Who Will Record the Acoustiguides?
October 15, 2021 5:28 PM Subscribe
The Art Institute of Chicago has let go of its roughly 150 highly-trained volunteer docents, and says it will eventually replace them with a "limited number of paid educators." The Chicago Tribune disapproves, and the chair of the museum's Board of Trustees responds.
Also, if I had to choose between putting a ton of effort into training a diverse group of people starting a career in my field and a group of volunteers from a relatively homogeneous and privileged background, I know what I would find more meaningful.
posted by snofoam at 5:59 PM on October 15, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 5:59 PM on October 15, 2021 [24 favorites]
Framing an org actually paying the people who work for them as "too woke" is certainly an... opinion.
posted by augustimagination at 6:28 PM on October 15, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by augustimagination at 6:28 PM on October 15, 2021 [32 favorites]
Interesting how these are volunteer positions, but the people upset about it are framing it as the docents being fired. Can you even be "fired" as a volunteer? Or can an org just stop putting you on the schedule without any extra paperwork?
posted by thecjm at 6:41 PM on October 15, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 6:41 PM on October 15, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'll be honest, I remember only two of what were surely many more school trips to the Art Institute. One was my senior year of high school and the teacher planned it all himself. The other was eighth grade and I remember being completely bored out of my skull because the docent's talk was pitched to, I don't know, fifth graders, at best. (Yes, I know what a mummy is. I know where Egypt is, too.)
I do have vague memories of encountering engaging docents on school trips, but it's also not surprising that if you want to get kids excited about art museums, having the embodiment of the museum almost always be a retired person (I'm pretty sure I knew as a kid they were volunteers, not just older employees), probably isn't step one. Of course, making your museum cost prohibitive for teenagers probably shouldn't be the thing you do either, and they did that. I went to the Art Institute alone or with my brother starting around age 13 or 14. What age do they start charging admission now? 14. They didn't like us paying a dollar or whatever (you had to make a "donation", but there was no set amount), but the fact that I could go to a world class museum with my own money definitely shaped how I think of museums.
posted by hoyland at 6:43 PM on October 15, 2021 [11 favorites]
I do have vague memories of encountering engaging docents on school trips, but it's also not surprising that if you want to get kids excited about art museums, having the embodiment of the museum almost always be a retired person (I'm pretty sure I knew as a kid they were volunteers, not just older employees), probably isn't step one. Of course, making your museum cost prohibitive for teenagers probably shouldn't be the thing you do either, and they did that. I went to the Art Institute alone or with my brother starting around age 13 or 14. What age do they start charging admission now? 14. They didn't like us paying a dollar or whatever (you had to make a "donation", but there was no set amount), but the fact that I could go to a world class museum with my own money definitely shaped how I think of museums.
posted by hoyland at 6:43 PM on October 15, 2021 [11 favorites]
If you aren’t alienated from your labor then having to quit is a loss, yes. Not the same level of Maslow’s scale as losing your subsistence, but it’s an important loss.
posted by clew at 6:44 PM on October 15, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by clew at 6:44 PM on October 15, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Ms. Stein said that the 82 volunteer docents would be replaced by six part-time employees, and that in 2023, 'unpaid volunteer educators will be reintroduced.'"
I can understand reallocating future training resources. But why not allow already trained volunteers to continue to educate visitors?
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:44 PM on October 15, 2021 [7 favorites]
I can understand reallocating future training resources. But why not allow already trained volunteers to continue to educate visitors?
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:44 PM on October 15, 2021 [7 favorites]
I do not know what to make of this. Seems insane to throw out a ton of trained volunteers and replace them with a few paid people. But....it's supposedly all white women (I'm guessing retirees) with the free time to GET that training. I don't know.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:47 PM on October 15, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:47 PM on October 15, 2021
Framing an org actually paying the people who work for them as "too woke" is certainly an... opinion.
Especially coming from the Tribune.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:24 PM on October 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Especially coming from the Tribune.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:24 PM on October 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Volunteers are wonderful, but for any organization able to provide good jobs to people in their community, that option is even better.
These aren't good jobs. Good jobs pay a living wage and have health insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if hiring a small number of young workers, who will presumably have high turnover because they don't get enough hours or benefits for this to be a "good" job, is cheaper in the long run than training and managing a large volunteer program. Will there be actual career development involved? If they truly want to be income inclusive, they need something more for their part time paid educators than spending ten hours a week helping kids scan QR codes.
