Lately, the divisive nature of modern politics has started to show in areas of government where they do not belong, such as the FBI.
Moreover, the National Archives and Smithsonian Institution have started to take sides in political debates.
In early February, the National Archives and Smithsonian museums apologized after asking March for Life participants to cover or remove attire displaying messages such as “Pro-Life” and “Love Saves Lives.” Security officers asked them to cover up the messages.
The National Archives in its apology seemed to realize how contradictory such an action was to its mission.
“As the home to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, which enshrine the rights of free speech and religion, we sincerely apologize for this occurrence,” its statement read.
It is something that shouldn’t have happened because the policy at the National Archives allows visitors t-shirts, hats, and buttons displaying protest language, religious expression, and political speech. In other words, the place where the Bill of Rights is kept has a policy allowing the expression of those rights.
Someone must have alerted security that this was allowed. So, how often has this happened and to what type of speech?
It may have been a one-off incident of a new or not fully trained security officer, except for the fact that the National Archives wasn’t the only place where this took place.
In fact, the same type of incident occurred two days earlier at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
This has led to the American Center for Law and Justice filing a lawsuit over this issue, in which it states that participants at the March for Life “were subjected to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by at least five different staff, personnel, employees and/or security guards of NASM … which included targeting, harassment, discrimination and, ultimately, eviction from NASM simply because they wore blue hats with the inscription, ‘Rosary Pro-Life.’”
The Smithsonian also apologized and blamed it on the security personnel not being properly trained. However, if the actions stated in the lawsuit are true, then it goes beyond a problem with security, to the culture of the institute.
“It states on its website that they ‘welcome all people to explore’ its museums, apparently just not kids with pro-life views,” ACLJ lawyer Jay Sekulow said. “This was a clear-cut First Amendment violation, not only of their freedom of speech but of religion as well. The federal government simply cannot ban speech with which it or its employees disagree.”
Undoubtedly, people have worn shirts supporting their favorite political candidates or maybe even Black Lives Matter shirts. Have they ever been asked to remove or cover up their messages? Doubtful.
These are public spaces, funded by taxpayer dollars. One cannot simply exclude half of the taxpayers from these locations.
The National Archives seems willing to physically protect the Bill of Rights but not the essence of its meaning. If it doesn’t defend the freedoms enshrined in it, then it sends the message that the celebrated document itself is worthless.
