BARBARA BLUHM-KAUL
STATEMENT TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES
And PROPOSAL
NOVEMBER 9, 2021
I’ve been honored to serve as a docent at this museum for more than 40 years. I suspect most of you know how hard our docents work, how experienced they are, and how much time and energy they devote to teaching the schoolchildren of the Chicago area about art and about this museum. As James Rondeau said in his talk before the Des Moines Art Center in 2019: “You basically need to get a volunteer PhD to be a docent at our museum. The docents have been forced to master every facet of the museum from antiquity to present … you have to write papers every week.”
And, I’ve been honored to serve on this Board of Trustees for more than 20 years.
During all these years there has never been an instance, until now, when I have been challenged by my association with this museum. And it has to do with the unjustified firing of the docents and closing down their program which has operated very successfully for 60 years.
Let me be perfectly clear. I’m fully in favor of having diversity, inclusion, and accessibility throughout the museum – and that includes in our docent corps. I agree with that goal but the process of achieving that goal matters. And the process the museum followed here is a disgrace.
Firing or otherwise discharging a large group of mostly older white women (whether or not a diversity consultant recommends doing so) would be flatly against the law if they were employees. But because the docents chose to work over the years for free they are not covered by the same law that applies to employees.
The museum claims that they didn’t fire anyone and instead merely “paused” the program.1 But, in fact, they ended the docent program – a program that has
operated successfully for 60 years. And they explicitly notified the docents, in writing and orally, that their program was now ended.2 They were told to contact staff to arrange to clean out their lockers and given a complimentary 2 year membership to the museum. They were informed that “the Docent Council will no longer be an official affiliate of the museum and staff will no longer be able to support Docent Council endeavors.” That’s the way you “fire” volunteers.
As Artnet News, a publication widely followed worldwide in the art and museum world stated:
“Art Institute of Chicago (AIC) informed its fleet of docents last month that their services were no longer needed, effective immediately.
The museum told the volunteers that it was making an effort to involve more demographically diverse voices at the museum. The current docents—which trended toward older white women with free time—would be replaced by part-time paid employees in the hopes of attracting those for whom volunteer labor was not financially feasible.”
The museum has issued a Job Announcement (attached) seeking applicants for these “part-time paid employee” positions. Their sole qualification in the art or museum world is described as
“Previous experience teaching with works of art and general knowledge of art history and various art making techniques.”
And it is these untrained “Educators” who the museum plans to use to replace the highly trained and experienced the “volunteer PhD” docents. The Chicago area schoolchildren will be the ones who bear the brunt of this ill-advised decision.
The museum offers two rationalizations for their decision to end the docent program:
1. It takes too much staff time to administer the program.
2. We haven’t trained a docent class since 2012.
As to the first point, the docent corps consists of 82 highly skilled and trained volunteers with deep and broad knowledge of the museum and its collections and an average of 15 years experience in organizing and conducting tours. If, as the museum now claims, it took too much staff time to work with these highly skilled, trained and experienced docents, think how much more staff time it is going to to train the newly hired and completely inexperienced part-time “Educators”.
As to the second point, that is a failure on the museum’s part which it now seeks to offer as a justification for firing the docents. The museum has had ample opportunity over the past nine years to seek out new “demographically diverse” docents and to offer them financial assistance if they needed it to accept the position. It is hardly the fault of the docent corps that the museum failed to do so.
The entire planned termination of the docent program was done in secret.
The museum states that changes in the docent program have been under discussion since 2019. If that’s true, why weren’t the docents involved in the discussion? Much more importantly, why wasn’t this board of trustees involved?
Bob Levy has issued several pronouncements identifying himself as Chair of the board, including an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune (October 1) in which he stated:
“The Art Institute board of trustees supports our museum’s thoughtful and measured steps”
People naturally assume he’s speaking on behalf of the board, not just on behalf of himself. I’ve heard from people from around the globe asking what the board could possibly have been thinking when they approved this decision. When I tell them the board didn’t approve it, and didn’t even know about it, they are astonished.
The entire purpose of this board is to provide governance. But how can we possibly do that if we’re never informed about a substantial policy change until after it’s already been instituted?
