MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
rich jones <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 28 Jan 1995 21:47:00 PST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
JIM:
 
I don't have a remedy for this mess.  I'm hoping the cure doesn't do the
patient in. I do, however, have a thought on what the outcome should be.
 
I used the word "replaced" instead of "fired" because I think SERIOUS errors
in judgement should have a negative consequence attached to them when such
wrong-headedness threatens the health and reputation of a national treasure
like the Smithsonian. Hindsight tells me "demoted" would have been a better
word than "replaced."
 
As for the politics of my post, if you are referring to my use of the phrase
"minority point-of-view" that's the best euphemism I could come up with to
describe what others might call "revisionist", "un-American", etc.  I wanted
to use "overly-erudite" but I wasn't sure if it had one R or two and I
didn't want anyone to pick on my spelling and miss the meaning of my post.
 
Sometime back, I stated my position in favor of "institutional free-expression."
I guess now I have to qualify that by saying "provided such free-expression
does not have a pyrrhic quality about it."
 
 
>>If it is determined, like I believe it will be, that the Smithsonian
>>momentarily lost its head about the Enola Gay
>>exhibition, then those who advocated vehemently for the minority
>>point-of-view should be commended for sticking up for what they believe in,
>>complimented on their professional accumen and if they were directly
>>involved, REPLACED [emphasis mine]. . .
 
 
>Rich, Pray tell expand on that last thought . . . Are we at the point of
>firing people simply because they embrace a minority view? Talk about a
>"chilling effect!" A long view of recorded history demonstrates, in time,
>many (most?) majority views (in nearly every discipline) are eventually
>discredited or at least proven to be only partially valid. On the surface
>your remedy sounds awfully wicked. And vaguely political? Jim Czarniecki
>
>
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Jones                              Governing Board For:
Development Director                    Carter House Natural Science Museum
Shasta Natural Science Association      Redding Arboretum By The River
[log in to unmask]              SNSA Environmental Resources Center

ATOM RSS1 RSS2