Tbh I've recently become skeptical of diverse hiring efforts when somehow all the diverse hires end up being paid less, or worse, being hired as "guest educators" and "guest artists" with a stipend--that's not the issue here because the docents weren't being paid at all, but I still suspect the heart of this is money, not community. Additionally, volunteers are a total pain in the ass to manage. That was probably a lot of it.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:56 PM on October 15, 2021 [12 favorites]
These aren't good jobs. Good jobs pay a living wage and have health insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if hiring a small number of young workers, who will presumably have high turnover because they don't get enough hours or benefits for this to be a "good" job, is cheaper in the long run than training and managing a large volunteer program. Will there be actual career development involved? If they truly want to be income inclusive, they need something more for their part time paid educators than spending ten hours a week helping kids scan QR codes.
Tbh I've recently become skeptical of diverse hiring efforts when somehow all the diverse hires end up being paid less, or worse, being hired as "guest educators" and "guest artists" with a stipend--that's not the issue here because the docents weren't being paid at all, but I still suspect the heart of this is money, not community. Additionally, volunteers are a total pain in the ass to manage. That was probably a lot of it.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:56 PM on October 15, 2021 [12 favorites]
I wonder how many hours the part-time employees will work, and when those hours will be scheduled. It's great to pay people, but if the paid gigs are from 2-3:15 p.m. every fourth Tuesday or something like that, and the people have to account for commute time/transportation costs, then the only people who can afford to take the job are people who don't need the $ and/or can cobble together a bunch of part-time or freelance work.
Or - on preview, everything betweenthebars said!
posted by rogerroger at 7:58 PM on October 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
Or - on preview, everything betweenthebars said!
posted by rogerroger at 7:58 PM on October 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
I am surprised how much I loathe docent programs - envy and gatekeeping class rage mostly. The docents I know have been wealthy liberals with enormous blindsides about their privilege and generally jerks. My guess from conversations with museum people is that the docents often overlap donors, if not individually then definitely socially, making up for the cost and hassle of volunteer management. Paying professionals is a good thing because the job market for those skills is artificially depressed by passion - richer people who can afford to do it for free accepting low wages.
Docents limit access. They’re only available certain hours and they also can’t be held to the same expectations as staff. Museum education is a skill that should be valued.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:05 PM on October 15, 2021 [19 favorites]
Docents limit access. They’re only available certain hours and they also can’t be held to the same expectations as staff. Museum education is a skill that should be valued.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:05 PM on October 15, 2021 [19 favorites]
I have read the articles and am even more enraged. Yes they are being let go because having the main interaction with your museum be white wealthy women is incredibly narrow and wrong. Especially for a big diverse collection reaching out to a big diverse public. Newsflash, POC who are art grads exist! And need jobs that are being held by a bunch of entrenched privileged volunteers who clearly do not want to step back or support more diversity from their snotty blinkered letter.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:14 PM on October 15, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:14 PM on October 15, 2021 [6 favorites]
Bluntly, no matter how well individual docents may have done their jobs, the high dudgeon with which the Docent Council responded (in the third link above), including a list of demands ("Complimentary individual lifetime memberships"! A big fuckin' plaque with all of their names on it!) that reeks of entitlement, kind of makes the point of doing this pretty valid. I recently mentioned elsewhere on the blue that I'd had experience with volunteers like this, and with this situation, I'm thinking that a mental cycle forms to the effect of: I'm not getting paid for this so my motivation for doing this is pure, which makes me better than mere employees, so the professional staff shouldn't be allowed to refuse my volunteering.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:17 PM on October 15, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:17 PM on October 15, 2021 [13 favorites]
Wow! I worked as a docent for several years and had no idea that I, and my fellow docents, were such ineffective privileged a$$holes. Having been made aware I shall be sending a formal apology to the organization involved.
Our circumstances were slightly different in that we were not dismissed/fired/released - our place of business burned down. But still I feel appropriately ashamed.
posted by speug at 9:25 PM on October 15, 2021 [16 favorites]
Our circumstances were slightly different in that we were not dismissed/fired/released - our place of business burned down. But still I feel appropriately ashamed.
posted by speug at 9:25 PM on October 15, 2021 [16 favorites]
I know very little about the Art Institute or volunteer docent programs in general. From this outside view dumping 80 unpaid people for 6 paid people seems like a bad idea. The specific objections center around inappropriate or incomplete interpretations delivered by the docents. Why not use the new staff to take over the interpretation role, while leaving volunteers to answer general questions, stop people from touching stuff, helping people scan QR codes, etc?
It's a privilege to be able to volunteer, but it's better than not engaging with the community, and much better than using the same privilege to exploit people for monetary gain (pretty much the default option). I don't think all this hate is constructive: if you want a better society you need volunteers.
posted by netowl at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's a privilege to be able to volunteer, but it's better than not engaging with the community, and much better than using the same privilege to exploit people for monetary gain (pretty much the default option). I don't think all this hate is constructive: if you want a better society you need volunteers.
posted by netowl at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2021 [4 favorites]
I agree that if the jobs aren’t very good, that’s a problem, too. But if the jobs are part time because the best candidates are getting their master’s in art history or are also working artists or something, then maybe that’s not a bad thing. It will be easier to judge the decision in a few years.
posted by snofoam at 3:28 AM on October 16, 2021
posted by snofoam at 3:28 AM on October 16, 2021
Wow. After reading the articles, I am left thinking this was just really, really badly handled. And wondering what exactly is going on
A former boss always use to tell us, in a well-run organization, a good way to do business is that leadership's goal toward staff and the public should be "no surprises." If something sudden happens (like this), it means something threw that goal off-course.
