In a message dated 6/2/2005 1:16:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Scenario #1: A group wants to rent the auditorium at your museum. They pay 
 the fee, sign a contract and hold their event. Two days later there is a 
 PR-fed story in the paper that a film on Intelligent Design was held at 
 your museum. If the reporter is lazy, it's a reprint of the press release, 
 which the museum director can rebut with a well-written letter to the 
 editor. If the reporter is not lazy, she calls your museum to get a quote, 
 and gets the real story: The group rented the auditorium and they can play 
 whatever movie they want. The museum and the museum's auditorium are two 
 different things. It's not an endorsement of their point of view any more 
 than if the local chapter of AARP had shown Cocoon. The story dies. >>

I like this scenario.  I think it's a reasonable way to make money with an 
attractive, elegant, atmospheric piece of real estate like a museum environment 
while avoiding any appearance of favoritism or implied support of the renting 
organization by the museum.  In fact, I would argue that the more inclusive 
the museum's rental policy is, the more its impartiality is strengthened.  
Indeed, I'll go further: Why should a Smithsonian museum not also rent its 
facilities for political and religious events or organizations?  Why such a 
restriction?  After all, Smithsonian museums have already set a precedent by providing 
space for presidential inaugural balls!  While an inaugural ball has obvious 
historical and patriotic connotations of international significance, it would be 
disingenuous not to also consider it political in texture and context.  
(Duh.)  Conversely, if a museum elects not to rent its space for private events, 
for whatever reasons--to avoid security and conservation problems, or to avoid 
PR issues--it should be consistent and not rent to any outside organization, 
however worthy, period.

Why any museum should insist on applying the term "co-sponsorship" to its 
rental of facilities to outside organizations is beyond my comprehension.  If it 
didn't want to imply endorsement of the ID event, why adopt this strange 
terminology, which implies the opposite of what was intended?  Indeed, why even 
bother to screen and "approve" the film in the first place?  It might have been 
better to be able to profess complete ignorance of the film's content and 
ideology.  Call me a language nut, but co-sponsorship suggests approval at minimum, 
if not active participation, possibly even financial support.

Today's Washington Post carried the article, "Smithsonian Distances Itself 
From Controversial Film."  It characterized the $16,000 as a "fee" and not a 
"gift," as I contended in my previous email.  And it went on to say that the 
museum is now not accepting the $16,000 (!) and "will withdraw its customary 
co-sponsorship."  It seems to me that, in refusing the fee, the museum is now 
finally (and ironically) engaged in true sponsorship!  It is footing the bill for 
the event!  The costs of guard overtime, AV services, etc., will now presumably 
be borne by the museum, not the renting organization!  While "co-sponsoring" 
the event, the museum was going to charge a fee, which presumably would cover 
all costs plus provide a profit.  Now, while NOT co-sponsoring, the museum 
gets to pay for the event.  Huh?  According to my dictionary, the concept of 
sponsorship includes paying the bills.  What kind of logic is this? 

I don't think the Smithsonian has been "out-maneuvered" at all.  I think the 
museum has simply painted itself into a semantic corner.  What should have 
been a simple rental agreement has been turned upside down with confusing, 
inaccurate terminology.  I still see nothing wrong with the original basic plan to 
simply rent space to an outside organization for its private party, and think 
that the Randis and other ID opponents overreacted, leading to a corresponding 
overreaction by the museum.  But the museum should sponsor or "co-sponsor" 
only those events by outside organizations which it offically approves, and 
should certainly not waive fees for events which it claims not to approve.  
Sponsorship does imply endorsement.

Show me the money! 

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).