Miguel:
>Mr./Mrs./Ms. kjk:

kjk:
we are all friends here, you can dispense with the titles and simply use kjk.

>You just responded publicly.
>Maybe I misread your original post, but you said:

Miguel quoting kjk:
>"if i'm misreading the original post and the call is to simply
>hire based on color, gender, religion, etc.  then i'm completely opposed. any
>employee, it seems to me, has to be able to bring something tangible to
>the institution."

Miguel:
>What do you define as "something tangible?"  Again, you're imposing some
>abstract desire to make people who can participate in museums more like
>the "standard," whatever the standard is at that particular point in time.

kjk:
how am i doing that?  you seem to assume that i write from a premise that
museums are rigid, philosophically and culturally stagnant institutions.
on the contrary, i see museums as being (potentially in some cases)
flexible insitutions that can and do bring all manners of cultural and
intercultural activities to their communities. since the relationship
between the institution and the community should (in my ideal world) be
dynamic, the museum should also have cultural and intercultural activities
brought to it from the community at large.  hiring from the community is
one method of doing so.

your quotation of my ideas, mysteriously it seems, cut out the preceding
paragraph DEFENDING my reading of a notion of "someone" (who i now suspect
was you) that museums utilize the wealth of cultural knowledge within
their own communities.  my post defended precisely the idea that museums
hire based on "qualification" rather than "museum experience."  i stated
quite clearly that qualification should take precedence in hiring.
qualification for EVERY position does not necessarily mean the ability to
run a computer, speak english, discuss a Renoir, write a grant, etc.
qualification is contingent on the nature of the position in question.

what i define as "something tangible" is simply that which the employee
brings to the institution to help further its stated goals. assuming the
institution is flexible enough (again, my ideal world) the qualified
employee works dynamically with his or her collegues and the community at
large to create "standards."

standards are not bad things, Miguel.  and if you (carefully) read what
*i* mean by standards, you will see that they are dynamic, flexible over
time and not necessarily imposed on us by rich white guys.

Miguel:
>You went on to say:

Miguel quating kjk:
>"that is, if you want to hire minorities or women of specific backgrounds
>without prior museum experience, you are going to have to create positions
>where being a minority or woman of a specific background IS a field of
>expertise in itself. (i.e., as intern/consultants for specific exhibits,
>etc.)"

Miguel:
>SAY WHAT? "...IS a field of expertise in itself."  Ladies and gentlemen
>patronize starts with a "P."  The last thing I want to get into here on
>this fine list is into a rhetoric war, just want to bring light to ISSUES
>which are IMPORTANT.  My apologies for misrepresenting your comments.

kjk:
then why are you doing it again?

Miguel:
>A
>remedy would be to be concise and clear.  Or not respond at all, if it's not
>really that important to you.  It's your call.  I like real food myself.

kjk:
again, Miguel, had you carefully read my post, or had the courage to quote
all of it, you and our readers will not have missed the following:

(a) the context, which laments the current trend (as i see it) in museum
hiring. (i.e., an ever increasing dependency on specialization to the
point where one finds it difficult to earn even internship positions
without prior  museum experience).

(b) the fact that the paragraph of mine which you quote does not represent
something that i advocate.  on the contrary, it laments a potentially sad
future in museum employment where, with increased specialization being the
norm, the underclass will have even fewer opportunities unless they are
patronized.

on the other hand, for one who seems to demand employment based on your
ethnicity, i find it somewhat inconsitent that you would find being
patronized so offensive.

still, there is something to be said for "cultural specialization."  as a
young anthropology student, it was pointed out to me that the
anthropologist lives and works among the community he or she researches
because that is precisely where the community's culture lies.  were my
institution planning an event on Appalacian banjo playing i'd probably go
to eastern Kentucky to do my research, and i'd try to find banjo players
to consult with.  if i could, maybe i'd even look into getting one or two
of them a stipend to perform and/or speak.  if i really had the money and
by some fluke, my institution WAS in eastern Kentucky, i'd see if i could
get one of them an intership and ask them to help SET UP the event. i'd
like that.  do you consider that patronizing?  i call that "bringing
something tangible to an institution."

context, friend, context!

Miguel:
>I quite don't follow you "kjk."  Partly to blame is because we're not
>face to face, best characterized by what Robin said a few posts back:

kjk:
no, i think it's because you are not reading my words, but are trying too
hard to focus on who you think is behind them.

Miguel quoting Robin:
>"we are really musing out loud, as it were, except that it is silent via the
>computer.  The convenience almost, but not quite, makes up for not being
>able to see each other's faces so one could tell if the other meant
>something to be funny, or express concern or something else entirely."
>
>I too, miss Los Angeles.  These POSTS are really multi-layed.
>
>Miguel
>
>:)

kjk:
there is something to be said for Robin's quote.  on the other hand,
communication via computer gives us the opportinity focus on ideas rather
than speakers.  we can look at each other's words INSTEAD of each other's
faces.  i suggest we take advantage of that while we can!

--
please read the text before responding publicly.
i do not respond to unsolicited email.
kjk