# data[].attributes.body
- Be sure you are logged in to Padlet so your post won't be anonymous.
- Click on the + sign in your Case's column.
- Put your Name where it says "Title"
- Click the upload arrow on the left to post the pdf of your visual aid.
Where it says "Write something..."
Copy and paste:
- your 3 discussion questions
- the link to your Panopto video in the Chapter [assignments] folder

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion Questions:

1. Do you feel like LMSD could have used other outlets, such as the news media, to their advantage?

2. If you were a parent, would you have trusted and supported the school district during the case?

3. How did the use of social media and news media effect this case?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=c3892724-48a9-4405-8d4b-ad130115e63b

# data[].attributes.body
Do you feel like LMSD could have used other outlets, such as the news media, to their advantage?

Yes, LMSD could have used other outlets such as news media in order to address the situation, however they would have had to make sure all communication was mapped out strategically, without incorporating defensive responses. As long as they remind honest and communicated their efforts to make necessary changes, other outlets could have definitely been utilized.

If you were a parent, would you have trusted and supported the school district during the case?

Overall, I think the fact that students were, or thought they were, being “monitored” at home is an invasion of privacy. I would not have supported the addition of this into my child’s school if I were a parent, because I would want my child to be comfortable in they own home without the fear or underlying concern of being monitored.

How did the use of social media and news media effect this case?

The use of social and news media made this case very public, especially being addressed on The Early Show.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Tara, Great Job on the Presentation !! For question 1, I feel that Yes, they could have used all other social media platforms to promote their messaging. I think the one issue they would run into is making sure all messages were consistent and having a clear interpretation. I do also think with using various platforms you would be able to reach larger demographics, Regarding #2 I think this is a tricky question because I am not a parent. However If I was I feel that I would have some trouble trusting the district moving forward. These students were being monitored when privacy was being completely invaded. Lastly #3 The use of social media is to spread content so that everyone can see it. In this case I feel that it made the situation very public. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Tara, Great Job on the Presentation !! For question 1, I feel that Yes, they could have used all other social media platforms to promote their messaging. I think the one issue they would run into is making sure all messages were consistent and having a clear interpretation. I do also think with using various platforms you would be able to reach larger demographics, Regarding #2 I think this is a tricky question because I am not a parent. However If I was I feel that I would have some trouble trusting the district moving forward. These students were being monitored when privacy was being completely invaded. Lastly #3 The use of social media is to spread content so that everyone can see it. In this case I feel that it made the situation very public. 

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion Questions:
1. What are your thoughts on the removal of confederate monuments. Do you agree or disagree with this movement?

2. Do you think the city council reacted too quickly in removing these monuments when under pressure by the Take ‘Em Down NOLA organization?

3. How do you think this case may  have impacted other southern states across the nation with regards to confederate monuments?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=999f5f11-f96c-4cb9-910d-ad1600127e77

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion Questions:

1. The museum utilized extensive press kits and traditional media tactics to respond to this crisis. Keeping in mind that this case developed in 2002, do you think there were other tactics the museum could have implemented that would have been more effective?

2. Members of the public called for the museum to remove three of the most controversial pieces of the exhibition. Do you think this was an action that the museum should have taken,  or were they right to leave all works available for showing? Would removing the more controversial pieces have unintended consequences on their reputation or relationships with their community?

3. This case is unique in that it deals with art, which is incredibly subjective and open to multiple interpretations-no two people tend to understand art the same way. How do you think that the nature of the crisis revolving around art may have posed both an opportunity and an obstacle in the museum’s response to the crisis?

# data[].attributes.body
Great case study presentation!

1. I agree with the movement of removing confederate monuments from public spaces.  While I understand the historical significance of these people, I just think we shouldn’t sensationalize them anymore, given how far we’ve come since their time.  Times have changed.  They had beliefs that, hopefully, almost everybody disagrees with in this century.  It just makes sense to take them down so we do not sensationalize these figures anymore.  If anything, put them in a museum.

2. I agree the change happened quickly.  While they did listen to both sides of the argument before the vote, it seemed that the decision had already been made based on the mayor’s opinion on the matter.  So perhaps it did happen a little too quickly and it could have been unfair.  I believe the correct decision was made.

3. I believe a lot of southern states were angry with the decision made in New Orleans, causing many to rally for confederate monuments in their town/city/state.  They probably wanted to protect them as long as they could before action could be taken over the monuments.  The decision in New Orleans also could have caused other city councils and state governments to consider the idea as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought you had a great case study presentation!

1. The LMSD definitely could have reached out to news media outlets to do interviews and give statements regarding the matter.  I believe that the school district did not reach out to the news media because the parents and students had done so already.  Since their side was already in the news, I believe the school district decided it was best to avoid the news media to prevent being attacked on air, making the case much worse.

2. I would not have trusted the school district during this time.  Spying on students in their home, let alone in general, is not okay in the slightest.  The school should not have jurisdiction over anything that happened not on school grounds, let alone in the student’s own home.  Plus, “at least 56,000 images had been captured by LMSD’s monitoring software.”  That is absurd.  I would have not supported the LMSD spying on my child in my home.

3. Social media and news media allowed this case to become a national news story as opposed to just a local matter.  Everybody all over the United States ended up learning about this case because it was all over social media.  This created a lot more negativity for the school and made the case much larger than it had to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your case study presentation!

1. Perhaps the museum could have held press conferences to address the matter and answer everybody’s questions and criticisms.  That is a faster way of communication as opposed to addressing everything in a six page news release.  Being more vocal through voice as opposed to on paper could have helped the museum more in this case.  While they had third party advocates speak on the museum’s behalf, maybe a spokesperson for the museum could have been better for credibility.

2. I think removing the pieces from the museum would prove that the museum was in the wrong for displaying the pieces.  The museum was willing to defend their decision to the end.  I believe if they really wanted to stick with their message and show that these pieces are worth showing, they had to leave these pieces up despite how controversial they were.  I think removing the pieces could have helped as it would have been seen as rectifying behavior in this case and could have been a step in the right direction.

3. I think this idea played a huge role in the case and that is why the museum chose to leave the pieces up.  Art is very subjective, and over time there have been hundreds of pieces that have been deemed controversial in some way or another in their time period that are still hanging up to this day.  I think there was an opportunity for the museum to make this argument and discuss other controversial pieces and how they were seen in their time period.  But was also an obstacle given the argument against and nature of the controversy.  This was overall a difficult case for the museum because at the end of the day, it was just art.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, great job! This presentation really brought everything together.

1. I definitely agree with removing these confederate monuments. I think there is only one place for history that causes so much pain for so much of the population. That place, in my opinion, should be in museums. Having these monuments in public, in southern states mostly, where the men depicted were brutal and murderous toward so many of the American citizens is damaging no matter how long ago the wars happened. Having these men memorialized could also be an argument for why white supremacists think that they are superior. What I mean by that is, if someone who believes in white power sees only white confederate, racist men being idolized they might think the world agrees with them.

2. While it might have seemed fast, I think maybe it was something so many have thought about for years and years and it was finally within their power to do something about it. I don’t think they reacted too quickly, in fact this is something that should have happened years if not decades ago.

3. I think there will be dozens of cases coming to cities across America in an effort to remove these statues and I think there will be hundreds of thousands in support and the same number against. I hope that most cities will follow NOLA’s lead and remove them.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, great presentation!

1. I agree with the removal of the statues. I think that it sends the wrong message by having the up despite knowing the history and pain that is associated with these statues. I think that by having them, it could spark conflict and cause a great rift between the population. I think that it was smart to remove them before any more conflict erupted because of them.

2) I don’t think that they reacted too quickly. While it might have felt like the organization pressured them to do it, I felt like this decision was a long time coming based on the political climate changing at such a rapid pace.

3) I hope that this motivates other states to do the same with their statues. I feel like by removing them we are heading in the right direction and I can only hope that other states and other organizations will move to have statues that represent white power taken down.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, I really liked your presentation!

