I would like, for the sake of provocation, to take a very
          skeptical point of view about the issue of academic freedom.
          As whoever said it said: "the press is free for those who
          own presses." I think that the ostensibly sacrosanct
          principal of academic freedom is similarly suspect. The
          academy is free for those who know the ropes, the rules,
          etc. These people, it goes without saying, are imbued with
          the principles of the mainstream culture, and make their
          arguments from within that very well-defined context. You
          all know as well (or better) than I do how hard it is to
          gain a professional foothold in the academy, don't you think
          that difficulty, in and of itself, tremendously constricts
          and defines academic "freedom?"
 
          Applying the same general argument to the museum yeilds the
          same result, curatorships are notoriously hard to gain, and
          the required credentials are similarly mainstream, and
          therefore the "freedom" of expression is within a
          dramatically constricted context. And then, of course,
          museums have an additional responsibility to their public
          and their boards, beyond that of academics.
 
          The long and the short of it is, as Browning (dead white
          canonical male with a *great* beard) said, "how free we
          seem, how fetter'd fast we are." Freedom in the academic
          context, and certainly in the museum context, is illusory
          from this point of view. It's only a question of which of
          the contradictory sets of constraints pulls tightest: is it
          the necessity to try to tease out all points of view of a
          given subject? or is it the necessity to adhere to the
          latest scholarship? or is it the necessity that the museum
          might feel to expand its audience? provoke its audience?
          placate its board? provoke its board?
 
          I'd certainly say that it is a coarse distortion of the
          question to say that it is a simple dichotomy between
          "pleasing the audience" and "presenting an accurate
          picture." Both of those dictates are *so* vague and
          ill-understood as to be meaningless.
 
 
 
          Now, having said all that, I would like to go beyond the
          usual IMHO, to say that these are just thoughts. Boy, I
          *never* get to talk like this in the real world!
 
          Eric Siegel
          [log in to unmask]