In response to this, I emailed the Smithsonian. You know I don't need much prodding to hit the keys. I was very nice. Really, I was. I've lost the email, but I touched on historical record etc... and really pretended to be reasonable.
Well apparently, everyone who emailed got the same response, the first part of which I have copied below. The complete response is available on Babalu .
Like books available in libraries, recordings of topical songs and speeches may espouse contrary opinions and points of view, but are part of the historical record and worthy of study. It is up to individual scholars and members of the public to determine their own interests and make their own evaluations of materials, which you have done. It is the Smithsonian's policy to offer the same access to all of our collections, even to those that some, even many people, might find objectionable for one reason or another....
I responded-
I fully understand the concept of the historical record and support open access. However, I reiterate my original objections. It is obvious that this is not a scholarly source, given the producer's biography and the name of the label. This would be acceptable were you to provide a historical context. Secondly, if you feel it is that important to the historical record, I question why there are no recordings listed of controversial major world leaders.
As it stands you are not offering a contrary point of view and are in essence aligning your institution with the viewpoint espoused.It is your prerogative. I wrote in the hope that it was an oversight.
I just love it when when someone feels the need to instruct me on "the historical record" and "open access." My only regret is that I was interrupted replying and dashed off a hurried response, although it's obvious he didn't read the first one. Shame on him.
Guess where Mr. Daniel Sheehy is going.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment