Thanks to those who agreed with my post about disrespectful public behavior
in general and in museums in particular, such as Amy Marshall.  To those who
disagreed, I hardly know what to say.  Does Christopher Whittle really
believe we must "make accommodations" to those who want to lick paintings?  I
think that's one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on the Internet.
 How accommodating can we be?  Not only does museum stewardship oblige us to
protect the objects under our care and ensure them a reasonable longevity, we
also need to protect the viewing public from their own follies.  As others
have pointed out, abusing museum exhibits can be hazardous to your health; I
scarcely think that licking paintings can be considered a healthful activity.
 "Accommodate" painting-lickers?  Egad!  Would Mr. Whittle think that we
should similarly "accommodate" those enthusiastic souls who think they have a
right to throw stones at animals in zoos?  Enough.  I think I've already
dignified such blatant nonsense too much by bothering to disagree with it.

As for David Harvey's remarks in "Visigoths-At-The-Gates," I agree that
museum professionals need to find ways to send clear messages to museum
visitors about what can be touched and what should not.  I agree that we need
to "treat our visitors with respect as sentient beings with intelligence and
the capacity to learn."  That's why we produce explanatory labels and other
texts in exhibits, is it not?  That isn't really an issue, is it?  However, I
think Mr. Harvey is right that his experience is "limited."  It may well be
true that most of the visitors to Williamsburg are well-behaved, but I
daresay that the price of a Williamsburg visit tends to filter out some of
the more poorly behaved folks who may visit a free museum such as mine.  In
any event, the "problem" visitors definitely are a minority, but I suggest
that they constitute a larger minority than 0.01 per cent.

Why Mr. Harvey feels a need to go on and make a snide comment about my use of
the term "reverence" puzzles me.  Or why he wonders how I would "fare" in a
"visitor-oriented institution."  I assure him that I do work in a
visitor-oriented institution--although it isn't nearly as much so as I would
like--and I fare just fine, thank you.  Let's talk about "respect," Mr.
Harvey!  My office is located on a public floor of the National Museum of
American History, and one of the hats I wear is that of "public service
officer" for our unit.  I encounter museum visitors daily: I answer their
questions, handle their complaints about exhibits--some of which are quite
rude--escort them to rest rooms and escalators when they get lost, and on one
occasion rescued a woman who got herself locked in a stairway after hours.  I
personally have been lobbying our administration for better directional
signs, because the few that exist in our wing are confusing and inadequate;
in fact, I've produced and installed such signs on my own initiative while
waiting for administrators to pick up the ball.  I regularly push elevator
buttons for visitors who can't figure out how to operate them.  Oh, yes, I've
also provided first aid for injured visitors on several occasions.  I too
have had a number of "pleasant conversations" with museum visitors.  On the
other hand, I have also found the need to admonish kids not to play on
escalators (interestingly enough, I've NEVER witnessed kids playing dangerous
games on department store or subway escalators--but they love to do it in our
museum), bawl out a teenager for breaking a full glass soda bottle on an
exhibit floor, stop people from smoking cigarettes in exhibition areas, pick
up trash that people throw on the floor and on exhibit cases, turn off
faucets in public rest rooms that people leave running full blast, stop
people from trying to crawl around exhibits on raised platforms, etc.

I'm sorry to learn that Williamsburg has a policy of "instantly" firing staff
for rudeness to visitors.  How often has this been implemented?  Having once
been told by a telephone operator that I was "rude" for asking him to repeat
a phone number I didn't understand, and regularly telling my colleagues that
their complaints about "surly" researchers seem to me unjustified, I know
that "rudeness" is often a question of personal perception, and think that
anyone considered rude deserves a second chance.  Is there no gentle
education of staff at Williamsburg when they are deemed less than pleasant to
visitors, just summary firings?  I would vigorously oppose such draconian
measures, and would suggest that they do not represent respect for the staff.

--David Haberstich