December 21, 1995|By Holly Selby | Holly Selby,SUN STAFF
The Library of Congress' decision to close a slavery exhibit that offended some employees -- the latest in a series of such controversies -- is fueling concerns that political correctness is stifling debate about the nation's history.
"It's a reduction of history into group cheerleading or ethnic cheerleading," says Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a history professor at the City College of New York. "I think it's all part of this vogue of political correctness. I keep feeling that this nonsense is passing, but it still seems that if you can get a group organized you can get a show canceled."
The most recent cancellation occurred Monday when the Library of Congress took down an exhibit about how slaves lived on Southern plantations before it opened to the public because employees complained that the show was offensive.
That was the fourth time this year that a controversial show has been changed, postponed or canceled because of complaints.
In January, following vigorous protests by veterans groups, the Smithsonian Institution watered down its exhibit on the 50th anniversary of the Enola Gay dropping the atomic bomb in Japan.
In February, still smarting from the flap over the Enola Gay show, the Smithsonian postponed by five years an exhibit about the Vietnam War, apparently in hopes of ducking another run-in with veterans.
And in early December, the Library of Congress indefinitely postponed a show about Sigmund Freud because some scholars, historians and feminists protested that his theories had been discredited. The library said it needed more time to incorporate context into the exhibit.
"The cultural police are out in force, whether it is the censors of the Enola Gay show or the Freud bashers or these Library of Congress folks," says Todd Gitlin, author of "The Twilight of Common Dreams -- Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars."
"We're in a period of fear -- fear of vigorous dispute," he adds. "It's going to get worse before it gets better."
The exhibit canceled Monday, titled "Back of the Big House: The Cultural Landscape of the Plantation," was based on the Library of Congress' collection of photographs of plantation life and on first-person accounts by former slaves.
Library of Congress officials said the show had undergone the same review that the institution gives to all its exhibits -- a process that includes scrutiny by three outside experts, including two African-Americans. It passed without controversy.
But after the show, which is scheduled to be shown next by the Talbot County historical society, was installed, about 20 black employees complained that the exhibit lacked historical context and was offensive, according to institution officials.
The exhibition comes in the aftermath of a 1982 class-action suit charging discrimination that has been settled for $8 million. But payments have not been made to approximately 2,000 employees who would receive settlements because parts of the case are under appeal.
"On intellectual grounds, there's no reason for this to have happened," said the show's curator, John Michael Vlach, a George Washington University professor and author of a book that inspired the exhibit.
"In terms of an ongoing list of indignities that the employees think the library has served them, I think there could be a conversation about what bothers them," he says.
"But it comes back to leadership -- what is the opinion of the librarian about the mission of the exhibit."
Some curators and academics express concern that such controversies will limit the intellectual arena -- and not simply in history -- to topics deemed safe and politically correct by all.
They point out that many artists and curators try to shock or to jar their audiences into debates -- or even new ways of thinking. Canceling shows silences the debates before they begin.
Terry Gips, director of the Art Gallery at the University of Maryland College Park, points out: "Many artists are quite up front about saying, 'I want to tweak your sense of what is true' -- and that is valid. Artists do have an ambition of education or changing someone's mind. It is very important that we don't just bury it and get afraid to challenge anyone intellectually."
The answer, she says, may lie in developing better ways of explaining to audiences what the purpose of each exhibit is.
"Some people wouldn't agree with me when I say that it is important to do this," Ms. Gips says. "There are people who believe that the work should speak for itself. But I'm really saddened when the decision is to close a show. I wish there was a major effort made to find a way for people who are uncomfortable with these controversial topics to understand what the curator is trying to do."
Others wish those who don't like shows would add their own voice to the debate, instead of trying to stifle it.
