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

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

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

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.