>I'm sorry, but parts of this justification strain credulity.
>
>Let's start by making a distinction between the staff of the NMNH 
>and the administrator(s) who made the decision to sponsor the film.

SI's regulations require that a space not be "rented", but that the 
SI co-sponsor an event for which a "donation" has been received. I do 
not know  how far down the totem pole one must go to encounter people 
with the authority to sign a contract and commit the institution as 
co-sponsor.

>
>The _staff_ of the SI-NMNH didn't agree to bring the film in. In 
>fact, members of the staff are among those who objected to the film 
>being shown.

Perhaps you mean scientific staff. This was clearly a poor decision 
made by some staffers. The question is, once the contract was signed, 
how does the institution refuse to honor it? One can just say that 
the organization "renting" the space is actually a politico-religious 
group and therefore cannot show its film and "let's go to court and 
sort it out." However, going to court to make a point is far more 
costly than many would imagine.

First, it brings great attention to the group showing the film, a 
group that exists in large part to garner public attention and 
thereby increase support for its views. Had the SI made this 
decision, it would have been the best thing that could have happened 
to the ID movement. Boosting the visibility of this anti-science 
group is not something that the SI would want to do (after having 
blundered into signing the contract in the first place, that is).

Secondly, I was associated with the SI as a member of the Commission 
for the Future of the Smithsonian when the "Enola Gay" incident 
occurred. An exhibit was planned for the fiftieth anniversary of the 
US victory over Japan. The "Enola Gay" airplane that dropped the bomb 
on Hiroshima was going to be shown. Veterans groups and others were 
justifiably proud of their accomplishments in winning the war and 
wanted to see the "Enola Gay" at the Air and Space Museum. 
Unfortunately, a portion of the exhibit went on to question the use 
of nuclear weapons and the morality of their use.

It was a poor mix of exhibit messages; "Victory! and Angst!". The 
veterans were incensed. The Air Force, Army, VA and general public 
were in an uproar. Congress was up in arms. One member of our 
commission had been on a troop ship waiting to invade Japan when the 
bomb went off, and as he said, "I sure never questioned it. I was 
glad we dropped it." The SI was put into a very harsh spotlight and 
Its budgets were cut.

The SI is a target for politicians who tend to agree with whatever 
agenda is flowing through the country at the moment. Imagine a 
scenario where the religious right--that portion that loathes 
evolution as godless atheism, that believes the world is 10,000 years 
old, that knows there was a great flood and that all life on earth 
was saved by Noah's boat, that believes that dinosaurs and people 
walked side by side--rallies against the SI because they were denied 
the right to show a film in the nation's museum.

Serious damage could be done to the museum by ultra-conservative 
politicians looking for an excuse to pander to the far right, which 
carries great weight in elections. These politicians cannot pass up a 
chance to look like heroes by kicking a cultural organization that by 
law cannot lobby and cannot defend itself. What will the institution 
have won, then, by having taken them to court? You might say it would 
still be worth it, but there are certain times a fight is worth the 
risk, and other times when it is more prudent to fight another day. 
That is the nature of managing any organization: knowing when to hold 
'em, and knowing when to fold 'em.

>
>The SI-NMNH has a review process, with adults in charge, your 
>so-called 'gifted people'. The Discovery Institute may be slick but 
>certainly no more slick than any for-profit outfit that would ask to 
>rent the theatre space.

You may disagree with the political, managerial, or intellectual 
points of view of the people associated with the Smithsonian. I have 
met hundreds of them, literally, over the years. My impression is 
that some of the finest most dedicated people in the museum world 
work at the SI. Many of them are the best in their fields. I do not 
say this as an "armchair" observer. I have been a member of teams 
that have reviewed quality at the SI. It is an outstanding museum.

>
>Further, the process to review and agree to such an agreement is not 
>a process subject to high-pressure or episodic time constraints - 
>this was not an emergency decision making process where slight 
>errors become magnified by rapidly cascading consequences.

The crisis to which I referred occurred after senior management 
learned that the contract had been signed for a film that was 
sponsored by an anti-evolution group. SI senior administrators did 
not learn about this until Thursday afternoon before Memorial Day. 
The story was out. The you know what had hit the proverbial whirling 
blades. In the museum world, we think of such a moment--New York 
Times article criticizing the museum, web sites exploding, letters 
pouring in, email servers smoking--as a crisis.

>
>The rapid consequences in this case took the form of the many 
>exclamations of surprise and disgust that SI-NMNH would condone ID 
>on its premises, one such example leading to why the topic is being 
>discussed on this mailing list. (The sequence from announcement to 
>ersatz-retraction took less than three days.)
>
>This was not an instance of an event 'falling between the cracks' as 
>much as one of 'senior administrators' trying to push something 
>through.

All the information I was able to gather is that how this came to 
pass is almost a textbook definition of falling between the cracks.

>What it shows is that the current NMNH administration includes at 
>least some people who have an agenda that is not as 'scientific' as 
>they might pretend.

