# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?
I would recommend waiting several more years to put these items on display. With how recent the events occurred, there are still plenty of people who were affected by them (family and friends). And when the items are put on display,don't make the killer out to be a hopeless rebel that visitors could relate to, make it about the victims and honor them.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?
If someone is going to collect the materials involved, it might as well be someone who's intent is to educate others.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?
I would err with the side of how the exhibit is displayed and what/who the focus is on. Items can be on display for educational purposes, but one must know the line where it starts to idolize the "wrongdoer".

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect?
I believe there are few items too "heinous", and many that are rather unethical to collect/display. One heinous item would be human remains which were not donated by the person before their death (and those of a murder victim). A few unethical items would include ones taken from burial grounds and religious locations. NAGPRA is a step in the right direction to correct unethical collections.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I was the curator, I would recommend to the museum director that the guns should not be displayed out of respect for the victims' family. Since the crime was only committed 60 years ago, it is highly likely that close relatives of the victims are still alive. If the museum would wait at least another generation, there might be a lot less public outcry. I think that the context of the exhibit is important as well. It sounds as if the museum hopes to “glorify” the “young rebel without a cause” in order to promote attendance among a younger generation. If the exhibit was instead focused on the victims and was displayed as a memorial or tribute to the them, I think there would be a much more limited amount of public outcry if the guns were displayed.

2. I think that yes, museums should keep material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future. My reasoning mainly stems from what I mentioned before - that after a few generations there will be less protesting from the families. These objects also played an important role in history. I think it is wrong to deaccession them just because they are controversial but that it is important that the context that they are displayed in is respectful.

3. I mentioned this in my last two answers but I’ll restate it again here. I think that yes, the objects themselves are controversial, but that the degree of controversy of the objects depends on how they are displayed. No matter how the exhibit is portrayed, the fact that these guns were used to murder innocent people will never change. The guns become more controversial if they are displayed in a way that glorifies the murderer.

4. Yes, I believe that there are objects that are too heinous to collect. There are also laws that prohibit museums from having certain items in their collections. The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law that was enacted in 1990 that protects the human remains and certain cultural items of Native Americans. After this law was passed, many museums whose collections contained the remains of Native Americans had to repatriate those remains and artifacts to their appropriate Native American group.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?

I would recommend the physical weapons be taken out of exhibit, particularly since “members of the victim’s family objected” to the display. The people who have suffered direct or even considerable indirect impacts from the events displayed should be a primary concern and necessary viewpoint/input to take heed from when designing any sensitive kind of exhibit. The last sentence about how ‘no one can say any distinct object killed a direct relative’ seems contradictory to the previously mentioned sentence, but it shouldn’t really be the deciding factor anyway whether someone can show ‘concrete’ threads such as that, when there are many complex ways and levels of being impacted (like having a relationship to someone more closely connected, or having had a similar experience). In this course we’ve talked about the profound impact of an object’s physical presence, and this factor comes into play now where the consideration should lean more towards a sensitivity to those who may be harmfully distressed by seeing the objects presented before them rather than ‘strengthening’ the exhibit space with physical materials for other visitors to be able to look at. I do not think the entire exhibit should be displaced, because even though they’re not light to reflect upon or study, conversation about these things is very necessary so they can be understood and prevented from happening again.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?

Yes, the museums should still collect these kinds of documents, and—as saddening as it is—they are perhaps especially important to document, since they are involved in something that had such significant consequence. Regardless of whether the consequence was negative or positive, it is important to be documented as history cannot and should not be ‘erased.’ Additionally, no one really knows when something might be useful for future research.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial, or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?

I think there can be some level of the objects themselves being controversial as they’re held in trust as part of a museum collection, because seeing how museum collections are treated with utmost care, many people may feel these objects with such atrocious attributions held in museum collections are treated with a kind of “respect” they don’t deserve. Fewer people, however, would argue it inappropriate to hold more distantly historic objects, like ancient swords and pirate cannons, because there is such a minuscule chance of any personal connection to victims. This can post an argument that it may be better to hold these kinds of objects in storage for a longer period of time (while, of course, letting them be available for public access), rather than on a display where they can be poignantly upsetting to visitors who have lived through the events/similar events that the use of those kind of documents resulted in. The way the objects are displayed (lighting, focus amid other exhibit elements, height, etc.) and the interpretation (message, text, context, etc.) both strongly and sensitively affect audience impression, who will——based on the sensation they’ve observed from those two main factors——resolve a personal viewpoint of whether the way the objects displayed felt pointedly controversial or appropriate/justified.

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect?