When there's a surprise, either a long-hidden problem has somehow burst out of the shadows; or something newly specific has occurred and there's a need for showy pre-emptive action; or an individual (perhaps new to power) has decided to Make A Splash (often for very personal or unexplainable $reasons); or, very often, money is involved (perhaps the museum will lose some type of federal funding or designation etc.) if they don't enact a sweeping change; or, some combination of the above.
I've had great interactions with docents of all genders and races at museums and zoos everywhere, including the Art Institute. It's just sad and unfortunate that this is happening at all.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:23 AM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
A former boss always use to tell us, in a well-run organization, a good way to do business is that leadership's goal toward staff and the public should be "no surprises." If something sudden happens (like this), it means something threw that goal off-course.
When there's a surprise, either a long-hidden problem has somehow burst out of the shadows; or something newly specific has occurred and there's a need for showy pre-emptive action; or an individual (perhaps new to power) has decided to Make A Splash (often for very personal or unexplainable $reasons); or, very often, money is involved (perhaps the museum will lose some type of federal funding or designation etc.) if they don't enact a sweeping change; or, some combination of the above.
I've had great interactions with docents of all genders and races at museums and zoos everywhere, including the Art Institute. It's just sad and unfortunate that this is happening at all.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:23 AM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
Yeah, there is sort of a sense that something is happening behind the scenes, but it's worth noting that they apparently stopped training new docents twelve years ago. The whole thing is weird, though - they're getting rid of all the current docents in one fell swoop and they're going to reinstate a volunteer program in 2023, which seems extremely stupid unless there's some benefit in getting rid of these docents in particular.
One cannot help noticing that there is a new director of learning and public engagement, Veronica Stein, who is Black and relatively young. If I had to guess, I'd say that a combination of the pandemic, the tapering off of the docent program and docents being assholes because the director is young and Black would most likely be the precipitating incidents, with the "volunteer again in 2023!!" thing as a way to re-recruit anyone who hasn't been an asshole. I honestly doubt that there's any "competent, charismatic and friendly older white people are bad purely because of their race, there is no history of any older white person doing anything good ever" reasoning going on.
The editorial in the Chicago Tribune is a disgrace. It's been years since I read the Trib regularly but frankly no paper of repute should publish something like that.
I was not aware that the docents did so much scholarship. It does sound like they've produced some really good stuff for the museum. Also, I don't particularly think that lifetime memberships for them after the program is dissolved would be such an awful, entitled thing. The requirements of docentship are pretty rigorous, it looks like, it's not like this would be a huge expense or a big profit foregone and frankly many docents are retirees - you're not looking at fifty years of memberships.
It's sad to me because I am a big nerd and I like my museums echoey, text-heavy and full of stuff, but the needs of museums are changing. Most people have never liked the kinds of things I like, either, so up to a point museums have usually catered to me and not to the majority.
I have mostly positive feelings about the recent rearrangements at the Art Institute (I was last there shortly before the pandemic, sigh). The Asian art collection in particular has been reduced a bit so that the material is less overwhelming to the non-specialist - instead of walls of fragments and many, many similar ancient pieces, now it seems like the best and most important are displayed. Moving the Chagall windows was a huge mistake, though - you used to approach them from a distance and they had a lot of natural light behind them. Now they're in this weird little side place where fewer people go, much less well lighted. That did markedly diminish my pleasure in visiting the museum. But in general, it seemed like things had been rearranged in a way that was more accessible without being dull or stripped down; so often when things are tightly curated/"accessible" they become very dull and oversimplified because they are aimed at the least-informed visitor and that visitor is imagined as someone not very bright who has to be coaxed to take the slightest interest.
posted by Frowner at 6:14 AM on October 16, 2021 [14 favorites]
One cannot help noticing that there is a new director of learning and public engagement, Veronica Stein, who is Black and relatively young. If I had to guess, I'd say that a combination of the pandemic, the tapering off of the docent program and docents being assholes because the director is young and Black would most likely be the precipitating incidents, with the "volunteer again in 2023!!" thing as a way to re-recruit anyone who hasn't been an asshole. I honestly doubt that there's any "competent, charismatic and friendly older white people are bad purely because of their race, there is no history of any older white person doing anything good ever" reasoning going on.
The editorial in the Chicago Tribune is a disgrace. It's been years since I read the Trib regularly but frankly no paper of repute should publish something like that.