1) Yes, I feel like they could have. But I also wonder if using the news media would it have made them look more aggressive and in denial of any wrongdoing, which wouldn’t be helpful in their case.

2) I am not sure. I would seriously question the school and the reasoning behind this. I also would want to have more discussion with the school and staff to understand what was happening. My first thought is that I couldn’t support an organization that spies on my children, but since I am not a parent, I am not sure what I would do in this case.

3) The role that social media played in this case was to spark conversation and make this topic well known to others outside of the school community. It got traction in the media so that this case was well known.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia, Well done presentation!

1) Perhaps sitting down and having a conversation with the organizations that protest against these pieces and talking about why they wanted to put them and also why the organizations felt that it was the wrong choice for them as an installation. More communication directly to the public where they were able to explain their choices and defend their position might have been more helpful.

2) I think that by removing them, it would suggest that they were either knowingly putting up harmful artwork or that they were too worried about their reputation. I think that the museum wanted to do things that were right for the community, but also educational. By removing the artwork, it would suggest that they didn’t believe the art served to educate. If the community picked up on that, I feel like it would have hurt the musume more because the community would have lost faith in the museum's ability to educate and inform.

3) I think art is very subjective and everyone gets something different from the same piece of artwork. That being said, I think that is what the museum was trying to suggest. That while this artwork might offend some it also has the power to spark conversation and educational moments. The jewish community suffered horribly and the holocast is something that can’t ever be repeated. Perhaps the museum wanted to have this artwork up to serve as a way to remind people of that.

# data[].attributes.body
Tara, great presentation! This case was crazy to read and your presentation was great at describing it!

1. I think they definitely could have used other outlets like news media to their advantage. It was a big scandal that rocked the town and using the news media would have gotten their message out there to combat the student that was getting interviewed left and right.

2. If I was a parent, I would definitely not trust the school after this broke. Even if, best case scenario, they actually did have absolutely no idea that this was happening, that would have been a major oversight and lack of child safety. Privacy is extremely important especially with teenagers, having cameras in the school is one thing but spying on students at their home, even if they had absolutely no idea is absolutely ridiculous.

3. These sources of media forced the story to become national news instead of keeping it local. This also caused more schools to be looked at and lots of panic from parents and students.

# data[].attributes.body
Sofia, great job! I loved the layout of your presentation a lot!

1. I think this was a good use of their time and efforts as it happened in 2002. The only thing that I can think of that may have been an additional benefit would have been a small press conference or going on a news show.

2. I think removing the pieces was not necessary. I understand where some of the protesters were coming from but this exhibit was not forced upon people, it was a choice to go to the museum and visit. People who go made a conscious and educated choice and therefor should be able to see all that was shown. Removing the pieces also could have been an admission of some sort of wrongdoing which, of course, no one ever wants to do.

3. Because art is so subjective and open to interpretations, this helped the museum justify the exhibit and the artwork they chose to display. One might view something as beautiful and educational while someone else might find it damaging and triggering. It is all based on perspective which is something I think the museum was trying to prove.

# data[].attributes.body
Good job Tara! Great presentation!

1. I think using other news media could have been used to their advantage as long as their message was empathetic and not denial/excusal. I think because the story was gaining traction so fast they could have benefitted from more media coverage in the same way.

2. If I were a parent I would have not supported the school. Though I understand the technology use policy, there needs to be trust between students and schools. I think increased surveillance does not combat issues of unethical use but rather promotes lack of trust and a drive to go against administration. I think as a parent I would not have been on the side of the school, but the students.

3. Social media expanded this story from a local crisis to way beyond that. With growing technology there is growing media coverage but also an increased fear of surveillance. This is such a hot button issue, even more so now with COVID and online school, that social media allowed this crisis to grow exponentially.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad! Good job on your presentation of this case. To answer your questions: 
1. I think that the removal of the statues was necessary and the right move. I agree with this movement because what the monuments are associated with is wrong. 
2. I don’t think that they reacted too quickly in removing the monuments - I would have been more concerned if they took a long time and seemed to brush off Take ‘Em Down NOLA. 
3. I think this case may have impacted other states in a way that encourages them to make the same decisions and remove their landmarks that represent the Confederacy. Or at least it will encourage them to have public discussions like this case. 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think it is really important that these monuments are taken down. By keeping these up, the message that the actions made by the southern states in support of slavery are something that we should be proud of. They represent the dark and very disturbing history of America. History must be understood and learned from,  however, monuments show pride and honor which is not something America has for this history. Monuments of leadership in combatting slavery and racial injustice should exist, not those of the confederate states.

2. I do not, if anything these monuments should have been taken down decades ago. These monuments are characterized by racism and inequality in America. This is not something America should promote or be proud of. The city's reaction was fast, but as a whole these monuments 1 - should have never existed and 2- should have been taken down years earlier.

3. In an ideal scenario, this would spark stronger movements toward eliminating all confederate rooted monuments. However, there still remain many flags and monuments being honored and displayed.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara! Great presentation! To answer your questions: 
1. I do feel like LMSD could have used other outlets to their advantage. This also brings up the question of if it would be beneficial or not but it could be used. 
2. I don’t think I would supported and trusted the school district. This, in my opinion, is a huge invasion of privacy and I know that I wouldn’t want to be monitored so I wouldn’t let it happen to my child. 
3. Social media got the conversation out there and amped up the case. It’s uncontrolled media so it sparked a lot of conversations.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia! Great presentation! To answer your questions: 
1. I think maybe more face-to-face conversations with Publics would have helped the case more effective. But I do think that the press kits were pretty good for the year that this case took place. 
2. I think that removing the controversial pieces would have been the most helpful in this case as it would show respect and sincerity towards knowing they’re in the wrong and need change. I don’t think that they were right in leaving the pieces up, even though they stood by them. 
3. This point is exactly something that the Museum could have brought up in defense of the pieces that were deemed controversial. Some people may not have interpreted it that way. This would have been a key opportunity. But it could be an obstacle for the same reason.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the communication tactics utilized were very effective but I think there would be benefit in more face to face interaction. Potentially hosting a press conference with the protesting organizations, or direct conversation with them would have been an effective addition. Given the sensitivity of the matter I find that more face to face and human interactions are better responses.

2. I think that because the museum houses art they are in kind of a tough situation. I think it is fair to call for the removal of these pieces, and honestly I would favor that side of the argument. However, I do feel as though being a museum that takes down art would impact their reputation as censoring their art and not promoting all forms and accepting art as expression not impression.

3. I touched upon this in my response above. Art is up for multiple perceptions and opinions which poses a difficult threat. It is harmful to say that no matter how people are impacted by art it should stay up but I think art is incredibly subjective. Warning people who visit the museum of potential triggering and upsetting imagery could be a way to combat this. However, I think art has a standard of fluidity and openness. I do not have a concrete opinion on this because I think no matter what, someone is harmed. In the end I think organizations need to be transparent and act on behalf of publics not in their self interest.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Job on your presentation!
1. I think the removal of the statues was necessary in order to move forward and doesn't necessarily erase history. The statues glorify what once happened and because we have come so far there is no good reason to have them on display. I think it is important to remember what happened and to teach kids about history but there are other ways to do so.

2. I think the city council's reaction time was appropriate being that it wasn't a hard decision to make. If they had taken longer it would have upset the public who wanted the monuments down

3. It might take time to influence people and have them follow the actions taken in New Orleans but I think and hope that other southern states would agree with the removal of confederate monuments that praise what once happened in the past.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, great presentation!

1. Although it could have brought more bad press, LMSD definitely could have used news media to release any statements they had and communicate better with the public.

2. If I were a parent I would not trust or support the school during the case and I was surprised to hear that parents got together to show support. The monitoring system was a huge invasion of privacy and especially because children were involved I would ot be able to show support because I don't think there is much of an excuse.

3. I think the use of social media and news media definitely brings more attention to the situation and exposes any wrongdoing but in this case I think it's necessary to make a big deal out of this so that similar incidents will never happen.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice job on your presentation!