There are objects that shouldn’t be collected, not because the objects themselves are heinous but when the act itself of collecting them can be ‘heinous’——such as materials obtained in the past from burial or religious sites without addressing the living descendants, which, in many cases, these objects/sites continue to hold spiritual significance to people today, or at the very least simply deserve to maintain their dignity and respect and not become ‘resources’ for filling collections. In a course last semester called ’Native Peoples of North America,’ we discussed the history of some museum collections and NAGPRA/repatriation in detail, which shares a similar vein to sensitive objects being accessioned and shows just how complex and hard to settle these circumstances can be.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that if I were the curator of the museum in this scenario I would probably give the okay to display the items.  It's not so much that the museum is really trying to focus in on what the crimes that had been committed were but instead the historical aspect behind the objects.  You don't have to mention the names of the victims involved when describing the objects but instead could mention who had used them if historical context was needed.  And adding the names of those who had used the guns, or the group of individuals, could add a timeline to the exhibit.
2. I think it would be just fine for a museum to collect an object and hold onto it to be viewed at a later date.  The objects collected could have significance later on in the future when it doesn't as much now.  Taking the correct steps to preserving the object so that it looks pristine when it is ready to be displayed would be crucial.
3. I think that this would be open to interpretation.  One object could be important or significant to one person and offensive to the next.  It also depends on how and where it is displayed.  The wording that describes the exhibit is also important if dealing with sensitive artifacts.
4. This one is also open to interpretation.  Someone could find a KKK uniform offensive by looking at the racial aspect behind it but it is also historically significant for the time period that it was from.  A friend of mine that lives in Germany agreed that it depends on the historical aspect.  She said that even the darkest part of their history has a wealth of artifacts but it depends on who goes to the museum and sees the objects in person. It all goes back to the open to interpretation argument.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I was the curator in this scenario, I would advise that we display the items in question, but done in a tasteful and respective manner. I don't think the museum should be glorifying the crime or murderers, but instead focusing more on how this crime has affected those involved and the community, as well as using the guns as context and educational tools.
2. I definitely think that museums should collect material with the intent to display it at a later time. You never know when certain items are going to be available and when you may want to have an exhibition. Being able to collect items you know you will use in the future, and then take care of them and preserve them in the best conditions possible seems like the best scenario to me.
3. I believe objects are controversial based on each individual viewer. Everyone has different viewpoints, life experiences, and limits that affect what they could potentially view as controversial. What may be controversial to me, someone else might not have a problem with. It all comes down to the individual and that persons interpretation of the objects being displayed.
4. I think this question ties in to question three. I don't necessarily think certain objects are heinous, but peoples' perceptions could make them that way. As I stated before, I really believe that it is an individual thing for everyone because we all have different opinions on what could make something heinous or not. Again, I think it all comes down to individual interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
1.   If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?

If I were curator, I’d recommend that we put the items (guns) on display, with the disclaimer that public sentiment may be negative.  I’d approach this display in a manner to highlight and morn the victims of this crime.  I attempt to show the historical context.  I’d clearly steer away from profiling the perpetrators of the crime.  The victims of the crimes and their families would be the overall focus on this presentation. I’d attempt to use it as a cautionary tale of the tragic aspects of gun violence in America, both in the past and today.

2.   Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?

Museums need to a repository of our history and culture.  Keeping items that may not have current relevance, but could one day have significance.  Museums are the perfect place for these items to be housed.  Museums have specifically designed protocols to keep things/items in the most advantageous environmental conditions.  Museums also employee people trained on techniques needed to keep items in the best condition possible for future audiences.  One issue that museums can have is deciding what items may have future cultural or historic significance.  I don’t envy those tasked to make those types of decisions.

3.   Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?

I think location and timing have a huge impact in how objects are viewed.  Items can be viewed by audiences that have no cultural or historical ties to the objects or viewed by audiences with strong ties.  Historical and cultural items that are tied to propaganda are particularly hard to display.  These items, however, are an important part (albeit a very sad part) of our history, not to display them is akin to ignoring that history.  Any displays that include KKK hoods, weapons from the Indian Wars or “White’s only” signs; should be part of displays that educate the public to ignorance and intolerability propagated in this country.  We are only a few generations removed from those objects being common in society.  It would be silly to hide them as if they didn’t happen.

