Viewing page 104 of 181

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-55-

confusions concerning the roles of university and museum? Are the Smithsonian Institution museums sufficiently concerned about those portions of American society untouched by their ministrations? Is museum "education" sufficiently defined in the art and history museums? Are Smithsonian staff sufficiently aware of educational developments in other American museums, and are they relating to any of these programs? And can further discussion clarify the practical relationship between Smithsonian museums and the National Gallery of Art, particularly in regard to educational and public programs?

The Council acknowledges both the seeming intransigence of these difficult questions, and the enthusiasm of the staff in trying to arrive at some answers. We think a continuing and rigorous engagement with these issues is appropriate.

The Council's earlier concern that the Institution's occupation with social or environmental issues involving advocacy might inhibit its scholarly freedom or impede its public functions was dispelled by the substantial evidences offered by the staff and the Secretary. The staff survey revealed strong differences in attitude toward advocacy. Yet it is clear the Institution is permeated by a healthy awareness of both the necessary role of valuative thinking in scholarly work and the intellectual discipline required to make it fruitful. The Secretary and the staff give every evidence of possessing a firm, if generally unspoken, consciousness that the Institution protects with tact and firmness the freedom of its members to pursue their intellectual work according to their professional and moral convictions.

The Secretary clarified as well the right of staff members to use the Institution's name in public advocacy, for purposes of identification. The Council felt it unnecessary under present conditions to translate the healthy unwritten practices of the Smithsonian in matters of advocacy into a formal code.

At its Sunday morning meeting the Council also went over the list of agenda possibilities which were presented to us. Two proposals aroused particular enthusiasm. These were: Future Directions in Biological Research and the Role of the Smithsonian; and Cultural History Collections: What Should be Collected in an Age of Rapidly Changing Culture and Technology? The first subject is appealing for various reasons, including the importance of biological research at the Smithsonian, the intellectual problems it raises, its international implications, and the face that its examination can have an integrative function because so many parts of the Institution are involved. The issues raised by Cultural History collections seem equally intriguing. Here special interest was expressed in comparing the approach of historians and anthropologists. The National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History could, in their collecting (and possibly their exhibiting) philosophies present a useful juxtaposition. This institutional framework might