1. I think they could have reached out to news outlets or held a press conference to speak about the situation. Actually delivering the message to the public and talking about it is much more effective than writing it out in a press release and letters.

2. I think that if the museum removed the controversial pieces it would have shown the public that they acknowledge people’s feelings and understand that they did something wrong. I understand wanting to stand up for the museum and artists but at that point they will just suffer from more consequences.

3. I think this is more of an opportunity for the museum to stand up for themselves. If no two people see a piece of art the same way those who are offended can only speak for themselves. The museum could have used this idea to defend their argument and reason for not taking the art down.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia! Great presentation, I really enjoyed the design of your slides.

1. Like you point out, this case was back in 2002, so there is not many additional channels the Jewish Museum could have used effectively. I think, since it is a sensitive topic, they were right to explain the exhibit and try to have a conversation with the people who wanted it to be canceled. The press kits were the best way to be able to thoroughly explain the purpose of the exhibit to the most people. However, I think a similar explanation could have been done using face-to-face tactics, like an interview with a spokesperson from the museum on a relevant news show.

2. As the Jewish Museum explained in their PR materials during this crisis, the museum is a hub for Jewish culture - past, present, and future. Although the pieces were seen a controversial and upsetting to Holocaust survivors and families, they represented how modern Jewish artists viewed their own cultural history. I think it would have gone against the museum's mission and purpose to not allow those voices a place in their museum. In turn, that could eventually have a negative effect on their reputation as an open collection of various Jewish perspectives. One day, the controversy of modern Jewish experiences surrounding capitalism and the holocaust will be an important part of history too.

3. I think it is more and more common and more acceptable for people to express themselves through various forms of art. This poses the opportunity of a more versatile collection at the museum, mixing artistic interpretations and historical artifacts to create a unique experience. However, like you said, art is subjective which makes it difficult to explain or justify to the audiences that wanted it removed. The museum would not be able to convince people their interpretation of the art was wrong. This makes the response difficult. Rather than telling the audience not to be offended, they had to explain why the possible offense was necessary to their cause.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, great presentation!

1. Since the involved families, like Blake and his family, were using news media to create more concern on the issue, I think LMSD could have looked into responding on similar channels. This would allow both sides of the conversation to be in one place. However, it might have seemed like LMSD was arguing against the concerns and thus create a larger divide. Therefore, I think it was smart for LMSD to stick to communicating with parents through their own official channels. This made the crisis seem like a serious issue that LMSD was investigating rather than a scandal.

2. As someone who grew up with technology being an integral part of my education, I think I am much less surprised by privacy concerns and willing to believe it was accidental. But I am also a skeptical person. I was shocked that the older generation of parents were so quick to support the school and not rush judgement on a privacy issue. I think it depends on the school's strengths and previous relationship with parents. Obviously, the parents felt as though the school district had a good track record of doing the right thing and putting students first, and I think that's what allowed the district to have such strong support in the end. One thing that made me question the school's intentions was how they approached Blake about the "pills." Initially, it seemed like they were trying to get him in trouble rather than being concerned for his safety. Either way, if it was truly unintentional to monitor the students, they should have checked out the issue when they found the image of Blake rather than approaching him like it wasn't strange to have the photo in the first place.

3. Social media and the news allowed the case to get a lot more attention than it otherwise would have. I also think these platforms gave the affected families a voice. Blake and his family had every right to be upset, and these platforms and access to do interviews allowed the family to voice those concerns and create change. I'm not sure the school district would have been so quick to investigate and take accountability if it was only one parent complaining.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, great presentation!

1. The removal of confederate monuments is a very interesting topic. I can understand points from both sides: they trivialize America's dark historical past as well as the experiences of black people in America (past and present); on the other hand we can't ignore history and someone can find an issue with any historical figure, so where does it end. Personally, I am in the middle. I do not think we should memorialize individual people on such a large scale due to the growth and change of our country's values as well as the right to have different opinions. I'm sure if there was an effort toward replacing confederate monuments with historical black Americans someone would try and find an issue with those too. However, I do not think these monuments should be erased. One comment that really stood out to me was black Americans having to look at their young child and explain who these monuments celebrate. That only strengthens my opinion that monuments, such as the confederate monuments discussed in this case, should be moved to a place/museum where they can be put into historical context. A quick walk by a monument in a public space doesn't necessarily teach anybody anything.

2. The fact that the city acknowledged both sides of the argument, to me, shows that they put careful research and thought into this decision. New Orleans's rich multicultural history also made it more reasonable for the city to take quicker action that sided with sensitivity toward black Americans. I think there are going to be people who are never ready for this change, so there will always be an argument that the city did not take enough time to consider this choice. However, I think it was a long time coming and was not rushed.

3. I think that having one southern area remove confederate monuments opens the bag for more people to expect this from other southern states. I think the action taken in New Orleans will lead to two polarized changes. On one hand, it will garner more support towards the movement of removing all confederate monuments. It might spark action and change in other southern states. On the other hand, it might stir fear or anger in confederate supporters. Now that they know people support the removal of these monuments enough to follow through, other states might become more protective of their confederate symbols, forcing them to be more openly hostile to the opposing viewpoint.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation and breakdown of the case Brad!

1. I agree with the removal of the confederate monuments because as you say, it symbolized an ignored heritage of African Americans. Landrieu states in his speech, “History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue,” but the removal of the statue is symbolic of both change and progression for African American communities, and the Take ‘Em Down Nola coalition group (461). Taking down the monuments also acknowledges that the “cause of the Confederacy was wrong,” as the mayor says in his speech.

2. I think that it was good that the city council reacted quickly when removing these monuments, because it shows that they are listening to the public, and not ignoring the coalition group altogether. The organization had a “powerful collective narrative” as co-founder Michael Quess Moore stated, and putting pressure on the city council only pushed for change (462). Even though the coalition group said they did not get enough credit in their fight to remove the statues, they were still taken down, and the city official listened, instead of ignoring their requests.

3. I think this case will impact other southern states across the nation and urge them to remove confederate monuments that may be viewed as politically insensitive, especially statues that commemorate a part of history that represented enslavements, torture, and brutality. Having the reminder of the monument to commemorate the pain and suffering that African American’s had to endure in the past is not a part of history I feel should be idealized. Other states should be urged to recognize the traumatic events and work to implement diversity within their states.

# data[].attributes.headline
I’m Watching You…: School Issued Laptop “Spycam” Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
I’m Watching You…: School Issued Laptop “Spycam” Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
Fantastic presentation Tara!

1. I think that LMSD could have taken advantage of some news media outlets, possibly conducting interviews based on their perspective of this case, but since they were already in some hot water, and getting a lot of negative backlash from students and their families, I think avoiding more news media, may have been the smarter tactic used in this case. Shining light on an already sensitive issue could have ruined the school’s reputation even more than it did in this case, and directing their messaging towards parents and students was the most important initiative that had to be taken here.

2. If I were a parent, being the skeptical person I am, I do not think I would have been able to fully trust or establish complete support, especially for a case so large that it had to undergo investigation. Seeing that the school did establish better communication efforts, like town hall meetings, had planned to implement efforts through data collection using the classroom walkthrough method, and expanded technology advisory council which focused on continued program evaluation and improvement was a great way to rebuild trust and loyalty with the parents and the students, yet I would not be able to get over the fact that LMSD was spying on my children (476).

3. I think that social media and news media expanded the awareness around this case, reaching national news coverage. Instead of limiting the case to local-level news, it broadened the outreach to the public and brought attention to an issue that may not be just an isolated incident for LMSD. It may be that other schools use similar software and capture images of students on their computers as well. The use of social media highlighted the public scrutiny and backlash even more, and the exposure from the news media was a quintessential representation of the dangers that computer software’s like these poses. It is a complete invasion of privacy and the media created an important investigation and conversation around the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
"It's the Real Thing": Protest at the Jewish Museum Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
"It's the Real Thing": Protest at the Jewish Museum Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
Amazing job and questions Sofia!