I was not aware that the docents did so much scholarship. It does sound like they've produced some really good stuff for the museum. Also, I don't particularly think that lifetime memberships for them after the program is dissolved would be such an awful, entitled thing. The requirements of docentship are pretty rigorous, it looks like, it's not like this would be a huge expense or a big profit foregone and frankly many docents are retirees - you're not looking at fifty years of memberships.
It's sad to me because I am a big nerd and I like my museums echoey, text-heavy and full of stuff, but the needs of museums are changing. Most people have never liked the kinds of things I like, either, so up to a point museums have usually catered to me and not to the majority.
I have mostly positive feelings about the recent rearrangements at the Art Institute (I was last there shortly before the pandemic, sigh). The Asian art collection in particular has been reduced a bit so that the material is less overwhelming to the non-specialist - instead of walls of fragments and many, many similar ancient pieces, now it seems like the best and most important are displayed. Moving the Chagall windows was a huge mistake, though - you used to approach them from a distance and they had a lot of natural light behind them. Now they're in this weird little side place where fewer people go, much less well lighted. That did markedly diminish my pleasure in visiting the museum. But in general, it seemed like things had been rearranged in a way that was more accessible without being dull or stripped down; so often when things are tightly curated/"accessible" they become very dull and oversimplified because they are aimed at the least-informed visitor and that visitor is imagined as someone not very bright who has to be coaxed to take the slightest interest.
posted by Frowner at 6:14 AM on October 16, 2021 [14 favorites]
We had an asshole priest at my church who insisted on (spending money intended for helping people and) replacing volunteers with paid staff, since the paid staff had to do what he said, and the volunteers didn’t. It was all about control.
I dunno. Why must we live in a society where only out-of-touch wealthy women can volunteer? It didn’t used to be that way.
posted by Melismata at 6:24 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
I dunno. Why must we live in a society where only out-of-touch wealthy women can volunteer? It didn’t used to be that way.
posted by Melismata at 6:24 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Dietrich Klevorn is the only docent who spoke to the media despite the AIC’s request that the former docents not do so. She’s not a retired white woman. I hope more of the fired volunteers speak up.
posted by Ideefixe at 6:37 AM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 6:37 AM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
I love the Art Institute and am shocked at how poorly the docents have been treated here. Something other than what the Art Institute claims must be going on. I've had a number of experiences with the docents and have always been impressed with their commitment and wide depth of knowledge. To be let go so curtly, dishonorably and cheaply (a free two-year membership -- oh wow) stinks of something else going on. And I doubt the the proposed small pool of paid educators (few hours, no benefits) will meet the needs that the 100+ docents have historically fulfilled. I also suspect the Institute's proposed 2023 volunteer program is something they don't really plan on implementing, or if they do, the volunteers will have no participation in the educational programs. Overall, I get the impression the museum like others I know want to get rid of the pesky human management problem and want to implement a fully digital educational model, which would be horrible. I hope I'm wrong and time will tell. But wow, the Art Institute needs some better PR representation. Oh and what's so wrong with honoring with a plaque these volunteers who've committed so much of their expertise and time educating people about art? I don't find it to be elitist at all. It's the least they deserve.
posted by SA456 at 7:41 AM on October 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by SA456 at 7:41 AM on October 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
I don't know what the story is, other than what we're being told ain't likely it. If I was being generous to the Institute, I'd suspect t recalcitrance on the part of the volunteers, with a huge group and long time in service, there is the possibility that they may think they "know what's best" and resist alternatives for feeling they better understand the place for having worked there so long and formed their own little cliques of control. On the other hand, if I were being less generous, then I might suspect the Institute is kicking out the people who might best be able to recognize new methods the Institute might be undertaking and be able to speak out about them in perhaps unfavorable terms, shining light on questionable practices.
As it is, the banal corporate speak doesn't really make it clear one way or the other, but there is something that feels off-putting about it all for the emptiness of the rhetoric.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:52 AM on October 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
As it is, the banal corporate speak doesn't really make it clear one way or the other, but there is something that feels off-putting about it all for the emptiness of the rhetoric.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:52 AM on October 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
Why must we live in a society where only out-of-touch wealthy women can volunteer? It didn’t used to be that way.
Not that I know anything much about this situation, but I'd guess it depends on the requirements of the particular volunteer job. Certain volunteer jobs basically require that the volunteer treat it as a full time unpaid job (i.e. doing it during a workday, during work hours). So the usual people who are able to do that either have someone supporting them financially or they're already retired, and statistically that's going to be A Certain Crowd.
