Regarding Matthew White's remarks: "...if a museum professional is less
than adequate at their [sic] job no one will die, no innocent people
will go to jail, no building's [sic] will fall, and no one's children
will be doomed to illiteracy." This is true (normally), but incompetent
museum workers or administrators can damage or destroy, steal or allow
others to steal, significant artifacts of inestimable historical,
scientific, or aesthetic value, diminishing forever our shared
historical heritage and in effect destroying knowledge. Or they can hide
such objects and prevent both scholars and the general public from
having access to them. In the frenzy to present themselves as
"educators," some museum professionals forget their fundamental status
as stewards or guardians of knowledge--in the form of objects which are
documents and residues of the past.
  To the extent that some of these objects require TLC and
rehabilitation, or at least health maintenance strategies, I sometimes
think of museums as hospitals for objects, with staffs of physicians,
surgeons, technicians, etc. (not a perfect analogy, but hey, that's the
nature of analogies); how many of these "patients" are the victims of
museum malpractice?
    I don't know whether certification would reduce such problems, but I
doubt it. My medical analogy was suggested by a television program on
medical malpractice a couple of years ago, when the host asked if there
was a "code" or "conspiracy" of silence which keeps physicians from
ratting on each other so that they can go on killing patients through
incompetence, indifference, inattention, etc. "Of course there is," I
yelled at the TV (I don't do that very often), "and there's a code of
silence in every profession" (vis-a-vis bad apples, that is). In many
professions, it doesn't matter that much. Perhaps nothing is more
serious than incompetence or malpractice in the health professions, but
I don't think we should underestimate the importance of solid
professionalism on the staffs of the institutions which safeguard
knowledge, including knowledge residing in objects, documents, and
books. It IS important, however you measure or certify it. Call me
hopelessly idealistic, but I think we should encourage honest evaluation
of workers by: peers (both "inside" and outside), supervisors and
subordinates, and "customers" in most professions and institutions, not
the least of which is museums. Oh, yes, getting back to people--
incompetent museum professionals not only can destroy objects, they can
destroy others' careers as well. I'm thinking of several museums, by the
way; you can read about it in my post-retirement book on the subject.
There's a lot of talk about protecting whistle-blowers in government,
but we need whistle-blower protection in in all fields.
    Hope this doesn't sound like too radical a rant. Finally, I'm
concerned that recent changes in museum values may tend to direct
attention away from collections and place them at even greater risk.
    --David Haberstich