National Building museum -over reaction?

[Anonymous]

I've never had Amy trouble at the museums, and we go to several a week. But, my child would never run in the museum because she knows she would be removed immediately if she were to misbehave in a museum. If she were to run away from me in a museum after I told her to stop, she would not only leave, but would be thinking about it for some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Control your child, then you won't have to worry about it.

Yes!! This.

[Anonymous]

I really only take my kids in the Fall and Winter. They know not to touch the art because they are not allowed to at home. But my 2 year old has run around the art museums and no one has ever said anything beyond, "you must be tired!" Or "she's fast!" We have never had a problem. I am stunned to read others have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Smithsonian staff has ruined many a trip for my (homeschooling) family. My kids have grown accustomed to being treated in a dehumanizing manner, no matter how well-behaved they are. The art museum is the worst.

OP, I would politely, but formally, complain.

Well, OP, you have to imagine what it must look like for the Smithsonian staff -- charged with protecting some of the most priceless art works in the world -- when a gang of 6 or 8 homeschoolers walks in. Sorry to perpetuate a stereotype, but there you go. If I was on staff there, I would stiffen up, too.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

[Anonymous]

OMG, they TOUCHED your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

[Anonymous]

When I was in MS we were sent to sketch at art museums and write reports on the pieces as homework. Unfortunately, some of the minority kids reported back that they were shadowed and treated with suspicion while there. I doubt they were running around or acting suspiciously. They were good kids from good homes and this was for a gifted and talented class. These were going to be the future artists who might someday have a piece or a showing at a gallery. And they were treated like crap by low-level security people.

[Anonymous]

What about unkempt adults? Raggedy beards? Food in teeth? Unattractive in general? Special needs?

[Anonymous]

Oh heavens-to-Betsy, *I've* been lectured more than once by Smithsonian guards and it's been a long time since I was a kid. (I like to lean in and look closely.) I don't consider it harassment and I don't take it personally and it never "ruins" (as one pp said) my experience at these wonderful museums.

OP, I'm truly sorry the experience seemed to frighten your child and that this upset you. It was probably just startling for your DC to be caught mid-run, but try to remember that as much as it pains you to see your child upset, this isn't permanent damage. It will be ok.

In the larger picture though, I have to ask why so many DCUMers take these experiences so seriously? It's not personal, no permanent harm was done, and when it happens to me I appreciate that the guards are so conscientious about protecting the installations from damage so that all of us can enjoy them. Even though I know I meant no harm, the guards can't know that. Whatever happened to "no harm, no foul?" As much as I appreciate how wonderful it is that people love their kids enough to get indignant for them, does the entire world have to treat you and your DCs with kid gloves at all times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

Where in my post does it say that the kid has to be perfectly groomed? If your kid has visible food stains or smears on his/her face or clothes then no, they do not belong near priceless works of art.

[Anonymous]

I used to work at the National Gallery and you wouldn't believe how many people - kids as well as adults, don't know how to behave in an art museum. THE ART IS NOT FOR TOUCHING!!!!

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with PPs. Teach your kid how to behave in museums from day one and there won't be a problem. Yes, OP the rules apply to you and yours too - the horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

Where in my post does it say that the kid has to be perfectly groomed? If your kid has visible food stains or smears on his/her face or clothes then no, they do not belong near priceless works of art.