In a message dated 95-11-14 11:44:32 EST, [log in to unmask] (Nmhm Afip)
writes:

> Have museums ceded some curatorial control over exhibit content as a
>     result of the recent controversies?  Have sponsors begun demanding
>     some curatorial control over the exhibit content?
>
>

You're right, I must have fell asleep while I was deleting. Are you
kidding???? The Enola Gay exhibit has a disclaimer on its first text panel
WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SMITHSONIAN. It's nuts. Okay, so they didn't
address the controversial topic, but it sure is hard not to fall into the big
gaping hole left in the middle of the exhibit. That was a case of changing
the entire exhibit to please "sponsors." And what about the O. Orkin Insect
Zoo. It would be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous. Actually it is funny, but
it opens the door for so many evils: The R. J. Reynolds Planetarium? How
about the Betty Crocker and Aunt Jemima Dinosaur Hall? Aaargh. Once companies
get their names on the walls, it's only a matter of time until they want the
exhibit's contents to coincide with their public image. Of course, without
sponsors, there will be no exhibits what with NEH et al. being sent to the
Land of the Lost. Is that the kind of response you were looking for?

- Adrienne