As we’re all painfully aware, the reaction to the museum’s termination of the docent program has been uniformly and brutally negative. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal rarely agree on anything but they both agreed in roundly condemning the museum’s action. The Chicago Tribune, our hometown newspaper, published a story headlined “Shame On The Art Institute.” Even the London Daily Mail condemned and ridiculed the action. The critical reaction on social media has, if anything, been worse. We cannot avoid recognizing that the reputational damage to the museum has been devastating.
We’re told that all the negative media coverage is wrong; it’s misguided; it’s inaccurate; and it just misunderstands the whole program.
If that’s so, how to explain what the President and Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote:
“the media fallout from AIC’s actions toward its docent program has been extensive and highly negative. Not surprisingly, The New York Times filed a story on this event – the piece mostly reviews how poorly the issue has been handled and received.”
“when asked by the Times if we have similar plans as Chicago our answer is simple and direct: no.”
“Our volunteer program brings great value to our institution and, like everything else, will continue to evolve. Our volunteers are highly dedicated and they bring wisdom and kindness to every aspect of The Met. We are grateful for their contribution and commitment. We would be a much lesser Museum without their service.”
That’s a much different approach than our museum has taken. Even after terminating the program the museum has criticized and chastised the docents, accusing them of engaging in “identity politics”, and “reverse racism”.
The irony is that the museum has behaved in a manner more typically associated with those who seek to deny inclusiveness by being secretive and stealthy. It no doubt had good motives in its idea of bringing in a more diverse body of docents but it went about doing so in exactly the wrong way.
I can tell you this. There are thousands and thousands of people in the Chicago area whose wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and even great-grandmothers served with pride as docents over the years. They donated their time, their knowledge, and a significant part of their lives to this museum. These families and their many friends are furious about this precipitous dumping of the current docent program. And they will surely make their displeasure known when considering whether to make donations or bequests.
Much of the bad press and ill will, so damaging to the museum’s reputation, could have been avoided with a well thought-out and transparent process that included the docent corps and this board which has decades of experience and a fiduciary responsibility.
So the question is whether we, as a board, think it’s better to:
(a) follow the ill-considered path the museum has embarked upon, hoping the terrible damage to our reputation will fade, that donations will not be significantly impacted, and that the skills and expertise of the docent corps can be readily replaced, or
(b) retain the longstanding docent corps while supplementing it with newly hired “educators”/trainee docents, and further, publicly announcing that the docents, the board, and the museum leadership are all now on the same page, thereby rehabilitating our reputation and avoiding adverse financial consequences.
PROPOSAL:
So here’s what I’m proposing:
1. Rescind the termination of the docent program and let it continue as before with the existing docent corps
2. “Co-design” the program as a joint effort of the staff and the docent council to attract and employ a new set of diverse docents/educators. The goal of this co-design should be to enable the new docents to work alongside, and be mentored by, the docent corps to become educated in what the job entails and learn how to successfully conduct tours.
3. The newly hired educators/trainee docents should full time – not part-time –employees, with full benefits, so it will be their fulltime job, hopefully providing them with a bright future and a career.3
4. And, importantly, issue a joint statement by the board of trustees, the museum leadership, and the docent council, announcing the plan. This would significantly ameliorate the reputational damage and potential negative financial impact that now exists.
While not necessarily a part of my Proposal, the museum should consider seeking special contributions for the purpose of funding this new educator/trainee program. If it does I’m prepared to start the funding with a lead gift.
Footnotes
1 “It’s simply untrue that we have ended the docent program.” [Rondeau letter to Women’s Board. Oct.22] “We did not end the docent program; rather, we paused the program..” [Rondeau letter to Luminaries. Oct. 29]
2 “the program’s current iteration will come to an end.” [Veronica Stein letter to docents. Sept. 3]. The Q&A prepared by the museum to accompany Stein’s letter stated: “Why is the museum ending the volunteer educator/docent program?” and “How will ending the volunteer educator program impact financial giving to the museum?”
3 If the museum is still determined to employ only part-time trainee docents, consideration should be given to employing the graduate students at the School of the Art Institute.