1. I think that there aren’t as many additional media tactics that the museum could have implemented, especially because effective marketing, and PR which the museum did implement through a small firm, has only strongly developed in recent years. As the industry progresses there are news media tactics that are always emerging, but for 2002, I feel like they did a great job at reaching the public and avoiding a serious amount of backlash. They had an extensive press kit that was around 6 pages long, had interpretative videos around the Mirroring Evil exhibition, and implemented educational programs that are still long-standing, so I believe that is a testament to great community listening skills.

2. I think that they did the right thing by staying true to their artists, and not removing the pieces from the exhibit altogether. I feel like so many organizations today do not stay true to their brand, and are overtly criticized by the public based on what is politically correct and what is not. I think the museum took this as a great opportunity to raise awareness around a sensitive and monumental part of history. I think that giving the public more information about this era was extremely beneficial to Jewish culture, and exposed feats of tyranny, so removing the pieces would have resulted in a lost opportunity to educate the public.

3. I think this case posed an obstacle in terms of getting around the majority of public opinion. As you said, art is subjective, and the nature of this crisis posed an obstacle for the museum because the art was created around a sensitive issue, that many Jewish people feel was not represented correctly in the art based on their experience during the Holocaust. At the same time, I think that this case allowed an amazing educational opportunity for the public to take, especially when learning about the significance of other people’s cultures. Some felt that the exhibition was insensitive, but overall the educational programs are still available through the museum today, which created adaptation to change and unconventional methods.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I agree that removing some of these monuments is necessary. Although they represent a truth about the past of this country, their negative connotation can be triggering to a large portion of the population. In turn, although we have a ways to go, this country has come a long way since the creation of many of these monuments in terms of racial equality and the world should accurately represent that.

2. I think the city council did react very quickly in response to pressure put on them by the Take ‘Em Down NOLA organization, but perhaps not too quickly. If they were able to make that decision as quickly as they did and stand behind it, it is possible that everyone agreed so quickly in regards to taking down these monuments because they all knew it was the right action to take.

3. This case certainly has impacted other states, specifically southern states in encouraging others to join them in removing confederate monuments. When state leaders see this case, they are reminded that the majority of people do not want to be reminded of these monuments every day and support the removal of monuments. When leaders see that the movement has a lot of support, they may even choose to bring the situation to attention themselves in an effort to avoid unnecessary controversy that they do not have control over.

# data[].attributes.headline
I'm Watching You...: School-Issued Laptop "Spycam"

# data[].attributes.subject
I'm Watching You...: School-Issued Laptop "Spycam"

# data[].attributes.body
1. I feel as though the LMSD could have definitely utilized other media outlets so long as their message remained consistent across all outlets. This would have given them a wider reach and solidified a position in the news. Rather, parents and students turned to the news media to vocalize their opinions which made the LMSD face more issues.

2. If I had been a parent involved in the case I certainly would not have trusted the school district. Because the school district was facing a serious problem with privacy and trust, members of the school district and their parents likely felt betrayed. Capturing images alone crosses a boundary in terms of privacy, especially because they were taken in the privacy of students homes.

3. The involvement of social media and news media grew this case to become a national conversation rather than just being looked at on a local level. In turn, other consumers began questioning their trust in school products in terms of privacy and essentially sparked a whole new conversation about privacy in the home.

# data[].attributes.headline
"It's the Real Thing": Protest at the Jewish Museum

# data[].attributes.subject
"It's the Real Thing": Protest at the Jewish Museum

# data[].attributes.body
1. Keeping in mind that this case occurred in 2002, the museum could have utilized another tactic to eliminate a constant cycle of conversations between the organization and the public. Rather than stating everything in a long news release, the museum could have utilized a press conference where they could have vocally explained the situation. Using the third party members they had speaking on behalf of the company, they could have included their statements during the press release.

2. While members of the public called for the museum to remove three of the more controversial pieces, the museum chose to keep them. I believe they should have taken down the controversial pieces out of respect for the community, but being that they strongly stood behind their decision to keep them, they cannot go back now.

3. Being that art is so unique in that every person interprets it in a different way, the nature of this crisis differs from others. It posed as both an opportunity and obstacle throughout the museums response because every consumer has a different perspective on whether these pieces should be removed or not. For some consumers, the involvement of art potentially made them see the benefits in keeping these controversial pieces, while for others, their interpretation of the art is what convinced them they should be removed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I agree that these confederate monuments should be removed, but more so, with the understanding of why. There is an entire group of the American population that feels uncomfortable with confederate pride because the confederacy's goal was to keep them oppressed under their power. Personally, I have no ancestry in the matter and that is why it is not my place to tell others how they feel about the confederacy. Those who still take pride in the confederate, take pride in a history and culture that existed to keep others away from existing as human beings. It is not my place to say how they feel about it, however, that group of people has made it known how they feel and this is something that we should respect.

2. I think it is good they acted so quickly. However, it is still disappointing to see people reacting only when under pressure or fire from someone or something. It is not hard to identify how uncomfortable these statues made people feel, especially when they were very vocal about it. Waiting as long as they could before taking action is a shameful way to make change.

3. I think other southern states should learn from this movement and understand that it is not an attack on who they are, but rather a step towards becoming a more unified nation that doesn't have a goal of alienating an entire group of people. I would recommend that they follow the lead by taking down their statues, though I also see that will probably not be an easy process with no backlash.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I believe that it would have been beneficial for the museum to have more face to face contact with the publics who were protesting them. I also believe it would have been good to have the artists speak for themselves on their pieces. They could have had the artists speak at press conferences or interviews with news outlets. They would have had to brief the artists on how to communicate their messages, but I feel as though it may have made the public more understanding.

2) I believe the museum was right in their decision on keeping the artwork. By doing this, they remained loyal to their artists. If they had taken it down, it may have had unintended consequences for working with future artists.

3) What you said here is absolutely true. Art is subjective and constantly evolving. I feel as though the museum should have addressed this idea as soon as they announced the inclusion of this particular exhibit. If they had, the museum would be acknowledging public concern while also inviting an open dialogue.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I absolutely agree that the statues needed to be removed. As you stated in your presentation, some people thought that this would be "deleting" history, but this is far from the truth. History still needs to be recognized and taught, but the faults of our country do not need to be memorialized through statues. Removing the statues was a small step in creating space for those who have been oppressed by the very men those statues praise.

2) I believe it was right for them to act quickly, especially with the rise of police brutality in that year. However, I also feel as though this was a conversation that was being had for a while before, it just may not have been widely known.

3) I think southern states would begin to see that while their history does matter, these statues represent a time in which the country was at war with each other. Furthermore, they represent men who held outrageously racist ideologies that dehumanized an entire population of people. As stated in other responses, removing these statues is a step in unifying American history and ideologies.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I personally feel as though it would not have been beneficial for the school to reach out to more media outlets as I feel it would have been a waste of their time. I think they needed to gain the trust of parents in the area, so the face to face communication was more personable and beneficial to their cause. I also feel as though they needed to dedicate their time and resources to defending their case behind the scenes.

2) If I was a parent, I would not have trusted the school district. Bringing the computer into the house would not only be spying on the students, but the other residents who live there. In Blake's situation, it was obvious that the school was abusing their power and using the system to spy on their students.

3) As stated before, the school's main focus should have been gaining back the trust of local parents. However, social media and news outlets got more people involved around the country. This would make it more difficult for the school to control the response to the incident. Along with this, it could potentially have had a larger effect on the local parents' trust if they were influenced by outside opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice job! This was quite a case...
1) News media would have complicated the situation further. It has this tendency to invite anyone with a voice to comment on an issue. What this does is open the situation to a wide array of opinions and eventually "series of events". The district should put most energy into their truthful and transparent response rather than attempt to dispute claims from correspondents and guests on news media.
2) If I was a parent I'd stay far away from the details of this messy situation and just ensure my child had a new computer that wasn't potentially recording them.
3) Social media and news go hand in hand in the act of mega circulation. They have two major screens covered; your phone from social and your TV from the news. As well as your computer actually!