4.   Are there objects too heinous to collect?

I can see this answer going a couple of different directions.  I can see many people believing that human remains being off limits.  Specifically if collected from indigenous populations.  Native American remains should not be collected and if they are encountered every effort should be made to have them returned to the ethnic group that they belong.  I however do think that human remains are well within the sphere of items that can be collected by museums, with the caveat; the collection of the remains must be validated by the ethic or aboriginal group that spawned the remains.
I don’t think anything about an object or item can be heinous, they are only things.  Humans can be heinous, the connotations that an item or object evokes can be heinous, but not the item.  People provide the impression that objects proved.  A KKK hood is just a hood; it is the motivations and meaning of this hood that is heinous.  Use these items as teaching devices.

# data[].attributes.body
1. As a curator, I would advise the director to display the guns. This would have to be in a tasteful manner, and the main focus of the collection would have to be on the historical value, and not on the actual acts of killings. I would also advise that the families and those close to the victims who have stated that they don't want the guns on display get a letter notifying them the dates of when the guns will be on display, so that they stay away if it's too much for them to handle. The main focus of the museum is to educate audiences and preserve these collections, and having these historically valuable items isn't as important if they're all locked away in a back room somewhere. For the purpose of educating the public and displaying things that society is interested in, I would send my regards to the families of the victims and make sure the audiences who see the guns understands the true horror and losses that came with the collection, and display the guns.
2. Yes, I think it is okay for museums to do this. If museums weren't able to do this, who knows, sometime in the near future we might never get to see a tamagotchi again! Only kidding, but the point remains the same. Museums are adept at keeping and restoring items, and might be the safest place for lots of items to remain intact for the future, so that our kids and our kids' kids might be able to understand pieces of our history that we lived. These items kept by museums would have to hold cultural or historical significance for it to be worth the time/money/effort it takes to keep these items, and so that it draws in a large audience interested in learning about the past.
3. The objects themselves aren't controversial. If I were to see any of the guns used in the killing, without any context of what it is or how it was used, I would just think 'Oh it's an old gun.' Now, put the same gun in front of a description that says it was used to mass murder people in the local area, that gets a little tricky. The place of the items is also important to think about, as it wouldn't have a cultural significance to house the guns halfway across the world in some other museum, the reason some people might say they're controversial is because they are still located locally within the area that they were used in. I think this is the only way they can be seen, as the importance and historical significance seems lost to show them elsewhere. They are pieces of history that directly affected the local area and should be on display, but with enough information attached to them that people understand the horrific things associated with the guns.
4. As I've been saying in my previous points, I don't think the guns in the situation are too heinous, and I don't think anything else is too heinous either. If an item is worth collecting and displaying, there must be historical significance and value. If an item has these things, then I think it is okay to display them. Of course, in a lot of instances (like the guns) a museum director would have to take the right precautions in warning audiences about the collection, but I think they possess the right to display the items if they withhold value.

# data[].attributes.body
1. This is a tough question. On one hand, I would want to display the objects because of the cultural significance behind them and the lessons they could teach. It's true that these items could bring in visitors because of the notoriety, but also as symbols of the dark side of history. These objects would represent the dark times of civilization, and serve as reminders of tragic events that must never happen again. But on the other had, I would want to be sensitive to the families of the victims who lost their lives in the tragic events. I acknowledge that the display of these objects may be triggering to some of the victim's family members, and I would never want to cause someone to go through that pain and trauma again. Some of the items, like the KKK hood and "whites only" sign, are from a period in history that isn't that far removed. People from that time period may still be alive (if not them, then certainly their families). The museum would want to be conscious of the thoughts and feelings of the families, while still trying to create a narrative and conversation surrounding these objects of history's dark past. If I were a curator, I think I would talk to the director and see if we could have a conversation with families of the victims of these horrific crimes. Perhaps we could come up with a compromise that would make the families happy and the museum happy. Like, some of the least offensive objects could go on display as a gesture of respect to the families, or the families could have a small bit input on what items should go on display. If that doesn't work, the museum could always put the objects up, but since some of the families provide financial support to the museum, I'd rather not risk offending them and wouldn't put those items on display. The two choices I as a curator are to either speak with the families to reach a compromise on what items should be displayed, or to not display the items at all. It's hard, because you want to tell the stories of these objects, but yet you don't want to offend anyone and cause unnecessary trauma. I would also like to ask other museums how they handle putting controversial objects on display. One example I can think of is the Henry Ford Museum, where they have KKK robes and a "whites only" signs on display.
2. I think that it's okay to collect materials for public access in the future. Museums shouldn't collect materials just for display, I feel like they should collect for research purposes in addition to display. Museums should have a desire to expand their research and to learn more about the world around them, and make those objects available to the public so they can be studied. These objects could also be swapped in and out as part of exhibits as well.
3. I think that it really depends on the object itself and the interpretation. Some objects in themselves are extremely controversial, even with the interpretation and context behind it. The KKK robes and "whites only" sign are controversial enough items by themselves. For other objects it depends on the interpretation and context of the objects. If, for example, we take a gun that has been used in a mass murder, then the interpretation and context behind the gun is what makes it controversial, not the object itself (guns are sort of controversial in this day and age, but for all intents and purposes of this assignment I'm going to not mention that).
4. Mostly I don't think that there are any objects that are too heinous to be displayed. If we choose to display objects from the good parts of history, then we must display the bad and often times horrific parts of history. Pretty much anything you think of has been on display at some point in time: torture devices, items used in horrific crimes, horrible offensive items (i.e. KKK robes or Nazi uniforms), etc. But I personally draw the line at images of mutilated corpses. I know that brutality towards certain groups happened (which is terrible) and that those images were taken, but is it truly right to put them on display? I personally don't think it's right, out of respect for the victim's families and that fact that they're so grotesque. They make me and probably other people uncomfortable, and I wouldn't want to see that at any museum I visit.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If the members of the family to whom the killings effected specifically asked for the guns not to be on display, I would advise against displaying them. In the grand scheme of things, especially when it comes to objects in museums, 60 years is really not that long ago in history. It is possible that there are still members of the family alive that were alive during the killings that were directly effected. It is possible that displaying them could potentially draw in a younger crowd, but these family members are members of the museum and are financial supporters. Usually museum memberships are renewed yearly, so this is a yearly guaranteed income that the museum would be most likely losing if the guns were displayed. It is unfortunate, though, that this exhibit has already been advertised, making it a lot harder for the museum to then go back on what they've essentially promised to the public. I feel there could be some sort of compromise that could happen between the museum and the family, such as having a memorial for those were killed or something along those lines. If I was curator, I would suggest further contact and discussion with the family, but if they continue to refuse, then ultimately those new objects probably should not be displayed.

