It is wonderful to have the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The museum has enthralled my children and literally millions of others for years. I was perplexed when I came across a long thread about the Museum from a Stanford history professor. Priya Satia, a professor who “specializes in modern British and British empire history” had a very uncomfortable visit to the Museum and wanted to let the world know it. 

Satia shared, “My kids and I were horrified at our recent visit to New York City’s American Museum of Natural History. It was mindboggling.” This provocative thread had over a million views in just one day. The 20-post thread made several important points, yet made no intention to help improve the Museum. In keeping with many other humanities professors, Satia wanted to attack and shame an important institution rather than help restore, rebuild, and fortify a New York landmark. This behavior is not helpful and it only contributes to America’s continued dislike and diminishing trust in our educational institutions.

To Satia, there is nothing to like about the museum. Nowhere in her thread does she mention a positive facet of the museum, especially when there are several. The new insectarium and the Hall of Minerals both do a fantastic job presenting evolution and change. Instead, she calls the Museum a “tourist trap” and “embarrassing” even though educating visitors is at the core of the Museum. Beyond the placards, the Museum has a PhD program, funds countless research trips, and remains one of the most significant repositories of natural history in the world. 

Satia rightly critiques the outdated halls in the museum regarding its practice of anthropology and the presentation of global cultures. For instance, she notes that there is “A depiction of the ‘Indian Cycle of Life’ suggests India is an exclusively Hindu society, with a single, heteronormative vision of life;” I can’t argue with this. India is far too diverse and multicultural to possibly present any singular narrative. Satia highlights several additional problematic areas and presentations but her concerns are not new. 

Many New Yorkers who visit the Museum are quick to tell you that these halls are old, inappropriate, and desperately need to be updated. New Yorkers know that funding for the museum is an issue and few families visit these Halls anyway, often heading to the dinosaurs or planetarium instead. More importantly, Satia acknowledges that the museum mentions that it needs to update these problematic displays but is unhappy with the pace of the Museum’s work, despite this perhaps being her first visit to the Museum, based on her remarks, the surprise by some exhibits, and the fact that she has probably had no idea about the Museum’s budget or planning priorities.  

Critiquing an outdated museum is fine, but nothing about Satia’s thread was constructive or helpful. Satia is a powerful voice as a tenured Stanford professor; she has expertise that would be of value to the museum. Rather than put her expertise to good use, Satia only presented the self-righteous rage that is common among so many professors. Did she reach out to the Museum and voice her concerns or offer to help given her resources as a Stanford professor, or did she make very quick judgments—the kind historians are trained not to do? Did the Museum have a chance to share its plans with her or talk about how it could address some of her real concerns? 

Put somewhat differently, Satia never suggested a path forward or offered to help to improve the Museum—she simply made demands and lobbed criticism, which is a hallmark of those on the left who try to destroy institutions rather than help renew and reconstitute them for future generations. Satia believes in activism, based on her public postings, and could have shared some thoughts on what museums, in her view, are doing better here and provided some suggestions as to where the museum could look for guidance. Sadly, those helpful ideas were nowhere to be found. 

The Museum may have appreciated hearing from a Stanford professor who offered some additional perspective. But Satia did not do that—she posted her thoughts on X and reposted left-of-center responses supporting her rage and falsely calling the work of a beloved New York and fairly liberal institution “utterly scandalous” and “institutionally racist.” The Museum is imperfect, but it is not institutionally racist. Stanford is a school known for helping innovate and build so many things to make the world a better place; regrettably, Satia did just the opposite in her attempt to take down a beloved New York institution. We should try to build with others rather than just knock things down. 

The post The Wrong Way to Help Improve a Museum appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.