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation,
1) I actually prefer the response that relied on education and a bit of reading. Rather than holding a conference where a representative addresses the press, that's arguably superficial, the museum wanted to inform people as to why they decided to display their art.
2) I think a museum has a right to display what they choose! Like you said art is subjective and there shouldn't be a standard of what an organized museum is held to.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think LMSD did a good job with their outlet usage and it was not necessary for them to use more outlets than they already did. However, I do not think it would have hurt them to expand their outlet usage as long as the message stayed consistent across all platforms.

2. I think as with all technology, there has to be a certain level of understanding that things may go wrong or not the way they planned. If I were a parent, I would be concerned about privacy issues but be forgiving towards the school as I would be certain it wasn't their fault or something they did on purpose.

3. Media and news outlets spread information much faster than the school had anticipated, creating a wildfire and frenzy that grew faster than they were able to work to stop it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the museum did a good job, especially with how extensive their press kits were as well as their traditional media. While I think they could have utilized the internet better, it was still not as prominent of an outlet in 2002.

2. The museum should have kept the art work up as art is to the eye of the beholder. While there are certain topics that may be better if left out of grandeur, there should be warnings and labels put on such art pieces to warn people who come to look at the art. Removing controversial pieces may make some people happy but I do think it would tarnish the reputation of the museum.

3. When there are multiple interpretations, it gives hand for a lot of leeway and wiggle room to use it at an advantage. That being said, this may also make it hard for details and points to stick since everything is subjective. In this case, using the most objective view would be the best way to go.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the removal of confederate monuments do more good than they do harm, and keeping them up emulates ideals of a different era where many people were treated wrongly. I agree with this movement in that it symbolizes a much-needed step towards social change.

2. I do not think they acted too quickly, though it appeared to be quick, the deep-rooted sentiments were a long time coming for being removed, anyway. The initiative to do so just gave the city council a push.

3. It would be nice to think that this case created a domino effect in the removal of other monuments that represent the same things, and hopefully this situation set the precedent for that. So, maybe it inspired other movements of its kind in other states.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, great job with your presentation!

1. I 100% agree with the removal of these confederate monuments. I can only imagine the level of pain it can cause to so many people when they think back to what the people being depicted in those monuments have done throughout history, particularly to African American people. There is no reason, in my opinion, that any of these people should be glorified. What they did was absolutely disgusting and disgraceful, and there is no reason why those kinds of people deserve any level of memorialization – especially in a place where so many people continue to feel the effects of the days of the Confederacy due to racism.

2. The city council definitely did react fast to the pressure, but I don’t think it was a bad thing. I think it’s something that they might have just needed that push to get going on, and something that was probably being considered for a long time (at least, I would hope). I think the push in the right direction from Take ‘Em Down NOLA was just what the city council needed to take this step that would make so many people feel better and more respected within their communities.

3. I would hope that this case resulted in other Southern states taking a close look at any confederate monuments they might have within their states. I can also imagine that seeing this removal happen likely resulted in other activists in other states pushing for the same thing to happen in their own states. Knowing that it’s possible to gain some sort of justice in this situation likely pushed people to seek it out, and hopefully the city councils in other states recognize the need for this to happen.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think they could have used the news media to help communicate their message, however they would need to be careful in their wording due to the sensitive nature of the crisis. So, I think if they came forward as being honest and took responsibility for their invasive actions and made sure to sound apologetic towards the kids involved it could have been beneficial.

2. I would not have trusted the school district during the case. It is scary to think that these laptops were open in safe spaces such as homes and bedrooms, so it would be hard to have faith in an institution that promoted such invasive behaviors.

3. The media brought this case into the public eye, and brought national attention to it. Naturally, this proved hard on the school’s reputation as they were under larger levels of scrutiny than just locally.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara! I really enjoyed your presentation!

1. I definitely think it could have somewhat benefitted LMSD to use other outlets to their advantage, however I understand that they wanted to keep communication strategic. It’s likely that the most important people in the situation, the students and their families, were getting all the right information that they needed from LMSD, therefore that’s what really mattered when it came to communication in this aspect.

2. I definitely would have been very weary of the school district during this situation. The situation is a huge violation of privacy and if it involved my child, I would definitely be extra skeptical about it and demand answers from the school. While I understand that maybe it was not an intentional situation, I would still be very hesitant to trust and support the school after something like this happened.

3. Social and news media gave this case a lot of traction, spreading it across the country and making it very publicly known. Instead of remaining between the school district and its students/families, it became more widely known because of the talk on social and news media. This resulted in a lot more backlash to the district.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia, great job on your presentation!

1. Because of the time when this case took place, I think that the museum did a really great job with utilizing the media to respond to the crisis. The only thing that might have been even more successful would have been sitting down with those involved – the organizations protesting against them, etc. – and trying to better understand their concerns and figure out a course of action from there. I also think a press conference could have been beneficial to the museum getting all that they needed to say out there as well and respond to questions about the situation from the press that people were most curious about.

2. I think that removing the pieces from the exhibit probably would have been a better decision for the museum. Given that those protesting against it are the ones who were most impacted by it, their concerns should have been a priority in this situation. However, I think that removing them would have been the museum admitting that they did something wrong, and that’s probably not what they wanted to do. Instead, they wanted to stick to their side of the argument in saying that these pieces were meant to be educational.

3. This is a super interesting question! I never really thought about how something as subjective as art could create another layer of considerations and complications when it came to communications. I think it probably definitely caused some obstacles in that many people were going to see things differently, so that needed to be taken into consideration when the museum was responding to the situation. Knowing that some people could see the artwork in a positive light probably made the museum want to show those people that they understood them while still addressing the concerns and anger of those who had a more negative interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Given that there was no social media at the time, another route the organization could have taken would be face-to-face tactics. I think this could have been beneficial as when organizations do this it adds a face behind the messaging, which often serves public interest well.

2. I think art is unique in that quite often, most of the time, it is controversial. So, it would make sense that the museum would have wanted to keep these up. However, it should also be noted that the era in question has serious, sensitive undertones, and it is important to keep those in mind when dealing with situations like these.

3. The art aspect could have allowed the museum to back up their decisions, as they know that art is highly interpretational, they also had opportunity to spin the situation to something that makes audiences expand their horizons and think about things in a different light while still emphasizing their concern.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad,
Great presentation! To answer your discussion questions:
1.) I definitely agree with the removal of these confederate monuments. I believe that in order to move towards a change, our country should start with removing figures like these. These racist figures that are praised through monuments send the wrong message to society. It over looks all the bad that these people have done in our history.

2.) I wouldn't say that they acted too fast in removing the monuments. I think that this was a long time coming and finally it was time to remove them. I think they were pressed to do so more quickly by Take Em Down NOLA, however, I think it was the right thing to do.

3.) I believe that if anything, this has motivated other southern states to remove these statues. I believe that more and more people will come out in favor of this.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara,
Great presentation!
To answer your discussion questions:

1.) In the LMSD case, I do believe that they could have done more and used other media outlets. However, part of me questions if using any other sort of outlet would have done more harm than good for them. For instance, using the news media could have made them look guilty in some way

2.) I honestly do not know how I would react to this if I were a parent. Morally, I do not see myself comfortably supporting the school being able to "spy on my child", however, I am not a parent so this is hard for me to comment on. I would most definitely want to speak to someone in the school to gain a better understanding of what was going on.

3.) In this case, social media played the role of spreading the word to other people. It kick started a conversation in the community and beyond and resulted in various opinions being stated. It eventually got attention in the media making it more widely known.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) I believe that this organization made a good use of their time with this situation as it surfaced in 2002.  I think that one thing they could have done in addition would have been to put out a statement in some way for more conversation.

