Of #MuseumMeToo, Whiteness, and Doing the Right Thing

images

Twelve days into the new decade, and so much has happened. Last Monday the museum world reacted to President’s Trump’s threatened bombing of Iranian cultural sites with responses from AAM, AASLH, AAMD, and even social media from the circumspect Metropolitan Museum of Art. That was the week’s beginning. By week’s end, The Times had published an article on Joshua Helmer, once employed by the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and now director of the Erie Art Museum. In a #MuseumMeToo moment, Helmer is accused by both current and past colleagues of sexual harassment.

I had planned to write about white people trying to do the right thing, but before we go there, I need to say something. The Joshua Helmer scandal not only generated a social media storm, but a Change.org petition demanding Helmer’s firing. Meanwhile, Friday, the Erie Art Museum released the following statement,”The Erie Art Museum Board of Directors takes seriously all allegations of misconduct. Prior to offering Mr. Helmer the position at the Erie Art Museum, the Board, with the help of an employment consultant, conducted due diligence including background checks. No issues were identified during our due diligence.”

The subtext here is a board who says it did its research. If the complaints about Helmer are true, then it sounds as though the board is shifting blame to its recruitment firm or the Philadelphia Museum of Art for failing to divulge what they knew. But here’s what’s really bothering me: In 48 hours the Helmer firing petition garnered over 2,000 signatures. GEMM–Gender Equity in Museums Movement–has its own page on Change.org, a pledge to stop sexual harassment in museum workplaces. In six weeks it has yet to amass 500 signatures.

Why is it so easy to sign the Helmer petition, but not the GEMM pledge? Does encouraging Helmer’s firing make you feel like you’re doing something? Does it take the onus off you, and put it where it seems to belong? For centuries powerful people have used authority to coerce sexual favors and harm the less powerful. Yet sexual harassment remains an ongoing problem in the museum workplace. Imagine, for a minute, if the GEMM pledge had been around when Helmer left the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Could employees who signed it remain silent as a purported harasser left for a new position? It’s each of us who makes change. Not “them,” whoever “they” are. And we make change by changing our behavior. Sign the GEMM pledge. Don’t wait. Do it today.

**********

So what I really meant to write about is this: In my ongoing journey recognizing the limitations and boundaries of my own whiteness, sometimes I hear stories that speak to the way we as white humans think we’re doing the “right” thing, but it backfires majestically. Let’s imagine there’s a white development officer and a curator who’s a woman of color. The curator knows of an eminently successful young, black businessman who’s just sold his company for $30 million. She follows him on social media, knows he’s a collector, and has met him at a social event. She discusses this with the white advancement officer who’s aware of the businessman’s success. She asks the museum to approach him because her upcoming show will include several artists he collects. She’s hoping for additional underwriting for her exhibit and maybe an acquisition fund for artists of color. Instead, the development officer asks her to reach out first. In his world, it’s better if the businessman is approached by a) someone he sort-of knows, and b) by someone of color. He may also be scared–scared he’s not culturally astute enough–and he’ll say something wrong, and he doesn’t want to be wrong. The curator of color is angry because to her the optics look terrible. The collector isn’t a small business owner. He’s a gazillionaire who’s just sold to a multi-national corporation. Why shouldn’t he be treated like any other 1-percent entrepreneur?

What’s wrong here? Well, a lot, but definitely a failure to communicate. The white advancement officer is unable or unwilling to confess he feels ignorant, something he’d do in a heartbeat if the prospect were an international, and there were a language barrier. In addition, he’s comfortable letting the curator of color carry the burden of race. She, on the other hand, reads the situation from the black entrepreneur’s point of view and suspects he’ll be insulted if he isn’t treated like every other big giver the museum approaches.

So where does leadership come into all of this? Good leaders understand their own limitations and vulnerabilities. Humbling themselves in front of colleagues, admitting what they don’t know, and asking for help come naturally. When we’re all being our best selves–admittedly a daily struggle–we need to model great leader behavior: stop worrying about judgement, stop worrying about control, stop writing the script for others, and instead communicate and collaborate. What if the advancement officer admitted a gift from this young entrepreneur would be a first from a non-white donor, and he was scared of messing it up?  What if he asked for the curator’s help and collaboration instead of turning the ask back to her? What if she felt she could say, I am not the spokesperson for my entire race? And further, what if, as a woman of color, she  also didn’t need to worry about being characterized as brash and pushy?

There are a number of ways this story could have gone. I offer it only to point out how our narratives hem us in. Understanding our own parameters enough to know what we don’t know, and having the courage to be vulnerable are leadership practices we all need to develop.

Joan Baldwin

 


3 Comments on “Of #MuseumMeToo, Whiteness, and Doing the Right Thing”

  1. mdirienzo1983 says:

    Hi there—

    I wanted to share a comment about what’s happening at the Erie Art Museum—

    The reason why the petition had so many signatures is because it was started by a woman in Erie—it’s not museum professionals who comprise the majority of signatures—it’s Erie signatures that are filling up that petition.

    So I found your question “Why is it so easy to sign the Helmer petition, but not the GEMM pledge? Does encouraging Helmer’s firing make you feel like you’re doing something?” hurtful to the museum community and my hometown community since this question is based on the assumption that the majority of those signatures are from museum professionals.

    The majority of those signatures are from people in Erie who care deeply about their museum and who are rallying for Asla, the woman who Josh was pursuing, and the museum itself. This includes me––Erie is my hometown and the EAM is where I started my career.

    Thanks for listening. Megan

  2. christina says:

    As the previous comment noted, the petition was largely successful because it was based around an entire active community, not something restricted to museum professionals. It’s also something that, in this case, had very real world consequences which would impact the public/community. As someone who first knew of Helmer in a non-museum sense, I forwarded the petition to multiple former acquaintances, many not in museum employ, who had been acquainted and/or placed complaints against Helmer. It was a chance for anyone, past or present, impacted by this individual to have their voices heard.

    “if the GEMM pledge had been around when Helmer left the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Could employees who signed it remain silent as a purported harasser left for a new position? It’s each of us who makes change. Not “them,” whoever “they” are.”” I think you are missing the part where employees weren’t exactly silent. There have been whispers against Helmer for years coming both from PMA employees and former classmates/students; it is upper leadership that kept silent and actively ignored or squashed the story. That is power that rests solely with the Board Presidents, EDs/CEOs/Presidents, etc. Those are issues which are systemic; not something which would be changed by a pledge. Especially since, particularly in the case of PMA, it sounds like institutional policies surrounding “confidentiality” were at play.

    “If the complaints about Helmer are true, then it sounds as though the board is shifting blame…” Meanwhile, this sentence sounds as though you are shifting blame from Helmer to the accusers. Whether or not the complaints are true– and there is literally no reason to believe they aren’t so this phrasing is necessary and sickening– there is no need to call into question their validity since the PMA has already admitted to failure to divulge.

    .

    • Kim says:

      Christina, how so? Don’t we all have the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? “If the complaints are true” is a responsible statement and I fail to see how it’s blaming the accusers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s