Smithsonian Institution |The Board of Regents

   

REPORT OF THE REGENTS ADVISORY PANEL

INTRODUCTION

Following the recent events regarding the exhibition Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in

American Portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), the Board of Regents asked its

Executive Committee and the Chair of its Governance and Nominating Committee to

convene a panel of individuals to review the future of Smithsonian exhibition planning

policies and practices and assist the Regents in thinking through issues raised in the role of

the Smithsonian as a national cultural institution.

The panel convened by the Board of Regents consisted of Regent John McCarter as Chair,

Earl (“Rusty”) A. Powell III, Director of the National Gallery of Art, and David Gergen,

Harvard professor, CNN analyst, and White House Advisor to four Presidents.   

Panel Charge   

The Board requested that the panel conduct a forward‐looking review of the Smithsonian’s

existing exhibition policies and practices as they relate to potentially sensitive and

controversial themes and content.  In doing so, the Board asked that the panel give special

consideration to factors such as the new strategic plan, new modes and increased speed of

communication in a digital world, the development of digital assets, and increased

pressures on public funding.  As a second charge, the Board requested that the panel

identify any issues for further review and provide guidance, as appropriate, to assist the

Board and the Secretary in determining next steps.  The Board asked that the panel give

specific consideration to recommending best practices for communicating with internal

and external stakeholders about exhibitions as they are planned and implemented,

especially during the inevitable times when particular exhibitions elicit passionate views

and controversy.  The Board requested that Mr. McCarter report on the panel’s work at the

January 31, 2011, meeting of the Board of Regents.

Panel Preparation and Meeting   

The Chair began by reviewing the exhibition catalogue and subsequently visited the

exhibition with NPG Director Martin Sullivan.  The Chair then met for a full day with

Smithsonian staff, including the directors who had conducted an informal peer review of

Hide/Seek for the Secretary.

In preparation for its meeting, the panel reviewed the current Smithsonian policy on

exhibition planning (Smithsonian Directive 603); E Pluribus Unum: This Divine Paradox,

Report of the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution (1995); articles on
the recent controversy concerning the Hide/Seek exhibition; and a summary of historical

museum controversies both at the Smithsonian and elsewhere.  

The panel convened on January 17, 2011, and met with the Secretary; the Under Secretary

for History, Art and Culture; current and former directors of Smithsonian museums; the

directors of the Smithsonian Offices of Communication and External Affairs and

Governmental Relations; and Regents staff.  

FRAMING THE DELIBERATIONS

The panel used four questions to frame its deliberations, observations, and recommendations:

1. What is the role of a national museum in stimulating dialogue on potentially sensitive

and controversial cultural topics?

2. What best practices are applicable for communicating with internal and external

stakeholders about potentially sensitive and controversial exhibitions both during the

planning stage and after opening in the case of controversy?

3. What is the specific role of the Regents as both the responsible governing body and as a

resource for Smithsonian management with regard to the planning and execution of

potentially sensitive and controversial exhibitions?

4. What core principles and practices should the Regents and management operate under

when the inevitable controversies arise threatening some crucial aspect of the public

trust?

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. PERSPECTIVE

Observation   

Hide/Seek is not the first exhibition to generate controversy.  Other museum controversies

in recent memory at the Smithsonian and elsewhere include: the Enola Gay (Smithsonian

National Air and Space Museum); Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment (Corcoran

Gallery of Art and Contemporary Arts Center of Cincinnati); Sensation: Young British Artists

from the Saatchi Collection (Brooklyn Museum of Art); Back of the Big House: The Cultural

Landscape of the Plantation (Library of Congress); satirical painting of the late Chicago

Mayor Harold Washington (School of the Art Institute); and the statutory amendment

requiring National Endowment for the Arts to consider “general standards of decency” as a

factor for funding and denial of grants to four artists on that basis.  Controversies have

extended to exhibitions in the fields of art, history, culture, and science.   

2
Recommendation   

The Smithsonian should assume that controversies will arise in the future and have the

potential to be amplified and accelerated due to the new modes of communication via

social media, Internet, and a 24‐hour news cycle and so must plan a process to anticipate,

prepare, and manage reactions with all of its stakeholders.  