2.) I do not believe that it was necessary to take away these pieces. I could see where some of the protestors were coming from, however, this display was never shoved down people's throats. People who attend the museum made a choice to go and see the displays, they have to be open to coming across other attractions.

3.) I think that the muesuem was able to successfully cover their display because art is something that is open to freedom of expression, making it hard to judge. Art is based off of people's own interpretations. A piece that may offend someone could be another person's favorite piece of work.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia, great job on your presentation! 1) I think it would have been helpful for the museum to hold a press conference. This would have given them the opportunity to address concerns and questions in more detail. 2) I do think that removing the controversial pieces of art should have happened. I think they were trying to do everything they could to get around the pieces that may be seen as offensive such as issuing warnings. It would have been an opportunity for them to express respect toward the respected communities but they missed the mark. 3) I think this served as an opportunity for the museum to educate people on the interpretations of art. This could have been a way that they defended their choice to keep the controversial pieces of art in the exhibit.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, nice job on your presentation! 1) I agree with the removal of these confederate monuments. I think the removal of them is necessary to bring about change. These monuments do not represent many modern day beliefs. I don’t think that removing these monuments is erasing history but rather a way to move forward. 2) I do believe that it was the right move to act quickly. I think they were under a lot more pressure than just the NOLA organization. I don’t think there would have been a reason to put off the removal of these monuments. 3) I think that having one state remove confederate monuments could influence other southern states to remove others. I think it can be an eye opener to other states that these monuments can be viewed as offensive and politically incorrect. I think the timing of these incidents are very sensitive and the removal of monuments in other states could help bring about more social change.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I completely agree with the removal of the confederate monuments. Having a memoriam recognizing people of the confederacy only does damage because they are not to be idolized or given any honor. America has a very dark history and it is important to learn and understand it but not give any honor anything associated with the confederacy.

2. I believe it was the right decision for them to react quickly in removing the monuments when under pressure to take them down. They had no reason to keep the monuments up in the first place and even decide to make a monument. It should have been taken down before the pressure from NOLA organization.

3.I think that this case can impact other southern states by starting the movement and education of American history. Understanding history and being educated on the horrific ideologies of the confederacy is so important for people to be educated about. By having monuments up idolizing the confederacy will only be more damaging. A lot of change needs to be done and by removing monuments of people who had racist ideology is a step in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, great presentation! 1)I think that the LMSD definitely could have reached out to news media outlets. It would have been helpful for them to provide statements especially since the story was so publicized in the news already. They also would have been able to provide more clear information. 2) If I were a parent when this case was occurring I don’t think I would have trusted or supported the school district during this case. I think I would have been concerned with the lack of awareness and preventative action the school took. 3) The role that social media and news media played was leading to story headlines outside of the town and even the state. I think the story probably made a lot of other parents concerned and second guess their own school districts policies.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Yes I do feel like LMSD could have used other outlets such as news media to their advantage as it allows them to give their statement to the public addressing the matter. Their message in their statement would have to be very clear that they are taking accountability for their actions rather than just denying or downplaying the scandal.

2.If you were a parent, would you have trusted and supported the school district during the case?

If I were a parent, I would would not have trusted and supported the school during the case as it was clear privacy information was being withheld from the students and the terms were not made clear. Computers taking pictures of students unknowingly in the comfort of their own home is a serious invasion of privacy and this would make me lose all trust in the school district at all.

3.The involvement of news and social media effected this case as it went from a local scandal to a national one. Information on the case became available for anyone to see hence creating more talk and buzz online.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Ryan, good work on the presentation!
1. I believe that it was absolutely necessary for these statues to be removed and agree with this movement. Racial injustice is a big issue in America and having those statues in a way celebrates people in the past that contributed significantly to those injustices. It also serves as a reminder of all the hardships faced by the African American community country in the past which can be difficult for the members of the community.
2. I think the city council did a good thing by removing these monuments as soon as they felt the pressure of the organization. I, also, however think that they shouldn't have waited to be pressed by an organization to remove it and should have done so way ahead.
3. I think this case served as a wakeup call to all the states that housed these statues that these figures serve as a reminder of an ugly past and should be removed if people want to fight against the injustices prevalent in this country.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, great work on the presentation!
1. I feel like LMSD could have used other outlets such as news media to their advantage because it would allow them to defend themselves better and would also show that they are taking the initiative of being truthful towards the community that was affected.
2. I personally don't think I would have trusted the school district during the case because what they did was a big invasion of privacy and I think that is a very big concern especially for parents when their children are being watched even outside school.
3. The use of social media and news media definitely blew up the case as the case reached several outlets and people that reposted what the school had been involved in. I think that this also plays a role in holding the school accountable because they were almost pressurized to make things right with the affected community and implement better policies.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia! This was such an interesting case and you did a great job at presenting it! To answer your questions:
1. I believe that the museum did a great job at responding to the crisis so that it reflected their true intentions towards including those pieces for the exhibition. I believe that the could have definitely utilized their website to respond to the crisis. If the case were to happen in today's age, I could definitely see them using social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram to provide their response.
2. Judging by the backlash that they received, I believe that removing it after getting such feedback was a good decision. However, I understand that the museum's intention wasn't to be insensitive but it would have been a bad move if they decided to keep those pieces even after listening to the public as they would have just looked unbothered or even arrogant.

3. I do believe that certain art is meant to revoke some sort of reaction from it's viewer and the pieces involved in this case were definitely one them. I think that this crisis served as an opportunity for the museum to share their narrative on the different artifacts and symbols that they included, and really showed that they were meaning to speak about this issue rather than just profiting out of people's suffering. However, I understand that their response also acted as an obstacle because they were going to offend people who might have been directly or indirectly affected by the holocaust and because it is such a sensitive topic, the backlash was unavoidable no matter what their response was going to be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Ryan Great job ! I found this case study to be so interesting. Regarding question #1I do agree with the removal of the monuments because I think it was moving the nation into a more modern way of thinking. I think the monuments were highlighting the bad things those leaders did to people in our nation. For #2 I think the city council acting quickly but for the better because  if they would have waited groups would have protest more and the issue would have been more harmful. #3 I think it kick started the other states into action and showed the younger generation if they use their voice they can create change

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Ryan Great job ! I found this case study to be so interesting. Regarding question #1I do agree with the removal of the monuments because I think it was moving the nation into a more modern way of thinking. I think the monuments were highlighting the bad things those leaders did to people in our nation. For #2 I think the city council acting quickly but for the better because  if they would have waited groups would have protest more and the issue would have been more harmful. #3 I think it kick started the other states into action and showed the younger generation if they use their voice they can create change

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zach,

I think you made a really good point about these monuments in that they have no place for public spaces anymore. However, because they do represent history within the United States they could find a safe space in museums. Personally, I agree with this idea and ask others in favor of keeping them to consider this as well. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea,

I appreciate your honest response and could not agree with you more. The time for these monuments to come down was past due. The rather “quick” decision for them to be taken down from the city council was an appropriate response to the haunting memory that it reminded for some. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna,

Thanks for your feedback and thoughts on the case. I’m glad so many people agree with the idea of taking down some of these monuments. I truly believe they do mark an important part of our nation’s past but have no place for the general public. As some have put it, they would be better suited in museums or elsewhere. They continue to produce this idea of a lost cause that should have been abandoned generations ago. In a sense, it’s terrible the way they are used to inflict discomfort in people’s lives. 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I agree with the removal of the confederate monuments. Although these are part of our countries history, they are definitely highlighting a darker part of history. As times have changed, these monuments can be offense and have a negative connotation tied to them.
2. I think that the city council acted quickly which was a smart move. They acted so quickly in order to prevent protests and riots happening which would have caused even more negative press for the school
3. I think case defiantly started a movement to inspire other southern schools to do the same. I have even read in the news of other school removing monuments and replacing them with more positive ones.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the LMSD should have used other outlets to their advantage in order to defend their reasoning on why they thought the spycam software was a good idea
2. I would not have trusted the school district since having a spy camera in student's computers, especially without their knowledge, is extremely unethical and an invasion of privacy. My school was able to see our search history and downloads but we were notified about that before we were given our laptops
3. I think social media definitely blew up the case especially since the case involved an age group that utilizes social media the most. Also, social media is a shared media which means people can repost the case and have other people see it as well as the ability to send to friends.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the museum did a great job at handling this situation and putting a positive light on it. I think is this case happened today, social media would have played a huge part in public knowledge.
2. I think removing the 3 controversial pieces was a good idea. Although the museum didn't mean to be insensitive, it can be hard to not be offense or graphic when displaying pieces related to the holocaust.
3. I think art is completely subjective and sometimes can be portrayed in a different way than the artist's intention. This can be hard when creating art about such a sensitive topic and having viewers have the same reaction.