2. Yes, I think it is important for museums to think not only about their current state of exhibits, but also the future as well. Objects should be going in and out of rotating exhibits at some sort of frequency so that there is incentive for people who have already visited to come visit again to see new material. If museums didn't collect and keep objects for future public access, that would not be possible.

3. I think there are some objects that are more inherently controversial than others. For example, like what was stated in the writing prompt, a K.K.K hood is pretty self explanatory as to why it is an inherently bad object. There are some objects that become bad with context though, which is as equally important as the object itself. If the object is presented without any context, whether that context be controversial or not, that is essentially the erasure of history, which is a pretty horrible thing for a museum to do. Museums are records of history, and objects should be presented as such.

4. In the context of museums, I don't think so. There are objects that are inappropriate to collect (for example, Native American remains), but as stated in my response for the last question, all objects have context and that context is what makes up history. If there were particularly heinous people or parts of history that objects belong to, they should be exhibited in a way that displays their heinousness so that museums do their part making sure that those acts never happen again.

# data[].attributes.body
It is funny how one person thought this was the Starkweather/Fugate spree and I immediately thought of Bonnie and Clyde. Point being, these things happen whether the artifacts are displayed or not. I would absolutely advise the Director to display the guns involved as they are an integral part of the story. If you start banning items such as this, you are on a very slippery slope. We live in a culture today where it seems everyone is offended by something, and if we start cherry picking items or not displaying them, there will be nothing left. If a hammer or a knife was used, would they also be banned? And I use the word "use" because it isn't the weapon that killed them. It is the person that did. The weapon is an instrument. There are so many items that can be used as an instrument of death, even a pencil, that to start banning items will lead to half the story not being told. It is understandable that the family might be upset, but there is possibly 1000 more people that want to visit this museum and the family has the absolute right not to come or support it.
If these notorious crimes are what draws a younger crowd to the museum, they are also getting educated on other things that are going on in the museum.
2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future? Of course they should. Part of being a relevant museums is not only your permanent display but also your temporary exhibits or travelling exhibits and at any given time, you don't know what that might be in the future. To throw out ANYTHING historical is an insult to history and the history behind the object. Any given piece could be an integral part to the story.
3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed? As I said before, we live in a culture of offensiveness now. It is dependent on the person whether they find something controversial or not. Where there are responses on here about guns, those that dont want them included, have a personal reaction to it. Same as those that think they should be included. It is mostly about how the individual person feels about it.
4. Are there objects too heinous to collect? I am sure there are however, everyone has different interests and what may be heinous to me, may not be to other people. Unfortunately there are very disturbing actions in our past that simply must be displayed so that the museum attendee can get the full story of the atrocities that some people or groups commit. The most disturbing, but most evocative museum I have been to is the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. That will stay with your forever. And going back to the first question, they display and have video of the instruments of death and torture. The story wouldn't be able to even come close to being told without having those displayed.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Everyone,
Here are my responses to the questions.