My volunteer jobs have all been at night since I have to make a living and all that, but once in a while I get people fishing around asking me to join some craft group or other, but it's all retiree ladies having meetings on a Wednesday afternoon. And when I pointed out that I can't do that, I still have to make a living for the next 20+ years, they were all "Our members can't see to drive in the dark so we don't do night meetings." To which I said that clearly, I'm not the kind of person they want in their organization. They've made their choice and who they want to be in the organization by how they schedule their activities. I have retiree friends in an embroidery guild and I gather they've been complaining that all the membership is retirees only and no new/young blood--but again, meetings on Wednesday afternoons.
Point I'm trying to make here is that if you want a more diverse group of volunteers, you make it easier for other demographics to volunteer, do the work, make the meetings, etc. I'm not sure if firing the whole bunch exactly helps this, mind you. If there's a lot of training for volunteers and they work day shifts, it just may not be possible, given the requirements of the job, to get non-financially-taken-care-of, have-a-lot-of-free-time people to join up. Maybe that's why they're going to actually pay a few people now, I dunno.
But I do agree with the people who think something else shifty/funny must be going on here to have had this happen so suddenly and weirdly. I'd be interested to find out what, eventually, has been going on.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
Not that I know anything much about this situation, but I'd guess it depends on the requirements of the particular volunteer job. Certain volunteer jobs basically require that the volunteer treat it as a full time unpaid job (i.e. doing it during a workday, during work hours). So the usual people who are able to do that either have someone supporting them financially or they're already retired, and statistically that's going to be A Certain Crowd.
My volunteer jobs have all been at night since I have to make a living and all that, but once in a while I get people fishing around asking me to join some craft group or other, but it's all retiree ladies having meetings on a Wednesday afternoon. And when I pointed out that I can't do that, I still have to make a living for the next 20+ years, they were all "Our members can't see to drive in the dark so we don't do night meetings." To which I said that clearly, I'm not the kind of person they want in their organization. They've made their choice and who they want to be in the organization by how they schedule their activities. I have retiree friends in an embroidery guild and I gather they've been complaining that all the membership is retirees only and no new/young blood--but again, meetings on Wednesday afternoons.
Point I'm trying to make here is that if you want a more diverse group of volunteers, you make it easier for other demographics to volunteer, do the work, make the meetings, etc. I'm not sure if firing the whole bunch exactly helps this, mind you. If there's a lot of training for volunteers and they work day shifts, it just may not be possible, given the requirements of the job, to get non-financially-taken-care-of, have-a-lot-of-free-time people to join up. Maybe that's why they're going to actually pay a few people now, I dunno.
But I do agree with the people who think something else shifty/funny must be going on here to have had this happen so suddenly and weirdly. I'd be interested to find out what, eventually, has been going on.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
This is one of those areas where the MF left might have a hard time choosing sides (because one must choose sides).
I've enjoyed the occasional passionate rally-around-the-flag diatribe about the evil unpaid labor, but have generally been supportive of volunteerism in general. Because, well, it's voluntary. At the same time, if there ever was a job that exists at the whim of the boss, it's that of the volunteer. Is it all about control? Well, duh. I can see a situation where volunteers can presume an unusual level of influence and importance by virtue of simply being there a long time. Or any number of reasons, good or bad, justifiable or questionable.
Anecdotally, I recall an organization largely staffed by volunteers assuming an unusual level of importance (at least i their own minds), by virtue of outlasting several directors. Which was a position that wasn't particularly well paying and filled by people who had to make a living. A position tasked with, among other things, directing a crew of volunteers who seemed to enjoy flexing a bit passive aggressive nonsense. After all, they'd been there longer than anyone. The volunteers presumably weren't terribly concerned about pulling down a paycheck. I this case, I could absolutely see the appeal of terminating volunteers in favor of paid employees who are actually motivated to follow directions.
Despite my general enthusiasm for volunteerism, absent specifics, I have few feelings about how an organization deals with volunteers. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get more.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
I've enjoyed the occasional passionate rally-around-the-flag diatribe about the evil unpaid labor, but have generally been supportive of volunteerism in general. Because, well, it's voluntary. At the same time, if there ever was a job that exists at the whim of the boss, it's that of the volunteer. Is it all about control? Well, duh. I can see a situation where volunteers can presume an unusual level of influence and importance by virtue of simply being there a long time. Or any number of reasons, good or bad, justifiable or questionable.
Anecdotally, I recall an organization largely staffed by volunteers assuming an unusual level of importance (at least i their own minds), by virtue of outlasting several directors. Which was a position that wasn't particularly well paying and filled by people who had to make a living. A position tasked with, among other things, directing a crew of volunteers who seemed to enjoy flexing a bit passive aggressive nonsense. After all, they'd been there longer than anyone. The volunteers presumably weren't terribly concerned about pulling down a paycheck. I this case, I could absolutely see the appeal of terminating volunteers in favor of paid employees who are actually motivated to follow directions.
