library Controversy Reference Collection, 1981-2001, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University.

      To further investigate and report on the proposal, Academic Council called on the Subcommittee of Library Relations. Knut Schmidt-Nielsen from the physiology department was appointed chairman of the committee, and it is unclear whether he was a supporter or oppose prior of his appointment. Also serving on the subcommittee were William Chafe, opposer from the history department and a personal friend of Sanford, Ruth Day, Bruce Huniholm, Harmon Smith, Tom Spragens, Mattie Russell, and Philip Stewart. None of these faculty seem to appear on the 157 name listing of CANDL (Committee Against Nixon Duke Library) members.

      The report outlined six findings and recommendations, concerning the History of Nixon Library proposal, scholarly value, use of land, nature of library, funding, and access to and control of archival material. They concluded that “for a presidential library to be developed at Duke University in a manner that will not compromise the integrity of the University, the above conditions under items 3, 4, 5, and 6 are essential in their entirety”. The third item is a condition in which Duke will not deed or otherwise make available any land to be used for a presidential museum; fourth item outlined that the nature of the library will be suitable for scholarly activities; fifth item concerning funding asked that Duke act as trustee for privately contributed funds; last item requested that all litigation regarding ownership and access to materials be settled before any final agreement.

      Interestingly, a minority report was included in this otherwise unanimous report, submitted by Mattie Russell. The minority report outlined that if under item three, it was deemed that the museum was an absolute condition in locating the library, then “the existence of a museum on a modest scale should be accepted”, though the “size and design would not perpetuate the ‘shrine syndrome’ in presidential libraries”.

Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info