1) If I were the curator, I would politely inform those that objected that the museum would proceed with putting the guns on display. I would want to ensure that this notification is done in a respectful manner while also maintaining that the museum has the right to put objects on display. Having objects on display does not force anyone to go to the museum and observe them; those that object are free to not visit the museum. It is important to remember that what one might find offensive, perhaps 100 others do not find it offensive. We have learned that museums need admissions in order to maintain, so if anything the honest truth is that creating a discussion about objects is inherently going to generate interest and possible increased visitors.
2) Yes, I think that museums should keep objects on hold with plans to put on display for the public in the future. In one of the earlier chapters in the textbook, we read about how museum directors are essentially not doing a good job if they are not always thinking about ways to change up the museum for future displays, meaning that just keeping ONLY the same things on display forever is not going to get a lot of repeat visitors, or visitors that spread the word to others. By always trying to offer something new, such as rotating objects in and out of display, then they are making the visitor worth it for people that want to see one or two new things at each visit. It gives people a reason to come back again and again.
3) I don't think the answer to this is clearly one or the other. Yes, some objects are clearly controversial such as the example of the Ku Klux Klan hood; that is unquestionably controversial. But in other examples, such as the guns in this example in which the family members of murdered people argue that they are offended by the guns' placement, there are the personal feelings of a few people being brought into the equation. The truth is that people can find controversy in any object if they dig deep enough; maybe not with the object itself like the Klan hood but perhaps there was something controversial about the OWNER of the object, or maybe it is something that is SYMBOLICALLY offensive. At some point, a line has to be drawn. I also think there should be consistency; if these guns are removed because they are offensive to the relatives, then perhaps every gun should be removed from every museum in the country if the gun at some point killed someone that had relatives.
The bottom line to this question is this: yes, an object may be controversial to a couple people, but that should be balanced against the historical importance that an entire public might learn from the given object. A sensitive result should be reached after balancing those two criteria.
4) No, I don't think objects are too heinous to collect. If the object falls under the collection management policy of what the given museum is collecting, then it should be collected. The other way to look at this question to ask another question: do museum collectors/employees HAVE to fully agree and support every individual item they collect? I do not think museum collectors should be expected to fully endorse everything they collect and display.
If something has historical significance/context, then it should not matter what the collector thinks if it is their job to collect and display it. If they feel strongly against an object, then they should amend their collection management policy to exclude said item.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?

For better or worse, the weapons from this crime spree are a part of history, beyond the crimes themselves. The Sixth Floor Depository display’s an identical rifle to the one used by Oswald to kill Kennedy; the weapons used in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre are exhibited occasionally by their owners. Should these weapons be displayed, the context of the exhibit must not glorify the criminals, but focus on the victims, and the crimes, and how society has learned from these grisly moments of the past. To hide them away is like saying that the artifacts of the Holocaust should be stored until such a time as people aren’t made uncomfortable; the past is not a nice thing, and to reduce it and hide from it is doing a disservice to the victims.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?

Of course; the important objects of the past must be preserved for posterity, even if they are never placed on display, these objects will be the last extant components of an event; the street in Sarajevo has long been changed, and the perpetrator and victims are long dead, but the small pistol used by Gavrilo Princip to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand still serves as a grim reminder of how a single act can have devastating worldwide consequences. To not collect these items is along a similar vein of not displaying them; it does a disservice to the victims of our past.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?

While I think that to the descendants of the victims these objects themselves are controversial, I think that there is an opportunity to change this view with an effective exhibit that focuses not on the perpetrators, but the context of the crimes and how these crimes affected the social fabric of society.

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect?

No; there are objects too heinous to exhibit, but public museums should collect items of heinous acts if only to ensure that they are not allowed to continue in the private sector, where their context can be twisted and mutate into further heinous acts; in particular my mind goes to the collecting of Nazi artifacts from the Second World War. Such artifacts in private hands have ended up in the hands of white nationalists, members of the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups; to allow these groups to obtain these tangible artifacts allows them to venerate and fetishize them, continuing the cycles of past injustice.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?

I would recommend the director to remove the piece from the exhibit. Crime stories attracting a younger audience is not a strong enough reason to show a murder weapon which was used within the last century. I am of the belief that if there are people still alive who would have known the victim, it is not appropriate to show. In addition, the display of the weapon would serve the purpose of creating a spectacle, rather than provoking more in-depth discussions about race relations such as the other objects would. That the family are members and financially support the museum is irrelevant as the real point is that the display of the object is not appropriate for the context.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?