# data[].attributes.body
1.I think maybe having an address face-to-face and holding a press conference to speak about the situation would have been a good tactic to use as well. Having more face-to-face interactions with the public and having the artists speak out about their work would have helped in addressing the public.

2.I believe that the museum should have had the artwork taken down. It shows that they hear the public concern of the situation and are taking accountability for the situation. By leaving the artwork up this shows no change and that they do not understand the controversy of the situation.That being said  I do understand how taking down the artwork would be controversial on the artists and art is subjective but it is important to note that many felt the exhibition was insensitive.

3.Since art is subjective everyone views the paintings in the exhibit a different way. In this sense both sides will always have differing opinions. The museum could have addressed the opinions and announced that the art on display some viewers may find insensitive.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, awesome presentation! 1. I think it's always an advantage to extend your message to as many outlets as possible so I do think it would have been beneficial. Had they used other outlets, they would have to continue mapping out their information strategically. 2. I would 100% be skeptical of the school district after witnessing this case. As a parent, I want to make sure my child’s safety and privacy is protected and this situation would raise a lot of questions for me. 3. Social media and news media made this case widely known as it allowed information to be distributed to thousands of people. This resulted in a lot of backlash and damaged the school district’s reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Tara, awesome presentation! 1. I think it's always an advantage to extend your message to as many outlets as possible so I do think it would have been beneficial. Had they used other outlets, they would have to continue mapping out their information strategically. 2. I would 100% be skeptical of the school district after witnessing this case. As a parent, I want to make sure my child’s safety and privacy is protected and this situation would raise a lot of questions for me. 3. Social media and news media made this case widely known as it allowed information to be distributed to thousands of people. This resulted in a lot of backlash and damaged the school district’s reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad, great presentation! I couldn't agree more with the removal of confederate monuments. These are symbols of hate and have no place in the world. They not only dignify the racism that has existed in the past, but encourage it to still continue. This is an issue that is still very prominent and needs to be addressed, including the removal of these horrendous monuments. 2. While it did happen quickly, I would assume and hope that this was an issue that had been contemplated for years.  Although it was swift, it should have taken place years ago. 3. I think the removal of these confederate monuments should serve as an exame to other southern states that still display these monuments. Activism often has a kinetic effect so I would hope it would push others to take action to solve these issues in their communities. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia, great presentation!1. Based on the year this case took place,  I think the museum utilized their available outlets to the best of their ability. Without the advancement of social media and technology, other tactics they could have used include face-to-face communication with key publics. 2. I think the museum should have respected the wishes of others and removed the controversial pieces. Because a large portion of the museum visitors included people who were directly impacted by these pieces, the removal would have shown that these communities were heard and respected. 3. The fact that art is subjective could have been a potential opportunity for the museum to use a defense point. Art can often be interpreted in many ways so the museum could have leaned into this in order to form a more effective response. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Maya,

Thanks for your feedback. I could not agree with you more. After having asked this question I wonder if students of my southern schools would feel differently. This is something I wish I could ask again as I would rephrase my question. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Brad, great job with the presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Brad, great job with the presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think that the removal of the confederate monuments was necessary given the current political climate and the era it represented in our nation’s history. Although it is important to not completely erase history and ignore what happened, these statues do not represent the principles and values of the country.

2. Although the city council’s decision to remove these monuments may have been quick to some, the idea was already probably years in the making. Therefore, I do not believe they reacted too quickly, and they finally had the platform to do something about this issue.

3. In terms of the impact of this decision on other states, I believe that it provided a catalyst for change and at the very least discussions about landmarks and monuments related to the Confederacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi, Tara! Great job on your presentation - I really loved the layout!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi, Tara! Great job on your presentation - I really loved the layout!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe LMSD could have utilized other outlets, especially the news media, to their advantage. They would have had to ensure strategically worded messages that communicated both transparency and genuine apologies to the public. Although earned and shared media would have made it harder for the district to control the sentiment and feedback from others, they would have also been reaching more people.

2. As a parent, I would have been completely outraged by this invasion of privacy and lack of transparency between the school and families about what was being installed on my child’s computer. When I send my child to school and when they are home, I would expect them to be safe in these environments. Therefore, this violation of trust and privacy would cause me not to support the school district during the case.

3.  Given how quickly information can disseminate over social and news media, it is not surprising to see how viral this story became given the topic. Instead of this case remaining local, it erupted on a national scale, which in turn made it harder for the school district to control what was being said and the resulting sentiment shared by adults and children alike. Not only did the very nature of social and news media raise more awareness with a greater number of people, but issues of privacy stemming from technology have always been hot button topics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi, Sofia! Great job with your presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi, Sofia! Great job with your presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. Although the museum developed detailed press kits and utilized traditional media tactics, perhaps they could have conducted a press conference or interview in order to address the exhibit and any questions or concerns the public had. The use of face-to-face tactics could have been used to their benefit and clarified topics that could not be easily addressed in their written materials.

2. In this case, I think that the removal of these controversial pieces could have caused more harm than good. By removing them, it would have demonstrated that the museum was in the wrong and acknowledging their guilt. Despite how controversial the pieces were, the museum had to stick to its argument.

3. Given the subjective nature of art, numerous art pieces around the world have most likely been deemed controversial at some point in history. Although artwork is known to offend and shock individuals, it also has the power to critique specific issues in society and parts of history, thereby igniting conversation and change.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Brad! I really enjoyed your presentation.

1. I believe the removal of confederate monuments is necessary. The monuments are not necessary. The monuments have a dark history, and moving forward means removing the monuments.

2.  I think they reacted in good time. Waiting too long and not acknowledging Take ‘Em Down NOLA would have looked terrible. Many people have these thoughts already but having an organization come forward and prepare their case as to why they want them taken down pushed the issue rightfully so.

3. This case hopefully would encourage other southern states to remove the monuments. There will always be a backlash to a controversial issue like removing these statues, but being able to, at minimum, have a conversation about the possibility is an improvement. However, hopefully, this case pushes other states to start possibly removing their statues.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation Tara!

1. I think LMSD could have used other media outlets. Since the problem spread on social media reasonably quickly, too, using news media and other media outlets would have been an advantage; the school and district would have to be sure their messages were reached in the best way possible.

2. During this case, I think I would not have supported the school. If my child felt uncomfortable and felt like it was an invasion of privacy, I would understand that, and I would also feel frustrated. After this situation, I would probably be a lot less trusting with the school too.

3. Social media and news media spread this issue exceptionally far, and social media helped the case spread faster. A mix of opinions from people outside the issue problem amplified the problem for the district too.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sofia! Nice job on your presentation!

1. Another tactic they could have implemented would be a press conference or some form of face communication to address every issue, and it would keep everyone engaged. Nevertheless, the routes they used to respond to the crisis were great for the time.

2. I believe the museums should have removed the three most controversial pieces, but I can see why they did not. Even though leaving the pieces up was more controversial, I think it was necessary. Unless the museum had changed their position and felt they were in the wrong, removing the pieces would have been performative. Furthermore, it could lead to more issues because it would show the people who agreed with the museum that they were willing to change something because of public influence and show the boycotters that nothing changed. It can be viewed as a tactic to silence protestors. Keeping the pieces up did damage their reputation, but I believe removing them would have left the worst impression.

