On Sat, 28 Jan 1995, rich jones wrote:
 
> 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
> >
 
     I have found nearly all the discussion of the Enola Gay controversy,
here and elsewhere, to be wide of the mark.
     The real question is whether the exhibit, as proposed and revised,
is as
accurate as can be documented and as fair-minded as can be achieved. I
have seen enough to persuade me that it fails both tests, and hope to be
able to produce and distribute a full set of the original and revised
texts (which are still in flux).
     Meanwhile, for an excellent discussion of what the original proposed
exhibit would have shown, who the curators are, and how and why they made
the
choices they did, I heartily recommend reporter Ken Ringle's account in
the Washington Post of 9/21/94, now available on microfilm in most
sizable libraries and from various online services.
 
+ + + + +
 
Hank Burchard * Weekend Section * The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW * Washington DC USA 20071-0001
VoiceMail (202) 334-7243 * Email: [log in to unmask]