I do believe that museums should collect objects of importance, whether or not it can be displayed at that moment. Scholarship can be the purpose of the object until enough time has passed that it can be used to educate and critically engage viewers. The best example of this in my mind is that of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The objects held in the collection are extremely vital to communicate the horrible experience those persecuted by the Nazis went through but the world immediately following WWII was not able to handle their presentation. Had they not been collected and kept at that time, they would not be available for education about the truth of the Holocaust. Without the keeping of culturally-laden materials to deepen understanding, it becomes so much easier to distort and forget the truth of the past.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?

I believe an object only becomes controversial once its context is known. I don’t believe a controversial object changes because of how it is interpreted as it is a feature of its past use. For example, even if a painting of Hitler’s is presented in a gallery according to its contexts, say an exhibit of paintings featuring architecture, it remains controversial because of who painted it. As there are many different kinds of controversial objects, I cannot argue that where the object is displayed does not matter in whether it is controversial or not. For example, displaying a KKK hood in a glorifying or accepting fashion.

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect?

Yes, those whose only value is in the spectacle or cannot contribute to education against whatever reason they became heinous for. For example, a mass-shooter's weapon as it only gives more fame and a sick kind of glory to the killer, rather than advocacy against school shootings, as pictures and belongings of the deceased would. Display is a way of granting power, telling the public that an object is worthy of study or admiration. Because of these power relations, museums need to be mindful in their presentation and collection of objects.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director? I would recommend that emphasis be given to those victims. Killing someone should not be taken lightly or made famous in any time frame. Giving attention and memorial to the victims seems better than dehumanizing the victims of criminals because the young find rebellious actions interesting. Though these objects are offensive, as they should be, refusing to display them at all is to say they have no value. I do not find this to be true. Physical evidence of a crime or wrongdoing gives life to the event so that we as a people will be moved enough to prevent it from happening again. When I see that ‘whites-only’ sign I am disgusted— and you can be sure that I will not stand to see one up in my lifetime. Supporters of these heinous actions hope that we will forget them, only then can this type of hate creep back into our society.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future? Yes. There are times when an object or collection of objects’ display should be held for a later date. Perhaps, the appropriate display needs to be constructed or waiting until the anniversary of an event will give the exhibit and collection the attention it deserves. There are some times that we should allow some time to pass and the shock of an event to pass before creating an exhibit. I can imagine there are many things from 9/11 that would make for a great exhibit, but putting them on display on 9/12 may be cruel to those mourning.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed? Display tactics and interpretations play a big part in the controversy. It is the meaning our society places on an object that makes it controversial. For example, all guns may not be seen as a controversy whereas the gun that shot a president may carry the controversy of being disrespectful. A stick is not a problem until it is the stick used to kill someone. The meaning we give the actions behind the object fuel the controversy.

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect? Yes. But only based on my personal beliefs. I find the collection of human remains to be completely out of line. Drives me bonkers. This is driven by my opinion of those who dug up Indigenous remains and put them on display. I find this to be upsetting and not informative in any way.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the curator, what action would you recommend to your director?
I’m guessing this is in reference to the Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate killing spree in Nebraska.  If I were the curator, I would recommend that the firearms be displayed.  This event was horrifying and the killings gruesome, but it is a historical event, and as you mentioned it has been captured in movies, books and songs, so the artifacts related to the event have public interest.  All museums need to find a way to draw in the public, and there are many people who are drawn to the morbid and macabre or the “notable and notorious”.  The exhibit would have to be sensitive to the families of the victims and not glorify the actions of the killers.  It could be linked to a discussion of what was going on during that period of history, however, extreme caution would need to be taken in light of other more recent horrible events such as the school shootings at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland.  The exhibit would need to be sensitive to those events, too.  Perhaps it could be tied to studies of mental illness that can drive people to heinous acts of violence.  It would definitely be an exhibit requiring extreme sensitivity to many different groups.  My guess is the families would object to any type of exhibit relating to this killing spree, not just the guns.

2. Should museums collect material with the intent of keeping it on hold for public access in the future?

Yes, museums that have the means to collect and properly store artifacts and materials for public access in the future should do so.  We never know what can be gained or learned from these artifacts, and although they may not be that interesting now, they definitely are a piece of history that may hold interest at some future time.  Campaign buttons are one example.  When these buttons first appeared, who would have known that they would have so much public interest years later.  But museums and collectors who held onto them have created many interesting exhibits over the years.  This was accomplished by holding onto the buttons when they first appeared, preserving them carefully and then displaying them at a much later date.  Museums should continue to study their collections and make them available for study so that at the appropriate time they may be used for exhibit.