Despite my general enthusiasm for volunteerism, absent specifics, I have few feelings about how an organization deals with volunteers. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get more.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think it's a little silly to suggest that museums could get rid of the class and racial exclusivity by hiring paid staff, because like other culture industries, museum work mostly attracts people who are supported by generational wealth. At least at institutions in big cities, museum careers require a lot of education and don't pay well enough to easily support ones self and pay off student loans. There just is not a huge pool of people from working-class backgrounds who have art history degrees (let alone graduate education) and want to live in Chicago on $40,000 a year. I think that you could actually argue that relying on retirees could less class-exclusive, to be honest, although it doesn't mostly work that way now.
I have a weird perspective on this, because my mother was a paid museum education employee and then a volunteer docent after she retired. She had, I think, what would now be an unconventional background for a paid museum employee: she was a high-school teacher for twenty years before switching to museum education. She thought that being a high-school teacher was actually pretty good preparation for working in museum education, and I think that her teaching experience was part of what made her an effective docent. (And she was a really good docent, according to audience evaluations as well as my personal observations.) I think that she would have agreed that the current docent pool is non-ideal, but she also thought that a lot of museum staff's contempt for docents was ageism and sexism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:53 AM on October 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
I have a weird perspective on this, because my mother was a paid museum education employee and then a volunteer docent after she retired. She had, I think, what would now be an unconventional background for a paid museum employee: she was a high-school teacher for twenty years before switching to museum education. She thought that being a high-school teacher was actually pretty good preparation for working in museum education, and I think that her teaching experience was part of what made her an effective docent. (And she was a really good docent, according to audience evaluations as well as my personal observations.) I think that she would have agreed that the current docent pool is non-ideal, but she also thought that a lot of museum staff's contempt for docents was ageism and sexism.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:53 AM on October 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
And I doubt the the proposed small pool of paid educators (few hours, no benefits) will meet the needs that the 100+ docents have historically fulfilled.
If this were a matter of replacing the volunteers with well-paid educators who could provide the same (or even a bit less) coverage while being drawn from a much wider demographic pool, I'd be all in favor of it. This seems like a net loss to the museum visitors and potential visitors, though.
Point I'm trying to make here is that if you want a more diverse group of volunteers, you make it easier for other demographics to volunteer, do the work, make the meetings, etc.
Very true generally, but most museums have 9-5 style hours, with maybe one or two late evenings a week. (Or they did. The Met still hasn't restored Friday and Saturday nights.) That leaves only the weekend hours for employed people who want to volunteer in a public-facing role.
posted by praemunire at 9:57 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
If this were a matter of replacing the volunteers with well-paid educators who could provide the same (or even a bit less) coverage while being drawn from a much wider demographic pool, I'd be all in favor of it. This seems like a net loss to the museum visitors and potential visitors, though.
Point I'm trying to make here is that if you want a more diverse group of volunteers, you make it easier for other demographics to volunteer, do the work, make the meetings, etc.
Very true generally, but most museums have 9-5 style hours, with maybe one or two late evenings a week. (Or they did. The Met still hasn't restored Friday and Saturday nights.) That leaves only the weekend hours for employed people who want to volunteer in a public-facing role.
posted by praemunire at 9:57 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
When I was a kid, my mom was a docent. Not at the Art Institute, but Lincoln Park Zoo. This was in the 1970s/80s—two parents with one income was much more normal back then. It was a big deal to her—she spent quite a lot of time studying biology to pass the entrance exam. She travelled to conferences on her own dime. And the docents seemed to be big deal for the zoo—they had their own little clubhouse in the big cats building, they had a lot of behind-the-scenes access. At some point, the zoo closed the docents' clubhouse and phased out the docent program (though I don't think it was overnight) and my mom quit. The zoo does have volunteer positions, but it seems none require a lot of training.
Today I'm on the board of an all-volunteer organization and we like to say "you couldn't pay me to volunteer." There are a lot of people in the organization who are hardly privileged, but dedicate a lot of time and energy to it.
posted by adamrice at 10:18 AM on October 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Today I'm on the board of an all-volunteer organization and we like to say "you couldn't pay me to volunteer." There are a lot of people in the organization who are hardly privileged, but dedicate a lot of time and energy to it.
posted by adamrice at 10:18 AM on October 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Sounds to me like the Institute is planning a big wave of deaccessioning they know the docents would pitch a fit about.
posted by jamjam at 10:39 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 10:39 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
I was speaking to friend who works at the Art Institute about this last week. It seemed pretty clear (and utterly unsurprising) that at least one docent used their access and privileged connections to stovepipe this story up to the editorial board at the Tribune. That the Tribune published the status quo-preserving op ed is 100% on-brand.