I have been on the secretary's advisory board for four years now. I 
have disagreed with him on a number of matters and have often spoken 
my mind about these things as they came up. In fact, I have a habit 
of speaking my mind. I and others may have disagreed on how funds 
were allocated, which exhibits were pushed to the front, or where 
collections are stored. That is the nature of being museum 
professionals with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences.  We 
often agree to disagree. However, I have seen nothing resembling an 
"agenda" such as that which you imply. Nothing.

Decisions have to be made and a leader is seldom certain they are 
correct. "Uncertainty will always be part of the taking charge 
process."

>
>That is, unfortunately, not surprising given all of the changes that 
>have taken place (over the past several years) as a result of the 
>'re-structuring' of the SI by the current government administration, 
>which, as anyone should have observed by now, is opposed to certain 
>scientific inquiry (climate, ecology, biology, medicine, etc.).

You make some of the very points I consider vital in considering what 
the long-term ramifications of a decision to break the contract might 
have been.

>
>
>The next stops on this film's circuit will probably NOT be anyone's 
>museum, but WILL be your local middle school and high school, as 
>well as local PBS stations, no doubt with funding from the 
>Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

I have been told the film is going to local PBS stations, but I fear 
the SI incident will tempt this group to repeat their success at 
museums and universities across the country. Scientists must be 
prepared to inform the public about the differences between science 
and religion, and how there is room for both in the world, as long as 
they are not mixed together in a way that damages both of them, or 
damages our nation.

>
>time to get up!
>
>-L.D.
>
>
>
>On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:01 AM, MUSEUM-L automatic digest system wrote:
>
>>Date:    Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:12:14 -0500
>>From:    "Michael A. Mares" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: Smithsonian out-maneuvered...
>>
>>As a member of the Secretary's Smithsonian Council, an advisory
>>group, I have had a chance to speak with a senior administrator at
>>the Smithsonian Institution about the ID movie situation. I can say
>>that the SI was blind-sided by this entire matter. Staff members at
>>one level were not aware of what staff members at another level were
>>doing. Any of us who have been museum administrators at much smaller
>>museums can sympathize with this situation. It is, perhaps, even less
>>surprising in an organization with so many thousands of employees and
>>with the enormous complexity of the Smithsonian (the SI handles
>>30,000,000 visitors each year). Though all of us attempt to keep our
>>fingers on the pulse of our museums, some things do fall between the
>>cracks. Unfortunately, this one was a doozy. The Smithsonian is the
>>nation's largest and perhaps most public museum. Thus when mistakes
>>are made--and this entire matter clearly developed from a mistake by
>>one or more staff members--they are writ large.
>>
>>Unfortunately, once the contract had been signed, there was no good
>>way for the SI to get out of it. Many of us might simply have
>>cancelled the film on principle, but there are various scenarios that
>>could be imagined developing from that decision that might damage the
>>institution far more than the damage incurred by the decision that
>>was made to permit the film to be shown. There was no good decision
>>to be made.
>>
>>The administrators and staff of the Smithsonian are gifted people who
>>have the best interests of the various museums at heart. They manage
>>a huge conglomerate of museums for the nation's benefit.
>>Unfortunately, they got snookered on this one, and badly so. Yes,
>>better controls should have been in place to catch this type of thing
>>before it happened, but even the tightest regulations require staff
>>members who are alert to often subtle hidden agendas and who know
>>exactly what to do in a particular situation. A senior staff member
>>might see the ramifications instantly, especially a scientist or
>>someone in upper management, but for a marketer, PR person or junior
>>staffer to understand a hidden agenda by a very smart group of people
>>who have masked their true intentions of taking advantage of a great
>>institution, it may be far too much to ask.
>>
>>A ball was dropped by the Smithsonian Institution. Let this be a
>>cautionary tale to all of us. If our great national museum could be
>>fooled, for whatever internal reasons based in management. personnel
>>mistakes, or failures of internal checks and balances, imagine how
>>vulnerable those of us are who work in smaller museums that are not
>>quite so public.
>>
>>Having managed a museum for 20 years I can say that the decisions
>>made by senior management before and after any crisis are often
>>(maybe always) second guessed by everyone from staff members to the
>>public. After you have sat in the "big chair" for a while you realize
>>that a decision must be made before things that are going bad in a
>>hurry get even worse, and one cannot wait for a broad consensus to
>>develop before making the decision. Generally these things are not
>>easy calls to make, and no one is so prescient as to know whether or
>>not this or that particular decision will prove to be right or wrong.
>>
>>The Smithsonian is not the villain in this story, it is the victim.
>>The Smithsonian--our great national museum-- needs our support in
>>this matter, now more than ever.
>>
>>Tomorrow, the movie will be coming to your museum. What will your 
>>decision be?
>>
>
>=========================================================
>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
>http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed 
>information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail 
>message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>should read "help" (without the quotes).
>
>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail 
>message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message 
>should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).


-- 
Dr. Michael A. Mares
Research Curator
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History
2401 Chautauqua
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK  73072
phone: 405-325-9007
fax: 405-325-7699

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).