And I embrace that. I think we ought to have both, for reasons that I've stated from time to time. In universities, I can say something that is startling or has a view, an interpretation. That doesn't happen in museums. In museums, you put up full show and it's there.
People come in and look at it, and then people go away.
So, if you're going to really be a forum, you've got to take special efforts to be a forum and to inform about different viewpoints. Then you really can let people make up their mind, rather than simply trying to react to a complex story told by the curator. So, I argued strenuously that having gone from a place of adoration to a place of narration, we owed a real our professional responsibility to show more than one side of the controversy. In one of your last speeches at the Smithsonian, you were talking about the effect of this exhibit, where important objects from our national history were shown all over the country, and you make note of the crowds that were especially attracted to the hat that Lincoln was wearing at his assassination. And you talk about a kind of a spirit of secular prayer.