<<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?