This issue was deemed unacceptable for our esteemed institution. Something about the cover being terribly scandalous.
 |
| Oh! The horror! |
Not jumping into the politics of pot (we are living in 2016 folks),* I'm deeply concerned about the powers that be at our Museum choosing to remove a single issue of a local weekly rag because of its cover. This is a weekly newspaper that we have advertised with in the past and with whom have an active relationship . As long as I have been here we have had it available for our guests to enjoy. Oh, and they are an exhibition sponsor. Singling out this issue and removing it from the floor is censorship.
And a little louder, for the people in back:
Singling out this issue and removing it from the floor is censorship.
The argument from above will be that it is an iffy issue that may offend some of our visitors (and possibly Board) and it is the Museum's right to choose what it display.
If the issue is with the editorial slant of a weekly alternative newspaper, then it is one we should cut all relations with them. If we wanted to keep material available to guests directly reflective of our mission, then we should not have the paper available. If we want to keep the space clean and shy away from contemporary controversies we should not have any issues available then we should question why we exist in the first place.
I am struck by the banality of this censorship. It is not headline grabbing. It is not an exhibition. It is not show canceling. It does not have any serious impact on a free weekly newspaper's availability. Much of the National Collation Against Censorship's Museums Best Practices for Managing Controversy does not apply because there has been no controversy. It was pulled before anyone had the chance to be offended!
Displaying the issue is not a statement in any manner on the conversations happening around marijuana. Choosing not to display it is cowardly, disrespectful of a sponsor, and a poor precedent on how we handle any issue that might skirt controversy. It is a solidification of this institution's role as a temple and not an agora. We're a new museum. We should be embracing the future of museums instead of shuddering at the thought of visitors possibly offended by a weekly newspaper's cover.
*Perhaps my favorite museum interactions ever involved one concerned visitor informing me that someone was smoking pot near (but not on) museum grounds shortly after Washington state had legalized marijuana. We informed that there was nothing we could do since a.) they were not on museum grounds, and b.) they weren't doing anything illegal.