3. Are the objects themselves controversial or does this change depending on our interpretation and where the object is displayed?
Some objects are definitely controversial and evoke an immediate emotional response.  A Ku Klux Klan hood is a good example of that.  If the killing object was something very unique and identifiable to these specific murders, then that object may very well be considered controversial.  However, firearms that were used in a murder spree are not necessarily controversial except in the context of that murder spree.  The same type of firearm could be owned and used by many others for acceptable activities such as hunting.  The whole exhibit could be considered controversial, but the firearms themselves are only controversial within the context of the exhibit.

4. Are there objects too heinous to collect?
My heart says yes, buy my brain says that there will always be someone interested in viewing the most disturbing and heinous objects.  They definitely have an audience which creates possible museum customers.  Sometimes we need to collect and preserve heinous objects to remember, so as not to repeat history.  The Nazi prison camps come to mind as a good example.  I’m sure there were many who wanted them razed and erased from the earth after WWII, however they serve as a tragic reminder of the inhumanity and evil that can exist in and must never be repeated.  Based upon this idea of remembering, I can’t think of any object too heinous to collect for possible study.  It is the way objects are exhibited that needs careful and thoughtful examination.

# data[].attributes.body
1. As a curator, I would sit down with my director and have a descent discussion over this subject.
First, I would propose that we would take down the guns on display. There is still an emotional tie to them and if the museum puts them up we are not respecting the family nor the event of the murderers.
I would then point the director the situation of the Smithsonian Museum. It also has a similar problem. Some of the art pieces in its collection are from WWII and are images supporting Nazi propaganda and some pieces of Hitler himself. Right now, these pieces are not being displayed because, I believe, it is still a hard subject for some people to grasp onto because there are still survivors out there that suffered directly and indirectly from the Nazi regime.
In turn, there are still some family members who find the guns offensive and have negative emotions tied to them. It is, therefore, not the time to display them. I believe there is a time, place, and way to display certain objects, but for this case, it is not time yet. This holds true to the other objects that are negatively tied victim's descendants mentioned in the case such as a KKK hood, white's only sign, or weapons during the Indian's Wars.
I would then propose that instead of displaying the artifacts mentioned above, a wall would be displayed discussing the horrible situations these items were involved in, but not displaying the actual items. I would suggest of instead adding pictures of them, but I would want the families to ok this proposal first. I would further want a spot on the wall for the victim's of these situations. Again, I would want the families to approve of this first.
2. I don't think that materials should be kept on hold for public access in the future. First, because some objects could actually help with other's research. Second, because objects belong to the world, and it's the duty of the museum to act as a buffer between itself and the world and present the objects in the best way possible while allowing the public to view them. Again, a public museum belongs to the public. Thus, they should be allowed to have access to their own items.
3. I think objects are controversial depending on how they are interpreted, where they are displayed, and in what context. Objects can be interpreted in many ways and therefore can come to symbolize different things. I think objects that are deemed "controversial" can be turned from a negative light into one that is at least educational depending on how the object is presented. For example, a painting of Hitler can be to many a image of a horrible beast. But, if the painting if presented in an educational setting about the effects of the Nazi regime and in what way the painting was used as propaganda, I think it could be displayed.
4. I think objects being "heinous" depends on what a person would deem as "heinous" to what another person would see it as. People have different perspectives and perhaps one thing that would be considered heinous might be considered educational to another.
However, I think there are some objects that are deemed "heinous" that might actually be harmful to the collector and should not be collected. Whether this is because it adds fuel to a person's distorted ideals or because the objects may actually harm them.
For example, I wouldn't suggest collecting anything that has been known to be possessed because it may not be that safe.

# data[].attributes.body
I swear this is shorter than my other posts, sorry Heidi.

1. I would have a serious discussion with my director about what the aims of this exhibit are and whether or not this type of exhibit fits the museum's mission. As well, I'd have a discussion about the different types of risk involved --- reputational, physical, financial --- given the current climate around the objects and what feedback has already been given.

Depending on what the exhibit is actually about, I might have to conclude by saying that, in the current political climate in the US and the world--in which disenfranchised people are intently looking for extremist symbols to congregate around and excuse bad behavior with--this type of exhibit is too incendiary for the museum's longterm good standing. If we want to exhibit these objects, there's probably a better way to do so piecemeal, inside of installations that are less incendiary overall.

