Greetings Jeannine et al.: Honestly, I'm surprised and disturbed greatly that anyone is favorably disposed to modifying known scholarship for the supposed benefits of a subculture (religious, ethnic, etc.)! Perhaps a renewed reading of the AAM's "Code of Ethics for Museums 2000" (http://www.aam-us.org/aamcoe.cfm) is needed? The section entitled "Programs" reads as follows: "Museums serve society by advancing an understanding and appreciation of the natural and cultural common wealth through exhibitions, research, scholarship, publications, and educational activities. These programs further the museum's mission and are responsive to the concerns, interests, and needs of society. Thus, the museum ensures that: a.. programs support its mission and public trust responsibilities a.. programs are founded on scholarship and marked by intellectual integrity a.. programs are accessible and encourage participation of the widest possible audience consistent with its mission and resources a.. programs respect pluralistic values, traditions, and concerns a.. revenue-producing activities and activities that involve relationships with external entities are compatible with the museumıs mission and support its public trust responsibilities a.. programs promote the public good rather than individual financial gain." The second point of six is "intellectual integrity." One might assume that "intellectual integrity" means providing information and references for known information, information agreed to by the majority. Note the use of the term "common wealth" - in the first sentence - which means "a nation, state, or other political unit: as a : one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good b : one in which supreme authority is vested in the people." Also note the use of the word "society" - in the second sentence - whose many meanings include "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests." [Definitions from www.m-w.com.] (Naturally, one might oppose my chosen definitions with countless others, but the core and context in the AAM's "Code of Ethics for Museums 2000" remains the same. I am sure someone from AAM could provide further explanation.) Of course, points three and four promote programs for the widest possible audience and pluralism. So, it might be appropriate, AFTER covering information that is known and agreed to by the majority, to mention the "other" side(s). So, talk about the tobacco industry in the region . . . then talk about (or allow the teacher to talk about) why tobacco usage and the methods used in the past in tobacco farming are discouraged today. Talk about radiocarbon dating (vis-a-vis paleontological or archeological finds) . . . then talk about (or allow the teacher to talk about) objections based on theological faith. Talk about the two interpretations of T Rex dinosaurs . . . the 'slow reptile, loping along, lucky to grab a bite to eat' or the '60 mile per hour jogger who ate anything in its path.' Teachers could talk to their classes before, during or after the museum tour, right? But don't censor. That contravenes "intellectual integrity." Sincerely, Jay Heuman Visitor & Volunteer Services Coordinator Joslyn Art Museum 2200 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68102 342-3300 (telephone) 342-2376 (fax) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Museum * Etymology: Latin Museum place for learned occupation, from Greek Mouseion, from neuter of Mouseios of the Muses, from Mousa * an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also, a place where objects are exhibited. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~