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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
