It certainly has been interesting and educational reading the responses to my initial frustrations about celebrating holidays in museum settings. It has also been interesting how many individuals sent me supportive messages directly, concerned about how the group would react to their comments. By the way, this is how it works in museums. When one expresses a concern about this issue, they are pushed down with such passion, they usually never speak up again. This is certainly not a way to create open, dynamic and responsive work environments. A number of people brought of the issue that a Christmas Tree is not a religious symbol. Well, if you showed most individuals a picture of a Christmas Tree and asked to respond to it in one phrase, most would say , "Oh Christmas." To me, a symbol's meaning is that which comes to mind when people encounter that image or object. I also have a bit of a problem of quasi gov't or gov't organizations spending money on a "religious" celebration out of the context of a "religious" exhibit or if religion is the content of the institution. If the Nixon Library wants to show how the presidential family spent christmas, that makes sense. Believe it or not, the most compelling reason for me is one of economics. Our stores do most of their business during the holiday season. However, there must be a more diverse way that we can decorate our institutions during this festive period to satisfy all groups. I'm not talking about putting a small menorah in the window for me. It's a religious object that doesn't belong in a public space -- especially when a series of prayers is not said when each new candle is lit or bulb screwed in. I urge those of you who are involved in the planning of these holidays to think twice about how your decisions affect others. And don't think that what you think is the solution will be responsive to those who are impacted by the decisions. Maybe folks can bring in a diverse group of community members in a forum to discuss this issue. It might bring about some interesting dialog and responsive changes. I challenge you to consider these issues, but only if you are ready to make changes. If it is only an exercise in listening with no action, don't waste the time. As I always say, don't take your temperature if you aren't willing to take advil (or asprin). I also urge you to consider many other issues of diversity when developing educational programs, membership programs, exhibits, signage, and hiring. As an industry, we are slowly getting better at responding to issues of race and the physically challenged. Although we are certainly not as far as we need to be. How many of us have signers to support the deaf community? How many of us has a diverse staff to reflect the community? What about some audiences that don't get thought about enough -- single parent families, very large families (in terms of membership programs that limit family size), recent immigrants who live in cities without a large immigrant populations, how about the blind (do we give them a chance to touch diorama's when it's slow), what about folks who are seriously afraid of heights (how do we get them through some of our buildings designed by architects who just love spectacular and cavernous atria), what about people who have never been to an art museum in their lives, what about adults who can't read, I could go on and on. Let's get in the shoes of our audience or potential and make it work for as many as we can. And if you feel that we are watering down the experience for the core audience, I guess that is your perogative. Just remember, if people don't feel welcome, they won't come back and they'll tell their peer group about their experience. I hope I didn't offend anyone. Just letting you know how one individual feels so it might help you welcome audiences who have walked into your institution and out very quickly when they become offended by something you never thought could offend. Good luck, Stephen Brand