3. The interpretation of art was used by the museum and by reminding the public that art is subjective and that others will not have the same view, so they must leave it up. This artwork offended some and can be viewed as educational, but it is up to individual interpretation. This reason alone is an opportunity for the museums but a significant obstacle because the majority could agree that something is offensive.

# data[].attributes.body
Brad, great job! You were super informative! 1. I think that removing the statues was the right move and put a lot of people at ease. It was not necessary to have them up anymore knowing the dark history and is the right step to rid something that is deemed “historic.” 2. No, I don’t think so. Take ‘Em Down NOLA was ready to take action against this and if the city had the right people in charge, they would have been taken down sooner. 3. This hopefully had other states, whether it be local city governments or the state government, to see why this was the right thing to do and to reevaluate why they have Confederate statues still standing.

# data[].attributes.body
Tara, awesome job. You captured everything very well. 1. I think that using the news media would have escalated things further and made it worse. It would have brought a mass amount of attention to the situation from all walks of life and places and would have too many people involved voicing what they think and creating a frenzy. 2. If I was a parent, I would have immediately gotten my child another computer and have a weary outlook on the school district and any technology that comes with it. Of course, it’s not the school officials at fault, but it would leave me unsettled. 3. Social media and the news both circulated the story and brought more attention and eyes on the entire situation. It brought attention to this story on all platforms and became accessible to anyone to read and see, not just the local area affected.

# data[].attributes.body
Sofia, wonderful job! 1. I think the museum did a fine job with how extensive and the ample info they had in their press kit. I’m sure they could have utilized the use of the fascinating Internet back then, but 2002 was a long time ago, and things took awhile to reach the internet compared to nanoseconds like today. 2. Art is always going to raise eyebrows, have people talk, and not make some people happy. In some cases, museums should keep their artwork because it lies within the eyes seeing the art piece. But, since this artwork has to do with an extremely emotional and sensitive topic, it should have been considered when asking whether to take them down or not. 3. The nature of the crisis revolving around the art created an obstacle and opportunity because art is interpreted differently by everyone. Like you said, no two people tend to see and view it the same.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think they definitely could have used more news outlets. This would have been beneficial considering how big the scandal and story actually got in a very short time span. By using more news outlets, I think they could have stayed on top of it better and had their responses spread much faster and effectively. Otherwise, their stance can get lost in the mix.

2. If I were a parent, I would not have trusted or supported the school in this case. By installing and utilizing this invasive security software, without explicitly notifying the students or parents, the school was facilitating an incredibly serious and illegal invasion of privacy. Especially considering the laptops were given to students to enhance their education, they should have been notified of the strings attached. The clear abuse of power in terms of using the software’s technology in order to discipline students is absurd. What students do outside of school property, and in the safety and privacy of their own home, is their own business. I would not have felt okay at all with the idea of the school monitoring my child when their main goal is to just be getting an education, not being at the whim of a spy cam.

3. Social media and news media definitely allowed for this story to quickly spread. It gained both local and national news attention, which ultimately raised important privacy questions and concerns across the board when it comes to schools and students safety and privacy. I think without social media and news media attention in the capacity in was in, the story may have not gained as much attention and outrage, and change may have not been enacted. It highlighted privacy concerns among students and schools in a way it hadn’t been focused on before.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Sofia! This was a really great presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Sofia! This was a really great presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the museum ultimately made great efforts in order to alleviate the consequences and negative reactions to how the artwork was first presented. They implemented educational programs, released news releases and press kits, involved jewish community members and leaders, gave context and information about sensitive material and more, as well as opportunities for the public to reflect on the artwork’s place in the present. Besides maybe speaking directly, face to face, with news outlets, I don’t think there’s any tactics they could have used to be more effective.

2. I don’t think removing the controversial pieces is something that the museum should have done, and I agree that keeping them available was ultimately more beneficial and effective. The museum worked hard to make the artwork meaningful by rectifying their lack of information beforehand, and working to include insight from jewish community leaders, scholars, Holocaust survivors. They also included the interpretive videos, educational programs, as well as content warnings through signage to really make sure the artwork was able to be received by the public in an impactful and sensitive way. I think it’s important that controversial artwork is able to be shown because it serves as a form of expression. In terms of relationships with the community and their reputation, I think removing them would have hurt both of these in the long run because they weren’t willing to stand for artwork that was challenging and making important commentary on an issue.

3. Relating back to my last answer, I think art has a unique power as a form of expression and communication. Due to it’s controversial status, it was both an opportunity and obstacle for the museum and their response. On one hand, it was an opportunity because it allowed them to educate the community on something very significant. On the other hand, they had to work hard to make sure it was received in an appropriate and sensitive way while not jeopardizing the essence of the art.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I definitely agree with the movement to remove confederate monuments. In today’s society, these monuments don’t represent the ideals and values that we hold today as a country. If we kept these monuments around, we are continuing to prop them up as important and cherished figures, and ultimately dismiss the negative undertones that are attached to them and all of the negative values they represent. I think it’s also important to think about how taxpayers pay to maintain these monuments — and considering how majority of people do not agree or align with what those monuments represent, it is ridiculous and maybe even insulting that people’s tax dollars are going towards the upkeep of statues that have negative and detrimental connotations.

2. I don’t think they were acting too quickly, but rather were responding directly to pressing voices and demands of people within the community, as well as making a decision for the community in the long run. In the Mayor’s speech he states that by removing the statues, they’re can’t remove  history, but their efforts work towards building “a better future and society for everyone” and avoiding anything that will resegregate society. I think this shows that the decision was made with the long term impacts in mind, no matter the time frame in which the decision was made. They also did consider the decision in a serious fashion, and went over the pros and cons of taking the statues down, showing that they didn’t just make the decision without any thought.

3. I think that among southern states, this case may have caused alarm and for people to get defensive about keeping the statues intact and having them remain part of their cities. However, I think that NOLA’s actions may have also served as motivation for other states to take action and seriously consider the repercussions that these statues have on their cities and the people that inhabit them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are your thoughts on the removal of confederate monuments. Do you agree or disagree with this movement?
I agree with the removal of confederate monuments. There are better ways to teach history than honoring those who were racist and went against the American government.
2. Do you think the city council reacted too quickly in removing these monuments when under pressure by the Take ‘Em Down NOLA organization?
I do not think the city council moved too quickly. This had been an issue for long enough already.
3. How do you think this case may  have impacted other southern states across the nation with regards to confederate monuments?
I think it might have acted as an example for other southern states to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do you feel like LMSD could have used other outlets, such as the news media, to their advantage?
I think the use of news media would have been beneficial to LMSD.

2. If you were a parent, would you have trusted and supported the school district during the case?
As a parent, my first priority would be my child. I would not have trusted and supported the school district during the case.

3. How did the use of social media and news media effect this case?
Both channels spread the story very rapidly, necessitating damage control.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The museum utilized extensive press kits and traditional media tactics to respond to this crisis. Keeping in mind that this case developed in 2002, do you think there were other tactics the museum could have implemented that would have been more effective?
I think the museum did very well in their response. They used many different tactics, but I think it could have been more effective if they utilized face to face communication with news media.

2. Members of the public called for the museum to remove three of the most controversial pieces of the exhibition. Do you think this was an action that the museum should have taken,  or were they right to leave all works available for showing? Would removing the more controversial pieces have unintended consequences on their reputation or relationships with their community?
I think that leaving the controversial pieces was fine, as long as they included very apparent disclaimers about the nature of the work.

3. This case is unique in that it deals with art, which is incredibly subjective and open to multiple interpretations-no two people tend to understand art the same way. How do you think that the nature of the crisis revolving around art may have posed both an opportunity and an obstacle in the museum’s response to the crisis?
I think that art can simultaneously be more and less neutral than other museum objects, but I think in all cases the context of the object is very important.