B. THE NATION’S MUSEUM  

Observation   

The Smithsonian is America’s largest public cultural space.  It is a complex institution of

great international importance and, as a representative of the American people, has broad

constituencies — the public, the government, the philanthropic community, and the

Smithsonian staff.  It is owned by the American people.

As the national museum, the Smithsonian must lead and encourage civil dialogue on

important and transitional issues facing the nation.  To do that, the Smithsonian is

obligated to produce thoughtful exhibitions and programming with themes or content that

may at times be considered controversial or sensitive.  The Smithsonian’s role is to elevate

and lead discourse by contributing objective scholarship and a multidisciplinary perspective

on potentially “flashpoint” issues.

There is inherent tension between the culture of free expression in the scholarly and

artistic communities and a largely government‐funded institution.  Failure to recognize the

reality of this tension and its effects on the various constituencies, audiences, and natural

alliances can result in serious, negative long‐term consequences for the leadership role of

the Institution.  On the other hand, avoiding the risks necessary to illuminate the important

issues facing society and the American public would diminish the role of the nation’s

cultural organization.

Recommendations   

1. The Smithsonian should celebrate our national heritage with particular attention to visits

from families and schools which are long‐standing American traditions.  It should take

advantage of the new digital world and the access to schools and homes that greatly

enhance the institution’s educational role.

2. At the same time, the Smithsonian must encourage and provide a forum for dialogue on

the important issues of the day.  This mandate carries the obligation to produce exhibitions

that may be controversial.  Topics such as immigration, race and ethnicity, religion, climate

change, and sexual identity are within the scope of the curriculum and should lead to

informed civic discourse.

3
3. The Smithsonian must communicate effectively with the Congress with particular attention

to new modes of messaging and broad congressional interest in the Smithsonian.

4. The Institution must explain the importance of its Federal funding to the public, and to the

academic and museum communities.

C. CURATOR, DIRECTOR, SECRETARY

Observation

Curatorial freedom of expression, expertise, and authority are critical to a flourishing

museum.   

Museum directors, while not expert in every curatorial field in their institution, should have

competence in general subject matter and confidence in their judgment and in their

leadership of the experience in their museums.

As the leader of a large and complex institution, the Secretary is not involved in curatorial

decisions.  However, the Secretary is sometimes faced with managerial issues that affect

exhibitions and should seek timely input from a range of appropriate advisors to assist in

decisions.

Recommendations   

1. Smithsonian Directive 603 is an excellent template and should be studied and followed.  

New technologies, including film and the Internet, should be recognized.  Standards and

processes for reacting to the eruption of public controversies should be clarified, including

timing, involvement of advisory boards and review.

2. The Smithsonian appropriately relies on guest curators from the scholarly community to

bring world‐class scholarship to its museums.  Primary responsibility for planning and

implementing exhibitions should reside with Smithsonian curators and scholars.  When

using content provided or produced by non‐Smithsonian scholars or using scholarship from

the outside, the Smithsonian should designate, as is provided in existing policy, a

Smithsonian scholar with appropriate expertise and authority to review the content and

provide institutional accountability.  Ultimate decision‐making for all exhibitions rests

firmly within the Smithsonian.  Adequate time for exhibition development should be

provided and authority over outside expert curators should be established at the outset

and exercised.

3. In anticipation of possibly controversial exhibitions, the Smithsonian should provide an

opportunity for public input or reaction at pre‐decisional exhibit planning phases.  

Culturally sensitive exhibitions should be previewed from a diverse set of perspectives.  It

would seem appropriate for the Smithsonian to be fully informed about red flags before

exhibitions go public.  Thus, we urge that there be a diversity of perspectives brought to

4
bear in advance.  Diversity in all its aspects is highlighted in the Institution’s strategic plan

and should be embraced.

4. The Smithsonian should use the Internet during exhibitions to facilitate discussion of

conflicts, debates, disagreements, and other views as a way of “listening” to Smithsonian

audiences and informing institutional responses.  Social networks are impactful, new ways

of communicating.