In fact, there may be a better, less incendiary exhibit that could be designed around these objects and their subsidiary works to show the historical trauma and the modern interpretation of these subjects (ie, how we've grown), if the director insists on them being shown together. As far as the concerned descendants, under this solution, I think sometimes they are absolutely right to question classless, poorly informed exhibits, but sometimes should allow professionals the chance to do their jobs with interpreting objects educationally before they judge it. I'd invite them to see the exhibit under construction and offer suggestions on it, and if they still didn't want the objects in it, I'd either recommend putting them away or putting a large sign at the front of the exhibit about the controversy itself. Like with most things, it would probably depend on how big of donors they are, sadly.

2. I think it's all right to collect some controversial items with the intent to only allow them for study, rather than to put them on public display. (Or to put them on display at a much, much, much later date when they can be seen as curious historical objects.)

I personally believe that engagement with and interpretation of some items can only be "trusted" to certain individuals, usually those highly educated and without ulterior political motive. As Goode and other 19th century curators describe, museums have the goal of educating and uplifting, and bringing people into higher cultural standing spiritually. The existence and display of some items are by nature spectacle and classless, and cannot accomplish those stated goals.

Too, as an educator and writer, I can say that you have to idiot-proof certain things from the masses and inevitably causing damage. Sometimes you must err on the side of a cold dinner in order to prevent a fire from spreading and destroying everything in sight.

3. Objects themselves cannot be controversial, as they are just objects; but how we interpret them and engage with them certainly can be controversial. Interpretation and engagement changes over time, and therefore, so too does an object's perceived value.  That is not something easy to overcome, and certainly not something one-well meaning exhibit can change by itself.

Because object placement is essential to interpretation and emotional engagement, where an object is placed can definitely be controversial due to the cultural sensitivity involved (or lack thereof, as it were). Some wounds may be fresher for a certain kind of religious or ethnic group than another, and you should take that into account in order to protect the object from being stolen or destroyed because of someone's anger or perceived disrespect.

4. I don't think there are ones too heinous, per se, but I do believe that we are trying to achieve certain goals and present certain stories through our objects that will be at odds with certain acquisitions. In other words, there are some things that are too tasteless to collect, because the only reasonable reason to collect them is to make money or gain prestige from proximity to someone else's bad behavior.

We also must make sure we are not enshrining that uncivilized behavior. For example, is there value in maintaining and displaying an object whose only purpose was to symbolize someone else's oppression and victimization, if you are not part of the effected culture creating a cautionary tale around it? Otherwise, all you're doing is being titillated from someone else's very real misfortune without their permission. Some societies have the notion that there are ideas and events too taboo to discuss widely; that only certain trusted and qualified cultural historians should be allowed to learn them, if anyone, because to ideas are simply too powerful and too dangerous if left out in the open and in any way able to be perceived as equal in value or merit to other, positive cultural facets.

(For example, the Doge's palace in Venice has a portrait of all 600-some dukes the city has ever had, but the one man who tried to overthrow the government had his portrait blacked out. They know he tried to do something horrible, but literally illustrated that it was a bad thing never to be allowed again. In this way, they've kept the truth of the narrative that it did happen, but have made it very clear that the person should never be aggrandized and destroyed his image so it can't be idolized.)

I happen to agree with this procedure. I don't believe in revising history or hiding the truth, but I do believe that not all ideas, actions, or policies in history have equal merit toward a brighter future and thus, in order to make a more civil and just society, we must decide what we want to allow to exist and what ideas and stories to uphold, and that will be undermined by keeping all the bad stuff around and out in the open.

In some cases, why not just destroy it, if it doesn't hold some sort of cautionary, artistic, or scientific value? Nature would reclaim it over time anyway; so, humans absolutely have a right to collectively decide to use their consciousness to remember someone's name and deeds, or to give it back to the earth that created it, free of guilt.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an understandably tricky situation to work your way through as a museum, but here are my answers and reasons
1.)I would recommend that the director remove the guns from display. If the direct descendants of the victims truly wish for the guns to not be on display, I think it's best to honor their wishes. The other objects, however, don't have the same problem. There are no direct victims of those objects, so they can still be displayed.
2.) Yes, museums are repositories of significant objects. They can and should keep objects on hold, because the historical and cultural significance of the object will change over time in ways we can't predict.
3.) I would argue that the objects themselves are controversial, but interpretation and context can significantly change how we perceive them. For example, the guns in the prompt are controversial because they were used in a crime, but the museum can exhibit them in such a way that can downplay the crimes committed with the object, or hype them up even more as murder weapons.
4.) Yes, there are some objects that should not be collected by any respectable museum. This particular story came to mind (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37344210) about a human body stuffed and presented in a museum until 1997 in Spain.