National Council on Public History

PROPOSAL TYPE

Structured Conversation or Roundtable

SEEKING

• Seeking Additional Presenters
• Seeking General Feedback and Interest

RELATED TOPICS

• Government Historians
• Museums/Exhibits
• Reflections on the Field

ABSTRACT

How have museums that receive public funding held the line—or not—against vocal critics who have demanded significant changes to exhibitions at those museums? Have there been noticeable shifts in how museums have responded—such as when the Smithsonian held the line in 1987 with its controversial bicentennial exhibition on the US Constitution and when it again held the line in 1991 with its controversial exhibition on the American West, but did not hold the line in 1994–1995 with its controversial exhibition on the end of World War II. This roundtable (or possibly structured conversation) will allow museum professionals and other scholars to discuss this topic with relevant examples from past, present, and future.

DESCRIPTION

The Smithsonian Institution has a mixed record of holding the line and maintaining its professional responsibilities in times that are politically charged. Given the uncertainties of our present moment, it seems safer in public settings to discuss key moments from the past, such as when:

• The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History held the line against the critics who demanded significant changes to its exhibition, A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution, which used the Constitution’s 200th anniversary to tell how the Constitution failed in the case of incarcerating Japanese Americans during World War II.
• The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American Art (now Smithsonian American Art Museum) held the line against the critics who demanded significant changes to the 1991 exhibition, The West as America: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920.
• The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum did not hold the line against the critics who in 1994 demanded significant changes to the exhibition, initially titled The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb, and the Origins of the Cold War, which was to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II and the display of a refurbished Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
• The Smithsonian American Art Museum did not hold the line against the critics who demanded the removal of David Wojnarowicz’s video, A Fire in My Belly, which was part of the exhibition, Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture (2010).
• The Smithsonian American Art Museum held the line against the critics who demanded significant changes to the exhibition, The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and Sculpture (2025), including an executive order, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. However, the Smithsonian changed a symposium initially open to the public to invitation only, due in part to concerns about the safety of the artists and visitors. The NCPH Annual Meeting in St. Louis affords the opportunity to explore in greater detail how museums that receive public funding have managed to hold the line—or not—against vocal critics who threaten to withhold that funding. To that end, I seek additional participants who are able to discuss this topic with examples from past, present, and future, recognizing that much may change between now and April 2027.  This could take the form of either a roundtable or structured conversation.

If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly:
James Deutsch, Smithsonian Institution, [email protected]

All feedback and offers of assistance should be sent by June 5, 2026. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.

Discussion