5. In the absence of actual error, changes to exhibitions should not be made once an

exhibition opens without meaningful consultation with the curator, director, Secretary, and

the leadership of the Board of Regents.

6. Four initiatives should be considered:

a. We applaud the formation of the Secretary’s Directors’ Advisory Group, which can

provide the timely input needed by the Secretary.

b. Further, the art museum directors should be assembled and charged to bring in

colleagues from the broad museum community to familiarize them with the

Smithsonian, establish bridges of understanding, and build natural alliances.  

Professional associations of other museum directors are also a resource.

c. The concept of an ombudsman, “Public Editor,” or other techniques should be

explored to ensure that a broad range of opinion is available to the Secretary.

d. The Smithsonian should consider initiating a summer executive education institute

for curators and directors to discuss case studies applicable to Smithsonian

exhibition planning and implementation.  The program would emphasize problems

and strategies and best practices for crisis management in the unique context of a

national museum.  An executive education program — short in duration, built

around case studies — would allow curators and others to come together in mutual

deliberation on questions about the role of the Smithsonian in its many exhibitions

and how to handle controversies after they break out.

7. Continuous communication with members of the House and Senate, including leadership,

relevant committee members, and individual members and spouses is essential.  Further,

the Smithsonian should develop deep working relationships with many members, including

but not limited to the leaders of its oversight committees.  Outreach should include

museum visits, director and curatorial expertise, orientation sessions, and celebrations of

interest to members.

8. Use of an immediate public forum for the community to express views is important around

controversies.

5
D. MUSEUM BOARDS AND REGENTS

Observation   

Museum boards and the Smithsonian National Board are sources of enthusiasm, outreach,

and financial support.  They provide guidance and in many cases they set policy.  They are

essential participants in the Smithsonian community.

Ultimate responsibility for the Smithsonian rests with the Board of Regents.  That

responsibility includes ensuring that the Smithsonian’s programs are consistent with its

mission and nature as a public trust.  The strategic plan and museum calendars provide

insight into pending issues that might impact that trust.  At the same time, individual

Regents represent and reflect the diverse perspectives of the nation and its government.  

The Regents should be relied upon to provide candid observations and advice on

potentially controversial exhibitions.  The Regents’ Strategic Planning and Programs

Committee, for example, can help identify potentially sensitive exhibitions that might

require further Regent engagement and provide guidance on anticipating and responding

to controversies.  Open communication and early consultation between a deeply informed

Secretary and deeply informed Regents is critical.

Recommendations   

1. The museum boards should be actively involved in museums and made aware of issues and

consulted on major challenges.

2. The Regents, through its Strategic Planning and Programs Committee, should review the

three‐year museum exhibition calendar to assess the curriculum against the Grand

Challenges, the nation’s agenda, and potential controversies.

3. Presentations to the Regents should be focused on major issues that impact strategy,

budget, resources, and reputation.

4. Congressional Regents should lead the outreach to the House and Senate.  

CONCLUSION

We raise all of these questions in the spirit of recognizing and celebrating the wonderful

work that the Smithsonian does, even as we try to surface issues that deserve further

exploration.      

           January 31, 2011

                                                                                               

6
APPROVED MOTION  

VOTED that the Board of Regents accepts the report of the advisory panel on exhibition

planning and expresses its appreciation to panel chair John McCarter and members David

Gergen and Rusty Powell, and request that the Secretary address the panel’s observations and

recommendations and present an action plan to the Board.    

In accepting the panel’s report, the Board recognizes that, as a national museum and public

trust, the Smithsonian Institution must address important cultural, scientific, and social issues in

an open and honest manner.   

The Smithsonian’s exhibitions, even when potentially controversial, must reflect the principles

of freedom of inquiry and expression, while taking into account the broad and diverse range of

beliefs and perspectives of the American people.   

The Board supports the efforts of the Secretary, the unit directors, and the expert staff in

working cooperatively to address the difficult issues that arise in presenting controversial

topics.   

January 31, 2011