Cinfici's Response to the Ron Roth Letter

Mr. P. Michael Ehlerman
Chairman, Foundation for the Reading Public Museum

Dear Mike:

On April 28, I received a copy of Reading Public Museum Director and Chief Executive Officer Ronald C. Roth's April 13, 2006 letter to you. I write to respond to the numerous mischaracterizations and inaccuracies contained therein.

Mr. Roth writes that he refuses to "comply with (my) demands". I note that I never made any demands; I merely asked the Museum to address my concerns. Indeed, I did so only after you offered to me in a telephone conversation prior to my April 11 e-mail to you to address these concerns. You made the offer in return for accepting my offer to intercede on the Museum's behalf with State Senator David "Chip" Brightbill in order to secure a grant for the proper storage of the Museum's holdings, a project of obvious worthiness.

Mr. Roth claims that I am demanding "further" censorship. There has been no censorship. Therefore, the use of the word "further" is inaccurate.

Mr. Roth questions the origin of my "authority...to impose (my) personal views on what is appropriate to be sold in our Museum Shop, or displayed in our galleries". He goes on to write, "In my opinion, (emphasis added) this is censorship pure and simple, and threatens the intellectual freedom and scholorship that is at the core of our Museum's integrity". In other words, Mr. Roth displays the typical liberal double standard in objecting to the advancement of the beliefs of someone with whom he disagrees, while demanding the acceptance by all others of the advancement of his own personal beliefs.

I respect Mr. Roth's jealous guarding of the Museum's prerogatives, but he ought to demonstrate some respect for my fulfillment of my duty as an elected School Director to safeguard our schoolchildren from obscenity. Mr. Roth's concerns about the Museum's prerogatives are such a personal priority of his - even over the welfare of children - that he appears to be refusing to comply with my requests simply because he was asked to do so. Indeed, his rebuke of me for exercising my freedom of speech to ask for appropriate safeguards for our schoolchildren, according to his own reasoning, is itself a form of censorship.

Mr. Roth doubts that my views represent a majority of the Reading School Board. I note that there has yet to be one single vote taken by the Board directly on the Keith Haring issue. Four of the nine members of the Board have publicly expressed support for protecting our schoolchildren from such indecency. In addition, our Board Vice President publicly agreed that younger children, at least, should not see the images in the books in the Museum gift shop. He has repeatedly encouraged me to ask the Museum to address his concern. Therefore, Mr. Roth's calculation of the majority of the School Board is itself dubious.

Mr. Roth writes that the "finds" it hard to believe (Sen. Brightbill's) support is contingent on Mr. Cinfici's approval". Mr. Roth is correct; Sen. Brightbill's support is contingent upon his own opinion, not mine. It happens to be the case that I agree with Sen. Brightbill, but his opinion is what matters in regard to the grant. As you know, I have never implied otherwise.

I suspect that Mr. Roth is upset because Sen. Brightbill is proving the criticism of Mr. Roth's decision in regard to the Haring books to be valid. I regret to inform you that I am aware that numerous people have indicated to me that they are not patronizing the Museum, renewing their membership or attending the gala because of it. I challenge Mr. Roth, if he has not already done so, to report to the Museum Foundation at one of its stated meetings of the remarks of all the individuals who have written the Museum to cancel their membership because of the Haring matter.

Finally, it is necessary to examine the issue of censorship. It is obvious that Mr. Roth and his liberal comrades, with all due respect to them, have continued to cry "censorship" as a knee-jerk reaction without ever having looked up the word in the dictionary, let alone a law dictionary.

Censorship would have occurred if a law had forbidden the exhibition of art on private property that is not obscene. But the Museum is publicly owned and supported, at least in part, with public funds, including from the Reading School District. Furthermore, the Museum is seeking Sen. Brightbill's support for a grant from the state for more public money, a request I note is inconsistent with the expectation of maintaining the independence of the Museum.

Moreover, obscenity, as defined by community standards, is not a protected form of expression, according to numerous rulings of both the United States and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts. It is a matter of settled law that minors may particularly be protected from exposure to obscenity. It is important to note that community standards are defined by reasonable people, and not necessarily by artists, art experts or even art aficionados like myself. There are exemptions under Pennsylvania's Obscenity Act for certain museums, but the current sale of the Museum's Haring Catalogue at Borders, for example, could violate this act. Nevertheless, the Museum is obligated to follow the Smithsonian ethical guidelines, which forbid obscenity.

The definition of obscenity under the law is less subjective than it's supporters often attempt to portray it. It not necessary for me to render my opinion as to whether the images in the Haring books available in the Museum Gift Shop meet the definition. It is sufficient to quote from the books themselves. Dr. M. Rachel Arauz, Co-Curator of the Haring Exhibit, refers on Page 11 of the Museum Catalogue to the "graphic sexual imagery" of Haring's art on that appears therein (See enclosures. Warning: graphic images). Jonathan Weinberg, referring to Mickey Mouse, observes on Page 25 of the Catalogue that he "lewdly masturbates" in another one of the images in that book (See enclosures. Warning: graphic images), and on Page 29, Weinberg refer to the "sometimes-obscene antics" of the figures in Haring's artwork. Even the book entitled Haring, by Alexandra Kolossa, co-published by the Haring estate, acknowledges the inappropriateness for children of Haring's depiction of Pinocchio masturbating: "Keith Haring's version of the Pinocchio figure comes across as anything but child-friendly" (See enclosures. Warning: graphic images).

Keith Haring himself recognized the need to prevent children from viewing these images. Jonathan Weinberg writes on Page 29 of the Museum Catalogue, "He effectively censored himself when he carefully omitted explicitly sexual material from his subway drawings and outdoor murals, thus rendering much of his work "kid friendly". Ironically, I daresay that I am being more true to Keith Haring's wishes than Mr. Roth is.

I remain eager to try to address this issue in order to produce a favorable result for both our school children and the Museum. I look forward to continuing to work with you toward that end.

Very truly yours,


William Cinfici