I'm for the creation of paid positions, and allowing any of the volunteers to join the pool of applicants for said positions. I also believe that leaving the unpaid docents in place in addition to the paid jobs would create a divide among those who are able to volunteer their labor and those who sell it.
posted by onehalfjunco at 10:43 AM on October 16, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'm for the creation of paid positions, and allowing any of the volunteers to join the pool of applicants for said positions. I also believe that leaving the unpaid docents in place in addition to the paid jobs would create a divide among those who are able to volunteer their labor and those who sell it.
posted by onehalfjunco at 10:43 AM on October 16, 2021 [8 favorites]
From the Chicago Tribune editorial:
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Why not invest some time in recruiting new, diverse docents? Why not grow the corps in such a way that it’s refreshed? Why not help docents who need help with expenses or child care? Why not have a hybrid model, at least until the current docents exit?Granted, the hours & unpaid nature of this volunteer work would tend to limit the pool to retirees, but I know of plenty of retired non-white non-women who would love to share their love of art with the public. As so many upthread have already said, there must be something else going on that they're not telling us.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
I don't think there's some sinister hidden story, for what it's worth. This is the reflection of some very longstanding issues in US museums. In general, high-profile museums have failed to engage with working-class audiences and audiences of color, and that's been recognized as a problem for decades. In general, museum workers are disproportionately white and from backgrounds of class privilege, and that's every bit as true of the paid professional workforce as the volunteers. Considering the imperative to be less exclusionary of non-white, non-elite audiences, it is clearly a problem that the paid and unpaid workforce is so disproportionately white and at-least-upper-middle-class. There is longstanding tension between professional workers and volunteer docents. None of this is particularly new or surprising.
It seems pretty clear to me that ideally, museum education would be done by well-paid full-time employees from backgrounds that mirrored the surrounding communities. It's really hard to know how a museum would fund that while keeping entrance costs anything like affordable. And if you don't pay museum educators well, then you're going to end up with the same kind of class exclusions that plague the rest of the professional museum workforce.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:24 PM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
It seems pretty clear to me that ideally, museum education would be done by well-paid full-time employees from backgrounds that mirrored the surrounding communities. It's really hard to know how a museum would fund that while keeping entrance costs anything like affordable. And if you don't pay museum educators well, then you're going to end up with the same kind of class exclusions that plague the rest of the professional museum workforce.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:24 PM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
Employees there have been trying to unionize.
posted by Ideefixe at 3:40 PM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 3:40 PM on October 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Employees there have been trying to unionize.
That's an interesting factor, but I'm not sure how volunteers would play a part in that. Unless, and this is purely speculation, maybe some of the docents were part of the drive to unionize?
posted by ambulocetus at 5:02 AM on October 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
That's an interesting factor, but I'm not sure how volunteers would play a part in that. Unless, and this is purely speculation, maybe some of the docents were part of the drive to unionize?
posted by ambulocetus at 5:02 AM on October 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I used to volunteer as a Guest Engagement docent; when that department was still a part of the Shedd Aquarium. It was a mixture of paid staff and volunteers. The paid staff came up with the requirements; made sure the volunteers knew the material; made the schedule; talked with Education and other departments to see what needed to be done; came up with the engagement activities for exhibits; especially for the new temporary special ones etc. etc. I am sad that all of them were fired due to the pandemic. The Aquarium is one of the few places where someone telling you what you are looking at makes the experience, like, ten times better. Otherwise it is looking at "Fishes in Tanks". I feel bad that the Aquarium does not have a docent program running now.
I feel the same about going to AIC. When my volunteering badge from Shedd allowed me to go to the AIC for free (it has been suspended now); I used it to my advantage. I started reading Gombrich's History of Art and went and spent time only in that part of the museum that had stuff from the chapter I read. I got so much more out of it. Which is why the firing of all the docents in one fell swoop; without having a replacement in place already is such a bad idea.
I get why they wanted to do it. But this seems almost knee-jerk; wanting to show that the AIC is doing something to address what clearly is a problem.
posted by indianbadger1 at 1:24 PM on October 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I feel the same about going to AIC. When my volunteering badge from Shedd allowed me to go to the AIC for free (it has been suspended now); I used it to my advantage. I started reading Gombrich's History of Art and went and spent time only in that part of the museum that had stuff from the chapter I read. I got so much more out of it. Which is why the firing of all the docents in one fell swoop; without having a replacement in place already is such a bad idea.
I get why they wanted to do it. But this seems almost knee-jerk; wanting to show that the AIC is doing something to address what clearly is a problem.
posted by indianbadger1 at 1:24 PM on October 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I thought about this a ton over the weekend as I'm a white lady (in my 30s) who is a volunteer docent for a cultural organization -- the org is very different from the AIC, but there are some similarities. So I'm definitely coming at this from the docent perspective, but I also (as evidenced by the novel I wrote below) know that volunteer programs like this can be really problematic.
