<<For example, I think it's perfectly appropriate for a museum that raises millions of dollars from traditional sources to also be a repository for money, food and clothing for those in need who live nearby. To that extent, it is truthfully "an adjunct" to the community in which it resides, and to those agencies providing services to that community. The question of creating exhibits about "people of color" and other ethnic cultures seems, to me, to be the wrong question. Will the disadvantaged (or even many of the advantaged) from these cultures come to the museum to absorb these exhibits? There is experience to show that this audience just doesn't really care. The traditional museum-goer does care for diversity, but really as a learning experience and not to stimulate his/her concern for the "have-nots.">> We must be careful that our museums do not start to assume the role of other charities that specifically are created to help those who are disadvantaged. The role of the museum is to preserve and interpret our history, and quite frankly, there is so much history that is being lost that museums do not have the luxury of becoming the next United Way. True, we are a part of the human community, but we have a specific role in that community. If the disadvantaged want to become advantaged why are they not visiting our museums and libraries to learn?