Please bear in mind that it is the end of a long day (but not really the end
because I have an Advisory Board meeting in an hour and a half) and that I
am trying to simultaneously prepare for a very full AAM meeting and think of
all the things that might come up in the five days that I am gone from here,
BUT

I have been thinking on and off as the list has discussed the
looting/vandalism/theft at the Bagdad National Museum and the fatal accident
at the Museum of Science and Industry about an overall idea of why we are
all so upset.

I think it has to do with an implicit agreement or "social contract" that we
who work in museums feel we have made with those who use museums, whether
they are the visiting public or private researchers.   We make our
collections available and they agree to behave properly around them.
Certainly if we wanted to make absolutely sure that none of our
irreplaceable pieces were stolen or damaged, the last thing we would do is
put them out in the open (or in breakable glass or plexi cases) and invite
total strangers to wander around looking at them for as long as they liked.
We make sure the objects are secure up to a point, but no museum is really
theft-proof.

[As an aside, most of us probably wouldn't really want to work in a museum
that was as secure as humanly possible.   I once did a survey along with a
Big Name in museum security and we agreed that it was his job to close the
museum down tightly and mine to open it up enough that the staff could
function and the collections could be used]

Intentional damage to museum collections means that the "other side" is not
honoring the agreement.   The fact that many of us are often excrutiatingly
aware of the sacrifices that we make as museum employees so that museums
stay open and provide a full range of services only adds to our feelings of
betrayal.  And I would suggest that all this is separate from any political,
ethical or moral beliefs that increase the emotional response.

When visitors "misbehave" in some way that not only harms themselves but
also creates a potential threat to the existence of a museum, I think we
also feel betrayed.   Very few museums can afford to be sued.  Even if
liability insurance covers some of the costs, the PR would be a nightmare.
Any kind of adverse ruling -- that the museum did not take enough safety
precautions -- means that the rest of us need to make modifications (and
probably major ones) to our procedures.   Do we stop school tours?  Do we
make all visitors sign liability wavers?   Do we cover the inside of our
staircases with wire mesh?  So again, we feel like we're doing our part, but
the visitors aren't doing theirs.

OK, back to AAM prep.

janice

Janice Klein
Director, Mitchell Museum of the American Indian, Kendall College
[log in to unmask]
www.mitchellmuseum.org

=========================================================
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).