I listened to the whole WBEZ piece which left a lot of unanswered questions - the deputy director and senior vice president for curatorial affairs of the AIC said that they had stopped admitting new volunteer docents in 2012, as evidence of having clearly communicated to docents that the program would be on its way out. However, if I were a volunteer for an organization that stopped training new volunteers, there could be all sorts of reasons why this would be the case. I wouldn't immediately jump to "they're phasing out the program." It's not clear that the museum had clearly communicated.
The AIC executive also seemed to be hinting that it was a tour quality issue, mentioning that paid staff members who managed the docents had expressed that it would be better to phase out the program. But she said it in such vague terms that it was hard to know what she meant. I'm not impressed with the museum's communication at all.
Coming from my own perspective as a volunteer, here are a few thoughts:
1. Being a volunteer doesn't mean you're unqualified. I've done, and continue to do, extensive research on the cultural information I present as part of my volunteer work. At this point it would rival someone's master's degree, I bet. On those micro areas I talk about, I'm pretty competent.
2. Volunteers being overwhelmingly wealthy, white and retired is a thing. I've heard some really *yikes* stuff come from older volunteers for my group, who have not updated their world views in quite a while. Many fervently believe they are progressive which makes them even more defensive if their bad behavior is confronted. Because they are volunteers, there is little accountability, especially for micro-aggressions.
3. Long-time volunteers may have seen many different administrators, initiatives, and strategies on the part of the institution, and as such may feel jaded and/or that they know better "how to run things" which I'm sure could annoy staff members.
4. I take great joy in doing the volunteer tours for my org. I actually did experiment with doing something similar for $ via AirBnB Experiences, and even though I got great feedback and it was popular, doing it for money changed the nature of it for me and took away the joy. There's something about offering something freely to my fellow humans that makes me feel more connected to the world, whereas when I was charging, I was more worried about what people thought, customer satisfaction, etc.
I'm wondering if thoughts #2 and #3 were what led to this decision by the AIC -- staff feeling like volunteers were entitled and inflexible, plus concerns about micro-aggressions (or even worse) coming from the volunteers. Like many above, I hope we eventually find out what really happened, and for the AIC's sake I hope whatever program they replace the docents with is a success.
posted by rogerroger at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
I listened to the whole WBEZ piece which left a lot of unanswered questions - the deputy director and senior vice president for curatorial affairs of the AIC said that they had stopped admitting new volunteer docents in 2012, as evidence of having clearly communicated to docents that the program would be on its way out. However, if I were a volunteer for an organization that stopped training new volunteers, there could be all sorts of reasons why this would be the case. I wouldn't immediately jump to "they're phasing out the program." It's not clear that the museum had clearly communicated.
The AIC executive also seemed to be hinting that it was a tour quality issue, mentioning that paid staff members who managed the docents had expressed that it would be better to phase out the program. But she said it in such vague terms that it was hard to know what she meant. I'm not impressed with the museum's communication at all.
Coming from my own perspective as a volunteer, here are a few thoughts:
1. Being a volunteer doesn't mean you're unqualified. I've done, and continue to do, extensive research on the cultural information I present as part of my volunteer work. At this point it would rival someone's master's degree, I bet. On those micro areas I talk about, I'm pretty competent.
2. Volunteers being overwhelmingly wealthy, white and retired is a thing. I've heard some really *yikes* stuff come from older volunteers for my group, who have not updated their world views in quite a while. Many fervently believe they are progressive which makes them even more defensive if their bad behavior is confronted. Because they are volunteers, there is little accountability, especially for micro-aggressions.
3. Long-time volunteers may have seen many different administrators, initiatives, and strategies on the part of the institution, and as such may feel jaded and/or that they know better "how to run things" which I'm sure could annoy staff members.
4. I take great joy in doing the volunteer tours for my org. I actually did experiment with doing something similar for $ via AirBnB Experiences, and even though I got great feedback and it was popular, doing it for money changed the nature of it for me and took away the joy. There's something about offering something freely to my fellow humans that makes me feel more connected to the world, whereas when I was charging, I was more worried about what people thought, customer satisfaction, etc.
I'm wondering if thoughts #2 and #3 were what led to this decision by the AIC -- staff feeling like volunteers were entitled and inflexible, plus concerns about micro-aggressions (or even worse) coming from the volunteers. Like many above, I hope we eventually find out what really happened, and for the AIC's sake I hope whatever program they replace the docents with is a success.
posted by rogerroger at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
« Older Off, dud, over, under, upon, hot, ono, oof, hi, lo... | There is no fastball. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Volunteers are wonderful, but for any organization able to provide good jobs to people in their community, that option is even better. Volunteers are also a lot of work to manage. One of my initial reactions was “why not both?” but I can totally see how just running the volunteer program could be a huge and unsustainable effort.
posted by snofoam at 5:55 PM on October 15, 2021 [19 favorites]